The Center for Security Policy Studies is proud to present recordings from the Seventh Annual Symposium – Wars in Ukraine and Gaza: Strategic Consequences for the United States. Join CSPS Director Ellen Laipson as she engages with esteemed professors and researchers as they tackle some of the most pressing questions about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
Panel One: Strategic Considerations for the United States
Professor Colin Dueck discussed the continuities between the Trump and Biden administrations, such as a more adversarial relationship with China and an increasing consciousness about the negative domestic impacts of free trade. He also noted that “Our capabilities do not match our commitments” as the United States lacks the capability to fight simultaneous conflicts in the Middle East, Europe, and East Asia. Strategy is about the application of limited resources, which inherently entails tradeoffs. The United States will either need to significantly decrease its commitments or significantly increase its military spending. It is better for the United States to have fewer strong commitments than many weak commitments which opponents may not believe.
Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment saw the conflict in Ukraine as the organizing factor for the near future of the Russian State. He discussed the new realities that Russia will face, such as a hostile and armed Ukraine, a rearming and hostile west, and the collapse of arms control agreements. He predicted Russia would need to increase reliance on China to counterbalance Western sanctions, and that Russia would seek to create and strengthen alliances with illiberal middle powers. He warned that Moscow maintained a “well-funded and nimble” security apparatus with a high-risk tolerance, and that the Russian defense-industrial base remained stronger than many anticipated. Western policy analysts should not be overoptimistic about the prospect of Putin falling from power or being moderated by Russian elites.
Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute discussed why the Middle East will remain an important interest for the United States. The region contains the majority of the world’s proven oil reserves and is an important choke point for trade, air travel, and fiber optic cables. He also discussed how Iran has maneuvered from a nation encircled by enemies to a nation with strategic allies and proxies in vital regional locations. The recent conflict with Israel, however, has significantly weakened this axis of resistance, increasing Iran’s vulnerability. Lastly, he warned against the US trend for solutionism, that is that some problems cannot be solved but rather can only be managed.
In discussion with the audience, Colin Dueck discussed how deterrence was best applied in large, blunt strokes rather than with subtlety. Andrew Weiss spoke about supplying weapons to allies and warned that the Pentagon should not be consumed by a focus on short-term logistics while the nation faced glaring strategic threats. Lastly, Michael Eisenstadt explained that Israel’s policies had been successful in significantly reducing the capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah and that US calls for a ceasefire were not strategically sound.
In general, the panelists agreed that the international environment posed significant and growing threats to the United States. The only way to manage the dangers of the coming years will be a shift towards judicious, goals-oriented policies and away from moralistic overextension.
Panel Two: War Termination and Postwar Issues in Ukraine and Gaza
The second panel addressed peacemaking, peacebuilding, and prospects for conflict termination in Ukraine, Gaza, and southern Lebanon. Professor Emeritus I. William Zartman posited that we should not discuss conflict resolution but rather conflict management. He stated that conflict management refers to ending violence to wage conflict and returning to political means. Zartman discussed three requirements of ‘ripeness’ and how it is necessary to reach the stage of negotiations and mediation to bring a violent conflict to an end. First is the mutually hurting stalemate. For this to occur, both sides must feel some form of ‘hurt’ from the stalemate. Second is a way out: being able to define an outcome, which does not necessarily mean a durable solution. Third is the valid spokesman, someone with the stature and credibility to represent each side. Zartman emphasizes that if all three components of ripeness are present, then the possibility for negotiation is present, but that this condition is absent in both wars.
Tetiana Khutor of the Institute of Legislative Ideas in Kyiv spoke about potential war termination in Ukraine. She stated that it was a mistake for Western politicians to assume that Russia would act in a rational manner and the war would be unprofitable for Russia. She says despite Russia being the most sanctioned country in the world, Russia still has the economic ability to continue its war in Ukraine. Along with its substantial increase in military expenditures, Russia is likely not thinking about negotiating to end the war. Khutor says that despite all the peace summits that Ukraine has attended, they are not the party that can influence the outcome; only Russia could do that. She says that, unlike Russia, Ukraine has social, demographic, and budgetary problems. Russia continues to sell oil and utilize loopholes in the sanctions to fund its budget. Khutor argues if the US and EU do not have a strategy to cease funds flowing into Russia, Ukraine will continue to suffer.
Randa Slim of the Middle East Institute expressed some optimism about prospects for a ceasefire in Lebanon, and the lack of optimism about ending the war in Gaza, due to a difference in conflict dynamics. In her view, U.S. officials were over-optimistic about a possible ceasefire deal over Gaza due to U.S. domestic politics. She says there are frameworks to support a ceasefire deal. In reference to complex conflict dynamics, Slim said that Israelis will not be able to achieve a complete victory in either Gaza or Lebanon. Also, neither Hezbollah nor Hamas will yield, as neither of the two parties (Hamas and Hizballah) is at the “hurting stalemate” stage, despite the loss of key leadership figures. The ongoing negotiations process in both Gaza and Lebanon has unusual complexity, with multiple streams of discussions between different parties involved. Slim concluded with an important message: the U.S. is not viewed as an honest broker in the process but as the only party that can bring Israel to the negotiation table.
Overall, the panelists described the security dynamics of war termination in the future as bleak. Peacebuilding in the two major conflicts seems distant. Despite this, peacemaking should always be considered during conflict. Otherwise, the focus would simply be on military responses, not conflict prevention. Planning for peace can even be done when war is raging.