Diplomacy & Crisis News

Russian President Vladimir Putin made his own speech in a parallel political universe.

Historically, both countries formed their national identities in defiance of Russian imperialism, and together they can defeat it today.

Manila’s geopolitical shift is more than the Biden administration could have hoped for.

Will nationalism break Britain?

American financial power in the age of great-power competition.

A suspected Chinese spy balloon has exacerbated tensions between America and China. Is conflict inevitable? Or can it be headed off? Do the two sides have more incentives, particularly in the economic realm, to cooperate than is often assumed?

To address these critical questions, the Center for the National Interest invited two leading foreign affairs analysts for an expert discussion:

- Elbridge A. Colby is cofounder and principal of The Marathon Initiative and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. He is the author of The Strategy of Denial.

- Paul Heer is a senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and a former national intelligence officer for East Asia.

Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of The National Interest, moderated the discussion.

Climate activists and other advocates for lowering carbon emissions sometimes make it seem as if the only thing standing between humanity and a bright green future is a lack of political will. So when President Joseph Biden hailed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in his State of the Union address as “the most significant investment ever to tackle the climate crisis…leading the world to a clean energy future,” many were delighted. Not to be outdone, a week later the European Parliament approved a law that effectively bans the sale of new gas and diesel automobiles within the European Union (EU) from 2035, the deadline it set for carmakers to achieve a 100 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from new vehicles sold.

Alas, what holds back these green dreams is not want of moral imagination, but material shortages of critical minerals—without which there is no transition to clean energy systems.

First, overlooked in most political—to say nothing of politicized—discussions of the energy transition are the wildly different material requirements of renewable energy systems vis-à-vis their conventional fossil fuel-powered predecessors. For example, an electric vehicle (EV) like the Tesla Model Y, the top-selling car in the category in America last year according to the Kelley Blue Book, needs six times the amount of minerals that would go into a conventional automobile. It’s wiring alone requires about 130 pounds of copper—roughly three times the amount of the metal that goes into a gas-powered car. An efficient electrical conductor, copper is also needed for the switch to solar- and wind-powered generation for homes and businesses, which will necessitate massive rewiring. If, as expected, demand doubles to about 50 million metric tons a year by 2035, there will be an annual shortfall of nearly 10 million metric tons under the most optimistic scenario. And that is just copper: according to the International Energy Agency, achieving the goal of net-zero emissions by mid-century enshrined in the EU Climate Law as well as in President Biden’s December 2021 executive order will cause the cumulative demand for the most common minerals used in EVs and battery storage—lithium, graphite, cobalt, and nickel—to grow thirty-fold over the next two decades.

Second, compounding the shortage of material inputs is the concentration of sourcing and processing of the available critical minerals. For example, by itself, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), accounts for about 70 percent of global cobalt production. Moreover, almost all of the metal is then exported to China, which refines about 90 percent of the global supply of rare earth elements (REEs), two-thirds of the lithium and cobalt, and almost 40 percent of the nickel. As Biden’s Special Presidential Coordinator for Global Infrastructure and Energy Security, Amos Hochstein, recently acknowledged at the African Mining Indaba in Cape Town, South Africa, “This is a major concern for the U.S. and I think for the rest of the world. As we are going into a cleaner, greener, and entirely new energy system, we have to make sure we have a diversified supply chain. … We can’t have a supply chain that is concentrated in any country, doesn’t matter which country that is.”

Overcoming these two challenges will require an “all-of-the-above” mindset.

Boosting domestic production, which the IRA tries to incentivize, despite this being at odds with the Biden administration’s restrictive approach to permitting in some areas, is one step. Geology, however, can limit how much of a dent this makes: as I previously pointed out elsewhere, the United States possesses less than 1 percent of the world’s reserves of cobalt and, even if it could possibly to mine it all, would still run through its entire supply in about six years given the current rate of consumption.

Cultivating new partnerships is another approach to be pursued. The memorandum of understanding signed at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in December, committing the United States to working with the DRC and Zambia to strengthen the EV value chain, has good potential. So does the Mineral Security Partnership, which includes Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Commission. With some focused effort, the new pact could evolve from a discussion forum into a “buyers’ club” for minerals needed for batteries that might both reduce dependence on China and contribute to industrialization in countries producing the critical minerals, especially in Africa. The establishment of such a group would also have the benefit of helping America and some of its closest allies get past the spat over the subsidies offered in the IRA.

Finally, it needs to be recognized that, as Hochstein’s comments correctly implied, the single most significant threat is that any one country or entity so dominates supply chains that it is able, at will, to block rivals’ access to critical minerals and thus the pathway to transitioning to new energy systems.  That is certainly what the Biden administration’s supply chain review found with respect to lithium-ion batteries, concluding that by “operating well outside globally accepted practices,” China has been able to “develop battery critical materials infrastructure well-ahead of market drivers,” resulting in the country producing 79 percent of all batteries in the world, with just one Chinese firm (CATL) by itself controlling 30 percent of the global EV battery market. To this end, diversification of supply is the overriding priority and the key to de-risking, even if it might entail having to do business at times with countries or firms that might otherwise not be viewed as “clubbable.”

The dream of a greener economy, powered by lower carbon or even carbon-neutral energy systems, may not be as fanciful as once thought, but achieving it will depend on securing access to and a steady (and copious) supply of the necessary strategic materials.

Ambassador J. Peter Pham, a Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a Senior Advisor at the Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy, is former U.S. Special Envoy for the Sahel and Great Lakes Regions of Africa.

Image: Shutterstock.

Given the threat to free-market democracies posed by authoritarian and revisionist China and Russia, the G7 (Group of Seven), a club of wealthy industrialized democracies, needs to be expanded and strengthened. South Korea is the logical new member of this forum. As a G8 member, South Korea would make a valuable contribution to strengthening free-market democracy in the Indo-Pacific and around the world.

Despite the growing importance of the Indo-Pacific in the global economy and the burgeoning challenge from China to the rules-based international order, the G7 at present has only one member located in Asia, namely Japan. This imbalance needs to be corrected. The Indo-Pacific economies already contribute the largest share to the global economy, more than North America or the European Union, and they constitute the fastest-growing region of the global economy. It is high time that the G7 welcomed another member from the Indo-Pacific to make itself more relevant to this changing reality.

South Korea is the logical new G8 member from the Indo-Pacific because, next to Japan, it is the largest and wealthiest free-market democracy in Asia. Under the present government of Yoon Suk-yeol, Seoul is pursuing a foreign policy that aligns South Korea more firmly with the democratic West vis-à-vis China. A logical culmination of this present trajectory is for Seoul to join the G7.

South Korea is now one of the largest advanced economies and one of the top military powers in the world. Its GDP is similar to those of Italy and Canada, two current G7 members. Its military is ranked as one of the six most powerful in the world, and Seoul has become a major arms exporter to nations including Poland, while its troops are stationed in nations including the United Arab Emirates. Moreover, South Korea is a technological powerhouse, with leadership in key strategic industries including semiconductors and electric vehicle batteries. If G7 were to effectively address economic and geopolitical challenges around the world, having South Korea as a member would be very helpful.

For Seoul, joining the G7 would help strengthen its national security vis-à-vis the rising challenge from Beijing and would solidify its stature as a leading power of the democratic West. For centuries, Korea was a vassal to China, with Beijing exercising hegemony over its foreign relations. As a G8 member, South Korea would be recognized, along with Japan, as a bulwark of free-market democracy in the Indo-Pacific against Beijing’s ambitions for regional dominance. 

The only potential hurdle to South Korean membership in the G7 may be possible opposition from Japan, given historical irritants in relations between Tokyo and Seoul. But Japan would do well to realize that it has more to gain than to lose from South Korean membership in the G7. Japan needs South Korea as an indispensable key ally in the face of growing challenges from China and North Korea. Having Seoul as a G8 member would help improve cooperation between Tokyo and Seoul on a wide range of shared issues and challenges. As a G8 member, Seoul would likely strengthen Tokyo’s efforts to effectively form a coalition of nations committed to the rules-based international order in spite of Beijing’s revisionist expansionism.

From Washington’s point of view, Seoul as a G8 member would offer an important contribution to the U.S.-effort to defend and strengthen the rules-based international order, including its efforts to promote U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilateral cooperation against China and North Korea. Seoul’s admission would also enable better coordination among the world’s leading economic and technological powers to address burgeoning challenges posed by China’s technological and economic prowess.

As the Indo-Pacific has become more important than ever before, it is high time that the G7 adapted itself to this changing reality. Such adaptation begins by evolving the G7 from a club of mostly European and North American powers to a body more representative of the world’s economies and populations. Welcoming South Korea as a G8 member would be an effective and welcome first step, and should be supported by all current G7 members.

Jongsoo Lee is Senior Managing Director at Brock Securities and Center Associate at Harvard University’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies. He is also Adjunct Fellow at the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum and Contributing Editor at The Diplomat. He can be followed on Twitter at @jameslee004.

Image: Shutterstock.

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict presents a diplomatic challenge for Ukraine as it seeks to balance its interests with its foreign policy priorities. Ukraine views conflicts in the post-Soviet space as remnants of the Soviet era, and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is no exception. However, the conflict also serves as a reminder of Ukraine’s ongoing war with Russia due to Russia’s repeated attempts to attack Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders. Therefore, Ukraine has been interested in supporting the preservation of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized borders since 1991.

The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, also known as the Artsakh conflict, arose after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Nagorno-Karabakh is an ethnic Armenian-majority region located within the borders of Azerbaijan. Ethnic Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence from Azerbaijan in 1991, leading to a full-scale war between the two sides. A ceasefire was signed in 1994, but the conflict was never fully resolved, and tensions have remained high between the two sides.

The 2020 fighting saw Azerbaijan launch a military offensive to retake control of Nagorno-Karabakh with Turkish support. Ethnic Armenian forces could not hold off the Azerbaijan military, and Azerbaijan made significant gains in the region. A Russia-brokered ceasefire was signed in November 2020, but Azerbaijan had already secured control of much of Nagorno-Karabakh. 

The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh resulted in significant casualties on both sides and displaced thousands of ethnic Armenians from the region. The conflict has also had broader regional implications, with Turkey’s involvement raising tensions with Russia. The resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains an ongoing issue, with ongoing negotiations and efforts to find a lasting peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Ukraine’s ongoing war with Russia, and the annexation of Crimea, has made Kyiv’s position on preserving the territorial integrity of neighboring states even more crucial. For over two decades, Ukraine has firmly stood by Azerbaijan in support of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. This unwavering stance, which has become more robust and consistent since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, is a reflection of Ukraine’s understanding of the importance of preserving internationally recognized borders in the post-Soviet space.

Furthermore, Ukraine’s refusal to recognize self-proclaimed states, such as Kosovo, is a strategic move aimed at protecting its own sovereignty and territorial integrity, given Russia’s repeated attempts to invade Ukraine’s borders.

Regarding any international conflict, Ukraine abides by the principle of territorial integrity. Most Ukrainian politicians and experts support this approach, which is reflected in Ukraine’s 2020 national security strategy, which declared Azerbaijan a strategic partner on par with Poland, Lithuania, and Georgia. Turkey, which is actively participating in the current conflict on Azerbaijan’s side, also has a strategic partnership with Ukraine.

In contrast, Armenia, a member of the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), has traditionally supported Russia in all votes on issues related to Crimea and Donbas. On the other hand, Azerbaijan has consistently voted in favor of Ukraine.

Given its foreign policy priorities and ongoing conflict with Russia, Ukraine has expressed support for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and sovereignty in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has called for dialogue between Azerbaijan and Armenia and highlighted the “privileged dialogue” between the two countries in recent years. Zelenskyy has emphasized the importance of preventing the crisis from turning into a “frozen” conflict and urged for a swift resolution to the problems back in 2020.

Since 2014, the UN General Assembly has adopted nine resolutions related to the territorial integrity of Ukraine, the human rights situation in Crimea, and the region’s militarization. But, Armenia has voted against all nine resolutions on Crimea. Armenia has used this support for the concept of “self-determination” in Crimea as a justification for a similar process in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, this approach has moved further away from a peaceful settlement and has drawn Armenia closer to its main ally, Russia. 

While Russia has long been Armenia’s main military and political ally, Armenia’s dependence on Moscow for defense and security deepened further following the 2020 war with Azerbaijan. Armenia is heavily reliant on Russia for military equipment and officer training. In addition, Russia is Armenia’s leading trading partner, and in 2019, nearly half of all money transfers to Armenia came from the two million Armenians living and working in Russia. As a result, Armenia is constrained in its foreign policy choices and is obligated to align its voting behavior with Russia in international organizations.

For over two decades, Ukraine has stood as a steadfast ally of Azerbaijan, consistently supporting its territorial integrity since the first ceasefire in 1994. This unwavering stance, which has become more robust and consistent in the face of Russia’s aggression, speaks to the strategic importance of preserving internationally recognized borders in the post-Soviet space. Armenia’s dependence on the Russian state as an ally has put it at odds with Ukraine, making it unlikely that relations between both countries improve until Armenia distances itself from Russia.

David Kirichenko is a freelance journalist covering Eastern Europe and an editor at Euromaidan Press. He tweets @DVKirichenko.

Image: Drop of Light / Shutterstock.com

Durant les années 1930, dans un contexte de chômage grandissant, plusieurs lois sont votées en France pour limiter l'immigration et refouler les étrangers « indésirables ». Face à des partis politiques et une grande presse qui multiplient les campagnes xénophobes, des intellectuels prennent la plume. (...) / France, Conflit, Droits humains, État, Histoire, Mouvement de contestation, Réfugiés, Guerre d'Espagne 1936-1939, Droit d'asile - 2018/01

Side by side with Zelensky, the U.S. president declares: “We stand here together.”

/ Arabie saoudite, Golfe, Conflit, Islam, Pétrole, Religion, Santé, Violence, Fondamentalisme, Yémen, Coup d'État - Proche-Orient / Arabie saoudite, Golfe, Conflit, Islam, Pétrole, Religion, Santé, Violence, Fondamentalisme, Yémen, Coup d'État - Proche-Orient

Ironically, a defeat by Ukraine could trigger Russians to reexamine their national identity.

Washington’s prewar efforts were weak and inadequate.

At the national level, parties insist they won’t work or vote with the far-right AfD—but at the local level, it happens all the time.

Someday, soldiers hope to return home and topple Lukashenko.

America and China need to cooperate on relief.

What the war in Ukraine has revealed about geopolitical rivalry.

With his dramatic trip to Kyiv, President Joe Biden directly escalated his confrontation with Russian president Vladimir Putin—and with his Republican detractors at home. Biden, you could say, is all-in on standing by Ukraine against Russia’s war of aggression. His visit not only to Kyiv but also to Warsaw, where he will deliver a speech about the conflict, marks a pivotal moment. More than ever, Biden is signaling that he is a war president.

Biden’s critics like to paint him as an old duffer who is out of touch with contemporary realities. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) recently referred to him as “confused.” But his audacious trip to Kyiv showed no confusion. It demonstrated real moxie. So much for “Basement Biden.”

Nor was this all. The trip also underscored Biden’s diplomatic savvy. As a product of the Cold War era, Biden knows that he, and he alone, can exercise the leadership to bolster the Western alliance, which buckled but never disintegrated during the standoff with the Soviet Union, no matter how much pressure the Kremlin exerted upon it. It’s back to the future. Once more, Moscow is attempting to fracture NATO in the hopes of creating its own, anti-Western new world order.

Biden isn’t budging. He campaigned on restoring American democracy but has ended up defending it even more abroad. The Ukraine crisis plays to his strengths, allowing him to exercise the atrophied diplomatic and military muscles of the Western alliance to promote American predominance once again.

As Adrian Kubicki, the Polish consul-general in New York, told me, “President Biden’s visit to Ukraine and his following visit to Poland reaffirms the US’s strong commitment to continue its support to Ukraine and Ukrainians in their defense against Russian aggression. It is also an important message to Poland and other allies from the eastern flank of NATO that the security of the region is our common top priority. Poland and other B9 countries [the Bucharest Nine] will have an opportunity to discuss directly with President Biden what measures NATO should take in order to enhance our defense capabilities and security. This historic visit is a significant step forward towards the end of Russia’s war of choice.”

Biden’s emergence as a vigorous leader is not sitting well with his critics on the political Right who are scrambling to depict his courageous visit as misguided or worse. For them, the idea that politics stops at the water’s edge is so yesterday. This morning, for example, Florida governor Ron DeSantis told Fox & Friends, “I and many Americans are thinking to ourselves, OK, he’s very concerned about those borders halfway around the world. He’s not done anything to secure our own borders here… we have a lot of problems accumulating here.” He added that Russia has been exposed as a “third-rate military power.” Maybe so, but he conveniently ignored that the exposure would never have occurred had Biden not supported Ukraine in the first place.

Then there was Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. In a tweet, she stated, “This is incredibly insulting. Today on our President’s Day, Joe Biden, the President of the United States chose Ukraine over America, while forcing the American people to pay for Ukraine’s government and war. I can not express how much Americans hate Joe Biden.” It’s a false choice. Biden isn’t picking Ukraine over America. He’s carefully countering Vladimir Putin’s ambition to create a new Russian empire that will directly menace Europe. Anyway, the idea that the conflict is “Ukraine’s war,” as she puts it, is a canard. Conservatives used to recoil at what they called blaming the victim. But that’s precisely what she is doing—creating a fictional narrative that Ukraine is the bad guy, responsible for triggering the war through its obstreperous behavior.  Since when does mere existence constitute a casus belli for being attacked?

Make no mistake: the Ukraine war will create a searing rift in the GOP. The old guard represented by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell will champion the war against Ukraine. Presidential candidates like Nikki Haley and (presumably) Mike Pompeo will attack Biden for being too soft on foreign policy. But others in the GOP are chicken about backing Kyiv. Take Donald Trump. He will promote a policy of cowardly truckling to the Kremlin—charging that Biden bungled matters by not seeking a diplomatic solution, namely, handing over Ukraine to Putin on a silver platter as part and parcel of Russia’s legitimate sphere of influence. 

Acceding to Putin’s megalomaniacal desire to rub Ukraine from the map would likely spell the end of NATO. Putin’s hold on power inside Russia would be impregnable. The Baltic states would be next on his hit list. Meanwhile, China would be fortified in its ambition to gobble up Taiwan and expel America, as far as possible, from the Asian theater.

Biden has it right. In visiting Kyiv on the eve of the anniversary of the Russian invasion, he’s showing that America isn’t going AWOL. Instead, it’s staying on the field of fight.

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.

Image: Shutterstock.

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters last year that he wanted his country to become a “‘big Israel’ with its own face” after the Russian invasion ends, stressing that security would likely be the main issue in Ukraine during the postwar period.

Zelenskyy, who is Jewish, was drawing supposedly some parallels between the future of Ukraine and contemporary Israel, where the images of soldiers and armed civilians are commonplace, and the government invokes security frequently.

The Ukrainian president stressed that his vision for his country’s post-conflict future included having armed forces in “all institutions, supermarkets, cinemas, there will be people with weapons.”

And he has on several occasions stressed the importance of maintaining close ties with Israel, which he hailed as a model for Ukraine.

“I am sure that our security issue will be number one in the next 10 years,” Zelenskyy said, dismissing the idea that postwar Ukraine would emulate a liberal European democracy such as Switzerland as a model. He said that the Ukrainian people “will be our great army.”

But at the same time, Zelenskyy insisted that notwithstanding its security challenges Ukraine would remain a functioning democracy like Israel. However, he said that, like the Jewish state, Ukraine would not be “absolutely liberal, European”; it would have to undertake a different modus operandi that reflects its unique geo-political situation.

“Ukraine will definitely not be what we wanted it to be from the beginning. It is impossible,” he told members of the Ukrainian media during a briefing. “Absolutely liberal, European – it will not be like that. It [Ukraine] will definitely come from the strength of every house, every building, every person.”

But the bottom line, he stressed, was that Ukraine would not slide into authoritarianism like Russia, adding: “An authoritarian state would lose to Russia. People know what they are fighting for,” he said. Ukraine, he stressed, represented Western democratic values as it faced a threat to its existence from an anti-Western authoritarian regime that dominated the neighborhood.

Indeed, Zelenskyy has been employing the Israeli model of a modern and progressive democratic nation, representing the values and interests of the West, fighting for its survival against a ruthless and corrupt dictatorship that seeks to destroy it.

Like Israeli prime minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu, a former furniture salesman, Zelenskyy, a former comedian, has emerged an effective global marketing operator. He is telegenic and charismatic, fluent in American English, and familiar with the cultural codes of the Western elites’ political Zeitgeist.

And if Bibi, as some suggested, has tried to turn Israel into the fifty-first state of the United States, “Vlodko,” it seems at times, is hoping that his country was next in line to become the fifty-second state: A symbol of democratic values in a hostile region, with its educated population and an advanced economy, that could turn into another start-up nation, with a large and powerful diaspora, all translated into American congressional and public support.

Ironically, Israel, reflecting its complex ties with Russia—that for all practical purposes now maintains a protectorate in neighboring Syria—has resisted pleas from Kyiv for advanced weaponry. Air defense systems, in particular, have not been forthcoming and Israel has remained neutral in the war between Russia and Ukraine.

But the notion that Ukraine will try to be “like Israel” may not sound so farfetched. For instance, like the Jewish State, Ukraine enjoys wide public support among Americans and their representatives on Capitol Hill, who believe that the Ukrainians, like the Israelis, are “like them,” while the Russians, like the Arabs, are the detested “other.”

And, indeed, like in the case of Israel, Ukraine’s efforts to position itself as a natural ally of Washington, in both interests and values, has been accepted as a diplomatic axiom by powerful American foreign policy forces. Both Republican neoconservatives as well as many “conservative nationalists” on the political Right, and by liberal internationalists who dominate the thinking among Democrats, including the one currently occupying the White House, have come on board.

For many Americans, the notion of an alliance with Israel is accepted today as a given, one more example of how history is seen sometimes as moving in a linear direction (“tides of history”). But much of what happens in international relations is less a reflection of the wisdom of history and more contingent on unexpected developments, or for that matter, cannot be explained by what political scientists refer to as a “rational actor model.” Instead, it is a product of clashes between personalities, bureaucratic rivalries, and Niccolo Machiavelli’s fortuna, those circumstances which human beings cannot control, and in particular, the character of the times.

From that perspective, the American relationship with Israel evolved not as part of an effort to protect or advance U.S. national interests in the Middle East. In fact, the members of the Washington foreign policy establishment, led by then-Secretary of State George Marshall, had opposed U.S. recognition of Israel in 1948 based on the consideration that Americans needed to win the support of the Arab states, in particular the Gulf oil-producing nations, to strategically protect Western interests at the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union (as well as out of fears that the United States could be drawn into an Arab-Israeli war).

Much has been said and written about the reasons that then-President Harry Truman rejected Marshall’s advice and established ties with the newly created Israel. Suffice to note that his decision was driven by the same reasons that large segments of the American public and elites supported Zionism at the time, which include Christian attachment to the Promised Land and the People of the Book, the impact of the European Holocaust and the plight of the Jewish refugees fleeing postwar Europe, and the existence of a politically active Jewish community.

Yet the United States had imposed an arms embargo on Israel until the early 1960s and clashed with Israel over numerous issues, including its decision to join France and Britain in attacking Egypt in 1956, forcing it to withdraw its troops from Sinai, as well as over its conflict with the pro-American Jordan, and later on, over its development of nuclear military power.

And when it came to values, Israel was ruled during its early years by a socialist government and elite that only reluctantly decided to support the American side during the Korean War.

Hence the notion of an “alliance” between the United States and Israel only started to make sense after the 1967 Six Day War, and the launching of a pre-emptive Israeli military strike against Egypt after receiving a “yellow” light from then President Lyndon Johnson to take action. Driven by U.S. support for Israel, anti-Americanism in the Arab World reached its peak during the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the ensuing oil embargo against the United States.

Notwithstanding all the talk about Israel’s being America’s “strategic asset” in the Middle East during the Cold War, the military contribution of the Jewish state to America’s victory over the Soviet Union was marginal, mostly by protecting Jordan against outside threats and sharing critical intelligence.

If anything, in addition to igniting anti-American sentiments in the Arab and the Muslim World during the Cold War, American support for Israel brought the United States and USSR to the brink of nuclear conflict during the Yom Kippur War and forced the United States into costly military interventions in the Middle East, like in the aftermath of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

But if you were a Zionist who believed that Israel’s survival aligned with America’s sense of its own history and identity, like the majority of Congressional Democrats and Republicans and most Americans did, the suggestions that support for Israel failed to align with Realpolitik-based considerations or that Israel wasn’t a perfect democracy were beside the point. Those sentiments were demonstrated by the massive military and economic assistance Washington has provided Jerusalem through the years and its unyielding diplomatic backing for Israel.

Therefore, although Zelenskyy may recognize that Realpolitik may dictate limits on the U.S. support for Ukraine, a scenario exists in which the United States, like in the case of Israel, is gradually drawn into an alliance of sorts with Kyiv that goes beyond just trying to re-establish the status quo that existed before Russia’s invasion.

Like the Arab-Israeli conflict, the long-standing conflict between Ukraine and Russia over issues related to national rights, ethnic identity, borders, and sovereignty does not touch directly upon American interests or even values, involving issues like who should control the West Bank or for that matter, Crimea.

But then Israel and its American supporters have been successful in gaining U.S. support for its positions in the conflict with the Arabs, including its refusal to allow the 1947 Arab refugees to return to Israel proper, and most recently, in the decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as well its annexation of the Golan Heights. Hence, perhaps Kyiv could win American backing for its demand that it, and not Russia, rightfully controls Crimea.

Indeed, Zelenskyy hopes that in the same way that the majority of Americans continue to instinctively side with Israel and lack sympathy for the Arab side, most Americans would feel the same about the conflict between the Ukrainians and the Russians.

But at a time when even Israel finds it difficult to continue holding to its support among the majority of Americans, Zelenskyy may discover that even being “like Israel” doesn’t do the trick.

Dr. Leon Hadar, a contributing editor at The National Interest, has taught international relations at American University and was a research fellow with the Cato Institute. A former UN correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, he currently covers Washington for the Business Times of Singapore and is a columnist/blogger with Israel’s Haaretz (Hebrew).

Image: Amit.pansuriya / Shutterstock.com