Search

Begin New Search Topic NATO Political Geography United States of America Content Type Journal Article Publishing Institution Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw

1. Shaking the Foundation: the Trump Administration and NATO’s East

Author:
Metthew Bryza
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
Ultimately though, my very last remarks are ultimately optimistic, because President Trump lacks geopolitical vision, lacks historical insight or, really even, frankly – I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but – curiosity about history. Everything is about the deal. One and one, the individuals, the people – that’s why he had nobody in a room which is what Putin wanted, besides Rex Tillerson and the interpreter when they met. And so, what’s inevitably going to happen is he will start up with a grand bargain, where something hap- pens in Ukraine mostly cut over the heads of the Ukrainians. But thank goodness with Am- bassador Volker there, I know he’s no fool and will fight against that, but probably though there will be an agreement which I know that the Trump administration, from my own contacts within, has been cooking up, hoping for, for a longtime, whereby President Putin gets what he needs. He gets an excuse to exit Donbass, because that’s a failed operation, the uprising that he expected never happened, Russian troops are dying, it’s an economic albatross around the neck of Russia. But he can’t just leave, he can’t just pull out Russian troops, because that would really hurt him domestically, politically. So, okay, he says: “We’ve reentered the geopolitical stage, we’re at the center of it with President Trump”. Putin will say “We’ll pull out of Donbass, we’re never leaving Crimea”, That will be the deal I think. Donbass – if the Ukrainian government offers autonomy – will have a sort of a frozen political conflict, troops gone, heavy weapons pulled back on the Russian side, Crimea still what it is – anschlussed by Russia. And then the other area where there will be coopera- tion is in Syria. And we’ve already seen in Southeastern Syria there is a modest cease-fire that seems to be holding – that’s great, may it work, however it also provides U.S. bless- ing for Russian troops to base deeper in the Middle East, and that has never happened before. But leave that aside, maybe it will bring peace. Eventually that cooperation in Syria will collapse. Russia has no history of successfully establishing peace and rebuilding economies and complex cultures. It used brutality in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, to build the Soviet Union, but it doesn’t have the finesse to rebuild something on the scale of Syria. And so, Trump is going to be disappointed with President Putin. President Putin will inevitably overplay Russia’s hand, and finally at that point my last remark – if the EU and NATO have maintained their cohesion, remain strong, maintain the geopolitical vision of President Duda and Secretary of State Szczerski, then we have a chance to take these positive developments and push away the lack of clarity, the dalliance with Putin and the security services on the part of team Trump, and finally wake up – just as Obama woke up, just as President Bush woke up and realized he that he hadn’t see Putin’s soul, and then maybe we can rebuild. So, the key to all this is that you all are doing exactly what you’ve said, Mr. Secretary of State – taking the strategic reins in your own hands, pursuing initia- tives like the Three Seas, changing the geopolitical facts on the ground so that when the U.S. does finally wake up – we know which way to move. Thank you very much!
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

2. Shaking the Foundation: the Trump Administration and NATO’s East

Author:
Metthew Bryza
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
This is a very powerful place for me to be, here at the University of Warsaw, I am totally Polish by background, 100 percent. I was looking in front of my hotel today, at the monu- ment to the victims of Soviet repression and the deportations, it is very powerful. I looked at all the towns that victims came from, and I thought about my grandmother’s region – Sambor, She was only from a small village, but you know, it made me think that had she, like so many other Poles, not taken a very difficult decision at that time I probably would not exist, would not be here speaking before you, and the changes that this country has gone through, would have never have happened. Fundamentally, my talk, is going to end up being optimistic, but it’s going to start pessimistic, because the title is, U.S. relations with NATO’s East under Trump: Shaking the foundation. But before that I just want to build on some other things that were said already and thank all the excellencies who are here, the ambassadors, the other members of the diplomatic and academic communities. Professor Micgiel referred to my new life outside of diplomacy. I have a joint venture with a Finnish company, Lamor Corporation, which is the world’s largest oil spill response company. I am on their global board – a fantastic en- vironmental technologies company, and it’s really fun to be involved in entrepreneurial en- deavor, even if it’s scary, because, well, all my meager savings are on the line and I have to succeed. So, it’s very nice to be back here and have a chance to think and stretch my mind in the way I did in my previous career, to be here with you in a place that my grandparents may have never been able to enter. So it’s a very powerful moment for me, thank you. And also to be an opening speaker, together with Secretary of State Szczerski and with my favorite boss of all time, Ambassador Daniel Fried closing the conference. Dan taught me so much about this part of the world, which I’ll get to in a moment, enabled me and my dear friend Kurt Volker, who is now the new special representative for Ukraine, to make it, to move through the State Department system, when there were all sorts of bureaucratic obstacles, If you go back and google us, you will see we were attacked by The Washington Post, when we were brought to the State Department from the White House in 2005. There is a position in the State Department called DAS – Deputy Assistant Secretary. That’s the first level at which things get serious, where you actually can have an impact on policy. And, we were called the baby DASes, because we were brought over at younger age than normal, thanks to Secretary Rice and Ambassador Fried, and Dan suffered because of that, inside the bureaucracy, a lot of people disliked him because he enabled Ambassador Volker and me, and then another ambassador, Mark Pekala, a Polish American guy as well who became ambassador to Latvia. I remember, Mark at that time was 50, and he said: “Boy, only in the State Department and in Washington could a 50-year-old guy be criticized for being a baby”. So, it’s great to be outside Washington, it really is. I live in Istan- bul now, by the way.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, North America, and United States of America

3. Defending the Free World

Author:
Daniel Fried
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
ne week ago President Trump spoke at Plac Krasińskich and gave the best foreign policy address of his presidency. He spoke of a community of nations, an alliance of coun- tries united by values, among those values the rule of law, freedom of expression, freedom of speech. He spoke of a strong alliance of free nations. He spoke a strong Europe. He then mentioned that Russia is acting in Ukraine and other ways, as a destabilizing factor in the world. And therefore reaffirmed America’s Article 5 commitment to Poland and to all the other NATO members. As I said, I think this was the best foreign policy speech of President Trump’s new presidency. He reaffirmed in essence America’s commitment to the free world. The free world is sometimes termed the liberal world order but I really don’t like the phrase “the liberal world order,” because there are many people who don’t describe themselves as liberals, who belong in it, not outside it. I prefer “the free world”. And in re- committing the United States to the free world, President Trump was following a centu- ries-old tradition in the West. In Europe, the notion of a just international order, rooted in transnational values, is at least as old as Erasmus. Emmanuel Kant elaborated the theory of perpetual peace between states committed to the rule of law and republican values. As my country, as America, emerged as a world power at the end of the 19th century, we developed our own American Grand Strategy, our version of the free world. We thought of ourselves as distinct from the European empires and spheres of influence of the time. In contrast, America sought an open, rules-based world, more just and simultaneously more profitable for ourselves and for others, because we Americans recognize that our interests, our prosperity and our security are tied to the prosperity and security of other nations. We believe that the advanced democracies of the world should set the global agenda along the lines of this vision. An objective, ambitious, but also generous vision, because we un- derstand America’s national interests in broad, not narrow terms. In his memoirs, Kurier z Warszawy, Jan Nowak-Jeziorański writes of astonishment at American humanitarian as- sistance to Poland in 1920 and wondered what sort of nation helped others and asked nothing for itself. But America understood that as we helped others, we in fact advanced our own interests, because America could not do good business with poor countries. We wanted to make the world a better place so we could all get rich. That was our American ambition and confidence. My nation developed the outlines of this grand strategy starting in 1900, but my country failed to apply it in the 1930s when Europe needed us most.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, United States of America, and North America

4. Turkey and East Central Europe: Idealism, Pragmatism, Misperception or Clash of Interests?

Author:
Konrad Zasztowt
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
urkey is focused on Russia in its policy vis-à-vis the Black Sea region, Cauca- sus, Ukraine, Balkan countries as well as, at least to some extent, Central European countries, including Poland. This priority has its impact on Ankara’s relationship with Eastern and Central European countries, which remain in the shadow of Turkish policy towards Russia. However that negative impact is not powerful enough to spoil Turkey’s cooperation with Eastern and Central European countries. It certainly limits the scope of such partnerships or alliances. Turkey contin- ues to cooperate with the region’s countries, but often rejects their Euro-Atlanticism. In Turkish perception the EU’s enlargement in Central Europe was unjust (as Turkey has been applying much longer for the EU’s membership without any significant progress, whereas post-commu- nist countries were accepted relatively quickly). NATO enlargement in the East in Turkey’s view was always a ‘risky adventure’. At the same time, from Ankara’s point of view the Middle East is strategically more important than Turkish northern neighbourhood. Moreover, Turkey wants to be an equal interlocutor in dialogue with Russia, the U.S. and the EU, whereas it often conceives post-communist and post-Soviet countries merely as a zone of influence for the Kremlin and Washington or their battleground in Cold War 2.0.
Topic:
NATO, Cold War, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Turkey, Poland, North America, and United States of America