European affairs expert Vindman recounts the many ways in which American foreign policy has gone astray.
“Realism’s impulse to avert crisis at virtually any cost doesn’t even avert crisis,” declares the author, deprecating the long-standing doctrine, courtesy of Henry Kissinger and company, that indexes foreign policy decisions to American interests. Instead, Vindman advocates a rising doctrine called neo-idealism, which “demands using a more nuanced and coherent understanding of interest, viewed through our values, along with other important inputs, to determine a compass heading for a US foreign-policy approach.” In the instance of his native Ukraine, Vindman argues, U.S. foreign policy has been driven by Moscow’s narrative, a holdover of a long-ago empire and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in which Ukraine is seen as an integral part of Russia. “Without Ukraine, Russia cannot sustain an imperialist, revanchist narrative of the so-called unity of the ethnic-Russian and Russian-speaking peoples,” he writes. Vladimir Putin’s use of this narrative includes the view that the U.S. has continued to wage the Cold War all along, using “hybrid warfare” that includes—deep irony here—American interference in Russian elections. In a carefully laid-out case, Vindman urges that the U.S. take stronger steps to protect Ukraine as a democratic nation with Western values whose very existence repudiates Putin’s Russia “and Putinism itself.” Neo-idealism also demands that the U.S. take greater interest in protecting democratic nations that realism would consider insignificant and, with that, “strengthening South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan” against China. Regrettably, he concludes, all that’s unlikely to happen under his bête noire, Trump, with the result that the “next administration will inherit not just a fractured global order but also allies wary of America’s reliability”—a situation reparable by means of neo-idealism.
A persuasive case for rethinking America’s guiding foreign policy doctrine in the face of global chaos.