Glenn Corn
In his first official message to the Department of State’s (DoS) workforce, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made it clear that all the employees will focus on three questions when assessing U.S. foreign policy decisions - How does the action proposed by the employee make the United States “stronger, safer or more prosperous.” For many, this practical approach to handling foreign relations is a welcome shift from what appeared, for the last four years, to be the DoS’ emphasis on everything but America’s interests.
Unfortunately, the previous Administration was never able to effectively articulate how U.S. support met Secretary Rubio’s test for validity. In my own experience, speaking about the issue of support for Ukraine to audiences across the U.S., many Americans expressed sympathy for the Ukrainians in their fight to protect their independence and sovereignty, but asked how giving financial assistance and supplying weapons to Kyiv benefited the U.S., which is a fair question given that it is the American people who have been funding aid to Ukraine with their tax dollars. Thus, those advocating for continued support for must answer the Secretary’s very practical questions.
Prior to Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin was working hard to challenge and undermine U.S. influence and interests worldwide. In Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014), and Syria (2015), Putin demonstrated his willingness to use military force to extend Moscow’s reach. Private Military Companies (PMC) and Russian trolls actively threatened U.S. interests and the Russian Armed Forces frequently tried to intimidate and embarrass their U.S. counterparts, at times coming dangerously close to provoking a direct conflict between Washington and Moscow.
No comments:
Post a Comment