U.S. statesmen today must be careful. As they weigh policy options for the United States in the Ukraine crisis, they find themselves immersed in the political cacophony of Washington and its calls for forceful action against Russia. Military leaders and foreign affairs strategists on both sides of the political aisle are promoting a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that relies on a single narrative, one that denies the possibility that any policy options exist between appeasement and military escalation. The war drums are beating, and hawkishness is “in.” Perhaps the warfighters in our military should indeed be preparing for conflict, for that is what they do best. But our statesmen are called to a different vocation, one that seeks diplomatic solutions to even the most fractious events, and they will need to hold the line and moderate the discourse if a full range of policy options is to be made available to U.S. decision-makers.
The dominant narrative in political circles today views Russia’s actions as an attempt by an imperialist power to reestablish the Soviet Union. It refuses to consider Russia’s national security concerns about a West-leaning Ukraine, rejects diplomatic compromise, and presents a basket of similar policy options, all of which entail a strong and unyielding resistance to Russia. This narrative vilifies Vladimir Putin as the “ultimate bad actor” and seeks the total incapacitation of a hated enemy—a characterization that, true or not, can lead only to greater conflict. More concerning, its polarizing mindset often reduces arguments to emotional salvos that eclipse sound judgment with cries for decisive action. The result is a one-sided discourse rendering moderate proposals unacceptable before they even gain consideration.
