With increased U.S. pressure on Ukraine, it is useful to look to history for policy guideposts. I served in the Reagan White House as he worked to push back against Moscow, and Reagan viewed alliance relationships as a key component of U.S. international reach and security. Although Donald Trump has broken sharply with that U.S. foreign policy tradition, this change might empower Europe rather than diminish it, if Europe seizes the moment. There are four key approaches from the 1980s for Europe to keep in mind as it looks at Russia:
– First, respect the asymmetry. Russia brought a deadly imbalance to its invasion of Ukraine, with overwhelming advantages in population, military power, and economic weight. In 2023-4 I had the opportunity to deliver ambulances in Ukraine as a volunteer for a UK charity, and I could see first-hand the devastation that Russia had inflicted upon Ukraine’s civilians. Europe’s strategy has been to provide resources to allow for a stalemate in the field, but not enough to offset this Russian asymmetry. Europe should continue to help Ukraine hold the line on the battlefield, but it must also make efforts elsewhere if it wants to give Russia incentive to settle. Similarly, Reagan knew that a hot war in Europe would be devastating, and the U.S. needed to look for other ways to put pressure on Moscow.
– Second, this won’t be cost-free. You cannot attach a cost to another party without absorbing some costs yourself. If Europe is going to raise the cost to Russia for its aggression, it will also pay, even beyond the direct expenses of increased aid. It will increase political turmoil, criticism, and domestic political opposition. Europe might even encounter criticism from the Trump administration for “escalating” the conflict. As Reagan increased pressure on the Soviets, he became a hate figure in some quarters and was derided as a cowboy and a war-mongerer.
– Third, Europe will test the limits of Russian agitation. More serious than anything that might take place in Europe and the U.S. will be a spasm of Russian anger. Russia will not only scream about escalation, but it will raise the stakes in domestic interference. Get ready for protest marches in Berlin and Paris and veiled warnings of nuclear readiness drills. Just as we see Russian influence campaigns to keep Europe addicted to Russian energy, Reagan saw influence campaigns to stop deployments of the Pershing missile in Europe.
– Fourth, Europe needs to find its own asymmetry. Europe needs to find ways it can play to its strengths and not limit itself to an expensive and bloody hard-power competition on the Ukraine front. This means exploring ideas such as (1) locking Russia out of Syria by eliminating Russian military bases in that beleaguered country. The Syrian dictatorship was a horrific failure of Russian foreign policy and it should not be allowed to salvage any residual value from this catastrophe; (2) putting pressure on the Transnistria Republic, the breakaway Russian satellite that abuts Moldova; (3) targeting power stations and railroad infrastructure inside of Russia. Europe needs to bring the cost of the war home to the Russian economy, as Russia has done to the Ukrainian economy. Reagan supported a range of “out-of-area” efforts against the Soviets in Africa, Afghanistan, and Central America – as well as broad sanctions on the Soviet economy.
This final point might be the most difficult one for Europe to accept. For eighty years, peace in Europe was anchored by the harmonisation of national-level policies and preferences – highly successful, to be sure. But the challenge today of how to push back against Moscow cannot depend on an approach requiring continental harmonisation, which would give veto power to the least enthusiastic country. The priority today must be weighted toward impact and immediacy, which means countries need to be able to act even without a complete consensus.
The unsettling truth of the moment is that neither Putin nor Trump are interested in Europe’s views regarding Ukraine. To them, when Europe insists, or pleads, or demands it should have a voice, it only proves that Europe does not deserve a say. Europe does not just have a voice in the outcome, Europe could lead. But this will only come if Europe takes action and shows that it is willing to pay the cost of leadership. Ironically, Reagan helped show the way even as it appears the U.S. will be absent from this fight. Faster please, Europe.
Frank Lavin served in the Reagan, Bush (41), and Bush (43) Administrations in National Security, diplomatic, and trade positions. He served in two humanitarian missions to Ukraine, driving ambulances. His new book, “Inside the Reagan White House,” discusses how Reagan pushed back against the Soviet Union.
Well said.