The violence perpetrated against Ukraine has raised questions regarding the direction of U.S. grand strategy since the end of the Cold War, with the Clinton administration’s decision to pursue a policy of democratic promotion in central and eastern Europe coming under specific scrutiny. Was this, as critics suggest, a strategic blunder that prompted Moscow’s apparent attempt to re-establish control over its former satellites, or, as was believed at the time, a necessary step towards political and economic reform of the European continent following the Cold War? This paper reveals how the Democracy Promotion pillar of the Clinton administration’s policy of Engagement and Enlargement aided the development of Ukraine without antagonizing the Kremlin, and the lessons that the Biden administration could glean from this policy thirty years later.
This article examines the peace settlements of 1815, 1919, and 1945 with an eye towards drawing out certain insights for current conflicts, specifically the Russo-Ukrainian War. Among the points covered in this article are the position and capability of military forces, the alignments and agreements which take place before and after the main peace negotiations, the assumptions around how long a settlement might last, the influence of existing social and intellectual currents which surround the statesmen and women negotiating peace, and the importance of individual personalities in arriving at a lasting and stable peace. How long the war between Russia and Ukraine will last is uncertain, but it is more likely than not that policymakers in Moscow and Kiev, as well as their counterparts in capitals across Europe and beyond, will consider eventual negotiations. This article provides ideas and approaches from some of the most notable precedents in the 19th and 20th centuries, as a way of stimulating thinking about a future peace settlement.
The ancient correspondence allegedly between the Toparch Abgar V of Edessa and Jesus of Nazareth is usually treated in modern scholarship as legendary, though possession of it was important for the legitimation of Armenia as the first Christian kingdom in ca. 314 A.D. (prior to Constantine’s ‘Christian’ rule of a united Roman Empire from 324, and well before Theodosius I’s Edict of Thessalonica in 380). This paper attempts to create a demythologized space in which to reconsider the historical probability that Jesus, widely reputed as a healer in the chief (Near Eastern) Jewish centre of influence, was asked for help by an ailing eminent and replied to his request. Along the way, questions will be raised for further research (italicized) and so in this sense the article takes the form of an Agenda.