Summary
Hot off the virtual presses: Zelensky Replaces Defense Minister, Citing Need for ‘New Approaches’
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/03/world/europe/zelensky-ukraine-defense-minister.html
Reading, studying, assessing Foreign Policy and National Security topics, often involves looking at many historical examples, building constructs and models and frameworks; they are great material and tools to explain mechanisms and trends. However, taking a big step back from them....can we ask they question: "do they really exist in the real, every day world, and if they do as policy drivers in relation to other countries, do they really matter?"
Earlier today, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky replaced Oleksii Reznikov, Ukraine's Minister of Defense with Rustem Umerov, the chairman of Ukraine’s State Property Fund.
To assess the potential justification and ramifications of this move, did Zelensky (and possibly certain of his advisers) consider unilaterism, bi-lateralism, or any "-ism" for that matter?
As the NYT article states: "[Umerov] is a Crimean Tatar, a member of the ethnic group persecuted under Russia’s occupation of the Crimean Peninsula. Is this then an internal domestic move? A signal to the Russian occupiers of Crimea? Or maybe it is indeed a consideration and response to the U.S.' current foreign policy post-Afghanistan "Biden-ism". After all: "With some U.S. critics of the war citing graft as an argument for limiting military aid to Ukraine, the White House national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, last week met with three high-ranking Ukrainian officials to discuss efforts to stamp out wartime corruption." Was that a coincidence? Or is it all of the above in modern version of "Kissingerian" realpolitik?
One reply on “Unilateralism, Bi-Lateralism, Any -ism: Do They Really Matter?”
Mark,
I liked the way that you used your blog post to address the late-breaking news about President Zelensky replacing his defense minister. You raise a number of important questions in this regard, but I kept waiting for your answers to them! I personally suspect that Zelensky had multiple motives in making this move. The problem of corruption has plagued the Ukrainian government for a long time, and it was why Biden acted when he was vice president to force out the individual who was in charge of eliminating corruption, who was himself corrupt and inept. Almost certainly, Zelensky was and is concerned about rising opposition among Republicans in the U.S. Congress to further military assistance, based in part on arguments about corruption. But the appointment of Rustin Umerov, a native Tartar from Crimea, also does send a message to Putin that Ukraine fully intends to retake the Crimean peninsula. Whether that will be militarily possible remains to be seen, however. –Professor Wallerstein