George Beebe: Military Solutions Are Not the Only Way

The United States needs to adjust its foreign policy to follow a direction that is more considerate and more closely aligned with its core national interests, said George Beebe, former intelligence analyst, political analyst and diplomat, who currently heads the Grand Strategy Program at the Washington-based Quincy Institute. In an interview with Magyar Nemzet he says the goal should not be to turn other countries into the liberal, Western-style democracies it expects them to become.

George Beebe, Director of the Quincy Institute's Grand Strategy Program (Photo: Hungarian Institute of Foreign Affairs (MKI))

How important is the opinion of institutions like yours to politicians in the United States?

The influence of the Quincy Institute is growing. However, our perspective is still a minority perspective in Washington. I think the majority in Washington is still very much committed to relying on military means as a primary solution to the problems that we face in the world. This is apparent when we hear US administration officials defining our interests as leading a crusade of good over evil, and dividing the world into democratic and authoritarian states that are always in conflict with each other. This suggests that we are still clinging to ideas that have led to what we have been seeing since the end of the Cold War: these various endless wars, these efforts to transform other countries from within. We have to stop this, if you like, we have to move away from this rigid position.

I think the Quincy Institute's voice of restraint and realism is attracting growing attention in the United States. This is partly reflected in the electoral debates we are seeing among those arguing for a more America-centric, more restrained, less ambitious approach to the world that is more in line with a multipolar world order. It is obvious that the world is becoming more multipolar, and in a situation like this the United States will be one of the powers.

We have to strive for a balance, a balance of power in the world, where these different poles work in a balanced situation in which we all feel comfortable. I believe that a growing number of people in the United States will recognize this reality, which is a new reality, but it is our future.

Wars are raging and tensions are rising around the world. Which of these do you consider the most dangerous and which do you consider the most urgent to resolve?

The biggest challenges we are facing in the world are related to conflicts between the great powers. This is currently taking place in Ukraine. One aspect of this conflict concerns the bilateral relationship between Russia and Ukraine, but the greater and more dangerous part of the conflict is the broader geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West, Russia and NATO, and Russia and the United States. It is partly the unfinished business of the end of the Cold War, because we have never been able to create a security order in Europe that included Russia and in which Russia was not an outsider.

In this conflict, the United States is currently not directly involved, at least not with military forces on the ground, actively fighting in Ukraine, but there is a significant risk that the war could escalate into a direct military conflict between Russia and the United States.

Another potential great power conflict is the growing rivalry between the United States and China. This is a situation the United States has never faced in its history. During the Cold War, the United States faced a Soviet Union that was militarily equal but economically weak. The Soviet economy was powerful in terms of military industry, but it could not create a thriving civilian economy. It had no technological rival to the US economy and was not integrated into the world, either. The Soviet economy, along with the Warsaw Pact states, was self-sufficient. They wanted to keep themselves separate from the rest of the world economy rather than integrate into it. But this is not true for China, which is increasingly becoming more on a par with the United States, both militarily and economically. China is increasingly working in partnership with Russia against the United States, and this is unprecedented for us in our history. During the Cold War - particularly under President Nixon - when we were open to China, we had better relations with both China and the Soviet Union than existed between the two. That is no longer true. So we are now facing a much different geopolitical challenge, a much different geopolitical challenge, while we are in a much more difficult situation. Moreover, we are only now beginning to think about how to deal with it.

Why do you think the Baltic States (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) and even Finland are afraid of the Russian bear?

They have all suffered real military aggression from Moscow. In the case of the Baltic states, they were conquered and absorbed into the Soviet Union against their will. Finland was also invaded by the Soviet Union, Helsinki lost considerable territory and was forced to sign a neutrality treaty, a Finlandization situation. So it's clear from these historical antecedents that they are concerned about Russian intentions.

What do you think about the sending of billions in arms to Ukraine? And what do you think about the deployment of long-range missiles on Russian territory, something much talked about by Western politicians? 

 Transferring long-range missiles to Ukraine and allowing them to strike deep into Russian territory creates a potentially very dangerous situation. The Russians have made it clear that this would be viewed as NATO engaging in at war against Russia. These missiles are entirely dependent on Western support. The Western satellite guidance, the terrain mapping software, these can only come from the United States. So the Russians consider this a red line. I doubt that their response would be to deploy nuclear weapons, but I think the Russians would have to do something if the West decides that it will provide and authorize use of these long-range devices. In this situation, the Russians would need to act in a way that backs up their threats, otherwise we won't deal with them seriously in the future. I do not think they are willing to face that. So I think it's a very dangerous situation. And there's very little that these long-range strikes would actually change, militarily, regarding Ukraine's position vis-a-vis Russia on the battlefield.

Cover photo: George Beebe, Director of the Quincy Institute's Grand Strategy Program (Photo: Hungarian Institute of Foreign Affairs (MKI))