Foreign Policy Realist Joe Kent Receives Key Endorsement from Russian Foreign Policy Analyst

By
Jose Nino
-

There’s a cacophony of interventionist commentary during the Russo-Ukrainian conflict which has rightfully worried many advocates or foreign policy realism and restraint. 

Thankfully, there have been voices like Clint Ehrlich, a Russia expert and foreign policy analyst, who has been one of the most sober American voices during this conflict.

In a tweet thread he published on April 23, 2022, Ehrlich argued that “NATO assistance to Ukraine is pushing us closer to nuclear war” and he added that “There’s a clear path from where we are today to the first combat use of nukes since WW2.”

Ehrlich cited a recent press conference that Zelensky gave in which he said that if Western countries provide Ukraine with enough weapons, then Ukraine will be able to mount a counter-offensive to regain all of the territory it has lost since the Euromaidan crisis of 2014.

Ehrlich tweeted, “He stated that if the West provides Ukraine with sufficient weapons, then Ukraine will begin a campaign to take back all of the territory that Russia has occupied.”

Ehrlich added: 

These were Zelensky’s exact words, threatening to retake all Russian occupied territories using NATO weapons:

‘All that they [Russia] occupy we will return. It is a question of weapons. If we have enough of them, we will immediately begin to return the occupied territories.’

 

One of the main issues with Ukraine’s territorial grievances is that it doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of Russian-occupied territories, specifically the 2014 referendum that witnessed Crimea join Russia. As a result, any promise by Ukraine to return occupied territories to it will involve a military campaign to retake Crime which Ehrlich pointed out: 

Here’s the problem: Ukraine considers Crimea to be Russian-occupied territory. 

It does not recognize the legitimacy of the 2014 referendum that saw Crimea vote to join the Russian Federation.

A promise to return occupied territories is a promise to retake Crimea.

 

Ehrlich also highlighted that the Ukrainians believe that foreign military aid will assist them in this reconquista campaign against Russia: 

“In today’s comments, Zelensky made this point obliquely.

But it’s only the latest signal from his government that it hopes to storm the peninsula.

A week ago, Ukraine’s head of military intelligence said foreign weapons would allow it to retake Crimea.”

 

The Russia analyst raised another frightening point that many American policymakers are ignoring:

The United States and its allies need to consider just how broad of a proxy war they are ready to wage.

It is one thing to provide arms and targeting data to Ukraine in the war for the Donbass. 

But if that campaign goes well for Ukraine, will we back an offensive vs. Crimea?

 

Unfortunately, the DC foreign policy uniparty does not comprehend the consequences of giving Ukraine more military aid, especially Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee. These Republicans have called on Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence, to assist in retaking every part of Ukraine, which Ehrlich detailed below: 

There are signs that point to ‘yes.’ 

Earlier this month, the Director of National Intelligence received a letter from Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee. 

It urged her to help “retake every inch of Ukraine’s sovereign territory, which includes Crimea.

 

Egging on a Ukrainian offensive is asking for greater escalation and casualties. This is something that most Western policymakers, who are completely absorbed in emotionalism, don’t get. Ehrlich, on the other hand, understands the consequences of further escalation against Russia, which he expanded on:

One can certainly make a moral argument that Crimea should belong to Ukraine. 

But I believe in consequentialism.

And a Western-backed attempt to seize Crimea from Russia could *easily* escalate to nuclear war.

A realist foreign policy is not based on emotion nor wishful thinking. Ehrlich is one of the few analysts that understands what Crimea means to Russia, which many other analysts fail or don’t even bother to grasp. He observed: 

First, Russia’s government and its people consider Crimea to be their sovereign territory. 

It is irrelevant to my argument whether their opinion is valid. 

It’s a *colorable enough* position (based on history, polls, etc.) that it can be considered a fact within Russia.

 

Any Ukrainian effort to take back Crimea would be treated as an act of war by Russia. Ehrlich broke down the cold, hard truth about this inconvenient fact:

Thus, any Ukrainian attempt to retake Crimea will be perceived within Russia as an invasion of the Russian Federation. 

The response from Russia will be proportionate – much like America’s response if Hawaii or Alaska were invaded.

 

For Russian leader Vladimir Putin, bringing Crimea back into Russia’s civilizational sphere is an existential matter, which could result in his overthrow if he fails to do so:

Second, returning Crimea to Russia has been the crowning achievement of Vladimir Putin’s time in power. 

Losing the peninsula to Ukraine would pose an existential threat to his government. 

I do not believe that he could survive as Russia’s leader in the face of such defeat.

A Ukrainian campaign to retake Crimea could be met with a nuclear response from Russia, which Ehrlich plainly laid out: 

I have previously warned that Russia’s legal criteria for employing nuclear weapons would permit them to be launched to protect Crimea. 

Such an offensive could be construed as an attack on the “existence of the state” – which justifies nuclear first use.

Putin has been explicit about his threats to use nukes in the case that Ukraine invades Crimea. Ehrlich spelled it out pretty clearly:

Putin emphasized his willingness to use nukes over Crimea when he met with Macron before the invasion. 

He warned that Crimea was irrevocably part of Russia and that if the West backed an attempt to retake it, ‘there would be no winners,’ because Russia is a nuclear power.

 

Unlike countries like Afghanistan or Iraq, Russia presents a serious military challenge and is led by a real statesmen who is willing to use devastating force if it’s pushed against a corner. Ehrlich put forward some sobering questions that most neocons and neoliberal interventionists would not answered:

Do the people who support an offensive against Crimea, like @marcorubio, think Putin was bluffing? 

Do they believe it’s in the national interest of the United States to call that bluff – to see if Putin will *really* push the nuclear button like he has threatened?

In American foreign policy, we often see a dynamic of foreign policy disasters via self-fulfilling prophecy take place. Because of the constant poking and prodding by the Deep State, the US often finds itself staring down the barrel of a foreign policy quagmire. Ehrlich raised a valid point about the dangerous neocon fantasies that many members of the DC Blob engage in:

Ironically, the people most likely to support an offensive vs. Crimea are also the ones most likely to consider Putin a sociopath ready to use WMDs. 

It’s almost like they want to see their predictions come true – to corner the “madman” to prove he’s as evil as they fear.

 

Ehrlich concluded his thread with this statement: 

Well, these people may soon get what they want. 

Powerful figures in the West are taking about supporting a Ukrainian bid to retake Crimea. 

Will cooler heads prevail?

Or will we find out just how far Putin will go to protect Russia’s territory and his hold on power?

Ehrlich’s thread was quite eye-opening. It even caught the attention of populist candidate Joe Kent, who is running for Washington’s 3rd congressional district. 

In a tweet he posted on April 24, Kent declared ”This is why we need congress to have a formal war powers debate- our funding, weapons & reckless talk is driving us to a w/ Russia. 

Those who believe in pushing this conflict should have to explain why this is in our vital national security interest & put their vote on record.”

Ehrlich responded to Kent’s tweet, stating “And THIS is why we need Joe Kent in Congress. He’s the real deal, ladies and gentlemen.”

 

When Kent isn’t trying to counter-signal America First nationalists like Nick Fuentes or talking about cringeworthy topics such as “inclusive populism”, he is one of the best foreign policy restrainers running for higher office in the 2022 midterm cycle. 

His presence in Congress would be very valuable in a time when many members of the ruling class are itching for war. America cannot afford to get into another military quagmire. Above all, a military excursion that could go nuclear.

Electing more people like Kent is the safest way to guarantee that America doesn’t fall down the disastrous path of imperial overreach.