The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Episode: Instability in Ukraine
Date: February 13, 2015
Host: Dorothy Wickenden
Guests: George Packer, Evan Osnos
Overview
This episode centers on the unfolding crisis in Ukraine in early 2015, examining the recent Minsk ceasefire agreement, Russia’s role in the conflict, and the challenges faced by the US and EU in responding to Vladimir Putin’s actions. The conversation also explores broader foreign policy dilemmas for President Obama, the shifting dynamics between East and West, and the ongoing difficulty of crafting coherent responses to global crises.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Why the Minsk Ceasefire Is Unlikely to Last
(01:37–02:52)
- George Packer explains the lack of political will and leverage to enforce the Minsk ceasefire, pointing out that the separatists, emboldened by Russian support, are not incentivized to stop fighting.
- The Ukrainian government cannot accept the loss of territory, and Russia is both negotiating and actively fueling the conflict.
George Packer (02:05):
"Because the combatants on the ground don't want it to... the separatists have been gaining ground and there's no reason why they should stop now while they have the initiative... Russians are playing a really nefarious double game, negotiating in Minsk and lying in the face of European leaders about their own lack of involvement."
2. The Role of Putin and the Reality on the Ground
(02:52–03:34)
- Putin is not the sole creator of the separatists, but he is their clear patron; Russian intervention is decisively tipping the military balance.
- The West struggles to negotiate when Russia’s position is rooted in obfuscation and outright falsehoods.
George Packer (02:57):
"They are not entirely his creation, but he has stoked them. He is their patron. Without him, they simply couldn't hold their own against the Ukrainian government."
3. Angela Merkel Versus Putin—A Clash of Styles and Limitations
(03:34–05:08)
- Merkel is positioned as a formidable, analytical leader but faces inherent limitations: while she intuitively understands Putin, her tools are diplomatic, not military.
- Example: She explains Putin’s power plays as cover for Russia’s lack of economic and political strength.
George Packer (03:53):
"[Merkel] has a deep sense of his psyche... she said, you know, I understand why he does that. It's all he can do. He has no economy, he has no politics. He's just got this to show he's a man... Putin has the upper hand because he's willing to use violence. And for...historical reasons, Germany and Merkel are not."
4. Sanctions and Russia’s Economy
(05:08–05:46)
- Russian sanctions are biting, with economic difficulties mounting, but Putin’s popularity remains high and dissent among elites is only beginning to surface.
- The gamble: using aggressive tactics to demand international attention despite domestic suffering.
5. Transatlantic Unity—But Not a United Approach
(05:46–06:50)
- Evan Osnos discusses the nuanced, sometimes fragile unity between the US and Europe. While public displays show alignment, the US is more open to the idea of arming Ukraine than Europe is.
- Obama faces Congressional pressure but is clearly reluctant to provide lethal aid.
Evan Osnos (05:57):
"They tried as much as possible to say, we are going to go about this in lockstep. But...the Americans were more prepared to consider the idea of giving lethal aid...than the Europeans were."
6. NATO, Germany, and the Fear of Escalation
(06:50–08:29)
- Merkel’s position is clear—no military option in Ukraine, and NATO expansion to include Ukraine is unlikely due to the risk of escalation and Europe’s deep historical anxieties around Russia.
- For Germany, military confrontation with Russia is a nightmare scenario.
George Packer (07:01):
"Admitting Ukraine into NATO would require NATO not just to arm Ukraine, but to defend Ukraine. And then we would have the continent-wide war [...] that Merkel dreads and that Europe dreads."
7. Obama’s ISIS Authorization Request and Congressional Dynamics
(08:29–10:39)
- Obama sought Congressional authorization for action against ISIS months after starting operations. According to Osnos, this was primarily to provide political cover, not because he lacked legal grounds; both parties in Congress found the move unsatisfying.
Evan Osnos (08:56):
"He is acknowledging that because of the inability of the Congress to reach a consensus...he'll operate independently... It's a reflection in some ways of the sort of twilight war that this president has found himself engaged in on a whole series of fronts."
8. The Predicament of Samantha Power and Obama's Foreign Policy Team
(10:39–12:11)
- Samantha Power, closely linked to Obama, exemplifies the internal conflict between a desire for assertive humanitarian intervention and Obama's philosophical reluctance for foreign entanglements.
- The administration experiences frustration in dealing with actors like Putin and new-style global threats.
Evan Osnos (10:57):
"She over and over again found herself in the position, whether it was in Libya or in Iraq and Syria, of to some degree trying to persuade the president to take more action, while at the same time...not trying so hard that she would undermine her political capital."
9. A World of Multiplying Crises
(12:11–13:10)
- The Obama administration is beset by concurrent crises: ISIS, Ebola, failed peace processes, and Russian aggression in Ukraine. The White House often finds itself fighting defensive, reactive battles rather than proactive ones.
Evan Osnos (12:27):
"If you step back, it really is an astonishing array of crises...every time they try to get themselves organized, that events come along and leave them fighting a rear guard action."
10. America’s Waning Influence and the New Global Order
(13:10–14:45)
- According to Packer, declining US will and capacity to shape global events has led to an uptick in unmanageable violence and authoritarian assertiveness by leaders like Putin.
- Obama is faulted for failing to offer a clear vision of America’s role, compounding this uncertainty.
George Packer (13:35):
"We're in a place now where the US simply doesn't have the ability or the will...to create structures, to create alliances that can keep this level of violence and of illiberality under control."
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On negotiations with Putin:
"It's hard for me to imagine how negotiations are going on when one side's position depends on a stream of lies, but I suppose that diplomats can do just about anything." (George Packer, 02:52)
-
Merkel’s read on Putin’s psychology:
"He has no economy, he has no politics. He's just got this to show he's a man." (George Packer recounting Merkel, 03:53)
-
On the challenge for the West:
"Putin has the upper hand because he's willing to use violence. And for a lot of deep historical reasons, Germany and Merkel are not." (George Packer, 03:53)
-
On US-European tensions:
"The Americans were more prepared to consider the idea of giving lethal aid to Ukrainian forces...than the Europeans were." (Evan Osnos, 05:57)
-
On global instability:
"Every time they try to get themselves organized, that events come along and leave them fighting a rear guard action." (Evan Osnos, 12:27)
-
Elie Wiesel to Samantha Power after the murder of journalist James Foley:
"Samantha, the winds of madness are blowing." (as quoted by Dorothy Wickenden, 12:11)
Episode Timeline (Timestamps)
- 01:14 — Episode and Panel Introduction
- 01:37 — Analysis of the Minsk ceasefire’s prospects
- 03:34 — Merkel’s approach and limitations
- 05:08 — Sanctions on Russia and domestic implications
- 05:46 — Obama-Merkel summit; US/EU strategies diverge
- 07:01 — NATO, Germany's historical perspective
- 08:29 — Obama seeks ISIS war authorization
- 10:39 — Samantha Power's influence and dilemmas
- 12:27 — Expanding global crises outpacing US response
- 13:35 — Reflections on waning US influence
Summary
This episode delivers a sobering, nuanced examination of the geopolitical and domestic challenges arising from the Ukraine conflict and the limits of Western, especially American, influence in a world marked by crises and assertive authoritarian leaders. The conversation highlights the complex interplay between diplomatic efforts, historical memory, internal political pressures, and the evolving dynamics of global power. Listeners walk away with a deep appreciation of the strategic frustrations and moral ambiguities facing policymakers—and the persistent uncertainty shaping the international order.