Analysis: Biden's Diplomatic Approach towards Ukraine and Israel

Mark Hannah, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Institute for Global Affairs at the Eurasia Group and host of its “None Of The Above” podcast, shared his views in this commentary. The opinions expressed are his own. For more opinions, visit CNN.

President Joe Biden recently signed a $95 billion military aid package. This achievement involved tough negotiations to secure funding for Ukraine and Israel, following months of discussions in Congress. However, if this aid leads to an escalation in the countries' war efforts, it could hinder the possibility of reaching peaceful resolutions through tough negotiations.

Mark Hannah

Mark Hannah

Mark Hannah suggests that it is important for democratic countries to support each other in facing illiberal adversaries. He highlights the tragic experiences of Israel and Ukraine as victims of aggression. While offering unwavering support is well-intentioned, it can sometimes have unintended consequences by complicating efforts to achieve peaceful resolutions that protect civilians and promote stability.

The funds could encourage Ukraine and Israel to pursue difficult goals: Ukraine aims to fully restore its borders and reclaim Crimea, while Israel seeks to destroy Hamas. In the complex world of international politics and conflict, achieving justice can be challenging, but sometimes peace is the only option.

With the recent aid, the US gains significant influence over Ukraine and Israel. Despite hesitating to use this leverage in the past, Washington must now take action to ensure that peace has a chance to prevail in the near future.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is adamant about achieving "total victory" over Hamas. However, Israel has only managed to eliminate less than half of Hamas fighters, and their tunnel network remains intact, suggesting that Hamas can continue to pose a threat to Israel in the long run. Even if Hamas were to be completely eradicated, the aftermath of civilian devastation could lead to further radicalization among Palestinians and incite anger in Arab communities, potentially jeopardizing Arab-Israeli normalization efforts.

Similarly, the Ukrainian government is resolute in its goal to reclaim all lost territories, including Crimea, which was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014. Despite this stance, there is no indication that the US administration is urging Ukraine to reconsider its military approach. General Mark Milley previously stated that neither side is likely to achieve all their political objectives through military actions, implying that a resolution may eventually be reached through negotiations. This prediction was made before Ukraine suffered significant losses during a failed offensive against Russia last summer, highlighting the limitations of military strategies.

Mike Johsnon and John Fetterman

Mike Johsnon and John Fetterman

Getty Images

Related article

Opinion: What John Fetterman and Mike Johnson have in common

The administration seems to understand that Ukraine may have a difficult time reclaiming more territory. However, there has been no public effort from the US to prepare for a potential peace agreement. While showing US support can help Ukraine in negotiations, it may also lead Ukraine to turn down a fair peace offer and keep fighting for unachievable goals in the name of justice.

The administration has increased humanitarian aid to Gaza, urged Hamas to release Israeli hostages, and advocated for the Palestinian Authority to govern Gaza. However, more can be done to persuade Israel to reconsider its destabilizing objectives. The Biden administration should communicate to Israeli leaders that their current approach is counterproductive and jeopardizes regional security.

Some may disagree with shifting American policy towards achieving peace and stability in the short term rather than pursuing unrealistic goals set by our allies.

War often leads to oversimplified views of the world. After the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush famously stated that countries must choose to be either with the US or with the terrorists. Similarly, when discussing the conflict in Ukraine, Americans were told to either fully support Kyiv or step back and let Putin take over. However, viewing conflicts in such black-and-white terms, with clear villains and heroes, does not necessarily lead to successful military outcomes.

TOPSHOT - A Ukrainian serviceman drives a British FV103 Spartan armoured personnel carrier on a road that leads to the town of Chasiv Yar, in the Donetsk region, on March 30, 2024, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainian forces face a "difficult" situation around the eastern city of Chasv Yar as Russia focuses its offensive there, a Ukrainian army official said on March 25, 2024. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP) (Photo by ROMAN PILIPEY/AFP via Getty Images)

A Ukrainian serviceman is seen driving a British FV103 Spartan armoured personnel carrier on a road heading to the town of Chasiv Yar in the Donetsk region on March 30, 2024, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainian forces are facing a challenging situation near the eastern city of Chasv Yar as Russia concentrates its offensive in that area, according to a Ukrainian army official on March 25, 2024. This photo was taken by Roman Pilipey/AFP/Getty Images.

Related article

Opinion: Congress must let Ukraine win, say Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, Imagine Dragons, Timothy Snyder and other luminaries

Some may argue that the United States cannot simply dictate to Ukraine and Israel, as they are both independent nations. President Biden has made it clear that Ukraine should have a say in decisions regarding its country, and the State Department has emphasized that the US does not control Israel's actions.

While Ukraine and Israel have their own autonomy, the United States also has agency in the situation. By providing assistance to these countries during conflicts, the US has the right and duty to guide the direction of the conflicts in a way that safeguards its own interests. It is possible for the US to respect the autonomy of Ukraine and Israel without compromising its own.

In Ukraine, threatening the withdrawal of aid to weaken its battlefield and negotiating position is not the best approach. Instead, the US could have enforced restrictions on Abrams Tanks, F-16s, cluster munitions, and long-range missiles, or it could now support diplomatic efforts as much as military efforts. The recent aid package includes long-range missiles, suggesting Ukraine is preparing for an offensive against Crimea. Biden had previously refrained from sending these missiles to Ukraine for fear of provoking Putin, who could potentially use nuclear weapons if Crimea were attacked.

In Israel, placing conditions on military aid is a more effective strategy. After an Israeli military strike resulted in the death of aid workers from World Central Kitchen, the US used leverage by warning Netanyahu that support for Israel's war efforts would be reconsidered unless more humanitarian aid was allowed in Gaza. Israel ultimately complied with the ultimatum and publicly announced the change as demanded by Biden. However, there is little indication that the president has continued to apply pressure. When the aid package was approved by Congress, a pro-Israel lobbying group celebrated the fact that the security assistance came without any additional conditions.

One historical example highlights how the US could influence Netanyahu today. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel surrounded the Egyptian military. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger then visited Tel Aviv and urged Prime Minister Golda Meir to implement a ceasefire. Similar to Hamas, Egypt's attack was sudden and unprovoked. Kissinger was concerned about a potential win by the Soviet-supported Arab states. Interestingly, newly released documents reveal that he also worried about Israel achieving a complete victory.

Don't miss out on our free weekly newsletter!

Sign up for CNN Opinion’s newsletter.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

Kissinger pointed out that from an Israeli perspective, having the whole Arab world radicalized and anti-American may not be seen as a disaster, as it ensures continued support for Israel. However, from an American standpoint, this situation is considered a disaster. Kissinger emphasized the importance of the US being taken more seriously by Israel and the need for a politically oriented policy to be acknowledged.

Negotiated settlements are often seen as morally unsatisfying, but it is crucial to prevent countries like Russia from invading sovereign nations without consequences. It is also important to recognize Israel's right to defend itself. However, focusing solely on what is morally just can sometimes overlook the strategic possibilities for peace in regions like Ukraine and Gaza. It is essential to consider what is both morally just and strategically possible for achieving peace.

Editor's P/S:

The article raises important concerns about the potential consequences of providing military aid to Ukraine and Israel. The author argues that while it is important to support democratic countries facing illiberal adversaries, excessive aid can lead to an escalation of war efforts and hinder the possibility of peaceful resolutions. The author suggests that the US should take a more active role in encouraging both countries to reconsider their military objectives and pursue diplomatic solutions.

The article highlights the complex nature of international conflicts and the need for a balanced approach that considers both moral principles and strategic possibilities. It challenges the simplistic view that countries must either fully support one side or the other and argues that the US has a responsibility to use its influence to promote peace and stability. The author provides historical examples to support their argument, such as the role of Henry Kissinger in urging Israel to implement a ceasefire during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.