An Interview with Dr. Elie Krakowski

Dr. Elie Krakowski is no stranger to the readers of the Where What When. We interviewed him over 20 years ago, shortly after his move to Baltimore, and over the years he has graciously agreed to contribute articles in response to our pleadings. Now we turn to him again to explain the current crisis in Ukraine.

Dr. Krakowski, mostly retired now, has a PhD in international relations from Columbia University in New York. During the Reagan administration, he was Special Assistant to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon. He coordinated multimillion-dollar programs in humanitarian aid and contributed to presidential national security directives. He helped U.S. intelligence agencies improve the way they collect, analyze, and distribute intelligence data. His main role while at the Pentagon was as an architect of American policy on Afghanistan. He also participated actively in the negotiating process that brought an end to the Soviet-Afghan war.

In subsequent years, Dr. Krakowski traveled many times to Afghanistan and surrounding countries, interacting frequently with various key players (including the Taliban). One of the more colorful leaders was Ahmad Shah Massoud, the “Lion of Panjshir,” the powerful guerrilla commander who fought the Soviets and then the Taliban, and who was assassinated just some four months after Dr. Krakowski met with him.

Leaving government in 1988, Dr. Krakowski spent several years as Professor of International Relations and Law at Boston University. After moving to Baltimore, he headed his own global political and security risk-management consulting firm. He is a recognized authority on international terrorism, regional conflicts, unconventional warfare, and propaganda.

Coming from a famous Lithuanian rabbinic family, Dr. Krakowski is related to both Rav Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, zt”l and Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l. He grew up in France until the age of 14 and came to the U.S. with his family to be able to strengthen his Torah education.

Clear thinking as well as truth and courage are hallmarks of Dr. Krakowski’s outlook on the world. Despite the incessant news, the only thing we average citizens know for certain is how little we know. And in this era of politicized information, what can we believe, anyway? In this interview Dr. Krakowski analyzes the causes of the war in Ukraine and reflects on possible responses and outcomes.

Where What When: Dr. Krakowski, what do you see as the backdrop to the Ukraine war?

Elie Krakowski: We are living in a world where there are a number of truly bad actors. In addition, all the “major players” – the United States, China, and Russia – as well as the not-so-major ones, are weaker internally than they appear. For example, the Russians do not even control firmly all of their own territory. Chinese are moving into towns along the Trans-Siberian railway in the far east of Russia. The level of alcoholism in Russia is worse now than during the Soviet era. There is also a great deal of corruption and an enormous inequality between the elite and the people.

China, despite an outwardly high performing economy (although slowing down significantly recently), is in a far less stable situation than appears. The magnitude of its real estate problem is slowly coming to the surface. The near default of one of their major real estate corporations is known. There are actually large “ghost” cities – entire cities that have been built, with four-lane highways and skyscrapers — with no one there. I saw a program several years ago, I believe on NBC, in which the head of one of these conglomerates openly admitted to this overbuilding, described it as a bubble which, if and when it burst, would have far worse consequences than the tech bubble of 2008 in the West. How such a program was allowed to be filmed by the Chinese remains a puzzle to me. There has been some underreported unrest in rural areas. The ongoing repression of Muslim ethnic Uyghurs in the far northwest of the country is an additional, and not so minor, irritant. There are issues below the surface that are quite real.

With regard to Iran, there are numerous problems with the state of the economy that have more to do with very poor management and corruption than any sanctions. The latter, however, have been effective. The ambitions of the Turkish President as a would-be new Ottoman Emperor are poorly aligned with the current economic crisis in Turkey.  Even though the United States is strong, it is severely polarized, with increasingly rigid and severe divisions on practically everything. This causes tremendous weakness. That weakness is being exploited by America’s enemies, with potentially serious consequences.

WWW: How would inequality in the society cause Russian weakness?

EK: Russia has always been split between an anti-West attitude and an inferiority complex vis a vis the West. The historian Richard Pipes wrote about that. In the 19^th century, the ruling class was almost like a foreign occupying power in Russia; it was not considered elegant to speak Russian, and the elite spoke French and German. This kind of attitude remains today, with the ruling class in Russia separate from the people. While there is a strong nationalism, the increasingly authoritarian character of the Putin regime, coupled with social inequalities, poor economic performance, and an apparently significant opposition to the war are beginning to reveal the multiple Russian weaknesses. Reports from the Ukrainian battlefield about looting by hungry Russian troops, fuel shortages, low motivation, and a host of other problems show that one should not measure power by the number of tanks and planes.

WWW: Why would Russia attack Ukraine if they are internally and, as it turns out, militarily weak?

EK: Evil powers are frequently aggressive. Aggression is nothing new to Russian history. At the same time, there are also historical bases for Moscow’s feeling threatened.  Others have attacked and invaded in the past.

The current phase, however, has its roots in the early twentieth century Communist expansion and Putin’s view of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 as a major catastrophe. His entire strategy for a number of years already has been to undo that catastrophe and restore – take your pick – the former Soviet Union or even the Russian Empire of old. The delusion for the restoration of past empires seems to be a spreading phenomenon: to wit, Erdogan in Turkey, Xi in China, and even the Iranians with their aspirations to be the dominant power in an arc stretching from Lebanon in the West to Pakistan in the East. What is interesting is that none of these authoritarian leaders have ever made a secret of their aims. Equally, if not more interesting, has been the stubborn refusal in the West to pay attention to these explicitly stated objectives.

WWW: Isn’t Putin’s demand that Ukraine not join NATO reasonable?

EK: It is understandable, but Ukraine – along with all the countries on Russia’s borders that are now independent, like Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia – know the Russians very well. They know that Putin wants to get back and control all these areas. So they are afraid, and they feel that if they get Western protection and join NATO, Russia will be afraid to attack because it could become a massive war. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are already NATO members. And it should perhaps not be surprising that there is now interest even in such a neutral country as Sweden to join NATO. And therein lies the vicious circle of threat leading to reaction leading to renewed threat.

The West is not particularly eager for Ukraine to join NATO because they see it is contributing to increasing Russian fears. And since the start of the war, Zelensky is now communicating that he sees it is not a feasible option to join NATO.

WWW: Ukraine’s turn to the West has been going on for many years. Why did Russia attack now?

EK: Russia’s recent attack has been in the making for a number of years. Moscow’s actions in Georgia, its invasion in Crimea in 2014, as well as other aggressive moves in the region were clear applications of Putin’s stated intentions. The West’s lack of determined opposition – you could even say passivity – was in effect giving him a “green light.” There is also no doubt whatsoever that the abject American withdrawal from Afghanistan was a glaring revelation of how Washington was dealing with allies. Now you have Putin putting his nuclear forces on alert and occupying nuclear power plants. These actions are a not very subtle blackmail.

This is in addition to the blackmail of the Europeans through the oil they import from Russia. The Germans put themselves at the mercy of the Russians for their energy supplies, thinking, oh the Russians are civilized; they would never blackmail us because they are deriving mutual benefit. But to think that way is itself a problem. You need to be aware of who you are confronting. It is not a secret. This is true of the Iranians, it was true of Hitler, it is true of many dictators who made their objectives clearly known. Erdogan, for example, president of Turkey, spoke years ago in Egypt praising the good old days of the Ottoman Empire, which he dreams of resurrecting.

The aggressors are, in my opinion, delusional. This kind of brutal warfare is not something that should happen in the 21^st century. You cannot control a conquered territory the way you used to. The Russians are now getting bogged down to some degree. They probably thought it would be a cakewalk to crush Ukraine within a couple of days. But now we are entering a second month of fighting, and as I said, I think there is significant opposition in Russia. I don’t know to what extent he believed his own propaganda.

WWW: What do you think of the way the U.S. has reacted?

EK: The famous statement, “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” is very true. In the context of the U.S., I’m not even sure you can talk about “good men” because what we have now with this administration is something I never thought I would see. I’m talking about Biden’s telegraphing to the Russians (to the extent that he does anything consciously) that we don’t want to fight with them. You don’t do that when you’re in a confrontation with a country that is committing war crimes and behaving in an unbelievably cruel and aggressive manner. You can’t say I don’t want to fight with you. That is just encouraging the aggression.

I also attribute America’s counterproductive response to the liberal-left outlook. “Progressives” believe, “If we are nice to you, you will be nice to us,” or they’ll say, “Oh, Putin sees it as a threat, so let’s be nice.” This is false. You cannot be nice to people who are aggressors.

I have constantly marveled at how, no matter how many times the Leftist outlook has been proven wrong – just as the socialist and communist models of government have proven to be failures – the lesson is never learned. The Biden administration, for instance, nominated Saule Omarova for the office of Comptroller of the Currency. She is from the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan, a graduate from Moscow University who wrote in praise of Marxist economic theory. The nerve of putting someone like that up for confirmation shows me one of two things: Either the Leftists think they are in the driver’s seat and are in control, or they think the people are completely stupid and will let themselves be sucked into their socialist agenda.

So you have people running the United States government who are in effect helping our enemies. Either they are blind, or it is the Leftist attitude, which sees the U.S. as behaving as “policeman of the world,” objects to that role, and consequently wants to cut the U.S. down to size. And this in fact helps our enemies. It is a serious situation, and I believe that Putin would not have gotten to this stage of attacking Ukraine had there not been an open door.

Another factor is that people in the West – not just the U.S. but also Western Europe – have grown comfortable and wealthy. They do not want to be disturbed. They are, in essence, willing to pay blackmail in order to continue their lifestyle. But one should know that, with blackmail, it never succeeds. If you pay the blackmail, the price always goes up, and it reaches a point where you just can’t pay it anymore.

WWW: How should the West respond, in your opinion?

EK:  The West has applied sanctions. If they are applied fully, the Russians will have a very hard time continuing the war. There are still weaknesses in the sanctions. But what has been done to date is very effective and will hurt the Russians. If the Russians continue their war, I don’t see the problem with a no-fly zone, through which we would be saying that we do not accept what they are doing in Ukraine.

WWW: But couldn’t this precipitate a major war?

EK: Absolutely, but the more one yields, and the less one is willing to stand up, the more the result is escalation. For example, the Russians recently attacked quite close to the Polish border. That is an indication that Putin is testing the world further and further. He is trying to provoke and intimidate people in the West to cave. And the United States is now worse than the Europeans. The Europeans have steadied a bit and have begun to recognize that they are next – that Russia is after not just Ukraine and Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia but Western Europe, too. This doesn’t mean a conquest of Western Europe rather Russian dominance in that whole area. They will then continue to hold the Western Europeans up for blackmail – meaning, you’ll pay what we ask, and if you oppose us, we will shut off your energy supply. Never mind that this could harm the Russians, at least as much if not more than the Europeans, because if they can’t sell, they don’t get income.

When you have the mentality in the West of being afraid of confrontation, that opens the door to the aggressors. In my opinion, we do not have a choice. Either we stand now and risk a major war, or we wait and it will be much worse. What is happening in the Ukraine could ultimately happen to the United States.

WWW: Do you mean the nuclear threat? Would Putin really use nuclear weapons?

EK: Putin put his nuclear forces on alert, which we could call reckless. I do not think even Putin would consciously want to do this kind of thing. But what we are talking about is not so much what is consciously planned as what could happen inadvertently. World War I started not because anyone wanted a world war but because, in that particular case, the smaller powers were interconnected with larger powers in alliances, and the larger powers got sucked in. This is not the case here, but you have very little leeway between alerts and threats of nuclear attack and possible real exchanges. Why did he do that? There was no real Ukrainian or Western threat to Russia, but Putin perceives anything that stands in the way of his dreams as a threat.

WWW: Do you think Putin is insane or “just” evil?

EK: He is not insane. He is a ruthless person who does not mind if Russians suffer as long as he gets his way. Bullies can only be stopped if you are firm with them. That is something that is very hard for people here in America to swallow. I have always said if you really don’t want war, then you really have to be prepared to fight. People don’t want war, so they shy away from anything militaristic. But you can’t do that. If there is a bully threatening you, and he knows you will not fight, you have no choice but to submit to him. But if you can resist, or you have friends that can help you resist, then it will stop. Putin is very smart. He plays chess well. He is evil and dangerous, but he is not stupid.

WWW: How do you deal with a person like that?

EK: The idea would be for Putin to realize that this is not a way to do business, that he should calm down and see that the West is really not threatening him. If anything, our overall interaction with Russia – commercial, cultural, etc. --should have made clear to the Russians that there was no threat. But the Russians have a strong history of conquests and, as I mentioned, an inferiority complex. In my mind, we need to talk this through and clarify to the Russians that we haven’t been threatening, and you, the Russians, have to accept that your aggression is not something that can be done. Bottom line: All this has to be accompanied by unambiguous signals that we will not tolerate aggressive behavior. You cannot have theoretical objections to, say, Iran becoming a nuclear power, and then not follow through, instead looking the other way when they keep moving toward acquiring a nuclear capability, looking the other way when they continue to kill Americans through terrorism.

WWW: How do you enforce that?

EK: There may be no alternative but to stand firm and say to Russia, if you don’t stop the aggression, we will react more forcefully and you cannot then complain if we accept the former Soviet states into our alliance network.

It is important to realize that this is a geopolitical problem that cannot be solved. In fact, very few problems in the international arena can be solved. They can be managed. The way they were managed in the Cold War was through deterrence. Effective deterrence meant that the Communists knew that aggression was not acceptable and that we would fight. It is when the determination to resist breaks down or is perceived to have broken down that you then get the aggressors testing the waters. And to the extent that they succeed, they push further and further.

That is why I like to use the word blackmail – because that is in essence what it is. They make an aggressive move, and if you resist, they get upset and say, “You threatened us, and we will do more.” This is very similar to demands for ransom.  Let’s say someone claims he has compromising information and that if the target doesn’t pay he will release to the public. The target pays. The blackmailer then says he kept a copy and wants more.  There is no end to it, and people will finally realize they can no longer pay. The same with kidnapping. Stopping such an unending spiral can only be done through firmness and, unfortunately, use of force.

WWW: But the nuclear threat is very terrible; it is the ultimate threat.

EK: If Putin used nuclear weapons, we would have no choice but to do the same. If he does, there would be millions dead and many more dead from radiation for years to come. But yielding to the blackmail would only create a worse situation where, at some point, people would have to say, “We can’t do that, because we then would lose our ability to do anything.”

WWW: Would Trump have done better?

EK: Well, Trump did a lot of good, but he made a lot of mistakes. Trump doesn’t seem to be familiar with the ins and outs of international relations, so he goes with his gut. The good thing about him is that he is seen as “crazy.” As a result, leaders of other countries, Russia included, could never be sure of how he would react, especially if he thought his pride had been offended. I believe they were afraid to take chances. But I don’t think Trump was pro-Russian. He thought that with his personality he could win in a lot of situations. This is a common theme of people who think very highly of themselves.

WWW: What do you think of Zelensky?

EK: It’s interesting, because he was a comedian, yet he’s showing himself to be a serious person who is quite willing to stand up for his country. I think he has some leadership qualities. But I don’t think he’s a great statesman. He’s under tremendous pressure, he’s at risk, and he’s behaving in a very courageous manner.

WWW: Do you think it’s possible for Ukraine to win?

EK: It’s out of the question in the traditional meaning of the word. What is possible is for the Ukrainians to take a heavy toll on the Russians – that is, if their resistance continues. That depends on how much help they get, if the West and the U.S. will provide more weapons, anti-tank missiles, and useful gear. I do not think Putin can continue indefinitely. Even if Ukrainians are defeated in the conventional military sense, there will be continued harassment and killing of Russians. Moscow would likely get bogged down in a long, draining exercise that would in effect be very similar to defeat. Russians are not motivated to fight. It is a dictatorship, and few are motivated with the exception of elite troops and special forces. They used these forces to take over the nuclear plant.

So it’s not a matter of Ukraine winning but of Ukraine inflicting serious casualties and damage on the Russians. Putin probably thought that he could easily get the Ukrainians do his bidding. This doesn’t look like it will happen. Even Russian-speaking Ukrainians, who Putin thought would be helpful and welcoming, are proving to be strongly against him from the accounts I have seen. So it is a very painful, costly situation for him. I think he miscalculated.

WWW: Which side should Israel be on?

EK: I think it is quite clear that they should be on the side of Ukraine, the moral side. The issue is that the Russians have played a role in the Iran-Syria conflict, where they allowed Israel to attack Iranian targets in Syria. I think that if Israel antagonizes Russia, the Russians could at relatively little cost to themselves become very nasty and help the wrong side. That is not something Israel wants. So the question is what to do. They have been trying to stay somewhere in the middle, supporting Ukraine in different ways. It’s a difficult situation to be in.

WWW: Do you have confidence in Prime Minister Bennett’s mediation of the dispute?

EK: Bennett is a lightweight who thinks he is negotiating. He is being used by Putin to create greater legitimacy for himself. Putin is making believe that he is interested in negotiating a peace when in fact he’s not. That may change if he starts to realize the Ukraine war is a “no-win” situation.  But then I’m not sure Israel will be the chosen mediator.

WWW: What do you think Biden should do now?

EK: It is almost impossible for Biden to do anything because nobody will believe him no matter what he does. Biden has lost any credibility. When Americans complain of the high prices of gas here, he goes to the Iranians and Venezuela and begs them to provide oil, instead of encouraging greater production in the United States. But he is listening to the climate people, Kerry and company. This is the world of the absurd, where there is no rhyme and reason to what the U.S. is doing. Biden keeps up the unending charade of “negotiating” the Iran Nuclear Deal, which, if it were not so serious would be a practical joke.

The United States is a laughingstock now. Just recently we saw how the Saudis and United Arab Emirates refused to take phone calls from Biden. That’s pretty serious. And you can’t blame them. The Biden administration cut off supplies to the Saudis because of human rights violations. Of course, the Saudis are not good regarding human rights, but they are fighting the Houthis in Yemen, and the Houthis are very bad; they are proxies for the Iranians. You have a situation, now, where the Houthis have hit the UAE with missiles. The Arabs realize they can’t count on the U.S. so why should they oblige and help them? By doing these things, the U.S. is hurting its own interests.

WWW: Why is the Left in this country acting contrary to our own good?

EK: One can ask: is it sheer incompetence or is it worse? Are these people acting willfully against American interests? Are they, in effect, “aiding and abetting” the enemy? You have people who want revolution; they want to destroy the constitutional system and have socialism (a euphemism for communism) in the U.S. Some have even said so openly. This started in the days of Obama. I remember reading in an Egyptian daily the names of six high Obama administration officials with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Out of the six, at least four were in national security. Obama put people from the Left in our military, law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence. You now have Pentagon generals saying we shouldn’t do things that could offend the Russians. You don’t expect that from generals.

WWW: Is there any hope for our country?

EK: Well, I don’t want to say there’s no hope, but we’ve come very far from what we used to be. Even on the Republican side, you have people with no courage or will. There are, however, some, like Nikki Haley or Governor DeSantis, who seem to have true leadership qualities. So where are we going? I don’t know. I’m normally optimistic, but here I really don’t know. I do think that what is more important than ever is davening – recognizing that everything is coming is from Hashem. He runs the world, and whatever is happening is because He wanted it to happen. Why? I would not pretend to know, but it so much defies logic that it’s difficult to understand and explain. I firmly believe that it is the Almighty who is directly involved in what is going on. Therefore, right now, davening is extremely important. And an important “action item” is to improve ourselves in our middos, in our actions, and in our service to Hashem. This is not to be underestimated. If one or two people do it, it’s not much, but if large numbers of people recognize and do it, it can alter the course of things.

WWW: What a perfect ending to a fascinating interview. Thank you.