What If Trump Wants Goliath to Win?
Deep Dives
Explore related topics with these Wikipedia articles, rewritten for enjoyable reading:
-
Goliath
13 min read
The article's central metaphor and analytical framework - understanding the original Biblical narrative, its historical interpretations, and how it became a universal symbol for asymmetric conflict would deepen the reader's appreciation of how this archetype shapes foreign policy thinking
-
Russo-Ukrainian war
16 min read
The article discusses specific military operations and diplomatic negotiations but assumes familiarity with the broader conflict - a comprehensive understanding of the war's origins, major phases, and current state provides essential context for the author's analysis of American foreign policy responses
-
Appeasement
13 min read
The article implicitly critiques Western diplomatic approaches that pressure Ukraine to make concessions to Russia - understanding the historical concept of appeasement, particularly regarding 1930s Europe, illuminates the author's concerns about forcing a weaker party to cede territory to an aggressor
Note from TS: from time to time on Thinking about... we will listen to other voices on important topics. Nataliya Gumenyuk is a leading reporter on war and politics, known for her work in the Middle East and in Ukraine. Here she reflects on how we think about the Russo-Ukrainian war. The Biblical image from which she begins, of David and Goliath has powerful resonances in our own time. This essay can be read as a discussion of a certain problem in American foreign policy, but also implicitly as a discussion of the role that archetypes and prejudices play in foreign policy.
Pretty much every week I notice that Ukraine figures in international news as a David fighting against a Goliath. A Polish colleague just me asked whether the book I’m writing about the Russian war against Ukraine would have the word “David” in its title, since I also write about other things that begin with the letter “d”: decentralization and democratization. I laughed, because for quite a while I have indeed been thinking about the image of David and Goliath in the context of Ukrainian-American relations.
The metaphor of a struggle of David against Goliath tends to resurface each time we have to deal with another burst of so-called “negotiations,” when American leaders say, for example, that the Ukrainian president has few cards, and therefore must make concessions. If Russia is a Goliath, if that image is what matters, then Ukraine’s arguments and indeed the actual correlation of forces on the battlefield do not matter. On the force of a stereotype, or an archetype, the White House insists (now, as several times before) that Ukraine must enter an agreement which would worsen not only the current battlefield situation but grant Russia things that it could not in fact get without American help.
The classic example of this, which has emerged several times and just emerged again this month, is that Ukraine must cede to Moscow the full Donetsk region, which Russia is not capable of taking. It is the best-defended section of the front line, which of course is why Russia wants American help to get it without a fight. It is certainly possible to imagine Ukrainians accepting a full ceasefire; but this text did not even provide for one, focusing instead only on such concessions to Russia.
We are told that international relations is a realm of interests ...
This excerpt is provided for preview purposes. Full article content is available on the original publication.