Photo From: (Pedro Portal/El Nuevo Herald/TNS)

Ron DeSantis is right about Russia and Ukraine: It is a Territorial Conflict

By Robert G. Rabil

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida drew swift condemnations from establishment Republicans. They are wrong; the governor said what many have been blind and oblivious to, and these hawkish Republican critics have a warped, ill-informed view.

It is warped because DeSantis rightly said that the fight today is not about Kyiv; it’s about Crimea and Donbas, historically disputed territories and, therefore, not of vital interest to the United States.

Crimea and its vicinity in eastern-southern Russia figured prominently in Moscow’s drive to expand, protect and project the power of the Tsarist Empire. Peter the Great set his sights on the Sea of Azov and Crimea early on. He seized the Azov fortress from the Ottomans, formerly known as Azak fortress, overlooking the port of Azov, and in September 1698, he founded the first Russian Navy base, Taganrog, on the Sea of Azov. Catherine the Great seized Crimea and its vicinity in 1774, whereupon Moscow established its strategic naval base at Sevastopol, which has served as the main base of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. Moscow established a strategic foothold on the Black Sea and projected its power over the restive Caucuses. From Moscow’s past to the present, Crimea and Donbas have constituted a center of geopolitical gravity and prestige for Moscow as a big power. Secretary General of the Communist party Nikita Khrushchev annexed Crimea to Ukraine in 1955 when it was part of the Soviet Union. And although Russians make up a plurality in Crimea, it was incorporated in sovereign Ukraine when Russia was weak and barely surviving as a state.

So, indeed, DeSantis is right. Donbas and Crimea are disputed territories and not of vital interest because Americans are asked to sacrifice over historically, demographically and politically conflicted sub-regions, potentially leading to nuclear war, which the governor rightly considers an unacceptable risk.

Moreover, how can anyone dispute what the governor said — that the Biden administration has no defined objectives about the war! What is it: save the Kyiv regime and admit it to EU and NATO? Defeat Russia, including in Crimea and Donbas? Remove Putin’s regime? Partition Russia?

Clearly, the governor knew that Russia lost Kyiv. Russians were pushed to Crimea and Donbas. 

There is a reason to be concerned about any attempt to seize these territories, partly because they are disputed and constitute a geopolitical center of gravity for Moscow and partly because Russian President Vladimir Putin (and Russian leadership) cannot concede defeat. They will most likely use nuclear weapons to hold onto them. Whereas Putin has often implied the threat of nuclear weapons, other Russian leaders have been pointedly clear about using them. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently emphasized that “the defeat of a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger a nuclear war.” Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, said in a sermon: “We pray to the Lord that he bring the madmen to reason and help them understand that any desire to destroy Russia will mean the end of the world.”

To be sure, is the war over freedom? In part it is, but in part, it’s about Western and Russian geopolitical mistakes that could lead to a third world war, and in part, it’s about the fight to shape a new world order. The foreign policy establishment has to remove its blinders and see that most of the world has not sanctioned Russia, and many countries today, including our allies, are trying to shape a multipolar world.

Those Republicans condemning the governor’s statements and vision need to realize that the post-World War II order has ended and Washington can no longer base the orientation of its foreign policy in a spent era. In fact, lacking definite objectives for the war, Washington’s decision-making process has been steadily influenced by European leaders and war enthusiasts who would like to see NATO involved against Russia and thus bring the U.S. into a direct conflict with Russia.

Since the first Gulf War, U.S. foreign policy has been steeped in the American insularity of unipolar power, wrapped in black-and-white moral declarations irrespective of geopolitical considerations and weaponized. DeSantis broke with this hackneyed conventional wisdom, embracing a pragmatist foreign policy approach grounded in history, geopolitics and geography and protecting U.S. national security and humanity.

*Robert G. Rabil is professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University. He is the author of Embattled Neighbors: Syria, Israel and Lebanon (2003); Syria, United States and the War on Terror in the Middle East (2006); Religion, National Identity and Confessional Politics in Lebanon: The Challenge of Islamism (2011); Salafism in Lebanon: From Apoliticism to Transnational Jihadism (2014); The Syrian Refugee Crisis in Lebanon: The Double Tragedy of Refugees and Impacted Host Communities (2016); and most recently White Heart (2018). The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of FAU. He can be reached @robertgrabil.