Lessons From Kirkpatrick

Jeane Kirkpatrick's realism remains relevant to Ukraine today.

In her essay for Commentary Magazine published in 1979, future UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick discussed the dangers posed by the Carter Administration's desire to force democratization at an unrealistic pace. Nations such as Iran, Nicaragua, Angola, and others were heavily pushed by the US to liberalize their governments, in the hopes they would become full-fledged democracies. While pushing for more authoritarian regimes to begin this process the United States inadvertently helped to establish several states that were either funded by the Soviet Union or led by anti-American leaders. Most notably, American foreign policy under the Carter administration allowed for the rise of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the fall of the Shah of Iran, which resulted in the Ayatollah coming to power. 

“In each country, the Carter administration not only failed to prevent the undesired outcome, it actively collaborated in the replacement of moderate autocrats friendly to American interests with less friendly autocrats of extremist persuasion.”

Kirkpatrick details how many in the foreign policy establishment at the time were far more focused on the end goal, rather than seeing how the means to that end created more issues than the current state of those regimes. While many rightfully pointed out that the Shah and Somoza were not entirely concerned with political virtue or social justice in their regimes, their desire to bring about more democratic societies led to the collapse of American allies and the eventual creation of American enemies. When examining their record, Kirkpatrick points out that while they were not close to being pinnacles of liberal societies, both Iran and Nicaragua were staunch American allies.

“The Shah and Somoza were not only anti-Communist, they were positively friendly to the U.S., sending their sons and others to be educated in our universities, voting with us in the United Nations, and regularly supporting American interests and positions even when these entailed personal and political cost.”

When looking at why these results occurred, Kirkpatrick examined how both the Sandinistas and the Ayatollah managed to come to power. Both Iran and Nicaragua faced serious internal pressures from what would have been noted to be anti-American forces. Kirkpatrick summarizes both cases as being similar to that of others at the time. The summary goes that an established American ally (an autocracy of some sort) faces internal struggles with insurgents who are often backed by American enemies, most often the Soviets. This then often led to American officials ignoring the obvious Marxist origins of these insurgents and led to questions of whether or not the current regime was viable. Liberals would often decry the lack of an opposition party within these governments as violence between the regime and the rebels increases. Finally, it would end with American officials delaying aid and eventually encouraging the regime to enact some form of democratic measures. This push for democratization would dilute the autocrat's power and give way to the rise of anti-American forces within the nation. 

So how can Kirkpatrick’s thesis be applied to Ukraine in this case? If those of a more realist persuasion, Kirkpatrick being one of them, are out to expose Ukraine for its worrisome developments as previously mentioned before, it seems the last thing that should be pushed for is either a withdrawal of support for Ukraine or a pedal to the metal push for liberalization. Both of these would result in exactly what Kirkpatrick pointed out in the cases of Iran and Nicaragua.

“In each of these countries, the American effort to impose liberalization and democratization on a government confronted with violent internal opposition not only failed but actually assisted the coming to power of new regimes in which ordinary people enjoy fewer freedoms and less personal security than under the previous autocracy–regimes, moreover, hostile to American interests and policies.”

Ukraine’s Faults: Both Overstated and Apparent 

The issue of Ukraine has been the talk of many of those on the right for the last two years.  When Russia invaded, many on the right stood firmly in opposition to Russia’s clear act of aggression against its smaller neighbor. Elise Stefanik, who replaced Liz Cheney in the House Leadership elections, voiced her disgust with the Russian regime’s actions, calling Putin a “gutless, bloodthirsty, authoritarian dictator.” Senator Josh Hawley, one of the more prominent populists in the party, also condemned Putin’s actions and even demanded President Biden to “hit Vladimir Putin where it hurts, beginning with Russia’s energy sector.” The war seemed to unite most Republicans.

Today, however, some Republicans are beginning to backpedal on their initial support for Ukraine, and others are voicing their belief that we should cut off aid entirely. Many of those backpedaling their support tend to make realist arguments about the validity of the cause in Ukraine, and whether a viable path is open toward a Ukrainian victory. Others are taking similar realist views but seem to be blinded by more idealist lenses. 

Figures such as Senators Rand Paul and J.D. Vance, former Fox commentator Tucker Carlson, and senior members of the Heritage Foundation often argue against Ukraine on a myriad of issues such as spending, or other foreign policy implications; they all make the same mistakes when arguing from a realist perspective. One of their arguments against funding Ukraine comes down to the fact that they believe Ukraine is not a democracy and that it is a regime rife with corruption and totalitarianism. They point to recent developments such as the banning of the Orthodox Church, the “torture” of a journalist, and the delaying of elections. While some criticisms of Ukraine are indeed fair and accurate, many others are greatly exaggerated and even false.

Corruption

When it comes to the more legitimate critiques, Ukraine has indeed suffered through corruption issues. Every year Transparency International releases new statistics on the level of corruption in countries. In 2023 Ukraine was ranked as the 104th most corrupt country in the world out of 180, a lower rating than Russia to be sure but one still higher than most Western countries. J.D. Vance often promotes the idea that Ukraine is so corrupt that we, in fact, have no idea where any of the aid we give them goes. In his words, “We simply have no idea where a lot of our money to Ukraine has gone.” The issue of corruption, as Adrian Karatnycky points out, is one which the country has been haunted by for some time now. “While Ukraine still carries an international reputation for endemic corruption, it has made major strides in the past decade. A 2018 report by the Kyiv-based Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting (IER), refereed by leading Western experts, documented four years of major anti-corruption reforms in the aftermath of the 2013-2014 Maidan protests, which ousted uber-corrupt President Viktor Yanukovych.” 

This, however, does not mean that the nation has not moved towards addressing the issues. After the 2014 protests, the Ukrainian government sought to introduce a slew of anti-corruption reforms to curb this issue. Since 2014, the Ukraine government has tackled corruption issues regarding government procurement, banking, and energy. After Zelenskky was elected to office he retained and in fact expanded much of the anti-corruption measures associated with its energy industry, which has been notorious for being one of the major sources of its corruption problem. According to Adrian Karatnycky, “Before the reforms, Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt gas market alone had sucked billions of dollars in shady profits out of the state treasury. In the years before the all-out war, gas sector reforms added approximately $3 billion to the state budget.” Last year saw the arrest and criminal case against Dmytro Firtash, an oligarch who embezzled $484 million from the nation's treasury and was also wanted by the United States. 

The efforts made by the Ukrainian government have helped see a major shift towards lowering corruption, with the country now ranking forty places better than it did almost a decade ago. Russia on the other hand, has seen a dramatic increase in its corruption ratings, dropping its rank to 141 out of 180. In regards to Ukraine aid, J.D. Vance’s remarks are false. According to Rebeccah Heinrichs at the Hudson Institute, “The American oversight of the weapons flow is likewise unprecedented in modern warfare,” later restating that much of the money spent in aid for Ukraine is spent in our own country and helps to replenish our stocks of armaments.

Ukraine’s Democratic Status 

We must also acknowledge that Ukraine is not a perfect democracy nor is what we would deem a fleshed-out democracy. Ukraine is not the UK or the United States of Eastern Europe. When examining this year's ranking of Ukraine in the Freedom House scores, we see it declined roughly 11 points from 2022. This decline comes from a series of changes in their electoral system as well as a move to curb civil liberties. Their electoral system saw several changes to the system by which parties can be established. In May 2022, President Zelenskyy “signed a law banning political parties that justify, recognize as legitimate, or deny Russian aggression against Ukraine.” Much like the fascist sympathizers who were interned under Churchill, Zelenskky sees that internal fights between pro-Russian, and often Russian-backed, political parties would throw the country into an electoral nightmare. 

Much like Hungary, a nation whose government seems to draw praise from various corners within the populist right, Ukraine is classified as a hybrid democracy. Like other Eastern European nations, both are still attempting to recover from their Soviet past. Kirkpatrick touches on this very point. She notes that what we view as being traditional authoritarian regimes, such as the case of Iran, often have an easier time converting to a democracy than nations that have experienced a Marxist past. 

“[Traditional autocrats] do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope.... [Revolutionary Communist regimes] claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands.”

It is because of how much of a role a Marxist-oriented government plays in a society that nations that have experienced such regimes are often affected on an entirely different level than those under a traditional autocrat. While Ukraine is certainly not under the thumb of the Shah, it is still a fragile democracy, seeking to move from its communist past toward a more open and free society.

Jake Kroesen graduated from the University of Central Missouri with a BS in Political Science and International Law. His writings have appeared in National Review and The Vital Center.