Don't forget the agency of small states

We are approaching the anniversary of Hamas’s horrific terror attack on Israel. Since then, the conflict in the Middle East has, for long periods, overshadowed the war in Ukraine. Right now, it is happening again with Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah and Lebanon and Iranian air strikes on Israel. 

The objective with Hamas’ attack was probably to provoke Israel into an overreaction that could turn the world community against Israel and benefit the Palestinian cause. Israel did overreact. However horrendous the terror attack was on October 7, 2023, the Israeli response has been excessive. The human suffering caused by Israel has been so massive that it is hard to justify. There has also been a sharp reaction among many people in Western societies, with demonstrations against Israel and in support of the Palestinians.

However, looking back at it now, it is difficult to say that Hamas’s goals have been achieved. Despite sharp public criticism and cases at the International Criminal Court, Israel has more or less gotten away with its response. Western governments have criticized Israel and expressed concern about the developments. They have encouraged Israel to ease the pressure and adhere to international law, and they have tried to push Israel into a peace deal. But at the end of the day, Western governments have also continued to support Israel, no matter what it did. We have not seen strong consequences, nor have Western governments stopped cooperating with Israel or ceased providing military equipment. 

The Israeli case demonstrates a very important point in international politics: it is not always the great powers that make the rules. Small states have a say, and often it is the small states that dictate the premises to the great powers, not the other way around. 

Can Trump push Ukraine into negotiations?

This point is important to keep in mind because there is currently a significant discussion about another case where it is assumed that a great power can make decisions on behalf of a small state. It is pretty much the foundational idea behind Donald Trump’s peace plan that he can force Ukraine into an unfavorable deal by threatening to withdraw American support.

This assumption underestimates Ukraine’s agency. It would obviously be bad for Ukraine to lose American support or to see a reduction in the aid provided by the United States, but it is a mistake to assume that Ukraine does not have a say in what will happen. Just as Israel has demonstrated that it can take steps directly against the wishes of the American government, so can Ukraine. 

Until now, Ukraine has held back from taking certain steps in the way they fight the war because the Americans have asked them to. Ukraine, for example, has held back from targeting Russia’s ability to export crude oil because that would influence the prices of oil on the global market. Similarly, Ukraine has mostly refrained from interrupting gas supplies from Russia because doing so could hurt the world economy, which would not be in the interests of the countries that support Ukraine.

If the United States suddenly stops military aid to Ukraine, it will also mean that the United States no longer has a say in how the Ukrainians fight the war. Ukraine would no longer have a reason to consider whether a specific course of action would negatively impact the American economy or other American interests.

But the loss of American influence would go further than that. Back in July, there was a story about how the Russian government allegedly had intelligence about a Ukrainian plan of a devastating attack. They contacted the American government to ask them to tell the Ukrainians not to go through with these plans, which would be deeply destabilizing for the Russian government. Supposedly, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin called his Ukrainian counterpart and told him to call off the attack because the Americans were not comfortable with the potential consequences. This is the kind of leverage that the United States will no longer have if they stop the weapons support for Ukraine. 

Ukraine has agency

So, what could the Ukrainians do to put pressure on the United States to maintain support if Donald Trump is elected? We got a taste of this back in May when the Ukrainians targeted two of Russia’s highly strategic nuclear early-warning radars. This step did not serve any immediate purpose related to the war in Ukraine because these radars do not address any tasks relevant to that conflict. But, as I wrote at the time, it was an effective way to put pressure on the American government. In May, that pressure was about allowing Ukraine to strike into Russia with American weapons in connection with Russia’s Kharkiv offensive. It worked. Joe Biden permitted the use of American weapons on Russian territory. 

I think we should expect something similar to happen if Donald Trump is elected and he tries to pressure Ukraine into a peace deal where Russia gets everything and Ukraine gets nothing. They will not simply comply. They will escalate the war in a way that makes the American government uncomfortable, so the Americans will realize the need to maintain influence on the Ukrainian choices. And that influence only comes at the cost of something the Ukrainians want, namely substantial weapons assistance. 

So, when we hear these stories about how Donald Trump is going to create peace in 24 hours by forcing the Ukrainians into a peace deal on unacceptable conditions, I think it is relevant to look to Israel. Clearly, it is not the case that the United States can always dictate to smaller countries how things are supposed to play out.

Small countries have agency, and often it is the small state that drags the great power into a conflict where the great power really does not want to be engaged. The same could happen in Ukraine. Not that Ukraine will do the same as Israel, but they can also be a pain in the behind for the Americans in a way that can make it hard for Washington to leave.