Reasons behind the failures of recent western foreign policy

[Nikitn]

In recent years the collective west's (EU + NATO) diplomacy has gone from dealing with one train-wreck after another. In Libya they thought getting rid of Gaddafi coupled with some bombing would magically turn the country into a stable democracy. In Syria, instead of trying to calm things down, they chose to pour gasoline on the fire by giving money and supplies to the rebels and trying to bomb the country. I guess they thought this would result into Syria turning into a stable democracy. Instead they got an ISIS nest.
In Ukraine, the EU diplomacy managed to turn a trade dispute into a full conflict with Russia by completely ignoring Russian interests and rabidly supporting the coup against Yanukovich. This resulted in a hostile Russia (which is reorienting towards China) and a Ukraine on the road to becoming a failed state. And so on.

Where does this incompetence and unwillingness to learn from previous mistakes (like Iraq) come from in our politicians? Naivety? Arrogance? Apathy? Ignorance and stupidity?

Or is at all a result of just a bit of bad luck?

[nce_wht_guy]

It's pretty obviously both. Half of the policy makers in most western countries are possessed of this child-like naivete, they really believe the bull-crap they're supposed to just feed to their population. The other half are overpaid morons.

[Bethrezen]

In Libya they thought getting rid of Gaddafi coupled with some bombing would magically turn the country into a stable democracy. In Syria, instead of trying to calm things down, they chose to pour gasoline on the fire by giving money and supplies to the rebels and trying to bomb the country. I guess they thought this would result into Syria turning into a stable democracy. Instead they got an ISIS nest.
In Ukraine, the EU diplomacy managed to turn a trade dispute into a full conflict with Russia by completely ignoring Russian interests and rabidly supporting the coup against Yanukovich. This resulted in a hostile Russia (which is reorienting towards China) and a Ukraine on the road to becoming a failed state.

The question is: did they really want to turn Lybia and Syria into democracies? Do they really care about what happens to the Ukrainians?
If the answer is no, then, I guess, the western foreign policy did not fail and everything goes according to plan.

[snuggans]

In recent years the collective west's (EU + NATO) diplomacy has gone from dealing with one train-wreck after another. In Libya they thought getting rid of Gaddafi coupled with some bombing would magically turn the country into a stable democracy.

because libya was a stable democracy before? you're right, let's go back to stable-democracy-shooting-at-your-own-civilians-with-anti-air-guns. shame on the west!

In Syria, instead of trying to calm things down, they chose to pour gasoline on the fire by giving money and supplies to the rebels and trying to bomb the country. I guess they thought this would result into Syria turning into a stable democracy. Instead they got an ISIS nest.

uhhh the coalition hasn't bombed Assad's forces once, that would be a diplomatic disaster. the coalition has actually bombed Assad's enemies. also hahahaha "instead of trying to calm things down", hahahaha, actually i have a great question, where is Putin to calm things down in Syria? Assad definitely listens to him because he is such a great influential democratic leader, why hasn't Putin calmed things down in Syria since he's the only one that is able to? please, get Putin to calm things down with all the factions in Syria. we need to turn Syria into a stable democracy! PFFTHAHAH sorry i can't type this with a straight face.

In Ukraine, the EU diplomacy managed to turn a trade dispute into a full conflict with Russia by completely ignoring Russian interests and rabidly supporting the coup against Yanukovich. This resulted in a hostile Russia (which is reorienting towards China)

have you never heard of eurasian trade unions? russia had already been "reorienting" itself towards china for a long while, it didn't happen because of Ukraine, although Ukraine definitely accelerated Russia getting bad deals with China since it puts the Chinese in a position of power when negotiating deals. also gonna need to see a source for "rabidly supporting the coup".

im sorry but this is too much paranoia, when people start suspecting legit protesters are intelligence operations. way too much paranoia and an obsession with strongmen dictators.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I think all those above mentioned disasters would have probably occurred anyway even without western intervention, and that in all honesty, there wasn't much western leaders could realistically do to avoid them. Lybia and Syria would have spiraled into civil war regardless (we had a war in Lybia with Gaddafi, and now have a war without him, and western backing of Syrian rebels was so minor compared to funding by the likes of Qatar, Iran and Saudi Arabia it hardly made any difference either way), and Ukraine was invaded by Russia because the Ukranians toppled the pro-Russian regime, not because the western powers did.

The one disaster which could have been averted was Iraq falling apart by not invading in 2003, a bit ahead of our time frame. Everything else was cooked up more by the locals and other foreign players, rather then western interference.

[Heathen Hammer]

Depends what one understands under the term "west". Usually it implies Western Europe and North America, but it is rather obvious that European states, Canada and US have different and often conflicting interests. North-American elite is mentally stuck in the 1990s, with a delusional assumption that world is unipolar and their state is world's policeman. Recent spying scandals with EU and America's alliance with states that enforce apartheid(Israel) and support religious extremism and terrorism (Saudi Arabia) didn't help much. And, of course, we have China, whose influence is growing, creating challenge for US in Pacific and Middle East as well. EU itself had seen better days, while there parties that share Eurosceptic and anti-globalist sentiments are growing in popularity, to sooner or later replace both morally and politically corrupt mainline parties, which means less support for NATO and possible creation of purely European defense alliance.

[Nikitn]

I think all those above mentioned disasters would have probably occurred anyway even without western intervention, and that in all honesty, there wasn't much western leaders could realistically do to avoid them. Lybia and Syria would have spiraled into civil war regardless (we had a war in Lybia with Gaddafi, and now have a war without him, and western backing of Syrian rebels was so minor compared to funding by the likes of Qatar, Iran and Saudi Arabia it hardly made any difference either way), and Ukraine was invaded by Russia because the Ukranians toppled the pro-Russian regime, not because the western powers did.

I'm not saying they caused those crises. The thing is how the west reacted to the events, how they just blindly supported the protesters/rebels without thinking of the consequences and the power vacuums that would follow. It's like they think bombing dictators always is the answer.

In Syria, they created the proper climate for allowing the likes of Qatar and SA to pump money into the rebels. Had it not been for Putin, they'd bomb the shite out of Assad too, and make a new ISIS-Somalia out of the country.
In Libya, the rebels never had a chance without the NATO airpower, special forces and financing.
In Ukraine, the failed western diplomacy directly caused the riots. Polish/American diplomats visiting Maidan and goading the protestors hardly helped, and neither did breaking their agreement with Yanukovich concerning re-election after the protestors toppled him.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I'm not saying they caused those crises. The thing is how the west reacted to the events, how they just blindly supported the protesters/rebels without thinking of the consequences and the power vacuums that would follow. It's like they think bombing dictators always is the answer.

In Syria, they created the proper climate for allowing the likes of Qatar and SA to pump money into the rebels. Had it not been for Putin, they'd bomb the shite out of Assad too, and make a new ISIS-Somalia out of the country.
In Libya, the rebels never had a chance without the NATO airpower, special forces and financing.
In Ukraine, the failed western diplomacy directly caused the riots. Polish/American diplomats visiting Maidan and goading the protestors hardly helped, and neither did breaking their agreement with Yanukovich concerning re-election after the protestors toppled him.

You're working under the assumption the west didn't prefer Ukraine as the site of a proxy war rather then a Russian puppet. Perhaps they got exactly what they wanted... I don't think the crisis in Ukraine had any other realistic outcomes, and the nation fighting against Russian troops is certainly a step or two higher then taking orders from them.

As for Lybia, if Gaddafi hadn't been softened up by a bombing campaign, we'd have had a Syria like situation. Just because the rebels couldn't bring Gaddafi down on their own doesn't mean his regime was effective enough to stamp them out either. If anything, it would have turned the conflict even more violent, and likely no shorter.

In Syria in the meanwhile, I don't really see how anyone can do anything to improve that mess, short of going in with an army and wiping out any of the warring factions who wouldn't stand down. Syria's not important enough for anyone to make that sort of massive investment though, which leaves us with few real options. The west is also hardly responsible for the likes of Iran and the Saudis funding proxies to fight there; they're independent actors that decide who to fund on their own power. They need neither western permission nor assistance in financially supporting whomever they like, which is why they so often end up funding anti western groups.

[Abdülmecid I]

Gaddafi would have crushed the rebels, if it hadn't been for the bombardment campaign, which started litterally the last moment. His army was about to capture Benghazi and that'd leave the rebels with Tobruk. It would be a matter of time, which would have probably been captured more easily than Benghazi, the rebel capital. Now, about Assad, I'm not so sure, but I believe that he'd also crush the opposition, in less than a year. It's a bit difficult for deserters to prevail over a professional army, except if they are strengthened by mercenaries and equipped by other countries. That being said, I wouldn't say that western foreign policy failed. They could have better results, if they had handled the situation more cleverly, but Libya, Syria and Ukraine in civl war is better than a united Libya, Syria and Ukraine with unfriendly governments.

[Nikitn]

A Ukraine with a collapsing economy and a Russia that is hostile to the EU is surely not good for the EU? What is in EU interest is trade and cooperation with both Russia and Ukraine, yet a few hawk politicians in Eastern Europe along with diplomatic ineptness managed to crash all of that.

And I'm not sure if a Syria and Libya engulfed in chaos is much good either. Sure, a long-term weakened Syria will serve Israeli interests hence the Jewish lobby in the US might be in favor for that, but can't see why a screwed Libya is good. If anything it means more terrorists and refugees close to EU borders.

You're working under the assumption the west didn't prefer Ukraine as the site of a proxy war rather then a Russian puppet. Perhaps they got exactly what they wanted... I don't think the crisis in Ukraine had any other realistic outcomes, and the nation fighting against Russian troops is certainly a step or two higher then taking orders from them.

As for Lybia, if Gaddafi hadn't been softened up by a bombing campaign, we'd have had a Syria like situation. Just because the rebels couldn't bring Gaddafi down on their own doesn't mean his regime was effective enough to stamp them out either. If anything, it would have turned the conflict even more violent, and likely no shorter.

In Syria in the meanwhile, I don't really see how anyone can do anything to improve that mess, short of going in with an army and wiping out any of the warring factions who wouldn't stand down. Syria's not important enough for anyone to make that sort of massive investment though, which leaves us with few real options. The west is also hardly responsible for the likes of Iran and the Saudis funding proxies to fight there; they're independent actors that decide who to fund on their own power. They need neither western permission nor assistance in financially supporting whomever they like, which is why they so often end up funding anti western groups.

Where did you get the notion that Libya would turn into a second Syria from without the western intervention? By late February the Libyan army was stamping out the protesters and in the process of retaking Benghazi. In addition, unlike Syria, Libya is largely flat desert so the mechanized Libyan army had a major advantage there. In addition, weapon smuggling would be much harder in Libya than Syria due to stable neighboring states and the geography. The western bombing directly caused the downfall of Gaddafi, and this again led to a Libya engulfed in a civil war.

Syria's woes are partially caused by the west using their resources to build up the FSA instead of encouraging dialogue. I already said this twice now. The entire plan seems to be get rid of Assad and everything will turn out great for us.

[Abdülmecid I]

Yeah, Gaddafi had improved his relations with the west, but not enough, imo. China still had a large presence in Libyan economy. You're wrong with the immigrants, though. Overall they have a positive role for the European economy, providing cheal labour for jobs that the european youth woudn't accept. In Ukraine, EU incorrectly estimated that Russia would easily accept the overthrow of Yanukovych, allowing the US to handle the situation more efficiently. Perhaps, you should what do you mean by the word "west", because frequently there's a conflict of interests between the US and the EU or even between the EU members themselves.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Where did you get the notion that Libya would turn into a second Syria from without the western intervention? By late February the Libyan army was stamping out the protesters and in the process of retaking Benghazi. In addition, unlike Syria, Libya is largely flat desert so the mechanized Libyan army had a major advantage there. In addition, weapon smuggling would be much harder in Libya than Syria due to stable neighboring states and the geography. The western bombing directly caused the downfall of Gaddafi, and this again led to a Libya engulfed in a civil war.

Syria's woes are partially caused by the west using their resources to build up the FSA instead of encouraging dialogue. I already said this twice now. The entire plan seems to be get rid of Assad and everything will turn out great for us.

From what I know of the highly sectarian tribal nature of Lybia's society, I doubt suppressing the rebellion would have been as simple as taking back lost ground. I'll freely admit that Lybia is outside my area of expertise however.

Syria though I'm more familiar with, and can tell you with a certainty that western involvement is minimal, to a point the FSA feels betrayed, in fact.
While Assad is getting massive support from Iran in the form of Hezbollah and locally raised backed Shia militias, as well as a bit of extra from Russia, and groups like the Al Nusra brigades are getting impressive amounts of funding from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the FSA is left with bread crumbs by comparison. A half baked training base in Turkey, medical assistance from Israel for those groups that happen to be near the border (but no cash or weapons), and foreign funding that looks like pocket change compared to what the gulf states are bringing in pretty much sums up their foreign help.
The west might have backed them up more if only they were more centralized. As it stands, the FSA is something of a blanket term for dozens of loosely affiliated militias that share roughly the same goals, and none of the command chain. While some are remarkably moderate, others have gradually turned as brutal as ISIS or Al Nusra over the course of the fighting. The FSA is, to be frank, a bad investment, which is why the west was never that heavily invested in them, or for that matter any of the other factions which proved more competent but less ideologically palatable. The one exception might be the Kurds, but there's not much point in investing in them when they're content with staying out of the war as much as possible--a sensible approach, but one that makes them rather limited as proxies.

Intervening by crippling Assad's forces like what was done to Gaddafi wouldn't shorten the conflict either. It might have, if the problem was nipped in the bud, before ISIS, Al Nusra, the FSA and the Kurds carved up Syria between them. As it stands, if someone was to take out the old regime at this stage, the rest of the factions will just keep going at it and we'd be no closer to peace then we are now; they're already spending as much time fighting each other as Assad.
Getting two warring factions around a negotiating table is hard enough. Half a dozen factions alongside all their foreign backers? Practically impossible. Like I said, nothing short of going in with a foreign army and reconquering Syria will bring an end to this conflict anytime in the foreseeable future, regardless of what the west or anyone else will do.

[Nikitn]

abdul, if the EU needed more manpower they'd just simplify the immigration procedures for 3rd world countries. Come on, why anybody would want to deal with hundreds of thousands of refugees? Economically, discounting humanitarian concerns, they are a net loss, not a gain.

Caligula, As far as I recall beforehand the big players were FSA, kurds, the Syrian army and some scattered islamists. Now the islamists have gathered into ISIS and are wreaking havoc. Don't you think it would've been best to get the main body of the FSA, the Kurds and the Syrian government to declare a ceasefire back in 2012? This would've drastically reduced the violence and impeded the growth of ISIS.
Not to mention, Obama was about to authorize bombings of Assad! This would've just helped ISIS.

And how exactly do you know the extent of NATO support to FSA?

[Caligula's_Horse]

Caligula, As far as I recall beforehand the big players were FSA, kurds, the Syrian army and some scattered islamists. Now the islamists have gathered into ISIS and are wreaking havoc. Don't you think it would've been best to get the main body of the FSA, the Kurds and the Syrian government to declare a ceasefire back in 2012? This would've drastically reduced the violence and impeded the growth of ISIS.
Not to mention, Obama was about to authorize bombings of Assad! This would've just helped ISIS.

And how exactly do you know the extent of NATO support to FSA?

Sure, a ceasefire in 2012 would have been better for everyone. Ending this entire mess of a war would be better for everyone. But people aren't rational actors, they don't do what's best for everyone. Just not how the world works.
Also remember that back when the war started, ISIS didn't exist yet, so obviously the threat they posed wasn't a factor. They're honestly still not that much of a threat to anyone but the locals; their success is more testament to Assad and the Iraqi government's weakness then their own strength. The moment ISIS goes head to head with a proper military, like say Jordan's or Israel's, they'll be torn apart in short order. ISIS is well organized for a militia, and has a good PR department, but they're not exactly the Arab Conquest come again. They're not even especially brutal by Syrian civil war standards, they just have more of a penchant for flaunting heads in front of cameras then the competition, and rake up a higher body count simply because they're a larger organization then the other militias. Which is why western efforts to deal with them are very much on the back burner.

The major players in Syria are current Assad, Hezbollah and home grown Shia militias, all propped up by Iran. The Kurds, which are largely independent (as mentioned, nobody wants to back passive players). Al Nusra, an Al-Qaeda spinoff that has a love-hate relationship with ISIS (I think they're currently under a cease fire) backed mostly by the Saudis, and comprising the largest none ISIS Sunni militia. Some other lesser Sunni Islmaist militias are also in the fight, some backed by the likes of Qatar. ISIS, which mostly supports itself through a conquered tax base and selling cut-rate oil to Turkey under the table, and the FSA, which enjoys relatively little foreign support and is more a mess then a proper faction (again with the blanket term for dozens of loosely affiliated groups).
The lack of western involvement in backing the FSA is pretty clear just from listening to the news. Moves supporting the FSA (and Kurds as well for that matter) are highly publicized, because everyone wants to at least look like they're doing something, and the FSA is the only active dog in the fight with the ideology (or rather, lack there of) that allows westerners to support it. Adding up the reports however, will still only net you pocket change compared to what the Saudis and Iranians are investing.

I don't think heavier western investment in the FSA would have helped all that much anyway. The FSA is a decentralized mess whose shortage of weapons and funds is only eclipsed but their dire need of a unified chain of command and a common set of goals more specific then "kill all the other militias that aren't FSA".