www-us.org

Chapter 46: The Ghost of Kyiv

The campaign had, until this point, been a purely domestic affair, a battle over the internal systems of America. But the world does not wait for a nation to fix its own house. A sudden, violent flare-up in the war in Ukraine—a brutal Russian offensive against a civilian target—dragged the bloody reality of foreign policy onto the front page and into the war room.

The news was a grim backdrop to their morning strategy session. Marcus, true to form, argued for avoidance. “Foreign policy is a swamp, Julian,” he insisted. “A no-win. Half the country are isolationists who want to pull out completely. The other half are hawks who want to start World War Three. There is no winning move. We should stick to the economy.”

Anya, surprisingly, was the one who disagreed. She looked up from a spreadsheet displaying global supply chain data. “You cannot separate the two,” she said, her voice sharp. “Global instability has a direct, quantifiable impact on our domestic economy. It affects energy prices, shipping costs, and it drives up our long-term national debt through defense spending. A coherent foreign policy is a necessary component of a coherent economic policy.”

Julian, who had been listening silently, stood and walked to a large, clean whiteboard. He did not talk about the present. He began to draw a timeline.

He marked the year 1936. “Germany remilitarizes the Rhineland, a direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles,” he said, his voice quiet, the voice of a historian. “The world’s powers, fearing ‘escalation,’ do nothing.”

He marked 1938. “The Anschluss with Austria. Another violation. The world does nothing.” He marked the annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. “The great powers congratulate themselves on achieving ‘peace in our time.’ They have managed the crisis.”

He marked 1939. “The invasion of Poland. The beginning of a global catastrophe that will kill eighty million people.”

He looked at his team. “At every single step of the way,” he said, his voice now cold and hard, “the leaders of the free world chose the path of least resistance. They were afraid of provoking the tyrant. They passed laws, like our own Neutrality Acts, to keep themselves out. They offered just enough support to the victims to feel virtuous, but never enough to be decisive. They were trying to manage a dictator. And in doing so, they emboldened him, they fed his ambition, and they made the eventual conflict a thousand times more costly.”

He then picked up a red marker and, below his first timeline, he drew a second one. He marked 2014, the Russian annexation of Crimea. He marked the present day.

“We are making the exact same mistake,” he said. “We are managing a tyrant, hoping he will be satisfied. He will not be.”

He then laid out the foreign policy principle that would become the global extension of the MARG platform. He called it the “Doctrine of Predictable Power and Earned Goodwill.”

“America’s strength,” he explained, “should not be in its unpredictability, but in its absolute, predictable resolve. Our enemies should never have to guess what we will do. They should know, with one hundred percent certainty, that an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign democracy will be met with the full, overwhelming, and decisive weight of America’s economic and industrial power.”

“At the same time,” he continued, “our allies and the rest of the world must know that our word is our bond. That our covert operations will not undermine our public promises, and that our long-term goal is partnership, not dominance. Goodwill is a strategic asset, more valuable than an aircraft carrier.”

He translated this doctrine into a concrete policy for Ukraine. He proposed a one-time, massive aid package, representing a tiny, almost trivial, fraction of the annual U.S. defense budget. It would not be a slow drip of support. It would be a deluge of the most advanced defensive and offensive weapons in the American arsenal, enough to give Ukraine a decisive, war-ending advantage.

“This is not an act of charity,” he argued. “It is an act of ruthless self-interest. The most humane, most fiscally responsible, and most strategically sound action is to end this war, quickly and decisively. Dragging it out only serves Putin’s interests and costs the world more in blood and treasure every single day.”

He then connected it to the bigger picture. “Some will say our real enemy is China, not an economic pipsqueak like Russia. They are right about the long-term threat. But they are wrong about the strategy. If we demonstrate to the world that we do not have the resolve to stand up to a declining power with a GDP the size of Italy’s, what message do you think that sends to Beijing regarding Taiwan? Decisiveness in Ukraine is the single most effective deterrent to a future war in the Pacific.”

He delivered this message at his next public discussion. He did not shout. He did not pound the podium. He simply laid out the historical analogy, the doctrine, and the cold, hard logic of his position. It was a somber, serious, and deeply sobering speech.

In the audience that night was a Ukrainian-American woman named Olena, whose parents were still living in a Kyiv suburb. A news camera, panning the crowd, happened to catch her face as Julian laid out his argument. She was weeping, silent tears streaming down her cheeks. But she was not crying from sadness. She was crying from the profound, shocking relief of hearing an American leader finally speak with a language of moral and strategic clarity that she had despaired of ever hearing.

The clip of her face, of her quiet, cathartic tears, juxtaposed with Julian’s calm, historical lesson, became another defining, unscripted moment for the campaign. It was the moment Project MARG stepped onto the world stage.

The Discourse, Chapter 46; The Application of Historical Analogy in Strategy

Section 46.1: History as a System Model

Julian Corbin's approach to the complex, chaotic world of foreign policy is to treat history itself as a system model. His use of the 1930s appeasement of Nazi Germany is not just a rhetorical flourish for a speech; it is a genuine analytical tool. In systems thinking, a model is a simplified representation of a complex system, used to understand its behavior and predict future outcomes based on inputs. Corbin uses the rise of Hitler as a well-documented historical model for the behavior of an expansionist, autocratic regime. He identifies the key variables (the tyrant's ambition, the free world's fear of escalation, the strategy of incremental concessions) and the system's catastrophic output (a world war). By applying this model to the current situation with Russia, he is not making a simple emotional comparison (Putin = Hitler); he is making a cold, analytical prediction based on historical precedent. He is arguing that because the system's inputs are analogous, the outputs are likely to be tragically similar if the strategic approach is not fundamentally changed.

Section 46.2: The "Doctrine of Predictable Power"

Corbin's proposed foreign policy doctrine is a direct rejection of two dominant but flawed schools of American foreign policy thought.

1. Rejection of "Strategic Ambiguity": This is the idea that America should keep its adversaries guessing about its intentions, a theory popular in some realist circles. Corbin argues that this is a recipe for catastrophic miscalculation. His "Doctrine of Predictable Power" is the opposite. It posits that clarity is a more powerful deterrent than ambiguity. An enemy who knows with 100% certainty that an action will result in an overwhelming and devastating response is far less likely to take that action.

2. Rejection of Incrementalism: This is the strategy of responding to a crisis with a series of small, gradual, and often hesitant steps. Corbin argues that this is the most dangerous and costly strategy of all. It fails to deter the aggressor and, by prolonging the conflict, it maximizes the human and economic cost for all sides.

His proposed solution—a single, massive, decisive aid package—is a classic application of his "fix the system" philosophy. It is a high-leverage intervention designed to achieve a decisive outcome quickly and efficiently, rather than a low-leverage, long-term management of a perpetual crisis.

Section 46.3: "Goodwill" as a Strategic Asset

The second half of his doctrine—"Earned Goodwill"—is the crucial element that elevates his policy beyond simple realpolitik. This is a direct importation of a concept from the world of business and economics into the realm of foreign policy. In business, "goodwill" is a quantifiable intangible asset on a company's balance sheet, representing the value of its reputation, its brand, and its relationships with its customers and partners. Corbin is arguing that the same is true for a nation. America's reputation for trustworthiness, for keeping its word, and for acting as a reliable and predictable partner is a tangible strategic asset. It makes alliances stronger, it encourages trade, and it gives the nation's diplomacy more weight and influence. This is a profound argument for a foreign policy that is both moral and pragmatic.

Section 46.4: A Synthesis of Realism and Liberalism

Ultimately, the Corbin Doctrine is a synthesis of the two dominant, competing schools of international relations theory.

• Realism: Is a school of thought that emphasizes the role of power, national interest, and military strength in a chaotic world. The "Predictable Power" and "decisive support" elements of his doctrine are a classic realist argument for a strong, credible deterrent.

• Liberalism: Is a school of thought that emphasizes the role of institutions, cooperation, and shared values in creating a more peaceful world. The "Earned Goodwill" and his later "Freedom of Movement Compact" are classic liberal arguments for the power of alliances and shared democratic identity.

By seamlessly combining the hard-nosed, power-focused logic of realism with the optimistic, value-focused logic of liberalism, Corbin creates a more robust and comprehensive foreign policy. It is a philosophy that is prepared for the world as it is (a dangerous place requiring strength), but that is also actively working to build the world as it ought to be (a more cooperative and trust-based community of nations).