The Shifting Sands at RAND: How Funding Influences Ukraine Policy Recommendations
A 2019 RAND Corporation study quietly assessed potential U.S. responses to russian aggression, placing “providing lethal aid to Ukraine” as a first consideration. However, a recent report from RAND offers a markedly different outlook. This shift raises a crucial question: what changed within the association over these four years? The answer, as often is the case, lies in following the money.
Let’s delve into the details and explore how funding sources can influence even the most respected think tanks.
The 2019 Assessment: A Measured Approach
The initial RAND study, focused on “Geopolitical cost-imposing measures,” viewed lethal aid to Ukraine with cautious optimism. It acknowledged both “High potential benefits and risks,” while assigning only “Moderate chances of success.” Crucially,the report cautioned that any increased U.S. involvement needed careful calibration.
Specifically, the study warned:
any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have notable advantages.
This highlights a key concern: escalation. The 2019 report dedicated seven pages to analyzing this option, detailing the conflict in the donbas region. Interestingly, it omitted any discussion of the Minsk agreements – diplomatic efforts undertaken in 2014 and 2015 to de-escalate the situation.
A Change in Tune: The 2023 Report and its Funding
Fast forward to 2023, and a new RAND report authored by Charap and Priebe presents a noticeably different tone. This shift isn’t accidental. It’s directly linked to a change in funding.
Here’s a breakdown of the key differences:
2019 study: Conducted by the RAND Arroyo Center’s Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources Program, funded by the U.S. Army – a federally funded research and advancement center (FFRDC).
2023 Study: Produced by the RAND Center for Analysis of U.S. Grand Strategy, part of the RAND National Security Research Division (NSRD). This center received initial funding from the Stand Together Trust.
And who is behind the Stand Together Trust? None other than Charles Koch, a prominent conservative and anti-war financier. He’s also a key funder of the Quincy Institute, an organization advocating for restraint in foreign policy.
Why This matters: The Influence of Funding Sources
This funding disparity is significant.It suggests that the evolving stance on Ukraine within RAND reflects a shift in priorities driven by its financial backers. You might be wondering, how does this impact the information you receive?
Bias Awareness: Understanding the funding sources helps you critically evaluate the report’s conclusions. It doesn’t necessarily invalidate the research,but it encourages a more nuanced interpretation.
Policy Implications: The recommendations within these reports can directly influence U.S. foreign policy. Knowing the underlying motivations is crucial for informed debate.
The Overton Window: The fact that a mainstream organization like RAND is now publishing a report leaning towards restraint on Ukraine – even if not strongly enough – is a positive development. It expands the range of acceptable policy options, potentially leading to more thoughtful and less escalatory approaches.
What Does This Mean for You?
as informed citizens, it’s vital to understand the forces shaping policy recommendations. The RAND example demonstrates that even seemingly objective research can be influenced by financial interests.
Here’s what you can do:
Diversify Your Sources: Don’t rely on a single think tank or news outlet. Seek out diverse perspectives.
*