In an era of rapid geopolitical change and ongoing conflict, nuanced voices in foreign affairs commentary are increasingly in demand. Harley Lippman has established himself as one such voice, articulating a view of global engagement grounded in democratic values, national interest, and realistic assessments of international hotspots.
Lippman's foreign policy commentary spans Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East. He frames American engagement as a blend of support for democratic processes, deterrence of aggression, and strategic pressure on actors that threaten stability. "I think the Venezuelan people are suffering terribly," he said, adding that U.S. policy should aim to "liberate the Venezuelan people" by upholding the outcomes of fair elections and resisting outside domination of that nation's political and economic systems.
Once a leading oil exporter and the most prosperous country in Latin America, Venezuela and its collapse into economic hardship has had broad regional ramifications. Lippman is critical of how outside powers have used the crisis to deepen influence at the expense of ordinary citizens. "There's rampant poverty," he said. "They are living in abysmal conditions: 18% of adults have a full-time job, and 3 out of 5 families struggle to get food on the table every day. The opposition leader won with 70% of the votes in the last election, yet power remains entrenched. The United States should enforce the results of that election diplomatically."
For Lippman, the purpose of that engagement is clear. "We need to support democratic outcomes in our own hemisphere," he said. He draws a distinction between past military interventions that lacked clear objectives and modern efforts that he argues could be more successful because they are grounded in existing democratic traditions. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, which do not have a history of being a democracy, Venezuela has had a democracy for about 50 years, so this presents an opportunity for a much better outcome.
In Eastern Europe, Lippman's focus turns to Russia and Ukraine. He paints the conflict as one where strategic deterrence and support for sovereign governance are essential. "Just like the Middle East, it's difficult," he said. However, he stresses that ongoing concessions to aggression are not a viable path forward. "If a nation is winning, if it feels it has the upper hand, peace becomes more elusive," he explained. Lippman argues that more assertive support for defensive capabilities could shift dynamics, noting that financial assets frozen abroad could be directed to those resisting aggression with safeguards to prevent misuse.
"Conquerors don't stop when they're ahead, and that's why Russia has no real incentive to end this war. If they believe they can win, then the world has to make it clear that they can't," he said. "That means giving Ukraine access to frozen assets in Europe and converting them into real military capability, including long-range missiles that can shift the balance. But most importantly, it means targeting the financial engine of this aggression, Russia's oil exports."
While supporters of restraint often point to past conflicts that failed to achieve their goals, Lippman counters that these situations are different. "I agree that past interventions did not work out well," he said. "But some regions had no democratic foundation. Where democracy exists, it can be supported without repeating the mistakes of the past."
In the Middle East, Lippman describes a layered approach to stability. "We need a plan where violent actors are compelled to disarm," he said, referring to armed groups whose continued presence fuels cycles of conflict. He advocates for pressure that ensures not just temporary ceasefires, but lasting de-escalation that addresses the root causes of violence. "If those groups can regroup, they'll come back stronger, and that puts regional security at risk," he said.
Underlying these regional analyses is a consistent emphasis on measured American leadership that pairs core values with strategy. "The United States should lead with strength and address the root causes of the problem with a humanitarian approach. If we give Venezuela aid through responsible leadership, fewer people will leave Venezuela," Lippman said, emphasizing that support for democratic outcomes reinforces both moral and strategic interests. He views this approach as a way to counter external influences that undermine freedoms, from freedom of speech to freedom of religion.
While foreign policy can be complex and technical, Lippman's voice aims to demystify it for a broader audience. He frames dilemmas not as abstract puzzles but as challenges with clear stakes: support for democratic voices, deterrence of aggression that threatens alliance structures, and robust strategies that anticipate the consequences of inaction.
As global pressures evolve, voices like Lippman's contribute to a wider public conversation about America's role in the world. By grounding his perspective in both principle and pragmatism, he underscores a central belief: that leadership abroad is most effective when it advances democratic governance, empowers sovereign nations, and resists the forces that seek to destabilize the world order.
