There is one big overarching question that hangs over the Ukraine situation. It’s the question that’s most essential that we answer, as a country, for our future. So of course it has just about zero presence in the public debate. I’ll ask it anyway: why is the United States allowed to ceaselessly extend its military dominance to more and more parts of the globe, where Russia is not? Why can NATO expand indefinitely, where the United States would never allow other countries to form strategic partnerships with Russia or China? If Canada wanted to develop a strategic partnership with Russia - which is not really fantastical, given their geographic and economic entanglements - the United States would never, ever permit it. So why must Russia permit Ukraine to join NATO?
I agree with your point about Ukraine. We are talking tough and puffing our chests while gambling with Ukrainian lives, one way or the other. Further, I believe any Russian leader would share Putin's attitude toward Ukraine joining NATO. It has nothing to do with Putin's other sins in other areas.
The US is becoming the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of foreign powers: breaking things and leaving others to deal with the mess.
Below is a good piece by George Kennan from 1997 arguing that NATO expansion would doom the possibility of really, finally, ending the Cold War.
I watched that Ken Burns series on Vietnam a while back. At every step of the escalation, there was one guy in the room saying it wasn't going to work. Duly ignored, of course.
The support of the Shah, Samoza, Batista, was like the official US mission was Operation Generate Blowback.
Your last para pointed to the most important reason to avoid war. It is deeply immoral and destructive to your country over the long term to engage in wars from which your family, your friends, and your class are excused.
I don't agree with everything you say here, but you bring up some great points and this post inspired me to dig deeper into a conflict I don't know too much about. But one question.
Is America really about to go to war as you say? Are we placing thousands of troops at the border? Are we mobilizing? Are we even increasing arms to Ukraine? These aren't rhetorical questions. I really don't know. I barely read headlines these days. (Turned off most news after 2020 summer riots and Jan 6. Those stupid events depress me more than Covid).
All the tidbits I do see seem to imply that the worst we'll do if Russia invades is some real sanctions. (Which will fuck up our inflating economy and send gas prices sky high, right?)
I'm against war now too. I'm rarely for war. Iraq was a huge mistake. (Afghanistan was more complicated. I supported capturing or killing Bin Laden, which Bush fucked up. I didn't support us leaving troops there for 20 years).
Maybe there's no good answers. Like Covid, maybe what we do doesn't matter. I do think Putin is evil. I think his psyops is why we have MAGA vs WOKE. I did actually read the Mueller report. Trump wasn't his puppet but Putin was clearly involved is helping elect that retard. And he helped fan the flames of QAnon, Proud Boys, AntiFa and all the other stupid fucking things many of us believe in.
I don't think there's any good answers. I think we just have to hope nukes don't get involved. I gotta finish my coffee. I'm rambling. Someone shut me up.
Are we putting troops in Ukraine? Does Ukraine agency not matter? Or are you saying Ukraine has already been hijacked? I was strongly against the Iraq war. Our military blob learned little from Viet Nam. But I don’t see Ukraine (so far) as Iraq 2.0
I couldn't agree more. With respect to Ukraine, John Mearsheimer has been forcefully arguing for years that NATO expansion is a big mistake. I've heard him speak about Ukraine in this regard since 2014, and most recently on Andrew Sullivan's podcast. But I'm afraid Anne Applebaum's more interventionist point of view (also expressed on Sullivan's podcast, the following week) is what resonates with the US foreign policy establishment.
My partner, who is a bit more hawkish than me on foreign policy, would answer your big question as follows: the undoing of the US's role as global cop would leave in its place a dangerous power vacuum that a hostile power like China or Russia would be only too glad to fill. Obviously my counterargument to that is that the US's insistence on acting as the final arbiter of justice & purveyor of force *in itself* creates the very conditions that it claims it is trying to police. Even he, however, agrees with me that Ukraine cannot join NATO.
But his answer also illustrates the real difficulty of convincing the people in charge that restraint (or, in their derisive view, a lack of action) is the answer - it just feels counterintuitive. In an impossibly thorny situation like this, people always want to feel like they have choice and control to effect a scenario in which we get everything we want. And choosing to ignore that urge and understanding it for what it is - an illusion - requires sincere intellectual and emotional humility.
I'm hoping fear of a huge public backlash from voters (and, maybe, Putin self-interestedly deciding the risk/reward makes this effort not worth it?) will help us muddle through this mess.
Great post. Many years ago, I heard Chomsky make a similar point, and it blew my mind. Why are we allowed to do things that other countries are not? Why are we special?
Putin must be stopped…but it’s okay for us to invade and occupy countries? Why? The only difference is that we claim we’re the good guys, bombing people to help them. And because our “security” is at stake. (Russia’s security does not matter, just ours.)
When Russia “meddles” in our election (on social media), we melt down for months. But we can take out leaders we don’t like and replace them with our guy. That’s different.
The idea that we’re a force of good in the world is simply not compatible with our body count. We might do some good things on occasion, but after Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s legitimate to see us as bad guys.
This reminds me of the one the COVID posts. Yeah, it would be nice if we could "do something" to stop COVID and war, but the thing we actually can come packaged with tons of consequences and questionable efficacy.
We can't stop every war. I was despondent last year as friends, students, and family members in Armenia fought in Karabakh. I desperately wanted the US, France, and Russia to fully honor their treaty obligations and initiate an immediate ceasefire. I wanted, deep down, to at least see American drones shooting down Azerbaijani drones, if nothing else. That was the first, and hopefully last time I came close to cherishing the massive taxes I pay to the US war machine. But I also knew, deep down, that Karabakh isn't America's war any more than Yemen or Tigray are, or than Ukraine would be.
I hate, hate, hate the Russian government and military for the pain it's caused my friends in Armenia, Georgia, and Ukraine (and within Russia, for that matter). I have little patience for what-aboutism or arguments about Russia's "sphere of influence," as if proximity or historical precedent is a justification for war crimes in Chechnya and bloody adventures in Ossetia. Putin's wars are terrible, and should be opposed with every legal, non-violent method we have. But we can't fight every war.
"Authoritarian" and "government" are both a but generous with regards to Ukraine. It's a comically dysfunctional state ruled loosely by competing oligarchic interests.
There's 2 perspectives I'm reading. The notion of a war with Russia over Ukraine dismissed as an inconceivable but hyped up media/dem dog wag and this more serious cautionary take against any possibility whatsoever. Regardless of the likelihood, I'm becoming more convinced by the latter than the former. Even posturing this way seems reckless.
Coincidentally, I obtained all the Adam Curtis films over the weekend. Started re-watching all his stuff from Pandora's Box again.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on one of his newer films/series.
(pause while I duck to avoid the impending barrage of rotten fruit)
... ok, with that out of the way ...
I'm a right winger, and nobody's dove. I do not believe wars should be avoided at *any* and *all* costs. War is, occasionally, necessary.
What does, bafflingly, seem to currently separate me from hawks on the left *and* right is my now apparently archaic belief that we should only go to war as a *last* resort, when all other options have been exhausted, and only in the most remarkable circumstances (like actual wars of aggression - not "we need oil").
I am apparently even more outdated by believing that they only we should actually ever declare war is by doing it the way the constitution tells us we must - something we have not done as a nation since we declared war on Japan in 1941.
Furthermore, I still cling to the outdated notion that if we do make the horrible decision to go to war, the only option is an American victory, with the terms of ending the conflict crystal clear. We spent twenty years in Afghanistan because there was no "end goal" once the Taliban was gone - just a completely useless attempt at "nation building". Afghanistan did not want to be a country like Belgium, and was never going to be one. The war was a fiasco precisely because it had no goals, and indeed, not even an enemy who had the power to surrender to us if we "won".
America is not threatened in the Ukraine. I do not want Russia to invade Ukraine, and I want them to stop their military adventurism in the Caucuses and elsewhere. But let's be clear - I would never support America intervening militarily because as awful as it is, it is simply not worth America going to war over.
Great points about the hubris of America, as well as the reality of unintended consequences (so seldom seriously considered domestically since LBJ's War on Poverty), despite "good intentions."
"That's why a liberal international order, like a liberal domestic one, restrains the use of force"
Yes, the gov't action question - when should force be used. You say:
"Of course, I think Ukrainian citizens should determine the future of Ukraine. " But then you note that many Ukrainians support Russia, and others support America. As was true of Iraq, and Afghanistan (which you fail to much note).
"People thought we were going to war to free Iraqis, depose a dictator, and stop future terrorist attacks on the United States. Instead, we invaded Iraq to reestablish imperial dominance, ensure access to cheap oil, and to punish some vaguely Middle Eastern-looking people after we were humiliated."
Iraqis were "free" to vote - and showed they do not agree on what "they" want. The Kurd-murdering Hussein (30,000+ in one city - there's a museum there now in remembrance) was a bad guy, was deposed, and had violated 16 UNSC resolutions after his 1992 loss to US / UN forces liberating Kuwait from his invasion.
To claim the USA has reestablished imperial dominance there is silly; access to cheap Iraq oil is desirable but US action was always opposed more by Saddam 3rd type friends (enemy's enemy) than promoted by war hawks, and the "punishment" goal was against Bin Laden and Afghanistan.
"Real law" is what is enforced - so it's really a cultural law that a white guy can't use the n-word as an insult, and almost can't even say that word, at all.
"International law" fails because there is no agreed upon enforcement mechanism that can be used against the 3 Great Powers of the post-WW II world: USA, Russia (USSR), China (excl. Taiwan). The USA doesn't want to be the world's policeman, yet also refuses to be subject to any other police force.
Whatever the USA does, the realistic world should expect a lot from:
"The potential for score-settling, the likelihood of martial law, the consolidation of power by reactionary forces in Ukraine?"
How many of the pro-USA folk in Afghanistan are being rounded up and killed - how many are still able to communicate?
You make a great argument that war is hell - but non-war to allow a dictator to win is also hell, but a different hell.
"You may want us to go to war for international norms and the rule of law - but every aggressive action we take makes a mockery of both. "
IF there's a "war", it is Putin's aggressive initiation which starts the war, not the NATO expansion. Tho Putin could also sanction gas & oil going thru Ukraine towards EU NATO countries - but he hasn't yet done that economic non-dealing. Putin could also shut down other oil exports to Germany, for example, to get Germany to veto NATO expansion into Ukraine.
If one leader uses its own troops to invade a country, without "sufficient" reason, that's violation of current international law, as agreed to in various treaties. Such invasion should bring forth universal condemnation from all who want a peaceful world where national disagreements are solved without using troops. Whether the invasion is "sufficient" reason, or whether Ukraine applying to join NATO is "sufficient" reason, seems arguable. And we should all mock those claim to support one country's self-determination to join NATO while supporting semi-dictator Putin's veto of such a desire.
The USA should be giving far more weapons, and training, and non-USA personnel support those in Ukraine preparing to fight - so as to increase the cost to Putin of an invasion, and thus make it less likely for him to order an invasion.
And why is Ukraine so much more afraid of Russia invasion? Because of Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, and the Eastern Donbass areas with possibly a majority who support Russia, or a least a large number. Surprised by this reasonable news link, among others:
"there will be terrible reprisals against the many, many people in Ukraine who are loyal to the Russian state. "
What are the reprisals under Putin-supported local Ukrainian leaders against those who oppose the Russian state? The almost certainly false implication is that losing pro-Russians will face worse reprisals than losing pro-Ukrainian/pro-NATO minorities.
It's arguable that the USA lost in Afghanistan because it was unwilling to inflict, or support the infliction of, reprisals against Taliban supporters which were as bad as the reprisals the Taliban was willing to impose on USA supporters. I'm sure it's at least on the significant reasons - and part of why war is hell. And often better to not be involved so as to avoid being "evil enough to win".
There's lots of Slovaks in neighboring Slovakia who oppose the US, and NATO, and support Russia, and even are nostalgic for the solidarity of socialism before 1989.
I agree with your point about Ukraine. We are talking tough and puffing our chests while gambling with Ukrainian lives, one way or the other. Further, I believe any Russian leader would share Putin's attitude toward Ukraine joining NATO. It has nothing to do with Putin's other sins in other areas.
The US is becoming the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of foreign powers: breaking things and leaving others to deal with the mess.
Below is a good piece by George Kennan from 1997 arguing that NATO expansion would doom the possibility of really, finally, ending the Cold War.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html?searchResultPosition=1
Every word.
I watched that Ken Burns series on Vietnam a while back. At every step of the escalation, there was one guy in the room saying it wasn't going to work. Duly ignored, of course.
The support of the Shah, Samoza, Batista, was like the official US mission was Operation Generate Blowback.
Your last para pointed to the most important reason to avoid war. It is deeply immoral and destructive to your country over the long term to engage in wars from which your family, your friends, and your class are excused.
I don't agree with everything you say here, but you bring up some great points and this post inspired me to dig deeper into a conflict I don't know too much about. But one question.
Is America really about to go to war as you say? Are we placing thousands of troops at the border? Are we mobilizing? Are we even increasing arms to Ukraine? These aren't rhetorical questions. I really don't know. I barely read headlines these days. (Turned off most news after 2020 summer riots and Jan 6. Those stupid events depress me more than Covid).
All the tidbits I do see seem to imply that the worst we'll do if Russia invades is some real sanctions. (Which will fuck up our inflating economy and send gas prices sky high, right?)
I'm against war now too. I'm rarely for war. Iraq was a huge mistake. (Afghanistan was more complicated. I supported capturing or killing Bin Laden, which Bush fucked up. I didn't support us leaving troops there for 20 years).
Maybe there's no good answers. Like Covid, maybe what we do doesn't matter. I do think Putin is evil. I think his psyops is why we have MAGA vs WOKE. I did actually read the Mueller report. Trump wasn't his puppet but Putin was clearly involved is helping elect that retard. And he helped fan the flames of QAnon, Proud Boys, AntiFa and all the other stupid fucking things many of us believe in.
I don't think there's any good answers. I think we just have to hope nukes don't get involved. I gotta finish my coffee. I'm rambling. Someone shut me up.
Are we putting troops in Ukraine? Does Ukraine agency not matter? Or are you saying Ukraine has already been hijacked? I was strongly against the Iraq war. Our military blob learned little from Viet Nam. But I don’t see Ukraine (so far) as Iraq 2.0
I couldn't agree more. With respect to Ukraine, John Mearsheimer has been forcefully arguing for years that NATO expansion is a big mistake. I've heard him speak about Ukraine in this regard since 2014, and most recently on Andrew Sullivan's podcast. But I'm afraid Anne Applebaum's more interventionist point of view (also expressed on Sullivan's podcast, the following week) is what resonates with the US foreign policy establishment.
My partner, who is a bit more hawkish than me on foreign policy, would answer your big question as follows: the undoing of the US's role as global cop would leave in its place a dangerous power vacuum that a hostile power like China or Russia would be only too glad to fill. Obviously my counterargument to that is that the US's insistence on acting as the final arbiter of justice & purveyor of force *in itself* creates the very conditions that it claims it is trying to police. Even he, however, agrees with me that Ukraine cannot join NATO.
But his answer also illustrates the real difficulty of convincing the people in charge that restraint (or, in their derisive view, a lack of action) is the answer - it just feels counterintuitive. In an impossibly thorny situation like this, people always want to feel like they have choice and control to effect a scenario in which we get everything we want. And choosing to ignore that urge and understanding it for what it is - an illusion - requires sincere intellectual and emotional humility.
I'm hoping fear of a huge public backlash from voters (and, maybe, Putin self-interestedly deciding the risk/reward makes this effort not worth it?) will help us muddle through this mess.
Great post. Many years ago, I heard Chomsky make a similar point, and it blew my mind. Why are we allowed to do things that other countries are not? Why are we special?
Putin must be stopped…but it’s okay for us to invade and occupy countries? Why? The only difference is that we claim we’re the good guys, bombing people to help them. And because our “security” is at stake. (Russia’s security does not matter, just ours.)
When Russia “meddles” in our election (on social media), we melt down for months. But we can take out leaders we don’t like and replace them with our guy. That’s different.
The idea that we’re a force of good in the world is simply not compatible with our body count. We might do some good things on occasion, but after Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s legitimate to see us as bad guys.
This reminds me of the one the COVID posts. Yeah, it would be nice if we could "do something" to stop COVID and war, but the thing we actually can come packaged with tons of consequences and questionable efficacy.
We can't stop every war. I was despondent last year as friends, students, and family members in Armenia fought in Karabakh. I desperately wanted the US, France, and Russia to fully honor their treaty obligations and initiate an immediate ceasefire. I wanted, deep down, to at least see American drones shooting down Azerbaijani drones, if nothing else. That was the first, and hopefully last time I came close to cherishing the massive taxes I pay to the US war machine. But I also knew, deep down, that Karabakh isn't America's war any more than Yemen or Tigray are, or than Ukraine would be.
I hate, hate, hate the Russian government and military for the pain it's caused my friends in Armenia, Georgia, and Ukraine (and within Russia, for that matter). I have little patience for what-aboutism or arguments about Russia's "sphere of influence," as if proximity or historical precedent is a justification for war crimes in Chechnya and bloody adventures in Ossetia. Putin's wars are terrible, and should be opposed with every legal, non-violent method we have. But we can't fight every war.
If you want to have a brain aneurysm, I suggest you listen to this interview with Democratic Rep Jeffrey Meeks, where he quotes Martin Luther King's "an injustice anywhere" as a justification for continuous US troop and weapons buildup in eastern Europe: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/28/1076514284/a-congressional-delegation-visits-kyiv-to-pledge-solidarity-with-ukraine
This has been the farthest left position allowed on NPR since this crisis began
"Authoritarian" and "government" are both a but generous with regards to Ukraine. It's a comically dysfunctional state ruled loosely by competing oligarchic interests.
There's 2 perspectives I'm reading. The notion of a war with Russia over Ukraine dismissed as an inconceivable but hyped up media/dem dog wag and this more serious cautionary take against any possibility whatsoever. Regardless of the likelihood, I'm becoming more convinced by the latter than the former. Even posturing this way seems reckless.
Coincidentally, I obtained all the Adam Curtis films over the weekend. Started re-watching all his stuff from Pandora's Box again.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on one of his newer films/series.
First of all, I'm a right winger
(pause while I duck to avoid the impending barrage of rotten fruit)
... ok, with that out of the way ...
I'm a right winger, and nobody's dove. I do not believe wars should be avoided at *any* and *all* costs. War is, occasionally, necessary.
What does, bafflingly, seem to currently separate me from hawks on the left *and* right is my now apparently archaic belief that we should only go to war as a *last* resort, when all other options have been exhausted, and only in the most remarkable circumstances (like actual wars of aggression - not "we need oil").
I am apparently even more outdated by believing that they only we should actually ever declare war is by doing it the way the constitution tells us we must - something we have not done as a nation since we declared war on Japan in 1941.
Furthermore, I still cling to the outdated notion that if we do make the horrible decision to go to war, the only option is an American victory, with the terms of ending the conflict crystal clear. We spent twenty years in Afghanistan because there was no "end goal" once the Taliban was gone - just a completely useless attempt at "nation building". Afghanistan did not want to be a country like Belgium, and was never going to be one. The war was a fiasco precisely because it had no goals, and indeed, not even an enemy who had the power to surrender to us if we "won".
America is not threatened in the Ukraine. I do not want Russia to invade Ukraine, and I want them to stop their military adventurism in the Caucuses and elsewhere. But let's be clear - I would never support America intervening militarily because as awful as it is, it is simply not worth America going to war over.
Great points about the hubris of America, as well as the reality of unintended consequences (so seldom seriously considered domestically since LBJ's War on Poverty), despite "good intentions."
"That's why a liberal international order, like a liberal domestic one, restrains the use of force"
Yes, the gov't action question - when should force be used. You say:
"Of course, I think Ukrainian citizens should determine the future of Ukraine. " But then you note that many Ukrainians support Russia, and others support America. As was true of Iraq, and Afghanistan (which you fail to much note).
"People thought we were going to war to free Iraqis, depose a dictator, and stop future terrorist attacks on the United States. Instead, we invaded Iraq to reestablish imperial dominance, ensure access to cheap oil, and to punish some vaguely Middle Eastern-looking people after we were humiliated."
Iraqis were "free" to vote - and showed they do not agree on what "they" want. The Kurd-murdering Hussein (30,000+ in one city - there's a museum there now in remembrance) was a bad guy, was deposed, and had violated 16 UNSC resolutions after his 1992 loss to US / UN forces liberating Kuwait from his invasion.
To claim the USA has reestablished imperial dominance there is silly; access to cheap Iraq oil is desirable but US action was always opposed more by Saddam 3rd type friends (enemy's enemy) than promoted by war hawks, and the "punishment" goal was against Bin Laden and Afghanistan.
"Real law" is what is enforced - so it's really a cultural law that a white guy can't use the n-word as an insult, and almost can't even say that word, at all.
"International law" fails because there is no agreed upon enforcement mechanism that can be used against the 3 Great Powers of the post-WW II world: USA, Russia (USSR), China (excl. Taiwan). The USA doesn't want to be the world's policeman, yet also refuses to be subject to any other police force.
Whatever the USA does, the realistic world should expect a lot from:
"The potential for score-settling, the likelihood of martial law, the consolidation of power by reactionary forces in Ukraine?"
How many of the pro-USA folk in Afghanistan are being rounded up and killed - how many are still able to communicate?
You make a great argument that war is hell - but non-war to allow a dictator to win is also hell, but a different hell.
"You may want us to go to war for international norms and the rule of law - but every aggressive action we take makes a mockery of both. "
IF there's a "war", it is Putin's aggressive initiation which starts the war, not the NATO expansion. Tho Putin could also sanction gas & oil going thru Ukraine towards EU NATO countries - but he hasn't yet done that economic non-dealing. Putin could also shut down other oil exports to Germany, for example, to get Germany to veto NATO expansion into Ukraine.
If one leader uses its own troops to invade a country, without "sufficient" reason, that's violation of current international law, as agreed to in various treaties. Such invasion should bring forth universal condemnation from all who want a peaceful world where national disagreements are solved without using troops. Whether the invasion is "sufficient" reason, or whether Ukraine applying to join NATO is "sufficient" reason, seems arguable. And we should all mock those claim to support one country's self-determination to join NATO while supporting semi-dictator Putin's veto of such a desire.
The USA should be giving far more weapons, and training, and non-USA personnel support those in Ukraine preparing to fight - so as to increase the cost to Putin of an invasion, and thus make it less likely for him to order an invasion.
And why is Ukraine so much more afraid of Russia invasion? Because of Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, and the Eastern Donbass areas with possibly a majority who support Russia, or a least a large number. Surprised by this reasonable news link, among others:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/28/ukraine-and-russia-explained-in-maps-and-charts-interactive
This claim is important:
"there will be terrible reprisals against the many, many people in Ukraine who are loyal to the Russian state. "
What are the reprisals under Putin-supported local Ukrainian leaders against those who oppose the Russian state? The almost certainly false implication is that losing pro-Russians will face worse reprisals than losing pro-Ukrainian/pro-NATO minorities.
It's arguable that the USA lost in Afghanistan because it was unwilling to inflict, or support the infliction of, reprisals against Taliban supporters which were as bad as the reprisals the Taliban was willing to impose on USA supporters. I'm sure it's at least on the significant reasons - and part of why war is hell. And often better to not be involved so as to avoid being "evil enough to win".
There's lots of Slovaks in neighboring Slovakia who oppose the US, and NATO, and support Russia, and even are nostalgic for the solidarity of socialism before 1989.