621 Comments
author

Look you guys can dance and sing all you want. What's eminently clear here is that we've got a lot of people who are too sophisticated to just say "America, fuck yeah!" but who are not in a position to actually have a rational, underlying philosophy that would theoretically constrain the use of American force but would permit such force in defense of Ukraine. The underlying question remains: the United States does not permit antagonistic foreign powers to station troops in close proximity to our shores, but reserves the right to do so for itself in perpetuity. Now another country, one that has significant military capability, is taking aggressive military action to forestall the possibility of America spreading its troops even wider. Whatever else is true, that is true, that this war is taking place over the fear of even greater American influence in what Russia sees as its sphere. Does Russia have a right to invade Ukraine? Of course not. Has American action made such an invasion inevitable? Yes. Has anyone here proffered a remotely compelling argument for how America could be seen by a neutral party to have the right to invade other countries where Russia does not? No, and there's a kind of desperation to most efforts to do so.

Just say "America, fuck yeah!" Just do it. The scrambling is unbecoming. I at least understand arguments of the type, the "we're us and they're them and that's why" arguments. Otherwise I'm just not seeing coherent and consistently-applied moral philosophies of foreign policy being voiced here. If I saw a single one I would respond to it. Instead it's mostly "well Ukrainians are all good liberal democrats so we should fight for them," which is a) based on a shaky premise and b) just another way to say "they're like us, so the world should favor them."

Really poor showing all around here.

Expand full comment
Mar 1, 2022·edited Mar 1, 2022

I agree with all this, but I don’t think this summary gives other countries enough agency. Why did the Baltic states want to be part of NATO? Not to be a tool for imperialism. Rather, they had an incredibly unstable and dangerous neighbor and wanted protection, in the same way that Ukraine and Georgia (edit: and now Finland!) want protection from their neighbor.

I get that Russia reasonably may not want to tolerate NATO as a neighbor. But part of the response is to transform yourself into the kind of country that people aren’t afraid of being invaded by!

I’ve been a total anti-imperialist ever since the Libya “decapitation,” and suspicious of American force since well before that. But I can still pull out my “American democracy hegemon” cap out when needed, and when I do, the question “Should we deny assistance to a liberal democracy who comes seeking protection from a dangerous authoritarian neighbor?” is a pretty tricky one.

Of course, Ukraine isn’t really a liberal democracy yet, and so incorporating them feels more like aggression against Russia. But I think that, as global citizens, we should at least be considering these countries’ needs and desires as well in making our calculations.

Expand full comment
Mar 1, 2022·edited Mar 1, 2022

I like Freddie a lot and respect his ability and willingness to state his perspective forthrightly, that I why I am a subscriber. However, in this case I could not disagree more with this line of argument.

The idea that Russia's invasion is motivated by NATO presence in Poland and Baltic does not hold up given Putin's own words in his pre-invasion speech. He made an explicitly imperialistic case for reclaiming Ukraine as part of historic Russia.

Also, the idea that NATO forces are the threat to Russia don't really hold water. Even if the US was interested in aggression toward Russia, which we have not been, we could not force the issue in the context of NATO. Western Europe has been so tied up with the Russians on energy and global finance that it would have run counter to all interest to show any kind of agression toward Russia. Plus, NATO has been and is a defensive alliance that, Afghanistan aside (which was admittedly odd for NATO to be involved), has not had a history of offensive wars of conquest, unlike someone else involved. Putin's real fear is the presence of democracy on his borders.

Current events made the desire to join NATO on the part of Poland and the Baltic rather prescient. Maybe the people of the nations that have be conquered and partitioned over and over think a bulwark against that threat of conquest was a good idea. If Putin wanted to slow or limit the reach of NATO he could not have made a more foolish decision. This invasion will obviously drive other border states closer to Europe and the US. It is already happening with Finland and Sweden, and without a doubt will happen with Ukraine if they survive this invasion.

Expand full comment

"If you would like to prevent them from developing that capability, on the sensible reasoning that the last thing the world needs is more nukes, then we could try yet another round of sanctions that will inevitably harm the poorest Iranians and potentially even strengthen the regime. Or we could ask whether the American sword of Damocles hanging forever over their heads makes them feel they have no other choice, and pursue a more sensible policy by drawing down our military presence in the greater Middle East."

If every U.S. troop in the world came home tomorrow, Iran would definitely still be seeking the bomb, and Russia would definitely still be expanding eastward. [EDIT: westward] You know this is true.

You can be fine with that, you can say it's not our problem. You can make plenty of arguments why the U.S. should pursue different strategies. But the idea that we are CAUSING other countries' violence, and they would all be nice little boys and girls if only they weren't so afraid of the big bad U.S., is unbelievable overreach.

As just one example -- why did Russia attack Georgia? What did that have to do with NATO? Nothing.

NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT AMERICA.

Expand full comment

I cannot think of a more apt situation than Russia invading Ukraine in which to tell Americans: "Not everything is about you."

Russia is an imperialist, bellicose, glory-obsessed non-democracy that has a long history of winning wars and probably significantly fewer internal movements that call out things like colonialism or call for de-escalation and stability. America isn't responsible for Russian ethos.

But, ok.

Expand full comment

Ukraine was never going to join NATO as long as Russia held Donbass and Luhansk and Crimea; NATO doesn't accept countries with disputed borders. Russia knew this, it had what it wanted from the status quo. Nothing you wrote explains/justifies the recent additional invasion and bombardment of large civilian population.

Expand full comment
Mar 1, 2022·edited Mar 1, 2022

“ The United States is the greatest source for evil and destruction since the fall of the Third Reich.”

First of all that’s just factually incorrect. Second you’re just reciting leftist talking points.

Imagine you hear some doctrinaire liberal say we can dramatically increase test scores and overall academic ability by spending a lot more money. Or some conservative says school choice is a panacea that will solve all our problems. And you get the sense that they really haven’t thought much about it but they are none the less 100% sure they are totally correct?

That’s what you sound like when you make comments like that.

Expand full comment

Your moral relativism could not come at a worse time. These are exactly the arguments Hitler used, and the appeasers touted, when invading the Sudetenland. Why is it ok for NATO to put troops on Russia's borders? Because the guy on the other side is a murderer, a meglomaniac bent upon destruction, death and domination. He has a history of not following the global rules, taking what he feels he and his country are entitled to without cause. He kills his opposition, stifles free thought and speech and runs a corrupt regime benefiting him and his oligarchs alone. Fuck the people.

the Europeans get this - even big oil is departing Russia. You should be smart enough to get it too - but I guess you're too young. Shame. Shame. Shame.

Expand full comment

Go on Freddie. Say "Russian imperialism" when the Russians mount a land invasion of their neighbor. We know you can do it!

Expand full comment

Every time my partner punches me in the face, I remind myself that this is really all my fault.

Expand full comment

A disappointing amount of “whataboutism” in this column today. The question here is particularly condescending: “Does it occur to all of them that this conflict could have perhaps been avoided if American civilian leadership and NATO had declared from the outset that Ukraine would never be accepted as a member state?” A) You are treating Ukrainians like children who lack and don’t even deserve the right of self-determination other than what is decided by their feuding parents (Russia and the EU) or their rich Uncle Sam and B) Read the propaganda post by Petr Akopov and it should become clear that this is more about forcibly reclaiming Kyiv for Greater Russia than any present or future threat from NATO.

Expand full comment
Mar 1, 2022·edited Mar 1, 2022

Freddie -- I think your line about white people/the west not being the only movers and shakers in history applies here.

Yesterday, I got a call from a contractor (a coder) in Kharkiv. Normally, he zooms into our meeting from a modern office. Instead, he was calling from a basement with his phone to let me know that he would be off for the foreseeable future.

I wasn't in touch with him because of some elite game of diplomacy but because he -- along with a huge portion of his countrymen -- had ties to the U.S. and western Europe. The convenience of modern internet had provided opportunity and the the prosperity of the west had made that opportunity favorable.

Is positioning military next to Russia a genuine threat? Absolutely. But the idea is following political, economic and cultural ties that are happening organically from everyday people. In other words: the huge expansion of what we think of as 'the west' everywhere east of Berlin represents a vote of institutional and citizen voices from those regions -- treaties are a natural next step, not a the original mover (one we can be prudent about, for sure) -- and Putin is attempting to pull Ukraine and its immediate neighbors back into its imperial umbrella by force.

Expand full comment
Mar 1, 2022·edited Mar 1, 2022

This analysis seems to overlook the desires of the Ukrainian people. If they (via their elected representatives of course) want to join NATO, why should they be blocked, just to appease a deluded autocrat? In other words, you seem to be suggesting that the Russian leadership's unwillingness to let go of the cold war and join Europe in some post-conflict future *should* be allowed to decide the fate of 10s of millions of non-Russians. I agree that *can* happen, of course, but not that it *should* happen.

Expand full comment

What I find really annoying about this is how you chalk everything up to "American imperialism." Sure, we can argue about NATO all day and I might even agree with you that Ukraine shouldn't be in. Anecdotally, I know a few pro-EU/liberal Ukrainians who still don't support NATO, which really isn't so surprising considering it was a minority position over there until 2014.

But the arguments you use matter and going out and saying that what NATO represents is American imperialism is not the same as simply saying NATO expansion was bad or ill-thought. I don't care for mental-gymnastics academic definitions of imperialism which can be used to call out the side you dislike, but I'm 90% sure they don't apply here anyway. Is the US using NATO to "exploit" the natural resources of Europe? No, we let the EU protect their economies against our exports. Is the US using NATO to oppress Europeans and alter their politics? Really doubt that considering the success of Nordstream 2 until recently. Are we forcing our culture on them? Nope. But of course, it's America that's practicing imperialism not Putin with his "solution of the Ukrainian question." (https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-invasion-russian-state-media-article-deleted-after-suggesting-russia-victory-achieved-12553977)

Expand full comment