Although I don't know what the proper action is on Ukraine, I'm not surprised to see a former State Department official arguing for... inaction. He may be correct, but I doubt it, and in my limited experience 'State doesn't have a great track record on either its moral stances or it predictions. At the very least, I don't share the author's confidence that the Ukranians will be better off if America stays out of this, or that Putin will scale back his future aggressions to devote his resources to consolidating rule over Ukraine. One has to wonder, too, at taking Putin at his word that he feels NATO to be an "existential threat". Were NATO run by Putin or Xi, maybe, but does anybody really expect that France or the US is tempted to attack Russia, regardless of proximity?
I think the author’s real name is Neville Chamberlin…
More seriously, I agree with his argument that a war in Ukraine will have significant negative ramifications for the US. But there may be good reasons for the US to take on that risk. First, the most obvious rationale for Putin’s actions is his desire to reconstitute the Soviet Union, albeit without the socialist veneer. Appeasement in Ukraine will only whet his appetite for the Baltics, with whom the US has a defense treaty. If we walk away from the Baltics, NATO is effectively dead. Does the author advocate the dissolution of NATO? More broadly, the world has been well-served by the norm established after WWII that countries should not alter their boundaries through warfare. That norm is hugely beneficial to the US middle class in that it provides stability for commerce and diminishes the risk of sending our sons and daughters into harm’s way. Putin is challenging that norm and, if successful, China will not be far behind.
The author assumes that Putin's excuse for invading Ukraine -- to prevent it from joining NATO -- is the real motivation for his aggression. Both an examination of Putin's past actions and a study of similar dictators in the past lead to the conclusion that this is very likely not the case.
The prospect of direct force conflict in the Balkans, and severe cyber attacks on the US leading to further escalation of the Ukraine conflict into a direct (and possibly even nuclear) conflict are exactly the concerns to be worried about from taking a tough stance.
We all want the international rules-based order that has been more-or-less in place since WWII, one that Russia and China now reject, and that the West needs to find a way to enforce.
To do so, I'd like to impose costs on Russia to change its behavior. The author is right to question whether this is the right way since it does involve such dire risks. The author's suggestion of a new security agreement seems to give up the principle of national sovereignty, and with it, a core advantage for the West. If nations can do better by joining with us (or staying independent), we want them to be free to do so; and to be examples to other countries of what they can aspire to. This is our core means of (non-violently) combatting authoritarian systems and the best prospect for long-term peace. I think that is too much to give up and worth risking a fight to protect.
Although inhumane to Ukraine itself from a certain perspective (a hit to the welfare interests of Ukrainians), supporting Ukrainian partisans resisting Russia also respects their dignity (their liberty interests). Further, it is a good way to impose costs on Russia and protect a desirable world order in a way consistent with our principles--as is turning up the Magnitsky act to 11, as I take Applebaum to be arguing in her piece.
It's not just about Ukraine or NATO. It is clear to everyone that Ukraine won't join NATO anytime soon. It is about stopping Putin's imperial ambitions which threaten us and our allies.
Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, had reportedly said: “When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract.” This article is proving him right.
Great article. The foreign policy blob likes adventure, macho posturing, and dressing the two up in alleged idealistic principle. They could do with a strong dose of reality such as this one.
There is a lot of irony here. Back when McCain and Obama sought the presidency, the Rs were the anti-Russian party. This was still very true when various Republicans criticized Obama for attempting to improve relations with Russia ('after the election'). Now the Ds are the anti-Russian party, indeed all to many Democrats are obsessed with Russia. There is actually a quote from Nancy Pelosi where she says "all roads lead to Putin". Of course, Hillary agrees with her.
Totally agree. How can Russia Invade Ukraine?. As per the Tradingeconomics.com portal, Russia is highly dependent on the revenues from oil and energy exports which accounts for Half is their federal budget. Please see the link below. And the countries where they are exporting these to are the European Union and countries on which US has high influence on except China. Russia could very well be bluffing showing off their military power so that the Ukrane wont join the NATO anytime near in the future. They played the US and NATO counties by showing how certain and imminent the WAR can be if Ukraine joins the NATO.
If Russia loses the revenue from energy exports, their economy is going to sink due to Sanctions and Putin will have a hard time surviving that especially being an authoritarian leader. Do you think he could be that foolish?
I think this article is exactly right and am glad a former State Department official is arguing for "inaction" We don't have a dog in this fight. It's a border issue that's been made into an international crisis. That's what Putin wanted (to build his prestige) and Biden fell for it. Most of the former WARSAW Pact counties already joined NATO. Recruiting Ukraine would not help NATO a bit. In fact, US taxpayers would once again shore up another European state that doesn't have the money for NATO dues.
Frankly, neither the US or Russia has a national interest in starting a war. Selensky seems like the only adult in the room. The diplomatic dance will continue - maybe for years. But that's better than war and sanctions
A great piece and one that has me questioning my thinking that the best defense against a bully is giving him a bloody nose or at least in this instance. I don't want to see our children cannon fodder or anyone else's for that matter. I also do not think the US currently, as things stand right now, has the gumption necessary to win a war in Eastern Europe. We would need to be committed in away we haven't been since World War 2 or else any life lost would just be a waste and if Russia perceived we were committed to the extent that they felt we had to win or could win, they may consider a nuclear solution. Lets leave it alone. I do believe we should bolster our troop strength in Eastern NATO countries significantly, to send a clear message that we stand with our allies and to deter Russia.
Although I don't know what the proper action is on Ukraine, I'm not surprised to see a former State Department official arguing for... inaction. He may be correct, but I doubt it, and in my limited experience 'State doesn't have a great track record on either its moral stances or it predictions. At the very least, I don't share the author's confidence that the Ukranians will be better off if America stays out of this, or that Putin will scale back his future aggressions to devote his resources to consolidating rule over Ukraine. One has to wonder, too, at taking Putin at his word that he feels NATO to be an "existential threat". Were NATO run by Putin or Xi, maybe, but does anybody really expect that France or the US is tempted to attack Russia, regardless of proximity?
I think the author’s real name is Neville Chamberlin…
More seriously, I agree with his argument that a war in Ukraine will have significant negative ramifications for the US. But there may be good reasons for the US to take on that risk. First, the most obvious rationale for Putin’s actions is his desire to reconstitute the Soviet Union, albeit without the socialist veneer. Appeasement in Ukraine will only whet his appetite for the Baltics, with whom the US has a defense treaty. If we walk away from the Baltics, NATO is effectively dead. Does the author advocate the dissolution of NATO? More broadly, the world has been well-served by the norm established after WWII that countries should not alter their boundaries through warfare. That norm is hugely beneficial to the US middle class in that it provides stability for commerce and diminishes the risk of sending our sons and daughters into harm’s way. Putin is challenging that norm and, if successful, China will not be far behind.
The author assumes that Putin's excuse for invading Ukraine -- to prevent it from joining NATO -- is the real motivation for his aggression. Both an examination of Putin's past actions and a study of similar dictators in the past lead to the conclusion that this is very likely not the case.
Just concede Putin the Sudetenland and all will be good, eh?
An interesting counter-point to Anne Applebaum's recent piece in the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/lavrov-russia-diplomacy-ukraine/622075/.
The prospect of direct force conflict in the Balkans, and severe cyber attacks on the US leading to further escalation of the Ukraine conflict into a direct (and possibly even nuclear) conflict are exactly the concerns to be worried about from taking a tough stance.
We all want the international rules-based order that has been more-or-less in place since WWII, one that Russia and China now reject, and that the West needs to find a way to enforce.
To do so, I'd like to impose costs on Russia to change its behavior. The author is right to question whether this is the right way since it does involve such dire risks. The author's suggestion of a new security agreement seems to give up the principle of national sovereignty, and with it, a core advantage for the West. If nations can do better by joining with us (or staying independent), we want them to be free to do so; and to be examples to other countries of what they can aspire to. This is our core means of (non-violently) combatting authoritarian systems and the best prospect for long-term peace. I think that is too much to give up and worth risking a fight to protect.
Although inhumane to Ukraine itself from a certain perspective (a hit to the welfare interests of Ukrainians), supporting Ukrainian partisans resisting Russia also respects their dignity (their liberty interests). Further, it is a good way to impose costs on Russia and protect a desirable world order in a way consistent with our principles--as is turning up the Magnitsky act to 11, as I take Applebaum to be arguing in her piece.
It's not just about Ukraine or NATO. It is clear to everyone that Ukraine won't join NATO anytime soon. It is about stopping Putin's imperial ambitions which threaten us and our allies.
Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, had reportedly said: “When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract.” This article is proving him right.
Just concede Putin the Sudetenland and all will be good, eh!
Great article. The foreign policy blob likes adventure, macho posturing, and dressing the two up in alleged idealistic principle. They could do with a strong dose of reality such as this one.
There is a lot of irony here. Back when McCain and Obama sought the presidency, the Rs were the anti-Russian party. This was still very true when various Republicans criticized Obama for attempting to improve relations with Russia ('after the election'). Now the Ds are the anti-Russian party, indeed all to many Democrats are obsessed with Russia. There is actually a quote from Nancy Pelosi where she says "all roads lead to Putin". Of course, Hillary agrees with her.
Totally agree. How can Russia Invade Ukraine?. As per the Tradingeconomics.com portal, Russia is highly dependent on the revenues from oil and energy exports which accounts for Half is their federal budget. Please see the link below. And the countries where they are exporting these to are the European Union and countries on which US has high influence on except China. Russia could very well be bluffing showing off their military power so that the Ukrane wont join the NATO anytime near in the future. They played the US and NATO counties by showing how certain and imminent the WAR can be if Ukraine joins the NATO.
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/exports#:~:text=Russia's%20main%20exports%20are%3A%20fuels,agricultural%20products%20(5%20percent).
If Russia loses the revenue from energy exports, their economy is going to sink due to Sanctions and Putin will have a hard time surviving that especially being an authoritarian leader. Do you think he could be that foolish?
I think this article is exactly right and am glad a former State Department official is arguing for "inaction" We don't have a dog in this fight. It's a border issue that's been made into an international crisis. That's what Putin wanted (to build his prestige) and Biden fell for it. Most of the former WARSAW Pact counties already joined NATO. Recruiting Ukraine would not help NATO a bit. In fact, US taxpayers would once again shore up another European state that doesn't have the money for NATO dues.
Frankly, neither the US or Russia has a national interest in starting a war. Selensky seems like the only adult in the room. The diplomatic dance will continue - maybe for years. But that's better than war and sanctions
A great piece and one that has me questioning my thinking that the best defense against a bully is giving him a bloody nose or at least in this instance. I don't want to see our children cannon fodder or anyone else's for that matter. I also do not think the US currently, as things stand right now, has the gumption necessary to win a war in Eastern Europe. We would need to be committed in away we haven't been since World War 2 or else any life lost would just be a waste and if Russia perceived we were committed to the extent that they felt we had to win or could win, they may consider a nuclear solution. Lets leave it alone. I do believe we should bolster our troop strength in Eastern NATO countries significantly, to send a clear message that we stand with our allies and to deter Russia.