Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
NATO and Russia: A False Equivalence
One popular argument about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is that Ukraine “had it coming” because of NATO expansion. This is not a moral justification, and not a reason to consider Russia’s actions excusable or even reasonable. This argument and its antecedents rest on a flawed equivalence between NATO and Russia, the “neo-USSR”.
The specifics of “not one inch eastward” are from a phone call between then-Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, and in a different context. Even Gorbachev has said that this was not a binding agreement. Naturally, Putin rejects this fact, as it is inconvenient to him. So let us dispense with this “broken promise” rhetoric and focus on the qualitative difference between NATO, a voluntary defensive alliance against Russian expansion, and Russia, the expansive inheritor of the Soviet coercive prison-state. There is no moral equivalence between the two systems, and forgetting that fact will lead to moral failures.
NATO
Not one country has ever been invaded by NATO and forced to join the alliance. NATO is not some menace that moves about. West Germany was not shoved hundreds of miles closer to Moscow overnight, leading to an understandably shaken Gorbachev. Instead, it is a collection of countries that joined right where they were, by the consent of their respective governed. NATO is of course heavily influenced by American priorities, and America in turn draws much of her cultural make-up from Western European ideals. This is a wide cultural unity that underpins the NATO project.
Say what you want about American interventionism, but consider this: even in our bad moments, we go places ostensibly to smash bad guys, and then we leave. What we pointedly do not do is invade neighboring countries one after another, breaking off pieces for keeps or simply gobbling them up whole. Call our approach at times economic hegemony, coercion, or similar, and I won’t even argue. I’ll just point out that this is fundamentally different from the Russian approach of kicking down your neighbors’ door, beating them senseless, kidnapping a child, and then moving your fence further into their yard. NATO does not expand by annexing countries.
USSR, RUSSIA, USSR
The USSR no longer exists on paper, but the core remains, of course, and that is Russia. The authoritarian leadership in Moscow is merely diminished, not different, and is now resurgent. Rampant corruption is the system now as it always was — meet the new boss. Modern Russian leaders, of whom there have been approximately one, co-opt the corruption to a mutually acceptable degree. They have less power over the non-governmental corruption than the Soviet leaders did, and so the balance yields more power to the corruption than before. This comes at the expense of government’s ability to do basic things with any efficiency, if they even wanted to. The Soviet Union was a dangerous rogue state so large that we didn’t say “rogue” — we said Evil Empire, and we were right. Now Russia is an Evil Empire (slight return) that faces crippling demographics and other systemic problems. Russia the system is dying and taking Russia the people with it, and now Russia wishes to consume other, better countries to rejuvenate itself, to re-constitute the rightfully defeated USSR under so-called new management — literally a KGB officer.
Putin attempts to draw parallels between US interventions of the last thirty years and his current conquest. Of course, he does. He would like to make very different things look similar because the difference shows him to be just another dictator with an appetite for Europe.
DIFFERENT
These different approaches, invitation vs conquest, arise from different systems. The West, from which I exclude Russia, may be in simply appalling condition these days, but it remains head, shoulders, and torso above the Putinocracy. Russia was in for a hard road recovering from a century of communist intrigue and domination, which they have now handled poorly, with poor results. Their elections are shams, their free speech is a sham, their economy is a sham, and now it may turn out that even their military is a sham. Time will tell. The one thing which could arguably have been said in Putin’s favor was that he was “good for Russia” in some way, and now that is gone too. We are alarmed in the West about our diminishing freedoms and distrusted institutions precisely because we do not want to become Russia. Russia is the nightmare that the West has actively avoided for a century.
NATO and in particular the United States spent decades fighting against an evil, predatory system of conquest and gulags, poverty, and nuclear terror. This was the product of the communist bloc, and in particular Russia. It is unobjectionable to point out that NATO and the neo-Soviets are two systems composed of nation-states, each of which in Realpolitik parlance “seeks to enhance its own power and security.” It is a moral failure, however, to argue that because of that similarity, Russia has the same right to invade Ukraine as NATO does to invite Ukraine to join. Similarly, it may be practical to point out that Ukraine has taken actions that Russia did not like, and which they clearly warned against, but again, this practicality does not justify blaming Ukraine (or NATO) for its own invasion by a hostile Russia. That is a moral failure, and any course of action or inaction predicated on it is wrong, even if the early steps are unobjectionable.
Ignoring the difference between NATO and the neo-USSR is an error. It may not be a moral issue to mistake or forget the differences between these opposed and incompatible systems, but that simple failure will cause moral failures downstream.
IGNORING THE DIFFERENCE
What happens when it is pointed out that Poland joined after NATO (as Putin alleges) promised that this would not happen? Will we then forsake Poland? We will if we do not get to the bottom of the NATO/USSR moral difference underlying the history and meaning of what is happening now. And did NATO “gobble up” East Germany? Shall that country be restored to the map, and to the neo-Soviet empire? These are gradations of the argument used to ignore the differences between NATO and Russia.
Some people seem to be adjusting their principles to resolve a moral dissonance — if I support NATO and Ukraine and I oppose the neo-USSR, don’t I have to argue for sending US troops to fight in Ukraine? Those are different things. They are close, and may be connected, but different. I think that some people are deciding that they do not support NATO or Ukraine in order to provide cover for their preference that we not put boots on the ground outside of NATO in easternmost eastern Europe. I share that preference, but deciding as a result that Russia is somehow justified in its assault is just an unworthy surrender of any moral position.
What exactly “we” should do is a rich topic, and will not be addressed here. Whatever we do, including nothing, must be informed by a moral position. Our stance, from which we may act or not, fight or not, sanction or not, must be both moral and practical, and there is no equivalence between NATO and the neo-Soviets. Let Russia’s pleas, excuses, misrepresentations, and threats fall on deaf ears. Their brutal invasion of Ukraine tells the story worth hearing.
PAST AS OVERTURE
I grew up in the cold war. I still resent living under the threat of nuclear war. Who did these Soviet gangsters think they were? Generation X is the last cohort with any meaningful memory of that permanent background of dread. The Russians ran a totalitarian prison commune and regularly threatened to vaporize or conquer anybody who interfered with their stated goal of world domination. In the 1980s, I saw a Camaro in my neighborhood with a bumper sticker, “[screw] Russia.” I thought that was the coolest neighbor ever, and I’d be hard-pressed to argue now. Communism itself is bad, but it’s not the only bad thing. In fact, it’s just one variety of totalitarian expansion and internal subjugation. The Cold War was a meaningful and deadly contest between two opposed moral systems, and that difference is still with us.
Some will point out that both the US and the USSR have infiltrated, instigated, agitated, and overthrown for their own interests. To focus too closely on sometimes similar means is to lose sight of the differing morality of the two systems. If there was no meaning to the Cold War, then was there meaning to the Second World War? Who are we to tell Mr. Putin how to manage his affairs in Europe? Well, just who were we to tell Mr. Hitler how to manage his affairs in Europe?
This qualitative moral difference between NATO on the one hand and the series of USSR / Russia /neo-USSR on the other hand is important. To draw an equivalence is to undeservedly elevate Soviet Communism to a place of honor, or to faithlessly debase our own seven-decade fight for freedom in the Cold War.
NOW, NEVER, AND FOREVER
A moral stance will never find epistemological closure, an airtight case for why a thing is right and good, without reference to principles. We have principles, they have principles, and those principles differ in a meaningful way. Now that push has come to shove, let us not take an easy off-ramp from moral responsibility. Being right and moral is easy when it costs nothing. Now it costs something, and even well-intended friends can be deterred by the cost.
Perhaps the greatest service that Generation X and the Boomers can render to those coming after is to clarify and preserve, to interpret for a new millennium, the moral difference still in play. We will be gone, but the current youth and those who follow will still confront the timeless evils the world has to offer. This may or may not become the global fight of their generation. It may blow up, or it may blow over. Either way, it is a duty upon us to ARM the next generation with the moral clarity to see the fight for what it is. We have failed them in many respects. We have stolen their money and eroded their Republic. The military and civilian leadership seem equally worthless right now, but to paraphrase Rumsfeld, the army will go to war with the country and the leadership it has, not necessarily the leadership it wants. Or needs.
Eastern Europeans join or wish to join NATO due not only to our prosperity, better management, and superior moral position, but primarily as a defense against the re-animated threat of being invaded, conquered, subjugated by the USSR. Or Russia. It’s all the same. Once again, a powerful dictator is marching on Europe. If Russia’s neighbors are sufficiently worried that a thug like Putin will gobble them up, this is not moral justification for Russia gobbling them up anyway, and to suggest this is obscene. Yet this is the core of the argument made by those who say that NATO expansion bought Ukraine for Russia. Rather, Ukraine’s now-realized fear means that what was true decades ago remains true today — that there is a qualitative difference between NATO and this neo-Soviet bloc. The relevant similarity is not between NATO and Russia, nor between Poland and Ukraine, but between Russia and the USSR. Blink and that fleeting difference goes away. We were right to oppose the Soviets then, and we are right to oppose Russia now. Those who come after us will need to know this for a fact in their own fight.
Published in General
Russian planes don’t need semiconductors? Russian tanks don’t have sophisticated equipment that needs semiconductors? It’s not like the semiconductors are needed in the US because of government mandates. Militaries need them. The US military needs them, and I don’t think they are the only one.
The topic here is falsely equating the morality of NATO and Putin’s neo-USSR.
Other topics would no doubt make a fine post.
Thank you.
It’s all connected, man. It’s all connected.
Tanks existed in WW I and II without semiconductors. US tanks of course use a lot of that for gimmickry that may be “required” by government contracts etc, and maybe US tank engines wouldn’t even start up without them. But for sure other countries don’t have the same requirements, and the Russian tanks and other vehicles are bound to be far less dependent on them.
The tanks are already in Ukraine, they don’t need GPS to figure out how to get to Ukraine.
They don’t need GPS to find Kiev, either. They just drive along the road that goes to Kiev.
Thanks!
That may well be. How do you think NATO stacks up against Russia’s project?
Did you say “over”?
…
Nothing is over until we decide it is.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
…
No! And it’s not over now.
Cause when the going gets tough….
….
The tough get going!
Who’s with me!
Russia can produce its own semiconductors. It cannot produce its own cutting edge semiconductors. Therein lies the difference.
Russia already has its own GPS satellite system.
The United States were angered at the Second Sino-Japanese War. In July of 1941, the US froze Japanese assets. That was followed in August by an oil embargo. This was all to limit Japanese aggression. Remember how that worked out?
Right now, Russian planes need to be commanded by leaders who can organize large-scale air operations.
Yes. The Japanese were defeated, they are still not a geopolitical foe to the US, and America became the most powerful country on Earth by a wide margin. Good thing the sanctions crippled the Japanese economy so that they couldn’t subjugate China and dominate Asia.
At the Battle of Midway, they came within 2 minutes of winning the Pacific war. The number of coincidences that had to occur in order for the US to not only win, but win decisively is remarkable.
Yes but you can’t access them with a portable AM radio. They require sophisticated electronics on the ground to be useful.
They came close to winning that battle, but I don’t think they would have won the war. Besides, a consequence of an aggressor with a crippled economy heading into a war is that they cannot afford many mistakes. The US had a long losing streak before that in the Pacific, but it could afford the losses.
I would greatly appreciate moving this WWII etc conversation elsewhere, unless you would care to tie it back to the topic in a non-trivial way.
Thank you.
Not disagreeing but I wouldn’t underestimate the Russian imperative to have a land corridor to Crimea. Having it be a part of Russia but completely separate from the actual nation was never tenable.
Absent some very agile diplomatic maneuvering and quiet threats it was almost inevitable that Putin would go down this route. Attempting to entice Ukraine into believing NATO was an option without some very careful crafting of strategy was throwing a matchstick on a pile of dynamite.
We needed Secretary of State Dean Acheson at his very best and what we’ve been working with in the modern State Department is the Marx Brothers.
In Europe you’re mostly right. When NATO/Soviets/Russians get involved elsewhere (eg Afghanistan) it’s less apparent. Just like America’s moral edge is blunted when it gets involved in places like Latin America or Indonesia or much of the Middle East (though in Japan pretty good). The difference lies, I think, in whether they’re engaging with basically liberal democracies or not.
Edited to add: which is where Eastern Europe, and Ukraine, can trend borderline.
I think this example may have actual relevance to the topic on hand. There was no moral equivalence between the Empire of the Rising Sun marauding in China, slaughtering and taking what they wished, with the US decision stop doing business with them.
Yet, what does that mean? The oil markets in the early 20th century were nothing like today, there were few options and then the US was the big dog supplier. Japan has zero oil resources, literally nothing. I recall coming across one estimate that cut off from the US, their chief supplier, the Japanese fleet could run for one month on reserves before they were dead in the water.
So this passive embargo was basically holding a gun to their head, “Capitulate or we will destroy your navy without firing a shot.” Which brings us back to my earlier question, what did FDR expect them to do? Did he have some diplomatic off-ramp for them, giving them a chance to save face? No. Did he prepare for a violent reaction from people who felt they had nothing to lose? Pearl Harbor, so no.
I believe there are some old military maxims about backing opponents into a corner, if you’re not prepared and willing to reenact the Battle of Cannae then you damn better have some plans for dealing with the outcome.
Well, Japan did get nuked, twice, so maybe that’s how it needs to end up in certain situations?
Did Japan have some inviolable right to get oil from the US even if the US didn’t want to sell it to them, that justified them going to war over it? Of course not. Especially if Japan was using that oil to fuel their war effort in other places, even if they hadn’t yet attacked the US directly.
If you are talking about nukes to resolve your mistakes then you have already screwed-up a long time ago. If someone can’t see that I don’t know what to say.
If you’re asking me if it was necessary then my answer is yes, it absolutely was. But we could have stopped it before it started just like now, none of this now needs to happen if half our nation were not damn children.
You would have preferred the land invasion? With likely millions of deaths?