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.
Will We Be Dragged into the Russia/Ukraine War?
For the record, I think it would be disastrous for the U.S. to be dragged into the war. I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with that assessment. And yet we have an unbelievable number of people who are calling for absurd and unrealistic ways to aid Ukraine that could very likely force us into the war, and we will be trapped into another international conflict. Some people believe that it is already too late, and we are already engaged. I’d like to look at the many different ways that people have concluded that more active engagement is not only important, but necessary, and the “rationale” they are using. I decided to stop listing reasons when I reached ten. Many of these points are related, depending on the foolish people who believe them.
Saving the World—In spite of George Washington’s early warnings about avoiding foreign entanglements, we’ve assumed it’s our job to rescue those countries who suffer under the violence of invading countries. At one time, Pax Americana, which originally applied to the Western Hemisphere, was expanded to include the rest of the world. Since there are no set criteria for deciding where we will meddle, the reasons can range from protecting allies to our own national security. Regardless, that mentality still rests in the thinking of many.
Putin’s Thinking—It is frankly impossible to know what Putin is thinking about as he invades Ukraine. Not only do we not understand the Russian framework for war and how it is currently applied by Putin, but to think we can understand what he is thinking at any particular time is at the very least misguided, and possibly even delusional. In the absence of actually reading his mind (and I know no one who claims to do so), we have no idea what his long-term plans are. We don’t know what will stimulate an overreaction militarily, what he will decide is an “escalation,” and what steps he may take against anyone engaged in the conflict. I’m not even sure if we can believe that Putin knows what he will do over the next few days, never mind the next few months.
Ignoring Military Strategy—Does anyone trust our own military to do realistic, strategic assessments about those actions we can take to limit our being dragged into a war? I have no confidence that the military can “guess” any better than the rest of us, so I expect no benefits from their experience and expertise. Essentially, their conclusions are a crap shoot.
Utopian Thinking—At first glance, this idealistic thinking would seem to dominate the opinions of the Left. Unfortunately, it is clear that very outspoken Republicans believe we should do everything we can to help the Ukrainians. Sometimes those demands are vague; at other times they are non-sensical and even frightening.
Globalism—Conspiracy theories abound regarding the war, but the idea that Ukraine is central to the globalist plans, in particular the Great Reset, would not surprise me. Ukraine is hardly the poster child for good governance. To what degree this element factors in, including Americans who think that the globalist agenda is a valuable one for our country, is unclear. But I have little doubt that the globalists have infested the halls of Congress, as well as the minds of Biden’s handlers.
Superficial Assessments—Everyone seems to have his or her own file folder of reasons we need to support Ukraine and how to do it. There are few efforts (that are public) to evaluate the pros and cons of any approach. Most proposals have a “knee-jerk” quality to them. The mindset seems to be, let’s just send them stuff that will help and what the heck, establish a no-fly zone. Oh, and let’s send them MiGs, too.
Public Mindset—Actions often come down to assessing what will get politicians elected next time around. Politicians are trying to figure out whether deepening our involvement with Ukraine will help their prospects, since there is so much public support to help Ukraine. Or if we do get dragged into the war, whether that will hurt the politicians’ futures. It’s such a delicate balancing act, and has little to do with what makes sense for America.
Misplaced Compassion—No one could argue that our hearts break when we see the suffering of the Ukrainians: pregnant women dying, children crying, people killed in the streets. It is human and appropriate to feel compassion for this upheaval in their lives and the devastating impact of events. But we also have to assess whether we are genuinely prepared to be dragged into the war because our hearts go out to this traumatized and wounded people.
Warmongers—Let’s not forget those people, military and non-military, who will provide abundant reasons for engaging directly in the war. They will forget their commitment to “no boots on the ground.” They will shuffle away our history into the corners of time so that we don’t have to speculate the dangers that lie ahead. I have no idea how many warmongers are out there, but I’m confident that they are engaged. They simply wear the mantles of one of the criteria listed above.
Ignorance—Although every category listed fits into the definition of ignorance, I decided to give it special attention. It is abundant in its dominance and impact.
* * * *
I’m not saying we should do nothing to help Ukraine, but actions must be sensible and practical. The pros and cons of proposals need to be carefully assessed and looked at with integrity and honesty. For example, here’s one statement that was made that suggests a way to move forward by Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and professor of international affairs at Georgetown University:
‘In the current moment, Ukraine’s border with four NATO countries affords it two important advantages,’ Kupchan said. ‘One is refugees are able to seek asylum in NATO countries, and we’re seeing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians head west. And the other is that now that Ukraine’s airspace is … dominated by Russia, the long border between Ukraine and NATO affords an opportunity to continue to funnel weapons and other sources of support to Ukraine.’
At the same time, he cautions:
‘Let’s say that Russia succeeds in toppling the government. And it then tries to occupy and pacify Ukraine. Assuming that the U.S. and its allies attempt to get arms to a Ukrainian resistance movement, there’s a not insignificant risk that Russia might try to interdict that flow. And that whether by design or by accident, an artillery shell or a missile or a bomb could land in Poland or another NATO country,’ Kupchan said.
‘And then we’re looking at the prospect of an attack on NATO territory and the potential trigger of the Article Five collective defense guarantee, which then raises the prospect of potential military conflict between NATO and Russia,’ Kupchan said.
Whether you agree with Kupchan is not the point. His statements are not full of hyperbole or angst. They reflect a thoughtful approach to the situation. And of course, if NATO ends up engaging, we’ll be entering the war, too.
I’ll conclude with a statement from The Federalist article by John Daniel Davidson:
Right now we need our leaders to be realistic, which means recognizing that at this point there really are only two courses of action available to the United States: we can urge Ukrainian leaders to negotiate and agree to some version of Moscow’s terms to end the war, as Israel has been trying to do, or we can continue down a slippery slope that eventually leads to war with Russia.
Without any deliberation or reflection, Washington is choosing the latter.
Do you think our engaging directly in war is inevitable?
[photo courtesy of Kevin Schmid at unsplash.com]
Published in Foreign Policy
What was it Barack Obama said about his Vice President again? “Don’t underestimate Joe Biden’s ability to [redacted] things up.”
I don’t see any way we’re getting out of this without Democrats making things worse. These are deeply foolish and destructive people.
Frankly I see a few Republicans helping out the Dems in their rhetoric. It’s going to be ugly, WC.
The issue here is the lack of competence of the present Administration. There are ways to navigate this successfully, with the bottom line being no U.S. military in harm’s way. Unfortunately, we can’t really trust the White House to take some steps (e.g., sending military aid) without bungling it with more steps.
As with the majority of “slippery slope” generalizations, I strongly disagree with this, but unfortunately the “Biden” caveat outlined just above comes into play.
I don’t necessarily agree with it, either. But remember that at least Biden refuses to establish a no-fly zone. He must not understand what he did, since it actually showed some wisdom.
It is more than lack of competence. Biden’s moves on energy has hasten this situation that Ted Cruz and the GOP senators under Trump had some cap on. I do not know where Biden’s loyalties lie. I just know they are not with mine. Added to a military that see wokeness as its purpose and a government that views conservative whites as terrorist. I can not support this war or anything America does toward it. Because it will not be done to help Ukraine, or help America but to help politicians cronies.
Great post!
I am against a “No Fly Zone,” as that would lead to WW III. But I am in agreement with Ben Sasse when he said essentially“if it shoots, send it to Ukraine.”
Once again a brilliant, thoughtful, and nuanced post by Susan!
This is the exact opposite of our founding principles. The progressive foreign policy of the Teddy Roosevelt/Woodrow Wilson types has taken us so far away from this, probably to the point of no return. And our track record of cleaning up other peoples messes has been horrible.
Indeed. I assume you detected my sarcasm. We can also recall how Washington discouraged us from getting entangled with foreign countries.
Washington was simply reiterating good Old Testament wisdom.
You bet! I changed the OP to make sure there was no question about my point. Thanks, Stina.
“Inevitable” is a post facto conclusion. Until it happens there is an opportunity for alternative outcomes. We are firmly in “unknown unknowns” territory.
What does “rescue” mean? How far does “cleaning up other people’s messes” go? Each and every time we have made a mess of things, we committed to boots on the ground. The fact of the matter is that we pursued a skillful policy of containment versus an aggressive Soviet Union at a key time in history. It’s possible to restrain an aggressive and hostile power without “making a mess of things.”
My comment was meant to be sarcastic, Hoyacon. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I’ve cleaned up my mess!
Apology absolutely unneeded. Nothing you wrote struck me as incorrect. I’m only saying that the spectrum of “intervention” is very wide indeed, and does not necessarily involve the types of issues that we’ve had when committing troops. Again, the ability of Biden to navigate these waters is uncertain, but we need to do everything within reason to stop Putin much as we stopped his predecessors in the 60’s-80’s without firing a shot.
I hesitate to mention this, but there is a small silver lining to the Ukraine-Russia war.
We are getting real time evidence of the strength and weakness of various weapons. For example, if a $6K, 6 pound “Switchblade” drone can wreak a $3 million Tank, that completely changes the world of combat. It would appear that the next conventional war will have a lot less tanks and a lot more drones.
I anticipate some major changes in offensive and defensive arms in NATO and world-wide.
Your question is posed in the future tense. The United States is already at war. There is a full scale economic and propaganda war. There is partial military war by proxy. We can get more involved militarily, but we already at war. Furthermore, I don’t think the economic war can be undone. We have used the nuclear economic option (canceling use of SWIFT and the US dollar for international transactions.) In a few months, Russia and its trading partners will have permanently found new mechanisms to complete transactions and our economic soft-power will be forever reduced. What happens after that? Will other countries conclude that being tied to the dollar is too risky? (we stole a trillion dollars of Russia’s bank deposits). Will they move to a new financial system and start dumping dollars as they opt for a new reserve currency? The money supply could easily double causing 100% inflation. Yes, we already at war and things look good after our first strike, but will they still look wise at Christmas, when gasoline is $10/gal?
Along those lines, part of our problem with Syria was running zillion-dollar bombers to drop million-dollar bombs on used Toyatas is how to lose a war.
Zackly. You and others, including the most-recent S2 video, informed my point of view in my post about institutions etc. None of it is particularly new — we’re just seeing that part of the exponential curve that gets noticed.
I think it is critical to manage our aid to Ukraine such that they can stymie the Russians without American boots on the ground or planes in the air.
I suggest we take Putin at his word – NATO countries on Russia’s borders are an untenable situation. Estonia and Latvia are NATO members and border Russia proper. The Russia oblast of Kaliningrad is completely surrounded by NATO members Poland and Lithuania. If he succeeds in Ukraine, his next move will involve NATO members. That will REQUIRE American boots on the ground and planes in the air. We don’t want that. So let’s do everything we can short of that now – while Ukrainians are pulling triggers. If we wait and Putin succeeds, it will surely involve NATO later.
Answer to your question
No.
The US government will engage directly in war if, and only if, the President decides to.
Reply to your comment
I share your reluctance for the American people becoming dependent on our war leaders, on our behalf, reading Putin’s mind.
But unfortunately, we have now once again entered into cold war. In this war, for America’s leaders to fail to know
ensures America’s failure, when knowing both would likely result in victory if the American people have sufficiently deep wells of morale to draw on.
I posted several Ukraine/Russia-related links here, including two very interesting interviews with Putin…one by a political scientist and one by an art historian.
Even better to say “I miscommunicated”. That way there is no doubt that you have fully accepted blame.
[TAGS: Inside Ricochet Humour, Use of UK spellings in Tags just to Irritate Spellcheck]
This is a regime that is not worthy of our trust.
Susan, we’ve already been dragged in to a significant extent. Not to the extent of active fighting, as far as I know, thankfully.
We appear to be spending a lot of money arming the Ukrainians. We appear to have imposed significant sanctions on Russia.
My view is that I prefer for the US not to be involved in this particular war in any way. It’s not our problem.
The one thing about which I do feel a little bad is an argument that most people here reject, I think. I’m inclined to agree with John Mearsheimer that the US led Ukraine “down the primrose path” to the present disaster. That was a bad move on our part, I think. On the other hand, the Ukrainians are grown ups, and made their own decisions, for the most part.
The possible exception to this relates to whether the US has some sort of corrupt influence over internal politics in Ukraine. I don’t know whether this is true or not. I am troubled by the 2014 coup, which looks like it was US-supported at least after-the-fact, and it’s possible that it was instigated by the US. Again, I don’t know the extent of US involvement in the coup.
I continue to find it strange that people seem to argue that declining to defend a country that is not in NATO somehow undermines our commitment to defending nations that are in NATO. I remain under the impression, perhaps naive, that the NATO security guaranty does not extend to nations that are not actually in NATO.
It would be nice if we made the chips for such things. Sadly we do not. So we buy from China or Korea and give to Ukraine.
I suspect that Biden idea of victory would be an unbeatable Democrat majority from this point forward. And a good chunk of money in the Biden dynasty retirement fund.
No one in the White House is looking two steps ahead. They are solely considering how to package whatever happens in Ukraine as a foreign policy victory for Biden so that we might forget his horrendous, horrifying, abject defeat in Afghanistan. What they are not thinking about are things like:
Right now, the Biden strategy is to Cancel Russian, because canceling people is what the Democrats do. So, they cancel the oligarchs, then they cancel the young pianists, the hockey players, and even Russian refugees and asylum seekers. Within the Democrat ecosystem, canceling people is a powerful tool of social control. Will it work in global politics, though?
Here’s something to try with the neo-liberal Marxist democrat/RINO republican war hawks. When they start talking about sending U.S. equipment and troops to Ukraine, remind them that the U.S. Selective Service (the Draft) would now includes both male and female, LGBTQ+ et al. Watch their eyes roll back in their head.
From their point of view it will. The fact that Putin will win can be ignored