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.
Our Cowardly Handling of Ukraine Could Come Back to Bite Us
If America has learned anything from foreign entanglements over the past century, surely it is this: enemy conflicts must be engaged only if our vital interests are at stake. A war worth fighting must have clear objectives and a path to victory.
Clearly in WWII, all options save winning were unthinkable. We did win and the modern classical liberal order was created.
We had no such resolve in Vietnam. Worried about riling China and with growing domestic programs to fund, we fought not to win but for containment and so lost to a determined foe. America was humiliated, forfeiting immense blood and treasure as well as our national self-confidence.
Meanwhile, the Cold War spanned 45 fretful years during which the world became more dangerous. Neither side could afford to fall behind in the nuclear arms race when Mutually Assured Destruction was our defense against annihilation.
Ronald Reagan’s idea of actually defeating the Evil Empire turned the tide. Massive arms superiority and strategic defense weaponry convinced the Soviets that future efforts were futile.
The Middle East wars were fought without particular strategic goals and no endgame. We seem to believe we could mitigate Islamist terrorism through nation-building and intervention in centuries-old intertribal conflicts. We finally beat a disgraceful retreat with little to show for our losses.
Yet these lessons of history seem lost on our current administration’s response in Ukraine. We don’t want our proxy, Ukraine, to lose but we’re not committed to winning either.
The heroic Ukrainians have fought to a virtual standoff. Yet, as a result of our indecisiveness, the outcome remains in doubt.
The seminal question was: why get involved at all? Is the Russian aggression basically a regional dustup, like our Middle East debacle? Or does a hegemonically ambitious autocrat represent an existential threat, analogous to the prelude to WW II?
Most Americans seem to realize this conflict has implications beyond the ancient Russian/Ukrainian grudges. If Russia successfully breaches Ukrainian sovereignty, it will be the end of the international rules based order that has sustained general peace and prosperity since WWII. Moreover, if nuclear weapons or their threat are decisive, it will embolden rogue states everywhere, including China and Iran.
President Zelensky has pleaded many times for faster delivery of air defenses and anti-missile systems. Yet our aid to Ukraine has been halting and inadequate. Not until late April did the Biden administration announce it would ship 90 desperately needed howitzers.
When the US finally decided to provide Ukraine with MLR (multiple launch rocket) systems, to defend against Russia’s unremitting air attacks,
only MLRs with a 70 km range, not the 300 km range necessary to reach Russian targets, were provided.
Too little, too late. Ukraine’s foreign minister lamented that if Ukraine had received more weapons earlier the situation today would be “much different… much better.”
Meanwhile, the unimaginable human toll, the death and destruction of Ukraine, continues to mount. Last month, the UN development agency announce that if the war continues, an astounding 90% of Ukrainians would be at or below poverty levels.
According to the UN refugee agency, 13 million people have been displaced, which has serious political and military consequences. When Ukrainians are scattered, it makes unity more difficult and Russian control easier. A hollowed-out Ukraine also enables Russia to take more Ukrainian territory at war’s end.
US hesitation to provide more robust help to Ukraine is based on the fear of escalation and possible nuclear war with Russia. Some have urged Ukraine into an armistice that involves territorial concessions.
But that wouldn’t stop the bear. Instead, it would incentivize further military incursions. Over-caution could actually increase the possibility of escalation.
Biden and NATO have repeatedly ruled out direct military involvement and nuclear deployment without getting any concessions in return. Our weakness sends a message to Russia and other aggressors that threatening nuclear weapons works to soften western resistance.
The free world must decide what it stands for and how to meet this moment. If we don’t thwart Russian ambitions now, it will likely get more dangerous in the future. Ukraine, for their survival and ours, deserves protection now.
Published in Foreign Policy, Military
The details of the Yanukovich affair are very unlikely to be the only instance.
I have posted about Patrick Lancaster and his videos.
Victoria Nuland and Joe Biden were dead set against the Minsk accords and steered US policy against it. After all, their gravy train would end.
So when did Hunter Biden go on the board of Burisma?
In that case there is some contradictory information out there that needs to be reconciled.
From TASS, on October 13 2021 (during the period when Biden was trying to get people used the idea that Russia would invade).
Doesn’t sound very much like Russia was claiming that Biden was steering U.S. policy away from the Minsk Accords.
Late edit: Here’s the URL.
The Russian fans have been saying Ukraine has been losing for the entire 4+ months of this war. In fact they predicted a surrender within the first week. And yet here we are more than 4 months later, after Russia lost 1/3 of its invading force within the first two months, was repelled easily from their massive attack on Kyiv, and are now digging in to try and hold the little piece of Ukraine that they were able to conquer. That doesn’t look much like a victory to me.
The second half of your paragraph seems to infer the “we” (the Americans) are the ones fighting this war. You worry that our military is not up to the task. I think you are getting a little ahead of the situation here.
Can you produce a single quote or directive from Biden in which he egged on Ukraine to join NATO?
The claim of U.S. Bio weapons labs in Ukraine is complete nonsense made up on the Internet. Ukraine has normal infectious disease labs like every other country of the world, like the one my wife works in.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/25/tweets/there-are-no-us-run-biolabs-ukraine-contrary-socia/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jun/15/blog-posting/pentagon-didnt-admit-there-are-46-us-funded-biolab/
https://factcheck.bg/en/there-is-no-evidence-that-ukraine-is-developing-biological-weapons-in-pentagon-funded-labs/
By contrast, the Soviet Union ran the world’s largest and most extensive biological weapons program in history. The U.S. State Department insists that Russia today is still operating its biological weapons program. It is confirmed that Russia also operates a chemical weapons program, as some of the chemical agents used to poison Putin enemies have been identified as sophisticated developed chemical weapons.
But clearly you are not confident enough to post them here.
Does that mean we have to put Yugoslavia back together?
Uh, so in March when Victoria Nuland confirmed the existence of those biolabs, . . . she was making it up?
I dunno, if quoting government-aligned “fact-checkers” will convince me of anything.
This is the heart of the agreement [emphasis mine]:
This agreement was signed three years after Ukraine’s independence was recognized by the United Nations and Europe and the United States.
I have already said that Clinton is the person who bears all the responsibility for the war in Ukraine. He should have submitted this as a formal treaty to the Senate. If the Senate then decided that we had no interest in what became Ukraine, the Ukrainians could have had their nukes back.
Why don’t we just do that now. Right this wrong.
Let Putin take his concerns to International Court of Justice in the Hague. That’s what civilized countries do today.
Putin’s government is a member of that court. They know where it is and what it is for: to settle conflicts between sovereign nations.
Can’t think of any reason why it would mean that.
Read the rest of what Mr Seward wrote.
I did. That’s why I said that about the state-run media’s fact-checkers. (Actually, run by our intelligence agencies.)
But you trust Victoria Nuland when she confirmed the existence of biolabs.
Pretty fine situation we find ourselves in.
What’s more likely? The government lies that there aren’t U.S. biolabs in Ukraine, or the government lies that there are?
You will have to show me the confirmation of bio weapons labs by Victoria Nuland.
The language of that Budapest Memo is pretty clear. Russia plainly violated it.
It is incumbent on you to show evidence of bio weapons labs in Ukraine, if you are going to assert that they exist. You can ignore the fact checkers if you can provide something tangible.
Again, you can forget the government and the fact checkers if you can provide some believable evidence. You can’t just make stuff up or believe anything that you hear.
All it takes is a little web search.
Here’s the critical exchange.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5005237/user-clip-marco-rubio-qeustions-victoria-nuland-backed-biolabs-ukraine
There’s no question that there are U.S. funded biolabs in Ukraine. There is no evidence that there are U.S. biolabs making weapons.
I detect word games.
Thank you for pulling this up. Here is your transcript:
SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?
VICTORIA NULAND: Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact, we’re now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how we can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.
MARCO RUBIO: I’m sure you’re aware that the Russian propaganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of information about how they have uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to unleash biological weapons in the country, and with NATO’s coordination.
If there is a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians behind it?
VICTORIA NULAND: There is no doubt in my mind, senator. And in fact, it is a classic Russian technique to blame the other guy for what they are planning to do themselves.
So she said “biological research facilities.” Those are not bio weapons facilities. You think Reticulator is playing word games but it is in fact you who is playing the games. Nearly every country in the world has biological research facilities. If Marco Rubio thought for one minute that she was referencing “bio weapons facilities,” don’t you think he would have started screaming “what the hell is going on here?” Instead, he mentions the Russian claim that Ukraine has a bio weapons program and he dismisses it, to which Victoria Nuland agrees! (which totally contradicts your premise) She emphasizes that if bio weapons are used, then they would undoubtedly come from Russia.
I’m sure you did not come up with this on your own, but probably heard some pundit claiming it. But this is an incredibly clear case of someone “taking a quote out of context” and on top of that “distorting the language of the quote taken out of context.” You have to agree that what she said has no relation to what pundits are ascribing to her. This is just as bad or even worse than “Trump said there were good people on both sides.”
I don’t even need fact checkers to interpret this for me.
It is a sleazy thing to slyly lead people to believe that biolabs are weapons biolabs, isn’t it? But the Russians are good at sleazy propaganda.
So are our intelligence agencies.
But if you want to believe every word that ushers forth from the Biden administration, that’s your luxury.
Likewise, if you want to believe every word that ushers forth from the Biden or Putin administrations, that is your luxury.
WTF? Whole lotta Gell-Mann amnesia in effect.