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
I mean, for weeks they claimed there were no biolabs in Ukraine, but then when put under oath, she said there were. It took putting Nuland under oath to admit it.
What’s most likely? That she lied when not under oath, or that she lied when under oath?
You don’t think she lied either time?
I am so confused.
Like I said. The agreement is not a mutual defense pact. “File your complaint with the UN” is nothingness.
It doesn’t matter what terminology you use to describe it, Russia signed the paper saying they would not violate Ukraine’s borders or sovereignty. Trouble is, nothing Russia agrees to can be trusted. Just like the old Soviet Union.
If we had her actual statements each time, preferably with a URL that provides context, perhaps we’d find out that there is no contradiction. Or maybe there is. You never know until you look.
That is fair. It was an agreement without teeth and it depended on the good behavior of bad actors.
No foresight. Zero.
No context. Zero.
Sorry. I think all of those countries next to Russia should have been loaded up with defensive weapons, war gear, and plans by the CIA and Green Berets, 10X Switzerland.
Instead, Estonia is in NATO etc. and nobody can explain why Russia is mentally ill.
Why do people think treaties are holy or something? They’re not. They are only as good as everyone wants to abide by them because they draw some benefit from them during the life of the treaty. They are essentially worthless when push comes to shove.
Sometimes. But NATO has been shown to be better than worthless when push comes to shove.
It’s an interesting Second Amendment issue writ large. The world’s family of nations tried nuclear arms control, with the large and powerful nations’ reserving to themselves the right of nuclear self-defense and asking the smaller nations to depend on them for defense. Now those smaller nations see the truth. I’m sure they are thinking some version of “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”
Thanks to Bill Clinton, any treaty those small countries may have signed in good faith are not worth the paper they are written on. They need to protect themselves by any means available to them.
They are not all worthless. The spectrum goes from rock-solid treaties to completely worthless treaties depending on the signatories. Russia’s and the old Soviet Union’s treaties for instance, have been mostly worthless. Most treaties between Western countries have proven solid.
Here we see the problem with arguing that we need “diplomatic solutions” in Ukraine. Any peace treaty will necessarily be, well, a treaty.
And what is a treaty? It’s something that Vladimir Putin violates at will. He’s like a liberal judge and the Constitution: absolutely anything can be explained away.
This is something he learned from his masters and mentors in the Soviet Union. He was, after all, nearly 40 years old when the Soviet Union, weakened by sanctions and insurgencies supported by Ronald Reagan, finally collapsed. Which Putin considers one of the greatest disasters in the history of the world, and has made it his life’s work to undo.
The mania for weapon control is very powerful in certain liberal quarters, and we are currently reaping the whirlwind.
When Red China developed nuclear weapons, the sensible response was to encourage Taiwan to develop its own, if not outright sell them ours. Instead, the US strong-armed Taiwan to prevent it from developing a nuclear deterrent. Result: every day the probability of war increases.
Similarly, the response to a North Korean bomb should have been a South Korean bomb, instead of American promises.
By contrast, Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons on the break up of the Soviet Union. This time it was the US and the European community that strong-armed Ukraine into giving up its nuclear deterrent.
Exactly why the Clinton Administration thought it was a good idea for Russia to have a nuclear monopoly in that part of the world, while Ukraine should unilaterally disarm, is hard to explain. It resembles gun controllers’ desire to reduce the total number of handguns in a city, even if it involves disarming the law-abiding while criminals get to keep their weapons.
I couldn’t have put it better myself! Amen!
I heard something about Russian culture from a Finnish Intelligence Agent who used to work in Russia. He explained that Russians in general consider two categories of lies. The first one is lying about everyday things and matters between Russians, which is considered bad. The other category involves lying in order to enhance the State (Russia) or bolster its image. This category of lying is considered completely acceptable to the average Russky. It is no wonder that they don’t honor their treaties in which they were probably lying by signing them in the first place.
But for whose benefit? Certainly not for the US. We pay most of the bill, meanwhile Latvia does loud, provocative and stupid things like Kaliningrad. Nato becomes the new Stalin blockading Berlin. And I’m sure they got the go ahead from Biden’s State Department. They are that stupid.
And then there’s Poland running off with the mouth doing everything to belittle Russia with no means of backing it up other than standing behind America’s skirts. What happens if Russia decides to smack them? Who will be stuck?
Of course, we have a great president who doesn’t know what he’s doing nor does anyone else in his administration. And we have great Senators like Graham and Tillis calling for the murder of Putin. True clowns.
Whatever happened to speak softly and carry a big stick? We talk loudly and keep demonstrating how little stick we carry.
It depends much more on the interests than the signatories. It was the US that withdrew from arms limitation treaties. Why? Interests or more correctly perceived interests. The first treaty the US ever signed was a perpetual treaty of alliance with France. After we got what we wanted out of it (arms and loans),we abrogated the treaty and were not going to fight in European wars. Something we should learn from.
As for treaties between western countries being solid, what has happened is that we pick up the defense tab and Europeans increase their tariffs on American goods. Some allies.
For our benefit, among others. It is not to our benefit to have an expanding Russia exerting its rule or influence over people who are our allies, and it would not be good for us to face an expansionist Russia alone.
And it’s not as though our allies do nothing. The eastern allies are doing what they can with mouth, arms, and money to keep the Russian empire at bay. If Russia considers it provocative when its expansion is being stifled, that is not a problem to run away from. (By the way, it is Lithuania, not Latvia, that is speaking about Kaliningrad. Lithuania borders Kaliningrad and wants to do the responsible thing to keep Russian military might from being exerted on Lithuanian territory.)
You mean Russia will smack them because Poland doesn’t say nice things about Russia? That’s not a good sign. Maybe it’s a sign that we should be doing more to help Poland.
Trump spoke softly about Putin and carried a big stick, helping to build up NATO forces in Poland. That was a good thing. We’re stuck with Biden who speaks loudly and then sabotages his own efforts to help Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic countries defend against Putin’s aggression.
That’s the “Obama Doctrine.”
Seriously, what is inaccurate about this?
@hangon — Just as Putin is for undoing Ronald Reagan’s great work for human freedom, the breakup of the Soviet Union, so most of us are for preserving Reagan’s towering achievement.
I take that you’re not.
See #109, above.
“Nato becomes the new Stalin blockading Berlin.” Attacking NATO, of course, was a big part of the Soviet propaganda effort during the Cold War; a little creepy to see it here.
Kaliningrad is actually the ancient German city of Koenigsburg, 600 years old. Stalin simply stole it as a forward military base at the end of the war. In any case, if Russia is blockading Ukraine from the Black Sea, why can’t we blockade Russia’s military colony?
“What happens if Russia decides to smack them [Poland]?” Russia can barely handle Ukraine. You think they will go to war against Poland and NATO? At the same time? That’s precisely why all the nations of Europe, including formerly neutral Finland and Sweden, are supporting the Ukrainians.
I don’t see Russia as the Soviet Union nor do I see Putin as being a threat to the United States.
The Soviet Union was a threat to the United States.
Putin is not the terrible monster you make him out to be. Putin is someone who is going to push for Russia’s interests, which will conflict with the interests of the Baltic states and others. But he shows no signs to me of wanting to conquer everyone around him. He didn’t take over Georgia when he could have after destroying the Georgian military. Furthermore, what is Georgia to the United States? It may be important to CIA actors for whatever gangster operations they may have going on in Georgia, but then I see the CIA as being nothing other than a gangster operation that should be brought to heel by disbanding.
Reflect on the fact that Finland and Sweden are abandoning their proud, 70-year tradition of neutrality, and joining NATO. Clearly, their opinion of Putin is much more like mine than your Pollyanna-ish view.
Note how Putin uses territory he has already taken over as a base for further invasions. Thus we see that both Belarus and Crimea are staging areas for attacks on Ukraine, which is nearly surrounded. Just as taking over Ukraine will give him a base for further attacks westward into Europe.
Which is to say, if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, his natural next step in the recreation of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire must be war with NATO, involving American troops. That’s why both parties in Washington agree that it’s a good idea to let the Ukrainians do our fighting for us.
Or . . . they just want the U.S. to pick up the tab (and when required, the bloodshed) for their own defense.
Doesn’t that seem a little . . . immoral?
You share the same attitude of Neville Chamberlain and other leaders who thought that it was okay to give Hitler smaller countries to feed his appetite, thinking confidently that he would just stop there. Putin has already publicly threatened Poland, Sweden, and Finland, am I leaving out any others?
And almost everything you’ve referenced in your comments on the Ukraine War turn out to be either misleading or flat-out wrong. For instance right here you say that you don’t see Putin as being a threat to the United States. Putin made threats of targeting the U.S. with nuclear tipped missiles three years before this war ever began. And he did this on the heels of violating a treaty with us. I’m not even sure if any Soviet leaders did that other than Kruschev.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/putin-just-threatened-u-nukes-210100537.html
mistake
Please, no more WWII/Hitler/Chamberlain analogies. I don’t think I can cope.
Consider this a Brand New Thing that requires Brand New Ways of Thinking.
But it’s not brand new and doesn’t require a new way of thinking.