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.
Repent! The End is Near!
Well, not necessarily but…
There is a melancholy feeling of late. Somehow we are facing the end of western civilization. But is it really? For that matter, if it were the end, would we actually recognize it as such? Even a modest familiarity with world history tells us that we are hardly the first to face that question. It might be obvious if we were Romans in Britain in 410 AD, when the order came from Rome for the last legions to leave. Then a hard decision was needed; pack up and go, or stay and take your chances. Even more obvious would be to be in Constantinople in May 1453. Then Mehmet’s great gun pounding at the city walls would make the message clear.
Just as often, however, the signs may be there but not so clear. The spice merchant in Petra might remark on the declining number of caravans coming through. A farmer in Sumeria might puzzle over recent crop failures. The future might seem bleak, or maybe not. Perhaps things will be better next season. Maybe the king has something up his sleeve that will set matters right.
It is to this issue that I recommend the podcast, Fall of Civilizations. I found this series of podcasts on YouTube but all the details can be found at fallofcivilizations.com. The podcast is the work of Paul Cooper who both writes and narrates the podcast. Each episode runs about three to four hours and is a deep dive into the entire history of significant civilizations and well worth the investment of time.
Perhaps the current apocalyptic fog is being driven, at least in part, by the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. Serious argument is made as to whether we should be involved, and support by our government and others has been just enough to keep it going but not enough to push it to a decisive end, short of complete surrender by Ukraine.
One of the most vocal critics is Tucker Carlson. He obviously has a bully pulpit to preach from and he has a definite talent for asking uncomfortable questions. But, as with Vietnam, Iraq, and all the conflicts in which we have been involved since WWII, there are no answers. Tucker simply says we should quit, give up. Perhaps it is the thing to do at this juncture, but just how would this be brought about? Would we stop answering the phone when Zelensky calls? Would we call Vladimir and tell him he won and can have anything he wants? Most significantly, would we just stand by as Putin devours Ukraine, obliterates the population? We cannot predict the future, not any of it, save maybe for a demonstration of the laws of gravity. Without a reasonable estimate of future possibilities, no decision, whether to stay the course, cut and run, seek a compromise, negotiate a truce, would be sensible. On this, Mr. Carlson is stone silent.
There is a reason for defending Ukraine, one which has hardly been touched. The cold fact is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and Russia has willfully violated that sovereignty. Our whole international system relies on the sanctity of borders and requires international consent to change them. Allow Russia to prevail, and all that crumbles into dust. Defending Ukraine has nothing to do with any past history, nor with any supposed political sympathies of some Ukrainians. Particularly useless is to complain that the Ukraine government is corrupt. Just which set of corrupt oligarchs should we side with? Either Ukraine’s borders remain intact, or there are no borders for anyone.
It may be naive, but at least it is a principle to consider. The situation is hideously complicated by the energy debacle. Even so, it does not seem a wise choice to just step back and watch it all burn, all the while smugly saying, “We told you so!”
Published in History
Shouldn’t it?
Is there a good reason to ignore U.S. involvement in Ukraine over the last decade? Or Ukraine’s treatment of their own Russia-sympathetic citizens during that time period? This can’t be reduced to good guys/bad guys so easily.
What if . . . what if neither side is particularly good?
I would agree except for one thing. The Left, Biden has done everything including inviting Russia to attack them. I have a hard time supporting things the Left wants me too. They have their own reasons for this war and they will have it. So I oppose, it is not our business and if the Left wants it then it is bad for us.
I’ve seen reports from sources I trust saying things like the US Army has cancelled certain training because the ammunition, etc., needed for said training has been sent to or is earmarked for UKR. Now, these are scattered reports, and may be false. But if there’s any degree of truth to them, we have to bite the bullet and cut off UKR. Our government and military are ultimately responsible for us, not the Ukes.
No, our government answers to our elites for their betterment. It can care less about the American people. Only about the world’s elites desires, whims and wealth.
Damn. I thought I was cynical.
As with so many questions the time to not get involved was in the past. Now we are involved and there are consequences if we lose. I like Tucker but sometimes I don’t think he understands that, or maybe he does but in his calculation losing is better for us in the long run.
I tend to agree with you if Russia wins outright it isn’t the end of their aggression it is the beginning of it, but maybe that shouldn’t be our concern. Isolationism is very fashionable right now. Didn’t work out so well in run up to WWII. Didn’t work out very well prior to 9/11. I am sure though this time will be different.
I also think some on the right now agree with the left that the US is the cause of all the worlds problems, for different reasons of course but broad agreement. I find this exhausting. I don’t know where they think is better mind you maybe they acknowledge that this is the best we have, but it isn’t worth defending anymore at least not rhetorically.
Lately I have been feeling very old. I really am not that old, but I feel every year lately, and miss the land of my youth.
That’s exactly the point of the OP. In a case of ‘which bad guy do we side with’ it’s often the case that we can’t just throw up our hands and say “a pox on both your houses”. Not to decide is to decide. Thus spake Archibald Cox. We conservatives claim that we care about sovereignty and international borders. Don’t we? And don’t argue that the current administration is ignoring ours but helping defend Ukraine’s. We, at least, shouldn’t be as inconsistent as they are. If borders matter we should want them honored and respected everywhere. Take Putin at his word. He says he won’t abide a NATO country on his border. OK. What about Latvia and Estonia? They are in NATO. They border Russia. And they surround the Russian Oblast of Kaliningrad. If Putin can succeed in Ukraine his next move will be Estonia and Latvia where we are treaty bound to commit boots on the ground. I’d much rather send dollars and equipment to Ukraine than US soldiers to Estonia to fight Russians.
Same.
Well, let’s see now… The current administration has, by design, destroyed America’s southern border, and invited in various drug gangs, terrorists, and poverty-stricken refugees from all over the world. They have continued the Obama regime’s willful reduction of our formerly-strong military to a bunch of whining homosexual crybabies (along with treating them as if they are terrorists). They are actually encouraging Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. They have been indoctrinating our nation’s children to believe that they are a blot on the planet, and that their country is an oppressor of everyone except white, heterosexual men. They have engaged in the ruin of our formerly world-dominating energy industry, making us ever more dependent upon foreign nations for the lifeblood of society (cheap, abundant energy). They are treating parents who are concerned about public schools’ sexualization of five-year-olds like Domestic Terrorists.
Our government and the unbridled Deep State have embarked on a successful campaign against America, reducing our status in the world, and enabling the rise of what @DougWatt has called the New Axis of Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia. That sounds like a direct attack on Western Civilization to me. Combine that with the EU’s campaign to cause starvation of its own people by denying them cheap energy and farmland. Looks pretty dire.
Perhaps the production lines for the ammunition, etc. need to be cranked up instead. Or new production lines created. I understand that Ukraine is corrupt. However, it is easier to stop the aggressor in Ukraine than it is in Paris. Cheaper in American lives and dollars, also.
Oh Geez, that last paragraph really hits me where I live. I’m pretty fortunate in that I live in a location where the pace of life is a bit slower but still, I see things that tell me I’m not in the same country that I used to be.
I sometimes wonder if Barbara Tuchman were still alive, would she write another chapter of The March of Folly describing U.S. actions of the past few years? She defined folly as the pursuit by government of policies contrary to their own interests, despite the availability of feasible alternatives.
Perhaps the Biden Administration would be worth a number of chapters…
Why not?
Why not? It’s a legitimate critique. If I see that our administration cares more about Ukraine’s borders than our own, it compels me to ask by what principle they are acting. It’s not sovereignty of borders, obviously.
While that’s a compelling prediction, it is only prediction, and I’m not sure what it’s based on.
I don’t get the people who recognize how the Biden administration is systematically (purposefully) destroying our economy, and then in the next breath embrace throwing billions more at Ukraine, further exploding our own economy.
He deserves a whole sequel.
What really bugs me about Ukraine is that people who, for good reason, question everything the awful Biden administration is doing refuse to apply that same approach to the Biden administration’s actions in Ukraine.
That makes absolutely zero logical sense to me.
Unfortunately those two things don’t have much to do with each other. i.e. If he weren’t throwing billions at Ukraine he would still be destroying our economy. If Biden were a Chinese agent what would he be doing differently? I am not sure I can put my finger on anything.
Then the US violated Serbia’s sovereignty with Kosovo. If it’s so holy, why don’t we adhere to it?
Every time I see Biden at a podium, it makes no logical sense to me that he is President.
I think that he invaded UKR precisely because it’s not a member of NATO. And the reason the Baltics weren’t on the menu is precisely because they’re in NATO.
I think RUS still has the upper hand in the war, but look at how much materiel and men they’ve lost. They won’t be in any shape to hit NATO countries for at least a decade regardless of how this particular war turns out.
In the meantime, we have enough problems here at home, and at least to me it looks like the Biden administration is emptying our armories for the benefit of UKR.
Speaking of which, I understand that conflict is heating up again.
It would be bad enough if he had just emptied our armories but the fact that he did it in the face of an upcoming conflict with Red China is inexcusable.
Of course, that could be said about Biden’s energy policy…
1) Why not? Because an outcome is going to happen with or without you. But it’s usually the case that that outcome might not be one you’d like. So it’s in you best interest to shape that outcome to be something you’d like. Like stable international borders.
2.) It’s a legitimate critique of Dems two-facedness. It’s NOT a legitimate critique of assisting Ukraine…unless you are OK being as two-faced as a Democrat.
3) it’s based on Putin’s own words. Did I not say “Take Putin at his word?”
I don’t think Democrats are two-faced. That would mean they care about sovereign borders at least part of the time. And I don’t think this is about Ukraine’s border. At least, not for the Biden regime.
I don’t think that this is true.
We can defend our own borders. We don’t do so very well, at least from illegal aliens, but we could easily do so if we had the will. The location of the border between Russia and Ukraine, or India and Pakistan, or Rwanda and Uganda, simply makes no difference to us.
I’ve come to believe that it is a big mistake for our country to have decided that borders are sacrosanct, and that it’s our burden to police them. Of course, even we don’t believe this. We don’t give a hoot when Israel seizes the territory of another country. As Hang On pointed out, we had no problem violating the borders of Serbia, and I can add country after country to that list — Iraq, Syria, Libya. You know, Turkey gobbled up half of Cyprus, decades ago, and it hasn’t made any difference to us.
I think that isolationism worked quite well in the run up to WWII, and would have worked well in that war. I’ve come to believe that we were paranoid to fear German or Japanese expansion. There was no prospect that they would dominate us. Japan got itself horribly bogged down in China, and Germany got itself horribly bogged down in Russia.
Russia — Soviet Russia — ended up winning WWII, and effectively dominated eastern and much of central Europe. This ended up being a costly error for the Soviets. The cost of maintaining their empire led to the collapse of their regime. We were paranoid about Korea, as if it would have made any difference to us if South Korea fell. It wouldn’t have. We were paranoid about Vietnam, and it did fall, and it didn’t make any difference to us.
Your reference to 9/11 is difficult to believe, frankly. 9/11 was a response to decades of US interventionism in the Middle East, and in other parts of the Islamic World. Bin Laden published a letter explaining this, in 2002. His points are correct. We opposed Islamic countries over and over again. We invaded them, and bombed them, and supported their enemies from Israel to Russia to India and elsewhere.
Maybe we were wise to do so, maybe not. I’m inclined, these days, to think not. But don’t blame isolationism for 9/11, which was a consequence of interventionism.
I was going to say.
While there are quite a few points of disagreement with your other statements, I agree that we were hardly isolationist prior to 9/11. Particularly not in the middle east. Or have Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and Clinton’s many bombing runs been so conveniently forgotten?
On the highlighted part: I agree that Russia is in no shape to invade NATO. I think that this was true before the war in Ukraine.
I have a question — where should I look to see how much material and men the Russians have lost? I don’t know of any reliable source of information for this. The last Land of Confusion podcast didn’t have a good answer to this question, either — which is not a criticism of Dave, Mark, and Clark. I just think that we don’t know of a reliable source of information about this.
I don’t feel like getting involved in another Ukraine debate right now, but I will note that Fall of Civilizations is indeed a good podcast.
What would be anyone’s position if Ukraine were suddenly to be corruption-free and all the money we send there actually makes it into filling public needs, or if the rumored 70% of arms we sent did not disappear and show up on the world’s black market, with kickbacks and profits all around?
What if the Ukrainian government were not putting profits first, and instead were putting the Ukrainian population and free elections first?
What if the CIA and the State Department were honest and forthright and respecting Ukrainian sovereignty for the past decade and not surreptitiously running Ukraine from the inside?
How would the views of all who have them now subtly change?
It would be a far different Eastern Europe, and a very different war. Or probably no war at all.
That last one.
Ethnic cleansing?
Except we learned during the pandemic that most our ammo comes from China and Russia.