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.
“The Case Against Western Military Assistance to Ukraine”
A superb essay (link below) that constitutes a valuable contribution to this matter. The author painstakingly (and, in my view, compellingly) lays his out arguments for the following propositions:
- It’s extremely unlikely that, had the West not helped Ukraine, Russia would have attacked a NATO member next
- Western military assistance to Ukraine makes proliferation more, not less, likely
- Providing military assistance to Ukraine is not cheap once you take into account the indirect costs
- The argument that committing to Ukraine’s defense was necessary to deter wars of aggression is flawed
- The argument from credibility is a self-fulfilling prophecy and a recipe for the sunk cost fallacy
Link:
https://philippelemoine.substack.com/p/the-case-against-western-military
Published in General
I think the land border worry is old WW2 thinking. In an era of satellites and drones, there is no threat of a surprise invasion of a 1000 tanks. There won’t be a surprise and tanks are easily destroyed without air cover. If they want to be paranoid, build a canal along the border. It will stop tanks and be super effective at transporting goods.
C. The Biden administration is encouraging an active invasion by 190 countries and most people don’t give a flip.
And from what I read, Murmansk is also a port that doesn’t freeze.
So work to have better relations with your neighbors. Maybe if you didn’t invade them in 2014 and then again in 2022 they wouldn’t be trying to cozy up to your principal geopolitical adversary. I’ll even grant you that Russia may have had a legitimate compliant because of maidan, but they way to counteract that was diplomatically and not militarily. The US has hostile relations with countries in this hemisphere Cuba is 90 miles of the coast of Florida. We also have problems with Mexico, but by and large Mexico isn’t looking to get in bed with Russia or China because the US makes an effort to maintain good relations despite some pretty significant disagreements and major provocations on the part of Mexico. Russia just isn’t all that good at the diplomatic game. Also maidan worked because the pro-Russian kleptocrats were too rapacious for a people who have a pretty big tolerance for corruption. The very lease Mr. Putin could have done was supplement his own people so they didn’t cause a backlash.
I think that Iran opposed ISIS because of sectarian differences and close proximity to their own terrorist proxies. I don’t think it is fair to say Iran is opposed to Islamic terrorism. A quibble perhaps but I would argue an important one.
Yep, memories are likely to be long.
Anapa is in a much less advantageous position than Sevastopol. An extra 10 hours for a sub, for instance. Besides, it makes no sense to spend 10% of your entire military budget to build a brand new naval base while giving up one you already have.
As for Crimea itself, it has more than military importance to Russia at this point. It is also surrounded by very promising fairly recently (2012, IIRC) discovered undersea oil and natural gas deposits, which various Western companies had already made deals with Ukraine to explore before they had to pull out in 2014.
And there are all those Russians on it, of course, who very much like being under Russia’s rather than Ukraine’s auspices.
Dismissing this as mere nostalgia is a mistake.
PS:
Speaking of the aforementioned Russians in Crimea, an NBC News reporter recently did an interview there, which resulted in him being added to the Ukrainian website Mirotvorets “kill list” (the one that had Daria Dugina’s status updated to “liquidated” after her assassination). Here’s the video clip of the interview:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/03/01/watch_crimeans_tell_nbc_news_reporter_it_is_russian_land_will_fight_ukrainian_forces_for_it.html
2014 and 2022 didn’t happen in a vacuum, of course. Good relations with your neighbors are a two-way street. Ukraine had been in the middle of a 20 year proxy tug-of-war contest between the US and Russia prior to US-backed coup in 2014, with each side vying to install its own set of kleptocrats to lord it over the average Ukrainian. And, as far as rapaciousness goes, there’s no daylight between pro-US and pro-Russian kleptocrats. That’s why Ukraine, despite its natural resources, and regardless of its government’s pro-Russia/pro-US/Europe leanings at any given time, has remained the corruption-riddled “poor man of Europe”, with a GDP/capita (PPP) of less than half that of Russia’s.
10 hours to where? Odessa? How about the Mediterranean or the Straights of Malacca?
10% of military budget for a new base is much less than whatever this war is costing.
Oil is interesting. In the short term, Russia’s oil business has declined in market share. It is hard to say if there are long-term wins since Europe is committing oil suicide. Fertilizer (eg, potash) from Donbas is probably a bigger thing as there are few good deposits.
Yep. And those 3 million Russians in Crimea were demanding war about the water supply being cut off. It is hard to weight that politically as I live in a country where foreign policy is controlled by oligarchs.
Thanks for the insight. I appreciate that every part of the region is fraught with complexity. This whole thing is like 100-D chess being played by 1000 players.
Heh.
There’s an ole adage (don’t recall by whom) that goes …
History is just one damn thing after another.
I don’t disagree with you that the Russia and the West (US and EU are both pretty involved) have been in a competition for Ukraine for a long time, but that is not unusual. The US, Russia, and China engage in diplomatic competitions all the time all over the globe. Very rarely, read almost never, do those competitions end in a shooting/ Proxy war. It isn’t in anyone’s interest to encourage that as an outcome for the losers to contemplate, not even Russia’s even though they seem to disagree. Russia certainly feels as if this is unfair because they consider Ukraine part of their sphere of influence, but you only have a sphere of influence if you have the combination of hard/ soft power to maintain it. The greater the use of hard power the more it chaffs and the less surprised you should be at reversals. I also agree that the pro-Western and pro-Russian kleptocrats are both super corrupt and bad for Ukraine. Russia ought to have been able to use that to start driving a wedge between the West and Ukraine. Instead they decided to use hard power. It was a mistake.
Additonally the Russian controlled portions of Ukraine have been even more corrupt than the rest of Ukraine since 2014 . As a result Russia doesn’t even have a very favorable view among the Russian speakers left in Ukraine. In fact if there were fair referendums in the occupied territories it isn’t clear to me they wouldn’t vote to reintegrate with Ukraine, although that is super hard to tell because we live in the EU/US/Ukrainian information bubble. I agree with you that Crimea is separate and distinct on this point. The bottom line is the Russians have been using all stick and no carrot. I am not sure that works in the 21st century, although China is a pretty convincing case that it can. I think they could have done better playing off the corruption of the EU/US kleptocrats, but maybe not. Memories are long in that part of the world and Ukraine has grudges going back to the Soviet era, probably before as well. China’s belt and road initiative isn’t a great deal for people but it has been fairly successful. Despite inherent incompetence and the lack of any strategic vision the US still manages to bumble its way into being an attractive partner. Russia doesn’t really. People don’t trust what it is selling as an ally.
I guess what I am meandering about in search of a cogent thought on is while Russia has the right to pursue its own perceived national interest, and yes to use force in that pursuit if necessary, it isn’t guaranteed success in that pursuit. Ukraine also has right to pursue its interest and not to be bullied by a larger belligerent neighbor. I can understand why the Ukrainian people might think the Russian offer is a poor deal. In fact it would seem that most countries seem to agree with Ukraine on that point. I think the only overt ally Russia has that is able to provide material support is Iran, which basically as a pariah has nothing really to lose. India is happy to buy Russian gas on the cheap, but is unlikely to stick its neck out for Russia. China is happy to see the west expend itself on the conflict, but is getting all of its strategic aims met without having to do much to help Putin.
That is incorrect. For example, what led to the Maidan coup is Yanukovych’s decision on November 21, 2013 to reject the EU’s “carrot” (IMF loan promises of various kinds that came with conditions that included not only strict austerity measures, but political/judiciary reforms as well, including a demand that Yanukovych’s main political rival be released from jail) in favor of Russia’s “carrot” ($15 billion bailout of Ukraine’s budget hole, 33% price break on gas imports, and various other trade/economic inducements, with no demands for austerity programs of any kind, and certainly no demands of the political/judiciary kind).
A couple of weeks later, Victoria Nuland and Co. landed in Kiev for the first of several visits during December of that year. A week or so later, Sen. McCain also paid a visit and addressed the Maidan crowd.
A couple of months later, Yanukovych was ousted and had to flee to Moscow.
I urge you to revisit your “bottom line” above.
I actually meant since Maidan not necessarily prior to it, although during is also instructive. I gather you would say that Maidan was mostly an astroturfed situation, although I don’t want to put words in your mouth or strawman your argument. The Ukrainians didn’t behave as if Maidan was 100% astroturf. The point is that Russia had diplomatic cards to play. I am not necessarily sure their operation in Crimea was ill advised in 2014, but the operations in Eastern Ukraine definitely poisoned the well, speaking of poisoned didn’t Putin poison one of the opposition leaders prior to Maidan. I must admit I don’t recall those details particularly well. I will grant you that prior to 2014 Russia and the US were both mostly using diplomatic means to sway Ukraine. It seems like Russia wasn’t as successful even though by your estimation they had the better opening bid. I think that may point to them being particularly untrustworthy, not that I necessarily think we are much better on that score. Sometimes it pays to be the tallest midget.
Hah! Good one.
So what happens next? I read that 3 million people have moved from Ukraine to Russia (refugees). That is probably most of the women and children in eastern oblasts. They are probably not going back. The fighting is mostly limited to the Wagner group in Bakmut (sp?), where there is lots of shelling, but not much movement. UAF seems able to maintain a stalemate. Does stalemate lead to peace talks?
Unfortunately probably not, both sides believe the stalemate benefits them, so it is unlike to go to peace talks. Ukraine is waiting on more and better weapons from the west and training. The stalemate benefits them in giving them time for that to materialize. Russia believes the stalemate gives them more time for mobilization and training, so they can bring their superior numbers into play. Neither side feels exhausted at this point in time although both are showing signs. It probably doesn’t go to peace talks until we see who is right about which side the stalemate favors. If Bakhmut falls completely, but Russia doesn’t feel like it can exploit an opportunity after that they may be interested in talks, but I doubt Ukraine would be, absent US pressure. If Bakhmut falls and Russia thinks they have righted the ship they aren’t going to be interested in talks. If the Ukrainians hold on and then can launch another successful counter-offensive that might drive Russia to the negotiating table, but the West will have to force the Ukrainians there. The most likely point where talks will start is if Ukraine can credibly threaten Crimea. That would mean Russia is in bad enough shape that they would see wisdom in negotiating and the West would be in a position to force Ukraine to the table. Otherwise if it is a true stalemate and neither side can gain a meaningful advantage it will stay frozen until the next presidential election is concluded assuming Biden isn’t reelected.
As of today, the Ukrainians withdrew whatever troops they still could from the eastern part of the city before they blew up the last bridge still standing over the Bakhmutovka River in order to prevent Wagner (which is pretty much done cleaning up that part) from crossing over while they are now pulling out of the western part under heavy artillery fire (the Russians control the high ground to the north of the city).
The Battle for Bakhmut is just about over.
That situation, I think, would be less likely to lead to negotiations. Smelling “blood in the water”, the Ukrainians would, quite understandably, want to go in for the kill. And so would the Poles, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Romanians, Czechs, etc., who I’m guessing would be so revved up by said potential as to help the Ukrainians do just that that they’d eagerly empty out the rest of their arsenals (knowing full well that the US would make them whole in fairly forthwith fashion, of course) down to the very last bullet and send all of it into Ukraine.
The Western part of NATO would, I believe, find it extremely difficult if not impossible to oppose/tamp down that “David is this close to slaying Goliath!!! How can you just stand aside and not help???!!!???” level of passion (one can easily imagine the media in the West playing that up for all it’s worth in just in that way, don’t you think?), even if they wanted to. And, I highly suspect, they would NOT want to. They, too, especially the UK, would also be eager to go for it, and do everything in their power to kick Russia out of Crimea. For if that happens, their repeatedly stated goal would be achieved: regime change in Russia.
Putin would not survive the loss of Crimea. And the infighting over who replaced him would be ferocious, and weaken Russia even further, which the West/NATO would more than welcome.
PS:
I would also argue that, under the “Ukraine can credibly threaten Crimea” scenario that you posited above, Zelensky would choose to outright ignore any suggestions/demands from the US/West to negotiate. For if he didn’t, under said scenario, he would run not “merely” the risk of being ousted (much faster than the 3 months or so that it took to oust Yanukovych in 2014, I would guess) and replaced by someone else (perhaps even someone within his current entourage) who is perceived to have more “balls”, but the not entirely dismissible risk of being assassinated (perhaps even by someone within his current entourage) if he doesn’t get flown out of Ukraine first (just like Yanukovych had to do back in 2014).
Tough part of the world, and all that. Really tough. Has been for … many, many, many centuries. They’ve seen “… things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. …” type things, in comparison to the things that our comparatively very lucky country has seen/experienced during its nearingly 250 year history.
Okay, it seems you are going by Biblical standards which do not discuss the merits for “just wars.” Fair enough. I would point out however, whether you realize it or not, you are making moral judgements about the Ukraine War when you justify Putin’s reasons for invading and blame NATO for expanding.
Maybe sometimes it is wrong vs. wrong (for example the Iran vs. Iraq War?). But what makes you think that in the Ukraine War this is automatically so? Even if Ukrainians are not perfect, what justification is there for another country to invade and wipe them out? Russia is far more corrupt and evil as a country than is Ukraine. But before they invaded Ukraine, I would not have thought it just for another country to invade and wipe out Russia.
I’m responding to your comment not in particular, but just in general for the people who don’t want the U.S. defending Ukraine, or are willing to have Ukraine give up parts of its territory.
This may be a generalization, but I think it is common that most of the people who don’t want to spend money defending Ukraine, proudly point out that Putin did not invade while Donald Trump was President because Putin knew that Trump would not have stood by and let it happen. But this necessarily means that Trump would have spent more money defending Ukraine than Biden has. Either that, or Trump would have threatened to send troops or bombing raids, or whatever to keep Russia in check. That was the whole point of Trump being a deterrent to an aggressive Russia.
If you think Trump would not have done that, then you assume that he was only a Paper Tiger. I have the feeling that if Trump were the one in office when Russia invaded, many attitudes among Republicans about defending Ukraine would be changed.
From when I was just a youth, despite being a naive liberal, it became apparent to me that Communist leaders and authoritarian leaders of all stripes lied as a matter of routine. I never could understand why the news people quoted them seriously as if what they were saying was true, without ever questioning the veracity. I kind of assumed that everybody else saw that.
But now that I am an “old man(!)” I marvel at adults who still believe everything they hear coming out of the mouths of people like Vladimir Putin. There should be a revival of the old saying “Actions are greater than words”.
Even by your standard of “promised aid,” it looks like Germany is outspending us proportionally by four-to-one. (The U.S. has more than 4X as many people as Germany) Not that I approve of the total U.S. amount or the way it’s been handled.
I have a different take on the Iraq War. While it may not have necessarily been our business, we stopped one of the most brutal dictators of all time from killing even more than the one or two-million people he had already killed. And Iraq has withstood the test of 20 years as a democracy without falling back into anarchy or dictatorship. It is one of the most hidden and overlooked success stories of modern war.
You said it right there, “defensive.” What is the big threat? NATO doesn’t go around invading countries for spoils the way Russia has for one hundred years.
‘Existential” is a matter of opinion, but Islamic terrorists have killed over three-thousand Americans and counting, not including the 1,500 or so Americans killed by Iranian interventions into the Iraq War. So far I am not aware of significant American casualties from China or Russia, though the potential is certainly high.
“No matter how this ends, twenty years from now, Russians will still be hated in Ukraine.”
I’m sure you are right! But the hate of Ukrainians by Russians seems to have been even greater. They made war on the place.
If Mexico entered into a defensive pact with peaceful countries (for instance some sort of South American Alliance), nobody would be alarmed. It is the track record of the countries involved that makes all the difference in the world.
Conversely, Trump may have prevented the escalation we’ve seen by providing carrots. Maybe Trump would have conditioned Ukrainian aid on Ukraine disbanding their Nazi-wanna-be militias and that would have been enough to avoid the “special operation”. Alternate history is not knowable.
The paradox is of course that deterrence is much cheaper than war.
The word you want is “per capita”. Aid accounting is opaque. I am not seeing any kind of breakdown of what the money figures are for. Does Germany count rent and food vouchers for refugees? Does Germany count the energy subsidies to consumers? When Biden transfers a Bradley fighting vehicle to Ukraine, what is the dollar value on that? Replacement cost? Depreciated present value? Does the accounting included black-budget stuff and satellite imaging and weird State Department slush funds? A government spending$6T/year is gushing money from every orifice and it is hard to tell where it lands. This Ukraine Aid tracker site tries to break down committed v. disbursed, refugee aid,… Estonia punches above its weight! Poland has *lots* of refugees.
Exactly. If country A’s neighbor embarked on a plan to enter into a military alliance with country A’s main geopolitical adversary/enemy, country A would be gravely alarmed, and do whatever it could to prevent that. Including war (either direct or proxy) against said neighbor.
I surely would appreciate it if people stop ascribing motives and explanations to my position. It’s not about the money. It’s all funny money at this point. Even our grandkids (if we’re lucky enough to have them) won’t be able to dig us out of this hole. Printing presses go brrrzzzzz. (where is @rufusrjones, btw?)
It’s about the corruption and incompetence of our own government taking what is likely provocative action in a situation it is not equipped to resolve. Trump didn’t have to deal with a Russian invasion because he practiced smart foreign policy by showing strength (droning Soleimani and beating back ISIS) and a willingness to challenge his own side (NATO). Trump’s unpredictability was a feature, not a bug.
Biden gave away the game with his (predictably) disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. Putin saw his opportunity and took it. I’m neither admiring or excusing him for it. But, I think I understand his motives (threat of NATO expansion and his Russian nationalism). And I’m wondering why people who want us to go all-in on “supporting” Ukraine (which isn’t all about money, but also armaments) and who believe (as I do) that Putin is a bad guy don’t ask themselves why, if he’s such an evil guy, we can rest assured he won’t be provoked into using nukes?
I think there’s a lot of turning-a-blind-eye to the questions: “What then?” “Why do I trust our own corrupt and malicious government to do this right?” and “How does this end?”
If you’re answering, Russia abandons all of Ukraine (and Crimea?) and Putin is deposed for someone better, you’re more of an optimist than I am.
Like how the drug cartels in Mexico have partnered with China to produce fentanyl that kills 100,000 Americans every year? America’s leaders are not alarmed and are not doing squat to stop it. Hey Joe! How about some banking sanctions before the death toll hits a million.
Amen WC . . .Amen.