We Need to Talk About War
Movements Start Small #36
"We and you ought not now pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you.”
Nikita Khrushchev telegram to JFK at the height of the Cuban missile crisis
Most wars lack the moral clarity of World War II. But all of them are framed as if they do. Bright lines of good and evil are drawn and the need for war becomes obvious. How else could we rationalize the terror and destruction of armed conflict?
But, in most cases, there is misunderstanding, miscommunication and flat out error behind escalating conflict.
As we approach three years of backing Ukraine in a major power proxy war, it’s time to start asking harder questions about goals, scope and end game. The conventional view suggests that raising any doubts about full-blown support in Ukraine is an act of treason, a clear sign of Putin adoration and a retreat from democratic values. Let me be clear. I am no fan of Putin. He is an authoritarian bully, both brutal and corrupt. I want nothing of his system in ours, and I believe we should protect our core allies in Europe at all costs. But, I have questions when it comes to Ukraine.
Is it truly forbidden to ask them? Should we not demand basic answers when war is at stake and the risk of escalation growing? Should we have not asked these questions all along?
So here are my questions - admittedly with my concerns front and center:
To me, the fundamental question at the core of the conflict is this: Is Putin more Hitler or Saddam? Hitler was an ideologically driven leader with ambitions of global dominance and a commitment to devote his entire society to achieving it. Saddam was a corrupt and evil dictator insecure of his hold on power who acted tough mostly to keep internal dissent low and his regional enemy, Iran, at bay. Of course, we thought he was a potential Hitler on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons. Misunderstandings in war are costly.
The conventional view suggests Putin is more in the imperial-Hitler camp. But, the case is not clear. First off, Putin has stated for years his deep security concerns of NATO presence on his most critical border. What evidence is there he would invade Europe proper?
The best argument for his imperial ambitions is his gradual expansion into Crimea and extreme political meddling in bordering nations. And, yes, he has said that dissolving the USSR was a massive mistake. But Russian paranoia is nothing new. It is not an easy country to defend. Even Gorbachev warned Reagan of the perceived threat NATO expansion would appear to any Russian leader. CIA director William Burns affirmed this as far back as 2008: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
This history leads to a hotly debated question: Could the Russian invasion have been avoided? The New York Times recently did a review of the leadup to war suggesting not. But, even in their review, the Russian need for Ukraine as a buffer from NATO presence is clear. And big issues such as the border disputes in eastern Ukraine are dismissed as Russian overreach. But, those territories have been in open conflict for decades with strong Russian loyalties in the region. The entire history of these two countries is so complex and intertwined (not to mention our engagement in it) I am hesitant to say we understand it fully. This fact alone is proof of nothing but the high potential for dangerous misunderstandings.
In addition, detailed accounts of negotiations mere weeks into the war, show a narrow range of issues at stake. Putin looks far from a madman intent on a broad war. In fact, his core demand was a neutral, nuclear free state in Ukraine. Is that totally unreasonable from his point of view? Is it worth a brutal war? Our rejection of these asks in no way justifies Putin’s invasion, but the full context needs to be understood and explored. The motives hold the key to resolution.
Is it possible we simply overrate the bogeyman of Putin? Russia is loaded with nuclear weapons but is not a major economic power. And militarily they do not look like a force that could steamroll Europe. Putin plays above his weight on the global scene for sure, but again, is that to try to expand his regime…or protect it by looking tough and in control? No question he will do all he can to stay in power, but a strong man doing bad things to protect himself is not new in geopolitics - in fact it is likely the norm in most of the world. Is the Russian obsession a historical habit? Or a background fear of his impact on the 2016 election? Or driven by a “domino theory” of authoritarianism? We need to fully understand our deepest fears when it comes to Russia. Are they legitimate? Are there reasons to fear a truly imperial agenda? I think the case is weaker than generally presented.
Now, let’s concede all the risks presented are real and imminent. Then: What, exactly, is our goal? Expel Russia from Ukraine and deter future incursions appears the easy answer. But, could we ever believe in peace with Putin still in charge? Isn’t regime change really the goal? No question a loss in Ukraine will make Putin highly vulnerable. But, with success, what makes us think we could control that outcome? Nation building is hard! We know. And, when it looked (for like 5 minutes) that Wagner group henchman, Yevgeny Prigozhin, might take Putin out, did you suddenly think: ahh, Russia will now be a good friend?
Assume full victory is possible and gets us the best possible outcome in terms of Ukrainian independence and European security. Then are we doing what it takes to win? Clearly not. There are two simultaneous paths required to drive victory in this war. First, military success. Well, it is not happening. The Ukrainian counter-offensive last year was a total bust. The recent invasion of Kursk looks like progress, but it is a tactical win with many risks - including massive escalation. And yes, the US is now doing things in this war we said we would NEVER do (tanks, planes, ballistic missiles), but success looks like it will take much more. Ukraine is quite simply running out of young men (even as they empty their jails).
The simple fact is Russia sees this conflict as existential. There is little reason to think they will walk away without some victory - or total defeat. Are we ready to commit to their total defeat? Are we ready to send troops to do what is needed? Even the biggest Ukraine supporters start to get wobbly here. If this was truly a fight for western civilization we should be ready to take it on. Instead, we say the proxy war is a cheap way to weaken our enemy. Or another way it has been said: “we will fight to the last Ukrainian!” I personally question the morality (or long term value) of such a view.
But, of course, we also have to hit them economically. And we have taken action - seizing assets from oligarchs, imposing extreme sanctions, and ordering a total western business blackout. But, there is only one thing that really matters to the Russian economy: oil. Are we ready and able to deprive Putin of this income? Despite the rhetoric, NO. If we won’t buy his oil, someone will. China, India and many others are willing buyers - and we can’t and won’t stop them. But, the not so secret truth is Europe continues to buy as well. They simply have to. Recently the FT reported European purchases of natural gas from Russia are again surpassing their purchases from the US. The entire energy discussion is loaded with double speak, symbolic gestures and shady events (ahem, Nord Stream). The simple truth is we have not closed their market but only increased their revenue by keeping oil prices high to achieve our environmental priorities. Putin has been rolling in revenue.
No one can deny Ukraine’s right to self determination and the need to deter future aggression from Russia globally. But, the costs are mounting. Not just in dollars. The Ukrainians population and country is under devastating attack. And, their efforts to hold the country together now include halting elections and state control of the press. If our guiding principle is democracy, we seem to be straying from it. All while dangerous escalation continues. The risks for critical error that would put us in direct war grow every day. And the realpolitik of the situation is tightening alliances against us across other conflicts.
Ultimately, one question lingers: what is the end game? Right now it seems like a full on conflict or a negotiated settlement. If it is the latter, it looks like it will not be that different from what was on the table before (and shortly after) the war. What are we waiting for? If talks fail (or never really begin) and we slip into direct war…well, god help us.
Given the investment to date, can anyone back down and give up something? Can we see our way to peace? Can we stop the destruction of Ukraine and protect their self rule? Is a bigger war ahead? Or will new players in US leadership alter the course? At a minimum, we need more discussion on the roots and direction of this critical conflict or we likely will find ourselves in a much bigger war wondering how we got there - and what exactly we hope to accomplish.
More Links:
My views are influenced by a recent reading of David Halberston’s masterpiece The Best and the Brightest detailing our slow but very avoidable descent into the Vietnam War.
Economist (and former Bernie Sanders supporter) Jeffrey Sachs spent most of his career in Russia. He makes his case to a frustrated New Yorker interviewer that Ukraine is another unnecessary neocon adventure.
Who blew up the Germany’s Nordstream pipeline? Looks like Ukraine despite all early media reports certain it was Russia.
How to really harm Russia? Take Oil to $10/barrel
RIP Bob Newhart. His classic skit offers an antidote to our era of high anxiety: