It amazes me that so many people forget the lessons of history so very quickly. We were all taught how foolish appeasement had been in the lead up to World War II. So why are so many so convinced that appeasing Russia will end any better?
Mostly, because we stink at keeping up with current events that don’t involve celebrities and our favorite entertainment. Name off your ten favorite movies, no problem. Name ten wars going on in the world right now? Er, um, eh…
We tend to catch up on all the info when something has happened. That’s fine – there’s noting wrong with not being obsessed with the news – but we also stink at selecting good sources for information. We’re lazy and we go back to the media we’ve always trusted. But those people are no more static than we are – once trustworthy sources can become worthless. It’s not really obvious if we aren’t doing a good job selecting sources as we catch up.
We end up believing whatever the Lamestream is presently spewing. Or we end up believing the exact opposite because we don’t trust the Lamestream. If we’re really honest, it’s not just the algorithms – we seek other sources that affirm our own opinions.
Bad habits are made to be broken.
It’s not so easy to listen to stuff that differs from our own opinions. No one likes making the bed, either. But it’s also not the hardest thing. Like making the bed, it’s okay to not strip down the whole bed every morning – just straightening the sheets and blankets and fluffing a pillow is fine. It’s okay to take off putting sources in smaller doses. It’s okay to get those alternatives through the lens of a fairly objective third party. It’s okay to shut the thing off and yell at it for being so stupid – then finish.
The idea that you need to give equal time to both sides is bunk. You want a good, concise representation of the other side. You want enough to inform you and enough to challenge you. Hearing those different ideas makes you either rethink your own or figure out how to defend you own better.
Which gets me back to the topic. It’s not a significant enough movement that I’m concerned about Ukraine losing Western support but it’s not insignificant and should not be ignored. Conditions change and significance shifts. Besides, their tax dollars are going toward this, too, and they have every right to be heard – and answered.
If the West stopped supporting Ukraine, the war would end. In a word, no. First off the Ukrainians know what the Russian flag looks like – they don’t need their government’s help to surrender. Certainly they didn’t in the initial phases of the invasion. Instead the grabbed guns and made Molotov cocktails. These people are determined to fight. Western support helps their effectiveness significantly, but it’s not keeping Ukraine fighting, nor is it keeping Ukraine in the fight at this point.
If the West demanded negotiations, the war would end. Not a chance. Literally, the chance is zero. You can prove this to yourselves. Get a friend to take one side and you take the other. Russia wants territory, especially Crimea, and to not face sanctions or reparations. Ukraine wants all its land back, including Crimea, and reparations to rebuild. With just that, find a negotiated solution. Needless to say, there isn’t one. The reality is even more complicated but it boils down to there is no way for both to win – and neither wants to lose.
Ukraine should give up land for peace. That has never worked. Ask Israel. Ask Chamberlain about his famous assurances from Hitler. Ask Georgia – the country, not the state – which is still occupied and has had further Russian incursions. Ask Ukraine which had already given up Crimea – the fighting was in the Donbas pre-invasion, remember?
Losing nearly 20% of their territory including most of their ports is a recipe for decline. Ukraine would be setting itself up to be invaded again in a few years. Now you know what negotiated peace is so difficult.
Russia should withdraw to pre-invasion borders. Yes, they should. But that will almost certainly further destabilize the Russian government. Russia’s government needs a win to help it stabilize and stay in power. Withdrawal isn’t on the table while Russia thinks it can still win.
Russia should withdraw to pre-2014 borders. Yes, they should. This is even less likely. Russia would lose Crimea and its major naval port in the Black Sea. Russia will fight tooth and nail to keep Crimea whether or not it thinks it can ultimately win the war.
I’ll skip the sillier ones like Ukraine should surrender and get to the biggie.
Ukraine isn’t America’s problem. Yes, it VERY MUCH is! First, our credibility is on the line. We promised to protect their sovereign territory in return for them giving up their nuclear arsenal. They kept their part of the bargain regardless of how big a problem they have with corruption – and yes, it is a big problem.
Second, this is as close to a test of Article Five as we EVER want to get. The US helped create NATO and we’re obligated to respond militarily if any other member state is attacked. Period. We do NOT want Russia getting any stupid ideas about Western weakness or American decline and deciding to see what happens if they invade Estonia. Ukraine is a small birthday party – an attack on NATO will be more like the entire World Series played in one day with the Olympics next door. We do NOT want to let it get that bad. Tossing Ukraine spare equipment and a few goodies is peanuts compared to a full on NATO versus Russia war in terms of blood and treasure.
Just say no, kiddies.
Finally, did none of you go to high school? Letting that one jerk bully the heck out of everyone just so you didn’t have to get involved worked so well, didn’t it? Turns out, other people feel the same way when it’s your turn to be bullied. Russia is NOT going to quit. We’ve got twenty years of history that says so: Russia v Chechnya Part II, Russia v Georgia, Russia v Syrian Rebels, and finally, Russia v Ukraine.
In technical terms, Russia isn’t a nation-state, it’s an empire. I try not to use the most technical terms because Poli Sci rabbit holes are only fun for political scientists but it basically means that while Russia is a state – it has a formal government – it’s not a nation because it’s not unified ethnically and culturally. The US is a rare counter example of a true nation-state that is ethnically diverse. Russia deals with this internal dissonance by ‘russification’ – making other ethnicities more Russian. It’s an old method out of its Tsarist playbook. It might someday work but in the meantime, that coupled with Russia’s propensity to take and keep other people’s territory puts Russia in the empire column.
Empires are always about growth. They will trade happily enough but they are far more interested in territorial expansion. More territory is more people, resources and security. The further your enemies are from your capitol, the better, after all. Empires don’t return land they’ve taken. Ever.
What a country calls itself is less important than how it behaves. Russia styles itself as a nation-state but behaves like an empire. The US can’t decide if it’s a nation or a nation-state and behaves like a bit of both. The UK styles itself a nation-state and pretty much acts the part. This is why political science is such a headache where terminology is concerned. It gets worse when the danged things decide to start acting differently – three years ago I’d have told you Russia was a nation-state that wanted to be an empire but not any time soon.
Tomorrow, who knows? But for now, Russia is an empire. Podunk backwater version and busily self destructing, but an empire nonetheless. Careful what you wish for, I guess.
Empires do not play nice with their neighbors. They play even less nicely with their rivals. Russia was never the most predictable country on the planet and it is going to be even more erratic as things go downhill. Erratic and nuclear armed is not a good combo, but not for the reason you think.
Russia isn’t going to commit total suicide by starting a nuclear war with NATO or the US. That’s not the real risk. You can forget tactical nukes in Ukraine as well. The US has made it very clear that tossing nukes gets you in a fight you can’t win and Russia has gotten the memo. No tossing nukes in Europe or anywhere the US gives a heck about.
China is not either of those things. China’s aggression is directed toward the US at the moment but Russia has totally screwed China over. China’s plans for 2030 are pretty much doomed. No one really needs Ukraine but they do need Taiwan. If the West goes this ape over Ukraine, sanctions for invading Taiwan will be devastating. China doesn’t have what it takes to go toe to toe with the US and that gets worse if Trump is re-elected. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has derailed China’s plans in a bad and getting much worse way at a time when China can ill afford it.
Russia and China will smile for the cameras for now – they still need each other. But make no mistake, they aren’t going to be friends long if it becomes obvious that the West isn’t going to conveniently fold. China is beefing up its nuclear stockpile and don’t think Russia doesn’t know it. China is the only major nuclear power with a no first strike policy. Russia has no such encumbrance.
Stop panicking. Nuclear fallout is the least of the problem with actually engaging in nuclear war and all the players know it. But neither Russia nor China are particularly good at competence. No, it’s not likely, but it’s far more likely than a Russia/NATO nuclear confrontation. China doesn’t give back territory either, and Russia knows it. Backing down from a conflict with NATO is painful but not debilitating. Backing down from China is a great way to lose a lot of territory.
Russia and China are the kids in the sandlot most likely to break each other’s toys. When those toys are nuclear it’s in everyone’s best interest to keep those two distracted until they settle down. Everyone includes the US of A.
Since Russia was kind enough to present the opportunity, may as well keep them distracted with Ukraine for the moment.
But only for the moment. While people vastly over-estimate the cost to tax payers of the aid packages – which is largely due to the Pentagon’s ineptitude at accounting (Warfighting, they have down pat. Telling you how much their old junk is really worth, not so much) – we are spending money on this war and we do have other things we need to handle so indefinite support isn’t really an option. We only do that when our boys are on the ground fighting.
It’s not in the US best interest for Russia to keep up this kind of nonsense. Therefore, it is not in the US best interest for Russia to win in any meaningful way. If they want to declare victory and go home, we won’t care but they can’t keep the annexed territory. Period.
It’s nonsensical to be scared of a Russian defeat but that’s pretty much where American policy is right now. The admin is less afraid of escalation as Russia’s red lines have proven to be more suggestion than command but a Russian loss scares the heck out of them. If Russia loses, what happens? Does the regime merely change or do we see another round of Balkanization as we did when the Soviet Union collapsed? Racing around trying to keep Russia’s nukes off the open market wasn’t fun in the Nineties and it’ll be worse now.
I’m half convinced Ukraine will get ATACMS about a week before Trump is sworn in as president just to leave the problem in his lap. The Biden admin will probably steal all the T’s off the keyboards, too.
Or we could just send them what they need and get this over with along with sending very obvious signals to Russia that we are not backing down. Signing contracts for a few million shells would be a first step in that direction.
Talking to Turkey about guaranteeing Ukraine’s access to the sea would be another.
The sooner Russia realizes NATO won’t stop supporting Ukraine, the sooner Ukraine wins. The sooner Ukraine wins, the sooner the war ends.
Winning is the only real path to peace.
