Excellent piece. On a broader scale, I think we're paying the price of widespread, persistent corruption and hypocrisy among elites in all areas: religion, politics, finance, you name it. The system collapses because "leaders" are no longer respected or believed, making effective leadership impossible. We're in for a rough ride.
Seems to me, whether the moment for talks has arrived is up to the Ukrainians. The principle here seems self-determination of the invaded. Sure the US is utterly hypocritical; what else is new?
Yes, the Ukrainians have the right to decide when to talk peace. And the US has the right to tell them that it won't keep sending them massive quantities of weapons if they don't want to talk peace. Re US hypocrisy: My point is that the damage it's done to international norms weakens the argument for refusing to talk peace until the Russians are completely expelled. You may not find the argument persuasive, but that's the argument--that's what I hope is "new".
I agree with janisanfran myself. on it is up to the Ukrainians when to decide to talk peace. I totally agree that "hypocrisy" is the total norm for governments, politicians, diplomats, etc. with the USA being in at least the top tier. Hypocrisy is the norm. In a world where hypocrisy is the water we swim in for the USA to start being sure it no longer is hypocritical seems to be disarming oneself in some way in the game. I agree with Bob that the USA has the right to stop sending weapons even without having to give a reason. Now what I think bothers me is Bob is coming from a great place that I wish the world would live in. Unfortunately I don't think it will happen anytime soon and I question it even can ever happen where every country follows international laws. If fear I have moved into the space of Realpolitik defined as "a sense of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological principles". Thus I still see the problem as at what point does one stop Putin (and other authoritarians or authoritarian cultures) because the Ukrainians are willing and we can? I am not happy about this situation and I think it is necessary. Even at the risk of a nuclear exchange.? First use of nuclear will likely be low yield tactical weapon by Russia basically saying "back off". The response is likely to be in kind by the NATO saying do you really want to go here? That would almost universally get Russia in deep trouble assuming it does not lead to Russia doing a first strike on the USA and Europe after the NATO response. Now you know that is it...over as we respond. Now easy for me to say at age 75 as I have had a good run if it all blows up. If I was much younger with children and grandchildren maybe not so much. All this rant is by someone who has no credentials or experience in state craft. Just a guy on the internet who reads a lot. So maybe I am totally off he says with a smile. Maybe Bob can explain what is off about this type of thinking.
Spot on analysis. NATO (largely France, the UK and US) intervened in Libya and, essentially, destroyed the government there, decimated the society, and created chaos which continues to persist to this day. There is no stability in Libya, and no one seems to have raised any issues about international law.
As Bob notes here, the US also intervened in Syria after having intervened in Iraq where America created chaos of the structure and on a scale that is, certainly, greater, if not much larger, than Ukraine. No one seems to have raised any issues about international law. The reality is that Washington acts as a law unto itself and only invokes international law in support of its own foreign policy objectives. It has launched all sorts of strikes and raids all over the world at the Blob's discretion against anyone we thought was the enemy, effectively assassinating with aircraft or unmanned systems or missiles anyone in Africa, the Middle East, or even in South Asia, who was deemed a threat. A lot of times this isn't even done with Congressional approval, which makes the actions unconstitutional as well in many instances. Yet nobody seems to have raised any issues about international law, other than a few who are marginalised and certainly don't feature on the pages of the Washington Post or NY Times.
It's not "whataboutism" to note the way that international laws are applied on a very exceptional basis to those that the United States, Britain, and France don't like.
It’s good to remind us that the US violation of international law is common and a bad thing. But should Ukraine suffer for the sins of the US? Or should we stand with them against this sadistic invasion as much as possible?
We actively played a role in encouraging this "sadistic invasion" the minute we started to suggest a NATO role for Ukraine. As Bob has suggested before, put yourself in the position of Russia: the US unilaterally withdraws from the INF Treaty, and encourages an enormous buildup of weapons and equipment in Ukraine, particularly Eastern Ukraine. At some point you reckon that Washington is going to move strike assets in terms of medium, intermediate-range missiles into Eastern Ukraine that could reach very important targets in Russia in a very short period of time — you make the decision to go in or sit and do nothing.
To be clear, I think the invasion IS a violation of international law and a major miscalculation on the part of Putin. But I do think we contributed to this miscalculation in a significant way (for decades in fact) and we therefore have an obligation to help find a way out of this mess that we helped to create.
The calculus [for Russia] was very simple: “If we do nothing, what happens? Well, the situation in Ukraine becomes more and more dangerous with each passing month and year to Russia. If we do something, we'll be condemned by everyone, but we can at least destroy the threat.”
Ultimately, they came down on the second option. It's not the best, but it was the only one they saw because they saw no evidence that we or anyone else was going to listen to them.
OK let me put myself in the position of Russia...thinking how I want to keep Ukraine in my orbit I don't bomb it to smithereens, target civilians, nor tolerate rape torture and extrajudicial killing, which only strengthens its desire to be part of Europe. I love your point that the US helped provoke this and therefore has responsibility for helping end it. Russia and Ukraine don't have their own planet and so realistically the US and Europe will have a role in steering how this all ends. In doing so we should take off Russian shoes and put on a pair of Ukrainian. (Which isn't simple. Obviously in the short run lives would be saved if Ukraine surrendered today, but that doesn't make it the best option. ) Sincere question: Did Putin really "reckon that Washington was going to move strike assets in terms of medium, intermediate-range missiles into Eastern Ukraine that could reach very important targets in Russia in a very short period of time" and if so did he believe they'd be used to attack Russia? Was there a real provocation? In retrospect Ukraine arming itself seems kind of smart, but I'm not familiar with the exact weaponry and whether Russia could have perceived a threat to itself as opposed to a threat to what it wanted for Ukraine.
I agree with your view that US actions around the world can be inconsistent with international law and entirely hypocritical when considered in the context of US claims about the actions of other nations. At the same time is it realistic to expect our ship of state to alter course in the foreseeable future? I suspect not.
Given the situation that now exists in Ukraine I would argue it makes sense to continue supplying weapons to the government. If Russia ultimately succeeds in capturing and retaining the Dombas region there will likely be a vigorous ongoing insurgency by Ukrainians to punish the invaders. Given past practice Putin would likely argue Russia must protect its citizens (ironically, from the newly stolen areas) which will promote further aggression and potentially more land grabs and greater devastation of Ukraine. Interestingly, this outcome is likely regardless of a negotiated peace.
Once again, podcast response here: was curious about MK's assertion that the Eastman memo was moot and that this was pointed out by Byron York in one of his typically devastating (sarcasm) columns. Went and read what York has to say. Problem is, if York is correct, then Trump looks even worse, because Trump was -- obviously -- still pushing the Eastman approach on Pence as late as mid-day on Jan. 6 in the rally. If it was already moot, as MK and York absolutely insist is the case, then why the heck was Trump still pushing it? No need to answer as the answer is obvious. However, this points out a problem with the podcast, which is, RW is rarely properly prepared to reply to MK's distortions. I'd really like to hear a podcast where RW is actually up on the material being discussed. That would, presumably, also push MK to be more persuasive and less right-wing-hackish. Talk about Non Zero! Win for all!
I suspect what's really going on here, as has been mentioned by some others, is that if Eastman is correct and the Vice President simply picks the next president, then obviously the right wingers have a big problem, because that means Kamala Harris picks the next president etc etc, and the Democrats hold the presidency forever, which is, obviously, anathema to MK, Eastman, Byron York and the like. They need a way to both endorse what Eastman told Trump, and also claim that what Eastman told Trump is no longer operative, to use a phrase, appropriately enough, from the Nixon years. I suspect this Byron York theory is the first -- absurdly weak -- attempt to thread that needle. So, you might ask, why go through all this rigamorole?; Why not just argue in defense of democracy? Because, quite obviously, MK and the Byron Yorks of the world know they'll lose if they have to make an actual case to the people that their votes shouldn't count. Please show me how judicial "originalism" gets to the result: the right wing gets to choose the president, so suck on that non-slavery people.
I think we have to walk a fine line here. On the one hand, of course we should let the Ukrainians decide how much they want to fight, but how far they’re willing to go is also contingent on how much help we’re giving them.
It’s hard to know what the Ukrainian people (not to mention the people actually in the Donbas etc.) actually want, but I for one would feel a little gross pushing Ukraine to accept a peace deal they weren’t actually okay with just for the sake of “peace.”
But OTOH, I see a lot of people in our media pushing Ukraine to fight *harder*, to fight until “total victory” (whatever that means against a country that has nuclear weapons) They say loudly that Ukraine should *never* accept a peace deal, and *that* is super gross. It’s way worse and that needs to stop. We shouldn’t necessarily push one side or another, but we need to seriously be talking with Ukrainians about what is acceptable and be prepared to accept a peace deal ourselves.
As for a deterrent, I think there will still be one, even if Putin finds a way to declare “victory” it should be clear to everyone it was not worth the cost, a military devastated, economic sanctions and isolation, NATO strengthened, Europe moving off oil and gas, in exchange for control over a now bombed-out post-industrial region? Who’s going to look at that and think Russia was “rewarded”?
I for one will see Russia as rewarded and I am quite certain that many Ukrainians, Eastern Europeans and Russian nationalists would also see it that way.
Your point is very well-informed, as usual. However, the column almost implies naivete (recognizing your experience, it might instead approach a lack of candor): Yes, "International law" is in tatters, and much of the fault lies with the US. But it seems to me that global respect for the abstract concept of international law is generally subordinate to global respect for the consequences of hard power as demonstrated by the US in Ukraine. So, is McFaul's claim of the importance of international law disingenuous? apparently. But is his claim that we should send more arms to Ukraine wrong? I'm less convinced than you, though certainly we're all much better without nuclear war.
Thanks for the link. Interesting article. I noted this in the article as the final paragraph: "If the war does not end well for Ukraine and for Zelensky, history will not look kindly on American and European politicians who repeat the lie of “Don’t blame us; It was always up to Ukraine how far to take the fight" Is he saying history will blame USA/NATO for how it turns our and thus we should continue to support the fight? Or is he saying the opposite? Sorry to say it is not clear to me. Now I will say when I have read he "up to the Ukrainians" I did not think it meant all Ukrainians. I thought it meant the government of Ukraine which is indeed politicians which I don't hold in high esteem by the way. I certainly hope Zelensky is getting the truth from his subordinates unlike Putin.
It was a post I wrote and i meant that history will blame America/Nato for supporting Ukraine in such a way so as to inadvertently maximize the amount of destruction suffered.
Ah, got it. Thanks for getting it clear for me. Some problems just don't have any good solutions so one must pick the least objectionable option in trying to manage them well. Ukraine looks like a problem with no good solutions to me. I am glad I am not the one who has to make the decisions.
McFaul is an interesting focus of this piece and i’m glad you get into some of his points. I think he is a tad salty he didn’t get a spot in Biden’s administration though.
Excellent piece. On a broader scale, I think we're paying the price of widespread, persistent corruption and hypocrisy among elites in all areas: religion, politics, finance, you name it. The system collapses because "leaders" are no longer respected or believed, making effective leadership impossible. We're in for a rough ride.
Seems to me, whether the moment for talks has arrived is up to the Ukrainians. The principle here seems self-determination of the invaded. Sure the US is utterly hypocritical; what else is new?
Yes, the Ukrainians have the right to decide when to talk peace. And the US has the right to tell them that it won't keep sending them massive quantities of weapons if they don't want to talk peace. Re US hypocrisy: My point is that the damage it's done to international norms weakens the argument for refusing to talk peace until the Russians are completely expelled. You may not find the argument persuasive, but that's the argument--that's what I hope is "new".
I agree with janisanfran myself. on it is up to the Ukrainians when to decide to talk peace. I totally agree that "hypocrisy" is the total norm for governments, politicians, diplomats, etc. with the USA being in at least the top tier. Hypocrisy is the norm. In a world where hypocrisy is the water we swim in for the USA to start being sure it no longer is hypocritical seems to be disarming oneself in some way in the game. I agree with Bob that the USA has the right to stop sending weapons even without having to give a reason. Now what I think bothers me is Bob is coming from a great place that I wish the world would live in. Unfortunately I don't think it will happen anytime soon and I question it even can ever happen where every country follows international laws. If fear I have moved into the space of Realpolitik defined as "a sense of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological principles". Thus I still see the problem as at what point does one stop Putin (and other authoritarians or authoritarian cultures) because the Ukrainians are willing and we can? I am not happy about this situation and I think it is necessary. Even at the risk of a nuclear exchange.? First use of nuclear will likely be low yield tactical weapon by Russia basically saying "back off". The response is likely to be in kind by the NATO saying do you really want to go here? That would almost universally get Russia in deep trouble assuming it does not lead to Russia doing a first strike on the USA and Europe after the NATO response. Now you know that is it...over as we respond. Now easy for me to say at age 75 as I have had a good run if it all blows up. If I was much younger with children and grandchildren maybe not so much. All this rant is by someone who has no credentials or experience in state craft. Just a guy on the internet who reads a lot. So maybe I am totally off he says with a smile. Maybe Bob can explain what is off about this type of thinking.
Spot on analysis. NATO (largely France, the UK and US) intervened in Libya and, essentially, destroyed the government there, decimated the society, and created chaos which continues to persist to this day. There is no stability in Libya, and no one seems to have raised any issues about international law.
As Bob notes here, the US also intervened in Syria after having intervened in Iraq where America created chaos of the structure and on a scale that is, certainly, greater, if not much larger, than Ukraine. No one seems to have raised any issues about international law. The reality is that Washington acts as a law unto itself and only invokes international law in support of its own foreign policy objectives. It has launched all sorts of strikes and raids all over the world at the Blob's discretion against anyone we thought was the enemy, effectively assassinating with aircraft or unmanned systems or missiles anyone in Africa, the Middle East, or even in South Asia, who was deemed a threat. A lot of times this isn't even done with Congressional approval, which makes the actions unconstitutional as well in many instances. Yet nobody seems to have raised any issues about international law, other than a few who are marginalised and certainly don't feature on the pages of the Washington Post or NY Times.
It's not "whataboutism" to note the way that international laws are applied on a very exceptional basis to those that the United States, Britain, and France don't like.
It’s good to remind us that the US violation of international law is common and a bad thing. But should Ukraine suffer for the sins of the US? Or should we stand with them against this sadistic invasion as much as possible?
We actively played a role in encouraging this "sadistic invasion" the minute we started to suggest a NATO role for Ukraine. As Bob has suggested before, put yourself in the position of Russia: the US unilaterally withdraws from the INF Treaty, and encourages an enormous buildup of weapons and equipment in Ukraine, particularly Eastern Ukraine. At some point you reckon that Washington is going to move strike assets in terms of medium, intermediate-range missiles into Eastern Ukraine that could reach very important targets in Russia in a very short period of time — you make the decision to go in or sit and do nothing.
To be clear, I think the invasion IS a violation of international law and a major miscalculation on the part of Putin. But I do think we contributed to this miscalculation in a significant way (for decades in fact) and we therefore have an obligation to help find a way out of this mess that we helped to create.
The calculus [for Russia] was very simple: “If we do nothing, what happens? Well, the situation in Ukraine becomes more and more dangerous with each passing month and year to Russia. If we do something, we'll be condemned by everyone, but we can at least destroy the threat.”
Ultimately, they came down on the second option. It's not the best, but it was the only one they saw because they saw no evidence that we or anyone else was going to listen to them.
OK let me put myself in the position of Russia...thinking how I want to keep Ukraine in my orbit I don't bomb it to smithereens, target civilians, nor tolerate rape torture and extrajudicial killing, which only strengthens its desire to be part of Europe. I love your point that the US helped provoke this and therefore has responsibility for helping end it. Russia and Ukraine don't have their own planet and so realistically the US and Europe will have a role in steering how this all ends. In doing so we should take off Russian shoes and put on a pair of Ukrainian. (Which isn't simple. Obviously in the short run lives would be saved if Ukraine surrendered today, but that doesn't make it the best option. ) Sincere question: Did Putin really "reckon that Washington was going to move strike assets in terms of medium, intermediate-range missiles into Eastern Ukraine that could reach very important targets in Russia in a very short period of time" and if so did he believe they'd be used to attack Russia? Was there a real provocation? In retrospect Ukraine arming itself seems kind of smart, but I'm not familiar with the exact weaponry and whether Russia could have perceived a threat to itself as opposed to a threat to what it wanted for Ukraine.
It seems to me the provocation is largely in the minds of the Russian elite and some apologists.
I agree with your view that US actions around the world can be inconsistent with international law and entirely hypocritical when considered in the context of US claims about the actions of other nations. At the same time is it realistic to expect our ship of state to alter course in the foreseeable future? I suspect not.
Given the situation that now exists in Ukraine I would argue it makes sense to continue supplying weapons to the government. If Russia ultimately succeeds in capturing and retaining the Dombas region there will likely be a vigorous ongoing insurgency by Ukrainians to punish the invaders. Given past practice Putin would likely argue Russia must protect its citizens (ironically, from the newly stolen areas) which will promote further aggression and potentially more land grabs and greater devastation of Ukraine. Interestingly, this outcome is likely regardless of a negotiated peace.
Once again, podcast response here: was curious about MK's assertion that the Eastman memo was moot and that this was pointed out by Byron York in one of his typically devastating (sarcasm) columns. Went and read what York has to say. Problem is, if York is correct, then Trump looks even worse, because Trump was -- obviously -- still pushing the Eastman approach on Pence as late as mid-day on Jan. 6 in the rally. If it was already moot, as MK and York absolutely insist is the case, then why the heck was Trump still pushing it? No need to answer as the answer is obvious. However, this points out a problem with the podcast, which is, RW is rarely properly prepared to reply to MK's distortions. I'd really like to hear a podcast where RW is actually up on the material being discussed. That would, presumably, also push MK to be more persuasive and less right-wing-hackish. Talk about Non Zero! Win for all!
I suspect what's really going on here, as has been mentioned by some others, is that if Eastman is correct and the Vice President simply picks the next president, then obviously the right wingers have a big problem, because that means Kamala Harris picks the next president etc etc, and the Democrats hold the presidency forever, which is, obviously, anathema to MK, Eastman, Byron York and the like. They need a way to both endorse what Eastman told Trump, and also claim that what Eastman told Trump is no longer operative, to use a phrase, appropriately enough, from the Nixon years. I suspect this Byron York theory is the first -- absurdly weak -- attempt to thread that needle. So, you might ask, why go through all this rigamorole?; Why not just argue in defense of democracy? Because, quite obviously, MK and the Byron Yorks of the world know they'll lose if they have to make an actual case to the people that their votes shouldn't count. Please show me how judicial "originalism" gets to the result: the right wing gets to choose the president, so suck on that non-slavery people.
I think we have to walk a fine line here. On the one hand, of course we should let the Ukrainians decide how much they want to fight, but how far they’re willing to go is also contingent on how much help we’re giving them.
It’s hard to know what the Ukrainian people (not to mention the people actually in the Donbas etc.) actually want, but I for one would feel a little gross pushing Ukraine to accept a peace deal they weren’t actually okay with just for the sake of “peace.”
But OTOH, I see a lot of people in our media pushing Ukraine to fight *harder*, to fight until “total victory” (whatever that means against a country that has nuclear weapons) They say loudly that Ukraine should *never* accept a peace deal, and *that* is super gross. It’s way worse and that needs to stop. We shouldn’t necessarily push one side or another, but we need to seriously be talking with Ukrainians about what is acceptable and be prepared to accept a peace deal ourselves.
As for a deterrent, I think there will still be one, even if Putin finds a way to declare “victory” it should be clear to everyone it was not worth the cost, a military devastated, economic sanctions and isolation, NATO strengthened, Europe moving off oil and gas, in exchange for control over a now bombed-out post-industrial region? Who’s going to look at that and think Russia was “rewarded”?
I for one will see Russia as rewarded and I am quite certain that many Ukrainians, Eastern Europeans and Russian nationalists would also see it that way.
Your point is very well-informed, as usual. However, the column almost implies naivete (recognizing your experience, it might instead approach a lack of candor): Yes, "International law" is in tatters, and much of the fault lies with the US. But it seems to me that global respect for the abstract concept of international law is generally subordinate to global respect for the consequences of hard power as demonstrated by the US in Ukraine. So, is McFaul's claim of the importance of international law disingenuous? apparently. But is his claim that we should send more arms to Ukraine wrong? I'm less convinced than you, though certainly we're all much better without nuclear war.
I call the notion that how and when to end the war is up to the Ukrainians "The Big Lie" in the very short post below:
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/the-big-lie-about-the-war
Thanks for the link. Interesting article. I noted this in the article as the final paragraph: "If the war does not end well for Ukraine and for Zelensky, history will not look kindly on American and European politicians who repeat the lie of “Don’t blame us; It was always up to Ukraine how far to take the fight" Is he saying history will blame USA/NATO for how it turns our and thus we should continue to support the fight? Or is he saying the opposite? Sorry to say it is not clear to me. Now I will say when I have read he "up to the Ukrainians" I did not think it meant all Ukrainians. I thought it meant the government of Ukraine which is indeed politicians which I don't hold in high esteem by the way. I certainly hope Zelensky is getting the truth from his subordinates unlike Putin.
It was a post I wrote and i meant that history will blame America/Nato for supporting Ukraine in such a way so as to inadvertently maximize the amount of destruction suffered.
I should have been more clear.
Ah, got it. Thanks for getting it clear for me. Some problems just don't have any good solutions so one must pick the least objectionable option in trying to manage them well. Ukraine looks like a problem with no good solutions to me. I am glad I am not the one who has to make the decisions.
Me too!
I have to acknowledge that it is easier to criticize from the sidelines.
But I do agree with Robert Wright's point about seeking peace soon. And I think this is something only America can do.
McFaul is an interesting focus of this piece and i’m glad you get into some of his points. I think he is a tad salty he didn’t get a spot in Biden’s administration though.