21 Comments

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

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”?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment