Our War With Russia

At UnHerd Thomas Fazi makes some pretty strong assertions:

Western citizens deserve to be told what is going on in Ukraine — and what the stakes are. Perhaps the wildest claim being made is that “if we deliver all the weapons Ukraine needs, they can win”, as former Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recently asserted. For Rasmussen, and other Western hawks, this includes retaking Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014 and which it considers of the utmost strategic importance. Many Western allies still consider this an uncrossable red line. But for how long? Just last month, the New York Times reported that the Biden administration is warming up to the idea of backing a Ukrainian offensive on Crimea.

This strategy is based on the assumption that Russia will accept a military defeat and the loss of the territories it controls without resorting to the unthinkable — the use of nuclear weapons. But this is a massive assumption on which to gamble the future of humanity, especially coming from the very Western strategists who disastrously botched every major military forecast over the past 20 years, from Iraq to Afghanistan. The truth is that, from Russia’s perspective, it is fighting against what it perceives to be an existential threat in Ukraine, and there is no reason to believe that, with its back against the wall, it won’t go to extreme measures to guarantee its survival. As Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, put it: “The loss of a nuclear power in a conventional war can provoke the outbreak of a nuclear war. Nuclear powers do not lose major conflicts on which their fate depends.”

At this point I think the preponderance of the evidence says that we are at war with Russia. At the very least we are sleepwalking into war as has been said about the major European powers in the run-up to World War I. An appeal to liberal values is fatuous. You cannot reasonably appeal to values you do not in fact have. I don’t think our genuine interests are as great as the liberal interventionists seem to. They are either fools or knaves as Jonathan Swift put it.

4 comments… add one
  • TastyBits Link

    The idea that Russia is going to overrun any country is laughable. First, they need to get through Ukraine, and without US support, the Ukrainians would hold them at the Dnieper River.

    As I stated before, the Russian military is a joke. Like China’s navy, it may look impressive on paper, but it is not operationally capable of carrying out large scale actions. Furthermore, both use the Soviet military doctrine, and this is part of the reason Russia is having trouble.

    Assuming they could take all the land to the German border, it is not sufficient. You need to control the land, and that means a passive population. Otherwise, you must run a police state – the Soviet Union.

    If this shit was easy, Afghanistan would be the 51st state.

  • The idea that Russia is going to overrun any country is laughable.

    I think the Baltics have legitimate concerns.

    I suspect that Putin intended the “Special Operation” to be a shot across their collective bow but it’s not one that’s working out very well.

  • steve Link

    Then I guess we were at war with Russia in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, etc.

    Steve

  • Each one of those is frequently given as a prominent example of a proxy war. The difference between the war in Ukraine is that none of those you list involved direct Russian national interests. They did involve Soviet interests. As I’ve mentioned before Russia is irredentist; the Soviet Union was millennialist. Translation: Russia doesn’t care about Korea, Vietnam, or Afghanistan but the Soviet Union did.

Leave a Comment