I read this post by David Kramer of the Bush Center, “Supporting Ukraine: Why it is vital to U.S. national security interest”, as well as the accompanying report with interest, hoping to learn something. Sadly, I was disappointed. The closest he comes to an explanation of why supporting Ukraine is in the U. S. national security interest is a slippery slope argument.
A “slippery slope” argument is a claim that an action will inevitably lead to a chain reaction of events. For such an argument to be true the first, presumably small step must inexorably lead to the next and to the next and, ultimately, to an undesirable outcome. He never does that.
I agree that Russia should not have invaded Ukraine. I agree that the Russians have committed war crimes there. I find the evidence that the invasion of Ukraine would inevitably lead to Russian invasions of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, etc. weak.
Beyond that the piece is an example of proof by assertion, as the “Hunting of the Snark” puts is, “what I tell you three times is true”.
I think that Russia is corrupt, illiberal, irredentist, and has interests that are not particularly well-aligned with our own. I don’t think they’re bent on world domination. The Soviet Union was but Russia is not the Soviet Union; Putin is not Stalin—he isn’t even Khrushchev. They were both committed revolutionaries. I see no evidence that Putin is.
I think that supporting Ukraine is in out national interest. I don’t think that unconditional unlimited support for Ukraine is.
I find assertions like this:
Concern about escalation, including the possibility that Putin would order the use of tactical nuclear weapons, must not deter us from providing Ukraine with the assistance it needs.
distressing. Survival is a permanent interest. Is Ukraine? To whatever extent he’s right in his dismissal of escalation, it’s also an assertion that deterrence has failed.
One of my ongoing concerns is that too many of the people offering advice are interested parties and Mr. Kramer appears to follow that pattern.
You are warm and comfy in the Midwest. All of the countries neighboring Russia dont seem so sanguine about Russia not invading elsewhere. Finland and Sweden were OK not being part of NATO until this event and on a per capita basis Latvia (or is it Estonia) provides Ukraine more aid than anyone.
Steve
Every single one of Russia’s neighbors and some who aren’t neighbors have invaded Russia, frequently multiple times. If your explanation for that is “fear of Russian aggression”, you need to explain the invasions of Russia and the Soviet Union by Japan, France and Germany in terms of fear of Russian aggression. I think it’s a high hurdle.
A simpler explanation is that the Baltic countries, Poland, etc. have policy goals of their own they would like to pursue without concern for Russian retaliation. They want ethnic states. They have territorial claims.
As I’ve said before, Russia is paranoid. Its paranoia is not completely unfounded. As Woody Allen put it, what’s a word beginning with ‘P’ that means you think that everybody is against you? Answer: perceptive. I see no way to assuage Latvia and Estonia’s concerns without breaking Russia up and I don’t believe trying to do that is in America’s interests.
I think it’s important that Russian aggression ought to be defeated, so I think supporting Ukraine is necessary. I think that is justified on its own merits and doesn’t require dumb arguments about “credibility” or the supposed threat to Poland and the Baltics, which have had US forces and regular rotation of units for quite a long time now. The Russians understand that going after them means war with NATO and a big part of the Russian rationale for invading was to prevent – once and for all – Ukraine from getting NATO protection.
But beyond defeating Russian aggression, I am skeptical of some of the more grandiose ideas that some float, and I am skeptical of bringing Ukraine into NATO. In my view, Ukraine should be treated more like Taiwan, where we guarantee its independence short of a formal alliance.
I continue to think a lot of American views on Russia are driven by domestic politics. I have never seen, for example, the left more pro-war and more supportive of maximalist objectives in any other conflict and I attribute that largely due to hatred of Putin and the perception that Russia supports Republicans and was the instrumental cause of Clinton’s defeat in 2016.
And much of the right has turned into little Noam Chomsky’s, which I think, again, is driven almost entirely by domestic politics.
I agree. I don’t think that support should be unlimited or unexamined. And I think we should be very clear and open about what our goals are.
“Every single one of Russia’s neighbors and some who aren’t neighbors have invaded Russia, frequently multiple times.”
If you go back far enough they have all invaded each other multiple times. However, since WW2 none of the European countries have really had the means to invade Russia and with modern surveillance there was no chance of building up a force without Russia noticing AND they have nukes. All that said, my point stands. On the specific issue of Russia invading more countries which you poo-pooh, all of the countries near to Russia seem to think it a realistic concern.
Steve