Before I launch into commentaries on other people’s posts and articles I thought I should fill in some context from recent history that affect the situation in Ukraine.
Over the last 30 years there have been three watershed moments in the interpretation that both Russia and China take of the U. S. Those were
- The bombing of Belgrade
- The invasion of Iraq
- The ousting of Moammar Qaddafi
There are a couple of things that we need to recognize about the NATO bombing of Belgrade. First, neither the Russians nor the Chinese think the bombing was legal because it was done without Security Council authorization, contrary to our treaty commitments and without imminent security concerns. Second, the Chinese still think that our bombing of their embassy there was deliberate.
Our invasion of Iraq is another case of acting without Security Council authorization and without imminent security concerns.
The Security Council Resolution 1973 was limited in scope to establishing a no-fly zone and protecting civilians. China and Russia both abstained from voting on it which allowed the resolution to be passed. We went beyond the literal scope of the resolution to attacking the Qaddafi regime’s command and control and, effectively, bringing the regime down.
In all three cases the Russians and Chinese thought we took those actions because we could.
Our actions in support of the rebels in Syria were not reacted to as strongly as those—it merely confirmed what they already believed about us. Fromm their points-of-view we acted illegally and without imminent security concerns.
I think the Russians are acting illegally now in Ukraine without legitimate imminent security concerns but I also understand how they might see it otherwise.
If the Russians begin to slaughter and execute Ukrainians what happens then, do we just watch it play out on the internet?
Larry:
Unless you subscribe to the “Batman” theory of the U. S.’s place in the world, that’s exactly what would happen. But Batman is a vigilante; that’s a rejection of a liberal world order in favor of a benign world order. How do you ensure benignity?
To add a little more complexity….
A one black ball system is inherently dysfunctional. True, it was the system in existence during the Belgrade bombing. But it facilitated a callous stance by China and Russia in the face of the expulsion/slaughter of thousands of innocents. What to do?
Iraq was different. Hussein was a killer, but that wasn’t the real motivator. The intelligence on WMD was just plain (intentionally?) wrong.
The circumstances of Qadaffi’s death are not completely clear.
In any event, I doubt that Putin is worried much about the niceties of international law. The specter of a NATO aligned Ukraine is intolerable to him. He has made that very clear. The US pumping oil and gas like crazy won’t change his goal, but it is the only way to exact a toll. And they can hardly complain about us drilling and refining our own resources.
I agree those are the three big ones. But there are many smaller ones as well (and I know you are aware).
One way to look at it is that our hypocrisy over the last 30 years is coming home to roost.
Dave how can anyone ensure anything?
I would say the vast majority of humans on this planet tend to be kind and tolerant of others, 44 million Ukrainians are not likely feeling Putin’s kindness and tolerance right now. Is Putin the Batman of the day, the vigilante man of the moment, or a Doctor Strange Love character who could possibly chance the world order in a few minutes with one push of a button, if not today then perhaps one day in the future, who can ensure that will never happen?
Today we are here in this moment, there is no Batman or any other super hero coming to our rescue, it’s just us, a bunch of mortal beings who struggle to survive for another day, to hug our kids, our grandchildren, and have conversations with folks we meet along the way.
By limiting power and imposing strict controls on those who have it. That can’t be done on a global scale but it can on a national scale.
So where do we start on the national scale, Voting Rights? Texas just past some pretty restrictive voting laws, and other states have made or are about to make voting even more difficult. What other means might we have in selecting our leaders, or do we let them select themselves? Isn’t the train moving too fast to change course or do we wait until a sharp enough curve derails it.
I do not know how to fix it, or how to even begin to clearly think about it, I am not clever enough to figure out how or what can be done. I wouldn’t want to be in Ukraine right now.
Russia has its own share of invasions. They have also engaged in assassinations around the world. We had a Cold War in which we both many and weapons to the states we were sponsoring so neither side here is innocent, which no one would know from reading you.
So no, I dont really find it believable that they suddenly have security concerns. Why now as opposed to the middle of the Cold War? Why now instead of 2004 right after we invaded Iraq? I think that they can claim security concerns to justify their actions. They can claim that the US has no right to criticize them because of what we did in the past, and we did some stupid stuff, but what was the title here? Context? Am I correct.
So in context Belgrade was NATO. It wasn’t just one country deciding they wanted to annex part of another country. Many other countries joined us to fight Iraq. It was not just one country trying to annex part of another. Qaddafi was NATO, not just one country to annex part of another.
In context, I dont remember anyone using force to get another country to join NATO. Or the EU. So in context what Russia is doing is much different that what other countries do for security. Rather than make nice with Ukraine Russia invades.
Steve
Hear, hear, Steve.
Matt Taibbi had a good short statement admittiong he was wrong in assuming Putin wouldn’t invade. He coined a term “reverse chauvinism†for his mindset of looking at all the Western faults to the exclusion of taking threats seriously enough.
What I was trying to do was provide the balance that was missing from media commentators, 99.9% of whom seem to share the opinion that Putin is Hitler and insane. I suggest you take a look at John Mearsheimer’s video embedded in a post above this. I think that he achieved a balance in his remarks that I clearly failed to achieve in mine.