Michael Tracey covers some territory I have covered here, a bit more harshly than I have, opening by asking why did the U. S. refuse to negotiate with Russia back in December?
For the chorus of people who will fulminate for the rest of their lives that any consideration of US culpability in this fiasco is somehow an “apology†for Putin, or a denial of his agency, or any other assorted nonsense: feel free to live in your black-and-white moral universe where tales of Good versus Evil always result in the princess being rescued by the knight, or whichever other comforting myths you need to tell yourself. The US deliberately chose — across administrations of both parties — to subsidize and “train†Ukraine’s military, flood the country with weapons, and otherwise assume the role of primary foreign sponsor. That’s the indisputable reality. Last week, Putin called Ukraine a “colony†or “puppet†of the US. Why do you think everyone from Hunter Biden to Rudy Giuliani correctly ascertained that they could secure huge sums of money from shady Ukrainian financial interests for doing next to nothing, other than having prominent political connections in the US?
So of course it was to the US that Russia’s demands for written “security guarantees†were officially submitted last December — not to China, or the EU, or Botswana, or anyone else. They were submitted to the US. Hence the clear-as-day centrality of the US in the progression of this conflict — a fact which now gets bizarrely denied on the regular by political-blackmailers who scream that there is absolutely no acceptable response to this invasion other than to condemn Putin about 15 billion times (even if you’ve already done so, emphatically).
going on to assert that there’s a new ideological conflict in progress, no longer between capitalism and communism but between “liberal democracies and right-wing authoritarians”:
You can see the contours of this new ideological conflict all over the place. Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, tied the trucker “siege†earlier this month to the broader phenomenon of “liberal democracies being confronted with serious and repeated threats†by nefarious right-wing agitators — whose Grand Poobah we’ve long been told is none other than, you guessed it, Putin. So there was very little compunction about imposing some of the most extreme due process-shredding Emergency measures in Canada’s history to squash these “insurrectionists.†Doing so even swelled everyone with a sense of tingling patriotic pride, as the “siege†was said to be just another front in a seismic global struggle. “Canada and our allies will defend democracy,†declared Justin Trudeau as he froze bank accounts without judicial review and empowered police to seize private property. “We are taking these actions today to stand against authoritarianism.â€
Of course, it’s important to note that — as per usual — this grandiose ideological vision of Russia’s designs mostly exists in the addled imaginations of think tankers. While it’s apparent that Russia has grown more authoritarian in recent years, the US “intelligence community†actually just studied the question of whether Putin was really backing all these horribly de-stabilizing right-wing insurrectionists all across the world. The strongest conclusion that their subsequent Report could muster is that the Russian Government “probably tolerates†support by “private Russian entities†for some dangerously motivated international extremists — but as the authors sorrowfully concede, “we lack indications of Russian Government direct support.â€
While I think there are many in the United States who would like, indeed long for, such an ideological conflict I believe that what actually exists on both sides, i.e. both in the United States and Russia, is a lot fuzzier than that with idealistic, ideological, and hardnosed self-interest all competing for primacy (sometimes with the same individuals). As we progress along the familiar path of self-delusion that occurs during wartime from “we don’t want war” to “anyone who doesn’t want war is a traitor”, I suspect we will only recognize that in hindsight.
Whether or not he’s a traitor, he is adopting Putin’s framing of the world. Putin delivered a formal list of demands to Biden that required the agreement of every NATO member, some of whom would be impacted in ways the others would not. I don’t see the importance of delivering the demands to Biden as an important rhetorical point. In the end, it would have to be a NATO agreement.
Mostly though I think this is all moot now. Russia chose war and the status quo will be something entirely new. Probably including expansion of NATO membership.
Added: No I don’t think he’s a traitor.
Some commentator wrote yesterday that Russia’s economy was only half that of Germany’s. That is, of course, absurd, but every single member of our Elite, every president, all his staff, every Congressman and his staff, every officer in the military, every lobbiest and newsman believes it.
You can make an argument, Andrei Martyanov does, has that the Russian economy is two to three times Germany’s, at least half ours. And any listing of all the things Russia does that Germany cannot do supports that estimate. In fact Russia does all sorts of things we cannot do. Until recently, our astronauts rode to the ISS on Russian rockets, and we still launch our spy satellites using Russian rocket motors.
This misunderstanding is important. Our Elite dismissed the Russia December ultimatum because they thought Russia was helpless, beneath contempt. And they continue to dismiss Russia. They will likely drive us into nuclear war because of their illusions.
Why do these people assume Ukraine has no agency or sovereignty? Last I checked we didnt force Ukraine to let us train them or take weapons.
bob- Ready to admit yet the Russia invaded Ukraine or are you guys still denying that?
Steve
While it is an accepted principle everywhere that countries have sovereignty in domestic affairs; that has rarely been the case in regards to foreign affairs.
For example, the famous Monroe doctrine states that it is US policy that “intervention by external powers in the Americas will be considered a hostile act towards the US”. Which famously led to the Cuban missile crisis — where America stepped in between a relation between Cuba and Russia.
In the USMCA, Americans added a clause that the parties cannot have FTA’s with “non-market economies” as defined by domestic law. Since the US is only country with laws of that nature, its a veto by the US on which FTA’s Canada and Mexico have — its really understood to be about China.
As a practical matter, every state that neighbors a great power knows while in theory sovereignty means they can do anything with any other country, reality is they are constrained to actions that aren’t perceived as hostile to their neighboring great power; lest they suffer consequences of being trampled.