I did not expect to comment on the Russian invasion of Ukraine due to so many other loud voices but as often happens, I don’t see one specific take on the situation among the endless news stories and commentary. What I do see falls into three camps. I’ll describe them only in the broadest terms:
The isolationist or Tucker Carlson angle which states that we should not be involved at all because we have no strategic interest there and no defense treaty obligating us to assist Ukraine. Generally, there is some truth to this, but the devil is in the details.
The second take is that we should be all in on this, Putin is the same as Hitler, and we should invest ourselves there as though we did have a defense treaty in place. This idea seems to conveniently lack specifics but no lack of emotion and urgency.
The majority opinion is that we should be engaged in every way short of ground troops.
The Biden position pretends to represent the second view but does not and cannot deliver. It’s a muddled response bogged down in definitions, mixed signals, bluffs, and symbolism. Putin laughs. You don’t send 5K troops to look at Putin’s 110K and pretend you’re making him nervous.
I see a position that shares from the first and third option above but it is not represented in the media that I can see. It’s this: we already lost what may have been our only chance to adequately influence Putin and his expansionist notions. That would have had to happen with whatever overt and private threats were presented to Putin by Donald Trump. Unfortunately, that option was voted away in 2020. The choice is this: we have none except to mitigate the damages. The sooner we admit that to ourselves, the sooner we can meet the task at hand.
What we’re stuck with now is at best a series of lesser options. Economic sanctions? Of course. Military assistance? Not likely or at least, not until Putin reaches the next border. Like it or not our military response is defined by our track record in Afghanistan. That’s the depth of our commitment and capability demonstrated in August of 2021. We have a military that could do great things but that assumes that its highest leadership is functional and competent. Afghanistan….that’s its present reality.
The only thing that remains to be seen is whether we’re capable of contributing to a NATO response and indeed whether NATO is indeed capable of delivering to itself anything other than bureaucracy and partying in European capitals. I’m not holding my breath. Technically NATO would only be involved if Putin marches through the Ukraine and trains his ambitions on the rest of Eastern Europe. If he can take Ukraine, I see little reason why he would stop there. Ronald Reagan dismantled the Soviet Union. It appears that Joe Biden will ultimately be responsible for it re-forming.
If there is anything that we can do for Ukraine, and that is a big if, that really depends on Europe and the EU. We cannot do for the greater Europe, for the EU, and for NATO, anything that it’s not willing to do for itself. Germany, and by extension, most of the rest of Europe bargained away its most strategic interests by creating a huge structural dependency on Russian energy. Sanctioning the opening of the Nord pipeline is not going to hold up permanently. The United States under Biden certainly will not be taking up any of that slack, so who will? Macron loves basking in the perception that he’s the statesman of our time, but I see no evidence that he and his people are willing to fight. Ditto Germany. Britain? Canada? Australia? No, no and no. So sanctions it is. If and when Putin decides to take his next morsel, we won’t have the option of using that as our feel-good buffer. It’ll be fight or die or welcome Europe’s new overlord. Did I say that elections have consequences?
Post Note: Putin started war in earnest 1 1/2 hours after this article was posted.