Russia must howl

The invasion of Ukraine- you know, the one Vladimir Putin wasn’t going to order- is underway. Predictably, so is the idiocy from the MAGAverse.

Donald Trump- who never met an authoritarian he didn’t like- just loves Vladimir Putin. He fawned over Putin throughout his presidency, defending him from charges that Russia was involved in hacking the computers of both major American parties during the 2016 campaign despite conclusive evidence to the contrary obtained by the American intelligence community. He enabled Putin’s ongoing goal of undermining NATO by insulting and even lying about other members of the alliance and openly questioning whether NATO was even necessary now that the Cold War is over.

Putin, on the other hand, takes a different view, whether he admits it or not. This invasion is motivated by Putin’s objection to the possibility that Ukraine might someday join NATO. Despite the fact that every invasion over the border between Russia and the rest of Europe since World War II has been an invasion staged by Russia (this is Putin’s second invasion of Ukraine, and he’s recently attacked Georgia and has virtually taken over Belarus), Putin sees the expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union as “encirclement.” This fits well with Russia’s historic paranoia about invasion from the West, even though the West has far greater reason in recent history to fear invasion by Russia!

Nevertheless, Russia sees the presence of a country allied with the United States on its border as somehow a provocation. And international law aside, he believes he has every right to invade any such country and- well, make it not aligned with the United States. Tucker Carlson’s odd nightly attempts to justify this by suggesting that we would be justified in invading Canada if it were aligned with Russia make sense only to those who don’t stop to reflect that no, we wouldn’t be justified in doing that and that moreover, we would be unlikely even to consider it. The Putin/Carlson view of the matter makes sense only to the paranoid and those not in the habit of thinking much before forming their opinions.

Putin’s overarching goal is to undermine and, if possible, destroy the Atlantic alliance. Donald Trump, of course, is on board. It’s worth reflecting that on one occasion while he was president Russian state television jokingly referred to him as a Russian “asset,” and suggested that, in view of his service to the Rodina, he be offered an apartment in Moscow to move into when he left the White House.

Ukraine is not, at present, a member of NATO. There were no plans for it to become a member of NATO any time soon. If it were, we would face an even darker situation tonight- that is, if Putin invaded Ukraine at all. If Ukraine were a current member of NATO, he probably wouldn’t. The reason is simple: under Article Five of the NATO charter, an attack on any member of the alliance would obligate all of the other members to treat it as an attack on each of them, and respond accordingly. If Ukraine were currently a member of NATO, Putin’s invasion would be tantamount to a declaration of war on the United States, Germany, the UK, France, and the rest of the Atlantic alliance. We would be obligated to respond accordingly.

Putin has already sliced off a piece of Ukraine- the Crimea- in a previous invasion. He seized nearly a quarter of Georgia. We did very little about either. This invasion is the next step in his ongoing quest- which Mr. Trump is apparently fine with- to reassemble the Iron Curtain, establishing Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe once again and creating a buffer zone of client states between itself and the rest of Europe. He has, again, no justification in recent history for thinking that he needs a buffer zone; he’s the guy who does all the invading. Whatever happened in Operation Barbarossa, today’s Germany is unlikely to repeat it any time soon!

But here’s the problem: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia- pretty much all of the remaining states of the old Soviet empire- are member states of NATO, as, of course, is Germany. Among other things, the invasion of Ukraine is a test case of NATO’s resolve. We did little when Crimea and much of Georgia were conquered or when Belarus was virtually annexed. This is a test case of our resolve. The next step in Putin’s long-term plan will almost inevitably be to move against one of the former satellite states- probably Estonia or one of the other Balkan nations- that are members of NATO. An invasion of one of them would trigger Article Five, and one of two things would happen. Either the United States and its NATO allies would come to the defense of the member state that was attacked, resulting in a major war that might well turn into World War III, or they wouldn’t. And if they didn’t, NATO would be revealed as a toothless paper tiger, and effectively collapse- and Russia would effectively dominate the European continent.

The European Union would be of little use in preventing that. For centuries, each of the European states has had as its primary foreign policy goal the prevention of any one of the others from dominating Europe. France managed it for a little while during the Napoleonic era. Germany managed it during World War II. It didn’t turn out well for anybody else either time. The EU is a delicate balance of power in the political and economic realms; everybody is anxious to prevent any one nation from assuming clear and undisputed leadership. And while Donald Trump and the neo-isolationists don’t seem to grasp the point, that’s why the only powerful Western democracy that isn’t a part of Europe has to lead NATO. That’s why the existence of NATO is vital to European security and stability, and to world peace. And that’s why the United States has to lead it.

Mr. Trump is notoriously ignorant when it comes to international relations, as is the case with many other things. He doesn’t realize all this. And insofar as the only apparent organizing principle of his foreign policy seems to be a fondness for authoritarians and bullies, that’s why he’s rooting for Russia in its war with Ukraine. I doubt that Tucker Carlson even has a reason for siding with the bully, other than that it’s what Trump does. The same is true of a good many MAGA neo-isolationists.

That, and the utterly clueless argument that what happens in Europe is “none of our business,” and “doesn’t affect us.” Of course, it does affect us. It affects us profoundly. The economic consequences of a Russian-dominated Europe for the United States alone would be catastrophic, just as would be the case if China achieved hegemony in Asia. And unless we come out of the current war in Ukraine with Russia deterred from continuing Putin’s quest to undermine NATO and achieve European hegemony, the only alternative would be a strong possibility that sometime in the near future the United States and Russia are going to come to blows militarily.

Which, by the way, literally nobody is advocating at the moment. Despite all the voices being raised to warn against our intervening militarily in Ukraine, literally nobody is suggesting that. Nobody. Although I am intrigued by Jonathan V. Last’s suggestion that while we shouldn’t attack any Russian naval vessels, it might not be out of place for the U.S. Navy to send the yachts of some of the Russian oligarchs who make up Putin’s power base and happen to be docked in foreign ports to Davey Jones.

President Biden is being blamed by Trumpworld simultaneously for not doing enough to push back against Putin and for doing too much. The illogic is typical, considering the source; opponents of the orange god-king subject themselves to the disapproval of the cult not for the substance of their actions or positions, but merely for opposing Trump. In Trumpworld, as among extremists generally, emotions rather than logical arguments drive people’s attitudes, and it’s unnecessary to make sense. When you live in an alternate universe, truth is the least of your concerns, Any fact that disagrees with what one wants to believe is either false or irrelevant and any lie that supports it- however bizarre and transparent- is the truth.

But for honest people in contact with reality, any consideration of the situation has to begin with praise for Mr. Biden because at least he’s standing up to Putin. That’s refreshing after four years of a president who was Putin’s lapdog and who seems actually to be on board with Putin’s ambition to destroy NATO. The heroic people of Ukraine will fight bravely for the cause of freedom while many Americans either stand by apathetically or even, like Tucker Carlson, openly root for a bully and tyrant. But the thoughtful among us realize that America’s interests are deeply affected by the events in Eastern Europe, and those who are truest to our founding values will be rooting for the good guys.

The people of Ukraine will fight and die and inevitably lose. This war is a mismatch. There is no question as to its outcome, and tragically, we can’t help Ukraine avoid the inevitable. The democratically-elected government will be deposed, and a puppet regime with Putin pulling the strings will take its place. It’s too late to prevent that. Bolstering our military presence in Eastern Europe might have made a difference at some point as a token of our resolve. It might have made Putin think again. But it’s too late for that now.

All we can do is honor and pray for the heroic people of Ukraine, and resolve to make Vladimir Putin howl with sanctions so crippling that he gives up his ambition to recover Russian dominance of Eastern Europe and destroy NATO. That, and make sure that his orange lapdog doesn’t get anywhere near regaining a position from which he can help Putin achieve those objectives.

We can hope that Joe Biden is tougher and more resolute than Barack Obama and Donald Trump were. And maybe torpedo a yacht or two, if that’s what it takes to make Putin and the kleptocrats who keep him in power think again before repeating this crime.

THE ONION is eerily prophetic

It’s not often that The Onion accurately predicts a news story. But there’s a first time for everything.

The United States is literally sneaking out of Afghanistan in the middle of the night.. Our forces abandoned Bagham Air Force Base, a major hub of our operations in that country, under cover of darkness and without telling our Afghan allies that they were going to do it. They left behind huge caches of supplies and equipment, supposedly for the Afghans- who eventually found out that the Americans had left through the grapevine, shrugged, and moved in. But the Afghan army will have to make do with what the looters left for them.

The Biden administration’s Afghan policy seems to be identical to that of the Trump administration’s: get out of Dodge just as fast as our legs will carry us; do not pass go, do not collect $200. Our armed forces can’t be blamed, of course; they take orders from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But our latest abandonment of our allies- something that is becoming a regular part of American foreign policy, and understandably causing them to conclude that the U.S. can’t be relied upon- is in some respects making the fall of Saigon look like the Alamo by comparison.

At least in Vietnam our final withdrawal came because we had lost the war and the enemy was attacking our ally’s capital city. But in the case of Afghanistan, we’ve yawned, stretched our arms, said “I’m tired and I’m going home,” and are in the process of letting the enemy win. Few doubt that they will- and given Taliban gains since we began a withdrawal that is now 90% complete, it will probably be rather quickly.

True, we have been fighting this “forever war” for twenty years. True, it’s been very expensive. But it’s cost us fewer than three thousand lives. By comparison, Vietnam cost us 57,000.

Contrary to what many people have claimed down through the years, it was not the great North Vietnamese Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, the architect of Communist victories over both France and the United States, who was the source of the statement below. It was North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin, who made it in a 1995 interview with the Wall Street Journal. But it’s hard to miss their significance both for our involvement in Afghanistan and in the future:

Q: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

A: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

Bui goes on to explain that given the roles dissent and protest play in democracies, they cannot win protracted wars. Even though Bui doesn’t say so, that isn’t necessarily the case when everyone can clearly see that their own immediate welfare and that of the nation are on the line. But when the war is on the other side of the globe, and it’s hard to see the immediate consequences of failing to prevail, when a war begins to drag on and on- even if, as in Afghanistan, casualties have been minimal- the citizens of democracies tire of them. And in the long run, democracies will never be able to summon the will to see a lengthly foreign war to a successful conclusion unless the nation itself would be put in immediate danger if it failed to do so.

That, ultimately, was the lesson of Vietnam. We can win short, decisive conflicts. But in a war like Vietnam or even one like Afghanistan, in which casualties have been light, it is a built-in weakness of countries in which the people finally call the shots that unless there are obvious and fairly immediate consequences to losing, democracies simply cannot and will not stay the course..

That is a fact of life history has taught us at a considerable cost in lives and treasure. Both Donald Trump-style isolationists and George H.W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson-style internationalists should take it as a fundamental law of nature and govern their policies accordingly.

We forget that we went to war in Afghanistan originally because the Taliban was sheltering Osama bin Laden and al Queda in Afghanistan. The war was enormously popular in the United States at the time, and jolly well should have been. We kicked the Taliban out. The trouble is that Afghanistan, like Iraq, is an ancient and relatively undeveloped region, rather than a nation in the modern sense. Like Vietnam, and like Iraq, it is essentially an artificial nation cobbled together by outsiders. We defeated the Taliban, and removed them from power. But as in Iraq, we then faced the dilemma of lacking any abiding sense of mutual identity or a generally recognized central authority to install in power in place of our defeated adversary. The “forever war” has been a struggle to prevent the Taliban- which, like the Viet Minh and its successors in Vietnam, was the only truly unified force capable of forming a stable government, from stepping into what amounted to a vaccum and seizing power again.

The rule of the Taliban- a misogynistic outfit of religious fanatics intent on ruling by strict Sharia law- was a nightmare for the people of Afghanistan. It is a nightmare into which they are about to be plunged once more.

An aside: If you haven’t seen the movie Charlie Wilson’s War, based on the book by George Crille III, I highly recommend it. It’s a funny but also an important film, somewhat fictionalized but preserving the essense of what actually happened when a lovable and rather blatantly corrupt congressman combined with a bizarre collection of marginal characters inside and outside the CIA to get the Mujahideen- the Afghans fighting the Russians- Stinger missles and other military support which they could use to repel the invaders. Afghanistan was a far different experience for the Russians than it was for us. It’s misleading to call it the “Russian Vietnam,” as some do; we lost 57,000 soldiers and sailors in Vietnam, whereas the Soviet Union lost only 15,000 (our own loses in Afghanistan total 2,376). But it was enough to convince the Kremlin that the war was unwinnable, and get them to pull out.

The movie ends with a sad postscript about how, having won the trust and friendship of the Afghan people, we squandered them by losing interest and forgetting about Afghanistan. The result was the Taliban coming to power. History, it seems, repeats itself. But I can’t help but wonder what might have happened if our interest in a stable Afghanistan that wasn’t going to be a playground for bad actors had continued. Perhaps the “forever war” might never have been fought at all.

Effective and empathetic foreign aid when possible, and covert operations to support our friends, or even short, decisive military encounters when they are necessary, can and should be undertaken when they’re in our interests, and in the interests of freedom and stability. But not twenty-year wars, even when they result in fewer than 3,000 casualties over that entire period.

How do you avoid quagmires like Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan, in which we can keep the bad guys out of power only if we stay involved at a level we cannot sustain in the long run? First and foremost, you try to help avoid the circumstances in which they develop. But contrary to the paleocon/Trump/Buchanan/Paul isolationist instinct, we can’t simply shut ourselves within our own borders, behind the ramparts of two oceans, and cry “America First!” World War II proved how badly that works. Throughout history, there has always been a leading world power that has lent stability to world affairs. The Brits played that role for a long time. We are their successors. The alternative is a global power vacuum in which Hitlers arise. The days of “Fortress America” are far in the past. The world has become too small. We are too deeply effected, economically, culturally, and in many other ways by what happens on the otherside of the globe to curl up in a ball and hide.

And above all else, we can be mindful of our limitations. I’m not sure what the answer is when our military presence is or might be the only thing keeping tyrants and monsters from filling power vacuums on the other side of the world. But the Butterfly Effect is real in modern international affairs. It may be very indirectly, but we in the United States will be affected by the impending descent of Afghanistan back into the dark medieval night of Sharia law, misogyny and tyranny. And like it or not, history has cast us in the role the British played for so long, not necessarily as a world-bestriding empire but as a strong anchor for peace and order, a rallying point around which the nations can gather to protect the interests of peace and even civilization. 9/11 is a chilling reminder of what happens when we lose interest in what happens beyond our borders.

Multilateralism is part of the solution, to be sure. But then, our effort in Afghanistan has been multilateral; it’s been a NATO operation. And our NATO allies, too are democracies, subject to the short attention span of their voters.

I suppose the best we can do is to encourage enlightened people and movements non-militarily, and on a limited and even covert scale when military action must be taken, again unless it’s possible to bring overwhelming force to bear to bring about a clear, quick, decisive, limited, and well-defined outcome, as was the case in the First Gulf War.

We dare not run away from our responsibilities in the world because we cannot. The world will not let us. The fruit of any prolonged effort will be bitter indeed; as it is, the damage done to our posture in the world and our relationship with our allies by four years of Trump isolationism will probably take decades to repair. But there are limits, as a practical matter, to what even a democracy as mighty as ours can do. We need to learn those limits, stay within them, always keep a clear and limted goal in mind, and do the best we can. Reality is a harsh mistress, and we have no choice but to obey it. And in our misadventures around the world since the 50s, reality has spoken clearly, and keeps repeating itself, it seems.

We should not mishear it. We dare not respond to Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan by withdrawing from the world, or by failing what we can do to lead the world order in staving off chaos and disaster. If we won’t do it, China will- and the consequences won’t be pretty.

The Biden administration is doing its best to avoid a reprise of the disaster we experienced in the fall of Saigon. But there will be Afghans who have put their lives on the line to be our friends, and who will lose those lives because we have abandoned them. And that is a cause for deep shame.

We have lost only 2,367 lives in Afghanistan. Each of those lives is a universe for the friends and family of the casualties. But those are far fewer losses than we’ve experienced in previous wars. We are not leaving Afghanistan because the cost of staying would be too high. We are leaving, yes, because it seems unlikely given the nature of Afghanistan itself that we can finally prevail, unless perhaps we stay there for 50 or 75 or a hundred years. But fundamentally, we’re leaving because democracies can’t summon the political will to fight protracted wars unless they’re invaded, or in immediate danger of being invaded.

But leaving means that while no life lost in the defense of freedom and decency is ever spent in vain, those 2,367 lives will have been lost in a cause that failed. Perhaps if we’d paid more attention and done our nation-building in peacetime, the war would never have had to be fought and those men and women would still be alive. As it happened, we find ourselves in a situation in which final victory in Afghanistan is probably impossible. Yes, there is a case to be made for getting out before more lives are lost. But while on the whole I’m a supporter of the Biden administration, it ought to be a cause for shame that our withdrawal is not happening more thoughfully and deliberately, over a far longer period. It’s not the MRI’s and DVD’s and ordnance we’re leaving behind that bothers me.

It’s the people.