Cromwell

Being an illiberal country isn’t necessary incompatible with NATO membership–just ask the Poles. NATO members, however, have an obligation to follow the NATO line with regard to Russia. If they cannot be trusted in a time of conflict, they shouldn’t be part of the alliance.

Erdogan has already made it clear that he wants the benefits of membership without its obligations. That means he might even pass NATO military secrets on to Putin in the event of a conflict. Orban’s Hungary appears to be moving in the same direction.

We should not tolerate potential Trojan horses within the alliance. Erdogan and Orban should be told to shape up or face the bear without our assistance.

Advanced anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons have helped the Ukrainians stop the Russian advance, but the Ukrainians won’t be able to mount large scale counteroffensives to throw the Russians back without weapons designed for that purpose. As a result, Zelensky quite reasonably is asking for tanks and planes. Should he get them?

We are walking a tightrope here. On the one hand, the most desirable outcome of the war–the complete expulsion of Russian forces from Ukraine–is impossible unless we give Zelensky what he wants. On the other hand, giving him offensive weapons may cause the Russians to escalate, with possible catastrophic results. The red line is in Putin’s mind, not on paper. It’s a tough call.

Since it is highly unlikely that Ukraine would ever launch a ground assault on Russian territory, my best guess is that tanks wouldn’t cross the line. Fighters and bombers would worry me more. If I were Biden, I would split the difference.

I first met Vladimir Putin years ago, when he was just a struggling KGB agent in Dresden. He tried (unsuccessfully, of course) to make me a KGB asset, but not very hard; you could tell his heart wasn’t in it. He came across as someone who loved his country, but had some doubts about communism. We hit it off immediately over a few warm East German beers. He promised to keep in touch.

When I saw him the next time, he was, much to his surprise (and mine), President of Russia. He had just obliterated Chechnya, but did not have any apparent issues with the US or NATO. He was basically the same guy, but he had developed some attitudes about power and the manifest destiny of Russia that made me queasy. At times, his comments about the Russian people sounded like something that would come out of the mouth of an 18th century tsar. I was a bit worried about what it meant for the future, but I let it go.

The next time I saw him, he had just taken Crimea. He was riding high. He kept spouting nonsense about the holiness of Russia and how America had screwed up the world. I couldn’t get him to stop. I couldn’t decide whether he actually bought into this stuff or not, but it didn’t matter. We didn’t have anything more to say. I haven’t seen him since.

Today, he looks and sounds like a monster. I don’t even recognize him. He’s just not the same guy. He needs to go as soon as possible.

According to the NYT, the CCP is preparing a film for the viewing of party members that portrays Putin as the proper successor of Stalin, following a line of foolish wimps. To the CCP (but probably few others), this is a compliment. What does it tell us about the CCP?

It no longer takes communism seriously as an economic theory. To the CCP, “communism” is a form of national renewal in the face of global opposition through an authoritarian government; it has nothing to do with the ultimate success of the working class in a class struggle driven by dialectical materialism. In that sense, Putin’s fascist Russia is becoming as “communist” as China. Finally, it suggests that the CCP is turning into a one-man operation. It no longer has any time for collective leadership.

Of course, this sounds like a rationale for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and we know how that turned out.

We saw the kind of deplorable tactics Putin is using in Ukraine in Syria and Chechnya, too. The American public didn’t display the same level of interest or disgust during the earlier conflicts. Why the difference?

There are several reasons. First, the magnitude of the invasion of Ukraine is much larger. Second, the Russian military had a legal right to be in Chechnya and Syria, while Ukraine is an invasion and a violation of international law, pure and simple. Third, the victims of the previous acts of aggression had far less access to the Western mass media than the Ukrainians. Finally, and I suspect most importantly, Ukraine and its residents are closer to us than the residents of Syria and Chechnya. We can now imagine Russia attacking NATO countries, and we can relate culturally to the Ukrainian population.

You can argue, and some have, that the last item is racist. I think it is just natural for us to care more about our neighbors than the people on the other side the world. I don’t think we need to apologize for it.

Citing the examples of several international evildoers, Ross Douthat argues that keeping sanctions on Russia after a short period will only solidify Putin’s control of the populace. Is he right?

Yes. The situation is even worse than he suggests; the longer the sanctions stay on, the more ability the Russians have to counter them, and make them useless in the future. That’s why I’ve maintained that sanctions need to come off as part of any agreement; to leave them on purely for the emotional satisfaction of the American public will only damage our interests in the long run.

Given the spirit of the age, you might think that World War I was an imperialist war, but it wasn’t. The Austrians wanted war to fix an intractable political problem at home; the Tsar was afraid his government would fall if it backed down; the Germans were afraid of the “Russian steamroller;” the French were afraid of fighting at some future date without Russian help; and the British were afraid of a continent dominated by Germany. There are no territorial claims in that list.

Given the bloodshed that ensued over the next few years, and given that there were no real ideological stakes in the conflict, you would think that stalemate would lead to a reasonable negotiated peace. It didn’t happen, due to “Dateline” syndrome. All of the parties concluded that, in light of the magnitude of their losses, they needed a clear victory and territorial gains in order to justify the war. The bad guys had to be identified and punished, and the good guys had to be rewarded. And so the war went on, with catastrophic results for Europe and the entire world.

That is my fear for Ukraine. We need to avoid the temptation of “Dateline” syndrome. A deal may not look great (as with, for example, the Korean War), but the alternatives are impractical and dangerous.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that the war ends with some sort of negotiated agreement which trades a limited amount of Ukrainian territory and a pledge of military neutrality for guarantees of sovereignty. Large areas of Ukraine have been devastated. What happens now?

The US and the EU–not Russia, of course–provide huge sums of money for reconstruction. Ukraine consequently moves even further into the EU camp. The aftermath of the war is consequently another political disaster for Russian imperialists who had hoped (and not without reason) that Ukraine would ultimately fall into their lap through the use of carefully calibrated pressure tactics short of war. Putin’s lack of patience has cost them dearly.

A NOTE TO MY READERS: I will be out of town for a few days, starting tomorrow. Regular posting will resume on Sunday.

I read a column in the NYT about a week ago which suggested that Putin is a practitioner of identity politics. Is that correct?

Of course it is! He’s a fascist. Fascism is identity politics taken to an extreme.

It is sometimes alleged that Putin’s ongoing efforts to eliminate effective opposition are turning Russia back into a Stalinist state. Is that accurate?

It does smell that way, but not exactly. Putin is a fascist; Stalin was a dedicated communist trying to make it up on the fly. The distinction matters, because Putin is far more selective in what he attempts to control than Stalin ever was. He won’t liquidate tens of millions of supposed class enemies in an effort to build a twisted utopia in Russia, because it is the nation, not class, that matters to him; he just jails thousands of genuine political opponents, and has a few of them murdered. Not the same thing at all, if hardly inspiring.

As a result, if you insist on analogies to vicious 20th century dictators, the line actually runs to Hitler, not Stalin. Given that Putin constantly complains about nonexistent Nazis in Ukraine, he would undoubtedly be offended by the comparison. Poor little guy–in his defense, his victims only number in the thousands, to date, but we live in softer times.

Dreher wants you to know that his real hero, Viktor Orban, is nothing like Putin. Is he right?

Let’s look at the record. Orban maintains a stranglehold on power in Hungary by: ferociously gerrymandering legislative districts; buying or otherwise controlling the news media; using law enforcement and the judiciary against his opponents; doling out goodies from the EU to his supporters; and posing as the defender of traditional Christian values against LGBTQ people, secular humanists, Jews, and Muslim immigrants. Is this ringing any bells?

Admittedly, Orban hasn’t poisoned his most conspicuous opponents, shut down the internet, or invaded any of his neighbors yet. That’s because Hungary is a small, poor country which needs EU money and lacks a strong military. Whether it is due in any way to a lack of inclination is unknowable under the circumstances.

Our old friend Rod Dreher is shocked, shocked that Vladimir Putin is encouraging his Syrian allies to fight for him in Ukraine. To Dreher, this means that Putin is only posing cynically as the defender of Christian values against the barbarians of the left. Otherwise, how could he bring in dirty Muslims to fight the pious Orthodox Christians of Ukraine? He must only be interested in power, and empire!

Well, of course he bloody is! Dreher is the kind of guy who will buy anything you put in front of him as long as you wrap it up in a package of traditional Christian values. Anyone with any brains at all would have seen that Putin is about power, and nothing else.

People typically watch “Dateline” because it portrays a predictable and just universe in which evildoers get their just desserts in the end. Occasionally, that doesn’t happen; the story ends inconclusively, and the viewers feel cheated.

In a similar vein, I suspect most Americans anticipate Putin’s Ukraine adventure will end with an appropriate punishment for the criminal. Unfortunately, that is highly unlikely; the Russian military may not be covering itself in glory, but it has won Ukrainian territory and still enjoys advantages in men and weapons. If the result is a compromise, what happens next? Biden gets the blame, of course.

If he is wise, he will be preparing the American public for some sort of a deal. I don’t see any evidence of that to date.

Putin launched an unprovoked, imperialist war against an adjoining country he believes has no right to exist. When the US responded by arming Ukraine, what did he say? That he, and Russia, were being “cancelled” by America, of course!

It sounds ludicrous–deranged, even–but it has a clear purpose. He has chosen to identify himself completely with the extreme right in America in the hopes that it has enough political power to stop Biden from intervening in the war. It is cynical, not crazy.

Most of the members of the “New Right” deny being useful idiots, but what more evidence do you need?

And so Putin invaded Ukraine.

I don’t really see what he’s gained.

His campaign’s a dud.

He’s stuck in the mud

And the Russians are feeling the pain.