Biden remains cool-headed amid apocalyptic Washington. Credit: Peter Klaunzer/Pool/Keystone/Getty
Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a barbarity. It is also an act of futility. That is not how many in Washington see it, and even Republicans who have become sceptical of foreign intervention may be shocked into thinking that Putin can succeed. But the history of his nation, and ours, says otherwise.
Certain reflexes remain irresistible in Washington, not only among politicians but in the media, too. One of these is a tendency to see every conflict as a new Second World War. Another is to believe that sufficient force and “resolve” can achieve any objective, whether that is our objectives in Iraq or Afghanistan or Vladimir Putin’s objectives in Ukraine. And a third is the habit of regarding those who fail to fall in line during times of crisis as traitors, appeasers, or the useful idiots of America’s enemies.
These reflexes have been on full display with the crisis in Ukraine. “This is Sudetenland,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Russia’s attempt to justify its war as a defence of separatist “republics” in Luhansk and Donetsk. It is a grave act of aggression, certainly; but great power irredentism has other precedents besides those of Nazi Germany.
Automatically comparing every crisis with the Second World War is a dangerous habit. It’s a reflex that helped stampede the United States into a needless war in the Middle East 20 years ago. Iraq was an “Islamo-fascist” dictatorship with “weapons of mass destruction”, a threat on par with a nuclear Nazi Germany. Most of America’s policy and media elite bought into the idiotic idea, with disastrous consequences — most of all for the people of Iraq.
Putin’s Russia is a much more serious threat than Saddam’s Iraq. But it’s a new menace, not another Nazi Germany. So President Biden deserves credit for refraining from hyperbole in his remarks this week. He rightly noted — with Cold War lessons and perhaps with America’s own rueful experience in Afghanistan in mind — that “history has shown time and again how swift gains and territory eventually give way to grinding occupations, acts of mass civil disobedience, and strategic dead ends”.
Biden was then asked whether Putin’s ambitions extended beyond Ukraine, and whether nuclear war was a possibility. Would Putin attack Nato countries — and was the United States ready to fight? While Biden’s answers were measured, the questions show the apocalyptic mindset that the Washington media easily slips into. It’s a mentality that many an ideologue or vested interest is ready to exploit — for arms sales, energy deals, or domestic political advantage. The latter can be seen in the way that liberals and NeverTrump pundits have used the crisis as an opportunity to question the patriotism of conservatives.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI find this essay lacks focus, a bit rambling, though I seem to agree with much of it.
I think it was Churchill who said “England does not have allies; England has interests” or something close, and I believe that is wise.
I condemn without reservation Putin’s invasion. But I also understand–from Putin’s point of view–why he did it: he himself as a czar, he views Russia as a great empire, and he feels threatened by NATO’s creeping expansion on his border, in his sphere of influence.
Cuban Missile Crisis? What if Mexico wanted to join the Warsaw Pact? Didn’t Reagan go crazy in the 80s when the US “feared” creeping communism in that great military power El Salvador, and perhaps other Central American banana republics?
This invasion was entirely predictable. It did not happen overnight, it happened over decades, and the US and the West was pathetically outplayed by a true master. Europe should stop licking American boots, especially under senile Biden, and champion European interests.
Britain should certainly stop “licking American boots”, but Britain – Great Britain – should champion British interests (and European ones, too, if they make sense – some do not).
Capital idea. Britain has interest, not allies….
Your example of Mexico is actually pretty close to the mark. The last straw that forced America into WWI was Germany offering a military alliance with Mexico (the Zommierman telegram). A hostile Mexico sharing a 1500 mile land border with us was an existential threat. So we declared war on Germany.
What’s odd is that our own leaders are unable to see Russia’s motivations despite the transparency to many of their subjects.
By the way. It wasn’t Churchill. It was Lord Palmerston – former British Foreign Secretary, who pursued the First Opium War in 1840, against much internal opposition. Palmerston died on a billard table in a friend’s house, on top of one of the female servants. Over 80 years old. Would that we could all leave this world in similar fashion.
Can we focus a bit on Prof. Tribe, who vast and unsurpassed legal scholarship suggests that some Americans who back Russia are guilty of treason? How does this even pass the laugh test, Learned Scholar? Pray tell?
Treason carries the death penalty in the US. Yes, Gentle Western Readers, the death penalty is a real thing in the US. Isn’t Learned Professor Tribe, in essence, calling for the death penalty for those he with the temerity to disagree with him? How enlightened! Criminalise political disagreement and subject the enemies of the people to the death penalty.
This is, apparently, what is taught at Harvard Law School, the woke factory that produces Supreme Court justices.
I don’t think you can blame Harvard Law School for Prof Tribe. Why not just blame Prof Tribe for Prof Tribe ? His statement (now there is “unhinged” for you ) marks him as one of the minority million redneck American “conservatives”, from whom the Lord preserve us, and preserve our civilisation. One of the arguments for dropping a nuclear bomb on America is that it would vaporise people like Prof Tribe. Perhaps Boston, Mass. would be a good place to drop it.
I think it’s both. Tribe is completely self-absorbed, believing only in his own greatness, and Harvard enables this tosh.
Comparisons of the attack on Ukraine with events 1936-1939 leading up to WW2 attempt to draw on a deep well of sentiment about WW2, notably, “the good guys won in the end”. The writer is entirely correct to state that this comparison is unhelpful, because it awakens aggressive feelings which are not relevant. although they make conservatives feel much better. Instead, Putin’s attack is a powerful statement on the world we live in, notably America’s lack of statesmanship since the collapse of the Soviet system in 1990, and the fact that the United States no longer runs the world.
Swap ‘women’ for ‘The West’, and Putin emerges as a kind of high- functioning incel; now in the endgame phase, taking to the streets where the people who ‘ humiliated’ him live.
Tim Black at Spiked, has posted a good essay on the West’s missed opportunity in the early 90’s, to rest the post war security arrangements. As usual the self interest of the self perpetuating administrative state prevailed.
I think the “Keep your eye on the ball,” the ball being China may or may not be good advice, but how does one apply it to Taiwan?
Another article that has quickly passed its sell by date due to events.
Putin is no Hitler?
He’s used ancient history of civilisation to justify his takeover – just like Hitler.
He’s threatened the world with nuclear conflagration – I’m pretty sure Hitler would have used nuclear weapons if he’d had them.
And he parades his power with symbols (long tables, submissive cabinet).
And he makes unhinged speeches that remind one of Hitler’s phlegm specked oratory.