Some very relevant questions and observations from William Astore on the Russia-Ukraine War
I feel I’ve been remiss in not more often quoting William Astore, who is an excellent commentator on the politics of war.
He recently posted on “Questions to Ask in the Russia-Ukraine War: Burnishing My Kremlin Talking Points?”1
That’s not a headline I would use for one of my posts because I would worry it sounded defensive. But when you’re someone with Astore’s record of solid reporting on military affairs - and assuming he writes his own headlines on that site - it’s a way of saying: If you think raising sensible questions about US policy on the Russia-Ukraine War makes me a Putin stooge, well: bug off!!
In that post, he provides a numbered list of 15 questions and observations about the current conflict. My own favorite is #5: “Diplomats like to say that no one wants war, but that simply isn’t true. Plenty of people make lots of money from war. The longer the war lasts, the more money they’ll make.”
That’s straightforwardly true. And has been for a long time. And, of course, Astore isn’t the first to notice.2
The New Cold Warriors often start getting the heebie-jeebies and going into “Chamberlain! Hitler! Munich!” mode whenever they see or hear anything that seems to dabble in any kind of foreign-policy “realist” analysis. That group will really not like #14:
Strictly for Americans: What vital national interest does the U.S. have in providing more than $110 billion in aid, and counting, to Ukraine? How are we supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution in Ukraine? Ukraine is not a NATO member. The U.S. has no formal alliance with Ukraine. Ukrainian democracy is (at best) imperfect. Continued support of Ukraine runs the risk of a wider, more calamitous, war. Certainly, Americans can legitimately ask why Ukraine has received $110 billion in one year while U.S. states continue to be starved of funds for the homeless, the mentally ill, education, and other worthy social causes within the U.S. itself. [my emphasis]
That’s part of the problem with the Democracies vs. Autocracies framework for foreign policy. It leads to threat inflation.
It’s one thing to say that the US has a national interest in supporting Ukraine in the current conflict. Also, there are national interests that wouldn’t count as vital national interests. Going directly to war should arguably be restricted to the latter.
But when we hear rhetoric along the lines of “the future of democracy in the world is on the line in Ukraine,” it’s worth asking: If Ukraine surrenders tomorrow and agrees to let Russia absorb as much of it as they want, does that mean that democracies in Europe, North America, and everywhere else will suddenly renounce their form of government and begin a Putin-style regime?
Does it mean that Russia will then start wars against the former Soviet Union nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? As Astore says, “The U.S. has no formal alliance with Ukraine.” But the US and every other NATO member do have those countries as allies. So do all EU members that are not also NATO member states, because the EU treaty itself has a mutual-defense clause. And that means that NATO would have to go directly to war against Russia over the Baltic countries.
Honoring the country’s most important and longest-standing defense alliance (NATO) would look a whole lot more like what most Americans will consider a vital national interest for the US. Among other things, having the NATO alliance collapse in the current situation would mean that most European countries would start a scramble to acquire their own nuclear arsenals.
Whether most Americans could have found Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on a map before they were admitted to NATO, much less would have considered going to war with Russia over them to be a vital national interest for the US, is another question. One that deserved a lot more discussion than it got at the time.
Item #14 raises a sensible point about diplomatic initiatives:
A U.S. policy decision to work for a negotiated truce and peace could conceivably lead to an end to fighting. That truce/peace could be couched in terms of avoiding a wider war that could escalate to nuclear weapons, while still upholding Ukraine’s right to exist and to pursue its own form of government. Of course, the devil would be in the details with respect to the terms of the truce/treaty. Why isn’t the U.S. working to advance this?
There have been some recent signs that are somewhat hopeful in terms of negotiations. But these are the kinds of questions that citizens and parliamentary bodies in the US and Europe should be asking in a serious way.
Astore, William J. (2023): Questions to Ask in the Russia-Ukraine War: Burnishing My Kremlin Talking Points? Bracing Views 03/27/2023. <https://bracingviews.com/2023/03/27/questions-to-ask-in-the-russia-ukraine-war/> (Accessed: 2023-31-03).
Astore, William J. (2023): A Highway to Peace or a Highway to Hell? The Vast Power of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. TomDispatch 03/21/2023. <https://tomdispatch.com/a-highway-to-peace-or-a-highway-to-hell/> (Accessed: 2023-31-03).