another great essay. Our friends and relatives in Eastern Europe seem to think this is all a big CIA psy-op, ostensibly to prop up Biden's administration as some sort of foreign policy geniuses. They believe that Putin never intended to truly invade Ukraine, beyond the Donetsk and Luhansk-and that the Biden admin has been hyping this "invasion" to make Joey look like he is a master of diplomacy. Keep in mind, our relatives have a lot more to lose should a full fledged invasion pan out, since they are literal neighbors of the battle front. Time will tell...but one thing is certain, Joe Biden and his State Department are dunces.
Thank you for the thought provoking piece, and I am thrilled that CC now has a section devoted to comments. That promises to make this noble effort of yours even more robust a vehicle for influencing and informing.
I do have to say, however, that I disagree with it in a number of fundamental respects.
First of all, the ad hominem attack on Biden is unfair and uncalled for. Whatever his personal shortcomings are, this is a mean spirited assault on his intellectual and cognitive abilities. I understand your statements about his literacy to be hyperbolic, of course, but I wonder whether the nature of your attack somehow diminishes your substantive comments.
Moving onto those, I disagree with the characterization of Biden’s policy as ineffectual. I think you and I will agree that the geopolitical threat faced by Russian expansionism is, if not an existential threat, a serious one to the global order, and one which should not come as a surprise to students of history, of which you are included. The David Brooks article from the New York Times, link attached Opinion | The Dark Century: Why Is Liberalism in Decline? - The New York Times (nytimes.com), I thought was very timely and lucid, although you seem to disagree with the qualifications of the author.
Regardless, the President has forged an alliance with Western Europe which, at least for the time being, is taking a unified and assertive approach to dealing with the fears over Russian hegemony. While I suspect that you may think that a stronger message from Biden is in order, there is a virtue to a gradualist approach, namely, leaving Putin and his minions with room to deviate from what appears to be a single minded goal. I think the term now in vogue is “off ramp” , and the US/European goal should be (and I think is) giving Putin the ability to decide, for the good of his people and perhaps more relevantly his legacy, whether there might be some reason to refrain from bolder action. Yes, it’s a chess game with global implications, but at the end of the day that is exactly what statesmanship entails. Ironically, the former president congratulated himself in his actions with North Korea that he would not reveal his plans, i.e. show his hand, as a tactically superior means for dealing with an adversary. Why is that strategy when employed by Biden not valid?
Unless you are considering a more confrontational approach, which I think could thrust this cold war problem into a hot war scenario, I think this is the right tactic, at least for now. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and therein lies a distinction from other Western powers. Putin’s global aspirations appear to be regional, at least for now. And it’s easier to escalate than to de-escalate tensions, ergo the virtues of a policy of gradualism.
I did not say appeasement, for the record! If you were comparing Biden to Neville Chamberlain, I might understand the criticism, but that is not at all what’s happening. Freezing Russian assets, suspending credentials of oligarchs and kleptocrats, coordinating with other Western leaders (whose suspension of trade and other arrangements are tough if not crippling actions.), etc are exactly what is required, at this juncture.
Beyond this, the current president has difficult domestic challenges which complicate the enactment of policy. When his predecessor praises Putin’s power grab as “brilliant” and when Tucker Carlson commends Russia’s actions, as recent notable examples, it creates a miasma of pressures and cross pressures. Imagine had Herbert Hoover applauded Hitler’s invasion of Sudetenland or Poland in the 1930’s. Wouldn’t it be terrific if, for once, “politics stopped at the shoreline” and U.S. commentators, politicians, statesmen, etc. could agree that Putin’s actions are part of a calculated scheme to assert Russian expansionisism in the 21st Century and deserves a concerted and united opposition?
Finally, I will conclude with words from Charlie Bright, whose importance as a thinker and a historian is something as to which you and I share a common belief. In his 1995 article “World History in a Global Age” (co-written with Michael Geyer) he asserted the following:
“But, while the world as it has been orphaned by the collapse of historical narratives, this is not a loss that can be remedied by a more encyclopedic approach, as if equal time for all the world’s histories will make history whole.”
That can't be Kaiser Wilhelm because his left arm is normal sized. Count Schlieffen drew up the plans for the invasion of France and a counterattack on Russia a decade before the Archduke was assassinated. Germany was always going to go to war, they had the plans and the means. They just needed an excuse.
It's just what Putin is doing. What he planned all along. So now we are at the point of the Sudetenland. What is to be done? Allow a new USSR type empire to develop and plague the West for another half century or more?
So many missteps over so many years. The Munich Pact. Allying with the USSR in the 1st place rather than to also go to war with the other country that invaded Poland in 1939. Allowing the criminals of the USSR in 1991 to go unpunished with Nuremburg style trials and executions followed by an occupation, desovietization and seizure of their nuclear arms until the generations that grew up under the USSR all died away.
another great essay. Our friends and relatives in Eastern Europe seem to think this is all a big CIA psy-op, ostensibly to prop up Biden's administration as some sort of foreign policy geniuses. They believe that Putin never intended to truly invade Ukraine, beyond the Donetsk and Luhansk-and that the Biden admin has been hyping this "invasion" to make Joey look like he is a master of diplomacy. Keep in mind, our relatives have a lot more to lose should a full fledged invasion pan out, since they are literal neighbors of the battle front. Time will tell...but one thing is certain, Joe Biden and his State Department are dunces.
Thank you for the thought provoking piece, and I am thrilled that CC now has a section devoted to comments. That promises to make this noble effort of yours even more robust a vehicle for influencing and informing.
I do have to say, however, that I disagree with it in a number of fundamental respects.
First of all, the ad hominem attack on Biden is unfair and uncalled for. Whatever his personal shortcomings are, this is a mean spirited assault on his intellectual and cognitive abilities. I understand your statements about his literacy to be hyperbolic, of course, but I wonder whether the nature of your attack somehow diminishes your substantive comments.
Moving onto those, I disagree with the characterization of Biden’s policy as ineffectual. I think you and I will agree that the geopolitical threat faced by Russian expansionism is, if not an existential threat, a serious one to the global order, and one which should not come as a surprise to students of history, of which you are included. The David Brooks article from the New York Times, link attached Opinion | The Dark Century: Why Is Liberalism in Decline? - The New York Times (nytimes.com), I thought was very timely and lucid, although you seem to disagree with the qualifications of the author.
Regardless, the President has forged an alliance with Western Europe which, at least for the time being, is taking a unified and assertive approach to dealing with the fears over Russian hegemony. While I suspect that you may think that a stronger message from Biden is in order, there is a virtue to a gradualist approach, namely, leaving Putin and his minions with room to deviate from what appears to be a single minded goal. I think the term now in vogue is “off ramp” , and the US/European goal should be (and I think is) giving Putin the ability to decide, for the good of his people and perhaps more relevantly his legacy, whether there might be some reason to refrain from bolder action. Yes, it’s a chess game with global implications, but at the end of the day that is exactly what statesmanship entails. Ironically, the former president congratulated himself in his actions with North Korea that he would not reveal his plans, i.e. show his hand, as a tactically superior means for dealing with an adversary. Why is that strategy when employed by Biden not valid?
Unless you are considering a more confrontational approach, which I think could thrust this cold war problem into a hot war scenario, I think this is the right tactic, at least for now. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and therein lies a distinction from other Western powers. Putin’s global aspirations appear to be regional, at least for now. And it’s easier to escalate than to de-escalate tensions, ergo the virtues of a policy of gradualism.
I did not say appeasement, for the record! If you were comparing Biden to Neville Chamberlain, I might understand the criticism, but that is not at all what’s happening. Freezing Russian assets, suspending credentials of oligarchs and kleptocrats, coordinating with other Western leaders (whose suspension of trade and other arrangements are tough if not crippling actions.), etc are exactly what is required, at this juncture.
Beyond this, the current president has difficult domestic challenges which complicate the enactment of policy. When his predecessor praises Putin’s power grab as “brilliant” and when Tucker Carlson commends Russia’s actions, as recent notable examples, it creates a miasma of pressures and cross pressures. Imagine had Herbert Hoover applauded Hitler’s invasion of Sudetenland or Poland in the 1930’s. Wouldn’t it be terrific if, for once, “politics stopped at the shoreline” and U.S. commentators, politicians, statesmen, etc. could agree that Putin’s actions are part of a calculated scheme to assert Russian expansionisism in the 21st Century and deserves a concerted and united opposition?
Finally, I will conclude with words from Charlie Bright, whose importance as a thinker and a historian is something as to which you and I share a common belief. In his 1995 article “World History in a Global Age” (co-written with Michael Geyer) he asserted the following:
“But, while the world as it has been orphaned by the collapse of historical narratives, this is not a loss that can be remedied by a more encyclopedic approach, as if equal time for all the world’s histories will make history whole.”
That can't be Kaiser Wilhelm because his left arm is normal sized. Count Schlieffen drew up the plans for the invasion of France and a counterattack on Russia a decade before the Archduke was assassinated. Germany was always going to go to war, they had the plans and the means. They just needed an excuse.
It's just what Putin is doing. What he planned all along. So now we are at the point of the Sudetenland. What is to be done? Allow a new USSR type empire to develop and plague the West for another half century or more?
So many missteps over so many years. The Munich Pact. Allying with the USSR in the 1st place rather than to also go to war with the other country that invaded Poland in 1939. Allowing the criminals of the USSR in 1991 to go unpunished with Nuremburg style trials and executions followed by an occupation, desovietization and seizure of their nuclear arms until the generations that grew up under the USSR all died away.