The Ukraine Situation
“Because we would have loved it if Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact.”
That was my dad a few days ago. We were riding in the car together, and as usual I had my radio tuned to NPR. (I have plenty of ideological problems with NPR’s coverage, but in rural Appalachia, it’s the only news station that isn’t from the raving and frothing far right.) It was their hourly news roundup they do between fluff programs, and Jack Spear was talking about the recent phone call between US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, mentioning the fact that Russia had a “red line” around Ukraine joining NATO.
There’s a lot of nuance around the situation in the Ukraine, as there is with most political issues. However, dad’s analysis really hits the core of the issue that most western media won’t cover. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a military alliance that was designed to counter the Soviet Union and their own alliance, the Warsaw Pact. Following the collapse of the “evil empire,” one would think the necessity of this military alliance would wane.
This would be incorrect. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, thirteen countries, primarily in Eastern Europe, have joined the military alliance, further boxing in the Russian Federation.
Now, while I am opposed to empire, I am not among the camp of Marxist-Leninist “anti-imperialists,” who often seem eager to excuse the crimes of any state that opposes US foreign policy. I have a great many problems with Putin’s government, both domestically and internationally, and I find it a terrible shame that the Ukrainian people are being used like pawns in geopolitical chess.
That being said, there is a core argument behind the Russian resistance to Ukraine’s membership in NATO: It is a military alliance designed to box in the Russian state. Having its most direct, and closest linked, neighbor join this military alliance really wouldn’t be like Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact; it’d be a more accurate example to say it’s like Canada joining the Warsaw Pact.
I was reminded of this conversation this evening while driving to the store, hearing Michael Barbaro breathlessly interview New York Time’s Moscow bureau chief Anton Troianovski on the situation with Russia, the US, and the Ukraine. (The name of the episode is “Why Ukraine Matters to Vladimir Putin,” clearly putting everything on the plate of the Russians while ignoring the US role in this conflict. I’d include it here, but I have yet to learn how to hyperlink in Substack.) There is a long list of reasons for Putin’s “obsession” with the Ukraine. Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union, Russian historic identity with the Ukraine, their agricultural and manufacturing might, etc.
Nothing mentioned in the interview mentioned, even in a glancing manner, the fact that a neighboring country joining an aggressive military alliance opposed to one’s country might prompt a rather drastic response. They brush aside any questions about the “Euromaiden” revolution, including the fact that not just fascist sympathizers, but explicit Nazis, have been part of the “pro-Western” government in the Ukraine. (This is an oversimplification, but one done in reaction to the oversimplification brought to us by the New York Times and NPR.)
So what of the West, then? Well, folksy Amtrak Joe is just a regular guy who believes in self determination. And how can one oppose that? The fact that this sovereignty dovetails perfectly with US foreign policy is entirely coincidental.
I’ve often said that the Democrats (be it Joe Biden or, should he not run for re-election, likely nominees Pete Buttigieg or Kamala Harris) will keep the White House if the nominee is Trump, but will likely lose if they nominate even a remotely competent nominee, like Nikki Haley. I think this is true, with a major caveat: Should the Biden administration get us involved in a ground war in Eastern Europe against the second greatest nuclear power on the planet, they will certainly lose the White House. While the Republican party is the party of hawks, the Democratic party lobbed us into most of the wars of the 20th century. Should the current administration take up that mantle and put troops in Kiev, it will doom any efforts for the Democrats to keep power. Americans are war weary, and after 2004, have consistently voted for the “bread and peace” candidate in a Presidential election.
That is, American voters have chosen the candidate who seemed to care the most about their economic well-being, while being most opposed to foreign intervention. In 2008, Barack Obama, long a critic of the Iraq War, chastised Republican incompetence on economic matters against the hawkish McCain who (frankly) didn’t care much about economic issues. In 2012, the Obama who got us out of Iraq lambasted 1%er Mitt Romney for being “out of touch” with the economic needs of regular Americans. In 2016, a number of folks who voted for Obama twice switched to Trump against Hillary Clinton, a hawk who was seen as a creature of Wall Street. When Trump failed to bring about material change at home and failed to end the war in Afghanistan, they voted for Biden.
Biden took a lot of flack (unfairly, in my opinion) for withdrawing from Afghanistan in the way he did, but most Americans tend to agree with his overall view: unless American material interests are in question, we should not deploy troops into combat. One hopes that would keep Biden from promoting a military response to an invasion of the Ukraine. I pray it does.
The Russian opposition to Ukrainian membership in NATO is entirely reasonable, and frankly, the US and western powers need to draw back from their aggressive stance against Russia. I pray, for the lives of Ukrainians, Americans, and Russians, that we find our way towards peace.
(Also, Michael Barbaro needs to stop randomly moaning during interviews.)