The Ukraine war and the Russian Orthodox church
Both Ukraine and Russia are majority Russian Orthodox countries, and this is relevant because the church is very politically involved and politically influential to a much greater degree than in a country such as the US or in western Europe. The details are outside my field of expertise, but in this post I’m offering some links and a video for you to contemplate.
Here are some of the links: this (from 2018), this more recent one, and also this recent one.
Then there is this video. It’s long, but one trick I use when dealing with lengthy videos involving talking heads is to change the settings to a faster speed:
Anyone with any interest in the importance of Kiev to the Russians (not simply to Orthodox believers) is encouraged to read the wonderful book entitled Vladimir the Russian Viking (1984) by Vladimir Volkoff, a very gifted French writer of Russian extraction who taught for a time in Georgia. The book is not only an imagining of the life of the great saint, but an analysis of how the Russian state was created in what is now Ukraine by a mingling of the culture of the Norsemen with Hellenic civilization (from Byzantium) in a land inhabited by pagan Slavs.
neo begins, “Both Ukraine and Russia are majority Russian Orthodox countries, . . . .”
For what it’s worth, back in grad school, I had an apartment-mate who was Ukrainian Orthodox. Not Russian Orthodox, but Ukrainian Orthodox. He meant it.
Also, he said that Ukrainian and Russian are different languages, that a speaker of one can understand the other, but will not normally speak the other. For what it’s worth.
The Russian patriarchate, led by Kirill, is an arm of the Russian state. This was the case under the tsars, a pattern used by Putin. I have been impressed by the numbers of clergy inside Russia and elsewhere who have been willing to criticize Kirill’s support for the war on Christian grounds.
Yeah the Orthodox churches are autocephalous. Complicated by there being for example “the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada” and “the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America”.
I don’t think these are doctrinal differences; if I understand right it’s about what patriarch your church rolls up to. I do not pretend to understand right and hope I’ve not said anything too ignorant. The only Orthodox church I’ve set foot in, St Michaels in Sitka, is part of the Orthodox Church of America which was Russian Orthodox but hasn’t been since the 1920s.
I don’t think the differences are theological, Frederick; as you say, they are organizational (who’s your patriarch, and in what language do you worship). The only Orthodox theological dispute I’m aware of is the Russian Orthodox “old believers” I saw in Alaska, who split from the Russian patriarchate over a change in liturgical prayers which only Old Believer Orthodox would understand (I can’t remember the details). That’s not to say they are insincere; they are entirely sincere.
M J R:
I was using the nomenclature for the church that is commonly used in the West. I have no idea what the different names for each faction are more locally.
I have also heard that Russian and Ukrainian are different but related languages.
If I’m not mistaken, there are three major dispensations in the Ukraine: Churches under the supervision of the (Byzantine-rite) Catholic patriarch (in the west, predominantly), Churches under the supervision of the patriarch of the autocephalous Orthodox Church, and Churches under the supervision of an exarch whose superior is the Patriarch of Moscow. If I’m not mistaken, all three bishops have offered some sort of endorsement of resistance.
Unless the translations are bad or I’m misunderstanding them, the Patriarch of Moscow is attempting to navigate between disagreeable options.
I have in the past attended Ukrainian Catholic Churches in Syracuse and Rochester. I cannot recommend it enough.
Art Deco:
Kirill has apparently been a long-term ally of Putin’s and it seems to me that he still is, from what I’ve read. See this, for example. See also this.
On languages: My Croatian father-in-law understood Croatian and Serbian, which are pretty much the same except for the script in which written, and also Polish and Russian. I suppose he’d have been able to navigate in other Slavic languages also. Ukrainian and Russian are apparently strongly related.
Old Believers were mentioned and highly regarded in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago IIRC.
Ah, 30 and 20 years ago we were all having to acquire instant expertise in the flavors of Sunni and Shi’ia, especially our media professionals, and now we’re doing the same with the various flavors of Orthodox Christianity, as are our media professionals who have government-provided fact sheets to aid them in their instant expertise, whilst we rely on the Google.
Frederick, I don’t think I’d take government-provided fact sheets on anything now, or Google either.
I stopped about 48:00 because of the interesting take on what “American exceptionalism” means to them, and an analogous “Russian exceptionalism.” It is useful to see ourselves as others see us.
Art Deco’s (5:14 pm) comment causes me to now remember: my grad school apartment-mate was Ukrainian Catholic, not Ukrainian Orthodox, as I had mistakenly written (4:50 pm). MY BAD. (In my feeble defense, it’s been over a half century.)
And neo, I was citing your opening words as a springboard, not as an occasion to criticize. No criticism was intended at all. Carry on, s’il vous plaît . . .
M J R:
That’s okay, I didn’t really take it as much of a criticism. I was just clarifying.
Eeyore:
I noticed that, too. They have no idea what “American exceptionalism” actually means. I doubt that American history is their field of expertise, but I figure that Russia and the church probably is.
What they said put me in mind of what anti-Semites say about the “chosen people” idea, which anti-Semites misrepresent and probably misunderstand as well.
Frederick,
As Ambrose Bierce stated, “War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography.” I guess we can add theology now.
The Russian Orthodox who are criticizing Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine on Christian grounds are making the same mistake the Catholic church makes with its “proportionate” Just War Doctrine.
Apparently those critics are either unaware of or don’t accept the national security implications of NATO upon Russia’s Ukrainian border.
I can’t remember where I read it and don’t have time to look now, so if you want to verify this you’ll have to do the digging, but according to Something I Read, an autocephalous (juridicially distinct) Ukrainian Orthodox Church was created fairly recently, with the connivance/assistance of the Greek Orthodox patriarch. Essentially this was a declaration of ecclesiastical independence from the Russian hierarchy. And according to That Thing I Read Somewhere this was considered unacceptable by the Russian Orthodox Church and gave Putin another justification for invasion.
Orthodoxy has a lot going for it but it is terribly fractured into national and ethnic churches.
The religious component is something that our leadership is completely blind to. It may add a staying power to Russia that will be hard to explain when they otherwise start to falter.
It may be that with enough Javelins and foreign fighters that the Russians can be so damaged that it comes to a halt, There might also be a settlement that leaves a lot of territory in Russian control and Ukraine not a member of NATO.
I think it is unlikely that Putin will be replaced, but he may end up presiding over a much reduced Russia as far as military might is considered.
I heard a commenter today say that Russia had cyber capability that we could only partly defend against. If Putin wanted to intimidate the West taking out some of our large systems might happen.
We could find ourselves with several of the utilities and Internet related services we take for granted out of service.
We are almost certain to be dealing with both inflation and a recession. Public opinion to just end it and give him what he wants might become the norm very quickly. This would seem to be obvious to Putin.
This is a very dangerous time.
Who knew, NATO, the handmaiden of Satan! Because the Poles, Danes, Romanians, Turks, Norweigans, Belgians, British, Germans, the Baltics (not real countries per Vlad), Americans…. are all the same in their undying implacable desire to destroy Roosia! (not)
Otay, makes perfect sense.
That 2% spending commitment must just be the key to unlimited military spending in unicorn NATO land.
Apparently those critics are either unaware of or don’t accept the national security implications of NATO upon Russia’s Ukrainian border.
And yet Sweden and Finland don’t go to war to prevent the expansion of NATO to their borders. They don’t even complain.
I just learned today that Ireland isn’t in NATO either. How threatened must they be! They must quake in fear that NATO will invade them at any moment.
There were exactly zero security implications for Ukraine being in NATO for Russia. It’s a big deal for them only because they are not peacefully minded, and are interested in meddling in Ukrainian politics. You have the direction of travel entirely the wrong way round.
Russia doesn’t want the Ukraine in NATO so that it can invade it. If it were in NATO it couldn’t. Which would not do, for Putin.
Here’s what I was talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_of_Ukraine
“The creation and subsequent recognition of the OCU by other autocephalous Orthodox Churches have met staunch opposition and attempts at subversion on the part of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) as well as the government of Russia.”
Chester Draws,
Are you aware that Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin have all expressed adamant opposition to the Ukraine becoming part of NATO? Whatever their motivation, you do admit that “it’s a big deal” for Russia? In negotiations, do you think it’s wise to utterly dismiss what for the other side is a… big deal?
Are you aware that the US and NATO twice signed agreements with Russia declaring that neither side had a right to implement measures that threatened the security of the other party?
Do you think its possible that Russia’s paranoia and desire to “meddle” in the Ukraine’s politics might have been less… IF
1) NATO had not announced in 2008 that it intended to grant membership to Georgia and the Ukraine.
2) had the US not engineered a coup in 2014, that ousted a Russia friendly gov. and installed a US/Western Europe friendly gov. with
Nuland recorded, ‘suggesting’ who the US favored as the Ukraine’s next President…
3) and then, if the West had not heavily militarized the Ukraine…
4.) and again announcing in 2020 its intention to grant membership to the Ukraine…
In the face of all that, is it reasonable to imagine that it wouldn’t greatly increase the Russian’s paranoia?
Geoffrey Britain:
In your comment addressed to Chester Draws, you wrote:
I went back to look at what Chester Draws had actually written, and it was this [emphasis mine]:
So he said it WAS a big deal for them, just not for the reason you have given.
Lots of things are big deals to lots of tyrants. Over and over on these threads on this blog, people have said that they believe that Putin (and by extrapolation, other Russian leaders) didn’t want Ukraine to be a NATO member.
We get it.
The difference of opinion is over the motive for that stance of Russia’s.
The other difference of opinion is over whether Russia should be allowed to dictate whether a sovereign nation other than Russia becomes a NATO member.
Russia keeps saying that NATO promised not to expand eastward – but was there ever such a promise? See this from 2014.
That old dead horse just ain’t what she used to be.
Poor Vlad got the Ukraine to give up it’s nuclear weapons and then couldn’t convince them to be peaceably be swallowed up piecemeal. Ukraine had the temerity to build up it’s defenses after Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. It appears Vlad is a dumbass.
A couple of interesting articles on the Ukraine war, on the secular plane.
This was linked on Gerard’s blog a couple of days ago.
Very long and detailed. I suggest keeping a salt shaker handy for some viewpoints, but he answered a couple of questions that had been nagging me.
Also, I like his other posts and his Nom.
https://cartographer.substack.com/p/russias-invasion-of-ukraine-day-12?s=r
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine – Day 12 of the War: Review, Analysis and Predictions by Alexander’s Cartographer
A novel update on the French Foreign Legion.
Warnings of unintended, as well as the intended, consequences.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/ukraine-is-building-an-it-army-of-volunteers-something-thats-never-been-tried-before/
Russia was not sending its best gear to the front anyway.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-phone-relay-capture-may-be-the-latest-of-russia-s-communications-woes-in-ukraine/ar-AAV5USN?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
Not everyone is on board with the Russian narrative.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/15/in-praise-of-russias-brave-dissidents/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-news-presenter-praised-by-putin-resigns-flees-country/ar-AAV5KpL?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
Steven Hayward wonders –
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/is-russias-invasion-failing.php
As to the lack of bridge engineers, they probably weren’t in the “just a training exercise” troops that Putin invaded with, because (the consensus) he expected to be in Kyiv before any would be needed.
OR the Russian military upper-command is not top-notch anymore, although degraded in different ways than ours.
Bill Whittle addresses the weaponry question in this podcast, with an interesting opinion: the changes in firepower carried by individual soldiers has created a paradigm shift in the way battles will be fought. Javelins, ManPADS, and other things are mentioned.
Commenters provide a good summary of the discussion among Bill Whittle, Stephen Green and Scott Ott.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHuOiNE6NU
Game-Changing Javelin: Fire & Forget Force-Multiplier Missile Rains Hell on Russian Tanks
In the current situation, we will give the last word to this commenter.
Propaganda is flying everywhere.
Among the various articles on this invasion I’ve seen I note one analysis that mentioned that Russia now had 65% of all of its military forces in/committed to the Ukraine–with the implication, of course, that it had pretty much shot it’s wad, since the other 35% would have to stay back in Russia to be used for other tasks designed to protect Russia from various threats.
Another little tidbit in one commentary said that some of the Russian soldiers who had been captured or who had surrendered were just conscripts, with little training, who had been told that they were going on a “training exercise,” only to find themselves marched across the Ukrainian border and involved in active combat.
The second does sound like the kind of crude crap that the Russians would pull.
Among the various articles on this invasion I’ve seen I note one analysis that mentioned that Russia now had 65% of all of its military forces in/committed to the Ukraine–with the implication,
There’s something wrong with that datum. Perhaps your interlocutor meant to say ‘65% of its ground forces’, but that still seems implausible.
One other commentary threw out a figure of Russia having committed 500,000 troops to the invasion.
Used to have access to the International Institute for Strategic Studies set of annual enumeration and evaluations of each country’s military that would sure be useful now.
Saw Zelinsky’s address to Congress.
Very emotional appeal, but the consensus apparently is that the U.S.will not commit to creating a no-fly zone, since to enforce it our fighters would have to shoot down Russian aircraft, likely leading to a more general war.
Zelinsky also asked for some specific anti-aircraft systems, which might be a good alternative and create–de facto–such a no-fly zone.
His call for some new organization to enforce the peace lead by the U.S. seems pretty unlikely.
The problem is, of course, if Putin is not stopped now, what is to stop him or some future Russian leader when he tries–Russia having been successful in the case of the Ukraine–to, sometime down the road, invade and re-subjugate the Baltic states, or even Poland or Hungary?
Seems like Hitler and the late 1930s all over again but, this time with nuclear weapons.
I have absolutely no idea what Orthodox–of any flavor–means to the Russian population. It seems pretty impressive, with the guys wearing size-increasing cassocks and headgear, and pretty much every choir featuring pituitary cases and low-bass lines.
But the connection to Mother Russia is not obvious. It’s as if recording a bunch of footage around the Vatican implies the average Italian is a formidable Catholic and will fight to the death to protect the ….um….country? Pope? Vatican library?
The US put up a pretty good show in the world wars without having the religious leaders of the time–we have too many to centralize the idea, anyway–going front and center and tying themselves to the American version of The Rodina. Not speaking about individual clergy.
The Russians tried in WW II, to conflate the two, at least at the national propaganda level. Presumably they thought it would have some resonance, but the situation was too dire and too complicated to figure out whether it did.
Back in the day, when religion was in bad odor with the Bigs in the Kremlin, it was a custom, at least sometimes, after weddings to go to the nearest monument to the dead of the Great Patriotic War and lay flowers. That would be appropriate, possibly in a daily basis, on general principles. But it does show that certain stages of life do call for a certain degree of….leaving our banal three dimensions if only briefly.
I’ve been to nine funerals with Honors. The Honor Guard, the Three Volleys, Taps, may as well be religious. The impact is the same as an old, well-loved hymn.
So perhaps a modest level of influence by the Church would increase if Russia were in trouble. Question is whether it can be controlled, turned on and off, by Putin.
An alternative POV: “Colonel Douglas Macgregor | Putin has already defeated Ukraine…”
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/colonel-douglas-macgregor-putin-has-already-defeated-ukraine/
Here is a real crazy thought; if NATO had disbanded when the USSR imploded in 1991, Russia would STILL have invaded Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine.
14 nations joined NATO after 1991; all did so voluntarily and willingly.
ALL OF THEM were either former members of the Warsaw Pact, the Eastern Bloc, or literally part of the USSR.
Is it just a coincidence that these nations – all having the boot of the Russian Bear on their necks for at least 45 years (and much much longer depending upon how far back in history one chooses to go) – all decided to join NATO?
What did these nations – those most familiar with up close and personal relations with Russia – realize/know that the western elites did not know?
Did these nations that joined NATO not believe that the Russian Bear had transgendered into Winnie the Pooh; a belief apparently held by western elites?
Did these nations not buy into that “end of history” moment, that apparently the western elites believed?
The Russians are by far the world’s best purveyors of disinformation, propaganda and surreptitiously funding western based “anti” organizations , the most recent of which is funding the anti-fracking, anti-fossil fuel movements in the USA and Europe.
The Russians, in full compliance with Napoleon’s dictum, ” never interrupt the enemy when it is making a mistake” did one better by actually supporting the “enemy” in making a massive mistake re: energy.
Regardless of the long history of Russian propaganda / disinformation, starting in 1917, there is never a shortage of useful idiots carrying the banner of Russian propaganda; even when that great humanitarian and supporter of individual rights,
“Uncle Joe Stalin” was running the show.
And today, it’s “if not for NATO,” or if “NATO had not expanded” than Russia would have in fact not invaded Georgia, Ukraine, Crimea.
Sure.
What Russia is doing today, Russia has been doing for the last 1000 years. And Russia’s neighbors know this very well, unlike the western useful idiots who believe Russia has been “forced” to do this or that.
If Costa Rica or Switzerland began invading their neighboring nations, that would be totally out of character for them. If Russia did NOT invade their neighbors, that would be out of character for them.
Sweden and Finland are not considering joining NATO because they trust Russia.
Quite the contrary.
I wonder why?
Well it is one thing to be first to declare victory and it is another thing to be right.
As to whether it is an alternative view, Francis Fukiama of “The End of History” speculated that Vlad had already lost. So take your early prognosticators with a cube of sugar and some LSD.
Fog of war hides a lot IMO.
But NATO! We know.
If the Russians “win,” I’d assume that they will be facing a very expensive insurgency, fed by the West, that will bleed and bleed them.
Had to laugh at the Russian Foreign Minister, who complained in a recent speech that by providing so much military aid, the West was basically just handing out weapons to the average guy on the street and, of course, that would seem to be the objective, if the West wanted to keep guerrilla warfare going in the Ukraine; a gun in the hands of every able bodied person in the Ukraine, and behind every tree and bush.
An alternative POV: “Colonel Douglas Macgregor | Putin has already defeated Ukraine…”
I’m sure that’s a purely professional evaluation, just as it was when he called Mr. Zelenskyy a ‘puppet’ said ““Russian forces were frankly, too gentle” and predicted on 5 March that ‘this will be over in 10 days’.
Here is a 12 minute video explaining the different Orthodox Churches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOgnERhs-c
neo,
I certainly realized that Chester Draws had admitted that the Russians see the prospect of the Ukraine joining NATO as a big deal. I reinforced Chester Draws “big deal” point, to emphasize my point, that in sincere negotiations you do not dismiss what for the other side is a big deal. When you declare that the big deal is bogus because it’s only an excuse for malevolent motivations, you effectively dismiss the other side’s big deal. And, if in fact that big deal is rather a sincerely held one, then negotiations necessarily fail. Negotiations, to be successful, must result in a win-win for both parties.
Chester declared that “they are not peacefully minded, and are interested in meddling in Ukrainian politics” that is obviously both a disagreement with my assertion of a valid national security concern for Russia and Chester’s assertion that the Russians aka Putin is not interested in peaceful relations with the West and are intent upon ensuring that there is a Russia friendly Ukrainian gov. in power.
BTW, I’ve never disputed that Putin insists upon a Russia friendly Ukrainian gov. I have found credence to Putin’s perception that the West’s leadership is only interested in peaceful relations with Russia if those relations allow the West to effectively dominate Russia.
“We get it.
The difference of opinion is over the motive for that stance of Russia’s.
The other difference of opinion is over whether Russia should be allowed to dictate whether a sovereign nation other than Russia becomes a NATO member.”
I well realize that the difference of opinion is over Russia’s primary motive in invading the Ukraine. It is after all what we’ve been arguing about.
That difference of opinion hinges on whether the assertion that the Ukraine becoming a member of NATO is in fact a potential national security threat to Russia and, whether that viewpoint is in fact sincerely held by the Russians.
No competent military strategist can legitimately state that a potential national security threat does not exist, when a nation facing an historically hostile military alliance*, in which the alliance declares its intention to occupy territory adjacent to the other side’s territorial borders. Only incompetence, ignorance or an agenda can dispute that strategic reality.
* whether that hostility was/is justified is a separate issue than that a hostile relationship between the parties did in fact exist and has continued to exist. And since it only takes one side to start a war, both sides perception of the other is an indisputable strategic factor.
So, in insisting that no nation “should be allowed to dictate whether a sovereign nation other than Russia becomes a NATO member.” You are in essence insisting that one nation’s right to self-determination supersedes its neighbor’s right to measures it considers absolutely necessary to its strategic security.
You’re saying that the Russians must accept that the Ukraine has the right to join NATO and that it must accept NATO’s assurance that because it labels itself a defensive alliance, in the future NATO will not use that territorial advancement to place a knife to Russia’s throat. I don’t think that a reasonable level of trust to demand of any nation.
I maintain that my rights stop where yours begin and vice versa. As well as that principle applying to nations as well.
Every nation’s peoples have a right to self-determination, as long as the exercise of that right does not result in dramatically increasing another nation’s strategic vulnerability to the potential of a fatal attack.
Geoffrey’s last paragraph essentially concedes the soverienty of any weaker state to the fears of a stronger more aggressive state.
That’s why there are alliances among nations that fear other aggressive nations.
Rocket science it seems.
Useless.
GB. Is the valid strategic vulnerability a third party looking at a map? Would that govern? Or is it what the nation in question insists is the case, the government claiming to speak for the people? Or do we have a plebiscite on the question?
When third parties disagree, some thinking a river–pick the Mississippi–is a legitimate obstacle and thus whatever happens on one side cannot threaten the other side, and others pointing to the immense length and how many landing points have to be defended just in case say The Big Muddy isn’t an obstacle. Which third party do you pick as governing?” Simple. The one you already agreed with.
Art Deco,
So, it’s an unreasonable position to imagine that Zelenskyy is beholden to his sponsors? In a thoroughly corrupt society, any person who rises to political dominance is not necessarily answerable to their backers?
Setting aside the arguable immorality of a hostile invasion of another nation, restraint is arguably a moral obligation. Our ROE in Afghanistan and Iraq reflected that determination. If so, then is not Russia’s avoidance of massive civilian casualties in keeping with that moral obligation?
Does that moral obligation extend to placing ones troops at greatly increased risk?
It has been 11 days since March 5… in Colonel Macgregor’s expressed view, Russia has already won and is refraining from finishing out of a desire to avoid more civilian and military casualties. That is entirely in keeping with Putin’s desired political optics, regardless of how sincere or insincere they may be.
So, it’s an unreasonable position to imagine that Zelenskyy is beholden to his sponsors?
By that standard, Geoffrey, everyone elected to office is a ‘puppet’.
If so, then is not Russia’s avoidance of massive civilian casualties in keeping with that moral obligation?
You should address that question to him, not to me.
It has been 11 days since March 5… in Colonel Macgregor’s expressed view, Russia has already won and is refraining from finishing out of a desire to avoid more civilian and military casualties.
Mitch & Murray paid good money for those leads. You’ll be hearing from Shelley Levene. Rick Roma works the tougher cases.
Richard Aubrey,
The closet point to Moscow from the Ukrainian border is less than 13 minutes flight time for a nuclear cruise missile. Flying ‘nap of the earth’, the SOP for such an attack, the Russians might not detect the attack until far too late. If such an attack was launched when Putin was meeting in the Kremlin with his military, economic and political backers, a successful attack would decapitate most of Russia’s and possibly, effectively destroy its entire command and control network. I think it reasonable to presuppose that regional generals and colonels do not have the authority to launch a full scale nuclear response.
From the standpoint of strategic security, whether such an attack would ever occur is irrelevant. Great powers must assume it to be a legitimate strategic concern and do all that they can to prevent even the possibility of such an attack from being successful.
Art Deco,
There is a considerable difference between Boris Johnson’s answerability to his supporters and the answerability of a leader in a corrupt country to thuggish oligarchs.
Putin has kept civilian casualties to a minimum, to avoid acknowledging that is a ‘cop out’.
I literally have no idea who Mitch & Murray, Shelley Levene or Rick Roma are, could you be a bit clearer?
“The other difference of opinion is over whether Russia should be allowed to dictate whether a sovereign nation other than Russia becomes a NATO member.”
Every powerful nation in some sense dictates the decisions of other sovereign nations, even those of other powerful nations. For example, if we put in a no-fly zone we might get nuked, so Russia is dictating to us aren’t they? We wouldn’t even let the fighters from Poland pass through our hands because Russia would take it as our action, so we let Russia dictate to us don’t we? Anytime we let another nation have its way in response to a threat we are letting them “dictate to us”. Sensible people take this reality into account, that the bad guys get a say to the extent they are powerful. It’s not right, and it’s not fair, but it’s the reality.
I’m seeing, not just in these comments, that any kind of negotiated settlement with Russia would be allowing Russia to dictate etc etc and only Putin-lovers could possibly be on board with that.
Okay, so do we believe that enough to go to war over it? If negotiating anything with Russia is off the table, you have the choice between
1) war, and the exciting roll of the dice over whether just Kiev is lost or Kiev and New York and bunch of other places in addition, or
2) lots of hashtags and waving of tiny Ukrainian flags, while Ukraine is ground into the dust and Russia is bled white. That doesn’t put the world in a better place than we were at the beginning of the year, not Ukraine, not Russia, not anybody, and we don’t know that it would be better for Ukrainians than some kind of negotiation that leaves Russia with something it wants.
I’m not sure I admire a stand on principles that is fought to the last Ukrainian. It’s wrong for Putin to do what he’s doing, and there’s no obvious way to stop him that doesn’t have a high probability of turning out far worse than what is going on now. The sanctions and ostracization of Russia may help in the long run but people like Putin can do without butter an awful long time, so it’s not over until he’s out of guns, and that also could be an awful long time.
The Ukrainians, as they always have, will have to decide for themselves what they can tolerate. Unless it’s another World War, in which case lots more people are going to die. Russia is not going to play fair. They are going to be mean and make sure that if the West interferes too much they will hurt us badly. I have no objection to helping Ukraine right up to the point someone gets nuked over it, provided Ukraine wants to fight. If that be “letting Russia dictate”, let the Tailgunner Trolls make the most of it.
So the other thing I’m hearing is Putin is a monster and he’s going to do it anyway and Russia is always the world-historical bad guy. The people who talk like this are really calling for war, because once you regard someone an existential threat, peaceful coexistence is impossible for very long.
Geoffrey Britain:
I repeat – no one’s “dismissing” what the Russians say is a “big deal.” They’re looking at the logic of it and the history of it and saying the Russians are being disingenuous about their motives for thinking it a big deal. They are also saying that Russia cannot dictate what other sovereign countries do in terms of the blocs with which they decide to align.
Russia thinks these countries are part of Russia and that Russia can dictate to them. It is crystal clear that Russia wants to control them again.
That is the situation. The West can give in to it or not. There are consequences to each decision, many of them frightening.
I’ve already spent plenty of time arguing with you about all of this in some detail, so that’s about it for now.
@neo:Russia cannot dictate what other sovereign countries do in terms of the blocs with which they decide to align.
Every powerful nation does this. I know it’s good when we do it because we’re the good guys and it’s bad when Russia or China does it because they’re the bad guys, and for the sovereign nations the US invaded we have all kinds of justifications, but all powerful nations do it and they dictate to each other as well as the small ones.
If someone says “if you do X it will be war”, and you avoid X, you got dictated to. And if you decide to do X anyway you better be willing to accept war as a possible consequence. It doesn’t matter if the good guys say it or the bad guys say it, it’s still war or being “dictated to”. It doesn’t matter if X represents disingenuousness or a false pretense or what the wrongs and rights are. It’s still do X and risk war, or do not-X and be “dictated to”.
If you risk war, and you get war, it’s pretty stupid not to have been ready for war.
If you’re not ready for war maybe it’s stupid to do X until you are. Or maybe you have to decide that X is just not that important.
To quote Henry John Temple, British Prime Minister in the mid 1800s–
“ Nations do not have permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”
So, as a matter of hard Realpolitik, is it in the best interest of the United States–now, and I’d imagine, as far into the future as we can see–for Putin/Russia—or any other country–to be able to invade and to subjugate a neighboring state by force?
If we want as much peace, freedom, and self-determination throughout our world and a safe international order, I’d imagine it would be in our and all other nation’s interest to put a stop to, and to discourage such aggression.
Moreover, if Putin’s nuclear blackmail is successful well, then, any aggressive country with nuclear weapons can–de facto–dictate what happens in the rest of the world.
Moreover who can guarantee that Putin/Russia will stop there or that, if Putin is successful, some other nuclear weapon possessing country, say, North Korea or China, might not also try to emulate him and see his success as a “green light “to invade their neighbors?
This is a real problem.
Do we roll the dice?
Can you see Biden and his sorry crew rolling the dice?
Would you trust them to roll the dice, and not botch it?
@Snow on Pine:if Putin’s nuclear blackmail is successful well, then, any aggressive country with nuclear weapons can–de facto–dictate what happens in the rest of the world.
At some point two nations will try to blackmail each other, and as they can’t both get their way, this scenario is as impossible as 2+2=5. Some new and horrible equilibrium will be established, likely one in which nations nuke each other just a bit from time to time.
who can guarantee that Putin/Russia will stop there
Ukrainians seem to be doing a pretty good job of stopping Putin as it is. I think the longer this goes on the less capable Putin will be of any further trouble for a very long time.
There’s nothing in Ukraine really he can use to fix what he’s already burned trying to get Ukraine in the first place, and the more of it he has to blow up the more true this will be. If he’d taken it over in 3 days I’d think the rest of the world should be more concerned.
North Korea or China, might not also try to emulate him and see his success
I don’t think any of this “success” is anything anyone wants, being shut out of the world economy and looking brutal and stupid and breaking the army.
Snow on Pine:
Agreed.
Every powerful nation does this. I know it’s good when we do it because we’re the good guys and it’s bad when Russia or China does it because they’re the bad guys, and for the sovereign nations the US invaded we have all kinds of justifications, but all powerful nations do it and they dictate to each other as well as the small ones.
No, not every powerful nation does this because they usually gain squat from so doing. Small countries are not motivated to join military blocs unless they are in need of a patron, either to protect them against some other state or to advance a local or regional cause. In the post-war world, small countries form patron-client relationships with larger countries. They seldom join formal alliances. Their interest in having a patron is crucially dependent on their own condition, their own objects, and the dispositions of those around them.
And yes, we are and have been the good guys. Our chattering classes pretend otherwise because the chatterati are not good guys, though as bad guys they have objects different from hostile foreign powers.
There is a considerable difference between Boris Johnson’s answerability to his supporters and the answerability of a leader in a corrupt country to thuggish oligarchs.
You haven’t one piece of empirical data to support this remark.
Putin has kept civilian casualties to a minimum, to avoid acknowledging that is a ‘cop out’.
I’m sure he’s briefing you regularly.
The closet point to Moscow from the Ukrainian border is less than 13 minutes flight time for a nuclear cruise missile.
You can reach Moscow from Dublin in that time with an ICBM. Ergo, what? Russia should conquer everything in between?
Dueling war reports on who is “winning” and who is “losing” seem to me to be heavily weighted by the analysts’ points of view and whom they support. The full scope of damage will not be evident until hostilities stop, and if reasonably objective observers can go look.
What Kate said.
Geoffrey conviently ignores the logic behind nuclear weapons when he trots out the 13 minute dead horse. It takes quite a few nukes to be reasonablly sure that your first strike has succeeded, quite a few. It’s called the statistics and probabilities of weapons systems and targeting. PhDs thought these things out decades ago, the math hasn’t changed.
Vlad and the Russian generals probably know these things too, probablly, but I don’t known any of them, their thoughts, or deep motivations. One of my myriad failings. I’m not even a PhD, sad but true. But here I’m almost as verbose as one of them. I’m truly limited. 🙁 or 🙂
@Art Deco: Not sure I’ve asked you directly. Should the US go to war with Russia over Ukraine? Interested in what you think and why.
Snow on Pine,
It is indeed a real problem.
As a matter of hard Realpolitik, putting a stop to the invasion and subjugation of a neighboring state requires both a credible threat to use whatever degree of force is required to get the aggressor to cease in their aggression. Which in the case of an aggressive nuclear armed nation, includes signaling a response of a willingness to resort to a nuclear war if necessary… and, the aggressive nation being open to deterrence by a sufficient threat.
The only historical example is the implied US willingness to go to nuclear war, when we set up the US naval blockade of Cuba. If those Soviet supply ships had attempted to run the blockade, and the US naval ships then used force to stop them, everyone knew that the result might be a nuclear war.
If the aggressor is willing to go to nuclear war, then nothing less than nuclear war will stop the invasion and subjugation. So, in the case of nuclear armed nations, it really comes down to a willingness to engage in mutual destruction to stop aggression.
When a cop confronts an armed criminal, they are literally ‘betting the farm’. Our new reality enlarges that confrontation to nations’ ‘betting the farm’.
But it is not a level field of engagement, a dictator or totalitarian regime can act as they will and may see the reward worth the risk.
I’m doubtful that any of today’s woke democracies can obtain societal consensus on agreeing to a nuclear confrontation. The recent poll revealing so many Americans, especially in the young military ages being unwilling to fight against an invasion I think supports that contention. I also think it unlikely that very many of the aggressor nations have missed the implications of that poll.
“NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard”
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner”
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Nor did those assurances stop with Gorbachev.
“Russia is actually challenging core values for security, and demanding that NATO should withdraw all forces and infrastructure from almost half of our members. And they have stated that if we don’t meet their demands, there will be “military-technical consequences.” So, we have to take this seriously. And that’s exactly why we are now deploying the NATO Response Force, for the first time in a collective defence context.” (NATO’s Virtual Summit, Feb 25, 2022)” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg
“Stoltenberg is right. Russia is challenging NATO’s core values on security, and demanding that Alliance roll back its forces and infrastructure from Russia’s doorstep. What Stoltenberg fails to mention is that NATO expansion poses an existential threat to Russia by placing missile sites, military bases and combat troops on its border. He also fails to mention that NATO expansion violates agreements (to which all of the NATO members are signatories) stipulating that all parties to the agreement will refrain from any action that could affect the security interests of the other members.
In Istanbul (1999) and in Astana (2010), the US and the other 56 countries in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) signed documents “that contained interrelated principles to ensure the indivisibility of security.”
What that means in practical terms, is that nations cannot put military bases and missile sites in locations that pose a threat to other members. It means that parties must refrain from using their respective territories to carry out or assist armed aggression against other members. It means that parties are prohibited from acting in a manner that runs counter to the principles laid out in the treaty. It means that Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO if its membership poses a threat to Russian security.”
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/did-nato-just-declare-war-on-russia/
Here are the key words highlighted in the above: “all parties to the agreement will refrain from any action that could affect the security interests of the other members”
Geoffrey, either they post the actual texts online, or it didn’t happen. No one should accept a gloss from the red haze types who founded and work at the National Security Archive.
And since the Ukraine never entered NATO, the complaint about NATO expansion is irrelevant.
Geoffrey:
Read neo’s post on NATO, you might learn something. Or not.
You could start your own blog:
“NATO, Is All Bad!”
@Art Deco: Not sure I’ve asked you directly. Should the US go to war with Russia over Ukraine? Interested in what you think and why.
1. The professionals talk logistics and that’s not my trade.
2. I can give an opinion on a normative question, but well-ordered normative arguments are difficult and people who make them are often manipulative and untrustworthy. My opinion is that borders are imperfect and they are properly altered through negotiation and referendum. My opinion is that the postwar ‘decolonization’ craze was too thorough and that there are scores of notionally sovereign territories which should be protectorates or dependencies, self-governing. My opinion is that that horse has left the barn. My opinion is that a country’s sovereignty can only be disposed of in a clean referendum unless that country is a failed state or an abiding danger to itself and others. I count about seven countries in those categories and the Ukraine isn’t one of them.
3. If we’re in a Cold War with Russia or China, that’s too bad, but that’s the world we live in. Babble from characters like Jack Matlock or (with reference to the previous Cold War, Walter LeFeber) that we should have done this or that in this or that set of exchanges cannot be taken seriously unless you’re the sort who thinks political actors maintain large military establishments and large espionage establishments year after year because of four decade old slights and misunderstandings.
4. Keep in mind, during the last Cold War, our chattering classes were, as often as not, on the side of the enemy. I didn’t matter what the issue was or what the venue was. This could be expressed directly by making a case for the enemy or indirectly by articles to the effect that American policy-makers were so very clumsy and vulgar. A lot of these articles could have been written with templates.
5. You ask me what we do now, and the answer is that I don’t wager our military is much of a fighting force anymore, so I haven’t a clue for what we can use it.
6. How much of the world are Russia and China going to eat up before someone makes them hurt for having done it? Who is that someone?
7. I’d point out for the umpteenth time that the behavior of Putinite Russia, Soviet Russia, and Nazi Germany in re the territory of others and the sovereignty of others has hardly been replicated by anyone else since the signatures were placed on the treaties of Versailles, Trianon, and Sevres. They are deviant in this regard and John Mearsheimer should quit pretending otherwise.
In line with my comment above, about a gun in the hand of every able bodied person in the Ukraine, just saw a short BBC video report of ordinary Ukrainians in Lviv being given a short course on how to use scoped high powered rifles and Kalashnikov type semiautomatic rifles against the Russian invaders.
Kind of surreal, seeing well turned out, what appear to be upper class middle aged women and their husbands and even young doctors getting instructions on how to shoot a Kalashnikov.
If enough of these citizens can pull the trigger when the moment comes, the Russians are going to be in real trouble.
@Art Deco: I think I can put you down for “in an ideal world maybe we should, but with what’s going on in the real world now, no”.
Is that a fair statement?
Art,
If you scroll down you’ll see links to those documents.
NATO’s formal announcements in 2008 and reiterated in 2020 that NATO intended for the Ukraine to join NATO make the complaint about NATO expansion relevant.
GB. Problem is whose idea of strategic vulnerability rules. How about a bunch of lefty academics in the US? How about a VFW convention?
Anybody can be invaded, by someone with the resources. Question is how far they get into the victim’s territory before resistance solidifies.
So Russia says we have valid reasons to fear western attack so you should be a hundred miles back to the first tank company. We, on the other hand, have no such intentions, so we can have our tanks looking right into your customs shack on the four lane highway leading to your capital.
You don’t solve this with a map and some history. Because the other guy, in this case Russia, might be lying. Sympathetic history aside….they might be lying.
If you scroll down you’ll see links to those documents.
These are cables and memoranda on discussions between American officials, German officials, Soviet officials &c. beginning February 1990. The first 25 documents are devoted to discussion of a unified Germany’s possible participation in NATO, possible membership in the Warsaw Pact, altered NATO doctrine, placement of NATO forces in a unified Germany &c.
The last five documents make some reference to other Eastern European countries. One is an entirely intramural discussion of what our diplomatic position should be, another has a discussion of Vaclav Havel’s views, another is a summary of conference discussions where a Soviet General objects to adding NATO members and refers to ambiguous statements by Vaclav Havel in other contexts; this objection is couched in terms of the effect of NATO expansion on the internal political debate in the Soviet Union. Note, the last several memoranda make reference to the recent dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Only the very last memoranda makes reference to NATO members’ views where it reports that the Soviet representative was told that 13 of the 16 NATO council members opposed adding new members.
Art Deco:
Thanks for the fisking. A house of cards it seems?
There has to be a pony under there.
@ Snow > “If enough of these citizens can pull the trigger when the moment comes, the Russians are going to be in real trouble.”
In the future (assuming we are not a pile of nuclear rubble), my response to every Democrat attempt to limit the Second Amendment will be waving a Ukrainian Flag.
https://notthebee.com/article/milestone-approaching-the-us-nearly-has-a-majority-of-states-with-permit-free-concealed-gun-carry-
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I’m fine with considering “a short course on how to use scoped high powered rifles and Kalashnikov type semiautomatic rifles” to be the same as “well regulated,” under the circumstances.
And every country in the new danger zone would be well-advised to get their act in gear NOW and regulate a civilian militia at a higher level than that.
As for the USA, I’m almost to the point where I would advocate for the states to do the same, outside the National Guard.
Further reading, especially the formation of the US National Guard:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Militia
The three purposes are all necessary in the abstract, but we’ve seen how the concrete actions derived therefrom can sometimes stray from other Constitutional guarantees.
No need here to rehearse the misuse and abuse of the Guard in recent years.
AesopFan
What is happening in the Ukraine is a perfect example of why keeping our Second Amendment is absolutely essential, why it should never be watered down or eliminated, and why the Left so desperately wants to do just that.
Isn’t it Switzerland which gives everyone in the country basic weapons training, and then requires that each person keep their military weapon in their homes and ready for instant action.
P.S.–It is my understanding that, at the time of our founding, the “militia” was actually thought to consist of every able-bodied man in the new United States.