Let's Get a Few Things Straight About Ukraine
Risking a nuclear war with Russia is a really bad idea
I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you received this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you’d like to subscribe: you can sign up below.
Take advantage now of a 20 percent discount, celebrating the first anniversary of Truth and Consequences. Get access to all posts, make comments, and support independent journalism!
For tomorrow’s Zoom chat, I’m doing something a little different … I’m going to have two guests on AT THE SAME TIME! Chris Preble and Emma Ashford from the New American Engagement Initiative at the Atlantic Council will join me as we talk about Russia, Ukraine, international sanctions, what comes next in the war, and whether there is any path to end it. Emma has been an esteemed guest on the Zoom Chat before, and Chris has previously written for Truth and Consequences -- and is an old and dear friend -- so I know this will be a great discussion. We’ll be starting a little later than usual — 1:00 PM. You’re not going to want to miss this one! Here’s the link.
Clearing The Air
We’ve reached the point in the Ukraine war when the combination of Russian cruelty and the images of ordinary Ukrainian suffering leads people (not surprisingly) to embrace some particularly bad arguments on what the US can do to end the fighting.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, noted warmonger and fifth place finished in the 2004 New Hampshire Democratic primary, former Senator Joe Lieberman thinks NATO should impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
Western leaders have said the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a direct attack on the international order that has protected the security, freedom, and prosperity of much of the world since the end of World War II. It logically follows that we should use the superior air power we possess to stop Vladimir Putin from succeeding, to protect the Ukrainian people and to prevent the establishment of a new world order that would be much more dangerous for all of us.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have said they couldn’t support a no-fly zone over Ukraine because that would be an offensive action, and NATO is a defensive alliance. But that makes no sense. The offensive actions are being carried out by invading Russian troops. The purpose of a no-fly zone would be defensive, protecting and defending the people of Ukraine from the Russians.
There are some seriously dumb arguments for a no-fly zone over Ukraine, but this one is exceptional. First, while a no-fly zone would be seen by NATO as a defensive action, how do you think Russia would view it? Is it possible that Moscow would consider the shooting down of one of their aircraft to be an offensive action? Maybe an act of war? Second, whatever the rationale given by Western leaders, creating a no-fly zone would put the US in direct military contact with soldiers from a nuclear-armed power. For more than 70 years, the US has gone to inordinate lengths to prevent such a calamity from occurring because of the potential risk of escalation, which could include nuclear war. What is Lieberman’s solution to this conundrum?
The other argument against establishing a no-fly zone is that it might anger Mr. Putin and trigger World War III. But inaction based on fear usually causes more conflict than action based on confidence.
While I can’t speak directly to the fortune cookie writer who drafted that last sentence, I can tell you that action has the potential to create more conflict, no matter how confidently it is waged.
But the really maddening part of Lieberman’s argument is the notion that Putin has attacked the international order (correct), and the only possible response is a military one (wrong). This is always the argument of the “do something” foreign policy crowd.
The fact is, there has been a robust US response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We’ve provided billions in military assistance and humanitarian relief for Ukrainian refugees. We have led an international effort to sanction and punish Russia for its actions. In the run-up to war, we exhausted various diplomatic options. All of these actions are “doing something,” about Russia’s invasion. But for the “do something” folks, the only metric that matters is the use of military force. If you’re not dropping a bomb, you’re really acting … or so the argument goes.
Here’s the sad reality that far too few commentators want to acknowledge: the US cannot stop the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine without risking a much bigger and deadlier war. That’s the bottom line, and there is no way to square this circle. Of course, we can support the Ukrainians and help them fend off the Russian army … but that’s it. And anyone who blithely suggests that a US military foray isn’t an insanely dangerous risk should be ignored.
Another frustrating argument that I keep hearing is that if Putin wins in Ukraine, Eastern Europe will be next.
No, they won’t.
Let’s put aside that Putin going to war in Eastern Europe or the Baltic states would risk putting him into conflict with NATO and thus the United States — a far superior and nuclear-armed power. Russia can’t even defeat Ukraine, a country with a vastly inferior military. After two weeks of fighting, it still hasn’t captured a major Ukrainian city (Kharkiv) just a few miles from the Russian border. What makes anyone think that Moscow could successfully take on NATO?
That’s not even taking into account that Putin’s military operations are a shambles, he’s taking huge casualties in Ukraine, the Russian economy is on the verge of collapse, he’s facing growing domestic discontent at home and the international community is aligned against him. Assuming Putin defeats Ukrainian forces (and that’s no longer a foregone conclusion), he ain’t going anywhere else. Even if Putin wanted to attack a NATO country he simply couldn’t.
War Is Hell
Yesterday, Russian artillery shelled a maternity hospital in the Ukrainian city of Mariupol. The images on social media were simply horrific, and the scale of the violence led Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to call it an act of genocide. That is not correct.
Genocide is a very specific term that is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as such:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Holocaust was a genocide. So too was the attempted destruction of the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire and the Rwandan Tutsi by Rwandan Hutus. What’s happening in Ukraine does not approach these levels. To be sure, intentionally bombing a hospital is a war crime. So too is the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets. Invading Ukraine was a violation of international law. But genocide is something qualitatively worse, which is why signatories to the aforementioned convention are required to intervene if a genocide is deemed to be occurring. That’s the reason why in 1994, US officials prevented the UN from calling the killing in Rwanda a genocide because it would have required the US to respond.
Invoking the word “genocide” is an effort by Zelensky to guilt Western leaders into getting involved militarily in the war. I’m not criticizing him for doing it. He’s trying to protect his citizens from Russian aggression. But we should be careful in throwing such words around because it tends to lead to the kind of pressure for impulsive military responses, which, as discussed above, would do more harm than good. The war in Ukraine is a horrible tragedy, and Russian officials should be investigated and potentially prosecuted for war crimes. But what we’re seeing in Ukraine is not genocide. It is yet another depressing reminder that war is hell.
Sanctions Are A Blunt Instrument
Today, I have a new piece up in the New Republic on the growing danger that Western sanctions against Russia could be too successful.
In just under two weeks, the international community has imposed a dizzying array of international sanctions on Russia following its military invasion of Ukraine.
The Russian ruble has cratered in value, interest rates in Russia have doubled, the stock market has shut down, and the economy is in free-fall .. Never before have we seen a developed nation take such an immediate and devastating economic hit.
The question now for Western policymakers is not whether they’ve gone far enough—but rather have they gone too far?
.,. Sanctions are not benign policy instruments. While they are intended to target the policymakers implementing malign policies, it is not they who suffer, but innocent and ordinary citizens. Crippling and catastrophic sanctions imposed by the West will cause horrible suffering among the Russian people, and the ripple effects could spark a global downturn and harm countries and peoples thousands of miles from Ukraine.
The time is now to begin questioning precisely how far the international community is willing to go in sanctioning Russia—and whether there’s another path to ending the tragedy in Ukraine.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m completely in favor of sanctioning Russia. But behind the talk about Russia’s currency being devalued or the imminent default on the country’s sovereign debt are real people who will pay a significant price. And it’s not just Russians.
Russia’s neighbors will take one of the biggest hits. The Central Asian states shadow their currency to the ruble — and they are already experiencing a major economic hit. Poland, Hungary, and Moldova are being overwhelmed by millions of refugees. The impact of cutting Russia off the global economy is already sparking even higher inflation in key commodities like wheat and oil. For poor countries, the effect could be devastating. In short, sanctions are a blunt instrument that causes significant pain not just to the country being sanctioned but also to millions of others.
In the near term, this is a price the world likely will need to pay to stop Russia’s aggression (while doing everything possible to alleviate the economic pain for those countries affected). Yet Western governments must provide Russia with a clear set of conditions under which sanctions can be lifted. Economic pressure—with no hope of an end—will likely not stop the fighting. If anything, it could make the situation worse.
In addition, the U.S. and the West need to continue providing off-ramps to war, even if right now Moscow clearly has no interest in taking them. Engaging diplomatically and providing potentially face-saving moves for Putin is critical. Putin appears to be disinclined to end the war, but perhaps he will reach the point when he feels he has no other choice. Providing him the opportunity to do so is essential—as distasteful as it might seem.
The policies pursued by the US and its European allies are the correct ones, but they are not a magic bullet to ending this war and stopping Russia’s aggression. Moscow is ultimately protected by its nuclear arsenal. The resources that the US can bring to the table are substantial but not decisive. Moreover, this conflict could go on for some time (and may morph into an insurgency). Even if the arguably ideal outcome occurs — Putin is ousted — there’s no guarantee that another Russian leader will be friendlier.
The consequences of the war will be felt here at home in the form of higher gas prices and a possible global economic slowdown. The sanctions imposed on Russia will be felt the world over. These are the facts, and it’s better we acknowledge that painful reality now than humor ourselves into believing otherwise.
What’s Going On?
The story of a Ukrainian family killed in Irpin is heartbreaking.
You’ll be shocked to discover that Republicans are lying when they blame President Biden for the current increase in gas prices.
In Ukraine, not everyone is trying to flee.
Hawaii announced an end to its indoor mask mandate — the last state in America to do so. The light at the end of the Covid tunnel is getting brighter.
On the 50th anniversary of the greatest movie ever made, the New York Times explains it in seven quotes.
Musical Interlude