When the Vietnam War began in earnest in 1965 I was 18 years old, and like most Americans, I accepted that it was necessary to stop Communist aggression. Within three years I had changed my mind, and decades later, in the 1990s, I wrote a book on how that catastrophic mistake had come about. I supported the first Gulf War in 1991 because it had a clear, limited objective and had the support of nearly the entire world, but I was very skeptical about our attempt to pacify Afghanistan and I totally opposed the decision of invade Iraq in 2003. Regime change to fight dictatorship and terrorism clearly failed there, and it failed once again in Libya and in Syria. Nor is this all. I was skeptical about the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, and a month ago I would have welcomed an agreement to have Russia stand down its troops on Ukraine’s border in exchange for a pledge by Ukraine not to join that alliance. Now, however, events have completely changed my perspective. In my opinion, the NATO alliance should be planning and preparing to intervene to defend Ukraine, certainly with air power and perhaps with more than that. They must not do so without a thorough estimate of their chances of success, but if such an estimate reaches a favorable conclusion, they should go right ahead.
As I have written elsewhere, the Russian invasion will be a turning point in the 21st century. If Putin succeeds we will be living in a world where great powers can send troops across their borders (or across water) to extend their territory and influence. Longtime observers believe that Putin covets all the territory of the old Russian Empire—including the Baltic States, Finland, and Poland, as well as huge territories in the Caucasus region and Central Asia. The Baltic States and Poland now belong to NATO, but how can we expect Putin to believe that NATO will actively defend them if it shies away from confronting him in a much larger and more significant country? The Chinese government will also undoubtedly be emboldened to attack Taiwan—which appears much harder for the US to defend than Ukraine is right now. How will South Korea and Japan view their alliances with the US if Taiwan falls?
Analogies to the western powers’ delayed response to Hitler’s moves in the 1930s are certainly appropriate—and they make intervention now even more sensible. To have fought for Czechoslovakia in 1938 would have been a largely symbolic act—it would almost surely have fallen rapidly to Hitler, and could only have been liberated after a very long war. Poland in 1939, for which the British and French did go to war, could offer only a few weeks’ resistance. Ukraine, however—a much larger country with an area the size of Texas with over 40 million people—is putting up heroic and effective resistance against the Russian Army, and might even be able to prevail without NATO intervention. Russia, clearly, was not ready for combat on this scale—and NATO intervention could easily provide the coup de grace. I personally doubt very much that Vladimir Putin would survive a military defeat. The nation that declared itself the leader of the free world 75 years ago should not depend on a Ukrainian victory or a coup in Moscow to achieve a critical objective.
To intervene NATO would have to face the risk of nuclear war squarely, just as Eisenhower and Kennedy did over Berlin and in the Cuban missile crisis. Putin, like Khrushchev in those days, has made nuclear threats—but even at the height of the Cold War, nations contemplating their use generally realized that there is only one critical issue regarding them—the need not to have one dropped on one’s self. If Putin has in fact put Russian nuclear forces on alert, then the West should do the same. Eisenhower and Kennedy understood that the US could not appear to fear nuclear war more than its adversary. It remains insane for anyone to cross that threshold.
Nothing has done more to destroy the domestic prestige of the US government than the failed wars of the last 57 years. So scarred are we by bad wars that we may not be able to recognize a better one. To lead NATO as it saves Ukrainian independence and dramatically shifts the world balance of power would be the biggest international victory the US has won in at least 30 years, and give our own people renewed pride in our nation. It would also take advantage of an entirely new spirit in Europe, where Germany is drastically increasing defense spending and the Finns and Swedes now want to join NATO as well. Intervention, to repeat, must not be undertaken before a thorough assessment is complete. If it can be successful, however, it would secure the most significant military outcome since 1945—and one that the world desperately needs.
ps. This is I think the most important commentary I have written in the 17 + years of historyunfolding.com, and I wanted it to appear in a major publication. I sent it to three such: two of them rejected it without real explanation within a couple of days and the third has declined to reply at all. None of them, as far as I can see, has published anything else taking a similar point of view. I have thought a lot about what this means and may write about that later on. Meanwhile, I hope readers will share it as widely as possible.
13 comments:
I am struggling with cultural whiplash. Since Vietnam, the US left has been consistently anti-war and the US right mostly pro-war. Now, the only voices of caution are coming from the right. Such a change!
"If Putin succeeds we will be living in a world where great powers can send troops across their borders (or across water) to extend their territory and influence."
Have you forgotten Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq?
I think they won't publish this as it is perceived to be nonconformist. Overton window and closed minds nowadays as far as the eyey can see. My opinion is that the basis of your suggestion is false. The basis is that the West wear white hats and the Russians are evil. Ike was right about the military industrial complex. The praetorian guard rules behind the scenes policing the world and destabilizing governments everywhere. You want us to double down on WWII. Essentially Ukraine is a creeping takeover by the deep state Russia could not survive that mid to long term so it had to reverse it. The concept of security rights and trust need respecting. Ignoring this is not legitimate. Ukraine is not a legitimate US interest nor was it a legitimate unitary state with own history which created itself out of wars, struggle and has a proper identity like other European countries. The current crisis is an internal Russian area civil war with Western interference stoking it.
What do you think of the NYTimes article "Putin wants a clash of civilizations ..." Is that a stand against pluralism or just a stand for oligarchal rulers?
Professor
I see the Baltic states, Ukraine, and other former Czarist areas quite differently from what FDR blithely handed Stalin in both Germany and Eastern Europe by agreement during and after WWII.
Totally differently.
So does Putin.
I agree with Kennan about NATO. Say no more.
Once Stalin had been given Eastern Europe for free, why bother?
All the best
Professor
Seeing now JRW's question,"Is that a stand against pluralism or just a stand for oligarchal rulers?", I would suggest, as a start, reading Huntington, with whom I disagree a good bit.
I mumbled something about the present Slavic Civil War turning into a clash of civilizations, but that is certainly not how it started, nor how either side presently conceives it.
All the best
You have written some fine, intelligent columns over the years. This is not one of them. The Russians don't have an economy sufficient to continue this war much beyond May. They are losing thousands of soldiers through desertions and casualties. I can't see them expanding the war to the Baltic.
You say it would be insane to use nuclear weapons in this conflict.
Do we have any proof that Putin isn't insane?
The Russian people themselves may put an end to his grand misadventure very soon.
In thinking of military intervention in Ukraine, I am reminded of the Powell Doctrine.
Glad you have come around. Ukraine is important. Without it, Russia could never pose a serious threat to the global order.
Have you considered twitter? Massive audience. Trump used it successfully.
I too am thinking of the Powell doctrine. Its main test was, would military action work? In this case I think it obviously would. Ukraine will run itself just fine if Russia can be forced out of it.
Professor
Having adopted one child there, and waiting on a birth sibling to arrive here, I wish you were right, but that unfortunately is not my view at all.
All the best
Professor
Ukraine would not work just fine, with or without Western intervention, with or without the Russian invasion.
Since Biden and the NIEO, which you fully support it seems, is now using Ukrainians eager to serve, as its stooges and cannon fodder, it will never work in the future just fine, either.
All the best
Post a Comment