The Question That Strong Ukraine Interventionists Never Answer
In late 1964, the United States faced a decision about Vietnam. The war had dragged on for 10 years, and the US had steadily poured more dollars and arms and "advisors" into supporting the South Vietnamese against North Vietnamese aggression. "Saving" the South Vietnamese and punishing the North Vietnamese, along with their Chinese and Soviet backers, for their aggression clearly was going to require a larger US commitment, both of arms and probably men. Was it time to ramp up, or find a formula for peace? Here are some of the elements, partially in hindsight, of this decision:
- Everyone wanted to see military aggression punished
- Most Americans at the time would would have been thrilled to hand the Soviets and Chinese communists an "L". There was an definite attraction to fighting the communists down to the last Vietnamese in a proxy war far from home
- Many were increasingly skeptical of the South Vietnamese -- the South Vietnamese government was a corrupt mess and not even really democratic after a military coup the US winked at. But we liked them better than the Russians and Chinese
- After 10 years, it was clear that the military stalemate could not be broken except for an extraordinary infusion of US arms and manpower.
I know there are folks who hold out that America and the South Vietnamese could have won if the war was fought smarter. But I think a majority of folks -- including most everyone on the Left -- would agree the post 1964 escalation was a mistake that cost over a million deaths on both sides and did not prevent -- and maybe even made worse -- a horrific aftermath of reeducation and genocide. All to try to prevent the emergence of the unified Vietnam of today, that appears to most American visitors as one of the most capitalistic countries they have visited.
I set this up all as an unsubtle analog to the Ukraine today:
- I think most people would like to see Russia's military aggression punished. I saw General Milley speak at Princeton and this was his main argument, that we have to establish a red line against military attempts to move borders.
- Many of us find the Putin regime in Russia to be distasteful and would be happy to hand it an "L". It is not much of an exaggeration to say that many Americans would like to see us fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian. I often wonder if the average X user with a Ukrainian flag icon is really knowledgeably pro-Ukrainian or just anti-Russian.
- Until the moment of invasion, the Ukraine was considered by the Left, Right, and media to be on of the most corrupt nations in the West. Their current strong censorship regime and suspension of elections smell bad, particularly given that we live in a county that managed to hold free elections during our Civil War (Lincoln until a few months before the 1964 election was sure he was going to lose and let elections go forward anyway -- god bless general Sherman).
- After 3 years, the war is in a stalemate and Ukraine finds itself in an extended war of attrition with a country four times its size. It strikes me that the only way to break the stalemate is to have some kind of order of magnitude larger external intervention, eg US and NATO troops on the ground
I got started on this post as the result of a pro-Ukraine meme I saw the other day. Unfortunately I cannot find it because X is a river that flows really fast and stuff from a day ago is a few miles downstream and hard to find. But basically it asked this question -- what part of your country would you willingly give up? If the answer is nowhere, don't ask Ukraine to give up Donbas and the Crimea for peace.
Totally reasonable question. And except maybe for parts of California and the District of Columbia, I would answer "nowhere." But there are problems. The first is that the Ukraine did indeed voluntarily give up the Crimea in exchange for peace in 2014. One thing I have never understood is that the same people in this country who are rabidly against any Ukrainian peace deal and want to fight on forever mostly had a collective YAWN over the 2014 Russian invasion of the Ukraine.
The biggest question is -- what is the alternative? The implication is that there is somehow a hope to get the territory under Russian occupation back by military force. But I just don't see it. The Ukrainians have certainly been scrappy and creative and did a better job beating back the Russian thrusts at Kiev in the early days of the war than I would have guessed they would. They are now, though, fighting a static war of attrition with a county 4x its size. So what, at this point after 3 years, is the alternate plan that preserves territory? If that plan is to send a million American soldiers to Ukraine and risk escalation of the war, a nuclear exchange, and possibly a Chinese attack on Taiwan while our back is turned, then I am not going to agree.
Again, I would be happy to see Russia lose, but short of sending the American military into the line of fire, what is the plan? Perhaps Russia's will collapses before Ukraine's, but no one has presented me any evidence of that. That would be a sort of WWI outcome, where one side was eventually exhausted (though only after the intervention of US troops). As an aside, I wonder sometimes, would peace in 1915 perhaps with Germany retaining control of Alsace and Lorraine have been worse than all the deaths that followed, not to mention the platform the war built for the later rise of Hitler and the Nazi party?
As I said before, I am amazed that our ex-peace-protesting-hippies of the Left who would 100% retroactively say that the US should never have escalated in Vietnam after 1964 are in the lead of those who want us to fight in the Ukraine to the very end. Someone needs to tell me what's different, and I have not heard a good answer yet. Comments are open and I would love to be convinced. I can't stand Putin and would be thrilled to see him disgraced but don't know how to do it at any acceptable cost.
Postscript #1: I have a tradition here of pissing off everyone to make sure my followers and readership never get very high. So I would apply much of the same logic above to the war in Gaza. I see conservatives saying stuff like "the Gazans need to know they are defeated" but I must say after over a year of war I sure don't see it. After the cease fire the Hamas army emerged from the rubble with clean uniforms and huge crowds of crazed civilians still braying for Jewish blood. I continue to support Israel and was frankly a supporter of their trying to kick ass in Gaza in retaliation for the October massacres. But I wonder, did the last year of killing and levelling seemingly all the buildings in Gaza do a bit of f*cking good? I don't know.
Postscript #2: Gato Malo, who I enjoy and respect greatly, is among those who make the case that a peace deal with no territorial loss was available early on, but was blocked by US and UK officials who wanted a proxy war with Russia and at the end of the day likely didn't give a sh*t about the people of Ukraine.
Postscript #3: Apropos of nothing in this post, this is pretty funny. I am still looking for the Ukrainian refugee with the lhasa apso.
I am appalled by the utter lack of seriousness of nearly every leader nearly all the time of every Western country for the past 20 years.
Our NATO allies determined a "need to protect" the people of Libya by intervening against Muammar Khaddaffi, so they started bombing his pathetic excuse for an army, but ran out of precision bombs before they could defeat him. Eventually, he was killed, leaving a power vacuum and failed state.NATO has eagerly expanded to include the former Soviet satellites of Poland, Czechoslovakia (now 2 countries), Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, plus the former Soviet Baltic republics. George W. Bush announced that Georgia and Ukraine "would" join NATO. Putin emphasized, repeatedly, in public and private, that this "would not" happen. To emphasize the point, he invaded Georgia in 2008, and NATO could do nothing. And yet we encouraged (if not started) an anti-Russian coup in Ukraine and started military cooperation, while Putin continued to protest publicly and privately. I no longer have access to NATO war plans, but I seriously doubt there is any preparation to fight possible military invasion of European NATO members, or even military operations short of invasion, like air or naval attack.All the democracies have unilaterally disarmed, reducing the size of their militaries and leaving the remaining forces undertrained, underequipped, undermaintained, and short of ammunition. For just one illustration, the Bundeswehr shrank from 495,000 men and something like 2000 tanks in the 1980s to 260,000 men today. In 2014, after Russia took control of Crimea, NATO was genuinely worried that Russia could invade the Baltic states. Germany had 40 operational tanks. Britain, France and (especially) the US have had similar declines, if not as dramatic.When Russia seized control of Crimea in 2014, the US Secretary of State was reduced to sputtering that this was a "19th century" action with no place in the modern world. And yet the modern world could and would do nothing about it.All the global "cool kids" have solemnly committed to achieving Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (or maybe 2035, or maybe 2040 or 2050) in order to prevent the global temperature anomaly from rising above 1.5C, or maybe 2.0C. They have spent enormous amounts of money, stifled their own economies, and reduced emissions very little.The US has mostly abandoned the idea of judging individuals on any type of individual merit for college admissions or corporate hiring and promotions, in the name of "social justice", while hiding the extent of the bias.European elites have worked to implement a new EU superstate, without even pretending to seek democratic legitimacy for it. When the proposed Constitution for Europe was rejected in 2004, they vowed to implement as much of it as possible anyway.I could go on, but time and space are limited.With respect to Ukraine in particular, Ukraine has been corrupt, authoritarian, and ill-governed since its separation from the Soviet Union. They fought bravely and skillfully against the 2022 Russian invasion, and we could count this as a "victory". But they have no plausible chance of a victory that means regaining control of the Donbas, let alone Crimea, no matter how much support they get from Europe or the US. We could continue to supply Ukraine with weapons and ammunition, in the hope of causing even more Russian (and Ukrainian) casualties, but how would this be in anyone's interest? Even that right-wing ideolog Barack Obama said “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.” back in 2016.
(Reposting, because formatting was lost in my first attempt)
I am appalled by the utter lack of seriousness of nearly every leader nearly all the time of every Western country for the past 20 years.
Our NATO allies determined a "need to protect" the people of Libya by intervening against Muammar Khaddaffi, so they started bombing his pathetic excuse for an army, but ran out of precision bombs before they could defeat him. Eventually, he was killed, leaving a power vacuum and failed state.
NATO has eagerly expanded to include the former Soviet satellites of Poland, Czechoslovakia (now 2 countries), Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, plus the former Soviet Baltic republics. George W. Bush announced that Georgia and Ukraine "would" join NATO. Putin emphasized, repeatedly, in public and private, that this "would not" happen. To emphasize the point, he invaded Georgia in 2008, and NATO could do nothing. And yet we encouraged (if not started) an anti-Russian coup in Ukraine and started military cooperation, while Putin continued to protest publicly and privately. I no longer have access to NATO war plans, but I seriously doubt there is any preparation to fight possible military invasion of European NATO members, or even military operations short of invasion, like air or naval attack.
All the democracies have unilaterally disarmed, reducing the size of their militaries and leaving the remaining forces undertrained, underequipped, undermaintained, and short of ammunition. For just one illustration, the Bundeswehr shrank from 495,000 men and something like 2000 tanks in the 1980s to 260,000 men today. In 2014, after Russia took control of Crimea, NATO was genuinely worried that Russia could invade the Baltic states. Germany had 40 operational tanks. Britain, France and (especially) the US have had similar declines, if not as dramatic.
When Russia seized control of Crimea in 2014, the US Secretary of State was reduced to sputtering that this was a "19th century" action with no place in the modern world. And yet the modern world could and would do nothing about it.
All the global "cool kids" have solemnly committed to achieving Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (or maybe 2035, or maybe 2040 or 2050) in order to prevent the global temperature anomaly from rising above 1.5C, or maybe 2.0C. They have spent enormous amounts of money, stifled their own economies, and reduced emissions very little.
The US has mostly abandoned the idea of judging individuals on any type of individual merit for college admissions or corporate hiring and promotions, in the name of "social justice", while hiding the extent of the bias.
European elites have worked to implement a new EU superstate, without even pretending to seek democratic legitimacy for it. When the proposed Constitution for Europe was rejected in 2004, they vowed to implement as much of it as possible anyway.
I could go on, but time and space are limited.
With respect to Ukraine in particular, Ukraine has been corrupt, authoritarian, and ill-governed since its separation from the Soviet Union. They fought bravely and skillfully against the 2022 Russian invasion, and we could count this as a "victory". But they have no plausible chance of a victory that means regaining control of the Donbas, let alone Crimea, no matter how much support they get from Europe or the US. We could continue to supply Ukraine with weapons and ammunition, in the hope of causing even more Russian (and Ukrainian) casualties, but how would this be in anyone's interest? Even that right-wing ideolog Barack Obama said “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.” back in 2016.
Ultimately the question to answer is "does the US want to be a global player perceived as a force".
That used to be a unanimous "yes", but now it looks more as if we're ready to jump on and wipe out any nobody nation but are afraid of serious threats and would rather not engage.
This applies just as much to most western nations, and we'll see "what if most nations kind of avoided fights while there is an extremely imperialist bully hellbent on territorial conquest" play out.
Ultimately, if nothing changes the outcome will be no more small nations, a much larger Russia, possibly a smaller but armed to the teeth core Europe, greater China and a US that is likely to span all of the Americas.
The cost of that are decades of massive global military spending and a few million lives lost, as opposed to investment into growth and prosperity. Personally, I consider that to be wasteful.
I think you're actually giving them too much credit here. I would guess the average user with a Ukrainian flag has no particular opinions on Ukraine or Russia. Instead, they want to be part of a group with pro-Ukrainian messaging, and so they copy the messaging.
In February 2022 Eugene Volokh posted a piece to his blog saying "please stop offering me consolation over the invasion of Ukraine". He made the following points:
Technically, I arrived in the US from what is now Ukraine. At the time, it was the Soviet Union.To the extent that I retain any affinity to my former homeland, it would be to Russia, not to Ukraine.To the extent that I ever had an ethnic affinity to a group in the region, it would be to Jews, not to Ukrainians.I grew up in Kiev. I don't think I ever heard one word of Ukrainian spoken.Later, he posted a piece in support of his son's pro-Ukrainian activism-for-school-credit, noting that his son felt a connection to Ukraine because (to him?) that's where the family had come from.
It's hard to think of a closer example of "activist opportunism" than doubling down on the affinity you feel to a popular cause when your only connection to that cause has repudiated any affinity in public.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/02/26/thoughts-from-an-american-about-the-invasion-of-ukraine/
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/12/stand-with-ukraine-flip-flops/
You're right, Warren, that it's a hard question. I think the Vietnam parallel is sort of reasonable, although that was a different case, a long time ago, in many ways: the origin story of SVN being one. The contiguity (geographical and historical) of URK and Europe are another significant challenge to the analogy. But I have no-doubt you appreciate that.
The price elasticity of 'victory' for Putin is probably a long way north of where we are, but it's not infinite (as it was for Hanoi). If you believe as I do (with e.g. Mitch McConnell:https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=48F892D2-F685-4623-9240-45F1D9AF7F55) that the values the USA and it's allies espouse are directly challenged by the RUS invasion of UKR and that we should help UKR to win (not concede) then we need some effective strategy, albeit -- for reasons your analogy with Vietnam illustrates -- short of bodies-on-the-line.
Effective strategies have not been exhausted -- or even explored much -- by our actions so far (again, I agree with McConnells's statement). I believe that Europe, USA and ROW could squeeze the RUS economy/trade/access to technology much harder (CHN supply notwithstanding) without putting bodies on the line. I suspect, too, that a 'no-fly' zone over UKR would not bring RUS into direct contention with US/EUR airforces but would be a far tougher signal to Putin and a much-needed relief for Europe.
Also, RUS is using long-range ballistic missiles on civilian targets in a European country. I'm astonished that neither the former US Administration nor this one nor any of the European powers has so far supplied URK with equivalent firepower. The drone attacks on Moscow are, as Zelensky says, 'retaliation' but there is a serious threat-escalation available that I bet UKR will be willing to use if the current offers to RUS are ineffective (as seems likely).
Seems our comment is stuck in moderation.
"I often wonder if the average X user with a Ukrainian flag icon is really knowledgeably pro-Ukrainian or just anti-Russian."
I think on average they are people reflexively rushing to support the Oppressed vs the Oppressor in the Arnold Kling Three Languages of Politics narrative. Likewise with the widespread support of Hamas.
Coyote: I know there are folks who hold out that America and the South Vietnamese could have won if the war was fought smarter.
There are distinct differences between Vietnam and Ukraine. Vietnam was a civil war. The Vietnamese had fought Japan, France, the United States, and later China, to secure their independence. The "tide of history" was against South Vietnam, to use Nixon's cynical phrasing. Similarly, in Afghanistan, the people did not support the government in Kabul, seeing it as a foreign occupation, and they were willing to fight to expel them, forever if need be.
Ukraine was attacked by an external power, in violation of international law, in defiance of that power's own treaty assurances, and the Ukrainian people showed they were committed to repelling the invader—if they had arms with which to fight. Russia had spent years upgrading and building its military, but it was taken down within weeks by a ragtag assortment of Ukrainian patriots, leading to the grinding warfare of today.
Coyote: Their current strong censorship regime and suspension of elections smell bad
Ukraine has made significant steps towards rooting out corruption, as a prelude and in the hope of joining the EU and NATO. As for elections, they are precluded by the constitution.
Coyote: particularly given that we live in a county that managed to hold free elections during our Civil War
But only in half the country. The Confederate states didn't participate in the federal elections, and while Union-occupied Tennessee and Louisiana voted, their electoral votes weren't counted.
Coyote: Many of us find the Putin regime in Russia to be distasteful and would be happy to hand it an "L".
Russian aggression has been momentarily stymied by Ukraine's sacrifice. Europe is safer than it was. But Russia can't be trusted. As long as Putin and the oligarchs rule in Russia, they will remain a threat. Whatever treaty is to be had must include security guarantees. Meanwhile, Putin is playing Trump for time.
Minor typo: I don'r think Lincoln ran in 1964! Presumably 1864.
Where's green helmet man when you need him?
The difference between Ukraine and Vietnam is that the Ukrainians are fighting far above their weight. Many ARVN units fought hard, but they were compromised by many Communist plants in the staff. Worse, McNamara's description of our goal as "winning hearts and minds" was unfortunately true; we weren't going to brutally conquer the villagers then suppress them forever, and we certainly weren't going to depopulate the countryside, so that was what was left - but many of the ARVN's knew it wasn't possible to win over the villagers with the tactics available to us and them. They weren't going to win, but to lose as slowly as possible.
The other thing is, Crimea and Donbass, or even all of Ukraine, is not Putin's final goal. He's out to reassemble the Russian Empire; that also includes Finland, the Baltics and other small neighboring countries, and eventually Poland. Unlike Hitler, he's ready to be patient, but any treaty restricting Russian expansion is only temporary, and the more territory he gets, the harder it will be to stop him. So the Ukrainian effectiveness and willingness to fight is a great gift to knock him back at the first stage.
But Crimea is gone. Russia _is_ going to have access to the Black Sea, and Crimea is that access point. If Ukraine could so thoroughly defeat Russia that they shot Putin and gave back Crimea, there would be a new invasion within one generation to get Russia those sea ports.
I read Gato Malo's article with curiosity, since I've been following the Ukraine topic for a while in depth. While I approve of his skeptical approach to government narratives, I wish he had applied that same skepticism to his other sources. His article is full of specious counter-narrative claims that do not survive even a cursory investigation (receipts available on request). You should downgrade your regard for him on this topic.