161 Comments
Nov 30, 2022Liked by Richard Hanania

This is a good post making a good point, but there are a few marginal things I'd like to correct (to the extent predictions and what-ifs can be correct).

1. I'm not convinced that Ukraine will be worse off from this war *in the long term* even if it wins. A positive example here is Israel, which is not as different as it may sound. The Ukrainian diaspora is not Israeli- or Armenian-size but significant (with well-known representatives such as Chrystia Freeland). And there are quite a few countries interested in the Ukraine winning on its own terms (first and foremost, most Eastern European countries). So I don't think the West will leave Ukraine out in the cold once the main danger has passed. This is not to say that the EU's role in its further development will be entirely positive... but it'll beat any future determined by Russia.

2. Being a Russian satellite might have looked like an okay proposition for a country 15 years ago, but the world has changed. Belarus has been a dictatorship entirely thanks to Russia, and is now in danger of violent collapse again entirely thanks to Russia. The one time Russia could have helped an ally recently -- Armenia --, Putin decided to stay out as he wasn't fond of their current government. Asian post-Soviet states are now moving under Beijing's umbrella for entirely understandable reasons.

3. I have yet to hear a Western public discussion of nuclear risk from the Ukraine war that isn't missing the fourth cell of the table: What happens if a strong response *prevents* nuclear escalation, while appeasement would make it more probable? Putin has a history of starting foreign conflicts whenever his ratings fall (2008, 2014, 2022). If this is allowed to continue, where will the next shoe drop? There are progressively fewer opportunities. Kazakhstan is now under Chinese protection; Armenia means incurring Erdogan's wrath (which Putin has proved unwilling to do); Belarus might be next, but its moments of weakness won't necessarily fit Putin's schedule. Leaves the Baltics, and Article 5 and all that entails. And of course, there is no way to convince Putin that we would defend the Baltics unless we now defend Ukraine. On the other hand, it seems likely that we will indeed defend the Baltics at least enough to get a real war there. Now that is one truly diabolic case of information asymmetry, guaranteeing the worst-case scenario. The risks of the Ukraine war look nowhere near this bad.

4. Apathy is the "driving" force of contemporary Russian society. I don't think anything can reliably mobilize Russians to *willingly* fight Ukrainians on a large scale. Muscovites care little about Crimea and even less about their own border towns. (I would happily bet against such a mobilization if there was a good way to.) I find it somewhat more likely that continued war crimes will drive a wedge between ethnic Russians on one side and ethnic minorities from the Caucasus and Syberia on the other, since the latter are already taking some of the fall (thanks, Pope Francis!). The whole mix will become even more explosive if Kadyrov visibly grasps for power. Even then, I wouldn't bet on the "race war on the streets of Moscow" scenario that people loved to paint in the early 90s; more likely, a sequence of locally violent revolutions culminating in a less ambitious version of Putin.

5. How much exactly is the global economy suffering from the war? I don't know, but you seem to be straight-up assuming that it's a lot. Again, I'd like to see some data. In the US, inflation started before the war, and appears to be mostly the bill for our war on COVID (lockdowns and stimuli) and various other handouts coming due, no matter what Biden wants us to think. I'm less sure about the rest of the world, but Sri Lanka has shown that being governed by idiots will get you a famine no matter what Putin does or doesn't. Yulia Latynina likes to say that the Ukrainian grain exports lost due to the war are less than the grain utilized for biofuel, and if we are really this worried we might cut down on those subsidies for a couple years perhaps? I'm not sure how good those numbers are (and they don't cover fertilizer), but large parts of the world are not *behaving* in a way I'd expect if a famine was looming.

Expand full comment
Nov 30, 2022Liked by Richard Hanania

A few commentators have observed that this argument boils down to preserving U.S. global hegemony because the 'norm' being enforced is 'only the US has the right to resort to military force to solve inter-state disputes'. But there is another more subtle way this is true, because the 2nd order norm, namely 'only military invasion is an actionable offense' itself enforces U.S. hegemony since the US is just so much better at soft power than anyone else. To put it another way, Russia resorted to war in the first place, because America was cleaning its clock in the subversion war in Ukraine. So, essentially, if you try to compete with the U.S. the soft-power way, you lose, and if you resort to arms, the U.S. will use its soft power advantage to make the world punish you.

Now, you may say 'all's fair in love and war' and I'm not trying to say it's unfair that the U.S. has global hegemony. Might makes right, literally. However, there is a major elephant in the room: it isn't just Ukraine you are sacrificing for US hegemony, it's the whole of Europe, which is on the brink of an inflationary recession that will make the 1930s look mild and which can be avoided only through peace in the Ukraine. So your argument is really 'Europeans should destroy their countries to preserve US global hegemony', which doesn't sound so great. Which is why the public argument is 'something, something brave Ukraine'.

Expand full comment

One thing to consider is the possibility that an attempted deal by Ukraine would’ve been met with subsequent encroachment by Russia. Perhaps Putin wouldn’t be satisfied with formal recognition of Crimea for his legacy. What disincentive would a deal give Russia to not try again someday when the West is further divided? Or after Trump possibly retaking office, for example?

Expand full comment

That's very magnanimous, from Americans overall, creating this whole new Afghanistan right in the middle of Eastern Europe, even though Putin could have been kept perfectly happy with money, playing Dance Dance Revolution in his megadacha until the next sociopath comes along to take his place (aka. the Endless Russian Cycle).

But no, Ukraine had to be turned into a country-sized landmine that will take the rest of the century to clear, and that's an optimistic guess. When the C-17s will eventually leave (as they always do), it's up to us, Eastern Europeans to live with the consequences.

"They say that we are Putin's interlocutors, when the question everyone should be asking is whether or not Russia will be in our neighbourhood for the next 100 years - I think it will be"

https://www.magyar.blog/i/57773727/the-hungarian-perspective

I'll be the last one to tear up when one golden toilet Slavic stong man gets replaced by another one, but this war is just a net loss on this side of the Atlantic, for everyone. Except maybe Norway.

Russia, left alone, has its own problems, as we all do. Demographic rot. So this was as necessary as any meddling since post-9/11.

https://www.magyar.blog/p/bsp1-an-incident-in-transcarpathia

Burns said so in the 2008 cable 08MOSCOW265_a. Thanks, Wikileaks. This is like a zombie movie starring John McCain.

"I don’t need to tell you about Transcarpathia, you’ve all became instant experts on Ukraine overnight in late February. I get the impression that I know less about that place, which was right next door, all my life, than some pit mommy from Ohio with a blue-yellow flag in her Twitter bio."

"Unlike most of you lot — terminally online Twitter people in the West — we have first hand experience with them: they came as Soviets, and they were indistinguishable. We called them Russkies then. Then we’ve spent half a century in forced proximity, which should be plenty of time for nuances to be noticed setting Russians, Belorussians or Ukrainians apart, yet none surfaced. They remained alien and homogenous to us, so we still call them Russkies. Their current cousin war doesn’t change that. All that’s barbaric about a Russian is present in a Ukrainian and vice versa" mfw Americans talk about this topic (excluding Mearsheimer).

Inb4 a Westerner has the audacity to lecture Eastern Europeans that we had it way too good for way too long, and turning a nuclear power next door hostile, one that our economy depends on, more than yours on sucking Saudi cocks ever will, is a worthy sacrifice that we should all accept, without a hiss of dissent. Pointing at suicidal Poles as exemplary students optional.

I wish I wasn't so full of paprika on this topic, but unfortunately, this comment, and those posts I linked, will age like fine wine, unless some miracle happens. When the Empire shifts its focus, when the C-17s leave this particular Afghanistan, no one will care about the mess left behind, outside the usual people who care about Eastern Europe, Eastern Europeans. Many of us will have a hangover, Poles especially. I won't.

Hunter Biden's position in Burisma wasn't important to us because we care about your elections: it was important because it proved that the elite in Washington views Ukraine as just another free for all shithole to meddle in. Just like they - used to - view us. So please, spare us the sentiment.

Expand full comment

Maintaining American hegemony is not a good thing. It is destructive to America and the world. It enslaves rather than frees. America doesn't out right conquer countries, but it still controls them, so the list of territorial conflicts is largely a lie.

30 years ago the US should have accepted the multipolar world. It has been a bad deal for the American people and the decline is real

Expand full comment

Great essay. Thank you.

As to your point about fertility and a country collectively being unconcerned about propagating itself, perhaps this conflict has energized the Ukrainians into caring about their existence. As you have said previously, a man is invigorated by a physical fight, even if he is injured. Idk, maybe their Christian nationalists will have a baby boom after the war. Or maybe they'll convert to US style LGBT worship, continue to decrease their TFR, and eventually be displaced by immigrants (which would make their opposition to Russia pretty hilarious).

Expand full comment

The closest parallel to this conflict historically is Russia's Winter War with Finland. Finland had and still has a tiny population, less than 1/5 that of Ukraine, but that never kept it from being economically successful or from defending itself, even after losing 10% of its territory to Russia. Saying the Ukrainian nation has already been "destroyed" is a little bit hyperbolic. Ten years ago Ukraine was a nation divided between Western and Russian sympathies; because of this war it is more united as a nation than it has ever been in history.

Expand full comment

Hi there. Ukrainian here. In order to avoid the war, it would NEVER be enough to "surrender a good chunk of territory and pledge not to join NATO". Can't quite believe I have to write this.

Expand full comment

Sad that you dismiss the many indications that Russia did not want to get four oblasts, nor "de-nazify" Ukraine, but total surrender and annexation. Putin said it in so many words in August 2021 https://www.prlib.ru/en/article-vladimir-putin-historical-unity-russians-and-ukrainians and Dugin and all the propagandists inside and outside of Russia have been setting the scene since at least 2014. Surrendering territory before February 24 would not have prevented the invasion, and surrendering it today will not prevent it from recurring once Putin rearms.

And should Putin prevail, his next targets will be Moldavia, the Baltic states and Finland. His vision is to restore Russia to its imperial greatness, nothing less. And his previous wars and de facto annexations (Transnistria, Abzakhia, South Ossetia and Chechnya as a whole) are a clear indication that this is the case.

As a European, I have to see any move towards appeasement and surrender as a rehashing of Chamberlain's ill-begotten efforts. You cannot appease Putin, only surrender completely. And since his aim is to defeat the "Satanic West", we are in for destruction unless he is stopped. And unfortunately, this can only be done on the battlefield. Which pains me, since I am a pacifist but also a realist. Just as Bertrand Russell realized Hitler had to be defeated, I also see no other way to stop the imperial plans of the old KGB hand.

Expand full comment

What's the reason for thinking that keeping Ukraine out of NATO is a good idea? If the war ends with Ukraine still disputing Russian occupied territory, then not having Ukraine in NATO makes sense. But if Ukraine is happy with the territorial situation on the ground, then having them in NATO could make the situation much more stable going forwards. Russia may say that keeping Ukraine out of NATO is important to them, but Finland's membership didn't seem to bother them much in practice, going by how little Russia seems to mention it. An offer of NATO membership if there is no frozen conflict might encourage Ukraine to make territorial concessions in Crimea -- whether that's good or bad is another question, but it would shorten the war.

Expand full comment

The various military commenters seem to think it's actually much easier for Ukraine to take Crimea than to reclaim Donetsk (largely because of the greater ease of resupply in the east). I actually expect that to be the ultimate resolution. Ukraine will threaten Crimea which they will agree to not invade in return for Russia withdrawing from the rest of Ukraine.

That, plus the massive costs Russia has born prosecuting the war seem sufficient to enforce the norm. After all, deterrence merely requires making sure it's clear the expected gain is negative.

But Russia needs to be willing to either give up it's holdings in mainland Ukraine or to accept NATO troops in Ukraine since Ukraine can't trust that Russia won't just rebuild it's forces and reprosecute the war.

Expand full comment

...the author suggests "overestimating the competence and capabilities of the Russian military."

rather than overestimating competence you underestimate care

there was nothing to stop Putin leveling Kiev and still he could at will

however he took care to limit civilian casualty to near zero

we should all be greatful

The Russian military has not entered Ukraine in any significant form to date

The question is why has not the west settled ?

What horror will Putin have to bring before the West comes to their senses

and stops understimating the horror Putin could bring if and when he so desires.

Not pro Russian, Not anti US EU but anti war and suffering of civilians

Expand full comment

It's nice when powerful friends who support freedom, democracy and all that take an interest in your trials, but what seems to be missing in this discussion is a recognition that the war in Ukraine is not really about the USA. Putin may say that it is, but that's not the country he has decided to invade. This is about Ukraine, and Russia, and what is best for Ukraine, I would expect the people of Ukraine to have the clearest view of.

Now it may be that Ukraine giving up territory and not joining NATO would satisfy Russia, but they tried that in 2014 and it didn't. You can understand the belief that concessions will make Russia worse not better.

Expand full comment
Nov 30, 2022·edited Nov 30, 2022

"But from the perspective of the interests of Ukraine itself and taking a purely materialist view, I don’t think there is any doubt that the country would have been better off surrendering a good chunk of territory and pledging not to join NATO in order to avoid a war."

How is this steelmanning? Suppose Ukraine gave up Donbas and pledged not to join NATO; a big win for Putin. Why would he not then invade the rest of the country? Regardless of whether or not his concerns over NATO expansion are heartfelt, he's made his imperial ambitions very clear.

I agree Ukraine should give up Donbas (and Crimea for that matter). These territories are dead weight: they are (or were) mostly ethnic Russians who want to be a part of Russia. However you don't give up something for nothing, especially to an imperialist. The West ought to encourage Ukraine concede these territories (plus water rights for Crimea) in exchange for peace and NATO membership. The only way for Ukraine to become a successful country will be if it has security guarantees against Russian invasion, and that means NATO.

Unfortunately Putin didn't just annex Donbas, he also publicly committed to taking Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Hopefully he can backtrack here, because I don't see Ukraine giving these up.

I'm sure the U.S military (industry) wants endless war, but eventually voters will tire of bleeding $100B / year. Biden is nothing if not politically minded, and by the end of his term he may want to hang a 'Mission Accomplished' banner over Ukraine.

Expand full comment

Article makes alot of effort ignoring the most important variable in territorial stability -- people.

I don't care what stupid laws stupid politicians bloviate about as they talk of some imagined territorial sovereign. They do so because they:

1) think too much of themselves

2) don't know history

No territory will ever be stable where there are different peoples. Texas was built by Americans, that's why it was correct for USA to annex it from Mexico. Dombas and Crimea was made into what it is by Russians. These Russians still live there. That's why it should be with Russia. You can ignore this rule much like a madman would attempt to ignore gravity -- it feels good falling until an inevitable collision with reality. In case of history, this reality manifests as a mass grave, a genocide, or a bloody revolt.

Study history. It's all there.

Expand full comment

This post might seem embarrassing if the Russians pull off a successful winter offensive, after the ground freezes in mid-late December.

Expand full comment