Press "Enter" to skip to content

ResCon1

Did NATO Provoke Putin?

Prominent commentators on both the Left and the Right have created a false narrative that blames America and NATO, at least in part, for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They’re wrong.

Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has been nothing but transparent about his objectives in Ukraine and Eastern Europe—what he seeks and why he seeks it. Frighteningly, Putin seeks the dissolution of Ukraine and other sovereign countries and their incorporation into a more expansive Russian empire.

Yet, prominent commentators—including, for instance, the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman and National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty—insist on ignoring, or at least downplaying, what Putin actually says, so that they can blame America and the West, at least in part, for Russian imperialism.

NATO Expansion. Their main charge is that by expanding NATO eastward after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States and Western Europe threatened legitimate Russian security interests and thereby “inflame[d] the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russia…”

That last quote is from George Kennan in 1997, and both Friedman and Dougherty cite Kennan as prophetic. “The mystery,” writes Friedman, “was why the U.S. …would choose to quickly push NATO into Russia’s face when it was weak.”

Because of NATO expansion, writes Dougherty, Putin’s attack on Ukraine was “not just predictable, but predicted… Putin, [consequently], has shifted his strategy of trying to deter NATO and Ukraine to one of compulsion.”

George Kennan. Kennan, of course, is the American diplomat who wisely and brilliantly devised the Western strategy of containment at the onset of the Cold War. But while he is rightly credited for that achievement, he was not infallible.

Anne Applebaum points out that “Kennan was wrong about a lot of things… [He] was somebody who saw the world through Russian eyes,” not the eyes of Europeans threatened by Soviet communism and Russian imperialism.

Thus even at the onset of the Cold War, in 1948, as the Soviets were installing puppet governments in Eastern Europe and threatening Western Europe, Kennan opposed the creation of NATO.

“He believed its creation would solidify the [European] continent’s division and put an end to the possibility of reunifying Germany and Europe,” explains Christopher Layne in a 2012 piece in the The National Interest.

Russian Aggression. In truth, as Applebaum observes, and as is plainly obvious, NATO expansion decades later was not the cause of Russian aggression.

Instead, Russian aggression precipitated an intense desire by the East Europeans to join NATO—just as it had precipitated a desire by the West Europeans to create NATO in the first place back in the late 1940s after World War II.

The East Europeans, like the West Europeans decades earlier, feared Russia, and for good reason. Thus they sought the protective umbrella of NATO.

Friedman, then, is factually and historically wrong: NATO expansion was not caused by an American desire to “push NATO into Russia’s face when it was weak.” NATO expansion was caused by the East European’s desire to push back when Russia became belligerent and threatening well after the Cold War ended in 1999 and 2004.

Hungary, Poland the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999. The Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined the alliance in 2004.

False History. Dougherty, meanwhile, presents a falsified version of more recent history in which, he argues, Putin tried to constructively and peaceably engage Ukraine only to be stymied by a NATO hellbent on expanding eastward.

But of course, Ukraine is not a member of NATO and never has been remotely close to becoming a member of NATO. (Although in recent years, because of naked Russian aggression and Russian imperialism, Ukraine’s desire to join NATO has intensified, just as it did for the East Europeans in the late 1990’s and early aughts.)

Dougherty also ignores Putin’s own quite explicit desire to subsume Ukraine and make it an indissoluble part of Russia.

“Ukraine,” Putin said, “is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space… Modern Ukraine was entirely and fully created by Russia, more specifically the Bolshevik, communist Russia.”

In other words, Ukraine as a free, sovereign, and independent state is an historical fiction that must be erased.

As David French points out: “Vladimir Putin’s core problem with Ukraine is not with its western alliances, [or its potential membership in NATO], but with its independent existence.”

Ukraine is Not Russia. In truth, although Ukraine and Russia share deep historic roots, they are two distinct countries.

Ukrainian identity politics and nationalism have been irritants in Russia since the feudal czarist times that predated the Russian Revolution,” observes the New York Times

Ukraine, moreover, voted resoundingly, in a 1991 democratic referendum, to leave the Soviet Union.

How resoundingly? Well, 83 percent of Donbass residents in Eastern Ukraine bordering Russia voted for Ukrainian independence, as did 54 percent of the residents in Crimea, reports former Ukrainian official Oleksandr Danylyuk in Politico.

Today, according to a February 2022 CNN poll, two-thirds of Ukrainians reject the notion that Ukrainians and Russians are one people.

“No region of Ukraine, and no age group,” reports CNN, “has a majority where respondents say Russians and Ukrainians are one people.

Even in eastern Ukraine, which borders Russia and is partially controlled by Russian-backed separatists, fewer than half (45%) of respondents said they agree that Russians and Ukrainians are one people – a score much lower than in Russia.

More to the point:

Ukrainians overwhelmingly feel Russia and Ukraine should be two separate countries, with 85% saying so, 9% saying they should be one country, and 6% responding that they did not know.

The bottom line: Ukraine is not Russia, and NATO expansion eastward clearly and obviously did not cause Putin to invade Ukraine.

The truth is quite the opposite: Ukraine and Russia are two distinct countries with different national aspirations. And, to the extent Ukraine is looking to the West and to NATO for protection, it is because of persistent Russian threats and aggression.

In short, America and NATO are not the problem; America and NATO are the solution to the problem, which is Russian imperialism. That’s how the Ukrainians and East Europeans see it; and about that, there can be no honest debate—Friedman and Dougherty to the contrary notwithstanding.

Feature photo credit: the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman (L) and National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty (R), courtesy of a Charlie Rose YouTube video screenshot and a Breaking Points YouTube video screenshot, respectively.

Should American Christians Pray for Putin or Ukraine?

Prominent Christian calls to “pray for Putin” are wrongheaded and discordant with the American political tradition and American religious history.

Remember reading about the American prayer vigils for Soviet dictators Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev during the Cold War? What about all the times Americans were beseeched to pray for Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini during World War II?

You don’t remember that? Neither do I, because it never happened.

You see, back in the day, Americans prayed not for despots and dictators, but for the people enslaved by these despots and dictators—and for our soldiers and diplomats who were working to stop these despots and dictators and free the enslaved.

“Pray for the peoples of the ‘Captive Nations‘ behind the Iron Curtain,” was, in fact, a common American religious refrain in the 20th Century.

It is, after all, more than a little twisted and perverse, not to mention heretical, to pray for objectively bad men as they perpetrate genocide and mass murder while enslaving innocent peoples worldwide.

The New Orthodoxy. But according to some Christian conservatives, that is so passé. Their new orthodoxy requires that we shower prayer and affection on despots and dictators, not their victims. Thus the prominent Christian evangelist and missionary Franklin Graham tweeted:Rod Dreher, a prominent Christian author and journalist, replied:Now, of course, praying for God to work a miracle in Putin’s heart is all well and good; but not, I’m afraid, “so that war can be avoided at all cost [emphasis added].”

If the price of peace is the Russian annexation of Ukraine and the Russian enslavement of the people of Ukraine, then no thanks. That cost is too high and too exorbitant—and too detrimental to American national security interests.

Christianity, after all, has never demanded that the faithful be pacifists. In fact, quite the opposite: As Catholic author and journalist Austen Ivereigh has observed, under certain conditions “to refuse to go to war may in fact be a great evil.”

Ivereigh quotes the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis: “If war is ever moral, then sometimes peace can be sinful.”

Christians who urge that we pray for Putin insist that they are praying not for his success, but “for his conversion to peace with his neighbors“—or, as David French puts it: “I’m praying that God turns Vladimir Putin’s heart from war.”

But of course, that’s not what Graham said. Graham said he was praying for Putin “so that war could be avoided at all cost [emphasis added].” And Rod Dreher agreed, saying “I have been praying for exactly this.”

Damnable Prayers. French’s clarification about what he is praying for is helpful; however, it does not exonerate Graham and Dreher for their damnable prayer requests.

Nor does it negate the fact that urging the faithful to pray for despots and dictators is discordant with the American political tradition and American religious history.

Because in truth, as a practical matter, people pray for those whom they are rooting for and wish to help, aid and assist.

The fine distinction that French makes—that he is praying not or Putin, but for Putin’s Christian conversion—is lost on most people and lost in most prayer requests. It certainly appears to be lost on Graham and Dreher as evidenced by their damnable tweets.

For this reason, contra Graham and Dreher, let us pray not for Putin, but for the people of Ukraine. And let us pray that American and NATO leaders have the wisdom and resolve to stop Putin and save Ukraine.

Anything less than that would be, dare I say it, unAmerican and unchristian.

Feature photo credit: Christian evangelist and missionary Franklin Graham (L) and Christian author and journalist Rod Dreher (R). Graham’s pic is courtesy of BillyGraham.org. Dreher’s pic is a screen shot from a YouTube video posted by The American Conservative.

The Ground Truth about Sending American and NATO Troops to Ukraine

Ruling out American and NATO troop deployments to Ukraine has made war there more likely.

One of the biggest obstacles to deterring Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine has been the American and NATO phobia of deploying “boots on the ground”—that is, combat soldiers who can advise and reinforce the Ukrainian military in Ukraine.

President Biden, in fact, expressly has ruled out such a deployment. And American politicians, left and right, Democrats and Republicans, unanimously have echoed Biden’s insistence that American combat troops will not and must not deploy to Ukraine.

Their obvious concern is that this would pit American troops against Russian troops and result in “World War III” or even a nuclear war. This concern is superficially understandable, but seriously misplaced.

Deterrence Not War. The point of such a deployment, of course, is not to wage a war against Russia; it is to deter or prevent Russia from waging a war against Ukraine. And it is difficult to see how you do this without a credible threat of destroying invading Russian military units should Putin seek to attack Ukraine.

The threat of economic sanctions almost certainly is not enough.

As we have observed, Putin is dismissive of economic sanctions and for good reason: America and NATO are unwilling to inflict the type of serious economic sanctions that would cripple the Russian economy, because this also would hurt the West Europeans, who depend on Russian fuel exports.

What about a potential war with Russia? Does anyone seriously believe Putin would launch a war against Ukraine if that meant a war against the United States military and allied NATO militaries?

Putin may be covetous of Ukraine, but he is not stupid or reckless. He knows full well that the Russian military is no match for NATO. His invading forces would be destroyed and would suffer heavy casualties in any face-off with NATO in Ukraine—provided NATO is forward-deployed, positioned, and prepared for this contingency.

Historical Precedent. Putin remembers that Russian military units were decimated by American military units in Syria during the Trump presidency in 2018, and it wasn’t even close.

Recall as well the experience of West Berlin at the height of the Cold War in 1950s and early 1960s. The Soviets then often intimated that they intended to use military force to dislodge American and NATO forces from Berlin; yet they never did so. Why?

Because even then, with a comparatively much greater military force than they now have relatively speaking, the Russians were not suicidal. They dared not to attack an ensconced and prepared American and NATO military force.

As retired Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg explained to Fox News’ Martha MacCallum:

Putin has said repeatedly [that] he has no intention of engaging NATO. He knows it’s  a suicidal event if he does so. In fact, he knows, it’s the end of Russia if he does that. So he’s not going to get anywhere close to NATO.

Ukraine Today. True, Ukraine is not a member of NATO; however, the 2004 Budapest Memorandum obligates the United States to support Ukraine in the event that its sovereignty or territorial integrity is threatened.

Moreover, as Putin himself acknowledges, his designs extend well beyond Ukraine.

Putin seeks to expel NATO from all of Eastern Europe. And, as the geography of the region clearly demonstrates, he will have a much greater ability to achieve this if he can draw in closer to Poland, Romania, Moldova, Hungary, and Slovakia, first by subjugating Ukraine.

In other words, if America and NATO don’t stop Putin in Ukraine, they almost certainly will have a more difficult time doing so in the rest of Eastern Europe.

The bottom line: no one wants a war in Ukraine. But the way to stop a war from happening is to deter Putin. And the way to deter Putin is to make it militarily suicidal for him to attack Ukraine.

This, in turn, requires that American and NATO policymakers abandon their phobia about deploying “boots on the ground”—that is, combat soldiers who can advise and reinforce the Ukrainian military in Ukraine.

American and NATO failure to realize this geo-strategic truth has made a war in Ukraine far more likely, far more dangerous, and far more costly to our collective security.

Feature photo credit: The geography of Europe shows that if Russia takes Ukraine, all of Eastern Europe is at heightened risk of Russian subjugation. Map courtesy of ZCTrading via EBay.

The Critical Military Strategy to Stop Putin and Save Ukraine

Economic sanctions are not enough. Russians must be killed on a daily basis in a sustained insurgency financed and supported by America and NATO.

According to the Daily Mail, one prominent Russian official said yesterday that Vladimir Putin “doesn’t give a s**t” about the risk of Western economic sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine.

That official, Viktor Tatarintsev, Russia’s ambassador to Sweden, told the Aftonbladet newspaper: “The more the West pushes Russia, the stronger the Russian response will be.”

That’s probably true, especially since the economic sanctions that would hurt Russia’s ruling oligarchic elite the most are off the table.

Economic Sanctions. The West, for instance, could bar Russia from the global banking system by denying it access to SWIFT, the international network of financial institutions that underlie cross-border trade and investment worldwide.

Such a move would devastate the Russian economy, but also hurt the West Europeans, who depend on Russian gas and  commodities. Which is why, sadly, Russian SWIFT denial is off the table.

President Biden has unwisely ruled out the use of American ground troops in Ukraine. However, this doesn’t mean he necessarily has precluded any and all military options.

In fact, any deterrence strategy that is designed to stop Russian subjugation of Ukraine must have a military component. And that military component must be widely telegraphed and loudly trumpeted to have a full deterrent effect.

The West’s military strategy must be to maximize the number of invading Russians killed, maimed, and crippled on a daily basis over a period of years. To bleed Russia in an asymmetric war of attrition.

To wage a guerrilla war that saps the Russian will to fight and to occupy foreign lands. To send Russians home in body bags each and every day. To make their occupation of Ukraine, or any other free and independent state, a living hell.

This is eminently doable—especially with American military aid and assistance.

Russian, after all, was utterly incapable of subduing Afghanistan in the 1980s. American military aid to the Afghan mujahideen made the Russian occupation there untenable.

Too many Russian boys were coming home in body bags; and so, the Soviets gave up and abjectly withdrew. The price of occupation was too high; the cost too great.

A similar stiff-armed resistance to any Russian occupation would form in western Ukraine. Ukrainians there despise Putin’s Russia. They seek Ukrainian independence and to align their country with the West.

Ukrainian Insurgency. A “Russian invasion would be deeply unpopular and Kremlin forces would find themselves operating in a hostile environment ideal for asymmetric warfare,” writes Andriy Zagorodnyuk, a former Ukrainian minister of defense who left office in 2020.

In fact, armed and capable militias already exist in western Ukraine and would eagerly take the fight to the Russians. American military advisers should work with these militias and other remnants of the Ukrainian military, so that Ukraine can wage an effective guerrilla war against Russia.

Of course, no one expects Ukraine to  defeat Russia militarily, because it can’t. Ukraine is overmatched. But success in a guerrilla war depends on political success, not outright military victory.

Politically, Ukraine can win by ensuring that Russia pays a high, exorbitant, and ongoing price for invading and occupying their country.

The key to success lies in ensuring that, each and every day, Russians are killed, maimed, and crippled. The casualty and death toll matters, not battlefield victories.

Russia cannot sustain an unceasing daily death toll. Putin may be a dictator, but his legitimacy as the Russian ruler, and the legitimacy of his government, still requires popular acquiescence.

This acquiescence will quickly dissipate if Russians come home each and every day for months on end in body bags: dead, maimed, and crippled.

American Support. The good news is that, according to press reports, American Green Berets and other U.S. Special Forces have been working closely with their Ukrainian counterparts to prepare them for a guerrilla war against Russia.

The U.S. Sun reports:

Behind the scenes, several hundred US Green Beret special forces have been working with the Ukrainians to ensure Russia faces a bloodbath in the country.

The CIA has also been working on secret training that has taught the Ukrainians how “to kill Russians”, a former agency official has said.

And Ukrainian forces are already being equipped with anti-tank weapons by the UK, which guerrilla forces would use to create killing zones for massed Russian armoured forces.

“By combining serving military units with combat veterans, reservists, territorial defense units and large numbers of volunteers,”Zagorodnyuk writes,

Ukraine can create tens of thousands of small and highly mobile groups capable of attacking Russian forces. This will make it virtually impossible for the Kremlin to establish any kind of administration over occupied areas or secure its lines of supply.

Of course, the success of any Ukrainian insurgency depends in large measure on how much material support it receives from the United States and other NATO countries.

And the deterrent effect of any potential Ukrainian insurgency depends on how well that insurgency is trained and resourced, and how real or credible it appears to Putin and his generals.

The bottom line: the economic sanctions that America and NATO have conjured up likely will do little to stop or stymie Russian efforts to subjugate Ukraine.

But what might well cause Putin to say “nyet” is the possibility of a real and sustained insurgency financed and supported indefinitely by America and NATO.

We haven’t heard much about it, unfortunately; but let’s hope and pray that Putin and his generals have. It may be Ukraine’s only chance to retain its independence—and it may be Europe’s only chance for peace.

Feature photo credit: The U.S. Sun.

America First—In Ukraine, Asia, and Elsewhere

Some on the Right have learned the wrong military lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congressional Republicans overwhelmingly believe the United States should support Ukraine and check Russian imperialism. However, there are a few noisy pols, egged on by a small contingent of conservative journalists, who beg to differ. Why?

Because they are isolationists or non-interventionists who recall the Iraq War and vow “never again.”

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, for instance, told the New York Times that his skepticism about U.S. efforts to support Ukraine stem largely from “regrets about his own role in promoting the Iraq War.”

The American Conservative’s Helen Andrews, likewise, laments “seeing a lot of the good-old neocons, like, the same folks from the Iraq War, coming back and getting back in the saddle again, and saying exactly the same things that they did last time.”

Their rhetoric now, she warns, “is not that different from what it was in the Iraq War.”

This skepticism of U.S. military intervention is understandable given the unsatisfactory conclusion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What, then, ought to be the lessons learned from these two most recent conflicts and how do they apply to the situation now unfolding in Ukraine?

  • Nation-Building. First, nation-building is difficult and laborious and ought not be undertaken unless we are prepared for many years, and perhaps decades, of military and diplomatic engagement.

But here’s the thing: Ukraine is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It is far more advanced and developed.

A functioning nation-state and a legitimate government already exist. These do not need to be built from scratch. We are not trying to create something new and unique; we are trying to assist something old and established. 

  • Military Occupation. Second, military occupation of a country can precipitate adverse political repercussions, which can be self-defeating—especially if the ultimate goal is simply to eliminate a threat and leave.

But here’s the thing: no one is proposing that the United States invade or occupy Ukraine.

  • U.S. Military Advisers. Third, small numbers of U.S. military advisers embedded with indigenous forces are a decisive force multiplier. They can dramatically improve indigenous military capabilities and strengthen their will to fight and win.

Afghanistan. The most vivid and memorable example of this, of course, was the initial war in Afghanistan (2001), where small numbers of CIA officers worked closely with the Northern Alliance to drive the Taliban from power.

The Afghanis did most of the fighting and dying; but their military capabilities and will to fight were immeasurably strengthened by the presence of U.S. military advisers.

This same dynamic played out at the end of the war in Afghanistan.

By President Trump’s final year in office, the United States had withdrawn just about all of its troops from Afghanistan, but crucially, retained a small contingent of advisers who helped to buck up the Afghan national military.

Again, the Afghans did almost all of the fighting and dying.

True, this did not result in a classic military victory; however, it did achieve a modus vivendi that kept the Taliban at bay. And many informed military observers, such as Bing West, believe this modus vivendi could have been sustained indefinitely at minimal cost.

The defeat of ISIS, likewise, was achieved with U.S. military airpower and U.S. military advisers playing a crucial support role for Kurdish and Iraqi forces, who did almost all of the fighting and dying.

Since at least 2015, the United States and its NATO allies have advised and trained with Ukraine’s military, albeit on a very limited and circumscribed basis, and far removed from the front lines of combat.

A more robust and strategic military advisory role could be a decisive force multiplier, just as it was in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This does not mean, obviously, that the United States should invade or occupy Ukraine. Nor does it mean that the United States should wage war on Russia.

What it does mean is that the United States should forward deploy to Ukraine and Eastern Europe critical military personnel and weapons systems to buck up our allies and strengthen their military capabilities.

This is the essence of deterrence. It is what Ronald Reagan meant by “peace through strength.”

Lessons Learned. So yes, there are important lessons to be learned from our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they are not the lessons of isolationism and non-interventionism that some on the Right seem to have internalized.

Instead, the lesson is this: while the United States can be too heavy-handed militarily, it also can be too averse to military engagement, and neither extreme is wise or good.

For without American military engagement, nothing good in the world ever happens. Our enemies take advantage of our absence to promote a world order that harms our interests and benefits them.

Middle Course. For this reason, we must steer a middle course between isolationism or non-interventionism and military invasion and occupation.

We must remain militarily engaged on the frontiers of freedom—in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and the South China Sea—to keep our enemies, the enemies of freedom, on their heels, at bay, and on the defensive.

America: first, last, and always.

Feature photo credit: Tucker Carlson, courtesy of The Independent, and Helen Andrews, courtesy of HerAndrews.com.