There is much good here, some of which is arguable, but there is one big missing piece in the historical analysis, namely the post-soviet plundering and incompetence that characterized US policy after the fall of the Soviet Union. This was the biggest missed opportunity. Rather than doing the patient and messy work of supporting an emerging civil society on its own terms, the 'Harvard Boys' and others played it from a hybrid neo-liberal imperialist playbook from which the rise of Putin can be directly traced. I would be interested in your thoughts on this point, and what this imply for the day that Putin is no more, assuming - and this is a very large assumption - that another Putin doesn't pick up the mantle.
First of all, stop repeating this bullshit that "NATO expansion threatens Russia" - no, it does not, everybody knows that NATO would never attack Russia first, there no legitimate security concerns for Russia and you know it as well.
Second of all, ""If the price of de-escalation is Putin attempting to transform Ukraine into another Belarus—or at least laying permanent claim to Crimea and Donbas—than that may be the price that has to be paid" - how about you say that to Ukrainians?" - well, how about you say it to Ukrainians, especially the ones who risk their lives for their country to be free and independent? It's so easy for you to completely ignore the Ukraine's goals and interests because deep-down you think that Ukraine is an inferior country unworthy of self-determination. Western leftists should shove it, you know nothing about my region.
The argument that NATO expansion essentially boxed Putin in, as you make here, is I think fundamentally incompatible with your assertion that Putin is a monster waging a pointless war. Which is it? Does NATO expansion actually represent an existential threat to Russia or not? I think the obvious answer is no, and that comparisons to what the US may have done during the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine etc, are false equivalences. In reality, America would not in fact invade a nation seeking to join an alliance of liberal, capitalist democracies, or it might if it were led by an irredentist dictator, but that would hardly make it the fault of the liberal democracies or an iron law of international relations. That being said, clearly the US should hope for a diplomatic settlement and not fire the first shot of WW3 and those pushing to do so are insane and must be called out as such. But I don't see any evidence that this is something that is being led by democratic activists just looking for a new cause. In fact, it's clearly the Cable TV generation that is most in support. I doubt the most ardent Gen-Z BLMers are itching for a war.
Russian leaders have been striving to unite the Slavic world for centuries, Putin is the latest, many millions of Ukrainians will flee, chaos will reign, economic instability will morph to a worldwide depression, Russian minorities in the Balkan states will demand Russian protection.. with a Trump dominated Congress in 22 … maybe the border wall should be along the Atlantic coastline?
Orwell would be proud of your 1984-playbook use of the english language - NATO and the USA are guilty of "stumbling interference" and NATO is "imperfect" and even perhaps ""sinful"" like an extra piece of choccolate when you are on a diet. But "Bullies and tyrants like Putin" must be stopped. Of course. Silly of me to not have noticed.
Hi Mr. Barkan! Thank you as always for writing thoughtfully. I have two questions/potential points of disagreement.
First, does pushing the narrative that NATO expanded close to Russia’s borders discount the agency of those countries that chose to join NATO? In other words, I’m sure NATO pushed for more nations to join, but also didn’t those nations exercise their independent sovereignty by choosing to join?
Second, isn’t Russia choosing to attack the non-NATO nation on its border evidence that NATO works? As you note, other former Soviet states right on Russia’s border have joined NATO. But instead of attacking them, Putin has attacked the one not in NATO. Is this showing that we should have gotten Ukraine into NATO a decade ago as deterrence?
One thing I think is under emphasized in the piece is that a peace should be achievable on terms that preserve meaningful Ukrainian sovereignty and hopes for higher quality of life. You allude to this with the examples of Austria and Finland. Like those countries in the Cold War, a neutral and less militarized Ukraine could retain economic openness to the West and internal freedoms. It could even possibly join the EU, which is not a third rail for Russia like NATO is. When you contrast that outcome to a brutal decade-long war, the need for diplomacy and compromise becomes even clearer
There is much good here, some of which is arguable, but there is one big missing piece in the historical analysis, namely the post-soviet plundering and incompetence that characterized US policy after the fall of the Soviet Union. This was the biggest missed opportunity. Rather than doing the patient and messy work of supporting an emerging civil society on its own terms, the 'Harvard Boys' and others played it from a hybrid neo-liberal imperialist playbook from which the rise of Putin can be directly traced. I would be interested in your thoughts on this point, and what this imply for the day that Putin is no more, assuming - and this is a very large assumption - that another Putin doesn't pick up the mantle.
The attention on this war is because the media shows a lot of white Ukrainians in cities and towns that look much like a Western country.
There are other wars... in other places... but they are killing black and brown people in environs that look... other.
And yes we all say "of course" to this but this is the thing we quickly brush aside... so we can all talk about the war in Ukraine.
First of all, stop repeating this bullshit that "NATO expansion threatens Russia" - no, it does not, everybody knows that NATO would never attack Russia first, there no legitimate security concerns for Russia and you know it as well.
Second of all, ""If the price of de-escalation is Putin attempting to transform Ukraine into another Belarus—or at least laying permanent claim to Crimea and Donbas—than that may be the price that has to be paid" - how about you say that to Ukrainians?" - well, how about you say it to Ukrainians, especially the ones who risk their lives for their country to be free and independent? It's so easy for you to completely ignore the Ukraine's goals and interests because deep-down you think that Ukraine is an inferior country unworthy of self-determination. Western leftists should shove it, you know nothing about my region.
The argument that NATO expansion essentially boxed Putin in, as you make here, is I think fundamentally incompatible with your assertion that Putin is a monster waging a pointless war. Which is it? Does NATO expansion actually represent an existential threat to Russia or not? I think the obvious answer is no, and that comparisons to what the US may have done during the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine etc, are false equivalences. In reality, America would not in fact invade a nation seeking to join an alliance of liberal, capitalist democracies, or it might if it were led by an irredentist dictator, but that would hardly make it the fault of the liberal democracies or an iron law of international relations. That being said, clearly the US should hope for a diplomatic settlement and not fire the first shot of WW3 and those pushing to do so are insane and must be called out as such. But I don't see any evidence that this is something that is being led by democratic activists just looking for a new cause. In fact, it's clearly the Cable TV generation that is most in support. I doubt the most ardent Gen-Z BLMers are itching for a war.
Russian leaders have been striving to unite the Slavic world for centuries, Putin is the latest, many millions of Ukrainians will flee, chaos will reign, economic instability will morph to a worldwide depression, Russian minorities in the Balkan states will demand Russian protection.. with a Trump dominated Congress in 22 … maybe the border wall should be along the Atlantic coastline?
You just won another year subscription from me. Thanks for raising your voice at a difficult time.
Is there anything here that allows us to directly contact you via email, or is your email available anywhere?
Orwell would be proud of your 1984-playbook use of the english language - NATO and the USA are guilty of "stumbling interference" and NATO is "imperfect" and even perhaps ""sinful"" like an extra piece of choccolate when you are on a diet. But "Bullies and tyrants like Putin" must be stopped. Of course. Silly of me to not have noticed.
“Crackpot realism abounds. It emanates from the Right”. I stopped reading your post right there. Your bias shines like a diamond
Stick to what you know. You’re a great writer on NYS and NYC politics. This is not your area.
Hi Mr. Barkan! Thank you as always for writing thoughtfully. I have two questions/potential points of disagreement.
First, does pushing the narrative that NATO expanded close to Russia’s borders discount the agency of those countries that chose to join NATO? In other words, I’m sure NATO pushed for more nations to join, but also didn’t those nations exercise their independent sovereignty by choosing to join?
Second, isn’t Russia choosing to attack the non-NATO nation on its border evidence that NATO works? As you note, other former Soviet states right on Russia’s border have joined NATO. But instead of attacking them, Putin has attacked the one not in NATO. Is this showing that we should have gotten Ukraine into NATO a decade ago as deterrence?
Again thank you for your thoughtful writing!
One thing I think is under emphasized in the piece is that a peace should be achievable on terms that preserve meaningful Ukrainian sovereignty and hopes for higher quality of life. You allude to this with the examples of Austria and Finland. Like those countries in the Cold War, a neutral and less militarized Ukraine could retain economic openness to the West and internal freedoms. It could even possibly join the EU, which is not a third rail for Russia like NATO is. When you contrast that outcome to a brutal decade-long war, the need for diplomacy and compromise becomes even clearer