The Left and the Right Are Both Wrong About Ukraine
Even the Ones Who Come to the Right Conclusions Are Using Bad Reasoning
The slogan “Why are we defending Ukraine’s border when we can’t even defend our own” is ubiquitous among certain parts of the right: This phrase is, of course, utterly moronic. The border crisis is not the result of a lack of funds to address it but rather a deliberate desire on the part of the Democratic party to pad its voter base—and to engage in social signalling about just how open-hearted and kind they are as well as, more subtly, about how they are not affected by it: Being in favor of open borders is often a signal of social status and wealth much as high heels are; just as high heels signify that a woman does not engage in manual labor, a position in favor of open borders signifies that one lives in a rich neighborhood inaccessible to illegal migrants. More importantly, illegal immigration helps increase the apportionment of representatives to democrat areas in addition to increasing their voter base. However, I am digressing. The main point is that anyone who thinks that refusing to support Ukraine would suddenly cause Joe Biden to build a wall and start deporting immigrants en mass is seriously delusional: Ukraine and illegal immigration are not logically connected in any way. There is plenty of social spending that the US engages in on behalf of illegal immigrants that could readily and easily pay for the wall and better border enforcement. In short, border enforcement would pay for itself. No cuts of any sort are necessary to pay for it—certainly not to national defense.
So why does this slogan, which is a complete non sequitur, persist? Some of it is pure ignorance: Anyone who has done some back of the envelope calculations knows that the troop deployments we would have to make to Europe over the next twenty years, even in present value terms, if Putin were successful in taking Ukraine and retained his ability to harass the Baltic states, would swamp the amount we are spending—or are likely to spend—in Ukraine. Indeed, they would do so without the beneficial effects of wearing down Russian combat power or demonstrating American resolve to China. Republicans are, by and large, unaware of Ukraine, Putin, or the geopolitical situation the US faces vis a vis China, Russia, and BRICS more generally. That said, the American left is no better: They seem to support Ukraine out of a charitable, humanitarian sentiment. This too is fallacious. It leads them to the right conclusion but the fact that it is grounded in emotion means that something like a recession could easily produce a change in opinion. Indeed, if Russia simply causes enough suffering in Ukraine, humanitarian reasoning could do an about face: Yes, we supported Ukraine but it isn’t worth this human cost, etc. We should not be supporting Ukraine out of charity. It is not the new Darfur—or breast cancer awareness month. It is a key square on the geopolitical chessboard in our war against BRICS and a resurgent China.
We need to do a better job of communicating our reasons for supporting Ukraine because it seems that even relatively well-educated people fail to understand what is at stake.
Russia is on a path of provocation and escalation. Few Americans realize the role that anti-Americanism plays in legitimating the Putin regime. However, it plays a role that is almost as central to Putin’s power as the repudiation of Versailles and the stabbed-in-the-back myths were to Hitler’s. People have to understand that in Putin’s system of propaganda, the US is responsible for the economic hardships Russia experienced in the 90s: And that his success consists of two distinct parts—reversing the West’s victory in the Cold War by reviving the Russian economy and reconstituting the Russian empire and by humiliating the West, militarily, economically, and politically.
Most ordinary voters are unaware of the many assassinations Putin has carried out, or attempted to carry out, on US soil and the soil of US allies. Often these assassinations are theatrical and involve putting ordinary citizens at risk—part of his “strategy of humiliation.” Let’s consider some of the provocations Russia has been involved in:
a. Cyberattacks: Russia has been accused of conducting cyberattacks and interference campaigns targeting Western countries, including allegations of election interference and cyberattacks on government institutions, businesses, and critical infrastructure. The oil pipeline attacks a few years back that produced gas shortages in the Northeast are a perfect example.
b. Nerve Agent/ Radiation Poisonings: The use of chemical nerve agents in the poisoning of individuals, such as the cases of Sergei Skripal in the UK in 2018 and Alexei Navalny in Russia in 2020, has led to allegations of Russian involvement and international condemnation.
c. Military Activities near NATO Borders: Russia has conducted military exercises and flights near NATO borders, leading to increased tensions and concerns about airspace violations.
d. Disinformation Campaigns: Russia has been accused of running disinformation campaigns aimed at sowing discord and undermining trust in Western institutions.
e. Support for Far-Right and Far-Left Groups: There have been allegations of Russian support for far-right and far-left groups in Western countries, with both the aim of influencing US policy and of fomenting conflict in order to weaken the US, and her allies, domestically.
f. Interference in Neighboring Countries: Russia's actions in countries near its borders, such as Georgia and Moldova, have sought to bring more post-Soviet regimes into Russia’s orbit, undoing America’s cold war victory.
g. Support for the Syrian Regime: Russia's military intervention in Syria to support the Assad regime has been a source of tension with Western nations, particularly in light of allegations of human rights abuses and violations of international law.
h. Baltic Sea and Black Sea Incidents: Russia's military activities in the Baltic Sea and Black Sea regions, including airspace violations and close encounters with Western military aircraft and vessels, have raised concerns and led to diplomatic protests.
i. Skirmishes with NATO Ships and Aircraft: Russia has been involved in incidents where its military has engaged in aggressive maneuvers and provocations against NATO ships and aircraft operating in international waters and airspace.
j. Arctic Territory Claims: Russia's increased military presence and territorial claims in the Arctic region have sparked concerns about potential future conflicts over resource-rich areas. They are deliberately encroaching on claims that rightly belong to Canada.
k. Support for Anti-American Regimes in Africa
This pattern of escalation should make us worry that Putin plans to challenge Article 5 by attacking either Poland or Lithuania.
Russia is an ally of China and is increasingly acting as China’s proxy on the world stage. Putin consulted with Xi before invading Ukraine—indeed, it is likely that he delayed the invasion until the Olympic games were over at China’s request. Putin knew that he would need China as a trading partner if he was going to make this war successful, and China gave him permission. Why? The answer, of course, is to test Western resolve and, secondarily, deplete US weapons stockpiles before China takes action in the Pacific. This is why the US must thread this needle so carefully: We must maintain our own weapons supplies while giving Ukraine enough to inflict serious damage on Russia, all without escalating into a nuclear conflict.
Led by China, Russia is the second most important member of the coalition attempting to establish a “multipolar” world order. While we may not like the American ruling class, and seek either to supplant them or alter their behaviour, we will like the Chinese ruling class far less. China plans to establish an alternative to the American led rules-based order and then, eventually, to supplant it. Russia is one of China’s most important partners in this enterprise. If one of the senior partners in BRICS can be made geopolitically and economically irrelevant for the next ten to twenty years, the US will be in a better position to oppose China.
Gradual retaliation creates credibility. The current geopolitical situation is incredibly similar to the one that started WWII. If Hitler had paid a real price for taking Czechslovakia, WWII might have been prevented. The last thing you want is to impose no cost on your opponent as he comes closer to crossing your red line: A sudden escalation is often not believed while a subtle and gradual one is. That is what happened when Britain allowed Hitler to take Czechslovakia but suddenly declared war when they attacked Poland. If Britain had imposed some cost on Germany for its early territorial grabs, he might not have crossed Britain’s red line.
US allies, and potential allies, against China will look at Ukraine to see whether the US upholds its commitments. If the US abandons Ukraine, esp. given the debacle in Afghanistan, other allies might decide that, as much as they do not want to submit to China or Russia, it is better than resisting and being abandoned. We have made commitments. We must follow through on them.
Opposing Russia is part of the larger strategy of opposing China: Indeed, Russia and China are better coordinated than the Axis powers were during WWII. Japan, rather foolishly, agreed to a non-aggression pact with Russia even though this would free up forces to help defend Moscow: Clearly showing that the Japanese, angry at the fact that Hitler signed his own non-aggression pact with the Russians when Japan had been at war with them in Mongolia, did not appreciate that if Germany lost their war, Japan would certainly lose its war as well. China and Russia, while they have distinct interests, would never make a similar mistake.
Ukraine offers us the opportunity to remove the Russian menace from the board at relatively low cost all the while avenging ourselves for the proxy wars Russia fought against us in Vietnam, Korea, and even in Afghanistan: China’s most powerful piece in its war against the West. (What would take second place? North Korea?) Every time the US has adopted the Russian strategy of using proxies, while minimizing direct involvement, against its largest geopolitical adversaries, it has succeeded. We will succeed again.
Excellent.
A couple of supplementary points:
(1) Most of the American Right is actually pro-Russian, just as a large portion of the American Left was pro-Russian during the Cold War, because American Rightists stupidly see Russia as a bastion of traditionalism, in admirable contrast to the West’s feminism/trannyism, when Russia’s fertility rate is in fact only 1.42 children per female, according to Wikipedia.
(2) Russia’s parroting of correct Western-Right slogans and concerns (for example with regard to the Satanism of the West’s rulers) undermines the Western Right by associating the Western Right with the moronism (as opposed to Satanism) of the Russian regime. Russia’s current rulers and propagandists must be the stupidest people ever to have been in power anywhere on Earth (outside of Subsaharan Africa), ever. They (the Russian rulers) are also nonstop liars, fully as dishonest as the West’s rulers, only less cleverly so.