TODAY UKRAINE; TOMORROW ?
Quo vadis? This is not really the beginning of where we are going. The beginning was a long time ago. As Faulkner said, "The past is not dead, it is not even past." Russia's acts of expansion and aggression are part of its history and culture. As the current crisis in Ukraine signifies, there is nothing to suggest that it will stop here or now. It is part of the national DNA , long pre-dating Putin. There was never a chance for "reset", and any such concept, if it still survives, should be discarded. George Kennan's containment strategy still applies today and probably tomorrow as well. It turns out it may not have gone far enough in its prophecy - he was right about the Soviet Union collapsing of its own weight, but it didn't take into account that it was Russia itself which was the antagonist under the guise of communism which eventually lost whatever appeal and strategic value it may once have had. It was always Russian nationalism. Russia will be a permanent adversary. It is a renegade nation. It has never believed in the Western tradition. It does not have the political system or the institutions which would allow it to do so. To develop constructive relationships nations need not always agree, but they need to be operating under the same set of rules. Russia has never the subscribed to the generally accepted rules of conduct of the Western nations, such as a pluralistic political system that encourages competition and debate, democratic elections, freedom of speech and press, religious tolerance and independent judiciaries. In fact, it rejects them. It rejects the idea of a rules based international order. There is no room for accommodation unless Russia changes its historic pattern.
First, a disclaimer. I have no no expertise or experience when it comes to Russia, I have never been there, and I think the only Russians I have met have been New York City taxi drivers. I rely a great deal on the writings of Angela Stent, a non-resident fellow at Brookings, Stephen Kotkin, a professor at Princeton, Serhii Plokhy, a professor at Harvard, and Timothy Snyder, a professor at Yale.
Russia is not only a geopolitical threat. Russia's world view, particularly as articulated by Putin, represents the historical reactionary forces that have recently gained support from autocratic leaders or would-be leaders in the West and in countries that since WW II have otherwise evinced a desire to emulate the West; even in the US. And this, I believe, has encouraged Putin to take the action he has in Ukraine. This philosophical conflict with the West has even greater long term significance than the current geopolitical issue. It may not be the Cold War, or even a large scale "hot war" (at least not yet), but it may define the course of this century. The Cold War was never really a conflict with communism but a conflict with Russian nationalism and the Russian value system. In fact, for some in Russia the Cold War never ended. Perhaps for them it never can. Putin argues that Russia's national security is at risk, but it is really his political security which is at stake as the comparative economic benefits and personal liberties available in the Western ethos move closer geographically to Russia.
In 2021, before the most current Russian invasion of Ukraine, Plokhy wrote, "The ongoing military conflict in Ukraine is not only a contest of political values. Russia's effort to stem its imperial decline by seizing the Crimea and occupying part of the Donbas presents a major threat to international order, with its bedrock principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of nation-states, on a level not seen since the end of World War II."
What Kind of a Country is Russia?
Russian culture/society requires a czar, an autocrat, an authoritarian leader. The serfs may have been freed, but this is still a nation of serfs who prefer to be dominated by an autocrat. Notwithstanding the accomplishments of Russians in literature, art, music and science (although I am not sure how many of them were ethnic Russians and how many were from other ethnic groups within Russia or the former Russian Empire or how many were liquidated by Stalin), listening to Putin raises the question as to how far the Russians have come from the barbarian hordes which once populated the steppes. Think of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and its secret protocols which allied Russia with Hitler and allowed them to divide between them territories in Poland, Romania and the Baltic states, the Stalin imposed genocidal famine on Ukraine in the 1930s which starved 3.9 million to death, the show trials and Stalin's Great Purge/Great Terror of 1936-38 in which over 700,000 were killed and one million sent to Gulags, Stalin's murder of Trotsky in 1940, the Katyn Forest massacre in 1940, the sell-out of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, the defenestration of Czech Foreign Minister Jan Masaryk in 1948, the bloody suppression by Russian troops of the Hungarian and Czech protests in 1956 and 1968, government targeted assassinations and murders throughout the world, the poisoning of the Kremlin's arch critic, Aleksei Navalny, and his subsequent imprisonment, the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the UK in 2018, the death in prison of Sergei Magnitsky, the long history of the Gulag and the war crimes currently being committed against the civilian population in Ukraine. These are not nature's noblemen.
Due to its size and diverse multi-ethnic society with accompanying fear of disintegration, Russians are obsessed with order and stability at the cost of individual liberty. For this it always requires an external enemy. They have endured a thousand years of repressive autocracy, secretive government, a lack of individual and property rights and expansionist foreign policy, with brief periods of reform followed by Putin authoritarianism. The Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment have passed Russia by, and in fact Russia is the contemporary embodiment of the counter-enlightenment.
Western concepts of individualism, competition and free expression are alien to the more holistic, organic communal Russian values. Or as Putin describes it - managed or sovereign democracy. According to Michael McFaul, the former US ambassador to Russia, "Putin is trying to turn Russia back into a totalitarian dictatorship of the pre-Gorbachev days".
Historic Relations with its Neighbors and the West
Russia is permanently expansionist for cultural, political and historic reasons and its national paranoia engenders a fortress Russia mentality. (Catherine the Great: "I have to expand my borders in order to keep my country secure.") This so-called defensive expansion is in part due to Russia's lack of natural borders, but Russia also has retained an imperial mindset based on a 19th century Concert of Europe or balance of power frame of mind. In the 1830s or so the foundations of the Russian imperial identity were formulated as autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality; nationality being ethnic Russian, the preservation of Russian cultural dominance.
Russia is and historically has been obsessed with the West. It is schizophrenic, both resentful and envious. Putin plays to the dual legacies of superiority and inferiority complexes that for centuries have shaped Russia's view of its role in the world. Moreover, many Russians believe their right to self determination is constantly challenged by the West. George Kennan described the psychology of Stalin's regime as paranoid, viewing the outside world to be "evil, hostile and menacing". Nothing has changed.
According to a former LA Times bureau chief, by the time she had left Russia she had come to accept that "hatred of the West and of the West's collaborators was not a sideshow or an occasional propaganda point but the very foundation of Mr. Putin's rule. It wasn't only a deep hunger for Russian empire; there was a desire for vengeance, too." She described it as institutional hatred. Russia is "still fixated on the same handful of grudges, stung and distrustful over the humiliation of the Soviet collapse and the perceived treachery of NATO expansion". In the view of Russia's leadership, Georgia and especially Ukraine must be brought to heel; the Russian empire would rise again.
For the Soviets, NATO was the foe because it embodied the Western resolve to resist them. The fixation with NATO did not end with the Soviet collapse. In the early 2000s there was talk of Russia becoming a member of NATO. One problem was that Russia would have to accept NATO's rules if it joined. These were rules written in Washington and Brussels. Putin, seeking to regain Russia's position as a great power, bristled at accepting the Western agenda. Russia wanted to interact with the US as an equal, with the power to co-determine how NATO was run. It wanted an equal partnership of unequals.
Russia's View of its Role in the World
Russia dreams of a role in the world beyond its capabilities. Although it has the largest land area of any country it is only 9th largest in population and 11th largest in GDP (its GDP is less than New York State). The US produces 50% of global GDP; Russia produces 3% of the world's economic output. It exports little beyond oil, gas, coal, some minerals and arms. It is not an industrial power. It is a petrostate. John McCain called Russia a gas station masquerading as a state. Or as one commentator has said, the only two real things in Russia are oil sales and theft; the rest of it is all a kind of theater. It is a kleptocracy. It looks less and less like an advanced nation. Economic backwardness persists. The disparity between Russia's self-concept as a great power and the reality of its capabilities, both natural and man-made, has limited its ability to play the world role it believes it is destined and entitled to play. Economically and politically they have a hard time matching the West so they resort to coercion.
Russia wants to have its opinion taken into account; it is upset that the West doesn't recognize its special status as a great power. Russia feels that it has a special place in the world, a special mission. According to Richard Holbrook, what Russia wants is to restore a sense, however symbolic, that they still matter in the world.
If it were not for its nuclear weapons it would be a third rate power which could be ignored. It is this perceived lack of recognition, of the respect which it feels it is entitled to, and which Putin appeals to, these delusions of grandeur, which contribute to its aggressive behavior. This, its national character, is unlikely to ever change.
Putin
Putin is not rational, but has the mentality of a gangster who is trying to punch above his weight. He is obsessed with his legacy and his place in Russian history. He resents being ignored. He believes that he, as the leader of Russia, should have a significant say in all international decision making. Out of desperation he draws attention to himself and Russia by the forays into Georgia and Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. He resembles Hitler in his Lebensraum movement into the Sudetenland and German speaking lands to the east.
The core element of the "Putin Doctrine" is getting the West to treat Russia as if it were the Soviet Union, a power to be respected and feared, with special rights in its neighborhood and a voice in a every serious international matter. The doctrine holds that only a few states should have this kind of authority, along with complete sovereignty, and that others must bow to their wishes. It entails defending incumbent authoritarian regimes and undermining democracies. The doctrine is tied together by Putin's overarching aim: reversing the consequences of the Soviet collapse, splitting the transatlantic alliance, and renegotiating the geographic settlement that ended the Cold War.
Putin believes that Russia has an absolute right to a sphere of privileged interests in the post-Soviet space. This means its former Soviet neighbors should not join any alliances that are deemed hostile to Moscow, particularly NATO or the European Union. Putin has made this demand clear in the two treaties proposed by the Kremlin on December 17, 2021, which require that Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries-as well as Sweden and Finland-commit to permanent neutrality and eschew seeking NATO membership. NATO would also have to retreat to its 1997 military posture, before its first enlargement, by removing all troops and equipment in central and eastern Europe, which would reduce NATO's military presence to what it was when the Soviet Union disintegrated. Russia would also have veto power over the foreign policy choices of its non-NATO neighbors. This would ensure that pro-Russian governments are in power in countries bordering Russia - including, foremost, Ukraine. As Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany recently said, Russia has just moved "to wipe an entire country off the world map".
Angels Merkel saw through Putin back in 2014 at the time of the Russian launch of a war in Southeastern Ukraine and annexation of Crimea: "Russia is violating the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Ukraine. It regards one of its neighbors, Ukraine, as part of a sphere of influence. After the horrors of two world wars and the end of the Cold War, this calls the entire European peaceful order into question."
Putin's Russia has defined its role in the world as the leader of conservative nations that espouse "traditional" values and as a protector of leaders who face challenges from the "color revolutions" - popular uprisings against authoritarian governments - which Putin believes are orchestrated by the West. The image of Russia as the defender of the status quo - against what is depicted as a revisionist, decadent West trying to promote regime change against established leaders - is an integral part of the Russian idea. Putin has been taken by the ideas of Russian ultranationalists who view Russia's destiny as a conservative empire in perpetual conflict with the liberal Western world. Putin has said that Western Christianity is decadent because it supports LGBTQ rights and multiculturalism. Russia is depicted as the bastion of forces that oppose chaos and liberal ideas. He is committed to the idea that Russian civilization differs from Western civilization. Putin has taken the position that the rule of law is not a universal aspiration, but part of an alien Western civilization. Putin represents traditional, collectivist, authoritarian Russian political culture and appeals to a sense of Russian exceptionalism, which defines itself in opposition to the West. He is driven by a concept of ethno-nationalism, an idea of nationhood and identity based on language, culture, blood and soil- a collectivist ideology with deep roots in Russian history and thought. According to Timothy Snyder, the idea of Russia as a separate civilization from the West with which it competes goes back centuries, to the roots of Orthodox Christianity and the notion of Moscow as a "third Rome", following Rome itself and Constantinople - a new Byzantium.
He claims that since the Soviet collapse there is a mismatch between Russia's formal borders and its national and ethnic borders, and this is a threat to Russia's security. Russia thus has a right to come to the defense of the 22 million Russians under threat outside Russia in post-Soviet space (shades of Hitler's Nazi Germany). What certainly resonates today is the idea that there is one big Russian or Slavic nation, with maybe different tribes, but basically they are the same nation. That is the model, from the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, which Putin now subscribes to when he says Ukraine has no legitimacy as a nation. What we see now is a return to a pre-revolutionary understanding of what Russians are. It is a very imperial idea of the Russian nation, consisting of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. The latter two groups don't have a right to exist as separate nations. We are almost back to the mid-nineteenth century with imperial officers trying to hinder the development of Ukrainian culture and ideas. Putin's nationalism represents a civilizational identity that suggests a common culture and political boundaries and justifies conquest and irredentism.
I was originally skeptical of the expansion of NATO. Some have blamed that for the current crisis. But now we know why we needed it. NATO enlargement has been only one of the reasons for the deterioration of Russia's relations with the West. The most important reasons are Putin's obsessive nostalgia for the historic Russian empire, his resentment over the USSR's loss of its empire following its cold war defeat and Russia's unwillingness, over the last quarter century, to accept the rules of the international order, including acknowledging the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the post-Soviet states and supporting a liberal world order that respects the right to self-determination. If NATO had not been enlarged would Putin have allowed the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to live in peace? If Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had not joined NATO would they still be independent states? Doubtful.
Russia is still the nationalistic, expansionist, empire building police state it has historically been. It is part of a pattern. Putin appears to be attempting to turn back the clock, not merely to the heyday of Soviet Communism but to the time of an Imperial Russia. Whether it be granting political asylum to Edward Snowden, or actively engaging in supporting anti - government groups through a media, social network and cyber security campaign, or interfering in foreign elections, Russia under Putin is constantly on the attack. And now, as we see, militarily. To quote President Biden, "This was never about genuine security concerns on their part. It was always about naked aggression, about Putin's desire for empire by any means necessary, by bullying Russia's neighbors through coercion and corruption."
As Ivan Krastev, Chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, argues, "Even if Ukraine were autocratic, it would not be tolerated by Putin. He's reconsolidating imperial nationalism."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser, has stated, "It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire". As Ukraine moves closer to the West, Putin may think this is his last chance to do so.
Reflections in the Mirror
It is no wonder that the Republican right has shown an affinity for Putin. They are cut from the same cloth. The new right is more Bolshevik than Burkean. They want to overthrow, bypass or undermine existing institutions, to destroy what exists. They are scornful of compromise, unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. The only difference may be that the Republicans don't control atomic weapons, at least not now. Ukraine on the world stage is a reflection of what the ultra-right is pursuing in the US. With the internet and the web, global geopolitics can no longer be separated from domestic politics, and the latter no longer stops at the water's edge. Putin and Russia are the cutting edge of the modern counter-enlightenment which seems to be engulfing the world, including our own country. What is so shocking is that the Republican right, until it sensed that the wind was blowing in a different direction, didn't even try to disguise its admiration for Putin. Toxic partisanship seems to have eased up for the moment, but only slightly.
As recently as March 8, Mike Pence was praising Trump's "management" of Putin: "I do believe that the reason why our our Administration is the only American administration in the twenty-first century where Putin did not try and grab land and redraw international borders by force is because he saw American strength." Some management; Trump's threat to leave NATO encouraged Putin's current invasion of Ukraine. Pence's political organization is claiming that Putin's invasion was precipitated by a "horrific decision": Biden's revoking of the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. Ron DeSantis said of the Russians: "When Trump was President, they didn't take anything. And now Biden's President, and they're rolling into Ukraine." Kevin McCarthy argued that Democrats are unfairly blaming the Russian invasion for the current high gas prices when the real problem is their lack of love for fossil fuels - their failure to authorize more pipelines, new leases on public lands, and more drilling: "These aren't Putin prices. They're President Biden's prices." All of this is disingenuous at best. None of this would have any short term effect on gas prices.
The Texas Republican, an organ of the Republican Party, asserted, "This war didn't have to happen." Mr. Biden's White House "caused this". Senator Jim Risch of Idaho claimed that the carnage depicted in President Zelensky's address to Congress was a direct result of a response by the Biden administration that had been "slow, too little, too late".
Senator John Kennedy traced the invasion to the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, the failure to attack Syria after it used chemical weapons, and the Russian seizure of Crimea, noting that this all happened while Joe Biden was either President or Vice President. Of course, he neglected to mention that he was among eight Republican Senators who visited the Kremlin in 2018 after release of a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report which determined that Moscow had interfered in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf.
He also ignored the four years under Trump during which he repeatedly undermined NATO, sided with Mr. Putin over his own intelligence community on Russia's interference in the 2016 election and tried to bring Russia back into the community of developed nations.
Or the ever quotable Marjorie Taylor Greene (the gift that keeps on giving) declaring that an independent Ukraine only exists because the Obama administration helped overthrow the previous regime, an apparent reference to the popular uprising that took down a pro-Russian president of Ukraine - actually two Ukrainian governments ago. By the way, she opposes any intervention although she also blames the Biden administration.
Representative Madison Cawthon of North Carolina called Mr. Zelensky a "thug", echoing Russian propagandists.
Senator Ted Cruz also blames President Biden for the invasion, arguing that the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Biden's decision to waive sanctions against the Nord Stream II natural gas pipeline caused the attack. Actually the latter was only an expansion of an existing pipeline and had already been completed, just awaiting administrative approval. Indeed eighty percent of the expansion was built under the Trump administration.
Aside from the sheer stupidity of these remarks and their divorce from reality, it is appalling, although perhaps not surprising, that these Republican Party leaders are trying to turn a human tragedy to partisan advantage.
Bipartisan resistance to Putin is critical; American power is dependent on its democratic basis, the erosion of which has no doubt encouraged Putin's move into Ukraine.
Going Forward
Notwithstanding the sanctions, Putin is determined not to stop in Ukraine until he takes the entire country, however long it may take and regardless of the casualties on both sides (or the desires of the Ukrainians who voted for independence from the USSR by 92 % in a 1991 referendum; the majority of every region was for independence. Prior to the referendum polls showed that even 58% of ethnic Russians in Ukraine were in favor of independence.). If he continues in his quest, we have to recognize that there is a strong likelihood that he will ultimately succeed militarily, even if at a high cost, at least for the time being. In misjudging the West he has left himself no way out. Ukraine will become occupied territory, much as was the case when the Nazis occupied most of Western Europe during WW II and the Soviet Union acted likewise in Eastern Europe after WW II. Putin will eliminate the democratically elected leadership and impose a puppet government of Quislings to administer a satellite state with the support of Russian troops. But even if the sanctions can't stop Putin for now in Ukraine, if the foray into Ukraine is not made extremely economically painful, Putin will not stop there and will move into Georgia, the three Baltic states and the rest of Eastern and Central Europe next, all of whom were eager to ally with the West after suffering the oppression of the Soviet empire. Even Finland may be at risk. Russia under Putin sees no limits on its aggression in its desire to recreate the Russian empire.
The full range of economic sanctions should be applied, particularly with regard to technology transfer; arms supplies to Ukraine should continue as well. The US embargo on imports of oil and gas from Russia is important, even if it is mostly symbolic. Long term the European dependency on Russian oil and gas must be terminated, and the Europeans should eventually join the embargo, even if that is not practical immediately. We and our allies should start building the foundation for ending such dependency immediately through increased exports from other oil exporting countries and increased LNG trade, although this may take time. Nevertheless we should push as far as possible now consistent with keeping our allies together even it requires some sacrifices on our part (including high gasoline prices, perhaps softened by subsidies for those who are hit hardest). This will be necessary to foreclose any further aggression by Putin into Eastern and Central Europe. The sanctions must be maintained until Ukraine is able to resume its full sovereignty and independence. This may take months and even years. The confrontation with Russia will be long term. In the meantime the US and its European allies should support any Ukraine government-in-exile and, as has been suggested, aid any long term insurgency from covert bases in Romania and Poland. It should also expand its military readiness in Eastern Europe with boots on the ground. More sophisticated antiaircraft missile systems should be transferred to the Ukrainians, perhaps including the Russian system purchased by Turkey if Turkey would agree (which would additionally put them back in the good graces of NATO and the US). Sadly, Putin understands only one thing - military strength and the ability and will to use it. It has also been suggested that for the present, even if a formal no-fly zone is too dangerous, humanitarian air corridors should be created, perhaps UN rather than NATO backed. There is risk for us involved, but it is important for Putin to know we are willing to take risks. It shifts the burden back on him to recognize and assess his own risks. The best way to avoid WW III is to remain firm, not to shy away from calculated confrontation.
Is there a way out? It's hard to see one that is acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine. What might be reasonable is for Ukraine to renounce any attempt to join NATO (but not its right to join the EU) while retaining the right to defensive military security, and granting some level of local autonomy to the eastern provinces. Perhaps throw in some mutual security pacts between NATO and Russia to downgrade offensive military capability in border areas. Biden has already offered transparency in military exercises in the region and offsite inspections of the US missile-defense launchers in Poland and Romania to verify that they could not fire offensive cruise missiles contrary to Putin's assertions. I am dubious that this would satisfy Russia. Putin is too far over-committed. This would be considered a loss by him. Russia will have to suffer much more before he will come to the table.
This is not only about Ukraine. The Putin doctrine may have more appeal and lasting power than communism. It has its antecedents long before Marx. This is a worldwide struggle against the coming of the new authoritarian one party state and the attack on the rule of law and liberal democracy. We are all involved, and the US must take the lead.
