When discussing the latest headline that has captured the world’s attention in lieu of our next Covid surge, there are two universal truths we should all be able to agree on. They are as follows: War is bad, and nuclear war is worse. Given those two obvious facts, it seems like the impetus of global diplomatic policy should be devoted to avoiding war, and, if war cannot be avoided, to avoiding nuclear war at all costs. Humans do, after all, have an interest in propagating the species beyond this generation. And call me crazy, but it seems like a more than small obstacle to that could be having all or most of it wiped out in a nuclear winter.
Sadly, avoiding war didn’t seem to be all that much of a priority for the Biden administration leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an invasion that, while horrific and morally wrong, could possibly have entirely been avoided had they been willing to make a key concession demanded by Russian President Vladimir Putin: Ukrainian neutrality and a promise not to join NATO. Yes, there were other demands, but that was the primary one and an understandable one at that, as much as many will hate to admit it.
Much has been written about the expansion of NATO over the years and Russia’s understandable resistance to it, but to expect that a place on one’s own border, that was part of one’s country for hundreds of years and has only been its own country for barely more than three decades to NOT be in a hostile military pact would seem to be more than reasonable. Like it or not, as a superpower with thousands of nukes, Russia has a right to not have NATO at its doorstep, just as the United States, in its heyday at least, would doubtless have expected Mexico or Canada to not join some revamped pro-communist Warsaw Pact. (If I recall, didn’t we have something of an issue half a century ago when the Soviets were putting missiles in Cuba?)
The rest is unfolding history, of course. After the West refused to budge, Russia attacked Ukraine. In keeping with the caveat that war is bad and contrary to those who call me and others who think like me unabashed Russia/Putin supporters, I am against that attack on principle. It’s a moral atrocity that shouldn’t have happened. However, now that it has, our burden shifts - or should shift - to avoiding the worst of those above-cited catastrophes: nuclear war. Nothing, and do I mean nothing - not even the tragedy of civilians dying in Ukraine - should trump that all-important goal.
So, how are we doing on that? So far so good, in that Biden has thus far avoided insane calls by members of Congress from both parties to institute a no-fly zone over Ukraine that doubtless would escalate things to a dangerous level. How long that will continue, however, remains to be seen. Humanitarian support is and should be given to suffering Ukrainians, obviously, but providing weapons is an entirely different issue that threatens to scale this war to an unacceptable level.
I get the reasoning. Ostensibly, arming Ukrainians could lead to a more stout defense and, eventually, to Russia suing for peace and granting Ukraine better terms than they would otherwise have gotten, or even leaving altogether with their proverbial tails between their legs. Nevermind that, short of actual NATO troops on the ground that would almost certainly lead to World War III, the chance any of those possibilities actually occur is slim. Which means that every weapon the West provides to Ukrainians only prolongs this war and the needless suffering and death that comes with it. Sure, there are those who, from the comfort of their U.S.-based armchairs, talk of guerilla resistance to the last defender, but an actual empathetic human should consider what it would be like for the average Ukrainian to live in a war zone for years on end. Would living under Russian rule truly be worse than living in an Afghanistan-like warzone for decades?
And speaking of empathy, how about the total lack of any semblance of it from well-heeled leaders who cruelly impose sanctions that hurt low and middle-income people from all the countries they affect in order to signal their supposed virtue? Truly, how is us paying $7 gas going to help defeat Putin when he can simply sell his oil somewhere else? It’s utter absurdity, but merely the latest example of our overlords’ utter disregard for the interests of the people they’re supposed to serve.
Of course, the counter to all this from unabashed Ukraine supporters with blue and gold flags replacing masked profiles in their social media bios usually involves some combination of the words “surrender monkey,” accusations of Russia collusion, and some manifestation of Neville Chamberlain making love with Hitler, or something. It’s all nonsense and it all distracts from the actual truth, which is that Ukraine is probably going to lose this war, and, other than lending humanitarian support and perhaps trying to help negotiate peace, the United States has no vital interests and no business getting involved.
Putin may be a murderer and a thug, but he isn’t Adolf Hitler, and his army - as we’ve seen over the past month - isn’t anything close to the Nazi war machine that rolled across Europe and the Soviet Union. On the other hand, it vastly outclasses and outnumbers anything Ukraine could put on the field. In truth, this war is part of a long-running, intra-Slavic dispute that has nothing to do with us. Ukraine has, after all, been a part of Russia for far longer than it has been independent.
Sometimes, there are no good choices. It’s awful that Russia invaded Ukraine, and we all should feel for those people and want their suffering to end. The decision to not send ground troops was a correct one, but without them Ukraine cannot possibly win. That decision, consequently, means the West forfeits any moral right to insist this war continue. Thus, the only sane, moral position here is one that seeks to end it as soon as possible with no further bloodshed. Anything that prolongs this conflict, including sending weapons to back a futile effort, is directly causing both soldiers and civilians to die needlessly.
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky has recently signaled a desire to at least move in the direction of some of Russia’s demands, which include an enshrinement of neutrality and non-NATO membership, the acknowledgment of Crimea as Russian territory, and the recognition of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states. He would be wise to meet all of them and end the suffering of his people, and the rest of us would be wise to stay the hell out of it.
Please consider following me on any or all of the following: Twitter, Facebook, Gab, GETTR, MeWe (I will accept all contact requests). Also, be sure to follow my COVID ‘Team Reality’ Twitter list, 200+ doctors, medical professionals, analysts, data hounds, media, and politicians unafraid to tell the truth about COVID-19.