This is an excellent piece. I agree with just about everything, though unfortunately I don't think the US in its current historical form will ever act with moral consistency. But I do quibble with US foreign policy's lack of moral imperatives. It's not that we should be in praise of the government's stated moralism, but all the same there's no reason to doubt that Biden truly believes, has convinced himself to believe, that he is acting morally, even possibly consistently, at least enough to justify more of this (the most advanced weaponry to Ukraine) and less of that (care and attention to Yemen). Basically, I think you nail the US's double-standard logic but overly attribute realpolitik rationality to the actors involved. There is, yes, a kind of racism or ethnocentrism at work (not that anyone in the West has ever cared about Ukrainians until now, magically), but there's also the very complicated web of political and economic relationships across the EU and NATO that virtually lock in the response we've been seeing. If Biden's reaction were, say, more Trumpian (thumbing his nose at historic allies and much more openly and brutally self-interested) things might actually be worse (i.e., more unpredictable/chaotic). It sure would be nice having leadership in this country that doesn't bow and scrape before the likes of MBS (or the Saudi regime generally; while playing whiplash with Maduro), but then the question is how much does a Democratic president risk in an election year with the world economy in an inflationary spiral? This is a gut-churning challenge for anyone concerned with the ever-present threat of a multipronged Republican coup. To be sure, in this scenario, an American president's altruism and ethically driven sacrifices will impact those at the bottom of our society (justifiably fretting about prices) far more than anyone in the government, though likely electoral blowback is certainly keeping the Biden people up at night.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, David. Regarding "there's no reason to doubt that Biden truly believes, has convinced himself to believe that he is acting morally, even possibly consistently" -- I don't doubt this is possible. I think there's a very interesting and dangerous tendency in this country for the statements of moral commitments that are used to justify strategic goals to then become the primary narrative / political psychological terrain for discussing the policy. In a sense these narratives take on a life of their own, and can in fact displace the original reasoning. Consider Anand Gopal's use of "What the U.S. did is kind of buy into its own fiction" in his brilliant discussion with me about the US's occupation of Afghanistan and why it misestimated how quickly the US-propped up state would fall to the Taliban. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/biden-s-afghanistan-withdrawal-could-ve-gone-so-differently-n1278163
Your comment: "Russia’s military operation in Ukraine — an act of aggression and a war of choice — is heinous. " is an equivocation. As seen from a long-range perspective, (especially if one flipped the players' identities: replaced Russia with USA) Russia's military operations against Ukraine would be termed a defensive war, albeit in slow motion.....for the simple reason that for decades Russia was too weak to stop the Eastward creep of NATO. After the dissolution of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin wall, the reason for the very existence of NATO disappeared. The original 12 members of NATO did not include (West) Germany, for a very good reason. A resurgent, armed Germany was to be feared. Later of course the same Germany became a bastion of Western European culture and was deemed admittable to the exclusive NATO club.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall Fukuyama's theory gained acceptance as being axiomatic. The God-given exceptionalism and the inherent righteousness of the USA just had to make the rest of the Europe (the Eastern part) in the image of the West. The spirit of inexorable thrust to regime-change still is alive and well.
Putin underestimated the war smarts of the Ukrainians, but all in all he will have achieved his main objectives if Ukraine agrees to eschew membership to NATO. Mariupol will almost definitely have to be sacrificed to Putin.
Where is the equivocation? The worldview I posit in this essay and in my work in general considers invasions of other countries to be wrong. If I were to adopt the idea that exerting regional hegemony through invasion is okay, *that* would be equivocation and undermine the point of my essay. I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue.
"The Eastward creep of NATO" was not, as you assert, an attempt by the West to remake Eastern Europe into their image. It was the result of a decade of increasingly-desperate Eastern European lobbying to be *allowed* to join NATO, because the nations that had just escaped from Russian domination wanted a guarantee that they would never be subjected to it again.
I’ve been a fan of your writing for many years at this point. For me, this is your best work yet…brilliant blend of insight, clarity, and just good writing. Thank you so much!
This is an excellent piece. I agree with just about everything, though unfortunately I don't think the US in its current historical form will ever act with moral consistency. But I do quibble with US foreign policy's lack of moral imperatives. It's not that we should be in praise of the government's stated moralism, but all the same there's no reason to doubt that Biden truly believes, has convinced himself to believe, that he is acting morally, even possibly consistently, at least enough to justify more of this (the most advanced weaponry to Ukraine) and less of that (care and attention to Yemen). Basically, I think you nail the US's double-standard logic but overly attribute realpolitik rationality to the actors involved. There is, yes, a kind of racism or ethnocentrism at work (not that anyone in the West has ever cared about Ukrainians until now, magically), but there's also the very complicated web of political and economic relationships across the EU and NATO that virtually lock in the response we've been seeing. If Biden's reaction were, say, more Trumpian (thumbing his nose at historic allies and much more openly and brutally self-interested) things might actually be worse (i.e., more unpredictable/chaotic). It sure would be nice having leadership in this country that doesn't bow and scrape before the likes of MBS (or the Saudi regime generally; while playing whiplash with Maduro), but then the question is how much does a Democratic president risk in an election year with the world economy in an inflationary spiral? This is a gut-churning challenge for anyone concerned with the ever-present threat of a multipronged Republican coup. To be sure, in this scenario, an American president's altruism and ethically driven sacrifices will impact those at the bottom of our society (justifiably fretting about prices) far more than anyone in the government, though likely electoral blowback is certainly keeping the Biden people up at night.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, David. Regarding "there's no reason to doubt that Biden truly believes, has convinced himself to believe that he is acting morally, even possibly consistently" -- I don't doubt this is possible. I think there's a very interesting and dangerous tendency in this country for the statements of moral commitments that are used to justify strategic goals to then become the primary narrative / political psychological terrain for discussing the policy. In a sense these narratives take on a life of their own, and can in fact displace the original reasoning. Consider Anand Gopal's use of "What the U.S. did is kind of buy into its own fiction" in his brilliant discussion with me about the US's occupation of Afghanistan and why it misestimated how quickly the US-propped up state would fall to the Taliban. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/biden-s-afghanistan-withdrawal-could-ve-gone-so-differently-n1278163
Your comment: "Russia’s military operation in Ukraine — an act of aggression and a war of choice — is heinous. " is an equivocation. As seen from a long-range perspective, (especially if one flipped the players' identities: replaced Russia with USA) Russia's military operations against Ukraine would be termed a defensive war, albeit in slow motion.....for the simple reason that for decades Russia was too weak to stop the Eastward creep of NATO. After the dissolution of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin wall, the reason for the very existence of NATO disappeared. The original 12 members of NATO did not include (West) Germany, for a very good reason. A resurgent, armed Germany was to be feared. Later of course the same Germany became a bastion of Western European culture and was deemed admittable to the exclusive NATO club.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall Fukuyama's theory gained acceptance as being axiomatic. The God-given exceptionalism and the inherent righteousness of the USA just had to make the rest of the Europe (the Eastern part) in the image of the West. The spirit of inexorable thrust to regime-change still is alive and well.
Putin underestimated the war smarts of the Ukrainians, but all in all he will have achieved his main objectives if Ukraine agrees to eschew membership to NATO. Mariupol will almost definitely have to be sacrificed to Putin.
Where is the equivocation? The worldview I posit in this essay and in my work in general considers invasions of other countries to be wrong. If I were to adopt the idea that exerting regional hegemony through invasion is okay, *that* would be equivocation and undermine the point of my essay. I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue.
"The Eastward creep of NATO" was not, as you assert, an attempt by the West to remake Eastern Europe into their image. It was the result of a decade of increasingly-desperate Eastern European lobbying to be *allowed* to join NATO, because the nations that had just escaped from Russian domination wanted a guarantee that they would never be subjected to it again.
I’ve been a fan of your writing for many years at this point. For me, this is your best work yet…brilliant blend of insight, clarity, and just good writing. Thank you so much!
Thanks so much, Danny! That's very kind of you to say.