This is a very well-written and well-considered piece, so my objections don’t necessarily reflect a broad disagreement on my part. However some of the positions described and figures discussed have been given the short shrift that I think require some pushback.
In terms of the more minor stuff, I thought calling Jimmy Dore a sex pest was kind of a low blow when he has denied the allegations and provided pretty compelling testimony that the allegations were a petty politically motivated lie by his old employer and now competitor, the Young Turks. I think Dore’s positions on Ukraine are, at best, silly and tiresome, but using the pseudo-metoo controversy that hit him a couple years ago isn’t really relevant.
More importantly though I think the position painted of those on the right opposing the war as simply being fascists who admire Putin’s socially conservative stances and strongman persona are somewhat caricatured and fail to fully capture why many on the right in the United States are so opposed to our involvement in the war (which for the average right winger generally just has more to do with being anti-whatever Biden does). Now there IS some truth in being pro-Russia from a cultural standpoint (Tucker Carlson has flirted with that), but the figures on the right (and even far right) that I follow and know have a much more intellectually rigorous, if still extremely flawed, position on the war that is largely informed by John Mearshimer and the school of thought known as geopolitical realism (Kissinger is a big fan of this school); this is the school of thought from which the argument of NATO expansion acting as an incentive for Putin’s actions comes from. While one can debate whether or not this is just a pretext for right wingers to be pro-Putin, we can’t read their minds. The point is that both left and right anti-war agitators are coming from the same place: isolationism and masochistic nationalism (see Swedish sociologist Goran Adamson’s excellent book on that latter phenom). It’s informed by different priorities on either side, but there is more intellectual heft to the right wing position than I think the author gives credit.
Even more broadly there is something worth considering when it comes to popular lack of support for Ukraine (or at least US involvement in Ukraine) and I think it was left out of this otherwise great analysis. And that is war (and war propaganda) fatigue. As I’m to understand, the author is from Sweden, and while clearly very knowledgeable of American culture war dynamics (and some of our more embarrassing figures....oh Michael Tracey...gag), there are two very major conflicts that loom large in many Americans’ psyches: Iraq and Afghanistan. The casualty numbers for us may be relatively small but those two conflicts took up so much space in the minds of Americans for well over a decade (really until Trump came along and became the new villain of American culture). Those wars loom large because of just how pointless and wasteful they were, something millennials in particular are VERY sensitive to, even for those of us that may have had some sympathy for our so-called War on Terror’s aims (as I did, for a very long time). And on top of that wastefulness, it was always sold in almost exactly the same terms as Ukraine has been sold (and to an extent is being sold here in this essay). “Protecting democracy” is no different than “making the world safe for democracy” in the eyes of millions of Americans. Those of us who pay attention and understand differences can see that Ukraine IS different than Iraq, for example, but this is a very real “boy who cried wolf” situation for a lot of Americans. Nothing is going to change that attitude unless Putin started to, I dunno, going out of his way to have American airliners shot from the sky a la Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI (or to continue using WWI as an analogy, sent a telegram to Mexico saying he’d guarantee them our southwestern states if they invaded us to keep us distracted). And I must say, as much as I support Ukraine in spirit in its fight against imperialist expansion, I can’t even fathom a world like that, because that IS WWIII. And in the end, not wanting WWIII is what animates the serious among the dissent against US involvement. I won’t grant the figures the author cited that level of charity but I think it’s important to avoid caricaturing the opposing position on Ukraine as much as possible.
IN ANY EVENT, I enjoyed this essay. Very well-reasoned overall and obviously got me thinking. Cheers!
They're not all fascists. Some of them are just obnoxious libertarians who oppose governments doing anything, which isn't really much better.
Mearsheimer is a clown. I don't know why he is taken seriously by anyone; all he does is peddle the same narrative wherein Russia has no agency and everything is the west's fault. He's a political realist, a deeply flawed school of thought abandoned since the fall of the USSR.
I give them zero intellectual credit. Every last one of them peddles the same garbage.
To go further, consider the following perspective for a moment. Imagine a country whose policies align with a group of powerful corporate interests on any material economic or control issue that matters to them. There is effectively no correlation between popular opinion and government policy in this country, except for issues that do not matter to those interests. For those "meaningless" issues, a careful and selective divide between political parties exists to split and animate the electorate into frothy culture wars and colorful fights over social change. In what ways would such a situation materially differ from the one we find ourselves in here in the United States? Would such an idea explain why we fight multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar wars against "terrorism", greatly profiting the likes of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and The Carlyle Group? Would it explain why American policy has, until very recently, placed the economic fortunes of people in foreign countries such as China higher than those of American citizens and workers in pursuit of corporate profits? https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2021/ProfitsOfWar
I have no love for Putin or any Russian oligarch. They are reprehensible and should be shot on sight. But I think they see clearly that the main difference between Russian and American oligarchs is that over here, the exercise of power is more indirect than in Russia, mainly because American wealth and power is more diffuse and derives from a richer, more dynamic economic system that spans most of the globe. That big footprint is why American policy is no longer concerned so much with America as it is with global business interests that operate within the American sphere of influence.
With the election of Zelenskyy, Ukraine, with its rich natural resources and pre-war population being about 30% Russian was clearly headed out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the American sphere. Russia has always considered what is now Ukraine to be a core Russian territory and this loss could not be tolerated by a Russian leader, whether it be Putin or some other criminal.
This is why it sounds so nonsensical to hear people repeating propaganda about fighting for democracy in Ukraine. I do not wish to see Ukraine destroyed or torn apart (as seems most likely to happen). I would welcome a Ukraine independent from Russia. However, this is a war that the Russians are going to fight until they can no longer do so. That circumstance is not measured by munitions, dollars, rubles, or by time, but by Russian deaths. They have at least another 250k more souls to throw into the meat grinder and more likely they will marshal something closer to 1M soldiers against Ukraine, which seems to be more than she can resist (simply not enough Ukrainians). Even if, by some long shot, Ukraine holds fast, Russia will be content to use weapons of mass destruction against Ukraine, including tactical nukes against cities and industry anywhere west of the Dnipro.
The greatest probability is that this war is structurally unwinnable for Ukraine, though I would certainly wish to see her win. I do not think we should waste more lives and treasure on this conflict. Fighting for democracy is a laudable goal, but it is certainly not a meaningful part of this fight.
I think that it's just harder to give modern societies an appetite for war, compared to how it used to be; that's another factor. But it becomes especially difficult when there's so much communication going on. As heinous as I find both the man and the laws he passed, Woodrow Wilson's passage of the Espionage Act and expanded Sedition Acts along with everything else he did in the 1910s makes a certain amount of sense, since in that world, it made dissent against wartime decisions far more difficult. I think it's obvious there have been attempts to do that in the modern era--the PATRIOT Act comes to mind--but it just doesn't work anymore thanks to our communications technology. Too many voices occurring at once makes consensus on something controversial--i.e., war--pretty much impossible. I don't think this will ever change, at least without a fundamental restructuring of the web and how we interface with it.
Anyway, I've got more thoughts but I'll save them for another time.
I read the piece looking forward to a rationale for why Americans should care about the outcome in Ukraine, but the reasons are all so abstract to me so it still feels like a European security problem for Europeans to handle on their own.
I understand why Europe needs America’s assistance. It’s not clear what benefit there is for America to get involved. Economic benefit? Maybe some arms deals. Security? Far from US assets or borders. Technology transfers? Not really. At best it’s an interesting exercise to test weapons technologies against a formidable competitor. What am I missing?
This is a very well-written and well-considered piece, so my objections don’t necessarily reflect a broad disagreement on my part. However some of the positions described and figures discussed have been given the short shrift that I think require some pushback.
In terms of the more minor stuff, I thought calling Jimmy Dore a sex pest was kind of a low blow when he has denied the allegations and provided pretty compelling testimony that the allegations were a petty politically motivated lie by his old employer and now competitor, the Young Turks. I think Dore’s positions on Ukraine are, at best, silly and tiresome, but using the pseudo-metoo controversy that hit him a couple years ago isn’t really relevant.
More importantly though I think the position painted of those on the right opposing the war as simply being fascists who admire Putin’s socially conservative stances and strongman persona are somewhat caricatured and fail to fully capture why many on the right in the United States are so opposed to our involvement in the war (which for the average right winger generally just has more to do with being anti-whatever Biden does). Now there IS some truth in being pro-Russia from a cultural standpoint (Tucker Carlson has flirted with that), but the figures on the right (and even far right) that I follow and know have a much more intellectually rigorous, if still extremely flawed, position on the war that is largely informed by John Mearshimer and the school of thought known as geopolitical realism (Kissinger is a big fan of this school); this is the school of thought from which the argument of NATO expansion acting as an incentive for Putin’s actions comes from. While one can debate whether or not this is just a pretext for right wingers to be pro-Putin, we can’t read their minds. The point is that both left and right anti-war agitators are coming from the same place: isolationism and masochistic nationalism (see Swedish sociologist Goran Adamson’s excellent book on that latter phenom). It’s informed by different priorities on either side, but there is more intellectual heft to the right wing position than I think the author gives credit.
Even more broadly there is something worth considering when it comes to popular lack of support for Ukraine (or at least US involvement in Ukraine) and I think it was left out of this otherwise great analysis. And that is war (and war propaganda) fatigue. As I’m to understand, the author is from Sweden, and while clearly very knowledgeable of American culture war dynamics (and some of our more embarrassing figures....oh Michael Tracey...gag), there are two very major conflicts that loom large in many Americans’ psyches: Iraq and Afghanistan. The casualty numbers for us may be relatively small but those two conflicts took up so much space in the minds of Americans for well over a decade (really until Trump came along and became the new villain of American culture). Those wars loom large because of just how pointless and wasteful they were, something millennials in particular are VERY sensitive to, even for those of us that may have had some sympathy for our so-called War on Terror’s aims (as I did, for a very long time). And on top of that wastefulness, it was always sold in almost exactly the same terms as Ukraine has been sold (and to an extent is being sold here in this essay). “Protecting democracy” is no different than “making the world safe for democracy” in the eyes of millions of Americans. Those of us who pay attention and understand differences can see that Ukraine IS different than Iraq, for example, but this is a very real “boy who cried wolf” situation for a lot of Americans. Nothing is going to change that attitude unless Putin started to, I dunno, going out of his way to have American airliners shot from the sky a la Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI (or to continue using WWI as an analogy, sent a telegram to Mexico saying he’d guarantee them our southwestern states if they invaded us to keep us distracted). And I must say, as much as I support Ukraine in spirit in its fight against imperialist expansion, I can’t even fathom a world like that, because that IS WWIII. And in the end, not wanting WWIII is what animates the serious among the dissent against US involvement. I won’t grant the figures the author cited that level of charity but I think it’s important to avoid caricaturing the opposing position on Ukraine as much as possible.
IN ANY EVENT, I enjoyed this essay. Very well-reasoned overall and obviously got me thinking. Cheers!
They're not all fascists. Some of them are just obnoxious libertarians who oppose governments doing anything, which isn't really much better.
Mearsheimer is a clown. I don't know why he is taken seriously by anyone; all he does is peddle the same narrative wherein Russia has no agency and everything is the west's fault. He's a political realist, a deeply flawed school of thought abandoned since the fall of the USSR.
I give them zero intellectual credit. Every last one of them peddles the same garbage.
You may or may not be correct. However, you're not making arguments so much as name calling.
You raise some points that give further insight into what many reasonable people think, which is helpful.
To go further, consider the following perspective for a moment. Imagine a country whose policies align with a group of powerful corporate interests on any material economic or control issue that matters to them. There is effectively no correlation between popular opinion and government policy in this country, except for issues that do not matter to those interests. For those "meaningless" issues, a careful and selective divide between political parties exists to split and animate the electorate into frothy culture wars and colorful fights over social change. In what ways would such a situation materially differ from the one we find ourselves in here in the United States? Would such an idea explain why we fight multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar wars against "terrorism", greatly profiting the likes of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and The Carlyle Group? Would it explain why American policy has, until very recently, placed the economic fortunes of people in foreign countries such as China higher than those of American citizens and workers in pursuit of corporate profits? https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2021/ProfitsOfWar
I have no love for Putin or any Russian oligarch. They are reprehensible and should be shot on sight. But I think they see clearly that the main difference between Russian and American oligarchs is that over here, the exercise of power is more indirect than in Russia, mainly because American wealth and power is more diffuse and derives from a richer, more dynamic economic system that spans most of the globe. That big footprint is why American policy is no longer concerned so much with America as it is with global business interests that operate within the American sphere of influence.
With the election of Zelenskyy, Ukraine, with its rich natural resources and pre-war population being about 30% Russian was clearly headed out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the American sphere. Russia has always considered what is now Ukraine to be a core Russian territory and this loss could not be tolerated by a Russian leader, whether it be Putin or some other criminal.
This is why it sounds so nonsensical to hear people repeating propaganda about fighting for democracy in Ukraine. I do not wish to see Ukraine destroyed or torn apart (as seems most likely to happen). I would welcome a Ukraine independent from Russia. However, this is a war that the Russians are going to fight until they can no longer do so. That circumstance is not measured by munitions, dollars, rubles, or by time, but by Russian deaths. They have at least another 250k more souls to throw into the meat grinder and more likely they will marshal something closer to 1M soldiers against Ukraine, which seems to be more than she can resist (simply not enough Ukrainians). Even if, by some long shot, Ukraine holds fast, Russia will be content to use weapons of mass destruction against Ukraine, including tactical nukes against cities and industry anywhere west of the Dnipro.
The greatest probability is that this war is structurally unwinnable for Ukraine, though I would certainly wish to see her win. I do not think we should waste more lives and treasure on this conflict. Fighting for democracy is a laudable goal, but it is certainly not a meaningful part of this fight.
Well said, if depressing lol
I think that it's just harder to give modern societies an appetite for war, compared to how it used to be; that's another factor. But it becomes especially difficult when there's so much communication going on. As heinous as I find both the man and the laws he passed, Woodrow Wilson's passage of the Espionage Act and expanded Sedition Acts along with everything else he did in the 1910s makes a certain amount of sense, since in that world, it made dissent against wartime decisions far more difficult. I think it's obvious there have been attempts to do that in the modern era--the PATRIOT Act comes to mind--but it just doesn't work anymore thanks to our communications technology. Too many voices occurring at once makes consensus on something controversial--i.e., war--pretty much impossible. I don't think this will ever change, at least without a fundamental restructuring of the web and how we interface with it.
Anyway, I've got more thoughts but I'll save them for another time.
I read the piece looking forward to a rationale for why Americans should care about the outcome in Ukraine, but the reasons are all so abstract to me so it still feels like a European security problem for Europeans to handle on their own.
I understand why Europe needs America’s assistance. It’s not clear what benefit there is for America to get involved. Economic benefit? Maybe some arms deals. Security? Far from US assets or borders. Technology transfers? Not really. At best it’s an interesting exercise to test weapons technologies against a formidable competitor. What am I missing?
Democracy matters, maybe? If I wanted to write a piece entirely about geopolitical realism, I could have, but I think the ethics are more important.