In the short six months between the fall of Kabul and the invasion of Ukraine, the triumph of one idea was overshadowed by the emergence of another. The wars of September 11 ended for the Americans on August 31, 2021. They ended with relief and bitterness, and with the feeling that the United States would now have to learn restraint and that we lacked the ability, will, and means to participate in the affairs of other countries, Joe Packer wrote in his analysis for theatlantic.com, quoted by “Labor“.
Pax Americana is over, as is the 20-year war, and now is the time to turn inward and deal with our own significant problems. After all, who were we, with our political decay, our social conflicts, and our Covid disaster, to act as a leader of anything for everyone?
This view was widespread in the political arena. The progressive version was pacifist, the reactionary version was nationalist, and the new “realism” prevailed at the center – a hangover of consciousness about our borders. This realism reminded learned, exhausted Americans that our national interests must be narrowly defined and that other great powers, including Russia, have their own interests that must be respected.
The Biden administration embraced this realism before America completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan. She seemed to believe that the United States would leave nothing but the wreckage of two decades of failure, so they neglected to ensure that Afghans who allied with the American project in their country had a future everywhere.
The relatively open, outward-looking society that grew up among the younger Afghans in the cities during the American War, with its lively press and civic activism and new freedoms for women and girls, was abandoned after a moment’s thought.
The failure in Kabul showed that the new realists did not understand what our national interests really were, so Vladimir Putin had to explain them to us.
In ordering the invasion of Ukraine, Putin did a lot of nonsense to the apologists, who until the last hour continued to believe that Russia could be content with concessions, that it would act on “its legitimate security concerns.” Putin did not start this war because of NATO enlargement, or because of American imperialism, or because of the weakness of the West, or because of the defense of Christian civilization, or any other cause that shifts the blame away from the perpetrator.
In 2014, the Ukrainians organized what they called the “Revolution of Dignity” in Kyiv, and since then have struggled to create a dignified state ruled by law, not thieves, and free itself from Russia’s grip. But this country was so unbearable for Putin that he decided to destroy it.
In 2016, in an interview with Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, President Barack Obama took a realistic view of the conflict in Ukraine: “The fact is that a non-NATO Ukraine will be vulnerable to Russia’s military domination no matter what we do ”.
He added: “This is an example of when we need to be very clear about our main interests and what we are ready to fight for.” Obama was right not to go to war with Russia in 2014, when Putin annexed Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine; and it would be just as disastrous for the United States to enter into a direct military conflict with Russia today. But if the front line between democracy and autocracy is of primary interest to the United States, Obama had to conclude that the survival of the Ukrainian government is worth defending with American weapons, harsh sanctions and the international isolation of Russia’s rulers.
Obama’s successor has sided with Russia in the conflict. President Donald Trump wanted to see pro-Russian kleptocrats return to power in Ukraine because they serve his corrupt political goals and because he and his followers despise liberal democracy and admire naked “power”, especially when it is exercised at the expense of destroying it. the rules. It is no coincidence that Trump’s first impeachment originated in Ukraine in an attempt to blackmail President Volodymyr Zelensky into political services. The two sides had become entangled not only because of the war with Russia, but also because Ukraine is the place where the battle for the survival of democracy is most urgent. The fate of democracy here turns out to be linked to its fate there.
Putin understood this far better than we do, which explains his persistent efforts to exploit fractures in American society and continue institutional disintegration, as well as his use of Russian-backed corruption in Ukraine to corrupt American politics. The West’s long-standing underestimation of its intentions and stakes in Ukraine has shown a failure of understanding and a weakening of liberal values.
Now Putin, along with his patron and aide, Xi Jinping of China, has instilled in Americans and Europeans a truth we did not want to see: that our main interests are in defending these values. Being a realist in our age does not mean defining American interests so narrowly that Ukraine becomes disposable, but realizing that the world has broken up into democratic and autocratic spheres; and that this division shapes everything from supply chains and competition for resources to state corruption and the impact of technology on human minds and societies, and that autocrats have taken over and know it.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, following its previous efforts to stifle independence and democracy there, as well as in Georgia and Belarus, is the most dramatic, but far from the last point of conflict between the two spheres.
If this conflict is a new Cold War, autocracies are vigorously pursuing it, and democracies hate to accept that reality. Until the last few days, the West seemed reluctant to confront Putin in a way that would hurt him enough to make him regret his aggression. As Russian troops piled up on Ukraine’s borders, European leaders showed little enthusiasm for any sanctions against Russia that could cost their peoples a rise in commodity prices and financial disruption, and they themselves could lose the support of their peoples.
Britain did not want to expose Russian oligarchs who laundered their criminal wealth in its banks. Italy wanted to protect the value of its luxury goods, and Belgium wanted to protect its diamonds. Germany relied on its horrific history of war, pleading for peace that would keep gas and oil supplies uninterrupted.
Since last Thursday, Ukraine’s resistance to Russian invaders has shamed and inspired much of the world. Protests that were absent during the gathering of Russian troops in February are now filling the streets of cities from Sydney and Tokyo to Berlin and Bern, and even St. Petersburg and Minsk. Over the weekend, the EU imposed devastating banking sanctions on Russia. Most notably, Germany ended its decade-long non-intervention and announced that it would send military equipment to Ukraine.
Even the ever-neutral Sweden will send weapons to the Ukrainians. This sudden, vigorous unity of democracies shows the reserves of power that can be used against autocracies without waging any war.
While Joe Biden’s domestic political opponents are looking for any reason to criticize him, the president is tackling the crisis with skill and imagination. Unlike Afghanistan, Europe and NATO are of particular importance to him because of his many years of experience since the Cold War and its aftermath. For the first time in decades, an American president has shown that he and he alone can lead the free world, including by allowing Europeans to give their public voice to the policies that Americans have pursued.
Biden is right to rule out sending troops, especially after two decades of fruitless death and destruction, and some restraint lessons are worth learning, most notably in conflict with another nuclear power. But he must send a clear message to the Ukrainian people, who are fighting alone, that they can count on any other form of American support such as weapons, training, humanitarian aid, intelligence and sanctions to stifle the Russian economy and distract Russia’s elite. all countries and the benefits of the rich West.
Biden must tell his own people that he will have to make sacrifices and why they are worth making.
Putin can still win his bet because of the decline and indifference of the West. America is more isolated from Europe from the consequences that will come after Russia’s punishment, but nothing can protect us from ourselves. If this country fails to persevere and support Ukraine, the reasons for this will be the cynical opportunism of our political elites and the self-absorbed division of our people. Putin’s attack on Ukrainian democracy will test American democracy.
As I write this, Russian troops are attacking Kyiv and Kharkiv. Young Ukrainians, journalists, non-military students and colleagues of those Afghans who lost everything last summer in an attempt to flee Kabul are leaving their families and joining the Territorial Defense Force voluntarily to fight far superior the enemy.
Even if the Russians behead Zelensky’s government and replace it with a puppet regime, the war will last perhaps months, maybe years. Ukrainians are struggling with the ferocity of people who know exactly what they can lose. As they continue, we owe them every chance they will to survive and eventually succeed. They are fighting for us and on our behalf.
–
