By Charles C. W. Cooke
Tuesday, March 01, 2022
Here is what I would like to happen
in Ukraine:
Outraged by Russia’s aggression, armed Ukrainians in both
the country’s military and its spontaneously formed civilian militias are able
to fight hard enough in all regions that the demoralized and confused Russian
army retreats with its tail between its legs. Appalled by the spectacle, and
vowing “never again,” the international community comes together to turn Russia
into a pariah state — limiting its access to international institutions,
weakening its economy, draining the country of talent, and making Vladimir
Putin’s position untenable even within his own circle. Alarmed by their
vulnerability, previously unreliable nations such as Germany commit to
increasing defense spending and to taking NATO more seriously. In the West, the
tales of Ukrainian bravery become the stuff of legend, and in Ukraine,
President Zelensky cruises to reelection as the new symbol of national resolve.
In casual conversation, “Zelensky” and “Putin” become avatars of Good and Evil,
while “invading Ukraine” becomes colloquial shorthand for “doing something
stupid.” Putin is forced out of office, and Russia reforms itself. The
experiment is universally deemed to have been a failure, and we learn that,
despite all odds, the world has changed substantially since the mid 20th
century.
That’s what I’d like to happen. It’s
also what I’m being led to believe, by social media and the hive that sustains
it, is happening. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that anything
ever turns out that neatly, and I’m not sure that the crisis in Ukraine will,
either. As a country, we would do well to remember that, and so to ask some
meaningful follow-up questions beyond “Which team do we like?”
The sad truth is that — myself included, of course —
we really do not know as much about what is happening in Ukraine as we’d like
to. Some of the things we thought we knew — that 13 soldiers were killed heroically on Snake Island; that a mysterious flying ace was downing Russian planes;
that random women are carrying rifles on public transport — turned out
not to be true. Some of the things we have simply assumed — that because
Russia’s invasion seems to have made slower progress than the Kremlin
anticipated, the Russian military is on the verge of giving up rather than of
changing tactics — are as much wishful thinking as they are analysis. And some
of the things that we seem to have forgotten — that the world is full of
extremely complex systems that usually cannot be altered overnight — will soon
become as apparent as ever. If Russia loses this war, Noah Rothman notes over at Commentary, many of the
results will be “of material benefit to the West” — but also “extremely
dangerous.” As the ultimate stewards of our government, we would profit from
ensuring that our national conversation covers these specifics as much as it is
covering the generalities.
War is a terrible thing, and it seems likely that it is
about to get far more horrible still. Unless the Russians contrive a clever
reason to desist, the next stage will likely involve the broad deployment of
heavy artillery and the beginning of missile strikes on Ukrainian cities. There
will be fighting in and around major population centers. Volunteers will be
wiped out. Children will be maimed. War crimes will be committed. The result of
this — even if the ploy ultimately fails — will probably not be the good guys
rushing in to save the day, but thousands upon thousands of painful deaths. And
then what? It seems clear that there remains enough fighting spirit within the
broader Ukrainian population to make a permanent Russian occupation impossible.
But Russia, too, can play games with its enemies’ resolve. It’s easy to tweet
platitudes and change your Facebook avatar to a yellow and blue flag. But are
we going to risk a nuclear war over Kyiv or Kharkiv?
All of this is a long way of saying that Americans should
be careful not to get carried away, or to become so obsessed with hating the
bad guys and loving the good guys that they become unaware of the details on
the ground. Despite what the media would like to be true, Americans do not
actually need to be fed infantile or cynical analogies in order to discern that Russia is
the bad actor here: As of yesterday, just 2 percent of Republicans
and Democrats thought that the United States had been “too tough” in response
to Putin’s aggression, while 80 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of
Democrats believed that it had not been “tough enough.” What we need is to be
leveled with — about the real state of the war, about the most likely set of
outcomes, and about the broader knock-on effects that might result. We need to
grasp the potential consequences of escalation, and the potential consequences
of inaction. We need to ask ourselves tough questions such as “If Russia were
to invade Poland, should American soldiers be deployed?” and “At what point are
we willing to fight?” We need to distinguish between war propaganda — which has
a real value to those fighting — and the truth. And, perhaps most important of
all, we need to evaluate our non-violent responses on their long-term merits,
as well as within the existing good guy–bad guy dichotomy.
There is a season for cheerleading, but cheerleading
alone will not suffice. Après cela, le déluge.
No comments:
Post a Comment