‘Peace-keeping’ or ‘Invasion’
Terry H. Schwadron
Feb. 22, 2022
Whatever difficulties there have been in weighing the constant headlines of “ominous” threats of a Russian invasion of Ukraine went up in a moment yesterday when Russian Vladimir Putin just declared two breakaway parts of eastern Ukraine to be independent nations that want his troops to enter as peacekeepers.
It looks like the would-be legal excuse for the presence of Russian troops, an invasion by another name. Russia didn’t call it an “annexation,” as it did in 2014 in Crimea. Putin seemed to be daring all parties to just step away and let virtual takeover happen again.
Whatever its name, we can all recognize violation of international sovereignty when we see it. “Peacekeeping” by foreign troops results in deaths just as declared war does. U.S. Intelligence was saying Russia had lists of Ukrainians to arrest or kill.
No one has accused Putin of being blatant enough to yell “Invasion” at the top of his lungs.
Still, Joe Biden formally condemned the move and said America would impose its threatened sanctions narrowly on those doing business with those two separatist regions, many of whose residents are ethnically Russian, but stop short of bringing down Russia’s economic house in hopes of forestalling a wider attack on all of Ukraine. Some of the European allies wanted wider punishment to start even with this move, as armored columns of Russian troops were photographed moving into the two districts.
What is suddenly difficult to understand in the face of direct Russian orders to its military to move into two Ukrainian provinces is U.S. hesitance in some strange slim hope for a way to end these developments diplomatically. What exactly constitutes the reasons to punish Russian aggression is bound to cause as much argument about “appeasement” as it is about “over-hyped response.” The United Nations Security Council was called into immediate session.
Ukraine is not formally a member of NATO, nor due Western defense. And armed Russian-sympathetic separatists have been active for eight years in those two provinces.
Division in the U.S.
The perception of anything reflecting unanimity in American — and European — response seems more elusive than ever. We ought to be able to agree on seeing Putin as the aggressor party in this very messy and not altogether clear decision to use Ukraine to push bigger anti-Western goals in security and power.
But listening to the voices of Tucker Carlson on Fox and various Republican Senate candidates around the country, or even consistent anti-war voices from the owners of Ben & Jerry Ice Cream, there remains a concern about whether America ought to be caring about anything other than America.
We also might recognize that to this point — despite a huge number of hurdles — Biden has been effective in keeping the NATO and European Union alliance together to a remarkable degree. As CNN notes, Putin’s maneuverings have had the unintended effect of coalescing the West rather than dividing it.
Even within the Congress, which insists on an independent voice on expressing support for serious economic sanctions against any Russian tanks moving across borders, Biden seems to have bipartisan support for his approach, if not unanimity from both parties about just how and when stern punishment would be applied in coordination with European allies. Or even recognition that such coordination and agreed-upon actions will be required to make any sanctions work.
Indeed, the sole point of American agreement seems to be that no American troops will be committed to fighting Russian troops — a sentiment that Biden says he supports and is posting 8.500 U.S. troops elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Hell, we know many Americans can’t place Ukraine on a map.
Keeping Track
Once any sustained shooting starts, we will lose track of whatever good intentions or efforts on all sides. But right now, it does seem important to take account of the principles and strategic thoughts that are emerging as well as the specific disastrous effects that loom.
We’re emerging from four years of America First to a renewed interest in internationalism, for example. And yet, that change is anything but smooth.
Whatever action comes next, Biden has succeeded in efforts to rekindle European and Asian alliances that Donald Trump had seemingly sought to smash in the name of one-country nationalism. But, in turn, those alliances have not proved strong enough to bring Iran and North Korea back to negotiating tables over nuclear weapons development nor won unanimity in commitment to global efforts towards climate change.
Troublingly, we now see Russia and China moving closer to create the possibilities of worldwide conflicts with Western notions of safe and unchallenged predominance in economics, diplomacy or even military conflicts. And worse, the effects of a botched withdrawal in Afghanistan — no matter what coloration Team Biden (and Trump before him) manages to paper over a humanitarian and strategic set of poor decision-making has prompted Putin and other dynasts to see how far they can push America and its weakened allies.
Underlying the international tensions is domestic division on a scale and intensity that we had not recognized properly or resolved. The political divisions stoked by Trump in the name of “populism” that was much more about brewing anti-institutionalism and distrust, is sowing its rewards in increased international challenge.
The Divide
Republican Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and John Kennedy of Louisiana are mad because the sanctions have not been triggered already; Cruz blames a “feckless” Biden for having all but invited Putin’s aggressiveness by the Afghan withdrawal. Tucker Carlson sees no point in defending the Ukraine. Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance in Ohio is among those preaching that Biden ought to be paying attention to our own borders, and oddly, Christian evangelical pastor Franklin Graham, an influential Trump supporter, tweeted that followers should “pray for Putin” rather than people of Ukraine about to be invaded and killed.
Less volatile Republicans, like Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) reiterated that Biden must show only strength to Putin — a message that went missing whenever Trump met with Putin.
Short of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s statements that both parties will have Biden’s back if the invasion arrives, various Republican politicians are going out of their way to find fault with Biden in this international crisis. Either Biden is too weak, or too caring about a faraway border or somehow just too old, too traditional or too febrile.
Team Biden has been surprising his own security team and the public by sharing photographic evidence and intelligence about Russian positioning and plans in what nearly amounts to near real time. Presuming it is true, certainly, it is a kind of information-sharing that Biden has promised in other areas without having delivered it as clearly in other areas, including immigration and Covid.
Biden has patiently explained that far more than the Ukraine itself is at risk, and a wide swath of talking heads, foreign policy and military experts seem to agree that this particular conflict has much wider dimensions. While likely part of Putin’s long-term desires to reconstitute the parts and pieces of the former Soviet Union, it seems a strategic goal to push back against Europe and the U.S., weaken NATO and set up for future aggressiveness, and forestall homes for democracy on his borders. With a China alliance in hand, the same could happen in Taiwan, or in the Middle East by a re-emboldened Iran and terror groups cosseted in corners of every continent.
The weird part is that in the U.S., we hear talk everywhere in the political world about strength and leadership, and then divide when it comes time to show that strong hand.
##