There is reason to lament the Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially the hundreds of civilians killed, innocent victims of an inexcusable war. While I am among the critics of the United States who saw NATO expansion as a dangerous provocation against Vladimir Putin, I am flabbergasted by his savagery, all the more at the thought of an escalation that could lead to further countries and cause many more deaths. No one knows where a conflict may spread… “then the dogs of war will be loosed”, as Shakespeare wrote. For the moment, there are no official American soldiers on the battlefield; he might have it under cover, side by side with the British military advisers who are supposed to have left Ukraine. A single Anglo-American death could trigger serious and unexpected events.
Now I share the sentiment of French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who says he is “less than others” surprised by the invasion: “Because I always knew that the Russians would never accept what they considered encirclement by NATO. But, well… As soon as they decided to enter Ukraine militarily, it’s over. Whatever their reasons for doing so, we cannot accept it. Like many people “unaligned” between America and Russia, Mélenchon was wrong – two weeks ago he did not believe in an invasion scenario. Is it worse than Emmanuel Macron, who, after the February 7 summit meeting in Moscow, declared that “there is no security for Europeans if there is no security for Russia”? Putin the paranoid had told him—from one end of the long table where the men were seated at a great distance—that he had to “find compromises”. Let’s admit that Macron, too, was mystified by the shenanigans of an unpredictable politician.
Of course everyone wants a ceasefire, a withdrawal of the Russians and, as Mélenchon observed, “the opening of a discussion on global security”, including the possible neutrality of Ukraine and Russian medium-range missiles targeting Europe. But how to achieve it? Is the invasion of Ukraine a reincarnation of the Cold War between America and the former Soviet Union; is it a struggle between “civilized and democratic” Europe and the “oligarchic” East; is it a mere seizure of territory by a rogue dictator spurred on by dreams of empire that date back to Peter the Great in the 1800sand century? One thing is certain: Putin considers himself insulted by Washington, which he perceives as disrespectful to Moscow. That said, Washington has made it clear that Ukraine is not worth a war or partial military intervention. Despite his rhetoric in defense of freedom, President Biden refuses to even seriously impede Russian energy exports, the only sanction that would really hurt Putin. He also did not offer political refugee status to Ukrainians expelled from their countries, now estimated at more than 1.5 million. Biden may be disrespectful to Russia, but his government’s indifference to the plight of Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis is sickening.
Sorry to be skeptical, but rather than praising the leader of the “free world”, we should discuss the benefits of the crisis for American corporations profiting from the Russian invasion. We need only note the increases in the stock market ratings of Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. At the same time, NATO and its vast bureaucracy, attacked by Trump on the right and from the left by the anti-military, are “saved”. I still don’t understand what NATO was used for since the fall of the Soviet Union. Until 1991, it defended Europe very concretely against an invasion of Soviet tanks at the Fulda Gap in West Germany, with a huge concentration of troops against a massive grouping of Warsaw Pact troops from the across the border with East Germany. The two opposing forces were supported by medium-range nuclear missiles. Since the collapse of the Soviet empire, it all seemed like a terrible waste of money. Not quite — the arms industry revenues that fuel NATO also boost politicians’ campaign funds. From now on, we will be subjected to feverish pro-NATO and anti-Russian rhetoric such as we have not heard since the Reagan-Andropov era. And we will witness even more pharaonic military budgets.
How to get out? Mélenchon advocates talks and pressure under the aegis of the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Good luck ! America never misses an opportunity to weaken the UN — Washington’s tradition of disregard for the sovereignty of nations (Iran 1953; Cuba 1961; Panama 1989; Yugoslavia 1999; Iraq 2003) fuels Putin’s rhetoric, which returns the Americans to their hypocrisy. Too bad for honestly terrified Ukrainians.
John R. MacArthur is editor of Harper’s Magazine. His column returns at the beginning of each month.