The Europeans have been jolted awake from their deep Pax Americana slumber, when the continent was largely content to eat the spoils of economic prosperity and allow the United States to do the heavy lifting on all things security. And we have Vladimir Putin to thank for it. Russia’s nearly week-long invasion of Ukraine has shocked the conscience of many who believed Europe would never return to the dark days of large-scale land warfare.
No one should think that Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine means that Xi Jinping will decide to use force against Taiwan anytime soon, if ever. China is not Russia, nor Taiwan Ukraine. Yet neither should policymakers presume that Beijing will not be influenced by what happens on the other end of Eurasia. Washington must consider whether and how Putin’s aggression has raised the stakes in defending Taiwan from the People’s Republic of China. At the least, US strategists will seriously have to assess whether a global environment in which norms of international behavior are regressing may serve to spur Beijing to military action that once seemed unlikely.
Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine does not appear to be going well, and the Russian economy is about to experience the full force of Western sanctions. American social media is already in a celebratory mood. But caution is in order — it’s never smart to underestimate your opponent. Putin was expecting sanctions, and he and his war planners could not have discounted Ukrainian resistance, even if they underestimated its intensity. Maybe they did expect the invasion to be a cakewalk and are taken aback by how difficult it’s proved to be in just these first few days. But as of now the invasion still seems to be on its timetable, and its military objectives are achievable. Russians are surrounding Kyiv.
If hot takes brought peace, mankind would never know war again. At least, that’s the impression one is left with after spending time on Twitter during Russia’s horrific invasion of Ukraine. Some social media users seem to operate under the understanding that they are legally required to put their first — and often worst — opinions immediately onto the internet for all to see. Many of these tweets reflect the understandable human tendency to grasp at an explanation for terrible events. Laurie Garrett, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer who is considered an oracle of sorts on the coronavirus pandemic, put forth an interesting theory. “It’s been suggested that #Putin isn’t thinking properly, perhaps due to long #COVID19,” she wrote.
“Nuclear war is part of our strategic culture. Yes, we would start one if our homeland, our way of life, was threatened, absolutely. Why wouldn't we?” That’s what a retired Russian diplomat told me on the sidelines of a track-two dialogue between US, Russian and Chinese experts back in 2012. And to be honest, for several years, I didn’t believe him. I took his comments as bragging, atomic machismo, if you will. The context of the conversation was a response to a question to my Russian colleague on the subject of Moscow’s nuclear weapons doctrine and thinking. Russia for several years has believed in the concept of escalating nuclear tensions to deescalate tensions, or what defense scholars call “escalate to deescalate.
Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine requires a swift and effective Western response. But according to neoconservative and liberal internationalist pundits like columnist Walter Russell Mead, the invasion marks nothing less than an assault on the “world order” akin to Nazi aggression at the opening of World War II. “Not since Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 has a European leader committed an act of aggression as brutal or as nakedly cynical as Mr. Putin’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine,” Mead writes in the Wall Street Journal.
I have a medal for winning the Cold War. And I'm not alone — they were awarded to all members of the military and federal civilian employees who served during the Cold War. That included me, at the tail end, with the State Department. Ironically, my so-called Cold War service was in Taiwan. I probably should return the thing; the Cold War is far from over. Part of the Cold War's real conclusion is playing out in Ukraine in real time. Is Taiwan, another hanging chad from that era, next? Is President Xi watching a weakened America giving in to the Russians and seeing his chance to seize Taiwan? Nope. Taiwan is not Ukraine is not Taiwan. The two places only exist next to each other in articles like this one because both are the results of American policy.
Germany’s “halt” on the certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline on Tuesday is a classic case of too little, too late — a fact made all the more painfully clear in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Oil and gas still flow through Nord Stream 1 and many other Russian pipelines to Europe, and the continent has no choice but to keep importing the fossil fuels that finance Vladimir Putin’s offensive. We all saw this coming. Europe’s supposed “green” energy transition disregarded energy security and common sense, and Ukraine is now paying the price. The world will never tackle climate change if it's in a constant state of geopolitical energy insecurity, relying on authoritarian regimes like Russia and China to meet its basic needs.
If you watched President Joe Biden’s press conference on Thursday afternoon, you wouldn’t know you were looking at the same man who allegedly looked Vladimir Putin in the eyes and told him he had no soul. Hell, based on Biden’s weak performance you might start to question whether or not he actually confronted and defeated a straight-razor-carrying bad dude named Corn Pop outside of a Delaware swimming pool in 1962. The president seemed to want to follow the theme of his last press conference: “Saying the Quiet Part Loud.” Who can forget the recent two-hour presser in which Biden essentially green-lit a “minor incursion” by Russia into Ukraine.
Any analysis of the Ukraine situation risks lagging behind the news. As of the time this article was published, Russia had conquered the former Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Its forces are only about sixty miles away from Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, which has already experienced shelling. Russians have also attempted to capture Antonov International Airport, just fifteen minutes away from the capital’s ring road. Meanwhile, European leaders are resorting to the usual responses: “concerned,” “strongly condemning." There is even a Twitter account mocking the EU’s approach to all major crises, called “Is EU Concerned?” The response to the invasion of Ukraine is not spared from similar mockery. Here in Europe, it feels like 1938 all over again.
Tarnowskie Góry, Poland There was something faintly obscene about lining up outside the bakery to celebrate Fat Thursday. Granted, it made no difference to Ukrainians whether I ate donuts or scrambled eggs for breakfast. But I had a brief sense of how fortunate it is to live in a peaceful society. Ukraine is not so lucky. Missiles have been falling throughout the night and day, and Russian soldiers have occupied key positions, right up to the outskirts of Kyiv. Some of us expected Putin to occupy Donbas and leave Western Ukraine alone. That has been proved entirely, tragically mistaken. After such a long, mysterious military build-up, the speed and scale of the Russian offensive has been stunning.
At least for the moment, it looks like Russian president Vladimir Putin is intent on conquering Ukraine, a nation he's never believed has the right to exist. While the fog of war always limits accurate real-time military analysis, it seems for now that Russia has committed to annexing at least large sections of Ukraine and is winning the day militarily with ease. Of course, the media has predictably gone into overdrive, warning of World War Three, gas prices that will stay high for years and perhaps even Putin attacking NATO and nuclear war. But let’s put away the hysterics for a moment and think about the here and now. Russia’s goal in Ukraine has always been clear and does not involve war on NATO or even conquering Ukraine in its entirety.
Vladimir Putin has invaded Ukraine, a chilling moment that cries out for a tough response. Thankfully, the president of the United States has deployed his usual silver tongue. "The world will hold Russia accountable," Joe Biden said last night. "I will be monitoring the situation from the White House this evening and will continue to get regular updates from my national security team." Cue Cockburn nearly collapsing from the sheer rhetorical power of that statement. It's a wonder the Russian tanks didn't screech into reverse and roll back over the border. Cockburn understands this is a dangerous situation that calls for delicacy and forethought. But were such bland bromides really the best the leader of the free world could do?
In a press conference earlier this month, Vladimir Putin noted that the Ukrainian government does not like the Minsk agreement and then added: "Like it or not, it's your duty, my beauty." The saying has well-known sexual connotations: Putin appeared to be quoting from “Sleeping Beauty in a Coffin” by the Soviet-era punk rock group Red Mold: “Sleeping beauty in a coffin, I crept up and fucked her. Like it, or dislike it, sleep my beauty.” Although the Kremlin press representative claimed that Putin referred to an old folkloric expression, reference to Ukraine as an object of necrophilia and rape is clear.
As the Ukraine situation heats up, you can already picture the insider account Vice President Kamala Harris will publish one day in her 2025 bestseller Thirty-One Days in February. But then, as any survivor of the Cuban Missile Crisis is bound to tell President Joe Biden, “I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, and you, Joe Biden, are no Jack Kennedy.” One of the clichés if not the myths about the Cuban Missile Crisis was that President Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev were playing chicken and Khrushchev “blinked." Under threat of potential nuclear war, he then decided to withdraw the Soviet nuclear missiles from Cuba. We now know that what really happened was more complicated than the initial reports made it appear.
Snap quiz: who was president when Vladimir Putin gobbled up Crimea? If you said Barack Obama, go to the head of the class. What countries did Putin invade while Donald Trump was president? If you said “None,” you get to stay at the head of the class. This is a harder one: who was president when Putin once again violated Ukraine’s borders, sending in Russian troops to two breakaway regions in Eastern Ukraine? I say that this is harder because the obvious answer — “Joe Biden” — is not really, or not wholly, correct. Joe Biden is an empty shell. On good days, he looks like a mannequin. Really, though, he is a puppet, a creature controlled by others. I have called those others “The Committee.
President Joe Biden is preparing to buck responsibility no matter the outcome of the brewing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Biden's statements about Russia have been anything but cohesive. One day he is giving up the game by stating publicly that he has no appetite for war and would allow a "minor incursion"; the next he's focusing exclusively on diplomatic channels; the next he's warning of force if Putin makes another move. All the while, White House officials have planted news stories and touted vague "intelligence" warning of an imminent Russian invasion. The message is this: war with Russia is inevitable, unless it isn't, in which case Biden gets all the credit. So who gets the blame if Putin does invade Ukraine and the US responds with military force?
Amid a pile of Russian disinformation, a mass evacuation of civilians from the self-proclaimed separatist republic and reports that Russian commanders are preparing to execute an invasion order, diplomacy (or at least the hope of it) reared its beautiful head late Sunday night. After a frantic series of calls orchestrated by French president Emmanuel Macron, the White House released a statement confirming President Biden’s openness to a direct meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Whether or not the leader-to-leader discussions happen, however, won’t be fully up to Biden or Macron. It takes two to tango, as the hackneyed phrase goes. And right now, Moscow has been habitually cryptic about its intentions.
The Ukraine crisis signaled to Western officials and pundits to once again begin recycling the historical analogy of the 1938 Munich Agreement, which handed Nazi Germany parts of Czechoslovakia in a failed bid to head off major conflict in Europe. This was expected. Such comparisons are usually followed by the predictable warnings about the danger of Western “appeasement.” Hence British defense secretary Ben Wallace has recently compared Western diplomatic efforts to head off a Russian invasion of Ukraine to the appeasement of Nazi Germany ahead of World War Two, suggesting that unnamed Western countries were not being tough enough with Moscow.
Few things are sure in life: death, taxes and Glenn Greenwald advocating whatever position happens to be in the interests of Vladimir Putin. The self-styled civil libertarian rose to prominence during the George W. Bush administration for his withering attacks on American counterterrorism policies. Later, he won a Pulitzer Prize for his role in facilitating Edward Snowden’s leak of government documents. Always a rancorous figure who bristled at attempts to place him in a partisan box, Greenwald started to upset his confederates on the left and develop a fan base on the right during the Trump years. Greenwald was one of the most vocal critics of the narrative positing that the new American president was a pawn of the Russian one.
