Our Objectives with Russia

Punishment feels good - but a lasting peace is better

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is, at a very basic level, a war crime. It is illegal under the UN Charter to attack another country unless the attacker has authorization from the UN Security Council or is under imminent danger - neither of which are applicable here.

As was oft-cited by Chomskyites like myself during the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Nuremberg trials that followed the Second World War found “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole,” (emphasis mine.) As such, the war crimes that Russia commits along the way are part of the accumulated evil of the whole stemming from the invasion itself - at least as far as the post-war foundation of international law is concerned.

But we are where we are now. Russia has invaded Ukraine and much of the world have condemned these actions. The U.S. and the U.S. media have some gross hypocrisy in condemning these actions (Iraq being the most obvious but far from single example) nevertheless, Russia’s actions are unequivocally wrong.

The current circumstances beg two major questions: (1) How should the United States and its allies (“the West”) respond? and (2) What are we trying to achieve?

The first question is somewhat moot at this point - one can debate at how the West should respond but it is more useful to examine how the West is responding. It began with targeted sanctions against the Russian economy, though excluding Russian oil exports. This was quickly followed with stringent sanctions against the Russian financial sector and disconnecting specific Russian banks from the international financial system. There are some targeted sanctions against Russian billionaires and varied reports about European nations seizing their yachts. The blood thirst for sanctions has spilled over into cultural blacklists for Russian musical artists, sports figures and children’s hockey.

But the response has also been for the West to send large quantities of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine in order to help them fight Russian aggression. It undoubtedly includes sharing of Western intelligence against Russian military capabilities and maneuvers. Increasingly, the idea is being raised by U.S. Congress members (and the jingoistic media) that NATO should declare a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine. This makes the person calling for such action look tough and valiantly argues that Russia shouldn’t use Ukrainian airspace to massacre Ukrainian people. But it also, obviously, follows that this calls for NATO to shoot down Russian planes and thus instigate a thermonuclear war which would probably wipe Europe off the map, destroying many American and Russian cities along the way.

Let us hope it does not come to that - but avoiding such an outcome necesscitates the second major question that should be examined. What are we (the West) trying to achieve?

It bears worth repeating, in the context of all U.S. and Western actions. What are we trying to achieve?

Every action proposed action should use this lens. What is happening in Ukraine is not just a Russian invasion, but an international crisis between global powers who hold most of the world’s nuclear weapons and with it the capability to literally much of the world’s population. That is not hyperbole, but a scenario that has rightly haunted U.S. policy elites for most of the post-war period. This should be something considered by the U.S. media, the pundits who blanket its airwaves, members of Congress and the current administration. What are we trying to achieve?

It seems to me there are three clear objectives that can answer this question:

1. End the war as soon as possible. Russia is literally killing Ukrainian people - military and civilians alike - neither of which deserve such an outcome and both of which are criminal activities. This point I would expect everyone to agree upon.

2. Avoid war between Russia and NATO. This is less appreciated by the media and pundits but certain facts are clear. (A) Russia has more nuclear weapons than any country on the planet. (B) Most of those weapons are aimed at Western Europe and the United States. (C) A war between Russia and the West/the U.S. would likely devolve into a thermonuclear conflict that could kill billions of people.

3. Create a more lasting security protocol in Europe. Perhaps the hardest point for many in the West to acknowledge, but Russia has legitimate security concerns (and acknowledging such does not justify the invasion.) The end of the Cold War, the dissolving of the Warsaw Pact and the subsequent expansion of NATO Russian’s borders - a move that was met with opposition ranging from figures such as George Kennan, an architect of post-war Soviet policy, to William Burns, the current head of the CIA - has left a security vacuum that must be addressed if further conflict is to be avoided. Russia should feel safe, Russia does not feel safe (this does not justify invasion!), but a safe-feeling Russia would help avoid more war. So we should aim for that.

Unfortunately, much of the current discussion around the war is focused on how to “punish” Russia. This, as noted, has quickly expanded into how to punish Putin, as well as the wealthy elite who support him and every cultural and sports figure who comes from Russia. The ostensible idea is that strict sanctions might cause such pain to Putin, his supporters and the Russian people, that they will be forced to throw up their hands and exit the conflict.

But do we expect this to happen? That Russia will “feel” the the pain and abruptly decide to withdraw from Ukraine, foreswearing future aggression in exchange for relief from sanctions? If Russia feels the squeeze, it is more likely they will accelerate their aggression against Ukraine and take the gloves off as it relates to avoiding civilian casualties. If the Russian people feel their entire culture and standing in the world is being attacked, they are likely to become more isolated and dependent on their autocratic leader - a scenario that has played out with other countries under strident U.S. sanctions, such as Iraq and Cuba.

This is all fine if the overriding objective is just to make the entirety of Russia feel pain and humiliation as a punishment for invasion. In this case we should proceed as planned.

But if the objective is to stop the war and the suffering of the Ukrainian people, I don’t think this will be effective. It may actually exacerbate their suffering. If the objective is to avoid war between Russia and NATO or create a lasting security protocol in eastern Europe, this fails miserably. It is important that Putin should face repercussions for his actions - but the West should seek to achieve the three proposed objectives in order to achieve the ultimate, implicit goal of lasting peace in global affairs. The absence of which is death and high-level risk of nuclear war.

In times of conflict, there are a lot of feel good but destructive actions encouraged by the media and policy elites whose rallying cries and flag waving can’t help but invite comparisons to a drunken fan base for the local sports team. War is often intoxicating for those who sit on the sidelines but carries unimaginable suffering for those on the ground.

It is encouraging that many people around the world are motivated by the horror being inflicted upon the Ukrainian people - but it behooves us all to question how we should justly respond. In the final analysis, it should be to end this war and avoid expanded or future conflicts. The knee-jerk reaction to simply punish and ostracize Russia, as if the global community were a high school cliche, might feel good. But it does not accomplish the ultimate aims of a lasting peace. Examining how we achieve such a lasting objective should be the overriding impetus of all parties involved.