What we all knew was coming, what was developing before our very eyes, has come. Russia has invaded Ukraine and appears to be making its way methodically toward whatever objective it wishes. There are reports of gallant resistance, at least one of which turns out to be true, although I pretty much restrict my information on this war to well-established media organizations in order to sift out some of the disinformation. But if this is report is true, it strikes me as pretty much the way I’d like to go down if presented with such an option (note: YouTube has made this page restricted so you’ll have to click through to get to it. There is a BAD WORD).
And no, I don’t necessarily regard The Guardian as a well-established media organization, which is why I linked to the WaPost above.
Plucky resistance does not translate into victory or even actual resistance, but I remain hopeful that the Ukrainian people are able to slow the monster down. Of note, there have been demonstrations in Russia against the war, which given Western government aversion to direct confrontation with the Russians, is probably the only way this thing ends badly for the Russians (from within). Sanctions designed to hurt Russian elites and the Russian economy tend to have downward effects on European economies, and so we’ve seen some faintheartedness from select European governments to put the hammer down.
News is that the Biden Administration is sending more troops to neighboring countries, a move I applaud, although it is several months late. The thought process behind the movements—to beef up deterrence in NATO countries like Poland and the Baltic Sates—is sound, so sound that NOT having packed these countries with American and other NATO troops several months ago seems regrettable.
After four days or so, it looks like the Russians are encountering stiffer resistance than they planned for, and to its credit, Europe seems to be FINALLY realizing that it needs to so something, together, to get in the way of all this.
I catch a lot of grief around my house when something goes wrong and I say “yes but we talked about how X would lead to Y, and you told me X was unimportant, so now we’re dealing with Y” and how UNHELPFUL that is now that we’re in a crisis. My pointing these things out is in service to the concept that maybe we should be more wise about how things connect, and I saw a Tweet this week that reinforces this notion for me:
Yep. Decadent illusion, aye. I wrote about this myself nine years ago in a piece on the decline (obvious, chosen, unwise) of NATO navies (apologies in advance to my friend Commander Salamander for incorrectly referring to a NATO Eastern “flank”. It is a front).
But as Aragorn said to Gandalf, there is ALWAYS hope:
Double click above to watch on YouTube.
For a little inspiration:
In Praise of Primacy
I have great respect for my readers, and I target this Substack at a discerning and informed audience. Now and again I may wade out into more esoteric subjects, and this could be one of them. I rely upon you, your industry, and your obvious connectedness to shore up whatever knowledge gaps you may have in order to consume this post, because I honestly don’t have the time or energy to ‘splain everything here on a free website.
In the world of international relations (IR) grand strategy theory, I am a primacist. This little ditty on Wikipedia is a quick primer on grand strategy theory, and I urge you to have a look before continuing on if this isn’t something you’re well versed in. Its treatment of primacy is to my mind, pretty solid, and it definitely comports with how I believe the U.S. ought to conduct itself on the world scene. I came across this short definition of primacy as I was writing this piece, and it certainly does the trick for me.
A relationship between a country and an international system in which that country has a qualitatively different and greater role than any other country in the system in setting norms of behavior, determining when those norms have been breached, and taking action to enforce them.
Yes. That’s about it. That’s where we OUGHT to be, where the world NEEDS us to be, and where we WERE for a good part of the fifty years following World War II. But primacy has not been our grand strategic approach for a long time. Oddly enough, the demise of the Soviet Union removed the impetus for American primacy, the high water mark of which occurred in a tent in southern Iraq 31 years ago this week.
A year and a half later, with the Soviet Union dispatched and American military might ascendant, the U.S. voters tossed out a President whose life was forged in that era of primacy for one who promised a new approach, where we would lead by consensus if we lead at all, where international organizations and relationships would take up some of the load that the United States had carried through the Cold War, and a new world order would emerge.
We—and Europe—harvested a “peace dividend”, some of which (here) was returned to voters in tax cuts, and some of which was devoted to government programs of varying desirability. Europe, who had benefited from American military spending for decades, cut their own defense budgets gleefully while increasing their own already generous welfare states.
George Bush (the younger) wanted not to be a primacist. He came to office talking about nation building at home and wanting to retreat a bit from world responsibilities. Never forget, it was HIS Secretary of Defense (Don Rumsfeld) who got into hot water for criticizing lackluster European defense spending at a time when the U.S. was very much in favor of shedding some of the load. Nineteen airline hijackers changed things somewhat on 9-11, and the U.S. once again rose to fill responsibilities of world leadership. albeit in a manner that ignored traditional geo-strategy in order to concentrate on a “war on terror”. Not being able to walk and chew gum was made obvious at the end of the Bush Administration, when a crippling financial crisis offered Vladimir Putin the opportunity for mischief in Georgia, mischief that we and our NATO allies were powerless to stop. Oh, and the Navy declined in size by nearly 20% through the eight years of the Bush Presidency.
The Obama years were a disaster for American primacy, in which me made no real pretense at leading the world and “setting norms” of behavior, choosing instead to “lead from behind”. A friend of mine told me earlier today that there is an eight year old somewhere in America today who will someday write the definitive history of how badly Obama cut our standing in the world. I hope I’m alive to read that book.
Speaking of disasters, there was Trump. Far too many confused his bluster with leadership, and I imagine there are plenty who think he was a primacist. He wasn’t. To the extent that he was anything, he bounded between realism and neo-isolationism, wanting to spend a bajillion dollars on a military that he didn’t think should be used anywhere, complaining about endless wars like a vaping Gen-Z’er, and lashing out at friends and allies for their insufficient financing of their own security needs. Make no mistake—he was right about free-riders, but he wasn’t the first to call them out, only the worst. A friend recently suggested that he did so only to get the Euros to stand up to their NATO commitments. I beg to differ. He did so to publicly embarrass them, and to undercut confidence in an alliance that he wanted no part of. Alliances sign you up for responsibilities. They are like contracts. You all remember Donald’s record of upholding contracts, right?
And now we have the Biden Administration, loaded with Obama re-treads who went into the wilderness in the Trump years and realized that they were wrong about China, and that it was a threat. Russia not so much, unless you were talking about our election system. No, they sorta saw/see China as a threat, but their inability to grasp the value and effectiveness in primacy as an approach to great power competition is telling. To them, it is not time to build up American military power. It is not time to quietly but directly “influence” our friends and allies to do things they don’t want to do. It is not the time to set norms and enforce them; rather it is time to conform to norms increasingly set by others.
In Europe, what is going on in Ukraine right now is not Biden’s fault. Don’t get me wrong, I think he was really, really wrong in not moving a ton of troops to Europe a few months ago (a position for which I was savaged on Twitter) and for submitting a disgusting military budget in FY 22, but where we are today is the result of a man in charge in Russia who believes that now is the time to act on his long-held impulses. Biden certainly hasn’t done much to dissuade him, but the march of time since that day in the desert in 1991 is what presented the man (Putin) with the moment (American decline and reticence).
It is time for the United States to remember what Free-World leadership looks like, and start to be that again. International organizations are critical. Alliances are irreplaceable. But it all starts with a United States that steps up to its indispensable role and stops acting like just another power.
Two tweets recently gave me hope. One NATO, and one from Capitol Hill. Rough men with guns are needed now, and we need to begin to show that we are willing to use them. Go back and listen to Putin’s war speech the other night. This is not about NATO expansion. This is about the Russian empire, and it will not end with Ukraine. The free world needs leadership, and that will only come from a country who is a peace with itself and its special role in the world.
We need to stand up to those responsibilities if we are going to live in a prosperous and secure world. Without us, there is only chaos.
My Best Tweet Ever?
I’ve been generally good with the digital minimalism, a handful of tweets in the past week, dark after 6pm and pretty good about the “does the world really need to see this?” standard. But this one (daytime, not during the eShabbat) made the cut:
Yes, I know, I supported Marco Rubio for President in 2016 and raised over $25K for him. But like many who used to be alongside me in GOP trenches, Marco turned in whatever principles he had and embraced the suck of Trumpism. For that, he is forever unfit.
Outstanding. Now, how do we get out of this mess? How far is Europe going to be willing to go, even with solid and unyielding backup from the US?
This might be the best essay of yours that I’ve read yet. Although, I confess you made me feel less hopeful about Ukraine than I did before reading it. As a complete novice to the world of IR, my natural inclination is towards primacy. I think you hit the nail on the head with the failures of each successive administration. As this crisis unfolds, I’d be interested in your thoughts on how it might affect American attitudes towards hegemony and how that might affect the goal of expanding our Navy to the size it actually needs to be (500 ships or 450 or 355).