One of the more maddening things about the current situation is the continued willingness of many "realists" to act as apologists for Putin's Russia, implying that somehow the U.S. and NATO are at fault for goading the Kremlin into attacking Ukraine.
Apropos of this subject, I wrote a letter recently to the Foreign Service Journal that takes such apologists to task. Here is the text:
I want to thank FSJ for bringing to readers’ attention the advertisement placed in the New York Times on May 16 by the Eisenhower Media Network and signed by several retired diplomats, including Ambassador (ret.) Jack Matlock, Matthew Hoh, Larry Wilkerson, and Ann Wright. The gist of their open letter was that the U.S. should start negotiating with Russia now to bring peace to Ukraine because, after all, we are at fault for provoking Russia by expanding NATO to its borders. (FSJ July-August 2023, p.17: “Former Diplomats Sign NYT Ad”) afsa.org/sites/default/files/fsj-2023-07-08-july-august.pdf).
I can see why the open letter was placed as an advertisement. It is so flawed intellectually, and so slavishly copies Russian disinformation arguments on the Ukraine war, that it would never have been printed as an editorial in any respectable newspaper.
The central argument is wrong on the facts, as many of the principals, including President Gorbachev, Secretary Baker, and others have pointed out. There was never any commitment not to expand NATO to the East, and such expansion came about because Central and Eastern European countries were clamoring to join, in the expectation that Russia might one day turn revanchist, which under Putin, it did.
Beyond this, however, and perhaps most embarrassingly for the Eisenhower Media Network and its supporters, the arguments in favor of accepting Kremlin propaganda explanations for why Russia was forced to attack Ukraine have been blasted apart by one-time Putin confidant and Kremlin insider Yevgeniy Prigozhin.
As Prigozhin noted in a lengthy video on Telegram on June 23 (https://t.me/concordgroup_official/1279): “The Armed Forces of Ukraine were not going to attack Russia with the NATO bloc…” In other words, NATO expansion was just a propaganda excuse to invade. Prigozhin said that the real reason for the invasion was that Kremlin insiders wished to promote their political prospects (decency forbids me from repeating his exact words), and Kremlin-linked oligarchs wanted to plunder Ukraine’s resources after its military capture and the appointment of a puppet regime in Kyiv. Naturally, Prigozhin studiously avoided the obvious point that Putin simply wanted to erase Ukraine from existence, as he has implied repeatedly in his own speeches.
The signatories of the Eisenhower Media Network open letter have a lot of explaining to do. And they need to apologize to the millions of Ukrainians who have lost family members or been uprooted by Putin’s needless war of aggression
In the Eisenhower Media Network post, this line jumped out at me: "2004 – Seven more Eastern European nations join NATO." Don't those countries have names, like Estonia, Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland? Doesn't each country have a long and tragic history fighting off Russian invasions? Why do they ignore the fact that NATO didn't pressure these countries to join; instead they welcomed them, and that was because each of those nations wanted desperately to be part of the alliance. The argument that the West ignored Russian concerns actually hides the legitimate fears, based on past experiences, that those nations have regarding Russia's routine re-expansion of the old Empire. This isn't realism, it's head it the sand.
Perhaps it would be helpful in all such discussions to make the distinction between Russia and Putin.
Putin is not defending Russia, he is defending his regime. NATO is not defending against Russia, but against gangster regimes which have stolen the freedom of the Russian people. The war is not between the West and Russia, but between the West and Putin.
I'd feel a little bit better agreeing with your comment if the Russians were not actively supporting Putin, or simply trying to avoid politics entirely. The army invading Ukraine is composed of Russians, not mini-Putins.
I agree that there is some degree of support for the war in Russia, and some are volunteering to fight in Ukraine. But most of Putin's army are conscripts who have no choice in the matter?
Anyway, I guess my somewhat poorly made point was that Russia is permanent, so we should to the degree possible try to imagine a future where Russia is not our enemy. Putin on the other hand is temporary, and will hopefully die at the earliest moment.
Yea, the Putin apologists are idiots, with you on that for sure.
I spent most of my career working in the countries of the former Soviet Union, especially Russia. What Putin and his crowd have done to Russia is a tragedy for its people and for the world. If given half a chance, Russians are capable of reforming themselves and rejoining the international community. Unfortunately, as long as Putin is in power, they will not get that chance.
McFaul writes, "And spelling out a concrete and quick roadmap for membership might also make a negotiated end to the war more likely since Zelenskyy would know that an end of hostilities would enhance his country’s security immediately."
Why should Zelenskyy and the West negotiate with Putin?? Why should we expect Putin to honor any agreement, or stop lying every time he opens his mouth? Why should we extend this degree of respect to Putin?
Wouldn't negotiating with Putin necessarily involve giving something up to Putin, that is, rewarding him for the invasion and a consistent pattern of war crimes? What is it that we intend to give away?
Wouldn't negotiating with Putin necessarily involve Putin giving something up? Do we really think that Putin will ever agree to a free, democratic, prosperous Ukraine aligned with the West?
Wouldn't negotiating with Putin necessarily involve dragging the conflict out longer, longer, longer, thus serving Putin's goal of exhausting the interest of Western publics?
Why are all the experts talking about negotiations when we can secure the free part of Ukraine immediately by unilateral action? We can end the killing in eastern Ukraine too by shifting our strategy from military to financial warfare.
Given that most experts are talking about an unnecessary negotiation with Putin, why should I believe in experts?
Unfortunately, some of the Biden Administration’s policy implementation processes and subsequent public comments continues to convey uncertainty and irresoluteness and allow for the perception that Moscow is dictating US policy and that the president is ceding escalation dominance to the Russians.
Don’t state what we will not do—state what we will do and accordingly project US power and confidence. Aiming to win a war is the best way to fight it—Escalation dominance (or the perception of it)should not be ceded to the opponent.
A few times in a century transformational moments appear—we are in that moment and specifically how the United States strategically leads will determine the future of world order.
Several of you implied it here, but I will state it in a more straightforward way. It is 18 months until the start of a new presidential administration in the US. Is that Biden II or a Republican? It makes a difference. The Republican Party in Congress and several of the leading candidates for President have been lukewarm or worse about US support for Ukraine. Friend and foe alike in the world understand how the US system works and waiting the US out is a strategy... So, if the US falters in supporting Ukraine for whatever reason, the war will suffer and a NATO will not be likely... How and when Ukraine enters NATO is a fine discussion, but the real issue at hand over the next 18 months in the US is, what would a Republican administration do once in power? I think it would be a bad assumption to think it would automatically support Ukraine at the same level or at all.
You raise a good point, the Republicans could end any chance of a free Ukraine.
And so it's essential that we secure the future of Ukraine now, while the opportunity is available. 80% of Ukraine is ready, willing and able to join the West and receive the support of NATO troops and the EU without delay, right now, today.
The dithering and indecision of Western leaders is becoming intolerable. Make up your mind folks!
McFaul writes, "So instead, NATO leaders in Vilnius should spell out a concrete and speedy timetable for Ukraine’s membership in the alliance that starts the day the war ends."
So let's end the war now, today, not off in some vague maybe someday future.
1) Ukraine disengages from Russian troops in occupied Ukraine, in exchange for.....
2) NATO troops from willing nations flood in to free Ukraine to ensure it is hereafter fully secure.
3) Occupied Ukraine is freed by financial war instead of military war.
This could happen immediately, and doesn't depend on NATO membership for Ukraine or negotiation with Putin. This is a decision Ukraine and it's allies could unilaterally make and implement at any time, like now for example. This would defeat Putin's primary goal in starting this war, preventing a free, democratic and prosperous Ukraine aligned with the West.
Russia could be informed that they won't be attacked in occupied Ukraine, but any intrusion in to free Ukraine will be utterly demolished by Ukraine and NATO forces. Ukrainian forces can man the front lines, with NATO behind them to prevent any breakout of Russian forces in to free Ukraine.
There is no point waiting any further for this war to end, because it's not going to end until NATO once and for all settles the issue of the future of Ukraine.
The clock is ticking on Western support for Ukraine, so we should stop talking about maybe someday solutions, and end the fighting now. We have everything necessary to do that, and the only thing left to do is to find the will to make the decision.
One of the more maddening things about the current situation is the continued willingness of many "realists" to act as apologists for Putin's Russia, implying that somehow the U.S. and NATO are at fault for goading the Kremlin into attacking Ukraine.
Apropos of this subject, I wrote a letter recently to the Foreign Service Journal that takes such apologists to task. Here is the text:
I want to thank FSJ for bringing to readers’ attention the advertisement placed in the New York Times on May 16 by the Eisenhower Media Network and signed by several retired diplomats, including Ambassador (ret.) Jack Matlock, Matthew Hoh, Larry Wilkerson, and Ann Wright. The gist of their open letter was that the U.S. should start negotiating with Russia now to bring peace to Ukraine because, after all, we are at fault for provoking Russia by expanding NATO to its borders. (FSJ July-August 2023, p.17: “Former Diplomats Sign NYT Ad”) afsa.org/sites/default/files/fsj-2023-07-08-july-august.pdf).
I can see why the open letter was placed as an advertisement. It is so flawed intellectually, and so slavishly copies Russian disinformation arguments on the Ukraine war, that it would never have been printed as an editorial in any respectable newspaper.
The central argument is wrong on the facts, as many of the principals, including President Gorbachev, Secretary Baker, and others have pointed out. There was never any commitment not to expand NATO to the East, and such expansion came about because Central and Eastern European countries were clamoring to join, in the expectation that Russia might one day turn revanchist, which under Putin, it did.
Beyond this, however, and perhaps most embarrassingly for the Eisenhower Media Network and its supporters, the arguments in favor of accepting Kremlin propaganda explanations for why Russia was forced to attack Ukraine have been blasted apart by one-time Putin confidant and Kremlin insider Yevgeniy Prigozhin.
As Prigozhin noted in a lengthy video on Telegram on June 23 (https://t.me/concordgroup_official/1279): “The Armed Forces of Ukraine were not going to attack Russia with the NATO bloc…” In other words, NATO expansion was just a propaganda excuse to invade. Prigozhin said that the real reason for the invasion was that Kremlin insiders wished to promote their political prospects (decency forbids me from repeating his exact words), and Kremlin-linked oligarchs wanted to plunder Ukraine’s resources after its military capture and the appointment of a puppet regime in Kyiv. Naturally, Prigozhin studiously avoided the obvious point that Putin simply wanted to erase Ukraine from existence, as he has implied repeatedly in his own speeches.
The signatories of the Eisenhower Media Network open letter have a lot of explaining to do. And they need to apologize to the millions of Ukrainians who have lost family members or been uprooted by Putin’s needless war of aggression
In the Eisenhower Media Network post, this line jumped out at me: "2004 – Seven more Eastern European nations join NATO." Don't those countries have names, like Estonia, Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland? Doesn't each country have a long and tragic history fighting off Russian invasions? Why do they ignore the fact that NATO didn't pressure these countries to join; instead they welcomed them, and that was because each of those nations wanted desperately to be part of the alliance. The argument that the West ignored Russian concerns actually hides the legitimate fears, based on past experiences, that those nations have regarding Russia's routine re-expansion of the old Empire. This isn't realism, it's head it the sand.
Perhaps it would be helpful in all such discussions to make the distinction between Russia and Putin.
Putin is not defending Russia, he is defending his regime. NATO is not defending against Russia, but against gangster regimes which have stolen the freedom of the Russian people. The war is not between the West and Russia, but between the West and Putin.
I'd feel a little bit better agreeing with your comment if the Russians were not actively supporting Putin, or simply trying to avoid politics entirely. The army invading Ukraine is composed of Russians, not mini-Putins.
I agree that there is some degree of support for the war in Russia, and some are volunteering to fight in Ukraine. But most of Putin's army are conscripts who have no choice in the matter?
Anyway, I guess my somewhat poorly made point was that Russia is permanent, so we should to the degree possible try to imagine a future where Russia is not our enemy. Putin on the other hand is temporary, and will hopefully die at the earliest moment.
Yea, the Putin apologists are idiots, with you on that for sure.
I spent most of my career working in the countries of the former Soviet Union, especially Russia. What Putin and his crowd have done to Russia is a tragedy for its people and for the world. If given half a chance, Russians are capable of reforming themselves and rejoining the international community. Unfortunately, as long as Putin is in power, they will not get that chance.
Another excellent, thorough article on a complex issue!
McFaul writes, "And spelling out a concrete and quick roadmap for membership might also make a negotiated end to the war more likely since Zelenskyy would know that an end of hostilities would enhance his country’s security immediately."
Why should Zelenskyy and the West negotiate with Putin?? Why should we expect Putin to honor any agreement, or stop lying every time he opens his mouth? Why should we extend this degree of respect to Putin?
Wouldn't negotiating with Putin necessarily involve giving something up to Putin, that is, rewarding him for the invasion and a consistent pattern of war crimes? What is it that we intend to give away?
Wouldn't negotiating with Putin necessarily involve Putin giving something up? Do we really think that Putin will ever agree to a free, democratic, prosperous Ukraine aligned with the West?
Wouldn't negotiating with Putin necessarily involve dragging the conflict out longer, longer, longer, thus serving Putin's goal of exhausting the interest of Western publics?
Why are all the experts talking about negotiations when we can secure the free part of Ukraine immediately by unilateral action? We can end the killing in eastern Ukraine too by shifting our strategy from military to financial warfare.
Given that most experts are talking about an unnecessary negotiation with Putin, why should I believe in experts?
Unfortunately, some of the Biden Administration’s policy implementation processes and subsequent public comments continues to convey uncertainty and irresoluteness and allow for the perception that Moscow is dictating US policy and that the president is ceding escalation dominance to the Russians.
Don’t state what we will not do—state what we will do and accordingly project US power and confidence. Aiming to win a war is the best way to fight it—Escalation dominance (or the perception of it)should not be ceded to the opponent.
A few times in a century transformational moments appear—we are in that moment and specifically how the United States strategically leads will determine the future of world order.
Several of you implied it here, but I will state it in a more straightforward way. It is 18 months until the start of a new presidential administration in the US. Is that Biden II or a Republican? It makes a difference. The Republican Party in Congress and several of the leading candidates for President have been lukewarm or worse about US support for Ukraine. Friend and foe alike in the world understand how the US system works and waiting the US out is a strategy... So, if the US falters in supporting Ukraine for whatever reason, the war will suffer and a NATO will not be likely... How and when Ukraine enters NATO is a fine discussion, but the real issue at hand over the next 18 months in the US is, what would a Republican administration do once in power? I think it would be a bad assumption to think it would automatically support Ukraine at the same level or at all.
You raise a good point, the Republicans could end any chance of a free Ukraine.
And so it's essential that we secure the future of Ukraine now, while the opportunity is available. 80% of Ukraine is ready, willing and able to join the West and receive the support of NATO troops and the EU without delay, right now, today.
The dithering and indecision of Western leaders is becoming intolerable. Make up your mind folks!
McFaul writes, "So instead, NATO leaders in Vilnius should spell out a concrete and speedy timetable for Ukraine’s membership in the alliance that starts the day the war ends."
So let's end the war now, today, not off in some vague maybe someday future.
1) Ukraine disengages from Russian troops in occupied Ukraine, in exchange for.....
2) NATO troops from willing nations flood in to free Ukraine to ensure it is hereafter fully secure.
3) Occupied Ukraine is freed by financial war instead of military war.
This could happen immediately, and doesn't depend on NATO membership for Ukraine or negotiation with Putin. This is a decision Ukraine and it's allies could unilaterally make and implement at any time, like now for example. This would defeat Putin's primary goal in starting this war, preventing a free, democratic and prosperous Ukraine aligned with the West.
Russia could be informed that they won't be attacked in occupied Ukraine, but any intrusion in to free Ukraine will be utterly demolished by Ukraine and NATO forces. Ukrainian forces can man the front lines, with NATO behind them to prevent any breakout of Russian forces in to free Ukraine.
There is no point waiting any further for this war to end, because it's not going to end until NATO once and for all settles the issue of the future of Ukraine.
The clock is ticking on Western support for Ukraine, so we should stop talking about maybe someday solutions, and end the fighting now. We have everything necessary to do that, and the only thing left to do is to find the will to make the decision.
There are no "willing nations" wanting to go to war with Russia!
Ok, but that's not what I suggested.