The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Passage About Ukraine and Zelensky
From Tom McTague in The Atlantic, "What Volodomyr Zelensky's Courage Says About the West":
There can be something a little distasteful about Western onlookers (myself included) cheering on Ukrainians for a cause that our countries are not willing to join, a stance that risks raising the price of a peace that will be paid only with Ukrainian blood. Nevertheless, it is possible to recognize this, to be inspired by what Zelensky represents, and then to be shamed by his example.
Here is a nation and a leader willing to sacrifice so much for the principle of independence and the right to join the Western world. And yet, much of the West is jaded and cynical, apparently devoid of any such mission, cause, or sense of idealism anymore. What is it that the West believes in now? When you think of the great liberal heroes of our age, Angela Merkel and Barack Obama, say, they are actually deeply pragmatic conservatives, constantly hedging, calculating, and balancing interests with little grand vision or cause to pull their policies together. There is much to be said for this type of governance: As Helmut Schmidt, the former chancellor of West Germany, once quipped, "Whoever has visions should go to the doctor." Visions led to the Iraq War, for example. Yet conservative pragmatism is also deeply limited, allowing adversaries like Vladimir Putin to take advantage, exploiting caution and shortsighted selfishness….
In standing up to [Putin], Ukraine is articulating a certain idea of itself that is righteous and dignified and heroic: virtues we long ago dismissed as old-fashioned. How tragic it is that Zelensky's idea has to be attacked for us to be reminded of ours.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yes, Zelensky is standing up to Putin, just like he did with Trump when Trump tried to shake him down, although with a lot more to lose. Gotta admire his lack of bone spurs.
So since you're still obsessed with Trump while virtually ignoring the alleged real President you/media must agree with the Trumpsters he's still president I guess? Certainly still President of your mind.
To be honest, Zelensky probably regrets "standing up" to Trump. If Zelensky had accelerated his investigation of Hunter and Zlochevsky and Yanukovych (who is currently hiding out in Russia), Trump may have won the election.
If Trump was president, people agree...Russia wouldn't have invaded.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/26/poll-trump-russia-ukraine-white-house
Putin invaded because he feels threatened. He certainly didn’t with Trump.
That's a nice storyline you tell yourself. Doesn't make logical sense, but that's OK.
These people are genuinely delusional.
They think no bad guys attacked countries under Trump because Trump was weak, but bad guys did attack countries under Obama and then Biden because Obama and Biden were strong and they were afraid.
So Putin only invades and starts wars when people is afraid of are in the White House? Strange notion of "afraid" you have there.
Is it methamphetamine that you use before saying utterly risible nonsense?
I don't have very strong insights into Putin, but does this really make sense to you? Or is this just Trump Derangement Syndrome in action? My general assumption is that bad guys attack into weakness, not strength.
"Putin invaded because he feels threatened. He certainly didn’t with Trump."
Did you post this while hanging by your underwear from a hook in a locker room somewhere?
No, this is driven by senators and the so-called Deep State/Military Industrial Complex…no president would risk not getting re-elected over NATO and Ukraine.
Russia did not need to invade. Trump was rotten out the inside of the US's relations with the world. He was undermining NATO and are allies. He backout on the Kurds. Putin's attack on Ukraine is likely his response to a world pulling itself together, even if a little.
Trump didn’t undermine anything because his strongest supporters in the Senate happen to be the most pro-NATO expansion.
One biased yet knowledgeable expert disagrees.
Not only did Trump slow down the approved military aid to Ukraine, but it's hard to say how much more military aid they would have gotten if Trump wasn't angry at Ukraine for being part of the story (and not cooperating).
As for the invasion, I think it's possible Putin didn't want to invade in Trump's first term because he was hoping Trump would win a second, but I doubt he would have held off for a second term once Trump was term limited.
Oh, Vinderman....
Something tells me that "expert" isn't reliable, especially in regards to anything Trump related. He's far to biased, based on past events.
Here's the facts.
1. Obama/Biden wouldn't ship lethal aid to Ukraine.
2. Trump did.
Omg, that’s because Obama didn’t want to escalate the situation!?! The situation is officially escalated!!!
Putin's main objective has been to destabilize the US and other western democracies. Trump was the biggest destabilizer Putin could have hoped for so why mess with it?
Trump governed like Jeb Bush up until February 2020 when he surrendered to the Taliban…and then Covid hit.
Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 and now because democracy threatens him. He certainly didn't feel Trump threatened him because, like Putin, Trump hates democracy. If there is any merit to the idea (totally speculative and self-serving at this point) that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine under Trump, it's only because he knew Trump was an ally (like China) against democracy.
To be blunt, starting a nuke fight wouldn't end well for the Ukranians either. This isn't a video game. We don't get a do over if we end up glassing half the planet.
Nobody's talking about starting a "nuke fight". But neither can you let your actions be governed by speculation/fear that someone else might start a nuke fight.
This was, however, exactly how it was during the 1970s, 1980s, the boomers' fear of 'MAD, and pathetic realization of their mortality was omnipresent.
"When you think of the great liberal heroes of our age, Angela Merkel and Barack Obama, say, they are actually deeply pragmatic conservatives"
To paraphrase George Orwell (about the term "fascism"), the term "conservative" seems to have become a synonym for "something undesirable."
No, it didn’t “become” something undesirable. Fifty-plus years of steady, hard work and countless dollars went into it.
It is an apt use of the term. Insofar as conservative means cautious and not willing to change from long established patterns.
It is entirely correct to note that committed leftists like Merkel and Obama can be deeply conservative of their leftism.
Tom is free to go and fight in Ukraine. No one is stopping anyone from the Atlantic, New Yorker, NYT, WaPo or Salon from enlisting. In fact one could argue they might grow up a little (if they survive) and understand politics better (and stop attacking Americans who believe in our Bill of Rights and value liberty over equity).
No sovereign nation should be invaded (democratic or not) right? Oh no..Iraq again. America's foreign policy since the end of the cold war has been one failure after another. We didn't create Putin but as many cold war experts have said, our actions since the fall of the USSR paved the road for him. Where is George Keenan, Daniel Moynhan and others (dead) and we get the "woke" neocons/neolibs
"No sovereign nation should be invaded (democratic or not) right? Oh no..Iraq again."
That's a strawman. Sometimes invading a sovereign nation is justified, especially a non-democratic one, and Saddam did plenty to justify his fate, including invading Kuwait and sending a hit team to assassinate one of our heads of state.
Are you justifying the Iraq war?
Saddam justified the Iraq war. I'm just pointing that out.
What did Saddam do?
He literally answered that question above.
Fair on the it being written above.
But also quite the lag time before the invasion. Plus a bunch of utopians talking about democratizing the middle east while highly placed in the Administration. And leveraging the irrelevant 9-11 to do it.
Lets not pretend this was about removing Saddam.
As I remarked at the time, my alarm clock going off in the morning doesn't logically entail taking a shower or eating breakfast, the alarm doesn't make me stinky or hungry.
But when I'm woken out of my slumber, I see what needs doing, and do it.
So I'm not very impressed with the argument that 9-11 was irrelevant. It was an alarm clock, nobody ever said we invaded Iraq because they were responsible for 9-11, that was a straw man.
That said, Bush seriously screwed up in Iraq. He either did way too much, or way too little, his screw up was hitting the sour spot between. He should have either obliterated Sadam's military and government, or solidly brought them to heel, not beaten them around and then walked away.
We invaded Iraq because of the oil—so everything Bush did was based on stabilizing Iraq in order to liberate the oil so the global middle class would continue to expand.
The mismanagement of the Iraq War was a big factor in the 2008 Financial Meltdown…oil is super important to the global economy and the Joint Chief of Staff at the time accidentally admitted it was about oil—he said it wasn’t about oil but a few sentences later said we might have to go to war against Iran if they blocked the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz…because oil is super important to the global economy. 😉
Riiight: We invaded Iraq because of the oil, then somehow forgot to take it. A silly oversight, anybody could have made it.
Brett, the neocons explained why they invaded. It was some kind of utopian reverse-domino effect to make the Middle East full of democracies.
9-11 as a wake up call it was time to invade Iraq is pretty silly, because Saddam was in no way unique, he was just the first one on the PNAC list.
Well, we thought he’d kept all the WMDs we sold him, but learned he’d gotten rid of them or left them to rot. So “bad manners” for one. “Making us look bad” is another.
But if we have to have this “You can’t say anything about Ukraine because Iraq” business, we can break down the two situations to their most basic components:
The US invaded Iraq to remove a bad man. Russia invaded Ukraine to install one.
"The US invaded Iraq to remove a bad man."
Not true. In fact, Saddam acted worse back when we were supporting him, with WMD's among other things.
“Most basic components”
Saddam Hussein was a bad man. With and without our support. And we invaded to remove him.
“Most basic components”
Makes no sense.
See, since people are incapable of discerning the differences between our invasion of Iraq and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, I broke the two down as simply as possible. Unfortunately, one can never be simple enough at the VC…
This is getting a bit world-policey.
I'd be into that, if I didn't know any history.
What did Saddam do when?
1980 (attack Iran)?
1988 ( )gas the Kurds)?
1990 (invade Kuwait)?
2003 (wear a short skirt)?
You and I may be on the same page here. I can't quite tell.
What does the (claimed) form of government have to do with whether one country has legitimate casus belli with another, or not?
The difference with Iraq 2, which was a mistake, relative to Ukraine was that we didn’t invade it to take and keep territory or to take assets. We did it on the mistaken belief that it’s ruler was violating an earlier UN order related to WMD. A ruler that had tried to assassinate a former US president. I don’t recall Ukraine sending anyone after Putin.
The comparison of that to Ukraine is not really valid.
I think we did it on the mistaken belief we could create a western style democracy next to Iran, so that we would have two democracies in the region.
Should have started with Kuwait, really, if you were going to experiment with creating Western style democracies in the Middle East. It would have been perfectly legit not to return that country to it's rulers, who had skated at the first threat, but instead adopted it as a protectorate.
I doubt it would have worked out well, I don't think our own leaders are that fond of Western style democracy, or even properly understand how to make it work, rather than how to subvert it. But if you were going to succeed any place, it would have been Kuwait
A protectorate would have been idiotic. Then it would have been straight out war for oil as people kept claiming.
And setting up a democracy and ousting the emir might have kept the Saudis from helping which would have made it a lot more difficult militarily and politically.
More a matter of not letting the Emir return, than ousting him, at that point.
But I wasn't advocating doing it, I was saying that, if you were going to try that experiment, Kuwait would have been a better test case. Smaller, the locals were already grateful because we weren't the invaders, we were the liberators, they had no particular reason to like the government that had run out on them.
IF you were going to try creating a democracy in the area, Kuwait was the place to try it, not Iraq.
But, like I said, probably wouldn't have worked out well, for a multitude of reasons.
Why would any American care about democracy in the ME…that’s a very strange thing to care about. Does the fact Brazil is a democracy bring joy to your life??
I mean, yes, because I'm not a solipsistic asshole. More freedom anywhere brings joy to my life, even if it doesn't affect me directly.
All the Twitter liberals seem to think the US should send in ground troops into Ukraine, but Afghanistan BAD.
Also, anyone wish you could find coverage that was maybe a little deeper than Putin = Bad Man?
The problem with asking for that is that basically any honest coverage arrives at Putin = Bad Man. Because he is one.
Of the 400 million Twitter users, no doubt a few are liberals who think US should send ground troops to Ukraine. How about telling us about some pro-American-ground-troops Twitter liberals who matter?
Shall we intervene in every conflict in the world or just the ones our elites find particularly unjust? This is the foreign policy thinking that gets us into Vietnam and Afghanistan for decades.
As Titus notes, no one is stopping Tom from picking up a rifle and going to fight Russians in Ukraine. Who is he to pledge anyone else's life to the cause?
And the elites are completely fine with making average Vlad Russian pay the price in terms of a crashing economy and upcoming humanitarian crisis because you know Putin is bad (except when he gives intel to a Clinton then he is good).
I have to wonder if you and Titus actually read and understood what McTague wrote.
Do you, though?
This is likely why Ukraine is having such success, from RealClearScience:
"Ukraine's Defense Ministry estimates that 102 tanks and 536 armored vehicles had been destroyed as of February 26th. The Javelin likely factored heavily into that rousing combat success.
"This weapon allows a single soldier to target and destroy even the most heavily armored main battle tank with an almost guaranteed kill rate, at great range and with minimal risk,"
Trump sent 210 Javelins to Ukraine in 2018, but required they be stored in the western part of the country and not used in the separatist regions, I guess as a deterrence and not to widen the war at that time. That seems like it was prudent, they had probably at least 250 on hand when Russia invaded.
Biden sent 30 more in September, and now is sending 300 more Javelins. Good.
I've never seen a post on the Volokh Conspiracy that praised both Trump and Biden. Not only that, I agree with you!
Well I've always supported the Right to Keep and Bear Anti-tank weapons so of course I think there is no need to be partisan about it when its getting bipartisan support.
Trump didn’t send Ukraine jackshit and neither did Obama. Everything to do with Ukraine prior to the invasion was driven by the senators like McCain and Ron Johnson.
Kazinski, we don't know crap on what is actually happening in Ukraine. The fact is, actual information on how well the campaign is actually proceeding is hard to come by. Where is the satellite imagery? That is a problem. What are we not seeing...and why?
Given the scale of the conflict, it is a remarkably bloodless war; similar types of conflicts in other areas of the world have dead/wounded in the thousands of civilians in the first days of battle. The Russians clearly read the US playbook on war-fighting (insert that scene from Patton where he read Rommel's book). Their use of precision guided weaponry is quite good (not like us, though). Net net: We need to be very careful how we deal with the Russians.
I am very leery of any MSM coverage; warier still of twitter videos and social media. Both are manipulated. Just think about the last five years. Can you really trust what you are being told? I tend to think not, Kazinski. No way. Net net: The Europeans can ship Javelins to Ukraine, not America. America can resupply Javelins to Europe. Let the Europeans manage their affairs, and execute their own operations (like shipping Javelins to Ukraine).
Ukraine is not America's fight. And I don't want to be manipulated by the media and/or politicians and/or 'elites' into making Ukraine an American fight. So people like McTague sound like the Leper's Bell to me; I know what he is attempting to do.
In the meantime, I'll keep praying for POTUS Biden and his team to be guided to make the right decisions, because I believe Divine Intervention might be warranted here. Robert Gates and POTUS Obama both assessed POTUS Biden correctly; hence my plea to The Almighty. Just make good and right decisions, especially at this time.
"Ukraine is not America's fight. " Unfortunately thats naive. It is because Putin's next stop is the Baltic states, or Finland or Sweden. Putin (like Stalin and Lenin) is going to go as far as we let him. And then China and North Korea see weakness and Taiwan and South Korea are gone. The "Gee men are angels" theory of power usually only results in brutal dictators taking advantage of the indifference.
Yes. While I oppose direct US or NATO involvement we should be doing everything else - providing armaments, intelligence, etc. Along with economic sanctions, moving back towards energy independence, etc. to make this fight as hard as possible for Putin.
He may still win, but make it costly enough and he will not be able to go any further.
You've lost that argument Biden is sending 350 million in military weapons to Ukraine that was announced 3 days ago.
And the only pushback he's getting from the GOP is questioning is he is sending enough stinger missiles in the package so they can shoot down as many aircraft as they can take out tanks.
As of now I am a little unclear whether its only 350 million. I saw another 250 million package.
Also, how the heck are we getting these into Kyiv and Khardiv?
*Kharkiv
Through Poland.
Getting them across the Polish border is the easy part. How are we getting them through Ukraine to the cities, is what I wonder.
I assume they'd be used along the way, and by the time you reached the cities, you'd have lifted their siege.
We seem to be woefully short of military types that could tell us definitively, so I'll play as an amateur: My sense is that e.g. Javelins work very well on the defense. The attacker has to be up and moving (or he isn't attacking), and so his armor is visible and that lets light troops with Javelins engage and move.
I'm not sure it works as well on the offense. The enemy combined arms unit is dug in on a ridge blocking the road, supported by indirect fire, tanks hull down if not completely hidden on the reverse slope, etc. The attacking light infantry with Javelins comes along and sees the enemy position. I'm not sure the attacking light infantry succeeds in that scenario. I think you might need your own indirect fire/air power/etc.
IANASoldier, so I could be all wet.
Hull down doesn't help against a top attack javelin.
But yeah, they are more of a defense against armor weapon. Mainly because movement can expose your position(s) and the do nothing to protect you against AP weaponry.
"Hull down doesn't help against a top attack javelin. "
Indeed. I was thinking of the tactic where you have hull down firing positions prepared, and back down just enough that you are in complete defilade. You are still vulnerable to top attack, but aren't visible from the front. To my understanding, Javelin needs a thermal lock-on prior to launch; it doesn't have the capability of getting launched towards a general area and seeking a target that becomes visible during flight.
Although I wonder how any of the Turkish drones Ukraine has, given their effectiveness in the recent Armenian-Azerbaijan war. I have seen reports the Ukrainians are using them effectively, but the '40 mile convoy' satellite images argue that Ukraine isn't able to effectively interdict from the air.
The fight for Kiev will be won coming from the south and west of the city - preventing its encirclement and destroying Russian supply lines.
Kharkov will be won or lost at Kiev.
Ill also point out in 1939 a lot of people said that Hitler and the Nazis were not America's war, but we still made the commitment to become "The Arsenal of Democracy" until Japan Hitler made the mistake of pushing us into the war.
Well can be Ukraine's Arsenal and Putin's bankruptcy liquidators without sending troops.
History is a lot more nuanced than you represent. WW2 had a very long lead time - decades. The Putin is Hitler argument rings pretty hollow. The man is a communist (which makes him plenty evil enough, in my book).
I have no issue sending replenishment supplies to Europe (EU-5, Poland, Romania, Baltics). The details of any US aid package have yet to be defined, so the argument is not quite over yet. Congress has to approve it. There is still time to think. My issue is that America should not be getting directly involved in this fight, and that includes shipping Javelins to Ukraine. This is a very meaningful distinction, and one Russians will respect. The Russians know we will back our NATO allies, so sending weapons to Europe is expected and a part of doing business. What Europeans do with these weapons...they can choose to involve themselves in Ukraine. It is their backyard. Russia is aware that America stands behind NATO, they won't move on NATO (I don't think).
Ukraine is not America's fight. We have no legal obligation to Ukraine. There is a reason we never took them into NATO, or the EU. They are corrupt AF, and make Russians look almost honest, FFS.
Just remember Kazinski, there is the day after the fighting is done. Let's not be in a hurry to do anything that messes up the day after. We can maintain my distinction, and still get weapons into the hands of the Ukrainians. That is the goal, right? How we do that matters. America sending weapons directly to Ukraine tosses away our ability to influence the day after.
"We have no legal obligation to Ukraine."
We sure tried to make them think we did, when we persuaded them to give up those nukes.
Less of Ukraine to the world: never give up your nukes in return for promises. And you should have nukes to prevent people from invading you. Not sure I like that lesson.
I wish I saw a good end to all this. For Putin losing means loss of his power and/or life. Makes it hard for him to not go to extreme measures (though I'd guess not nukes) to avoid losing as his back is to the wall And I don't know what face saving measures can reasonably be given to him to find a way out of this. Mind you, I think the world would be a better place without Putin in it, I just don't see a reasonably safe path to getting there.
"Lesson of Ukraine" that is. Imagine a system with a comment editing function....
I sometimes think the Brits should reopen the Retirement Home for Despots on St. Helena. You could offer the Qaddafis, Saddams, Kim Jongs, and Putins of the world a deal: retire peacefully to a life of ease, or swing from a lamppost.
It's distasteful, but pragmatic, somewhat like when you give serial killers LWOP instead of the chair if they will cooperate so the victim's families get closure.
(Not going to happen, of course. And apologies to the people of St. Helena who are no doubt nice people and don't deserve that.)
They could spend their days having boss games of Risk instead of conquering real countries.
When you say decades of lead time, what exactly do you mean? Putin has been in power for more than 20 years, and it's been 14 years since he invaded Georgia under GWB. How many more years should we give him before the comparison becomes fair?
The seeds of WW2 were found in the resolution of WW1 (also in turn; the seeds of WW1 were sown in the mid to late 1800's in the aftermath of the failure of the Congress of Vienna). The point I was making (badly I guess): history paints a nuanced picture when you consider WW2.
Putin is not a good man; quite the opposite, as he is a communist. But Putin is not Hitler and the comparison is simply wrong. Making the 'Putin = Hitler' argument is designed to stop all thinking and debate, when thinking about and talking about Ukraine is precisely what we need right now....before we get ourselves involved.
Indeed, Putin is not Hitler. And history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
Scenario 1: we fly pallets of MANPADs to the Polish air base nearest the Ukrainian border. A Polish sergeant signs a receipt and Ukrainian trucks back up to load.
Scenario 1: we fly pallets of MANPADs to the Polish air base nearest the Ukrainian border. A Ukrainian sergeant signs a receipt and Ukrainian trucks back up to load.
I'm skeptical that the distinction will matter at all, now or in the future. During Vietnam, if a Polish ship carried Czechoslovakian rifles to Hanoi, did we blame the Poles, the Czechoslovaks, or the Russians?
You know, in a formal legal proceeding, like The Hague, who signed that receipt might conceivably be a distinction that matters. I'd want the first 'Scenario 1' you have (The Polish sergeant signing for it).
There is no vital US national interest at stake here; Ukraine is not our fight. I don't support the US shipping weapons directly to Ukraine and getting involved when we don't have to. And there is no 'legal' reason to get involved, either.
It is indeed a valid, nontrivial, question: who is brave enough to say that those blocking the path of the "common good" -- whatever an empowered and vocal leadership determines that to be -- shouldn't be swept aside?
We have been taught by recent events both in the US and in Canada that dissenters "must" capitulate: allowing dissent threatens peace, order, and the common good. Why doesn't Zelensky simply lead his people to a peaceful integration with the Russian way? Everyone wants peace -- it is Zelensky's intractability which now precludes such peach. Seize Ukrainian assets?! Make it impossible for a Ukrainian to live unless he kowtows to Putin's simple requests?!
Perhaps Biden and Putin and Trudeau share common illiberal traits: perhaps Tucker Carlson's assessment is correct (see https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-canada-prime-minister-justin-trudeau ). Perhaps when Putin socially distances himself from his advisors he is merely holding a mirror so that Biden and Trudeau and their supporters can more easily recognize their own dictates made in the name of the common good.
The video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjKQQpPVifY&t=204s is instructive, but perhaps the better starting point is time index 118 [1:58]. You can lead a life of peace, prosperity, and pleasure... if you choose to capitulate.
Ivan. Your English is very good. It is the modern equivalent of Better Red Than Dead. It is not just Ukraine's President who is refusing Russian imperialism, it is ordinary Ukrainians.
I think you can cheer somebody in a fight, without thinking you should jump into the fight.
The real idiocy is that we ARE in this fight, on Putin's side: We're financing his war machine by purchasing Russian oil instead of producing it domestically! The Biden administration is actively fighting to prevent our achieving energy independence from Russia.
The Biden administration wants to push us to renewable energy use instead. They call it a green energy plan, but yellow or red seems more accurate.
Don't know what the numbers under Biden are but your boy Trump sure ensured Russia got paid.
"In 2020, the U.S. imported more oil and refined products from Russian than from Saudi Arabia, with Russia’s share of American oil exports at a record-high 7 percent, Bloomberg News has estimated based on customs and EIA data.
Russia mostly displaced the market previously held by Venezuela—now unable to sell its heavy oil to U.S. refiners because of the American sanctions on Nicolas Maduro’s regime.
U.S. oil imports from Russia exceeded last year even the imports from OPEC’s top producer and de facto leader, Saudi Arabia, which—after briefly flooding the U.S. market with its crude in April 2020—drastically cut shipments to the most transparent market to help inventory drawdowns amid collapsing fuel demand globally.
As per Bloomberg calculations, the United States imported on average 538,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil and oil products from Russia last year. This was higher than the average American imports of oil from Saudi Arabia, which is estimated to have shipped on average 522,000 bpd to the United States.
Russia thus became the third-biggest oil supplier to America in 2020, according to Bloomberg’s estimates.
In 2019, the top five sources of U.S. total petroleum, including crude oil, imports were: Canada, with 49 percent share of imports, Mexico with 7 percent, Saudi Arabia with 6 percent, Russia also with 6 percent, and Colombia with a 4-percent share."
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-US-Imports-Record-Share-Of-Russian-Oil-Despite-Tensions.html
To cure your ignorance: Biden stepped up oil imports from Russia compared to 2020.
And spiked everything that might have displaced them.
That's good info.
I do like that last line.
I would make two other points.
First, that Bloomberg analysis is based entirely on fraction of US petroleum imports. Going back to EIA, those were trending downwards under Trump. We did import more oil from Russia in 2020 than Saudi Arabia in 2019 (198 million barrels vs 194 million), but we imported a LOT more from Saudi Arabia in 2018 (329 million barrels). The pandemic distorted 2020 numbers fairly widely, and that was just one year anyway.
Second, oil is a fungible commodity. The usual arguments about open trade apply: Unless you can organize almost ubiquitous action against some market participant, trying to influence where you (personally or as a single country) buy a fungible item tends to have very little effect on the overall market or revenues of any particular seller.
The line that makes you look biased and ignorant, with a weird obsession about making things about trump? Yes, that is pretty amazing, given that anybody who follows the news without viewing it through a lens of bias would know that biden has been in charge for more purchases of Russian petroleum.
Biden did? You think that oil tankers are pulling up to his backyard and dropping off a few million barrels?
Or did you perhaps mean, "private companies' oil imports from Russia were up in 2021 compared to 2020 due to many factors, of which Biden's policies might have been one"?
Of which Biden's policies conspicuously were the major driver. He literally, and admittedly, set out to depress US energy production, particularly fossil fuels, and even now is working to accomplish that.
That this drives our dependence on foreign energy sources, and raises the world price for the fossil fuels Russia derives the bulk of its foreign exchange from, is not particularly controversial.
Oh, Brett, 3% of crude oil imports and about 1 percent of the total crude oil processed here does not equal “dependence.” But although your point is bunk, I’m sure it’s still valid somehow.
https://www.afpm.org/newsroom/blog/oil-and-petroleum-imports-russia-explained
We are a free market country and I will hazard that neither Trump nor Biden signed any of those contracts for Russian oil, so trying to assign responsibility for anything other than policies that affect North American production and supply isn't really relevant.
I think the largest single end user of Russian oil is Hawaiian Electric which due to its isolated status has to use coal and oil for its electrical generation. They should convert their plants to Natural Gas which is less polluting and relatively cheap to do.
It will reduce their emissions profile both for conventional pollutants and less importantly CO2. While the US doesn't have any west coast LNG terminals, Mexico has one in Baja, and Australia is neck and neck with the US and Oman as the largest LNG exporters in the world so I'm sure they could fill the void.
Problem is, Biden instituted a lot of policies that dropped US oil production when taking office.
In fact, I think he was clear enough that this was his objective.
Except no. Fracking has been unprofitable until Trump bankrupted the industry in 2020 and now consolidation has made them profitable—it’s called a business cycle.
If that were the case, Biden wouldn't have needed to institute policies cancelling drilling permits. You don't need to take action to stop people from doing things that are unprofitable.
We are not purchasing oil "instead of" producing it domestically. We are producing it domestically. In fact, we're a net exporter.
We "were" a net exporter. Then Biden took control.
https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/us-forecast-be-net-petroleum-importer-2021-and-2022.html
You must be kidding. The fear is that if US and Russian troops become engaged in real war, then escalation to a global nuclear war becomes far too likely. Not 100% inevitable, but too likely.
So the sad truth is that our principles and ideals are second to our sense of survival.
For the same craven reasons, the free world would not go to war with China over Taiwan. Perhaps not even over South Korea.
I believe you are wrong about Taiwan.
Why, in your opinion, is Taiwan more important (to the free world) than Ukraine?
Taiwan makes a large share of the world's electronics. Ukraine makes a small share of the world's crops.
Ed, Taiwan currently produces 40% of the world's supply of semi-conductors, and north of 60% of America's semi-conductor supply. America runs on semi-conductors. That semi-conductor supply is a vital US national interest. Taiwan matters, far more than Americans appreciate and we will move to protect that supply (until we can replace it with domestic production).
Also, consider our SEATO allies: Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Australia. India is coming into the fold. Taiwan goes down, they're next; they all know it. Why do you think we have The Quad?
Like it or not, war is coming to Taiwan and we will be in the thick of it.
My biggest reservation about Taiwan is the real possibility of utter defeat, at the hands of the communist Chinese when we defend Taiwan. We have not been 'defeated' in 200+ years by a foreign power. It has been a long time. Are we prepared for that?
What happens in Ukraine and Taiwan is not independent. How we conduct ourselves in Ukraine affects what happens in Taiwan.
That's a bit of a devil's gambit there. Keep in mind, Russia has to do the same calculus.
So, Russia thinks we won't go to war over Ukraine because of the risk of Nuclear war. So they can invade Ukraine.
So, China thinks we won't go to war over Taiwan, because of the risk of Nuclear war. So they can invade Taiwan
So, North Korea and China think we won't go to war over South Korea because of the risk of nuclear war. So they can invade South Korea.
So Russia thinks we won't go to war over Estonia (due to the risk of nuclear war)...so they can invade Estonia.
So Russia thinks we won't go to war over Canada...
IOW, liberals are more in touch with reality. If that makes them “conservative”, that’s just a word game you’re playing.
Given your comment history, if you are any indicator, liberals are well out of touch with reality. They are, however, very conservative when it comes to in-group biases.
"How tragic it is that Zelensky's idea has to be attacked for us to be reminded of ours."
That is almost always true unfortunately. The author is romanticizing WWII by cherry picking events. Hitler was appeased before Europe realized what he was. And at the end of the war, no one did anything about Stalin, even though everyone did know what he was.
I would support a no fly zone over Ukraine, as long as everyone understands what that means: US air power shooting down Russians. I'd like to be convinced Putin would not escalate it, would simply ground his forces. I give it a better than 50% chance he would escalate it instead. At some point, once sanctions bite (The Russians markets are closed again today and it appears likely Russia will default on its debt), Putin has nothing left to lose. At that point, he's just a scared mortally wounded animal. What is his way out of this?
To add: I think "Western countries don’t have this type of leadership anymore: unembarrassed, defiant belief in a cause. So many people in the West have given up on the fairy tale of their own superiority " is unfair and wrong.
One of the benefits of the western system is that we allow ourselves to be questioned. Not sure I want to vote for a politician who sees things in black and white and is unapologetically defiant. Putin is defiant, and as surrounded himself by yes-men. See how thats working out?
"We will not send your boys off to fight and die in any foreign war." isn't a new policy.
It is a practical decision, though, not one of some mystical need to respect dictators invading out of respect.
"What is his way out of this?"
I suppose he could formalize being an extortionate state; Just come right out and say, "Look, X billions in foreign exchange each year, starting a month from now, or nuclear war. Your call."
We don't need to declare or enforce a no fly zone, we should be able to supply enough Stinger missiles to allow Ukraine to effectively enforce their own no fly zone.
Its effective against helicopters, and low flying troop transports, cargo aircraft and jets.
There's a video online of a Russian attack aircraft taking a MANPADS hit and continuing its mission. Videos of helicopters dispensing flares to distract IR homing missiles. Stingers can't deter medium altitude bombing missions. A no fly zone needs longer ranged weapons with bigger warheads.
You almost know what a No Fly zone means but you don’t quite get there. It means “declaring war against Russia.” There’s no “we’re just here for the dogfights.”
US and Soviet pilots shot at each other in Korea and Vietnam without the conflict escalating out of theater, but a general war is certainly a risk.
This ain’t then and it ain’t Korea or Vietnam. Trying to create a NATO or EU enforced no fly zone in Ukraine is a declaration of war against Russia. And nobody is any hurry to do that.
"Trying to create a NATO or EU enforced no fly zone in Ukraine is a declaration of war against Russia."
Properly, no it would not. That is Ukrainian airspace and anyone can agree to help them enforce their control.
Practically speaking a NATO plane shooting down a Russian craft would be an excuse for Putin to enlarge the war.
"Practically speaking a NATO plane shooting down a Russian craft would be an excuse for Putin to enlarge the war."
On the one hand, Putin might get more Russian support if he were seen as fighting NATO.
On the other hand, I'm not sure he wants to enlarge the war when he can barely handle Ukraine.
Not to mention that we killed anywhere from a few dozen to a few hundred little green Russian men in Syria and they didn't do squat.
This ain’t Syria either.
Pretty sure that the next phase of the war is Putin showing us how brutal he is willing to be. Like other phases, this one will backfire. He probably thinks he is gaining leverage except he's losing it.
Get ready for US troops fighting Russians in Ukraine. Maybe some of the generals in Russia have the good sense to deliver Putin a polonium cocktail for dinner. Assuming Putin is in charge. He could be doing this to satisfy a hawkish faction, although I tend give that a low probability.
I don't think so.
The whole rationale of Putin's invasion is that Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are an integral part of Russia needed to make it whole. I suppose its possible he'll decide half a million civilian casualties are acceptable to make them come to their senses, much like an unstable domestic abuser is willing to kill to demonstrate his love, but I hope not. He can't be so deluded to think he is so indispensable to Russia that even he could survive that and stay in power.
If you think that "the whole rationale of Putin's invasion is that Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are an integral part of Russia"
I have a bridge to sell you.
"He can't be so deluded to think he is so indispensable to Russia that even he could survive that and stay in power."
Yes, he can be that deluded. And is.
I'm not buying that bridge, the Russians are selling it to themselves in a coordinated release in multiple semi-official media outlets, that were since deleted, here is the headline and a few paragraphs from Sky news:
Ukraine invasion: Russian state media article deleted after suggesting Russia victory achieved
RIA's article claimed "Ukraine has returned to Russia" and "there will be no more Ukraine as anti-Russia", but a pro-Ukraine news source says that because the story appeared "exactly at 8:00. That means, the publication was planned in advance".
The article, by Petr Akopov, goes on to say about Ukraine "Russia is restoring its unity" and "there will be no more Ukraine as anti-Russia".
It also describes the break-up of the Soviet Union as "the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe in our history" and praises Russian President Vladimir Putin for assuming the "historic responsibility" of "deciding not to leave the solution of the Ukrainian question to future generations".
Using a derogatory term for Ukraine (Little Russians), the article claims: "Russia is restoring its historical fullness, gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians."
This. There are a whole lot of people trying to retcon what was clearly recognized right up until the shooting started.
The whole rational of Putin's invasion is that he wanted a big win before he is forced to retire from the great game, and this was his best shot at it. All else is pretext.
Folks ought to think just a bit about Putin putting his nuclear forces on alert. That does mean small tactical nuclear weapons are threatened to be used.
Just the explosion if a single 5 kt nuke would completely change the global illusion that nukes won't actually ever again be used.
"Vox clamatis in deserto"
That is how I feel right now, Don Nico.
C_XY,
I think people ought think more broadly that there is more at stake than the survival of the Zelensky government.
Given Putin's present mentality it is hard to see how he would allow his Army to be defeated even it it means doing the unthinkable.
Similarly with China and Taiwan. China must realize the the price of an invasion of Taiwan will be a nuclear Japan and South Korea.
Certainly the lessons here are "don't give up your nukes like the Ukraine did" and "if you don't have nukes and you have a big bad neighbor, you should acquire some".
The 1960s called; they want our terror back.
"Get ready for US troops fighting Russians in Ukraine."
Vanishingly unlikely at this point. There would be any number of NATO member acts that might occur long before boots on the ground even entered consideration.
What was unthinkable Thursday became reality Saturday. Including getting Germany to boost defense spending. Even the UK is now floating the idea of booting Russia from the UN Insecurity council. If I had to bet, I'd bet that there are already American boots and military advisors in the Ukraine, and we acknowledge as much within a week.
You continue to be out there at predicting.
UN Insecurity council
Don't post like a dumbass. It's beneath you.
Well its not that effective.
But the Ukraine has a decent challenge to make to the legitimacy of a Russian veto on the security council. The UN charted gave the seat to the USSR, and the UN has never passed a.resolution updating that. Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Latvia are.just as legitimate successor states to.the USSR as Russia is.
I'm not so sure it's not that effective - we don't know the counterfactual. The world's been relatively stable since WW2. Though that looks traceable to other factors, who knows?
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Latvia are just as legitimate successor states to the USSR as Russia is.
I don't think that's right at all. What is your metric for legitimate successor?
"I don't think that's right at all. What is your metric for legitimate successor?"
How about the metric actually specified in the UN charter: You have to be the USSR.
"Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Latvia are.just as legitimate successor states to.the USSR as Russia is."
I wish that were the case, but in terms of land area, population, leadership, control of nuclear weapons, and just about any relevant axis, Russia is clearly the successor state to the USSR.
Maybe the consequences justify special pleading about permanent seats on the UN Security Council, but it's a relatively long shot in terms of international law.
"Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Latvia are.just as legitimate successor states to.the USSR as Russia is."
Or the seat just remains empty since the USSR ceased to exist. If the UN wants to add the Russian Federation as a permanent member, they can amend their charter. They have not done so.
In 1991 Russia successfully petitioned the UN to recognize it as a Continuing State formed out of the dissolution of the USSR. Its argument was supported by a declaration of eleven republics, including Ukraine, at the Alma-Ata conference that created the Commonwealth of Independent States that "Member states of the Commonwealth support Russia in taking over the USSR membership in the UN, including permanent membership in the Security Council."
I think it is unlikely Ukraine will get sufficient support to undo a decision made thirty years ago that they favored at the time. Especially from other countries facing threats of secession - would the UK want to set a precedent that would cost them their seat if Scotland were to separate?
While I agree that Ukraine's gambit is unlikely to succeed, your analogy is flawed. Russia is not the Soviet Union. Ukraine didn't secede from the Soviet Union; the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Whereas the UK minus Scotland is a smaller UK. 1991 would be equivalent to Parliament repealing the Acts of Union and dissolving into independent kingdoms.
David, I agree that Russia was not the USSR. They were separate governments whose leaders Yeltsin and Gorbachev used to butt heads on an almost daily basis, and one of them cased to exist in 1991.
That is indeed a very different situation from secession which has happened several times, e.g. the partition of India in 1947, or Syria separating from the UAR in 1961. The UN would have been on solid legal ground to reject Russia's claim and maintain a clear distinction between a Successor State and a Continuing State. Instead, they accepted Russia as a Continuing State. I think a strong motivator was the fear of a UN constitutional crisis: According to its charter there must be a Security Council, which must have 5 permanent members, one of which must be the USSR. If they acknowledged that the USSR ceased to exist the legitimacy of the entire organization would be in doubt.
Whatever went on behind closed doors, the UN ultimately accepted Russia as continuing the rights and obligations of the USSR. To call that into question today could threaten the status of any other recognized Continuing State, whether or not they had a better claim.
It was not unthinkable. Go to youtube - there are half a dozen videos from well established history/military channels projecting how the invasion will be carried out.
And other than no amphibious assault on Odessa, the Russians getting largely stymied on day one, and Russian failure to achieve air supremacy they are pretty darn accurate.
Pretty darn accurate in predicting what the Russians tried to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzvbUpKU4eE
I meant that what was "unthinkable" was the European response.
Ah, understood.
"constantly hedging, calculating, and balancing interests with little grand vision or cause to pull their policies together."
Reminds me of "This election isn't about ideology. It's about competence."
Godwin's Law. In some cases, analogies to Hitler and to Stalin are apt.
Demanding territorial concessions to save the ethnic (Germans, Russians) living just that side of some border.
As demanded by the dictator of a country with nominal private ownership of industry, but with strong government partnership, and using truckloads of nationalist rhetoric.
Nah, not like Hitler.
It’s also not Godwin’s Law.
The analogy is very clear. Sudeten Germans oppressed by the Czechs. Knowing that no one will resist.
Implicit in McTague's second paragraph is that grand visions should be held by, and great societal advances led by national and international governments. The pragmatic caution of high-level political leaders is what's made "much of the West... jaded and cynical".
The contrary position, which McTague doesn't seem to consider at all, is that it's highly desirable for central governments to play a very limited role, acting chiefly to preserve a stable environment in which private individuals and local governments can pursue a variety of visions, be they radical or moderate. Rather than imposing a single grand vision from above, we should let a variety of visions be tested, and the most successful among them grow widespread through voluntary adoption.
If most of us have become "jaded and cynical", that's in no small part due to the fact that we've been taught to look to the highest levels of government for the directions in which society should go, rather than encouraged to experiment with our own money and in our own communities.
European Union and NATO member-state Czechia has warned citizens who express support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including on social media, they could face prison.
“The Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office considers it necessary to inform citizens that the current situation associated with the Russian Federation’s attack on Ukraine may have implications for their freedom of expression,” warned Czechia’s Attorney-General, Igor Stříž, in an official press release.
“[F]reedom of speech also has its limits in a democratic state governed by the rule of law,” the official asserted, explaining that anyone who “publicly (including at demonstrations, on the Internet or on social networks) agreed (accepted or supported the Russian Federation’s attacks on Ukraine) or expressed support or praised the leaders of the Russian Federation in this regard, they could also face criminal liability under certain conditions”, citing sections of the criminal code making it a crime to approve a criminal offence or deny, question, approve or justify genocide.
There can be something a little distasteful about Western onlookers (myself included) cheering on Ukrainians for a cause that our countries are not willing to join
That's a rather odd comment. Individual onlookers are not "our countries", nor do they make the policies in question (unless you're talking about "onlookers" at the highest levels of government.)