The outlawry of war has forced tyrants to concoct excuses for invading other countries. How should we respond? Evidence shows that outcasting in the form of economic sanctions beats armed conflict
This is a very interesting article. I am not sure how much of the 'peace' of the second half of the 20th century is due to democracy, trade, etc. I think that the Pax Americana played a major role in this, too. The US military has been intervening as the World's Police across the globe for decades and that has certainly been a deterrent to petty dictators.
In any case, the conclusion is solid: exile from the community of modern economies is a better, cheaper solution than sending young men (& now women) to war. Sure, some complain that sanctions are not always effective but, as Afghanistan showed the world - twice - neither is conquest.
Pax Americana sometimes works, sometimes not. Of course, where American interventionism prevents a war we rarely hear about it since a non-event is not news.
Agreed. As you point out we rarely hear about wars that never occurred. It is especially difficult to attribute a war that never occurred to the Triangle of Peace or fear of American military intervention.
Further complicating the attribution is that America rarely intervenes militarily without also employing economic, technical and social efforts.
What is the difference between the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russia invasion of Crimea and Ukraine. There is fundamentally one major thing they have in common. Both superpower nation flexed their military muscles to directly interfere with the internal affairs of another sovereign states. I understand that tthe UN security council was totally against this US invading Iraq under the pretext of searching weapons of mass destruction but the same international regime such as NATO is against Russia invasion of Ukraine. After all if one superpower nation can break international law and norms and another superpower nation would also try to do so because it is just in the DNA of politicians.
Here's the difference: when the U.S. sends in troops it is to restore the sovereignty of a nation beleaguered by another, and after successfully doing so withdraw most troops and leave some behind to maintain peace and sovereignty. That is not what Russia is doing in Ukraine (or what they tried to do in Afghanistan). It reminds me of the "moral equivalency" argument people make about the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking. Well, look what the U.S. did in mass carpet bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The difference: U.S. military action is directed to end the genocide being committed by Nazi Germany and the Japanese empire. When the genocides were ended, the bombings stopped.
Many historians disagree the US sends in troops to restore the sovereignty of nations - we just create a pretext to set up or prop up a pro-West government. Nations are complex and any simple theory of their behavior is likely to be lacking. Also, there is a matter of degree - just because both countries have committed wrongs, doesn't mean they have committed the same number or degree of wrongs.
FWIW: Russian claims it is acting to restore the sovereignty of people. In fact, both of your two examples demonstrate this: Putin claimed that Ukraine is full of nazis who want to persecute the pro-Russian population in the Donbas region and they are attacking Ukraine to preemptively defend that population - when a pro-Russian government is installed (they hope), they will remove their troops and let Ukraine be a sovereign nation again. Back in the Soviet days, the USSR sent troops to Afghanistan claiming to support a friendly sovereign government that was being threatened by internal forces.
There is no black and white - there are shades of grey.
Come on Michael. I find it surprising that you can maintain that there is this difference to the behaviour of the US. Aside from close examination of the historical record, we can just take a 'Bayesian' perspective. How likely is it, really, that this one power (i.e. the U.S.) acts totally differently from all others, in the geo-political realm - not in pursuit of its interests, but according to some high principle? And another 'Bayesian' point: how likely is it that you just happen to live in this exceptional nation?! As opposed to the more likely: it acts the same way every other power does, and you think otherwise because of in-group bias. I don't want to sound aggressive, but come on, I value your scepticism and rationality.
Thank you for reminding us that the post-ww II era did not see *every* democracy become more peaceful. Look at a list of US military operations since 1950.
Maybe the reason that most Western Democracies curtailed the use of military intervention is because one Western Democracy intervened on behalf of all the rest?
Sanctions are useless. The people will pay for it, the politicians won't. Higher energy prices drive up a lot of other prices and the poorest people in the world will suffer even more. Ukraine is the fault of the West: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=5s
"Sanctions are useless." I doubt Iran would agree.
"The people will pay for it, the politicians won't." Current sanctions are focused on Putin's inner circle. But yes, the people always pay for the actions of their leaders.
The sanctions to the inner circle are factored in by Putin & Co. They are imposed to "save" the face of the west. Yes, this is a cruel and aggressive attack on a sovereign country. Just like the ones on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc. etc. If you act as a leader, don't expect others to follow your advice. They will follow your example.
Well, to use your analogy, the West isn't being bullied by Putin, Ukraine is. And the usual advice in dealing with bullies is to fight back, which Ukraine is doing (with weapons and guidance from the West). The West (other kids at the playground) has closed ranks socially and economically against Russia, and the results will be much different if Putin decides to pick a fight with one of the West's NATO gang members.
Do you genuinely think that will help? I do not see any "West" helping on the actual playground. They hand out helmets at the border because the are scared to go in! Chechen fighters might help Russia with boots on the actual playground, but the West is not going. Again, the West is weak and woke. The military weakened because it was more important to have more participation of women and the standards for entering the military were lowered to make it possible... Now I am not sure if and how The Netherlands did that as well, but from their website I pull the current main requirements for entering the military:
1.) Minimum running of 2700 meters within 12 minutes.
2.) Minumum 4 pullups in 2 minutes
3.) Minimum 30 sit-ups in 2 minutes
4.) Minimum 30 push-ups in 2 minutes
Now, I was in the military before the cold war ended and believe it or not, I heard phrases like "when the shit hits the fan, I run away".
I tend to look at war as a larger, biological, issue. When we are immersed in the immediate fear, outrage and the ethics of how these conflicts develop, we tend not to see their evolutionary development. My premise is that processes that continue over thousands of years and in all cultures (like war and marriage) are biological in nature, even though they appear to be social in their essence. For example, even though we think of marriage exclusively as a social contract, the evolutionary biological view is that pair bondings/marriages produced a distinct biological advantage for survival. Likewise, despite the overpowering ethics of who's right and who's wrong in any war, mass killing is just our species response to uncontrolled overpopulation. We will continue to have wars and invent social reasons for them until we deal with the biology of overpopulation. It took our species about 200 years to grossly overpopulate the earth (from the 1820's industrial revolution/food production) and through multi-generational education, we can slowly reduce our population and reduce the size and scope of territorial/resource conflicts like war.
I think of overpopulation when I look at the Covid map of the USA. Or see photos of the overwhelming height of residential buildings in cities like NY. I'm wondering how we "deal with" the population issue, esp. now that the wingers are making it as impossible as they can to legally end a pregnancy before the fetus is fully formed. What, I wonder, is their goal, or their motivation, or whatever. Is this attitude about taking women out of the power structure they have hardly penetrated so far, or increasing population numbers to help take over everything, or what.....?
The statistics would be even more lovely and impressive if the USA had been left out. Our invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and a dozen Latin American nations before WWII all distort the figures.
That said, it is water under the bridge. Sanctions are the best 21st century response to this arrogant tsar. As you wrote, we sunk $trillions into our last two pathetic occupations, much merit as each seemed to have when they began.
If I were Ukrainian, I would be planning my underground partisan network activities against the occupying forces. The invaders may be in for a hell of a time, and the Ukrainians will be laser-focused on NATO membership as soon as the bad guys go home. That may be the most just legacy for Putin to receive.
Agreed, the U.S. is not the shining beacon on the hill as often portrayed, but let's not fall into "whataboutism" when analyzing current crises like Ukraine. It is possible for the U.S. to be flawed and have made mistakes AND that Putin is WAY worse.
Genuine question: Since WWII, what are the instances of outcasting that have resulted in the offending state reversing/rescinding the action(s) for which sanctions were imposed?
I suspect the absence of any response to this question is due to the absence of any representative examples of sanctions leading to the reversal of aggression. The usual result is increased suffering by the sanctioned nation's population, often with the further result that the population draws closer to the outlaw regime in response to the foreign enemies that have imposed the hardships through sanctions.
Excellent, highly infomrative article. Democratic governments are on the decline and autocratic forms are on the rise. More educational pieces like this may help to reverse the trend.
Michael, anyone who listened to the Trump interview knows that he was being sarcastic when he described Putin's statements and actions regarding the recent Ukraine invasion as "genius." Your Trump derangement syndrome became tiresome a long time ago.
Hathaway and Shapiro give too much credit to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and too little credit to the threat of nuclear annihilation and to alliances such as NATO, for deterring war. They also ignore failed attempts by North Korean to annex South Korea, North Vietnam to annex South Vietnam, Iraq to annex Kuwait, and other battles that might have ended differently, thereby spoiling their statistics regarding loss of territory after World War II.
Joe Biden has made it clear that the United States is not going to send US troops to fight for Ukraine, and no important European countries are proposing to do so themselves. By contrast, Russia has made it clear it is willing to use force to achieve its core objective, which is to keep Ukraine from joining NATO — not just now but at any point in the foreseeable future. The threat of sanctions wasn't sufficient to dissuade Putin from seizing Crimea in 2014, and it wasn't sufficient to dissuade him from invading Ukraine in recent days.
Ukraine was effectively neutral from 1992 until 2008. At no point in that period did it face a serious risk of invasion. That all changed when NATO foolishly announced Ukraine would join the alliance at some point in the distant future. Since NATO was unwilling to offer immediate membership, Ukraine should have taken the initiative and announced it intends to operate as a neutral country that will not join any military alliance. It would still be free to trade with and welcome investment from any country, and it would be free to choose its own leaders without outside interference. Living as a neutral state next door to Russia isn't an ideal situation, but it is the best outcome Ukraine can realistically expect. Instead, Russia was given an incentive to invade Ukraine before it falls under the protection of NATO. Unfortunately, it may now be too late for Ukraine to continue as an independent nation.
Trump defenders always fall back on the "he was just joking" or "he was just playing the left" or whatever. When nearly everyone in both parties are condemning Putin, Trump can't find even the smallest amount of character and substance to condemn the man? No. Why? Does he lack all character and substance? Some think so. But let's assume he does have some character and substance and still refuses to condemn Putin. Why? It has been obvious since 2016 that Putin has something on Trump--from the pee tape to financial obligations and who knows what else. But if not, then what? He admires autocrats and would love to be President for Life like Putin and Xi? He has said as much himself. If that makes me deranged to call attention to these facts, well, then I guess I'm deranged...with truth.
It's always funny when you, who portrays himself as a non-partisan skeptic and defender of science, spews ridiculous conspiracy theories without providing any semblance of evidence. Show me a link to the "pee tape" or evidence that Putin ever attempted to use it to blackmail Trump. Show me the financial obligations that you vaguely reference. Show me the "who knows what else" that you presume to exist. Show me a link to anytime Trump said that he wants to be President for life like Putin and Xi. If you think those claims are facts, you are either hopelessly deranged or hopelessly dishonest.
There is a difference between opposing term limits, as did Ronald Reagan even though he had no desire to serve for a third term, and maintaining power indefinitely through force or rigged elections. Many people, both Republican and Democrat, see no reason to prevent an effective and popular president from being re-elected after his or her second term.
If someone in Russia subscribes to your Substack or makes a large donation to Skeptic Magazine, would that make you a puppet of Putin and the Russian government? That is essentially what you are claiming by pointing out that some of Trump's businesses have had foreign investors. Does Hunter Biden’s financial dealings with foreign countries and individuals, including China and Russia, make Joe Biden a puppet of those countries?
Never mind that the Mueller Report debunked the entire "Russia, Russia, Russia!" thing. For a summary of the Russian collusion hoax, including the debunked "pee tape" allegation, see
I can hardly believe you are referencing Christopher Steele, author of the bogus Steele Dossier, in an attempt to promote the "pee tape" hoax. It is now established fact that the Clinton campaign had directly hired Christopher Steele and paid for his fictional dossier alleging collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi heard that fellow Democrat Representative Eric Swalwell had been infiltrated by an alleged Chinese spy, she said, “I don’t have any concerns about Mr. Swalwell.” In fact, Swalwell continued to serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, giving him access to the nation’s most highly classified intelligence secrets. It took two and half years, 19 Department of Justice lawyers, 40 FBI agents, over 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, more than 230 orders for communication records, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, 500 witnesses, and over $30 million for even Robert Mueller and his staff of 13 Democrat lawyers to come to the conclusion that the allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, which at that point had become Democrat Party dogma, were all a big lie. Yet, Swalwell still believes that big lie, asserting that he still sees “strong evidence of collusion” -- as does Michael Shermer, who will purposely misinterpret any scrap of information if he thinks doing so might discredit Donald Trump.
Arguably, Putin is smart, and an honest person wouldn't hesitate to admit that. That isn't an endorsement of Putin's morals, policies or actions, however. Trump has condemned Putin's invasion of Ukraine and has said that it wouldn't have happened during a Trump administration. Biden's weakness seems to have emboldened Putin.
The doubts of Trump supporters about the 2020 election - based on compelling accounts of election fraud - aren’t the same as the Democrats’ refusal to accept Trump after the 2016 election, which relied on a hazy tale of “Russian collusion,” birthed by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, that fell apart of its own weight after years of investigation. Clinton is still claiming that she won that election. Why is it that you never call her deranged?
It doesn't matter that the 'pee tape' exists. It doesn't matter that Putin has got the goods on Trump. What is important though, is that Trump believes he has. That belief completely explains Trump's relationship with Putin.
Sanctions did help lead to the breakup of the Soviet Union, especially the sanctions applied after it invaded Afghanistan. But it took over ten years of pressure, and not just sanctions but also the Afghan resistance which received military help and a failing economic system all brought down the Soviet Union. Russia may see analogues to all three: Sanctioned, an insurgency with outside aid, and an economic system likely to fail [this time due to corruption].
" Call it the moralization bias: the belief that our cause is moral and just and anyone who disagrees is not just wrong but immoral."
This is at least partly true in almost all confrontations, especially those that lead to actions and violence.
I also wonder about another, more basic and innate human urge. Call it the status bias. Like all social animals, we have a compulsion to seek status. Proto-humans certainly behaved in ways like those we can observe in modern primates, who seem to spend most of their time in what looks, from the outside, like meaningless and unproductive acts with other individuals, but that must be incredibly important, given the effort and sometimes ferocity involved.
And from the status bias comes the status fallacy. Somebody might think, and say, "In order to achieve my status I must impose it on others. And since I have status, I am entitled to impose it on others."
I suggest that the leap from primitive status to abstract morality is short and easy.
Putin certainly does seem like a status-seeking alpha male (shirtless on horseback, etc.) but he has other ambitions as well, probably seeing himself as something like the reincarnation of Joseph Stalin
An outstanding piece not so much for its recitation of Putin's vile behaviour--widely reported and commented upon- but for its thoughtful expanse into enquiry about the nature and history of war itself , past justifications for it . To end war which is largely reaching obsolesence in the arc of civilization's progress, this is the focus we need . In time War ought be viewed with all the taboos now brought to , say..........cannibalism . Not only barbaric , immoral , and unnecessary .
Brilliant! I loved the word revanchist, I didn't there was an anglo-equivalente to revancha. The pacifying aspect of WWII is under-appreciated. Thanks again.
ni una sola palabra acerca de ocho años de conflicto en Dombass(14000 muertos ,ataque a población civil provocando cientos de miles de refugiados),ni una sola palabra de la política expansionista de la OTAN ,ni una sola palabra de la participación extranjera en el golpe o derrocamiento en MAIDAN ,ni una sola palabra del incumplimiento de los acuerdos de minsk por kiev, que articulo tan pobre
I wonder what the Cosmonauts aboard the ISS are thinking right now. It never ceased to amaze me that for decades international space agencies of opposing political views were able to co-habitat and work together for the benefit of science, even with all of the constant political controversies weaving in and out. This invasion by Russia may be the limit to continuing this relationship. I guess 2031 can't come soon enough when the ISS will be retired.
Cosmonauts and astronauts have a different goal than Putin, namely to work together to advance science and technology. Nothing will come between them unless Putin orders them to leave (or invade the other side of the ISS)
Since WW2 the world also learnt that a commitment strategy is often required to prevent war. In essence NATO's article 5 is such a strategy and a large reason for the reduction in major wars since WW2. Surely if NATO had extended its protection to Ukraine, Putin would not have dared attack?
This is a very interesting article. I am not sure how much of the 'peace' of the second half of the 20th century is due to democracy, trade, etc. I think that the Pax Americana played a major role in this, too. The US military has been intervening as the World's Police across the globe for decades and that has certainly been a deterrent to petty dictators.
In any case, the conclusion is solid: exile from the community of modern economies is a better, cheaper solution than sending young men (& now women) to war. Sure, some complain that sanctions are not always effective but, as Afghanistan showed the world - twice - neither is conquest.
Pax Americana sometimes works, sometimes not. Of course, where American interventionism prevents a war we rarely hear about it since a non-event is not news.
Agreed. As you point out we rarely hear about wars that never occurred. It is especially difficult to attribute a war that never occurred to the Triangle of Peace or fear of American military intervention.
Further complicating the attribution is that America rarely intervenes militarily without also employing economic, technical and social efforts.
What is the difference between the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russia invasion of Crimea and Ukraine. There is fundamentally one major thing they have in common. Both superpower nation flexed their military muscles to directly interfere with the internal affairs of another sovereign states. I understand that tthe UN security council was totally against this US invading Iraq under the pretext of searching weapons of mass destruction but the same international regime such as NATO is against Russia invasion of Ukraine. After all if one superpower nation can break international law and norms and another superpower nation would also try to do so because it is just in the DNA of politicians.
Here's the difference: when the U.S. sends in troops it is to restore the sovereignty of a nation beleaguered by another, and after successfully doing so withdraw most troops and leave some behind to maintain peace and sovereignty. That is not what Russia is doing in Ukraine (or what they tried to do in Afghanistan). It reminds me of the "moral equivalency" argument people make about the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking. Well, look what the U.S. did in mass carpet bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The difference: U.S. military action is directed to end the genocide being committed by Nazi Germany and the Japanese empire. When the genocides were ended, the bombings stopped.
Many historians disagree the US sends in troops to restore the sovereignty of nations - we just create a pretext to set up or prop up a pro-West government. Nations are complex and any simple theory of their behavior is likely to be lacking. Also, there is a matter of degree - just because both countries have committed wrongs, doesn't mean they have committed the same number or degree of wrongs.
FWIW: Russian claims it is acting to restore the sovereignty of people. In fact, both of your two examples demonstrate this: Putin claimed that Ukraine is full of nazis who want to persecute the pro-Russian population in the Donbas region and they are attacking Ukraine to preemptively defend that population - when a pro-Russian government is installed (they hope), they will remove their troops and let Ukraine be a sovereign nation again. Back in the Soviet days, the USSR sent troops to Afghanistan claiming to support a friendly sovereign government that was being threatened by internal forces.
There is no black and white - there are shades of grey.
Come on Michael. I find it surprising that you can maintain that there is this difference to the behaviour of the US. Aside from close examination of the historical record, we can just take a 'Bayesian' perspective. How likely is it, really, that this one power (i.e. the U.S.) acts totally differently from all others, in the geo-political realm - not in pursuit of its interests, but according to some high principle? And another 'Bayesian' point: how likely is it that you just happen to live in this exceptional nation?! As opposed to the more likely: it acts the same way every other power does, and you think otherwise because of in-group bias. I don't want to sound aggressive, but come on, I value your scepticism and rationality.
Thank you for reminding us that the post-ww II era did not see *every* democracy become more peaceful. Look at a list of US military operations since 1950.
Maybe the reason that most Western Democracies curtailed the use of military intervention is because one Western Democracy intervened on behalf of all the rest?
Sanctions are useless. The people will pay for it, the politicians won't. Higher energy prices drive up a lot of other prices and the poorest people in the world will suffer even more. Ukraine is the fault of the West: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=5s
"Sanctions are useless." I doubt Iran would agree.
"The people will pay for it, the politicians won't." Current sanctions are focused on Putin's inner circle. But yes, the people always pay for the actions of their leaders.
What do you propose instead of sanctions?
The sanctions to the inner circle are factored in by Putin & Co. They are imposed to "save" the face of the west. Yes, this is a cruel and aggressive attack on a sovereign country. Just like the ones on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc. etc. If you act as a leader, don't expect others to follow your advice. They will follow your example.
How would you recommend the U.S. handle the current crisis?
The West is being bullied by Putin as the West is weak and woke. What advice should we give to such a boy that is being bullied at the playground?
Well, to use your analogy, the West isn't being bullied by Putin, Ukraine is. And the usual advice in dealing with bullies is to fight back, which Ukraine is doing (with weapons and guidance from the West). The West (other kids at the playground) has closed ranks socially and economically against Russia, and the results will be much different if Putin decides to pick a fight with one of the West's NATO gang members.
Do you genuinely think that will help? I do not see any "West" helping on the actual playground. They hand out helmets at the border because the are scared to go in! Chechen fighters might help Russia with boots on the actual playground, but the West is not going. Again, the West is weak and woke. The military weakened because it was more important to have more participation of women and the standards for entering the military were lowered to make it possible... Now I am not sure if and how The Netherlands did that as well, but from their website I pull the current main requirements for entering the military:
1.) Minimum running of 2700 meters within 12 minutes.
2.) Minumum 4 pullups in 2 minutes
3.) Minimum 30 sit-ups in 2 minutes
4.) Minimum 30 push-ups in 2 minutes
Now, I was in the military before the cold war ended and believe it or not, I heard phrases like "when the shit hits the fan, I run away".
Thanks for sharing this. It gives good background for current events.
I tend to look at war as a larger, biological, issue. When we are immersed in the immediate fear, outrage and the ethics of how these conflicts develop, we tend not to see their evolutionary development. My premise is that processes that continue over thousands of years and in all cultures (like war and marriage) are biological in nature, even though they appear to be social in their essence. For example, even though we think of marriage exclusively as a social contract, the evolutionary biological view is that pair bondings/marriages produced a distinct biological advantage for survival. Likewise, despite the overpowering ethics of who's right and who's wrong in any war, mass killing is just our species response to uncontrolled overpopulation. We will continue to have wars and invent social reasons for them until we deal with the biology of overpopulation. It took our species about 200 years to grossly overpopulate the earth (from the 1820's industrial revolution/food production) and through multi-generational education, we can slowly reduce our population and reduce the size and scope of territorial/resource conflicts like war.
I think of overpopulation when I look at the Covid map of the USA. Or see photos of the overwhelming height of residential buildings in cities like NY. I'm wondering how we "deal with" the population issue, esp. now that the wingers are making it as impossible as they can to legally end a pregnancy before the fetus is fully formed. What, I wonder, is their goal, or their motivation, or whatever. Is this attitude about taking women out of the power structure they have hardly penetrated so far, or increasing population numbers to help take over everything, or what.....?
The statistics would be even more lovely and impressive if the USA had been left out. Our invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and a dozen Latin American nations before WWII all distort the figures.
That said, it is water under the bridge. Sanctions are the best 21st century response to this arrogant tsar. As you wrote, we sunk $trillions into our last two pathetic occupations, much merit as each seemed to have when they began.
If I were Ukrainian, I would be planning my underground partisan network activities against the occupying forces. The invaders may be in for a hell of a time, and the Ukrainians will be laser-focused on NATO membership as soon as the bad guys go home. That may be the most just legacy for Putin to receive.
Agreed, the U.S. is not the shining beacon on the hill as often portrayed, but let's not fall into "whataboutism" when analyzing current crises like Ukraine. It is possible for the U.S. to be flawed and have made mistakes AND that Putin is WAY worse.
Genuine question: Since WWII, what are the instances of outcasting that have resulted in the offending state reversing/rescinding the action(s) for which sanctions were imposed?
I suspect the absence of any response to this question is due to the absence of any representative examples of sanctions leading to the reversal of aggression. The usual result is increased suffering by the sanctioned nation's population, often with the further result that the population draws closer to the outlaw regime in response to the foreign enemies that have imposed the hardships through sanctions.
Excellent, highly infomrative article. Democratic governments are on the decline and autocratic forms are on the rise. More educational pieces like this may help to reverse the trend.
Thanks. Indeed, forward this article to your friends and colleagues.
Michael, anyone who listened to the Trump interview knows that he was being sarcastic when he described Putin's statements and actions regarding the recent Ukraine invasion as "genius." Your Trump derangement syndrome became tiresome a long time ago.
Hathaway and Shapiro give too much credit to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and too little credit to the threat of nuclear annihilation and to alliances such as NATO, for deterring war. They also ignore failed attempts by North Korean to annex South Korea, North Vietnam to annex South Vietnam, Iraq to annex Kuwait, and other battles that might have ended differently, thereby spoiling their statistics regarding loss of territory after World War II.
Joe Biden has made it clear that the United States is not going to send US troops to fight for Ukraine, and no important European countries are proposing to do so themselves. By contrast, Russia has made it clear it is willing to use force to achieve its core objective, which is to keep Ukraine from joining NATO — not just now but at any point in the foreseeable future. The threat of sanctions wasn't sufficient to dissuade Putin from seizing Crimea in 2014, and it wasn't sufficient to dissuade him from invading Ukraine in recent days.
Ukraine was effectively neutral from 1992 until 2008. At no point in that period did it face a serious risk of invasion. That all changed when NATO foolishly announced Ukraine would join the alliance at some point in the distant future. Since NATO was unwilling to offer immediate membership, Ukraine should have taken the initiative and announced it intends to operate as a neutral country that will not join any military alliance. It would still be free to trade with and welcome investment from any country, and it would be free to choose its own leaders without outside interference. Living as a neutral state next door to Russia isn't an ideal situation, but it is the best outcome Ukraine can realistically expect. Instead, Russia was given an incentive to invade Ukraine before it falls under the protection of NATO. Unfortunately, it may now be too late for Ukraine to continue as an independent nation.
Trump defenders always fall back on the "he was just joking" or "he was just playing the left" or whatever. When nearly everyone in both parties are condemning Putin, Trump can't find even the smallest amount of character and substance to condemn the man? No. Why? Does he lack all character and substance? Some think so. But let's assume he does have some character and substance and still refuses to condemn Putin. Why? It has been obvious since 2016 that Putin has something on Trump--from the pee tape to financial obligations and who knows what else. But if not, then what? He admires autocrats and would love to be President for Life like Putin and Xi? He has said as much himself. If that makes me deranged to call attention to these facts, well, then I guess I'm deranged...with truth.
It's always funny when you, who portrays himself as a non-partisan skeptic and defender of science, spews ridiculous conspiracy theories without providing any semblance of evidence. Show me a link to the "pee tape" or evidence that Putin ever attempted to use it to blackmail Trump. Show me the financial obligations that you vaguely reference. Show me the "who knows what else" that you presume to exist. Show me a link to anytime Trump said that he wants to be President for life like Putin and Xi. If you think those claims are facts, you are either hopelessly deranged or hopelessly dishonest.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/04/president-life-trump-says-maybe-well-have-give-shot-some-day/393545002/
There is a difference between opposing term limits, as did Ronald Reagan even though he had no desire to serve for a third term, and maintaining power indefinitely through force or rigged elections. Many people, both Republican and Democrat, see no reason to prevent an effective and popular president from being re-elected after his or her second term.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helped-save-trumps-business/
If someone in Russia subscribes to your Substack or makes a large donation to Skeptic Magazine, would that make you a puppet of Putin and the Russian government? That is essentially what you are claiming by pointing out that some of Trump's businesses have had foreign investors. Does Hunter Biden’s financial dealings with foreign countries and individuals, including China and Russia, make Joe Biden a puppet of those countries?
Never mind that the Mueller Report debunked the entire "Russia, Russia, Russia!" thing. For a summary of the Russian collusion hoax, including the debunked "pee tape" allegation, see
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-clinton-campaigns-two-pronged-plan-to-create-the-trump-russia-collusion-narrative_4302443.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/christopher-steele-trump-pee-tape-probably-exists-2021-10
I can hardly believe you are referencing Christopher Steele, author of the bogus Steele Dossier, in an attempt to promote the "pee tape" hoax. It is now established fact that the Clinton campaign had directly hired Christopher Steele and paid for his fictional dossier alleging collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi heard that fellow Democrat Representative Eric Swalwell had been infiltrated by an alleged Chinese spy, she said, “I don’t have any concerns about Mr. Swalwell.” In fact, Swalwell continued to serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, giving him access to the nation’s most highly classified intelligence secrets. It took two and half years, 19 Department of Justice lawyers, 40 FBI agents, over 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, more than 230 orders for communication records, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, 500 witnesses, and over $30 million for even Robert Mueller and his staff of 13 Democrat lawyers to come to the conclusion that the allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, which at that point had become Democrat Party dogma, were all a big lie. Yet, Swalwell still believes that big lie, asserting that he still sees “strong evidence of collusion” -- as does Michael Shermer, who will purposely misinterpret any scrap of information if he thinks doing so might discredit Donald Trump.
And as of tonight Trump is still claiming Putin is "smart". Oh, and that he, Trump, won the 2020 election. Anyone who believes this is deranged. https://news.yahoo.com/trump-speak-florida-conservative-conference-202354974.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=ma
Arguably, Putin is smart, and an honest person wouldn't hesitate to admit that. That isn't an endorsement of Putin's morals, policies or actions, however. Trump has condemned Putin's invasion of Ukraine and has said that it wouldn't have happened during a Trump administration. Biden's weakness seems to have emboldened Putin.
The doubts of Trump supporters about the 2020 election - based on compelling accounts of election fraud - aren’t the same as the Democrats’ refusal to accept Trump after the 2016 election, which relied on a hazy tale of “Russian collusion,” birthed by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, that fell apart of its own weight after years of investigation. Clinton is still claiming that she won that election. Why is it that you never call her deranged?
It doesn't matter that the 'pee tape' exists. It doesn't matter that Putin has got the goods on Trump. What is important though, is that Trump believes he has. That belief completely explains Trump's relationship with Putin.
Sanctions did help lead to the breakup of the Soviet Union, especially the sanctions applied after it invaded Afghanistan. But it took over ten years of pressure, and not just sanctions but also the Afghan resistance which received military help and a failing economic system all brought down the Soviet Union. Russia may see analogues to all three: Sanctioned, an insurgency with outside aid, and an economic system likely to fail [this time due to corruption].
been looking for an article like this all day! thanks for this write up.
" Call it the moralization bias: the belief that our cause is moral and just and anyone who disagrees is not just wrong but immoral."
This is at least partly true in almost all confrontations, especially those that lead to actions and violence.
I also wonder about another, more basic and innate human urge. Call it the status bias. Like all social animals, we have a compulsion to seek status. Proto-humans certainly behaved in ways like those we can observe in modern primates, who seem to spend most of their time in what looks, from the outside, like meaningless and unproductive acts with other individuals, but that must be incredibly important, given the effort and sometimes ferocity involved.
And from the status bias comes the status fallacy. Somebody might think, and say, "In order to achieve my status I must impose it on others. And since I have status, I am entitled to impose it on others."
I suggest that the leap from primitive status to abstract morality is short and easy.
Putin certainly does seem like a status-seeking alpha male (shirtless on horseback, etc.) but he has other ambitions as well, probably seeing himself as something like the reincarnation of Joseph Stalin
An outstanding piece not so much for its recitation of Putin's vile behaviour--widely reported and commented upon- but for its thoughtful expanse into enquiry about the nature and history of war itself , past justifications for it . To end war which is largely reaching obsolesence in the arc of civilization's progress, this is the focus we need . In time War ought be viewed with all the taboos now brought to , say..........cannibalism . Not only barbaric , immoral , and unnecessary .
Brilliant! I loved the word revanchist, I didn't there was an anglo-equivalente to revancha. The pacifying aspect of WWII is under-appreciated. Thanks again.
ni una sola palabra acerca de ocho años de conflicto en Dombass(14000 muertos ,ataque a población civil provocando cientos de miles de refugiados),ni una sola palabra de la política expansionista de la OTAN ,ni una sola palabra de la participación extranjera en el golpe o derrocamiento en MAIDAN ,ni una sola palabra del incumplimiento de los acuerdos de minsk por kiev, que articulo tan pobre
I wonder what the Cosmonauts aboard the ISS are thinking right now. It never ceased to amaze me that for decades international space agencies of opposing political views were able to co-habitat and work together for the benefit of science, even with all of the constant political controversies weaving in and out. This invasion by Russia may be the limit to continuing this relationship. I guess 2031 can't come soon enough when the ISS will be retired.
Cosmonauts and astronauts have a different goal than Putin, namely to work together to advance science and technology. Nothing will come between them unless Putin orders them to leave (or invade the other side of the ISS)
Russia has not been banned from SWIFT. However Putin's check cashing card at Von's has been revoked.
Since WW2 the world also learnt that a commitment strategy is often required to prevent war. In essence NATO's article 5 is such a strategy and a large reason for the reduction in major wars since WW2. Surely if NATO had extended its protection to Ukraine, Putin would not have dared attack?