I think one can be against the West entering into open war with Russia without having to accept Putin's histo-mythic perorations about the Kievan Rus, and his Hitlerian rationalizations about the suffering ethno-Russians of the Donbas. What does Luhansk have to do with the shelling of Kyiv and Lviv? One can admit the failures of Western Diplomacy, especially on the part of the Neoconservatives and Neoliberals, without giving Putin a free-pass to swallow an entire sovereign nation. History is not determined, either in the direction of Progress or Fall - Putin did not have to invade Ukraine or shell major Western Ukrainian cities. He has chosen to do so and thus has real blood on his hands. I cannot see how any of this ends well.
For a contrasting more Neocon perspective from those of Messers. Hitchens and Dougherty that I posted earlier see:
George Weigel at
First Things:
The first fact: This is a Russian crisis, not a “Ukraine crisis.”
The second fact: This artificially created crisis, aimed at Ukraine’s destabilization and subjugation, is one expression of Putin’s determination to reverse history’s verdict in the Cold War.
The third fact: The ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine is underwritten by a false rendition of history, including Christian history.
The fourth fact: Russian aggression in Ukraine targets everyone, including children.
&
Anne Applebaum at
The Atlantic:
In fact, when talking to the new breed of autocrats, whether in Russia, China, Venezuela, or Iran, we are now dealing with something very different: people who aren’t interested in treaties and documents, people who only respect hard power. Russia is in violation of the Budapest Memorandum, signed in 1994, guaranteeing Ukrainian security. Do you ever hear Putin talk about that? Of course not. He isn’t concerned about his untrustworthy reputation either: Lying keeps opponents on their toes. Nor does Lavrov mind if he is hated, because hatred gives him an aura of power.
Their intentions are different from ours too. Putin’s goal is not a flourishing, peaceful, prosperous Russia, but a Russia where he remains in charge. Lavrov’s goal is to maintain his position in the murky world of the Russian elite and, of course, to keep his money. What we mean by “interests” and what they mean by “interests” are not the same. When they listen to our diplomats, they don’t hear anything that really threatens their position, their power, their personal fortunes.
Despite all of our talk, no one has ever seriously tried to end, rather than simply limit, Russian money laundering in the West, or Russian political or financial influence in the West. No one has taken seriously the idea that Germans should now make themselves independent of Russian gas, or that France should ban political parties that accept Russian money, or that the U.K. and the U.S. should stop Russian oligarchs from buying property in London or Miami. No one has suggested that the proper response to Putin’s information war on our political system would be an information war on his.
Now we are on the brink of what could be a catastrophic conflict. American, British, and European embassies in Ukraine are evacuating; citizens have been warned to leave. But this terrible moment represents not just a failure of diplomacy; it also reflects a failure of the Western imagination, a generation-long refusal, on the part of diplomats, politicians, journalists, and intellectuals, to understand what kind of state Russia was becoming and to prepare accordingly. We have refused to see the representatives of this state for what they are. We have refused to speak to them in a way that might have mattered. Now it might be too late.
Affiliation: Lancaster Mennonite Conference & Honduran Mennonite Evangelical Church
