The ‘Special
Operation’
Ever since the war in Ukraine started, I wanted to write something about it. This was the most
difficult article I’ve written so far, which is why it took so long; I want to treat this with the regard
and prudence it deserves. Additionally, I don’t want to be misunderstood. When discussing wars
and other such sensitive matters, people tend to want only to focus on the belligerent—which is
why the powerful love a good war. Nothing fogs up the mirror in which we look at ourselves better
than a brutal enemy. States uninvolved in the conflict use it to consolidate even more power and
control, under the guise of shoring up necessary defenses against the truculent foreign threat. Any
critique can be ably dealt with by a slew of calumnies accusing critics of supporting the enemy. In
turn, those sympathetic to the war effort from the invaders will claim to simply be scrutinizing both
sides, while selectively focusing on their interests. This, understandably, makes war-commentary
very difficult outside of repeating conventional platitudes.
Therefore, we should first acknowledge the obvious: this is Russian imperialism. It is a fact often
omitted from commentary critical of the West, leaving the task of filtering out Russian propaganda
quite tedious. Vladimir Putin has embarked on a quest to dragoon Ukraine back under soviet-style
tyranny by old-fashioned brutal conquest. There is no possibility of justification, and the blame
falls squarely on Putin’s shoulders.
Nothing written subsequently is meant to excuse, or even argue mitigation of blame. But the notion
posited by many pundits that we played no hand in engendering this conflict seems like nonsense to
me. Perhaps the moral dynamics at play would be better examined with a simplistic analogy:
suppose you and I get invited to a party at Tom’s house. Tom’s upstairs neighbor Tim, hates us and
has said he doesn’t want to see us near him or Tom. When he sees us at Tom’s party, he gets mad
and Tim punches Tom. It obviously would be ridiculous for me to turn to you and say “it’s our fault
Tom got punched.” Nevertheless, he wouldn’t have gotten punched if we didn’t go to his party. Is it
worth considering not attending? Is it worth noting we have a history of punching Tim’s friends at
our neighbor’s parties? Let’s move on from this overly, almost patronizingly, simplistic metaphor
and dive into some history.
For years, the Russian government has repeated it has several areas of strategic interest it won’t
compromise on. Any encroachment on these so-called “red lines” will be met with Russian
resistance. Foreign policy experts have debated for years about how serious Russia is about its red
lines, and to what extent we can take the threat of war seriously. After all, the intelligence business
exists to predict your opponent's moves; countries are thus prone to vague and capricious
messaging to keep others guessing their true motives. Offering Ukraine a closer relationship with
NATO, however, was understood by most experts as a genuine red line. Here’s why: after 911
Vladimir Putin was the first world leader to call George W. Bush and offer a partnership, a joint
effort to fight terror. Bush essentially jilted him; not even giving him a mention in his address to
Congress, where he thanked the French, Germany, South Korea, Egypt, Australia, Africa, Latin
America, and Britain. Bush unveiled his plan to deal with terrorism: democracy. Maybe to Bush, it
seemed insignificant, but it wasn’t to Putin. Moreover, part of Bush’s so-called “freedom doctrine”
included vocally supporting a democratic revolution in Ukraine. This led Putin to harshly criticize
the US at the Munich Security Conference. He started by saying: “First and foremost, the United
States has overstepped its national borders in the economic, political, and humanitarian spheres it
imposes on other nations.” Sometime after the speech, Bush encouraged Georgia and Ukraine to
join NATO. Putin reiterated his warning to Bush in Bucharest in 2008—four months before Russia
seized five thousand square miles of Georgia. Putin made clear he would respond with violence if
the West tried to extend influence eastward. That was reaffirmed in 2014 when Russia was losing
influence in the region due to pro-democracy protests—that’s when those “little green men”
suddenly appeared in Crimea.
Can we learn something from this? Many argue that Ukraine needs to be admitted into NATO to
prevent Russia from invading it. Is that not like punching a lion to prevent it from eating you?
Additionally, the US has a long history of invading neighboring countries to “contain” the Soviet
Union. We even had a small missile crisis in the sixties, because the Cubans had the temerity to
allow Soviet missiles near America’s borders. Luckily, the crisis ended when the US agreed to
remove missiles in Turkey—on the Soviet border.
The United States, like Russia, is a massive imperialist power. When the United States says it
“supports democracy,” it means they support whatever country is subservient to them. There is a
depressingly long list of brutal regimes the US supported—and sometimes installed, like the Shah
of Iran. And the US still supports brutal regimes today, like the ones in Turkmenistan and the
Philippines. To briefly illustrate modern US imperialism's form, let’s turn to the Middle East for a
clear example.
The US claims it’s fighting Islamic extremism in the region. This seems incongruous with even a
cursory glance at Middle Eastern politics.
Let’s start in the 1980s when the United States famously supported extremist rebel groups to
trap the Soviet Union into their own Vietnam—a costly war in money and lives, but also public
perception and support. America began to fund terrorist groups, one of which included bin Laden.
One person the US directly supported was Jalaluddin Haqqani, who was called “goodness
personified” by Charlie Wilson—a Texas politician credited with shoring up congressional support
for Operation Cyclone. Haqqani was a staunch ally of Bin Laden. After the Soviet withdrawal,
these extremist groups tore the country apart, and part of the Mujahideen would later become the
Taliban. It shows you the caliber of the radicals the US portrays as paragons of virtue.
I also want to draw your attention to the installation of Nouri al-Maliki as Iraq’s prime minister.
The Bush administration was warned by US ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus
and national security adviser Stephen Hadley that Maliki would increase sectarianism and plunge
the country back into violence after the US exerted enormous effort to bring stability back after the
invasion. Bush refused to abandon Maliki, and when Obama pulled out of Iraq—which was now as
stable as it had been since 2003—Maliki cracked down on the Sunni population, to the point that
when ISIS first arrived in Mosul they were welcomed with open arms, people thought they were
liberators. That notion quickly dissipated when the daily flogging and executions started. This
extreme strain of Islam is called Wahhabism, it preaches hate against Christians, Jews, and even
non-Wahhabi Muslims. Where does this extreme strain come from? Saudi Arabia—America’s big
ally. Saudi Arabia has been the epicenter of Islamic extremism for years. They engage in mass
executions, usually by beheading (like ISIS), last year alone they executed 147 people. Crimes
worthy of death include things like political dissent or homosexuality. They assassinated a
journalist—Jamal Khashoggi—in a foreign country. The extremist Wahhabi textbooks that ISIS use
in their “schools” come directly from Saudi Arabia. And weapons we sell to the Saudis, when they
don’t end up in Yemeni school buses, miraculously wind up in the hands of Al-Qeada linked
fighters (much to the surprise of the Saudis, of course).
On this quick tour of Middle Eastern politics, does it seem like the United States cares much
about Islamic Extremism? To me, it just sounds absurd. So if it’s not counter-terrorism, what is it? I
would argue, these actions only make sense through the lens of imperialism. The United States will
support anyone, no matter how extreme they are, to guarantee access to a region and its resources.
(Just like the Russians and any other powerful country.)
This is also what motivated the US in the eighties when it invaded Nicaragua. Officially, the US
claimed it was to counter Soviet-sponsored terrorism. In fact, it was to counter a democratic
uprising that threatened the US sphere of influence. America’s evidence for the partnership was
that Nicaragua had bought Soviet MiGs. They had wanted to buy French Mirage jets—which the
US prevented.
The idea that America is supporting Ukraine out of benevolence is a little silly. America happens
to find its strategic interests aligned with the defending side. Putting it, by accident, on the side of
“the better angels” so to speak. Though we should be weary, the continuation of this war might
also be in America’s interest, and I think it would be naïve to assume it isn’t pursuing that aim as
well. I’m not going to opine on the necessity or acceptability of a diplomatic settlement, I’ll leave
that to you. I will point out I’ve noticed the media consistently framing negotiating as capitulating,
and it always revolves around handing Russia a piece of Ukraine. It seems like a solecism to point
out that if we wanted to help Ukraine we could put things on the table ourselves. But that appears
beyond the pale; offering a moratorium on economic sanctions and NATO expansion in exchange
for a withdrawal, formal recognition of Ukraine as a sovereign country, and reprieve for Russian
citizens jailed for opposing the war, is far beyond acceptable discussion.
When the progressive caucus of the Democratic Party signed a letter to Joe Biden saying:
“Given the destruction created by this war for Ukraine and the world, as well as the risk of catastrophic
escalation, we also believe it is in the interests of Ukraine, the United States, and the world to avoid a
prolonged conflict. For this reason, we urge you to pair the military and economic support the United
States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic
framework for a ceasefire. [. . .] We agree with the Administration’s perspective that it is not America’s
place to pressure Ukraine’s government regarding sovereign decisions, and with the principle you have
enunciated that there should be ‘nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.’ But as legislators responsible
for the expenditure of tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in military assistance in the conflict, we
believe such involvement in this war also creates a responsibility for the United States to seriously explore
all possible avenues, [. . .] we urge you to make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated
settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia, explore prospects for a new European
security arrangement acceptable to all parties that will allow for a sovereign and independent Ukraine.”
They withdrew their letter almost as soon as the ink had dried—not because of the farrago of
panicked articles lambasting them for supporting Russian aggression, but because the other party
members were irate they were getting in the way of their war-profiteering. Let’s not forget just how
much lucre is being made from armed conflict these days.
The letter was very restrained and tempered, but no cautious call for merely considering asking for
possible ceasefire negotiations is permitted. The only way to support Ukraine is to let the war
continue; there is no alternative for the defense industry and the media.
The fact that I’m pointing that out shouldn’t lead you to assume my position, however. I’m merely
pointing out the interests of big institutions.
My position is more opaque. I’m in favor of sending Ukraine weapons and other aid. And I could
potentially see myself supporting a peace agreement, it would depend on the provisions.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of this conflict. I understand the reluctance, perfectly, to
make a deal with the aggressor. I also know that innocent civilians bear the brunt of any war,
especially when the Russian army is carrying out zachistka—“clearing operations” featuring house-
to-house searches. Past zachistka operations became infamous for their mass executions. And there
are also plenty of Russian citizens who had their lives ruined for committing the high crime of
questioning the war effort, let alone opposing it. And the longer the war continues, the more of
Ukraine will be bombed into ruins. (There will be a nice profit for whatever country will aid in
rebuilding it…) Germany is also using this opportunity to expand its military might once again. So,
with all that, ending the destruction as quickly as possible, seems paramount to me.
It might also be worth noting that historically, peace has been won by diplomacy.
For example: when Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated, after explicitly attempting to conquer the
European continent, the victors allowed a defeated France a seat at the table. It led to what was
called Europe’s “century of peace.” Although there was some conflict, the diplomatic efforts to
curtail violence were largely successful. In contrast, after Europe’s relapse in 1914, due to a
breakdown of communications and buildup of force, the allies excluded Germany and the newly
formed Soviet Union from continental matters; this ended up being one of the things that helped
start World War 2 and the subsequent Cold War. Though not as cathartic as bombs or sanctions,
diplomacy—however boring—seems to produce better results. Could it do so in Ukraine? Should
we try? I don’t know. As I said, I’ll leave that question to you.
This history is all pretty useless to me at the moment. Because, as I said, I’m not using it to assign
blame to the West. NATO is not responsible for this war, but it might not have happened had it
acted more cautiously. And there is a reason this is important to understand, you may have heard of
brewing tensions in the East China Sea. The situation with Taiwan is very similar to the
Russia/Ukraine conflict. The US and China are in a new arms race, only this time it’s about
technology. The US has already blocked China's access to global companies that use US
semiconductor technology and is manufacturing them in a country Xi Jinping considers his
territory. There will be no excuse for China if they invade Taiwan, for the death and devastation,
but it might have been avoidable. Recently the US moved B-52 bombers to Australia (the kinds of
planes that carry nuclear bombs), and the US is increasing the number of troops deployed in
Taiwan from thirty to two hundred. For years “strategic ambiguity” has kept violence out of Taipei;
but now, the US is risking that fragile peace. Supporters of a more aggressive policy toward
pursuing Taiwanese sovereignty often cite polls that show Taiwan’s citizens want formal
independence, the same polls also show that they’d prefer not to upset the status quo for now,
fearing retribution from China. I wonder if Ukraine’s citizens would have preferred a similar tactful
approach had they been given the choice.
This has honestly been exhausting to write. I know how divisive this issue is. I tried my best not to
sound like some extreme anti-western fanatic, but I fear I fell somewhat short of that ambition. It
felt inappropriate, though, to suddenly mention the positive things in the West when I’m busy
critiquing it. I do support Ukrainian sovereignty and Taiwanese independence, just once more for
the record, I just don’t support Western foreign policy. If god-knows-how, you found this blog in
the future and found yourself disagreeing with me today, you should know I’m fine with that. I
welcome a different point of view (although you should probably be prepared for an argument, I
could start one in an empty room). And if you happened to enjoy this article, I'm glad but you must
be some kind of masochist. I’m working on making my writing sound less… haughty? Less cold,
maybe. I don't know what tone I'm detecting in my own writing but I'm not sure I like it. Anyway,
practice will make it perfect. I promise the next one won’t be such a chore to get through.
February 25 2023