Ukraine Through My Oblique Lens (and how you can help)

I have my sincere doubts that anything I proffer here will be of moment or of value to the historical record. That said, the situation in the Ukraine should be examined from several perspectives other than “Putin’s a maniac!” (a not unwarranted observation) or “Ukraine should be free!” (no argument there) or “Make Peace! Not War!” (also, a fine sentiment.) Maybe better to say “in addition to”?

This might be one of the few times where I don’t feel a need to delve into antecedents or review the history between two nations. I don’t even necessarily feel a need to look at Putin’s reasons for invading. There are plenty of analyses that speak to this and are worth reviewing that my regurgitation wouldn’t add any value to. 

What we have before us is the fact that yet another world power has invaded and tried to subjugate another independent state. There are some narratives surrounding this that I think are worth looking at, however superficially. I want to start with a more high-level look and then drill down to the more U.S. related side and down to a more personal sense of this.

The first one is that this echoes so many other instances over the past (not even a) century and change. The Nazis invading Poland come to mind most famously, but also, China’s invasion of Tibet, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, and if we really want to, too many other examples where the invasion of a sovereign nation has been carried out based on often exaggerated claims to “ownership”, aggression against the invader, and an number of other “reasons”, most if not all of which, are without merit. 

In one of the cases mentioned above, the result was World War Two. In the second case, the world mostly shrugged its shoulders. In the third case, the invader brought censure upon itself but suffered little in terms of sanction or actions taken against it. Such is the advantage of empire. Even now, it is unlikely that the United States would feel much of an affect from a similar action from a military exercise. The getting of wisdom is often in the delayed reaction of the wrongheadedness of such actions among voters as reaction to the loss of (American) lives and the destabilization of internal politics. I’ll revisit this more later.

In the case of the People’s Republic of China’s invasion of Tibet, the ramifications of the PRC’s invasion were hardly taken into account: not just the illegality of the invasion (which was contested at the time because Tibet was a not a member of the United Nations) or its immorality, but frankly, because China itself was not a major force politically (except in Southeast Asia where the Eurocentric mentality assumed superiority since the French still held influence across “Indochina.” Additionally, there may have been an underlying sense of hanging out India to dry since the U.S. perception was that Nehru had forged his alliance with the U.S.S.R. As we know, there was far, far more going on than the facile interpretations of our political leaders and the press at the time. But the repercussions of all these instances bear review, however cursory.

World War Two reshaped the world geopolitically and changed humanity existentially. It’s not too strong a point to make that the millions of lives lost are a trauma that continues to this day. Indeed, there’s a case to be made that the First World War was the first such trauma and the second amplified and deepened the wounds and the shock. Ushering in the Nuclear Era locked in the sense of dread and anxiety that dogged any sense of well-being humanity might have had from the fifties through the nineties. However, I would add that Putin’s declarations regarding the potential use of nuclear armament and North Korea’s resumption of testing recently, are not merely vestigial. 

The conventional thinking is that nuclear deterrence is the tamping down of any possible hostilities between two (or more) nuclear powers since this would quickly lead to escalation and at the very least, an end to civilization as we know it. As I write this, I am giving the Russian leader the benefit of a doubt that he is aware of this; however, as we will also see, he is not gaining ground in Ukraine as rapidly as he might like, sanctions are crippling his nation, and it appears that domestically, the Russian people are discovering that they have been manipulated. 

The flip side to this is that Putin may be thinking of taking a page from the American use of dirty weapons in Iraq. Using “tainted” (i.e., isotope-enhanced) weaponry produces terrifying results (and is a war crime - more on that later.) But that’s just more conjecture. Nevertheless, perhaps it is worth holding that in mind.

The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was ostensibly based on unsubstantiated intel of the presence of “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Most of us who organized and marched against the invasion were well aware that this was bullshit. I am using the word pointedly. The Bush Administration knew it and I do not believe for a nanosecond that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell believed this nonsense. However, the Bush Administration smelled oil and an easy win. Wrong on both counts and the U.S and the world paid for this invasion in other ways. The contemporaneous invasion and occupation of Afghanistan proved more extensive in terms of exposing the rot and damage empires bring to both the countries they invade and to their own populations. 

I would argue that the saving grace of the United States’ “adventures” in the Middle East have helped strip away some layers of nationalist accretion while exposing just how deeply held the sense of exceptionalism remains and the concomitant blindness this leads to. In many ways, not so different from the nationalism and exceptionalism trumpeted by leaders of other nations like, well, China, and Russia. The difference is that like Great Britain, the U.S. is learning that the imperialist project is not worthwhile; again, points to revisit.

Does the Russian invasion of the Ukraine spell inevitable escalation into a regional conflagration? I don’t know that it’s inevitable but as I write this on 2 March 2022, it’s not difficult to see how the invasion could lead to such an escalation. 

Could it lead to a Third World War? I have my doubts. Here’s why: Putin may have his eyes on rebuilding what he sees as the Russian Empire and extending its reach geographically, but it appears he really does not comprehend that essentially no one is willing to cede sovereignty anymore under threat of outdated expansionist militarism. Putin has taken away the wrong lessons from the U.S. involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars are costly distractions that do not lead to greatness. In this case, he is discovering that war can now be waged economically quite effectively. 

This may be one of the reasons why President Xi is reluctant to say too much or lend too much support to their northern neighbor. If Putin is successful in somehow conquering/occupying Ukraine, Xi might take that as a mandate to perform a similar action toward Taiwan. What is telling, though, is that Xi may actually be more pragmatic and one assumes that he and his cohort in the Chinese Communist Party are watching the havoc sanctions are wreaking on the Russian economy. China would have far more to lose if much of the world decided to levy similar sanctions against her. China’s investments span the globe and if those assets were to freeze, it would be far more ruinous to the PRC than most realize. How China would respond is up in the air and my assumption is that they might try some “hostage taking” maneuver; i.e., threaten the physical well-being of neighboring states if sanctions are imposed. However, as we are seeing play out with Russia, the crippling effects are immediate. In other words, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is turning into more of an object lesson of how modern warfare can play out without “boots on the ground”. 

Another aspect of this invasion and the responses to it that relate to the China question is how this shifts the narrative for reactionary autocrats elsewhere across the world. Rebecca Solnit has said that this sends a message to them that the tides are turning against them; however, we know that the psychology of many of these “strongmen” is that they are driven by their own narratives and the degree to which they will exercise power is relative to how deeply ingrained those narratives of power are. A Putin or a Trump may well exist in Teflon worlds of delusion and if they were “only” businessmen or if they were heads of already failed states, then one could argue that their spheres of influence would be minimal. 

Neither are or were. Both ascended (or were engineered to ascend) to the highest offices in their respective nations and while Putin has remained in power for twenty years, Trump was not successful in maintaining his hold on the nation. The reasons are largely owing to the political systems in each country. However, what the world has learned in the time since the Trump regime is that democracies, in particular, require extreme vigilance and renovation. Democracies tend to be more dynamic than authoritarian regimes; they promote dialogue, societal development, and in the best scenarios, educational initiative and growth. Authoritarian states do not. 

The United States has tasted authoritarianism prior to the Trump era, but not quite as broadly or deeply. Since the change in administrations, we now see that changes that are made under an administration has effects that will outlast that regime’s occupancy. It is a disturbing fact that many people in the U.S. still believe that the election was stolen, that the Biden Administration is leading the country into communism (or “socialism”; most of the Trump supporters are ill-equipped to define either term), and are, in fact, siding with the Russians and Putin in the invasion. 

Of course, none of this could have happened if Americans were actually educated and critical enough of information sources to reason to any significant degree to not support leaders like Trump and his ilk. There is more to be said about the enabling and support of American oligarchs, but like their Russian counterparts, they won’t feel a thing unless they can’t buy their superiority.

Like the Russian people, a significant portion of the population is content to rely on what the “strongmen” say. Not because what they say is truthful, but because of the way the message is framed. Most “strongmen” lack ideas and frankly, ideology. However, they have an animal intelligence that knows how to capitalize on the fears, anger, and ignorance of others. The problem is that at some point, these approaches backfire.

My issue is that the Ukraine invasion is an inflection point for humanity beyond the E.U., NATO, and Russia. If this war can be waged primarily via sanctions, and if Ukraine can be restored and perhaps Putin brought to justice at The Hague, then I’m willing to say that we - as a species - have made significant headway away from relying on the idea of military strength as a form of “security.” Yes, it would signal to oligarchs, autocrats, and dictators that there are other answers to their belligerence; however, caution dictates that we ask what that means in terms of international deliberation and commerce. While freezing assets is preferable to more overt shows of military power, reducing a population to poverty brings with it the responsibility to take part in restoring that same population to livable standards. 

It is this last that signals a different way to engage in conflict. Not that it should ever have to come to this, even. Loss of livelihood and agency through sanctions could be as long-lasting as the loss of life for those who lose everything before their eyes. If my relative dies in combat or as a result of combat, is the result any different from me not being able to feed or shelter my family because supply chains no longer work?

This last raises another perspective. The Russian people are the ones who are going to pay the most for Putin’s aggression. How much of this will become clear to them, I do not know; but if I was a Russian citizen, I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to figure that out. Indeed, the Russians are protesting and I don’t think it’s too much to assume that they will not be thinking too kindly of Mr. Putin. State narratives can only be sustained for so long until a crisis hits.

Nevertheless, some narratives remain more deeply ingrained than others. In my home state, 700 people died from an electric grid that failed during one of the worst winter storms to hit the country. Additionally, the governor of the state encouraged the energy providers to hike the rates above market value that resulted in bankruptcies on top of loss of life. And yet, it is painful to note that this man has a very real chance at re-election because he is supported by the people in this state for his stance on issues that while appalling, they share. As a follower of the former president, the governor of Texas has also found ways to criminalize women seeking access to abortion, transgendered children and their families, and in general, Sovietize life in the second largest state in the U.S. Thus, regardless of what other failures of policy and governance any given leader is responsible for, if their version of reality is deeply enough accepted by the populace, their hegemony can be maintained for an unknown amount of time.

So far, now, we’ve looked at this invasion through different lenses. I have not mentioned how this is affecting the Ukrainians because I am both humbled by their courage and resourcefulness and frankly, apprehensive for their well-being. As I write this, 600,000 Ukrainians have fled, seeking refuge in mostly Eastern European countries. While the sanctions are taking effect in Russia, there is obviously a lag between the damage the sanctions do to Russia and the damage Russian forces can bring to the people and property of Ukraine. 

It is not enough to say “pray for the Ukraine”. As usual, I’ll list agencies you can support to help out. However, it is important to consider the U.S.’s role in this. To some degree, we bear responsibility because of the actions of the former president. You and I might say and convince ourselves that because we didn’t vote for him, actively opposed him and his followers, and condemned his gangster approach to Ukraine’s president Zelensky, we can’t be held responsible. I beg to differ. 

We bear some responsibility because we - as a nation - have historically not participated in the democratic experiment. To be sure, I am aware of the nuance surrounding how the electoral process has been historically manipulated; however, looking over the country’s history, the lack of participation puts a lie to the well-trundled out “American optimism” and shows an underlying cynicism about political engagement. Allegedly, Americans are keen on equality, the pursuit of happiness, and so on; but we are terrible at taking seriously what is done in our name(s). 

I’m not being a scold: it’s a fact that more people don’t vote than do. It doesn’t take much to be informed, really. We have this idiotic refrain of “oh, I’m not political” which is idiotic because everything is political. Not in the simpleminded sense of “conservative” or “liberal” party politics, but in the sense that what you or I do (or don’t do, even) has significance outside and beyond the four walls of our respective homes. 

In that regard, we are all Ukrainians. However, we are also all Donald Trump. Our reactions to outside forces, to words spoken, to our rulers (do we have real leaders? please, look into this), all these reactions are our faces in the mirror of our polis. 

Personally, when I read the first reports of what Putin was up to prior to the invasion, I realized he was going to invade regardless of how well-publicized the intelligence findings were. Some said that knowing that there was a leak in his cabinet or somewhere in the politburo would deter him; others held that he was bluffing and just wanted President Zelensky to cow-tow. None of this made any sense to me. Putin was hell-bent on invading for a number of reasons, and none of them good. None any better than any of the invasions covered above. 

The repercussions would be extensive, I figured and I entertained - briefly - the possibility that Putin might be agitated enough to expand this military project to consume more of Europe. I even felt a rumbling in my chest that he might threaten a nuclear option. He still may be bent on a more expansive aggression; however, it’s unlikely. He did invoke a nuclear option; however, given growing opposition among Russian oligarchs, it’s unlikely that will happen, either. 

None of this means that the region or the world is any safer at the moment. It does mean that this will play out in a way very different from what Putin and perhaps the world thinks. 

I grew up with the idea of nuclear war and the ensuing destruction as a very distinct possibility. Over the years, we’ve seen that the madness of mutually assured destruction is a deterrent (for the most part); however, that one of the major former parties to nuclear disarmament would willingly raise that as an option, even in a theater of limited warfare, is madness. I can’t let that aspect of Putin’s rhetoric be decisive, but one can’t dismiss it, either.

While all of us live with the possibility of nuclear conflagration being considerably less pronounced than in previous decades, there are those of us for whom that possibility lurched into view more than once. Again, I doubt that Putin or anyone else is going to launch a nuclear attack on Ukraine; however, that he would raise the specter of a mushroom cloud over Kyiv is an indication that Putin does not understand history. 

Like others of his kind, his take on history and his place in it is both skewed and exaggerated to ill effect. More often than not, this leads to their downfalls in ways that only they couldn’t see coming. 

One thought into several: The Ukrainian people will survive this; they will come out stronger and better than any of us and we best be there to help them. And there are others all around the world suffering occupations and unimaginable torment. If this debacle can show the world how to rally around one country being invaded, it is my hope that we - as a common humanity - can expand that goodwill to all our brothers and sisters wherever there is suffering imposed by the gangster mentalities of strong-arm dictators, of unwelcome, unwanted “liberating” forces. That would mean that we, too, can be stronger and better.

Sources

Applebaum, Anne. The U.S. Is Naive About Russia. Ukraine Can’t Afford to Be. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/ukraine-russia-kyiv-putin-bluff/621145. January 3, 2022.

Brumfiel, Geoff. National Public Radio (NPR). https://www.npr.org/2022/03/03/1084414241/a-contested-ukrainian-nuclear-plant-is-under-attack-by-russian-forces. March 3, 2022.

CBS News. Russia's ruble worth less than 1 cent after West tightens sanctions. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-ruble-sanctions/. March 1, 2022.

CNN. Russia-Ukraine Coverage. https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-03-22/index.html. March 3, 2022 (ongoing).

Doucet, Lyse. Ukraine conflict: Dread in Kyiv as huge Russian convoy advances. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60571884. March 1, 2022.

The Guardian. Russian-Ukraine War - Latest news. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/03/ukraine-news-russia-war-vladimir-putin-biden-latest-live-updates-kherson-kyiv-kharkiv-refugees-russian-invasion. March 3, 2022 (on-going).

Makuch, Ben. Western Military Observers Shocked at How Badly Russia’s Military Is Doing. Vice News. https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vx43/nato-russian-military-performance. February 28, 2022.

Reynolds, Maura. ‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-iii-already-there-00012340. February 28, 2022.

Watson, Rebecca. Misinformation & Propaganda as Russia Invades Ukraine. Skepchick. https://skepchick.org/2022/02/misinformation-propaganda-as-russia-invades-ukraine. February 28, 2022.

Zhou, Viola. The Ruble Has Collapsed. Here’s What It Means for Russia. Vice News. https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgma4k/russia-ruble-collapse-economy. March 1, 2022.

How to help

Ukraine-based NGOs:

Bright Kids Charity. https://brightkidscharity.com/how-you-can-help/.

Voices of Children. https://voices.org.ua/en/donat/.

Not in Ukraine, but Razom has been around for a decade doing some fine work in a variety of ways for Ukraine: https://razomforukraine.org

The UN Refugee Agency has partnered with a number of in-country NGO’s: https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/ngo-partners. 

Interaction.org. Ukraine NGOs on the ground: https://www.interaction.org/blog/ukraine-ngos-on-the-ground/.

The following sites have extensive lists of organizations and agencies to donate to:

GoFundMe has direct donation and a list of verified organizations: https://www.gofundme.com/c/act/donate-to-ukraine-relief.

Global Giving. https://www.globalgiving.org/search/?size=25&nextPage=1&sortField=sortorder&selectedLocations=00ukrain&loadAllResults=true

TimeOut. Seventeen Ways You Can Help the People of Ukraine Right Now: https://www.timeout.com/news/17-ways-you-can-help-the-people-of-ukraine-right-now-022822.

Bergeron, Ryan. CNN. How to help the people of Ukraine. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/24/us/iyw-how-to-help-ukraine/index.html. March 3, 2022.

PBS.org. How to help people in Ukraine and refugees fleeing the conflict with Russia. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-to-help-people-in-ukraine-and-refugees-fleeing-the-conflict-with-russia. March 3, 2022.

Rescue.org. How can I help Ukraine? https://www.rescue.org/article/how-can-i-help-ukraine. March 3, 2022.

Alfonseca, Kiara. ABC News. How to help Ukraine amid Russian attacks. https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-amid-russian-attacks/story?id=83156472. February 28, 2022.