A few thoughts about a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine.
No.
We have to be brutally frank about this. Russia is conducting a horrific war against Ukraine. An unjust war, unjustly waged. Innocent people are dying: it's tragic and heartbreaking. We must help Ukraine in every conceivable way... except for getting NATO directly involved.
Reasonable people understand this, and that's why reasonable people (including in the Biden Administration) said - before the war ever began - that NATO would *not* become involved. This may have well contributed to Putin's war calculus - he wasn't counting on NATO involvement.
Be it as it may, getting ourselves in a hot war with a nuclear-armed power may be emotionally satisfying but there is a downside in that everyone ends up dead.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We've heard a lot of discussion in recent days about how our real exit game in this nightmare could be a palace coup or a popular revolution against Putin. Putting my historian's hat on, let's dissect this proposition. I am not very hopeful. 👇🏿
Russia/USSR does not have a very convincing track record when it comes to doing away with No. 1. Consider Stalin. He unleashed a bloodbath like Russia had never seen and even terrorised his closest comrades. But they were afraid to gang up on him.
Now, I know some will say: but there are rumours of him having been poisoned. I've never seen any convincing evidence to support this theory. As far as we can tell, he died from a stroke in March 1953.
An anti-war demonstration in Mongolia. Seems 10 people showed up, with 20 journalists, with anti-war slogans and a Ukrainian flag. Later (according to the author), Mongolian neo-Nazis turned up and got into a fight with the peace activists. All to the tune of "No Woman No Cry."
Mongolia has maintained a democratic system since its 1990 revolution. A remarkable feat, given that it's locked between two authoritarian neighbours on whom it economically depends. But the prospects for long-term survival of Mongolian democracy remain somewhat uncertain.
In foreign policy, Mongolia has moved away from its skilful balancing policy (where Russia and China were played against the West++, the collective 'third neighbour'). China and Russia now loom much larger in its foreign policy priorities.
A week has now passed since Russia began its hideous war against Ukraine. Let's talk a little bit about where we are, how we got here, and what lessons might be drawn.
If you recall, in December 2021 Russia presented an ultimatum, which contained a number of demands, including one about NATO's further non-enlargement into the former Soviet space. We also saw Russia complain loudly about Kyiv's refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements.
It seems that the policy the US/NATO pursued was: to reject the core Russian demands as unacceptable while giving Putin some space for negotiation and a graceful exit. Unprecedented sanctions were promised as a "stick" in this strategy.
Wang Wenbin appears a little less dazed in this press conference, and it does seem that China has finally formulated a position on Russia's war in Ukraine. fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_6…. The position is benevolent neutrality, as I would have expected.
The benevolence is mainly rhetorical, at least for now: China "understands" Russia's "legitimate" security concerns and opposes sanctions on Russia.
At the same time, Beijing restates its support for the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, one of Wang Yi's "five points" on Ukraine. The repeated promise to look at the Ukraine issue "on its own merits" (按照事情本身) limits the applicability of this principle.
A great panel on Russia/Ukraine with my SAIS colleagues today. Let me pick up a thread that was touched upon but that requires further elaboration. Let's formulate it this way: is Putin unhinged or is he a rational actor?
I'd argue that seeing Putin as unhinged is unhelpful as a matter of policy choice. Doing so entails a logical fallacy. If we say that Putin is unhinged / determined to grab Ukraine no matter what, what we really say is that he is willing to fight a nuclear war to achieve his aim.
But if so, putting up resistance to his aggression in Ukraine makes no logical sense because Putin will unleash a nuclear war before he retreats in Ukraine, and, as a result, we'll have no winners, only losers. Hell, we'll all end up dead.
There are two ways to think about just war. The first criterion is jus ad bellum, the right to war. Russia failed by a wide margin. Its security concerns, such as there were, its made-up claims of a "genocide" - all did not add up to nearly enough to justify an attack on Ukraine.
The second criterion is called jus in bello - justice in war. This is an undertaking to use proportional force and to minimise civilian casualties. Russia's attack on Kharkiv today shows a blatant disregard for this principle.
This leads to the inevitable conclusion that Russia's war in Ukraine is an unjust war, unjustly waged.