A lot of scholars are seemingly hellbent on damaging their reputations with ruinous advice on Ukraine and Russia. The past week alone has seen three open letters from this sorry genre, all of which, if carried out, would put real people’s lives in danger. Let’s take a look.🧵
As always, you can find the link at the end of this thread or in my bio.
The first two letters are calls for a negotiated settlement between Russia and Ukraine. One of them—I kid you not—was drafted by a guy who was suspended from the UK’s House of Lords for his undisclosed financial ties to the Kremlin.
The second, which for some reason is addressed to the Pope and Dalai Lama, demands a ceasefire and negotiations. It begins as if announcing its own preposterousness: with a disclaimer that “certain prohibited words in Russia” have been blotted out under threat of prosecution.
Demands for a “peace deal” rest on a fatal flaw, one which is blindly obvious yet seemingly passes right over the heads of its proponents: Any such deal would lead not to peace but to further atrocities upon the Ukrainians consigned to permanent Russian occupation.
How do I know this? First, Russia *always* subjects occupied populations to atrocities after the end of active hostilities, as evident in its post-Soviet conduct alone. Second, the Kremlin has repeatedly announced it will commit more genocide in any Ukrainian lands it controls.
Consequently, anyone genuinely interested in peace should be lobbying not for territorial partition but for more arms transfers to help Ukraine expel Russian forces from its territory. This, and only this, will bring peace to the country.
The third and final open letter of the past week adopts a different tack but is no less inimical to peace. It is a call from from dozens of IR specialists, almost none of whom have any expertise on Russia or Ukraine, to reject the prospect of Ukraine’s accession to NATO.
Not surprisingly, many of the signatories are on record proposing just the kind of “peace deal” described above. Below are a few examples. Given the genocidal implications, such advice is entirely disqualifying.
Having already discredited themselves in this way, they are once again asking us to defer to their supposed expertise. In fact, their most recent missive features all the inanity of their previous ones while having the added defect of resting on mutually-contradictory premises.
Here’s the problem. You can argue that the Kremlin would never take a NATO guarantee to Ukraine seriously. It’s a bad argument, but you can make it if you wish.
You can also argue that the Kremlin would take a NATO guarantee so seriously that it would fight Ukraine to the bitter end. This too is a bad argument, but, again, you are free to make it.
What you cannot do is make both of these claims in the same statement—and in successive paragraphs, no less. Yet this is precisely what some sixty-odd IR experts have just done.
You may think I’m being insufficiently deferential or even rude with my tone. And I get it. I’m just sick of seeing these scholars who should know better offer boneheaded policy advice on Ukraine which threatens to endanger people’s lives. It’s enough already.
So, seriously, please stop with this b.s. At the very least, run your ideas by some people who have actual expertise on Ukraine and Russia before you put out these sorts of reckless proposals.
Anyway, there’s a lot more in the actual piece, so go take a look if you’re so inclined. Here’s the link:
Addendum: If you’re a scholar signing statements urging “peace negotiations” or deferring to Russia’s “security interests” in Ukraine, these are the people to whom you would sign over millions of occupied Ukrainians:
Addendum #2: As a reminder, DePetris signed the recent open letter which simultaneously argues that Russia would never take a NATO security guarantee to Ukraine seriously and that it would take such a guarantee so seriously it would fight on endlessly.
My latest: No other modern-day autocrat has tried to destroy democracy as quickly as Trump. But there’s a good reason for that: It’s stupid.
The combination of Trump’s recklessness and the strength of US civil society will eventually lead to a showdown, one he’s going to lose.🧵
Trump's breakneck bid for authoritarianism has shocked even experts on the subject. He has seized congressional authority, defied the judiciary, and weaponized the state against everything and everyone. Now, he's unleashed the army against protesters.
Attempting to dismantle democracy in such a short span of time would provoke backlash anywhere. In the US, of all places, it is downright reckless. Compared to other countries that succumbed to authoritarianism, America’s civil society is unmatched in its capacity to resist.
As bad as things are now, we have not begun to see what Trump’s authoritarian regime is capable of. That’s because the traditional checks on presidential power have vanished. Before we consider how to get out of this, we must first understand how we got here. 🧵
Last time, we examined the evidence that the U.S. has transitioned to a competitive authoritarian regime. Authoritarianism is not a threat on the horizon; it is already here. This changes everything in terms of how Trump can be stopped.
Today, I identify the guardrails that once served to check the president’s abuse of power. I also show how each one of those guardrails had vanished by the time Trump was sworn in this year. The story begins long before he was on anyone’s political radar.
First of all, credit to @ItsArtoir for publishing the emails above.
@ItsArtoir The context: Hacked emails show that @wyattreed13, “managing editor” of The Grayzone News (whatever the hell that means), accepted monthly payments from PressTV, an Iranian state-run outlet known for hosting forced-confessions of dissidents right before their executions.
Lost amidst the interminable calls for “peace” is that an agreement to end the war is likely impossible. Neither the fervent wishcasting of Western pundits nor even, if they were so inclined, the very parties involved, can make it happen. In my latest, I explain why. 🧵
As always, you can find the link at the end of the thread or in my bio.
Writing articles and op-eds in support of a negotiated settlement has become a favorite pastime of the Western literati. Nary a day passes by without some pundit or academic, few of whom have any regional expertise, penning yet another iteration of this tired argument.
Want to see a progressive sound off about “spheres of influence” like they’re Otto von Bismarck? Beseech the great powers to divide up smaller nations over cigars and brandy? Parrot the inane rationales of a genocidal empire? It’s easy! Just bring up Ukraine.
My latest 🧵
Russia’s war on Ukraine has all the ingredients to turn a certain gullible progressive bad. It prompted global condemnation. The perpetrator’s a longtime enemy of the U.S. and a victim an ally. So it’s practically tailor-made to arouse the skepticism of contrarian leftists.
But understanding why requires one to enter into this peculiar mindset. That’s what I aim to do here. I dig into the foundational—and very weird—beliefs that end up causing many progressives to justify autocratic imperialism and indulge in silly atrocity-denial.
“The sooner peace is negotiated the more lives will be saved…”
Anyone who says this—and it is stunning how many do—immediately discredits themselves. What on earth do these people think will happen to the millions of Ukrainians trapped under permanent Russian occupation??? 🧵
The vast majority of Ukrainians reject a territorial partition with Russia, and there is a very, very good reason for that. Far from having their lives saved, they will experience mass killing, filtration camps, deportations, arbitrary arrest, torture, and sexual violence.
And yet here these assholes go writing open letters to the Financial Times and pretending to have the best interests of Ukrainians in mind. Yet what they are proposing will consign Ukrainians to permanent violence under Russian occupation. I am so sick of this bullshit.