Opinion | We Should Have Defended Ukraine’s Borders

Those who have read my articles here will realize that I have two main themes: Anti-war, and the reduction of presidential power. The Founders clearly viewed the “president” as one who only “presides” over what Congress determines. The term “Executive Branch” clearly shows that a president should only “execute” the will of Congress, not dictate actions. Presidents should have rights, but never “privilege.” But we are now in a time of war, so let’s address that.

I’m against invasion. I was even dubious about the Afghan war. Was invasion of Afghanistan the best, or even appropriate, response to 17 Saudis and a few others, led by a Saudi—Osama bin Laden–who attacked us? Couldn’t we have focused on al-Qaeda instead of the Taliban?

That is not to say we should not have a response to war. For instance, GHW Bush did well to repel Iraq from Kuwait in 1990. But one might question whether we should have gone on to Baghdad. Perhaps we should have liberated Kuwait and stopped. We could have demanded reparations for Kuwait. History has already shown that our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were colossal mistakes and failures.

One thing that Bush-41 did very well was to rouse the world against Saddam Hussein in 1990. Instead of going in like a cowboy, as his son did in 2003, the elder Bush first sought consensus of the world. Nearly the only country that stood by Saddam was Jordan, usually our ally, and I think that was only so we could get intelligence about Iraq from them. I remember thinking that GHW Bush’s approach was a model of how to prevent future invasions. Bush’s words rang ’round the world, “this will not stand.”

Reaching out to others is one thing that Biden has done well. We are not just shouting from the mountain top. In fact, we have encouraged other nations to take the lead at times, most notably, France and Germany. It’s what Barack Obama called “leading from behind”—sharing the responsibility—and glory.

But the result now, at least so far, has been for us to largely stand by and watch in horror at the deaths of thousands and the destruction of the irreplaceable—war crimes. We have attacked the economy of Russia, and our companies have closed down there. But in the long term, is that really what we want? There used to be a saying that no nations who both had McDonald’s have ever gone to war. Isn’t it in our interest to extend our influence and culture? Shouldn’t we eat alike and think alike? Wars come from thinking differently, not just speaking differently.

What we are seeing now reminds me of the Soviet attack on Hungary in 1956. I remember it well. We broadcast our encouragement for Hungarians to stand up to the Soviets. They had every reason to expect that we would stand by them, but when they made their stand, we just stood back and watched—as Soviet tanks rolled through the streets and broke the will of Hungary. We seemed impotent.

A happier and more proud point of our history was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. We had foolishly attacked Cuba in the 1960 “Bay of Pigs” invasion: A humiliating failure. Hawks wanted JFK to use American might to subjugate Cuba in 1960. He refused. We certainly had the military power. But that was an era in which we lived by the concept of “mutually assured destruction”—and Cuba was a Soviet client state. Because the US and USSR had massive nuclear weapon stores, the world was in stasis. We knew that if we went too far, we would destroy the world, and Kennedy warned that the “fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouths.”

In 1962, Kennedy stood up to Khrushchev, and total nuclear war looked not only possible but likely. But in the end, cooler heads prevailed, and “mutually assured destruction” brought a peaceful outcome. Kennedy chided those who were too proud. He said it was a victory for both sides, and he was right.

Unfortunately, that concept has been flipped on its head.

Instead of assuring peace, our nuclear weapons have today assured war. Vladimir Putin is not the sane, and even kindly Nikita Khrushchev. At the time, we thought of Khrushchev as a blustering bully. We clearly remember an incident in which Khrushchev took off his shoe and banged it on the desk at the United Nations to drive his points home. Yet, since then, we have seen that Khrushchev was dedicated to pulling away from the ruthlessness of Joseph Stalin. And eventually, Khrushchev and Kennedy evolved, if not a friendship, at least an understanding and genuine respect for one another. They established the “hotline”—a red telephone that connected the American president and Soviet premier directly, to avoid misunderstandings—and to remove the risk of an underling taking affairs into his own hands. We need interaction. By isolating Russia now, we are guaranteeing misunderstanding and xenophobia.

If you push a bully into a corner, he will become irrational. Putin has already suggested the unthinkable—use of nuclear weapons. We are giving him no way to save face, and we will probably never again be so well integrated into Russian society.

Let’s stop to consider the Russian psyche. They have been attacked throughout history. At the founding of the Bolshevic Revolution in 1917, for example, we didn’t just stand by and watch. We meddled in their civil war, on the “white” side, against the “reds.” And while the Holocaust is what we most remember about World War II, in terms of human loss, the Soviet Union lost more than three times as many people as the Jews did in that war. They fought in the streets, while we simply sent our boys “over there.”

And we had made promises to Stalin to help him after the war. Franklin Roosevelt had a solid relationship with Stalin, an understanding, and positive plans with Russia for a future of cooperation. But FDR didn’t survive the war, and Harry Truman came under the influence of the anti-Communists. We turned our backs on Stalin, and his response was to solidify his control of Eastern Europe, forming what Churchill called the “Iron Curtain” across the middle of Europe, with the Soviet-occupied countries forming a buffer between Western colonialism, and the Russian nation, proper. As they say, even paranoids have enemies. The Paranoia of Putin is not totally without cause.

But in my opinion, we should have stood up to Putin over the issue of Ukraine. It was obvious that Putin had intended to invade Ukraine. His troops had surrounded most of the smaller nation, and he actually said so, in a long speech, in which he said Ukraine is not a “real” nation, and has always been, and should be, merely part of Russia. The word “Ukraine” actually means “frontier.” That’s why they always objected when we referred to them as “The Ukraine.” That sounded like they were merely “the frontier of Russia,” instead of a nation on their own.

We seem to think the war will humiliate Russia, due to their bumbling, and we think if they occupy Ukraine, it will be a nightmare for them, like Afghanistan was for both of our countries. But is whatever schadenfreude we might enjoy worth the death and destruction of the country with which we claim to sympathize?

Putin’s claim of ownership of Ukraine echoes what Saddam Hussein said about Kuwait. And those who claim that NATO shouldn’t fight in a non-NATO nation should remember that. NATO has fought in other countries before. The only difference is that those nations were not nuclear. Putin understood that and used it against us. He threatened nuclear war if we objected to his “military action.” How is a “military action” different from “war”?? The pretense is ludicrous.

Ukraine had inherited a serious nuclear stockpile from the USSR, but sadly, they gave it all up, for a promise from Russia and the West that Ukraine’s boundaries would be recognized and maintained. So much for promises, such as our own deal with Iran.

In my opinion, when we saw Putin’s intentions, we should not have taken military action off the table. Instead of saying we would not send troops to Ukraine, we should have said we would never send troops into Russia, but we would defend the boundaries of sovereign states—even if they were not in NATO. We should have left open what we might do. Make him wonder. Or we could have made it clear that invading troops from any nation would be met with air power in the form of jets, cruise missiles, and drones—right at the border, to keep them from entering. We should have threatened to defend borders, not nations.

Biden is aware of the interests of the American people. Note that there has been nearly unanimous support for his promise not to send Americans to fight in the war. A leader may sometimes have to go against the will of the people, but it’s a risky endeavor., so his reticence may be understandable.

Another element is that in recent years, we have not been altruistic, we have not wanted to defend others. In clear, spoken language, we have said we won’t do anything, anywhere, for anyone, without first considering, “what’s in it for us?” America First, you know.

I consider John Kennedy the greatest president of my lifetime—which extends back to Harry Truman. Joe Biden should have followed JFK’s lead, as in 1962—instead of the inaction of Dwight Eisenhower, regarding Hungary, in 1956. There are circumstances when we should be willing to risk everything on principle.