For most of the past two decades, the United States and its European allies have chosen not to confront Vladimir Putin.
Even when Russia invaded Georgia, annexed the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, shot down a passenger plane and interfered in the US presidential election, the West did relatively little to stop it. He imposed sanctions too porous to have a big effect on Putin’s oligarchs, and stayed away from any military confrontation with Russia.
When Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February, the non-confrontation strategy seemed to continue. Western leaders again imposed only modest sanctions and did not send troops to Ukraine. The leaders were afraid to provoke a bigger war with Russia and – although they did not say so publicly – decided that trying to save Ukraine was not worth the risk.
But then Western leaders changed their minds.
In the last two months, the United States, the European Union and its allies have shown a whole new level of persistence towards Russia. According to the latest news, the United States has gone so far as to provide the Ukrainian military with information that helped it kill Russian generals on the battlefield and sink Moscow, a 200-yard-long warship that was the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. . The West is also continuing to send weapons to Ukraine and impose harsh economic sanctions on Russia.
What explains the reversal? I asked this question to my colleague Helen Cooper – one of the reporters who told stories about cooperation between the US and Ukrainian military – and our conversation helped me understand the root causes. Today’s newsletter focuses on this rapid and subsequent change in US foreign policy.
“With scars” is no more
Over the past two decades, US officials have had extensive experience working with the military in another country during a war on its territory. Much of that experience was in Afghanistan and was deeply disappointing for the United States. Although many Afghan soldiers fought the Taliban bravely, the Afghan government was plagued by corruption and did not appear committed to victory.
The defeat there haunted members of the Biden administration and the US military. “They were scarred from Afghanistan,” says Helen.
At first glance, Ukraine seemed like another lost cause. Her army was much smaller and less well-armed than Russia’s, and Western experts expected Ukraine’s government to fall within days.
From the first days of the Russian invasion, however, Ukraine surprised the world. His civilians displayed patriotism that refuted Putin’s claim that Ukraine was not a real state, and that its military had halted the Russian army’s advance in many places.
“Ukraine was not only fighting, they were winning,” Helen said. This early success has shown Western officials that trying to stop Putin may not be a hopeless cause.
“We are not afraid”
The beginning of the fighting changed the West’s calculations in another way. It was the biggest war in Europe in more than 75 years – since Nazi Germany capitulated. Russia is bombing cities and killing civilians, and millions of Ukrainians are fleeing their homes.
Putin’s earlier aggressions were on a smaller scale. His previous attacks on Ukraine and Georgia were not full-scale wars. His interference in the 2016 US presidential election was certainly aggressive, but it was also amorphous: no one could be sure exactly how important it was, and the Trump administration had an obvious incentive to downplay it.
The images coming from Ukraine were much brighter. They were shocking enough to change the way many Western leaders think about their approach to Putin. Previously, these leaders were willing to tolerate his aggression, in part for fear of how much worse things could get. After the invasion of Ukraine, these same leaders began to believe that they had only two choices: peace or confrontation.
The change in Western policy has been remarkable. In the first weeks of the war, Helen said, US officials were reluctant to admit that they were sending shoulder-launched missile systems known as the Stingers to Ukraine. “They were afraid to use the word ‘Stingers,'” she said.
Today, US officials admit that they are helping Ukraine gain access not only to the Stingers, but also to other missiles, tanks and more. American participation in the attacks on Russian generals and the ship “Moscow”, although not officially recognized, is even more aggressive.
As Evelyn Farkas, a former Pentagon official, described the new US policy, “We will give them everything they need to win, and we are not afraid of Vladimir Putin’s reaction.” We will not abstain. “
Too far?
The United States and its allies still have difficult decisions to make.
Some officials and experts worry that the West continues to err on the side of caution and is not giving Ukraine what its president, Vladimir Zelensky, says it should win. “We were deterred by an exaggerated fear of what might happen,” said retired Lt. Gen. Frederick Hodges, a former senior U.S. military commander in Europe.
Other experts say the United States may be overcompensating for its initial weakness toward Putin and now risk a wider confrontation. Thomas Friedman, a Times columnist, captured this concern in his last column. The sinking of Moscow and the attack on Russian generals, he writes, “suggest that we are no longer in an indirect war with Russia, but rather a direct war – and no one has prepared the American people or Congress for that.”
There are no easy answers here. The old strategy – appeasement, without calling it that – encouraged Putin to become more aggressive, believing the West was too scared to respond. The new strategy – a confrontation without full recognition – risks a battle with nuclear power, which many Americans and Europeans do not want. Putin knows what is part of the reason he is willing to take such huge risks.
More about Ukraine
Free divers: Swim in open waters with sharks. For fun.
Enlarge: This Dutch still life painting tells the story worldwide.
Quiz Time: The average score in our last news quiz was 9.2. Can you do better?
Cost of living: Calculate how you feel about inflation.
Wirecutter Tip: Budget apps to plan for higher prices.
Lives Lives: George Perez, a self-taught artist from the South Bronx, created comics for Marvel and DC. In the 1980s, he gave new life to Wonder Woman, focusing on Greek mythology of the history of her origins. Perez died at the age of 67.
ARTS AND IDEAS
Game show after the truth
To participate in most trivia shows, you need to know a lot of facts. Not on the Netflix show “Bullsh * t the Game Show” hosted by Howie Mandel.
The show is not so much about being right as about looking right. Players try to win up to $ 1 million either by answering questions correctly or by giving incorrect answers and convincing other competitors that they are right.
Here’s how it works: A competitor answers a multiple-choice question and explains the reasons behind his answer. Three other contestants decide if they believe her. If the player chooses the correct answer, it moves on to the next round. If not, she continues to make progress if at least one of the three has been deceived.
Game shows often reflect their era, and “Bullsh * t” is a “devilishly timeless symbol of our fraudulent culture,” writes James Ponievozik in The Times. “The show is not soulless; it simply brings comfort with our truly optional time as a snakeskin suit. “
PLAY, WATCH, EAT
What to cook
The pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was a blizzard. Here is today’s puzzle – or you can play online.
Add Comment