Re-evaluating the assumptions on which Americans (and NATO) base their analysis of the war in Ukraine
Since continued aid to Ukraine has gotten caught up in political dysfunction in the U.S. Congress, it’s worth re-evaluating the assumptions people are making when they think about the conflict.
I think one of the assumptions that shapes Americans’ view of the conflict, is the kind of person they assume Vladimir Putin to be.
Normally, when evaluating the actions of national leaders in wars like this, the basic question comes down to “Do you think they are a rational actor, or not?”
A lot of Americans on both sides of the political debate over Ukraine think Vladimir Putin is a rational actor.
They think he is pursuing his political goals rationally (even if barbarically) and that since he is a rational actor he can be dealt with according to the standard models of western political rationality.
However, I think the rational actor question is the wrong question to ask in this case.
I think the question that people need to ask themselves about Vladimir Putin, is this:
Is he a predator?
You can’t make agreements with a predator.
You can only make arrangements with a predator.
This question also returns to the basic assumption that people asked themselves about the beginning of this conflict, not just going back to 2022, but 2014.
What is this war really about?
A lot of Americans still believe that this war is a rational response to NATO expansion.
They say, Vladimir Putin views NATO like the U.S. used to view the former Soviet Union. They say he has reacted rationally to what he sees as an encroaching imperial power expanding its footprint right on his doorstep.
I used to believe this myself.
In fact, I think it made a lot of sense when looking at his invasion of Crimea and the Donbas back in 2014.
If Putin had just stopped there, I think it would be fair and reasonable to argue that his action was strategically predicated on what he viewed as unacceptable NATO expansion.
But he didn’t stop there.
He was not content with two salami slices of Ukrainian territory.
He came back for the rest of the country in 2022. He still wants the rest of the country today.
Even if this war might have been about NATO expansion back in 2014, I think it’s become about something much different today.
Some Americans still believe and argue that if the U.S. stops aiding Ukraine, Putin will stop his invasion and the whole thing will just go away.
They think he’s only fighting because we are aiding our Ukrainian allies, and if we stopped, he would stop. Because he’s only doing this to prove a point about NATO expansion.
But I’m just not convinced that he would stop.
Because I think he’s a predator.
I think he sees weakness as an invitation for more brutal conquest.
In fact, I think he may be getting high on his own supply of anti-western propaganda.
I think he looks at the political dysfunction (that he has fueled) in the west as proof that the west and NATO are about to experience civilizational collapse.
And I think he wants that. More than anything in the world.
I think he would do anything to get revenge for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I think he would do anything for the chance to own the western libs.
I think he would do anything for the chance to prove the civilizational superiority of Eurasian/Eastern Orthodox civilization.
I think he looks at the political dysfunction in the west and thinks, “If I attacked Poland this spring, NATO wouldn’t do anything. They can’t even agree on continued aid to Ukraine. Why on earth would they suddenly unify for Poland?”
I really hope I’m wrong about that.
I would love it if the people who think Putin is rationally responding to the threat of NATO expansion were proven right.
But I don’t think they are. I don’t think they will be.
I think Putin is a shark, and I think he smells blood in the water.
And I think unless the U.S. and NATO get their political act together and aid Ukraine, the risk of Putin being driven into a bloodthirsty predatory frenzy becomes potentially apocalyptic.