Editors’ Blog

One of the assumptions in much Ukraine commentary is that a full scale Russian invasion of the country would be followed at some point by what would, over time, be a potentially ruinous insurgency. That seems probable. And I suspect it’s the key reason — much more than even the most extreme sanctions — why Russia has so far held back from such a move. Even apart from the bad history of Great Powers getting bogged down in occupations of hostile territory, the military reforms under President Putin, which have revived Russia’s conventional military power, have prioritized rapid strike capabilities over holding territory. Such a scenario would be a catastrophe for Ukraine but it would likely be pretty bad for Russia too.

But this article in Foreign Policy shows how easily this scenario could bleed into a confrontation between Russia and NATO, even though neither side would have any interest in it doing so.

The New York Times Magazine published a piece this afternoon that reveals new information about Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and the extent to which she was involved in Big Lie-related events leading up to, surrounding and following Jan. 6.

Ginni Thomas’ conservative activism has been eyebrow-raising for years, but in recent months we’ve seen several new in-depth reports that delve deeply into her work and the conflicts of interest they could present for Justice Thomas’ role on the high Court, especially in cases related to the Jan. 6 insurrection and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

A key point here that I want to make sure everyone sees. As Josh Kovensky explains here, President Putin of Russia said today that Russia has recognized the breakaway eastern statelets on the full territories they claim. That is substantially more Ukrainian territory than these statelets (and their Russian backers) currently control. As Josh explained to me this morning, the two statelets claim the entire territories of the official Ukrainian oblasts (provinces) of Luhansk and Donetsk. But they only control between a third and half of that territory. So if you follow the logic of the events of the last 48 hours, Ukraine is currently occupying lots of land belonging to these two purported republics Russia now recognizes. And Russia could reconquer that territory as a defensive action on their behalf. Because, you know, they just want to help out.

Whether they’ll actually do this is another question. But it’s a claim with high and dangerous relevance to the current situation.

For the latest, follow our live blog here and my curated Twitter feed of Ukraine Crisis developments here.

There’s a flurry of commentary this morning arguing that new economic sanctions introduced by the EU, European states individually and perhaps soon the United States in response to yesterday’s events are too weak and show NATO and the EU are somehow going soft. I’d suggest some skepticism with these arguments and a bit more patience. History doesn’t have many one and done moments. Thinking every moment is Munich and Neville Chamberlain mostly makes people dumb. The U.S./EU/NATO powers here need to find a balance between having a response to yesterday’s events while yet keeping some deterrent in reserve for further escalation.

I oppose Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to dismember Ukraine, and I support placing sanctions on Russia. But I am leery of the political process by which the United States and Russia reached this turn of the road, which could signal the beginning of a Cold War II. The process is sadly reminiscent of how the United States had previously come to a point in its foreign policy where it had no favorable options.

A number of dangerous, disquieting and scary things happened today in the unfolding Ukraine Crisis. Russia is a revisionist, nuclear power. In today’s lengthy and bellicose speech, Vladimir Putin barely mentioned NATO. He focused on his long-attested belief that Ukraine is not a real country and is only separated from Moscow by historical accident and perfidy. Beyond wanting to bring Ukraine to heel he made broad and menacing statements that brought the whole post-Cold War settlement into question.

Scary stuff.

Here are a few possibilities to consider as Russian troops roll into eastern Ukraine.

Russia has shown in various ways in recent weeks that it fears the repercussions of a full scale invasion of Ukraine. Over the last couple weeks, Russia has been hung up on a binary choice: invade or begin a humiliating climbdown. This may be a way to create a third option: occupy and de facto annex the regions that have been under de facto Russian control for eight years, celebrate a great nationalist victory and wrap this crisis up. Declare victory and go home without the huge gamble of full scale invasion.

In case you’re just catching up, yesterday there were reports that French President Macron may have brokered a Biden-Putin summit that would deescalate the crisis. That didn’t happen. Today President Putin of Russia gave a long speech in which he insisted that Ukraine is not a real country and is merely a phony state created by the decisions of the Bolsheviks a century ago. It’s a speech that will be studied closely as it openly and aggressively touted the revanchist, neo-Imperial vision which Putin has long been said to harbor but has never stated quite so openly. He then recognized the “independence” of the two separatist puppet states Russia set up in eastern Ukraine during the 2014-2015 crisis. The leaders of these puppet states then immediately requested Russian “peacekeepers” to come into their purported territory. It was a request Putin — surprise, surprise — rapidly acceded to.

So over the course of the day Russia has executed an invasion and what amounts to a de facto annexation of Ukrainian territory but without — so far — firing a shot.

As I’ve noted recently, I’ve usually been in the ambivalent/skeptic camp when it comes to NATO enlargement. There were many good reasons, from the U.S. perspective, to oppose NATO enlargement back in the 1990s and in the subsequent smaller expansions in the last quarter century. The U.S. has very good reasons not to extend security guarantees with what amount to existential implications to every country bordering Russia or adjacent to its borders which is or feels threatened by Russia. So you can say NATO expansion was dubious policy. Or you can claim, though the evidence for this is murky at best, that the U.S. broke some “deal” it made with the Soviets/Russians at the end of the Cold War. But all of these points ignore a basic foundational question: why did or do all these countries — Poland, Hungary, Romania, Lithuania, et al. — want to join?

One of the uncanny things about what now does appear to be an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine is that so much is visible in real time. I’ve seen people saying we can’t take American claims of a military buildup or invasion at face value. And skepticism is always warranted about any government’s claims during a crisis. But in fact, between social media and commercial satellite imagery most of the story is unfolding before our eyes. If we’re smart and diligent, we can even fact check a lot of it from the privacy of our own homes.

I’m putting together a twitter list of accounts to follow the unfolding situation. You can view it here. It’s what I’m now using to keep track of events.