Editors’ Blog

As we’ve noted in our live coverage of Russia’s declaration of war and subsequent full-scale military attack on Ukraine in the last 24 hours, there is a schism growing in the Republican Party on whether Vladimir Putin is a mortal enemy, or a brilliant friend. The wildly divergent thinking within the GOP has been on display repeatedly in recent days and weeks.

I wanted to note this report that Ukraine has essentially opened its armories to civilian volunteers. They claim to have given out up to 10,000 automatic weapons today to citizens willing to fight as home guards or essentially paramilitaries and irregulars. This makes perfect sense for how this conflict is evolving. It is clearly an existential battle for the Ukrainian state. But I just wanted to focus in on what this means. This means giving out machine guns to any Ukrainian citizens who are ready to kill Russian soldiers. This is an invitation to the kind of merciless and bloody urban warfare that insurgents and irregulars excel at and which regular armies struggle with. Don’t get me wrong. If I were running Ukraine I would be doing this too. Watching ordinary Ukrainians, in various ways, put their lives on the line to fight back against this entirely unprovoked aggression inspires me. But I just want to focus in on how dark and desperate a situation this is. This is to-the-death kind of fighting. Where who is military and who is civilian is totally blurred. It’s a level of ferocity you don’t easily come back from.

Earlier today TPM’s executive editor David Kurtz and Ukraine specialist/TPM reporter Josh Kovensky hosted a live conversation on Twitter. Here is the link in case you missed it: https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1jMJgeAEYrYKL

Through my writing over recent weeks I’ve tried to keep up a secondary focus on the decisions the U.S. made about the Soviet Union, Russia and NATO during the 1990s. I think this is only a secondary part of the story. But it’s a part. In those debates we hear about Russia’s security concerns about NATO enlargement. I think it’s important to be specific and clear about what these security concerns really amount to.

I’ve written relatively little over recent days on the unfolding Ukraine Crisis. It’s one of those stories that is not only moving quickly but in many ways speaks for itself. I recommend reading Josh Kovensky’s latest report on events. Josh worked in Ukraine as a journalist for two or three years before coming to TPM, so he brings an area knowledge and access to the language that we’re lucky to have. As I’ve mentioned a few times, I’ve been using this Twitter list to navigate the rush of events. I recommend it. I also shared some thoughts on what’s happening in the edition of the podcast that comes out today.

Ex-President Trump’s long-awaited, much-heralded (in some circles) social media app Truth Social has debuted. And it is, in short, a large glitch fest.

The new social network, which essentially looks like an off-brand version of Twitter, was supposed to launch on Monday, available for download in the Apple Store. Now the Trump Media & Technology Group’s CEO (and former U.S. representative from California) Devin Nunes is suggesting it could be another month before the website is ready for primetime.

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.