Since Russia’s full-scale invasion last month, I’ve read several incisive criticisms of the American left for not sufficiently supporting Ukraine. (Professor Greg Afinogenov, who wrote one of them, was my guest on last week’s Zoom call.) But remember this: The two most influential Americans who deny a clear moral difference between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky both hail from the political right. They’re Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump. There is no host at MSNBC, nor any congressional Democrat, who has been as dismissive of Ukrainian democracy or as complimentary of Vladimir Putin. It’s worth asking why.
Mr. Beinart, how can you limit left positions to the matter of 'supporting Ukraine by military intervention'?
The main progressive take you virtually omit concerns two linked topics:
23+ years of NATO expansion vs. an alternate security structure - a decision that - as Cold Warrior government foreign policy makers accurately warned from the start - laid the ground for an authoritarian and aggressive Russia; and - now - the demand that the US directly engage with Russia to negotiate a settlement vs. loading up Ukraine with weapons and leaving settlements up to them and Russia.
US-led negotiated settlement! This is the anti-war group Codepink's position:
"Negotiate, Don't Escalate": Negotiate for peace in Ukraine!
The U.S. must help Ukraine-Russia negotiations by providing a clear articulation of what compromises the U.S./NATO will support. A ceasefire is urgently needed.
I love reading your journalism. Your analyses are spot on.( I also subscribe to Haaretz and many other outlets so have a pretty wide perspective). Yet I was shocked to learn that you had initially supported OUR invasion of Iraq which to me had always been led by the War criminal Cheney and his Lacky Bush. Unfortunately due to our past crimes and no accountability EVER placed on that Heinous unjustified Invasion...people like Putin and others of his ilk are able to say with impunity.Look the U.S has done exactly as we are doing.
First of all, there’s the observation that most Americans seem to think about foreign affairs (if at all) through the lens of domestic political narratives. Since 2016 that narrative has been Trump = Putin, so sympathies in the US have tended to fracture along those lines. That also might explain why the war in Ukraine has such strong resonance in the US in ways that, say, the horrific wars in Syria (half a million dead, tens of millions displaced) and Yemen (85,000 children starved to death) did not. Americans didn’t have a domestic narrative to lean on to understand the latter two still-ongoing wars.
Traditionally, left-liberals believe the US should remain bound by the rule of law in international affairs and are reflexively anti war, so it’s sensible to oppose Putin’s war in Ukraine on the same principles that they opposed Bush’s Iraq War. Contrary to the author’s recollection, I don’t recall much support for war in Iraq on the American Left—in fact millions of left-leaning people worldwide in February through April of 2003 mobilized and actively marched against it. In the US, there were the Cindy Sheehans and Michael Moores and hating Bush—and, by extensions, his policies—after the 2000 election was a natural position for anyone from center-left to the fringes.
Incoherently, liberals militarily and morally support the Neo-Nazis and white supremacists that have invaded Ukraine in recent years. https://time.com/5926750/azov-far-right-movement-facebook/ There have been violent anti-Russian attacks for years, resulting in thousands of deaths.
There is a difference between passing a (universal) moral judgment and undertaking an action to stop others, including an entire State like Russia, from committing those actions. Anyone can pass a moral judgment, and most do, even if not everyone expresses it clearly or even makes it correctly, but not everyone has a duty to do anything about most of what others do or what happens to others. Saying that something someone is doing to a third party is wrong (morally wrong) has few if any implications for what one should or should not do, other than refraining from doing it oneself.
Most moral obligations are negative, "obligations de ne pas faire" (as the French say it). Duties not to do. Non-contractual, positive obligations ("obligations de faire") are extremely rare and those that do exist are extremely narrow. Of course, one can always voluntarily assume those obligations, but there is no moral duty to do so either, rather it depends on one's ability to perform such obligations, and if one fails to perform a voluntarily assumed obligation, one exposes oneself to moral condemnation and even legal penalities.
The United States and Russia made an agreement with Ukraine, that they would respect and guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its arsenal of nuclear weapons. Russia has been in violation of this obligation it undertook for years now, at least since 2014. The United States, unlike most countries, has an obligation to Ukraine that it has fulfilled only partially and dragging our feet all the way. American involvement in Ukraine has nothing to do with Ukraine's political system, what form it has, whether it is a "democracy" or not, or who is in charge in Ukraine, nor or with the Ukrainians' political or philosophical convictions about this or that matter, but about the fact that we made a promise to Ukraine in exchange of their severely diminishing their capacity to defend themselves against attacks.
Whether going around the world making promises, such as the one we made to Ukraine, are good foreign policy, is another question entirely and one that is not at issue here. We already made this one, and there's nothing left for us to do but to fulfill it.
Re: "It’s [leftists'] way of suggesting that the government in Kyiv doesn’t share the left’s values and doesn’t truly represent Ukraine’s people. But that’s a hard argument to sustain when Ukraine’s president is a secular, democratically elected Jew."
Not hard at all when you consider that Zelensky had to cave to neo-Nazis and their oligarch backers and other supporters almost immediately after his election on a peace platform which was thereby largely disappointed.
Humanitarian war is always an oxymoron, but even so, it’s difficult to see how one can glance back at any war the US has waged as being truly fought with that intention. Even ww2 was fraught with more than one profiteering angle in some higher circles.
I suppose I agree somewhat that being opposed to supplying Ukraine with weapons is not, inherently, anti-Ukrainian. That being said the position of the DSA, while not inherently anti-ukrainian is de-facto anti-Ukrainian AND bone headed.
It is definitely a distinction with a worthwhile difference; I prefer the anti-NATO left to the anti-NATO right. Granted I think both are wrong, and neither have much of a leg to stand on.
"In 972 Mag, Raef Zreik examines the bitter irony that Ukrainian Jews taking refuge in Israel to escape Russia dispossession may end up contributing to Israel’s ongoing dispossession of Palestinians."
Shockingly, here's another case of progressive outlets becoming anti-refugee when those refugees are Jewish, and those same progressive outlets making unrelated world events all about, the Palestinians, who are truly the world's great victims and the stars of every story. Incredible how progressive values like support for democracies, human rights and safety refugees, and self-determination for marginalized minorities come to a screeching halt and even reverse when those values inevitably lead to support for Jewish self-determination and statehood and safety.
Mr. Beinart, how can you limit left positions to the matter of 'supporting Ukraine by military intervention'?
The main progressive take you virtually omit concerns two linked topics:
23+ years of NATO expansion vs. an alternate security structure - a decision that - as Cold Warrior government foreign policy makers accurately warned from the start - laid the ground for an authoritarian and aggressive Russia; and - now - the demand that the US directly engage with Russia to negotiate a settlement vs. loading up Ukraine with weapons and leaving settlements up to them and Russia.
US-led negotiated settlement! This is the anti-war group Codepink's position:
"Negotiate, Don't Escalate": Negotiate for peace in Ukraine!
The U.S. must help Ukraine-Russia negotiations by providing a clear articulation of what compromises the U.S./NATO will support. A ceasefire is urgently needed.
I love reading your journalism. Your analyses are spot on.( I also subscribe to Haaretz and many other outlets so have a pretty wide perspective). Yet I was shocked to learn that you had initially supported OUR invasion of Iraq which to me had always been led by the War criminal Cheney and his Lacky Bush. Unfortunately due to our past crimes and no accountability EVER placed on that Heinous unjustified Invasion...people like Putin and others of his ilk are able to say with impunity.Look the U.S has done exactly as we are doing.
First of all, there’s the observation that most Americans seem to think about foreign affairs (if at all) through the lens of domestic political narratives. Since 2016 that narrative has been Trump = Putin, so sympathies in the US have tended to fracture along those lines. That also might explain why the war in Ukraine has such strong resonance in the US in ways that, say, the horrific wars in Syria (half a million dead, tens of millions displaced) and Yemen (85,000 children starved to death) did not. Americans didn’t have a domestic narrative to lean on to understand the latter two still-ongoing wars.
Traditionally, left-liberals believe the US should remain bound by the rule of law in international affairs and are reflexively anti war, so it’s sensible to oppose Putin’s war in Ukraine on the same principles that they opposed Bush’s Iraq War. Contrary to the author’s recollection, I don’t recall much support for war in Iraq on the American Left—in fact millions of left-leaning people worldwide in February through April of 2003 mobilized and actively marched against it. In the US, there were the Cindy Sheehans and Michael Moores and hating Bush—and, by extensions, his policies—after the 2000 election was a natural position for anyone from center-left to the fringes.
Incoherently, liberals militarily and morally support the Neo-Nazis and white supremacists that have invaded Ukraine in recent years. https://time.com/5926750/azov-far-right-movement-facebook/ There have been violent anti-Russian attacks for years, resulting in thousands of deaths.
There is a difference between passing a (universal) moral judgment and undertaking an action to stop others, including an entire State like Russia, from committing those actions. Anyone can pass a moral judgment, and most do, even if not everyone expresses it clearly or even makes it correctly, but not everyone has a duty to do anything about most of what others do or what happens to others. Saying that something someone is doing to a third party is wrong (morally wrong) has few if any implications for what one should or should not do, other than refraining from doing it oneself.
Most moral obligations are negative, "obligations de ne pas faire" (as the French say it). Duties not to do. Non-contractual, positive obligations ("obligations de faire") are extremely rare and those that do exist are extremely narrow. Of course, one can always voluntarily assume those obligations, but there is no moral duty to do so either, rather it depends on one's ability to perform such obligations, and if one fails to perform a voluntarily assumed obligation, one exposes oneself to moral condemnation and even legal penalities.
The United States and Russia made an agreement with Ukraine, that they would respect and guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its arsenal of nuclear weapons. Russia has been in violation of this obligation it undertook for years now, at least since 2014. The United States, unlike most countries, has an obligation to Ukraine that it has fulfilled only partially and dragging our feet all the way. American involvement in Ukraine has nothing to do with Ukraine's political system, what form it has, whether it is a "democracy" or not, or who is in charge in Ukraine, nor or with the Ukrainians' political or philosophical convictions about this or that matter, but about the fact that we made a promise to Ukraine in exchange of their severely diminishing their capacity to defend themselves against attacks.
Whether going around the world making promises, such as the one we made to Ukraine, are good foreign policy, is another question entirely and one that is not at issue here. We already made this one, and there's nothing left for us to do but to fulfill it.
Re: "It’s [leftists'] way of suggesting that the government in Kyiv doesn’t share the left’s values and doesn’t truly represent Ukraine’s people. But that’s a hard argument to sustain when Ukraine’s president is a secular, democratically elected Jew."
Not hard at all when you consider that Zelensky had to cave to neo-Nazis and their oligarch backers and other supporters almost immediately after his election on a peace platform which was thereby largely disappointed.
I've learnt a lot about what was going on in Ukraine after 2014, especially with its internally displaced people, 1.6m, from this UN report (53 pages): https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_13th_HRMMU_Report_3March2016.pdf
BTW, I strongly oppose the Russian invasion, despite rationally understanding all the elements that have led to it.
Humanitarian war is always an oxymoron, but even so, it’s difficult to see how one can glance back at any war the US has waged as being truly fought with that intention. Even ww2 was fraught with more than one profiteering angle in some higher circles.
I suppose I agree somewhat that being opposed to supplying Ukraine with weapons is not, inherently, anti-Ukrainian. That being said the position of the DSA, while not inherently anti-ukrainian is de-facto anti-Ukrainian AND bone headed.
It is definitely a distinction with a worthwhile difference; I prefer the anti-NATO left to the anti-NATO right. Granted I think both are wrong, and neither have much of a leg to stand on.
"In 972 Mag, Raef Zreik examines the bitter irony that Ukrainian Jews taking refuge in Israel to escape Russia dispossession may end up contributing to Israel’s ongoing dispossession of Palestinians."
Shockingly, here's another case of progressive outlets becoming anti-refugee when those refugees are Jewish, and those same progressive outlets making unrelated world events all about, the Palestinians, who are truly the world's great victims and the stars of every story. Incredible how progressive values like support for democracies, human rights and safety refugees, and self-determination for marginalized minorities come to a screeching halt and even reverse when those values inevitably lead to support for Jewish self-determination and statehood and safety.