Frederick Krantz
“… he’s leading a relatively poor, corruption-stained country, independent only since 1991, which is nevertheless fighting for its life, with allies who, though generous, are not giving him full support for fear of antagonizing too greatly the very state that threatens his country.”
Is there any political or moral alternative to the U.S.-led and NATO-backed West‘s support for Ukraine against Russian invasion? At this point, could we just pull out and let Putin “cleanse“ the country (and then, with his nuclear saber rattling, quite possibly threaten Moldavia, the Baltics, and Poland?)?
Many are concerned by the Ukrainians‘ record, particularly for Jews and the Holocaust. It is indeed stained (see the reaction to the Canadian Parliament‘s standing ovation for a 98-year-old former Ukrainian Waffen SS Nazi attending Zelensky‘s recent address there. The great Nazihunter Simon Wiesenthal pledged never to visit Canada because it had let in thousands of tainted Ukrainians after WWII).
(At the same time, Ukrainians suffered terribly after World War I, enduring what they call the Holodomor, the Soviet murder of millions across the terrible famine of 1932-33. This atrocity accounts in part for why many joined up with the invading Germans in 1941, only to discover that as Slavs, they were considered and treated as Untermenschen, sub-humans, by their new “liberators.” Some ideological antisemites and convinced Nazis persisted and joined their German confrères as war criminals.)
Among other reasons for supporting Kyiv‘s remarkable defense against the 2022 invasion, the following considerations come to mind:
a)the Russian invasion, which has caused terrible loss of life, military and civilian, has no defensible explanation (today, 78 years after World War II, and with a Jewish President, Ukrainians are not all Nazis, nor was their admission to NATO imminent, as Putin claimed);
b)the Ukrainians‘ defense has been remarkable, and not to have come to their aid—directly inserting American/NATO forces was never contemplated––-would have been reprehensible. (Are they less worthy, and their continued existence less morally defensible, than Afghans/Kuwaitis/ South Koreans, etc.??);
c)” neutrality“ could not be justified, even on raison d’état grounds—again, allowing Putin to roll over Ukraine and potentially on to other areas, directly involving NATO and threatening other regional states, was not in the cards.
Today, a year and a half later, the war grinds on. Yes, Ukraine may yet be defeated, especially if the U.S. and Europe throw in the towel (and a move against Zelensky by still-antisemitic elements might well be one consequence of that). Here, the apparent disdain for him in some quarters is puzzling. True, he‘s no George Washington (what contemporary leader is, nor is he more genuinely Jewish than many Biden-voting secular“progressive“ American Jews; also true, he hasn‘t hesitated to impose authoritarian measures on the media and some political parties as his country fights for its life; and yes, he‘s learned (being a superb comic actor surely has helped) to influence the Western electorates by playing to the media.
But then, he‘s leading a relatively poor, corruption-stained country, independent only since 1991, which is nevertheless fighting for its life, with allies who,though generous, are not giving him full support for fear of antagonizing too greatly the very state thatthreatens his country. So far, he has done a more than commendable job.
The Ukrainian issue is in some respects morally complicated, perhaps even more so than the usual run of “ordinary“ (if there is such a thing) political-military conflicts. But it should be evident—keeping an eye on its ally China in relation to the South China Sea and Taiwan (as well as Beijing‘sexpansion into Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East)—that despite the expense (still relatively low, given the U.S/European GDP), blocking Russian expansion is more than justifiable, both morally and in terms of our self-interest.
Given Western Europe’s political, if not economic, weakness, the U.S. remains, despite its current divisions and the totally inept, self-destructive Biden administration, the only bulwark against expansionist, nuclear-armed, repressive-authoritarian regimes. On a global scale, our situation seems in some ways to replicate that of the 1930s, which culminated in World War II, whichbegan with Germany‘s post-appeasement invasion of Poland, which, despite French and British treaty obligations, fought alone.
Supporting Ukraine now is undoubtedly preferable to another Czechoslovakia/ Munich/Poland, which is what could ensue should American determination be sapped by pacifist elements merging into a Congressional majority.
The U.S. heads a Western alliance, and Russian aggression (first, recall, in 2014, into eastern Ukraine and Crimea) imperils it by threatening expansion: Ukraine has become, thanks to Biden‘s weakness, from Afghanistan and by ignoring Putin‘s 2022 invasion threats, the battleground on which a kind of proxy war, a Russian-American indirect conflict, is being waged.
Every effort must be exerted to prevent this confrontation from enlarging into a wider war; somerealistic negotiation must ensure, perhaps via exchanging, restored Ukrainian control over Crimea for continuing Russian preeminence in eastern Ukraine (Luhansk and Donetsk). However,Russia cannot emerge from this without suffering a de facto defeat.
Zelensky‘s public position—clear defeat of Russia, total withdrawal from Ukrainian territory, imposition of Russian financial support for reconstruction—doesn‘t seem feasible.
It is, after all, a maximal position, which must, barring some major development (a Russian military collapse in the south or, as Prigozhin perhaps foretold, the collapse of Putin, via either external or internal), be modulated. (Enforced territorial exchange is what Trump seems to have in mind when he claims he could end the war in 24 hours—his other claim, that there would not have been a war had he been President, has much to recommend it.)
Finally, many commentators see the central issue in the rapidly approaching November 2024 U.S. Presidential election as restoring the southern border, capping inflation, dismantling “weaponized“governmental agencies (Justice, FBI), or banishing “wokeness“ from education, or building up diminished military-technical power, or blunting the Democrats‘ drive to impose an authoritarian one-party dominance on American society. These issues are important—an evident litany of the Biden Administration’s failures.
But the critical issue is, surely, preserving a tolerably stable world order—in Europe, by blocking the Russian take-over of Ukraine and any possible expansion, and in the Pacific/Asia by delimitingChina‘s destabilizing drive to hegemony. During World War II, the two key Axis powers, Germany and Japan, despite treaties, did not cooperate militarily; today, Russia and China must not, despite their mutual avowals, be allowed to coalesce—a major reason for demonstrating to Beijing, by Moscow‘s costly failure to absorb Ukraine, that aggression will not be rewarded.
Since the end of World War I, maintaining global order in our nuclear age has been the U.S.‘s key role and responsibility, at once moral and political. One can only pray that it will successfully bear this responsibility once again: the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.
Prof. Frederick Krantz
Director (Emeritus)
Canadian Institute for Jewish Research
(Gaithersburg, MD)
