Skip to main content

Ukraine is Fighting our Battles, So We Don’t Have to

If there is one thing Republicans have always believed — one rock-solid conviction you could absolutely take to the bank, no matter how much they otherwise distorted facts, history, and reality itself — it’s that Russia is an existential threat to the world in general, and the United States in particular.

But now that they’ve been proven unassailably correct in this, now that Russia has sunk to depths of barbarity unique in human history, how strange is it to watch Republicans develop a middle-school crush on a bloodthirsty tyrant.

No, it’s not all Republicans. But a significant number — especially in the new House majority — have shown an unhealthy attraction to Putin, and an uncharacteristic willingness to throw Ukraine under the bus.

As with everything these clowns do, we never know how much is theater and how much is strategy — or whether the theater is, in fact, the strategy. And we don’t know which pieces of their bonkers agenda they think might have a realistic chance of coming to fruition.

But they’re vowing to withhold funding from Ukraine, which would be almost as stupid as weaponizing the debt ceiling. So we can’t rule it out.

For the moment, it’s an empty threat, as they can’t do anything about the $45 billion just appropriated by Congress in the December lame-duck session. Still, their Putin-envy is showing, and they’re being egged on by stochastic terrorist Tucker Carlson. If they can find a way to turn off the spigot of dollars flowing to Ukraine, they will.

That $45 billion is roughly two percent of the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending package that was passed last month, with — incredibly — bipartisan support. This was, of course, while the House of Representatives was still in the hands of adults.

The passing of that law was a vivid demonstration of the widening schism in the Republican party. Once Mitch McConnell saw that the House was about to be taken over by rogue elephants, he whipped up enough of his GOP senators to make sure the bill passed, even though they had to swallow a ton of other spending that they loathed.

Mitch and his old white guys were so appalled that any Republican could even question the Russian threat, let alone appease it, that they sucked it up and voted with the Democrats.

Even they could see that Russia is an implacable enemy of all things Western, and that it seeks to undermine democratic values by any means at its disposal, the more treacherous and cruel, the better.

Even they could see that anything that prevents Russia from doing that is well worth considering.

And even they could see that there are huge benefits to be reaped from having other people, not us, beat the crap out of Russia. Speaking of which, economist Timothy Ash puts those benefits bluntly, in an article provocatively titled “It’s Costing Peanuts for the US to Defeat Russia”:

In cold, geopolitical terms, this war provides a prime opportunity for the US to erode and degrade Russia’s conventional defense capability, with no boots on the ground and little risk to US lives.  

But before we talk about what might callously be called our ‘return on investment,’ let’s acknowledge that there is an entire country of 40 million people bearing the brunt of a horror unimaginable in our own comparatively cushy corner of the world. A huge number of Ukrainians are spending a brutal winter without heat or electricity, seeing their infrastructure destroyed, their friends and family killed, and their futures disappearing.

Yet they continue to do our dirty work. They’ve exposed glaring weaknesses in Russia’s military. They’ve forced Putin to deplete a huge percentage of his munitions, which he’ll have to replace without the Western components that made them so effective. And, with the help of Western sanctions, they’ve pushed Russia’s already backward economy even further backward, to the point where it will be playing catch-up for at least twenty years.

Ukrainian sacrifice is truly monumental, not to mention underappreciated. While they freeze, starve, and die, we not only get to replace the billions of dollars in weapons and supplies being burned through, but we also get free access to the real-time laboratory of a real war.

We get to see how our most sophisticated weapons perform under wartime conditions. We watch, from a safe distance, as Ukrainian soldiers learn, often the hard way, what works and what doesn’t. We take, from their bitter experience, valuable lessons that will make the next batch even deadlier than the last.

At the same time, we get to monitor a new kind of high-tech war, without getting our own kids killed. We can see how tanks have become surprisingly vulnerable targets, how missiles can home in on cell phone signals to lethal effect, and how boots on the ground can be less important than drones in the air. These are lessons we may one day need to draw on for our own defense, and we’re learning them the easy way.

But what we get most of all from this war is a juicing of our own economy. A huge chunk of that $45 billion is being spent right here in the U.S., as we replace and upgrade the weapons and support systems that have been used up on the battlefield.

Demand for explosives is exploding. If you’re making, say, HIMARS rockets in Camden, Arkansas, you’ve got a great job, underwritten by the federal government. Your town is booming, and you get the added jolt of patriotism from knowing that you’re striking back at a murderous enemy.

Likewise if you’re making Javelin anti-tank rockets in Troy, Alabama. Or surface-to-air missiles in Tucson, Arizona. Or Patriot missiles in Huntsville, Alabama.

And it’s not just the glamorous stuff we’re making. It’s also things like body armor, helmets, cold-weather gear, trucks, trailers, surveillance systems, generators, medical equipment, medical supplies, and just about anything else an army might need to press a war against an outlaw superpower. All these things are desperately needed in Ukraine. And they’re spreading the wealth around here.

We get all this, and more, for a mere six percent of the total U.S. defense budget, a lot of it being spent in red states. It’s hard to imagine Republican congressmen in those states wanting to kill a goose that golden. But for the right kind of theater, they just might.

For 80 years, Republicans have nurtured their loathing of Russia. You could argue that this was always more about government contracts than any innate enthusiasm for democracy. But even so, a strong national defense has always been a core value for them. Now, not so much.

There is surely no greater indicator of just how far the Republican party has fallen — or how it’s been turned inside-out by self-destructive lunacy — than in its apparent willingness to betray Ukraine in our name.

It’s not clear that they can actually do this, but it’s distressing enough that they want to.

Meanwhile, Ukrainians will continue to fight our battles for us anyway. With or without our help.


  1. Great one Andy. So true, so sad. Hopefully it helps the Ukrainians too, someday.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The GOP's Weaknesses are More Apparent than its Strengths

  Anyone who’s paying attention now understands that this election is a whole lot scarier than it ever should have been. It’s a shame — and an indictment of our constitutional system — that it comes down to an election at all. Surely, the Trump problem should have been settled by now, with no further elections required to get him out of our lives. His crimes were such that the real crime was letting him remain at large. All those checks and balances we were taught to revere should have somehow found a way to rid us of this monster. But the Supreme Court seems to have Trump’s back, though it’s not clear what that gains them. If anything, it makes one wonder what Trump is holding over them, and what might happen to their families if they don’t keep him out of prison. So it will come down to the election, and the lines couldn’t be drawn more indelibly. I prefer to think this can work out well — that these scorched-earth hacks can be overwhelmed at the ballot box

The New York Times has Gone Over to the Dark Side

  A week or so ago, Trump took a break from the courtroom and held a rally in a picturesque corner of New Jersey, a state he has no hope of winning. His speech at this rally was even more unhinged than usual, featuring his now-famous tributes to Al Capone and Hannibal Lecter — the latter being as fictional as Trump’s medical records, but seemingly real in his mind. These speeches are growing worse over time, and they seem to betray a worsening cognitive condition. Unfortunately, the New York Times doesn’t see it that way. Their reporting of the event was basically a puff piece . To them, this rally was Trump’s well-deserved break from the rigors and indignities of his criminal trial. They marvel that, “after a long and tense week,” he could now head to the Jersey Shore for some much-needed rest and adulation: Against the backdrop of classic Americana, Mr. Trump repeated his typical criticism that Mr. Biden’s economic policies were hurting the middle class.

Trump and Pecker Sittin’ in a Tree

  Before there was Fox News, before there was Rush Limbaugh, before there was the sprawling rightwing ecosystem of fake news and vicious smears we so enjoy today, there was the National Enquirer . For most of our lives, the Enquirer stared up at us from the checkout aisle of our local supermarket. Somehow, we never made the connection that its readers would one day fit the stereotype of the Trump voter — under-educated, gullible, malleable, easy targets for disinformation. The Enquirer nurtured those targets over many decades, got them to believe virtually anything, and helped lay the groundwork for the sort of know-nothing insurgency that brought Trump into all our lives. Decades ahead of its time, the Enquirer was peddling fake news long before it was fashionable. It appealed unapologetically to humanity’s baser instincts, the ones most of us try to rise above. It was always flamboyantly sleazy, and always there in plain sight, something we could dependably