Two Takes On Ukraine

 Katrina vanden Heuvel in the Post makes the argument that what's happening in Ukraine is largely our fault. She derides Ukraine as a failed state, demonstrating that she doesn't really know what a failed state is or taking into account the extremely damaging role that Russia has played in destroying Ukraine's chances for economic growth. She then basically says that the US-led post-Cold War order is dead  because America does sanctions and Bush invaded Iraq, so why are we even pretending to have principles. She suggests that there is a weird intransigence on "both sides" to prevent a deal that creates an independent, sovereign Ukraine that is officially neutral. Golly gee, why hadn't anyone thought of this before?! I bet the national security team is kicking themselves over this.

Of course, Vladimir Putin is not interested in a neutral, successful, democratic Ukraine. This crisis wasn't created by NATO suddenly deciding to admit Ukraine, it was created by Vladimir Putin to bring Ukraine back into a subservient relationship to Moscow. 

Josh Marshall, as usual, has a much better analysis on where we are and how we got there. One thing I thing he ignores was that there was talk in the '90s of eventually admitting a democratic Russia into NATO. The logical endpoint of NATO expansion was to end the old Cold War dynamic by folding NATO's great enemy within a collective security framework. Marshall is right in describing a lot of that thinking as naïve, but it wasn't malicious. Russia sees it as malicious.

Most media coverage of foreign policy is deeply stupid and tends to see the US as the only actor with agency, the only protagonist on the world stage who matters. As a result, whatever happens in Ukraine is America's fault/responsibility. This is absurd. 

However, the "debate" over what the US is doing right now largely falls inside this stupid frame. A large part of security policy is to disrupt your opponents "OODA Loop." The principle of an OODA loop is that a decision maker will Observe the situation, Orient your options via analysis, Decide what to do and then Act on that decision. Having Acted, you then Observe and the loop continues. 

If you can disrupt this process, you disrupt your opponent's ability to act. The US and its allies have been absolutely shredding Russia's OODA loop. All the statements about "Russia is about to invade" or "Russia will create a border incident to justify an invasion" or whatever are designed to interfere with Russia's decision making. Broadcasting Russia's intentions makes it so that they can't act within their own parameters. They are constantly having to adjust to what NATO is saying. 

Putin forced the crisis, but NATO and the US is currently making it so that his options grow more limited by the day.

I've been legitimately in the dark as to what Putin and Russia will do, but it looks increasingly like his bluff was called. Ukraine did not collapse. The West did not fold to demands. Can he find an Exit Ramp that allows him to claim a victory? 

Regardless, if Russia backs down, there will be ample voices in the media saying that this just proves Putin is reasonable and never wanted war. The latter part is true, because he knew it would be hard for Russia to win a prolonged invasion of Ukraine. The rest is bullshit. If Putin backs down, it will be because Biden and the rest of NATO called him on his shit.