Much note has already been made of the fact President Biden's Warsaw speech yesterday took a jarring turn at the very end. Up to that point, it was the kind of speech the moment called for, a declaration of how the great historical forces were arrayed on the world stage. It was a sober and eloquent blend of context and resolve. Then came the "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power" remark, referring to Putin.
For my money, Stephen Hayes has the kind of take on it that is has some usefulness:
He was obviously discussing Putin's power in Russia. He was plainly right on substance - of course it'd be better not to have a nihilistic authoritarian running a nuclear state committing war crimes daily. But he was foolish to say it. The walkback is insulting - damage is done.
I don't think the kind of take I'm seeing some examples of - the take that says, "Oh, dandy, now Putin has license to get as ugly as he pleases, given that the West, as embodied by Biden, is determined to remove him" - is helpful. Biden committed a characteristically Bidenesque gaffe, but it's not as if the US has spooks in the Kremlin waiting for the moment to hog-tie Putin and cart him out.
I think that as the new week unfolds, sufficient weight will be given to the brunt of the speech, which was appropriately grand and resolute. At least I hope so. The West does indeed need to remain unified against the expansionist aims of Putin and his ilk.
But I think we'd better pay some attention to where Ukrainian president Zelesnskyy is coming from:
In the wake of President Joe Biden’s trip to Europe to rally Ukraine's allies, the country's leader reiterated his view that the West has not done enough to support Kyiv.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy demanded in a video message late Saturday that Western nations provide a fraction of the military hardware in their stockpiles and asked whether they were afraid of Moscow.
Zelenskyy said Kyiv needed planes, tanks, air-defense and anti-ship systems.
"That is what our partners have, that is what is just gathering dust there," he said in the address. "This is all for not only the freedom of Ukraine, but for the freedom of Europe."
"We are waiting for 31 days already. So who is governing the Euro-Atlantic community? Is it really still Moscow through intimidation?" Zelenskyy said.
It's increasingly looking like a possibility that Ukraine, assuming it - or any of us - skate past the potential Armageddon that looms way too uncomfortably, may eke out a future that is other than conventionally Western. Zelenskyy has the overwhelming support of his citizens. He articulates their plight, and they appreciate it.
I completely understand the West's trepidation about NATO going toe-to-toe with Russia (see above reference to a potential Armageddon), but at what point is this going to be a matter of history recording that the West stood by and let Russia complete its rape of Ukraine? Is Zelenskyy's frustration turning into a bitterness that will steer Ukraine's course if it can survive?
I'm still not ready to take the hard-and fast position that NATO ought to bring to bear the kind of weaponry that risks direct confrontation with Russia. On the other hand, I'm not ready to take the hard and fast position that we shouldn't.
This is about as sticky a wicket as we've ever found ourselves in.
As of right now, I'd just say that we may be contributing to the evolution of a Ukraine that doesn't have much use for Western assurances of solidarity. It's not going to surrender to Putin, but it may not feel much kinship with any of us, either.
No comments:
Post a Comment