In a fight it is usually not wise to insist that your opponent, no matter how odious and bullying, say “uncle,” when you have him firmly on the ground. And especially so when he is carrying a lethal weapon. A better strategy is to provide him some space that allows him to retreat with some dignity with his weapon deactivated.

Putin in the early days of the invasion of Ukraine said,

“… today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.”

But this is an invented threat. And Putin knows that. NATO has made many wrongheaded decisions and taken many misguided actions, but an invasion of Russia isn’t on its agenda and Putin knows that. But by suggesting it, Putin was threatening – attempting to intimidate – the rest of the world.

In a longer and interesting article, Michael Walzer writes, “The war has been almost universally condemned, with “explanations” and apologies that amount to support coming from three groups: political realists, who believe in spheres of influence and want to recognize Russia’s sphere; right-wingers who admire authoritarian leaders and see Putin as one of their own; and leftists who are sure that the United States and NATO must always be the only bad guys. The three have this in common: they aren’t looking hard and close at the actual war.”

Well said.

This article is well worth reading. The author makes the point that the rapid growth of a distinct Ukrainian identity and nationality was of great concern to Putin. Soon it would become, Putin’s feared, irreversible. And thus a formidable barrier to his vision of a greater Russia. This spike in the process of national renewal, independence, and consciousness is traceable to the Maiden revolution in 2014 – a revolution that had been and still is reduced by many on the left – and the communist movement in particular – to no more than a U.S. engineered and Nazi led coup d’etat and counterrevolution with no democratic dimensions.

If you read the statements of many of the communist parties (of which I was a member and leader for many years), they argue that Putin’s actions should be understood as defensive and reactive to NATO’s expansion rather than a reckless and empire aggrandizing gambit by Putin. In their analysis, the Ukrainian people – fighting, dying, fleeing – aren’t invisible, but they aren’t the primary in the narrative either.

Moreover, Ukraine’s fledgling democracy barely appears. Meanwhile, Lenin’s insistence on the right to national self determination – supposedly a core principal of the communist movement – receives no mention, except as an explanation legitimizing the formation of breakaway separatists republics in the Donbass region.

In this interpretation, responsibility for the conflict’s origins and consequences rests on the shoulders of Biden and NATO. Putin, in this telling, was pushed into a corner and had few options but to invade Ukraine. His hand, in effect, was forced. Never was any thought given to the possibility that NATO’s expansion as unwise and provocative as it was might serve as a cover for Putin’s own expansionist/empire building plans. Even Putin’s decision to place Russia’s nuclear forces on alert didn’t seem to stir much concern or reappraisal of his designs and motives.

When they finally opposed Putin’s aggression, and it was late, they, nevertheless, repeated his false political characterization of Ukraine and its government as nothing more than a cesspool of Nazis and fascists. To cap things off, the belligerent and chauvinist statement of the leader of the Russian Communist Party was met, from what I can see, with silence or tacit approval.

Not a good showing.