Ray McGovern: Did Putin Have "Other Options" on Ukraine?
Posted by sashimi on May 23, 2023, 2:33 am
22 May 2023
(quote) The automatic response usually is, "Yes, he certainly had options other than invasion and he should have chosen one of them first".
This assumption bespeaks the poverty of the discussion on Ukraine. The corporate media is, of course, largely to blame. But others, too, have not taken a hard look at whether the facts support that kind of facile answer. And so, not only has it become holey - yes, holey - dogma; it may get us all killed.
The facile response sits atop a fallacious syllogism that bodes high danger, particularly at this key juncture when misled citizens may acquiesce, yet again, to further escalation in Ukraine. The syllogism:
The Russians had other options to invading Ukraine. They attacked Ukraine in a 'war of choice'; also threaten NATO. Ergo, the West must arm Ukraine to the teeth, risking wider war.
The unexamined major premise lurks in every corner, including in very timely and instructive statements like the one the NY Times published on May 16. (https://eisenhowermedianetwork.org/russia-ukraine-war-peace/). It said: Our attempt at understanding the Russian perspective on their war does not endorse the invasion and occupation, nor does it imply the Russians had no other option but this war. Yet, just as Russian had other options, so did the U.S. and NATO leading up to this moment.
The attempt at balance - however transparent - is welcome. But are readers not owed some attempt to spell out those "other options"? This is not a marginal quibble; we are talking war. When one glibly asserts, glibly, that that a country that launched hostilities had other options, well, what were they? A statement as lengthy as that published in the NYT might have made room for an attempt to cite one or two of those options (This lacuna was why I demurred when asked to sign the ad.)
Please do not misunderstand. I think that, on balance, the NYT ad was pure gift to those who will be educated by it (and something of a miracle that the Times published it). Besides, I know the crafters and the signers of that statement well enough to rule out any thought that the omission might be attributed to fear of being seen to be in 'Putin's pocket'. Likewise, these are not the kind of folks to massage words to ensure political correctness.
Rather, it seems to me likely a case of accepting the 'received wisdom' that surely Putin had other options, without thinking that key question through carefully - not fully realizing how important it is to be more fully informative. Especially now.
A Harsher View Professor Oliver Boyd-Barrett is more harsh - too harsh, in my view - in his criticism of the NYT full-page ad. He gives an approving nod to its call for an adult-type recognition that opponents also have legitimate interests. But he adds that the statement "immediately stumbles at the first gate, namely, by blaming Russia for its Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine". He attributes this to "an inability to dig behind cliché superficiality".
Boyd-Barrett: "Putin launched the SMO precisely because he was intelligent enough to confront and defy the reality that the west was relentlessly working towards just such a conflict and that, as Machiavelli once observed, the longer he refrained from acting then the more disadvantageous his ultimate military plight". https://oliverboydbarrett.substack.com/ (/quote) -- Cont'd at https://raymcgovern.com/2023/05/22/did-putin-have-other-options-on-ukraine/
Putin has been politely asking the West about its proposed Russian end-game since at least 2008
Sashimi, that's a good article by Ray McGovern, thanks for posting it. Those journalists in the UK who are generally rational about Ukraine such as Peter Hitchens, do tend to line up behind the "Russia was provoked but had other options" line without exploring what those actually were. Putin has been politely asking Western leaders why military hardware seems to be plonked ever closer to Russian borders since at least 2008. If these missiles are not directed at us, he's asked, then what's their intended target?
I have no doubt the Russian political elite concluded that some sort of conflict with the US via NATO through its Ukrainian proxy was coming and that if war was inevitable, it was better at Russia's time of choosing.
on May 23, 2023, 2:33 am