It’s Hard Out Here For a Simp

Putin is making life hard for his Western apologists.

By
139
Heritage Foundation President Dr. Kevin Roberts speaks with former Vice President Mike Pence at the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/Washington Post/Getty Images.)

I warned you a few weeks ago that a civil war on the right over Ukraine was coming, didn’t I?

Well, it’s here. And by “here,” I of course mean “in Italy.”

Yesterday Italian media reported that former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a key player in the country’s new coalition government, was caught on tape blaming Russia’s war on its victims. It was Ukrainian brutality in the Donbas that compelled Moscow to intervene, he told his audience, framing the invasion as a sort of humanitarian intervention.

He also related how his friend Vladimir had recently sent him 20 bottles of vodka and “a very kind letter” for his birthday, as soft-hearted humanitarians are wont to do.

Start a Free Trial
Get unlimited access to our 10 daily and weekly newsletters, Dispatch Live broadcasts, article comments and community events. Get Started ALREADY A PAID SUBSCRIBER? SIGN IN
139
By
Comments (139)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Nsper7

    Since when is Mike Pence an expert on foreign policy (since when is he an expert on anything...he was certainly not selected to be VP for his mental acuity)? He's just repeating the same neocon tropes that got America stuck in quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, that decimated Libya (neoconservativism is the bipartisan foreign policy view: Rachel Maddow and Bill Kristol, Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney, may disagree vehemently on domestic issues, but when it comes to foreign policy, they're humming the same tune).

    On this issue, Trump and the non-interventionists (on both Left and Right) are correct. Further, the claim that appeasement never works is wrong: it failed in Munich 1938, but that was because Hitler was a uniquely dangerous threat. We overlearned the lesson of Munich, causing us to get sucked into unnecessary and terribly destructive wars (such as in Korea and Vietnam).

    The fact that Putin does not appear to be deploying nuclear weapons yet is cold comfort given how rapidly they're designed to be deployed. We're doing to Russia what we did to Imperial Japan in the late 1930s and very early 1940s: boxing them into a corner to where them drawing us into a direct conflict is perceived as the only way they can "save face". If such a Russo-NATO War broke out, even if it remained purely conventional (of which there'd be no guarantee), it would be extremely costly for the US in terms of blood and treasure. While Russia would not be able to realistically invade the US, their long-range bombers, blue-water navy, and cyberwarfare operators could threaten the continental US's civilian and military infrastructure. The land war would be in Europe, devastating that continent and, even if US/NATO ground forces eventually got the upper hand, it would be an extremely bloody victory for the US.

    I'm not a pacifist--there are sometimes when war, tragically, is necessary--but I just don't see how it's in America's interests to risk a terrible (potentially globally catastrophic/apocalyptic) war with Russia over what amounts to Russia just wanting to restore it's old Soviet/Tsarist borders.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Marty

      So it's *our fault* that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It's *our fault* that Japan launched a surprise attack on the Pacific fleet of a neutral country (on a Sunday morning, no less), with the intent of wiping out said fleet so their conquest of the Philippines etc. could proceed unimpeded. And it's *our fault* that Japan decided it would be a good idea to join Hitler and Mussolini in a military alliance against us.

      Words fail me.

      Collapse
      1. Nsper7

        Imperial Japan attacked the US in response to our sanctioning/embargoing them, cutting them off from much needed supplies, and us issuing ultimatums and demands to them. We put them in a position where they'd either have to knuckle under to US demands (thus "losing face") or go to war. If the US had been more respectful of Imperial Japan and stopped sticking our nose into their business, the Pacific War could have been avoided. Even after Pearl Harbor, the US could have negotiated with Imperial Japan (in fact, their goal in the Pearl Harbor attack was to push us to the bargaining table: suffice it to say, misjudgment of how another country will react to various actions is hardly unique to the US).

        Arguably, the major reason Imperial Japan joined the Axis was because they felt threatened by the US and UK. Remember that Imperial Japan was not fascist, they had sided with the Entente (Anglo-Franco-[eventually American] Alliance) in WW1, the Nazis had initially supported the Nationalist Chinese in the Sino-Japanese War, and the Japanese were greatly disturbed by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. If the US and UK had behaved differently, Japan likely would have remained neutral or even joined the Allies.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          O.M.G. calling from Vaudeville, AZ

          Just saw this Nsper7 and I could not tell you how appalling stupid I know your ahistorical perspective as it is fing outrageous. Speaking of oil, the literal EVIL Empire of Japans life’s blood, do you have any fing idea how many millions of human beings the terrorists Japs raped, tortured and MURDERED BEFORE the day that shall live in infamy over the course of the previous TEN YEARS you fing dumb f. Leave aside I know a man who’s uncle and father where in Pearl Harbor that fateful morning a bunch of fing Jap flybouzs toasted to saki before they committed MASS MURDER, my old man volunteered for the navy the very next day because the Japs were MASS MURDERERS who most definitely did NOT need oil. The U.S. and the U.K. were not, nor did, murder millions in China, or Poland, or the Ukraine, or…Japan and Germany DID before their respective dictators declared war on U.S. you stupid f. Japan and Germany started it, and has the fate of the free world and luck (and millions of murdered innocent) would have it, the United States put in END to both evil wannabe empires.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            BWG

            O.M.G., I think Nsper7's assertions are ridiculous also - see my response elsewhere. But cut out the ad hominem attacks or find a comfortable sewer elsewhere to spew your crapulent prose.

            Collapse
    2. Eric.Lanser

      *The effective resistance* to Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been a tremendous boon to U.S. and international security. Russia's military reputation (among other things) is in shambles. China was impressed by the extent of European cohesion (on sanctions, etc.).
      Continuing to show "realist" actors the price of aggression is how we preserve peace. I grant that there is a genuine risk of escalation in any resistance to aggression. Your notion that granting Russia (etc.) whatever they want will prevent war is incorrect. By the logic of realism, it emboldens them. On the other hand, military failures make "realist" actors think twice. Military embarrassments threaten their power. Russia is facing both; a lesson they, and China, and others, won't soon forget.

      Collapse
    3. Andrew W.

      So tell us your response when Russia decides that they're going to take the Baltic countries back, since they were part of "wanting to restore it's old Soviet/Tsarist borders." What would your advice be to NATO then?

      How about Taiwan? How about if Poland decides to restore it's old borders and retake Belorus and eastern Russia? Would you support that too? Germany should definitely get Kaliningrad back. It has a much, much greater historical nexus to Germany/Prussia than it does to Russia. Revanchism for everyone appears to be your approach. Tell us where your appeasement ends.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Alina M.

      Have you read the article? Russia wants to destroy Ukraine and murder its citizens. Are you supporting mass genocide?

      Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Mark B

      This was meant as a reply when I posted it below.

      What army do you anticipate will be fighting NATO in this land war in Europe? You may have missed it but the Russian army was smashed in Ukraine and they have pulled their “defensive” formations away from their NATO borders to prop up their Ukrainian positions. In a world without nukes Poland could take Moscow on its own, Finland probably could, maybe Lithuanian could. If there is a land war in Europe in the next 5 years it’ll have to be after the Chinese army marches across Siberia.

      Collapse
    6. Avatar photo
      Mark B

      What army do you anticipate will be fighting NATO in this land war in Europe? You may have missed it but the Russian army was smashed in Ukraine and they have pulled their “defensive” formations away from their NATO borders to prop up their Ukrainian positions. In a world without nukes Poland could take Moscow on its own, Finland probably could, maybe Lithuanian could. If there is a land war in Europe in the next 5 years it’ll have to be after the Chinese army marches across Siberia.

      Collapse
    7. Tom Doniphon

      Oh God, MUH QUAGMIRES.

      As for Iraq: Iraq was a success. We're better off with Saddam gone, and so are the Iraqi people. There was a serious problem caused by Obama's insistence on entirely leaving the country too early, but we fixed the ISIS problem in the end.

      As for Afghanistan: if you think we shouldn't have fought back after 9/11 when terrorists based in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban killed 3,000 Americans, then your entire moral foundation for reasoning is suspect.

      Your comments about appeasement are an attempt to tell us we have to ignore Hitler as "irrelevant" as an example, and unrelated to all other cases, which is silly; it's simply a historical precedent that leads somewhere you don't want us to go. If you think it was a mistake to defend Korea and Vietnam - especially given that we WON Korea - then you simply oppose our entire policy of opposing Communist expansion by conquest.

      The rest of your comment is nothing more than the same old Blame America nonsense peddled by Pat Buchanan, blaming WW2 on us victimizing the Japanese and now blaming the war in Ukraine on us, saying that our defense of Eastern Europe from Russian conquest "boxes in" Russia, as though Russia has some natural right to conquer Eastern Europe and we're violating that right.

      "I'm not a pacifist--there are sometimes when war, tragically, is necessary--but I just don't see how it's in America's interests to risk a terrible (potentially globally catastrophic/apocalyptic) war with Russia over what amounts to Russia just wanting to restore it's old Soviet/Tsarist borders."

      Your entire comment accepts Putin's premises as correct: that these Eastern European countries belong to Russia whether they like it or not, and that it's wrong of us to help them resist conquest.

      The whole comment really IS isolationism and Putin-apology from start to finish.

      Collapse
    8. Anon

      Ja, we should probably just give Putin Alaska right now.

      Collapse
    9. Avatar photo
      BWG

      Pence's mental acuity is fine, much better than Trump's glandular reptilian reaction to anything he perceives as a threat or anything he perceives could help him get ahead, including supporting dictators abroad.
      Hitler was a uniquely dangerous threat, but Putin is not? In your comment you spent a paragraph recounting how bad it would be if Russo-NATO war erupted. Which is it? I would say that Putin, like all ambitious dictators with lots of weapons at their disposal, is uniquely dangerous.
      We didn't box in Imperial Japan, we resisted their imperial ambitions through legal means, and their response was an illegal surprise attack on the US, a neutral country, that killed over 2400 and wounded almost 1200. Japan was planning to take military action against Indonesia, Indochina, Malaysia and the Philippines, and we acted to deny that aggression.
      You may not be a pacifist, but you are clearly an isolationist, an outlook that has never worked for us. As Pence said, we are the arsenal of freedom.
      And I agree with Krbrady1919 in his response to your comment - should Ukraine just roll over and accept Putin's violation of its borders and international law? We already did that with Crimea in 2014, and how did that work out? And how would all of this be different than ceding the Sudetenland to Hitler? And how will the consequences be significantly different (an ensuing escalation of the conflict)? Spoiler alert: they won't be different! Russia will continue to push until they gobble up all their non-NATO neighbors, and then they'll start on the Baltics, and then we'll have WW3, and it will be much worse than WW2.

      Collapse
    10. Krbrady1919

      "Russia just wanting to restore its old Soviet/Tsarist borders." And I suppose Ukraine should just roll over and accept that? Because....why? And when Russia decides to swallow all of Ukraine, and then wishes to move on to other neighbors, then what?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Stephen Maturin

        Plus I get the sense that if Ukraine were to lay down her arms and accept her Russian overlords there would be much fewer Ukrainians this time next year. Russia tried to exterminate Ukraine once. We don't want to give them the chance at another try.

        https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/holodomor

        I have letters from my great-grandfather's generation who stayed behind in Ukraine rather than emigrating to the US during WWI. They were writing to family in North Dakota asking them to send money since things were so bad. One story in a letter told about the Bolsheviks holding a "meeting" in a local church. Only men and boys were invited. Once the church was full the firing began and everyone in the church was killed except for one boy who was lucky enough to have his father land on him when he died - thus shielding the boy from Bolshevik bullets.

        Collapse
      2. Tom Doniphon

        Some people believe that Eastern Europe naturally belongs to Russia, regardless of whether Eastern Europeans want it or not.

        It's completely amoral isolationist nonsense, but that's what some of them believe, even when they don't openly say it.

        Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Probably Wrong

    Quite the headline you’ve selected here

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Seth B

    Good stuff, Nick.

    I'm not sure how TD measures engagement with their articles, but I wanted to leave a quick comment just in case that's one metric they consider. (I miss Substack's old "like" button for articles.)

    Collapse
  4. John

    Excellent. I’ve been thinking about this and about Mike Pence. He is a proven supporter of America, out institutions and our constitution in addition to being a strong conservative. Maybe his problem is that he is not a loud mouth crackpot. We need people like him.

    Collapse
  5. Brett

    If skepticism of Ukraine is so out of step with world opinion, as Pence argues, why is US support like 10x the next western country?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      J.R.

      As a measure of GDP, it's not. We're in line with other western nations and behind a few of them. What amount of funding is appropriate is a different question, but the dollar amount irrespective of GDP isn't an useful metric for measuring solidarity with Ukraine.

      It's similar to arguing a billionaire donating $10,000 dollars to a charity is showing more support than someone making $50,000 a year donating $1,000 dollars. Sure, in terms of absolute dollars the billionaire is showing more support; but in terms of the real costs of that support they don't hold a candle to the person rearranging their budget or sacrificing to make it happen.

      Collapse
      1. Brett

        You are incorrect. Adjust for GDP and fine maybe it isn't 10x but US is still dramatically higher. US aid is what is out of step. If we did what rest of EU is doing it would be single digit billions adjusted for GDP.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          J.R.

          As a portion of GDP we don't even make the top five, falling behind Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Lithuania, and Norway. Not that we should be more generous than the Baltic and former eastern bloc nations (this is arguably existential for them), but your claim is categorically wrong.

          https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
          https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

          Collapse
          1. Brett

            I understand your point but your by-GDP numbers are either off or don’t fairly represent the various contributions. According to this site, https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ , the United States gave $52.3 billion, EU as a whole $29.2 billion, and other countries as a whole $12.3 billion, at least by money committed.

            The numbers are more lopsided on the military side, with UK + EU + Poland + Germany at something like $9 billion, and US at $27.6 billion.

            Then you get into a lot of debate about how to get apples to apples on GDP but most estimates put EU and US as near-equivalent. By some measures US is 1.5X bigger. But by no measure is the US 2-3X bigger. So this is why I say even accounting for GDP, the US is still multiples ahead of where it should be relative to the EU countries.

            Collapse
          2. Brett

            I reject that as a fair metric. But it does make me feel a little better the eastern European countries are meaningfully contributing relative to their size. So, thanks for sharing.

            Collapse
    2. Kottinghome

      Maybe because we have roughly 10x the capability of the next Western country?

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Probably Wrong

      To put it simply: we’re the weapons manufacturer for the rest of the West, so we’re the ones providing most of the weapons.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Joe Delanis

    Best. Article. Title. Ever.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Vlad M.

    I, for one, am happy to see that Mike Pence is willing to attack the Putin clowns. At least someone is doing it!

    Collapse
  8. Rblik

    Yay, Mike Pence!! The GOP civil war on Ukraine is coming soon and looks like Pence is ready to take on the populists and Trump in the 2024 primaries. And this is likely an issue that Desantis would be out of his depth on, so Pence could really make his mark here. And I'm so looking forward to Kevin McCarthy and MTG trying to stiff Ukrainians, while their parks are being shelled. Good luck, Kev. Fascinating stuff from Italy too.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Tylerdoughurst

    Pence originally was on the ticket to win evangelicals. I wonder what sort of influence he has in that sector these days.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Paul

    Some months back, Dan McLaughlin wrote in NR if Pence runs in 2024, it will be a kamikaze mission to derail Trump, not to win the nomination.

    Collapse
    1. Tom Doniphon

      Could be the case. I'd love to see Pence as the GOP nominee, but if he runs and it becomes clear that he can't win the nomination, and it's going to be either Trump, or else (let's say) DeSantis, Haley, Cotton, or someone similar, I'd be very, very happy to see Pence focus his fire on Trump and throw his support to whoever the leader is other than Trump.

      Collapse
    2. Sgruenwald730

      Challenge accepted and supported. Go Mike!

      Collapse
Load More