So many people have written so much about the current situation in Ukraine that I hesitate to contribute to the flood. But this article from March 31 by Jay Nordlinger of the generally-conservative publication National Review deserves a wider circulation than the narrow reach of its subscriber base, especially considering that a fair percentage of that subscriber base may actually believe the rantings of The Former Guy and his supporters about Ukraine. Even for those of us who have no illusions about the evil currently animating Russia, the lie that the current events give to “never again” platitudes is breathtaking.
UPDATED TO ADD: In a newer post, Nordlinger has directed his followers to the following analysis of the Russo-Ukrainian War by former U.S. national security adviser and UN ambassador John Bolton, entitled “Putin’s 30- Or 100-Year War For Ukraine”. In the article, Bolton makes the arguments that “Westerners may not understand how much Putin and company value Ukraine, but that is our problem, not his”, and that “we are likely therefore in a slow-motion race to see whether Moscow can get off its back before Ukraine’s military breaks under the strains (incompletely reported by Western media) it has felt.” It’s not really possible to argue with either of those points.
By the way, this may be a good time to discuss John Bolton more broadly. There are two criticisms that TFG’s followers have flung at Bolton (in addition to lèse-majesté for criticizing TFG in 2020 while TFG was running for re-election): he’s a “neocon” and a war hawk. Let’s consider these two charges separately.
“Neocon” is a truncated form of the term “neoconservative”, which was a term used to describe former liberals with relatively hawkish views who had been Democrats but became Republicans when the left moved toward straight pacifism after Vietnam. However, for the most part the neocons never abandoned their one-world idealism and their belief in foreign interventionism and regime change. I believe the originator of the term “neoconservative” was Irving Kristol (father of Bill Kristol, the founder of The Bulwark), and at least a couple of members of George W. Bush’s inner circle of advisers were neocons (Paul Wolfowitz and Elliott Abrams). Apparently as a result, the term was misapplied to all Bush advisors, including the traditional Reaganites like Dick Cheney.
Now there is a commonality between neoconservatism and Reaganite belief, but it's much weaker than the common usage of neoconservatism would imply. Reagan (and, for another example, William F. Buckley Jr.) came out of the largely libertarian and partially isolationist Goldwater movement in 1964. They believed that the U.S. had an interest (really, a self-interest) in preventing existing democracies from becoming totalitarian (including Communist), but they also believed that the U.S. didn't have an interest in the interventionist goal of trying to turn a totalitarian state into a democracy (also known as “nation-building”). In fact, Reaganites generally believed that nation-building was not possible. George W. Bush quite clearly ended up siding with the neocons, and we got to see the result of that in the sad failure of the Afghanistan effort.
In the case of Ukraine, the neocon and Reaganite viewpoints coincide, because Ukraine has been a democracy since at least 2004 and, as we're seeing, its citizens strongly support remaining an independent democracy. Similarly, trying to preserve Taiwan as an independent democracy in the wake of Chinese Communist Party opposition would be a cause supported by both neocons and Reaganites. Trying to make China or even Pakistan or India into true pluralist democracies is a task perhaps best left to the fevered imagination of the neocons. I’ve never seen Bolton advocating those ideas. So, at least to me, Bolton seems like a Reaganite, not a neocon.
On the second, “war hawk” charge: what we’re seeing right now in Ukraine is possibly the result of allowing Putin’s past aggressions in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014 to go without serious challenge. As Theodore Roosevelt noted over a century ago, “big stick diplomacy” is always going to be more successful than just words alone. Roosevelt’s five principles of such international diplomacy are still effective: (1) possess sufficient military capability to force an adversary to pay attention; (2) act justly toward other nations; (3) never bluff; (4) strike only when prepared to strike hard; and (5) allow the adversary to save face in defeat. I’m not sure that Bolton believes in #5, but believing in these principles doesn’t seem outlandish — or “war hawkish” — to me.
As Churchill famously said to Neville Chamberlain at the time of Munich, “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.” In a world full of aggressive adversaries jockeying for position, choosing dishonor almost always leads to war, sooner or later.