THE WAR AND ENDGAME IN UKRAINE

 

“War is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.”   Carl von Clausewitz

On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. The attack was an unexpected escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014 when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula. The two combatants have each suffered more than 100,000 casualties resulting in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides.  Russian missiles have caused mass civilian loss of life. Ukrainian soldiers report frequent Russian atrocities.

Ukraine’s economy shrank by roughly 30 percent in 2022, and more than 30 percent of its population has been displaced.  Its infrastructure has been decimated with 40 percent of its electricity-generating capacity wiped out.

This commentary will discuss two topics that have occupied my thoughts since the conflict began. How was this brutal conflict possible after the horrors of two European world wars and now with nuclear weapons everywhere on the European continent?  Second, what is the endgame if it is in our nation’s interest to fund the war effort militarily and support the Ukrainians diplomatically? 

At the end of 2021, western intelligence services were certain of two things. First, Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, had met his major objectives by occupying Crimea, and there was little to be gained by Putin starting a broader conflict. Second, if Russia did invade Ukraine, it would quickly win the war. Instead, the conflict in Ukraine has plunged Europe into the largest, longest land war since WWII. The violence has affected much of the world both economically and politically.

An excellent authority in understanding why nations engage in war is Margaret MacMillan’s comprehensive study: War: How Conflict Shaped Us, Random House (October 6, 2020.) She investigates the subject’s terror and fascination, as well as its scope and persistence. Ms. MacMillan reminds us “The instinct to fight may be innate in human nature, but war—organized violence—comes with organized society. War has shaped humanity’s history, its social and political institutions, its values, and ideas. Our very language, our public spaces, our private memories, and some of our greatest cultural treasures reflect the glory and the misery of war. War is an uncomfortable and challenging subject not least because it brings out both the vilest and the noblest aspects of humanity.” Certainly, Russia has earned the title of vile aggressor and Ukraine of noble defender.

To comprehend the war in Ukraine, one must attempt to penetrate the mind of Vladimir Putin. While no one is sure what motivates him, Putin's speeches over the last decade cast him as the strong leader who could reclaim Russia’s lost greatness. He believes the breakup of the Soviet Union’s empire was a mistake.  Putin often describes himself as sharing the ambitions of 18th-century Russian tsar, Peter the Great. He seeks to portray Russia as the defender of all who challenge the West and its democratic system of government.

Under this view, Putin started the war with Ukraine as a proxy conflict with the West, to demonstrate his strength. After 17 months of fighting, the conflict has taken on a very different meaning for Putin, his survival. Many believe that if he loses the war, his regime will end.

What business does the United States have in spending billions and depleting its military stockpiles for a regional conflict in Eastern Europe? When the war began, there was an outpouring of emotional support for the Ukrainian people defending their homeland. As the war drags on, doubts begin to appear, and support could be waning. Recently, far-right Republicans sought to use a Congressional Defense Bill to defund the Ukrainian War conflict.   

In truth, most members of Congress and a majority of the American people continue to support the war effort. The Ukraine conflict is not Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. No American blood is being shed for an unwinnable cause. The war has been a strategic windfall for NATO and the United States. Russia has been badly damaged and isolated. With the addition of Finland and Sweden, NATO now borders the entire Baltic Sea. Germany is finally pulling its weight militarily and is no longer dependent on Russian oil.

For those who believe that American foreign policy should support a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed, knowledgeable experts disagree. A senior analyst on Russia, Mason Clark, wrote for Time Magazine: “Any Russian invasion of Ukraine, now or in the future, will inevitably harm Europe, endanger NATO, and entail the risk of a conventional or nuclear escalation. The U.S. must not kick the problem down the road by accepting a temporary ceasefire that would stop the current fighting while raising the risks of a renewed Russian invasion. The U.S. should instead enable Ukraine to comprehensively defeat the current Russian invasion.”

A pause in the war would simply permit the Russian military to reload its arsenal and give it time to go on a total war footing to conscript and train a larger army. Only a just settlement with security guarantees makes sense for the Western alliance.

More than anyone, the Ukrainians themselves who are absorbing the killing of its citizens and the destruction of its infrastructure, understand the endgame. For them, the conclusion of the war involves reclaiming their territory and convincing Russia not to try a later invasion. They are fighting and dying to avoid leaving this war to their children. Ukraine deserves our continued support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT HAS TRANSFORMED AMERICA

The Conservative Supreme Court has been on my radar for some time. A recent commentary on the subject by Dave Ball, published in this paper on July 9, 2023, helped to solidify my thoughts. This rebuttal of Mr. Ball will also serve as an overview of the consequential effects of Chief Justice John Roberts’s Conservative Supreme Court on American society.

First, Mr. Ball argues that our highest court “follows the law” and that those “liberals” that disagree with its opinions are “acting like children” because the public policy that flows from the decisions is “not what they wish for.”  His conclusion ignores the fact that many well-respected constitutional scholars argue that the Supreme Court majority often did not follow established precedents or legal theories in deciding recent cases.

Second, our founders created the Supreme Court because Constitutional law is open to numerous interpretations. To characterize Supreme Court controversies, as does Mr. Ball, as a debate between a higher standard of “the law” on the one hand and petty “policy” favorable to an actor’s political views on the other is an argument with little meaning.

Every monumental Supreme Court decision has winners and losers on different sides of the political spectrum. The winners, whether from the left or right, always claim good law and improved policy.  Conversely, the losers claim bad law and worse policy. As an example, the positions of both pro-choice and pro-life advocates remain widely held, sincere, and politically important regardless of the status of the constitutional law on abortion.

Third, I will rebut Mr. Ball’s support for two recent Supreme Court decisions and his attack on court watchers who disagree. In the opinion striking down affirmative action programs in college admissions, (Fair Admissions v. Harvard College) the dissent argues that the decision improperly rolls back decades of precedent and progress on diversity. Constitutional scholars also criticize the conservative majority for adopting “a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle.”

Those conservatives praising the new decision on affirmative action should remember that not long ago, one of their own, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor disagreed. She wrote, “Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.”

Mr. Ball also attacks President Biden for his “vote-buying plan” to cancel up to $400 billion in student loans to benefit as many as 43 million Americans. In fact, this executive action was taken to fulfill a campaign pledge made by Biden to those with student loans during the 2020 election campaign. The President reasoned that if corporations and businesses across the nation could receive over $760 billion in forgiveness loans during the pandemic, students deserved similar forgiveness of their tuition debt.

The conservative Supreme Court ruled that Biden overstepped his authority and vacated the executive order on student loans (Biden v. Nebraska.) There were cogent arguments on both sides of the issue, and no one was shocked by this decision. However, for Mr. Ball to accuse Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan of showing no legal skill in writing her dissent is ridiculous.

Even worse was Ball’s accusation that any attempt by the President to continue to seek a solution to the student debt crisis would be a “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” Ironically, such a solution was announced last week when Biden’s administration implemented a series of fixes to the student loan repayment system that is expected to help more than 800,000 people with student debt.

In order to understand how the era of Chief Justice John Roberts has transformed America, one must step back for a broader view. Eighteen years ago, the Roberts era began. His goals were to overturn Roe v. Wade, reinterpret the Second Amendment to make private gun ownership a constitutional right, eliminate race-based affirmative action, elevate the place of religion in the public square, and curb federal agencies’ regulatory power. Every objective was achieved by the end of the Supreme Court’s most recent term on June 30.

What can be done to counter this trend and return the Supreme Court to a more moderate center? Various ideas have been proposed starting with expanding the court. The Supreme Court has had as few as five seats and as many as ten. However, if Democrats seek to increase the number of liberal Justices by voting to increase appointments, Republicans could retaliate with the same tactic. 

Congress could create an 18-year term limit for new appointments.  Each President would eventually appoint two Justices during a four-year administration.  Congress could mandate an independent bipartisan commission to nominate fair-minded candidates for the Supreme Court.  Any reform would require action from a deeply divided Congress.

The conservative members of the court are young and will be deciding controversial appeals for decades. Powerful conservative movements will continue to seek cases with favorable fact patterns to present to the activist majority. The goal is to further ingrain white, Christian orthodoxy into constitutional law. For progressives and many moderate court watchers, this conclusion is as unavoidable as it is frightening. 

Concerned citizens do not need Dave Ball or others to rub salt in their wounds by accusing them of acting immaturely when they disagree with the decisions of the conservative court. The mission is now to develop legal “workarounds”, as Biden took last week on student debt, to sidestep the latest rulings. Our democratic constitutional republic expects nothing less.

 

 

TWO MUSICAL SUPERSTARS LIGHT UP PITTSBURGH

This work of fiction is based on Taylor Swift and the Pittsburgh Symphony

Megan was not happy. In fact, she was very angry at her parents and most of the world.  It was Sunday morning on a beautiful June day. On the previous Friday and Saturday evenings, Taylor Swift had come to town. The Mayor proudly renamed Pittsburgh “Swiftsburg.”

Megan idolized Taylor Swift. She streamed all of Swift’s songs onto her phone and knew many of her lyrics by heart. However, Megan believed she had missed the biggest event of her young life because her parents refused to let her participate in “Swiftmania.”

A few of Megan’s friends were lucky enough to score precious tickets for one of the two Taylor Swift mega-concerts at the Steeler’s stadium. Other friends had convinced their parents to shell out thousands of dollars to purchase tickets on the secondary market. Less fortunate friends took the subway to the stadium, hung out with other “Swifties”, purchased “merch”, and listened to Taylor perform from the parking lot. Since Megan was not yet 16, her parents did not allow her to go to the stadium unchaperoned. Her reaction was to spend the weekend cloistered in her locked bedroom, refusing meals and any adult interaction.

By Sunday morning, Megan was hungry and needed a shower. She decided the silent treatment could continue outside her bedroom. As she headed for the kitchen, Megan’s brother reminded her that it was Father’s Day. She recalled that her grandmother had purchased two additional tickets for Megan and her father to attend the final Pittsburgh Symphony concert of the year. “Great,” thought Megan. “My concert experience to relive with my friends takes place in a dusty old building surrounded by dusty old people with walkers.” Nonetheless, Megan decided to accompany her grandmother to the performance because “Nana” always chose a fantastic location for Sunday Brunch.

When the three symphony goers arrived at Heinz Hall, Megan helped her grandmother into the building and continued to ignore her father. Megan thought that the tall-distinguished Black usher who welcomed them was beyond cool. She noticed a number of well-dressed young women her age being escorted into the building by their fathers in honor of the special day.

Heinz Hall was all aglow, reminding Megan of a European palace. Her grandmother’s season tickets were front and center in the fourth row. As they took their seats, many adults acknowledged Megan and told her how elegant and grown-up she looked. It was impossible for Megan not to smile and thank her grandmother’s symphony friends for their kind words.

As the orchestra filtered in and took their seats, Megan was surprised by the youthful appearance and diversity of the players. Her grandmother had proudly explained the many awards and honors bestowed on the Pittsburgh Symphony. Megan was getting excited to hear how so many musicians could play together as one

The orchestra opened with “Roman Festivals” by the composer Respighi. Megan was surrounded by the most magnificent sound she had ever heard. Maestro Manfred Honeck led each instrument into its individual moment of grandeur before the unifying harmony of the orchestra flooded the Hall.

Nothing could have prepared Megan for what happened during the following soloist presentation. A tall thin twenty-year-old Spanish violinist, Maria Duenas, took the stage in a bright red dress, exuding all the confidence of a musician twice her age. If the visual image was not enough her violin sprang into action, beginning her interpretation of the flamboyant Selections for Violin and Orchestra, Opus 21, by Edouard Lalo.

An awe-struck New York Times reviewer once described Ms. Duenas at work as “slashing at the violin so furiously she could have drawn blood from the strings.” No one in attendance on Sunday would disagree. Her performance was exemplary, and her emotional output was over the moon. Megan was so overwhelmed that she forgot she was angry with her father and grabbed his hand. She knew that she had heard a true musical “rock star” that could hold her own with Taylor Swift.

When Ms. Duenas was done, the normally composed Heinz Hall audience gave her three rousing standing ovations. The patrons were honored with a short, soft encore to demonstrate her versatility. Next came intermission and the audience headed for the restrooms and the beautiful outdoor Heinz Hall waterfall.

Under a tree in the enclosed outdoor park, Grandmother beckoned to Megan and her father.  She held an envelope and a book and explained their purpose to Megan. “For your sweet-16th birthday, I was going to purchase two tickets for you and your father to the Taylor Swift concert. Instead, I bought these.” Inside the envelope were two tickets to Spain and Italy with hotel reservations and expense money. “After today’s performance, I thought father and daughter should visit the countries that inspired the music.”

Next, Megan’s grandmother explained the book. “Your first stop is Barcelona. This novel, The Shadow of the Wind, by Carlos Ruiz Zafon, will unfold the city before your imagination.”

Megan hugged her grandmother and her father. The second half of the concert with stirring Roman music was not as well remembered as the first. She could not wait to get home and text her friends to tell them about her newfound musical love and her upcoming adventure.  Megan began reading the Spanish novel that very evening.