a new day dawned

thirty-six months of war so far

24 February marks the third anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In case you've forgotten that Thursday in 2022, the Kremlin sent thousands of ground troops and missiles across the border between the two countries. While Ukraine has retaliated in Russia at times, the truth is unequivocal that Vlad the Impaler instigated the conflict in hopes of revitalizing his twisted revanchist narrative of history in central Europe.

Americans of many stripes donated to aid the victims from the beginning. Some departed to serve alongside President Zelenskyy's forces to defend their sovereign country. Many, recognizing the symbol of solidarity, hung the blue and yellow Ukrainian flag. Organizations took Ukrainian pets to move them to safety. International relief personnel from various transnational humanitarian groups and aid agencies of multiple governments provided medical help. The United States alone provided Kyiv with billions in military, humanitarian, and economic assistance.

Today, we created history when the United States voted with Russia against Ukraine in a United Nations General Assembly declaration on this war. Rather than condemning the Kremlin for launching the conflict and seizing Ukraine's territory over the past decade, the United States voted with more than a dozen of Russia's dubious partners to exonerate Vladimir Putin's behavior. I can only describe this as a repudiation of a commitment to the Atlantic Charter celebrated here in Washington ten months ago on its seventy-fifth anniversary. While Ukraine is not a member of NATO, those who continue supporting Kyiv are a vital step to deterring further Russian aggression across the plains of Europe.

This is a historic twist no one anticipated even a few years ago. We should never assume we know how things will play out in human affairs because the variables are too powerful.

The messages this vote sends are essential not merely to Kyiv as Washington tries to pressure a commitment to sell vital us minerals and close out the conflict (despite asking Kyiv to sacrifice some of its post-USSR territory). This decision for the United States to link with Russia undermines those governments in Europe, seeing growing proto-Fascist movements seeking to turn back time to the 1930s when multiple European states chose dictatorship and anti-Semitism over participatory governance. Coming the day after the AfD in Germany placed second in a popular vote is a further startling indicator of the dissolution of the post-World War II governance led by Washington. That system fostered economic growth and prosperity for hundreds of millions who suffered in World War II.

For decades, the Germans never worried about the Far Right putting itself forward in elections because the movement lacked sufficient public support to cross constitutional barriers, but that is no longer true as a fascination with anti-immigrant rhetoric and Nazi salutes is en vogue in whole sections of Germany.

Would we deter aggression by the right in Europe today as in the middle of the last century? We are not overly concerned about Russia's oligarchic behavior, another form of Fascism in its actions, so would we respond to other threats?

Now, on its own for defense, Europe is the epicenter of this painful scenario. The French president and British Prime Minister discussed actions to buttress an independent Ukraine, but Berlin has been pivotal to European decision-making since its economic rebound in the 1950s. With Berlin likely consumed by internal dynamics, how much bandwidth will anti-Russian forces have? Can NATO suffice without a firm U.S. financial and military commitment?

The effects of today's choice will be much broader. Allied capitals elsewhere will be less able to convince their public of why financial commitments demanded by the United States assure sustained defense of home interests. Adversaries likely will feel relieved that Washington's long-standing criticisms of authoritarian governance are disappearing. It's hard to assume Xi Jinping could feel anything other than satisfaction that Washington is discarding some of its most cherished positions. Whither Taiwan, of course, comes to mind following today's vote.

While our domestic drama captures the world, we miss the import of the shifts going on overseas. No one else will be or understand why our domestic debate is ignoring a reconfiguration of a long-established global chessboard. The rest of the world may remember history more thoroughly than we do, so the moves on the board are not likely completed yet, but we are not paying much attention.

Every new administration implements its policy priorities. It's difficult, however, to find such a decided turn about thirty-six months after the first global conflict in Europe in three-quarters of a century. Actions, however, create consequences.

I welcome your thoughts on this development. Perhaps you find it far more comforting than I do but I would genuinely like to hear how the maelstrom of events are playing out as you evaluate the world. I recognize, having studied this part of the world, I am too close to ignore it all.

Thank you for your time. I appreciate any and all readers, particularly those willing to support the column as paid subscribers.

It felt like a black and white Monday this morning.

Be well and be safe. FIN

Karen deYoung and John Hudson, “U.S. Votes Against U.N. Resolution Condemning Russia for Ukraine War”, WashingtonPost.com, 24 February 2025.