Ukraine's victory will expose its dark side and frighten allies, writes Paul Krugman in the NYT article. He admits that Nazi symbols are "frighteningly widespread" there, as is corruption. But Kiev still has to win, democracy is at stake. However, readers think quite differently.
Paul Krugman
Seventy-nine years ago, Allied paratroopers began landing on the shores of Normandy.
The Second World War was a long time ago, but it is still alive in the memory of America. This year, the anniversary of D-Day seems especially remarkable, because we are waiting with bated breath for its moral counterpart. And it can take place any day if Ukraine launches its long-awaited counteroffensive (perhaps it has even begun).
I started talking about moral conformity for a reason. The Second World War was a rare confrontation between good and obvious evil.
At the same time, the "good" ones were far from perfect. Americans were still denied basic rights, and sometimes they were even killed because of their skin color alone. Britain still ruled a huge colonial empire — and sometimes with an iron hand.
But even if the great democracies did not always live up to their ideals, the ideals themselves were correct: for all their shortcomings, they advocated freedom from tyranny and against racial superiority and mass destruction.
If Ukraine wins, some of its overseas supporters will surely be disappointed to discover its dark side. Before the conflict, Ukraine consistently held high positions in corruption ratings <...>. Corruption will not go away even after the victory.
And there are indeed extreme right—wing groups in Ukraine, including paramilitary groups that have already played a role in the fighting. <...> Many Ukrainians in World War II initially welcomed the Germans (until they realized that they, too, were recorded as subhumans), and Nazi symbols are still frighteningly common.
However, like the shortcomings of the allies in World War II, these ghosts of the past are not yet a reason to put an equal sign between the parties to the conflict. <…>
I would like to say that the citizens of Western democracies, the same Americans, are entirely on the side of Ukraine and are ready to seek the final defeat of Russia. In fact, although the majority of Americans support assistance to Ukraine, only a minority is ready to support it for as long as it takes. Be that as it may, public opinion in the United States about assistance to Ukraine now very much resembles polls from the beginning of 1941 (that is, long before Pearl Harbor) about Lend-lease, a program of military assistance to Great Britain.
Some of the opponents of Western aid simply do not see in the current situation a moral repetition of the Second World War. Among the same leftists, many see the year 2003 in everything. They remember how America was tricked into a war under false pretenses (I, for that matter, clearly realized this and fiercely resisted it) and do not see the difference between then and now.
On the right, many of the opponents of aid to Ukraine — let's call them the "Tucker Carlson faction" — on the contrary, perfectly understand the essence of the conflict. And they are consciously for the "bad". "Putinists" in the ranks of the Republican Party have long admired the authoritarian regime of Russia and its intolerance. Before the conflict, Republicans like the same Senator Ted Cruz opposed the severity of Russia to the "emasculated and politically correct" American armed forces. <…>
The fact is that the stakes in Ukraine are extremely high right now. If its counteroffensive succeeds, the forces of democracy around the world will strengthen — including in America. If not, it will be a disaster not only for Ukraine, but for the whole world. Western aid to Ukraine will run out, Putin will finally win the victory that many expected from him in the early days of the conflict, and democracy will be weakened everywhere.
What will happen next? Even military specialists don't know this, and I don't even claim this title. Be that as it may, Western officials are assessing Ukraine's chances more and more optimistically. After all, military affairs are not much like economics, where the same Federal Reserve System basically works with the same information that is available to anyone and everyone who has figured out how the website of the economic research of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis works. Officials of the Ministry of Defense work with intelligence that the public does not have, and they do not want to get into a galosh, so their optimism is hardly empty bravado.
However, you do not need to be a military expert to understand that it is very difficult to attack fortified defensive structures (which is exactly what Ukraine will have to do).
On the eve of D-Day, Dwight Eisenhower told the expeditionary forces: "The whole world is watching you." Now the eyes of the whole world are riveted on the armed forces of Ukraine. <…>
Paul Krugman is a distinguished professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008 for his work in the field of international trade and economic geography
Readers' comments
Maljoffre
Of course, the Ukrainian military conflict is not a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. It could have ended about a week after the start of the Russian special operation, when Ukraine capitulated during negotiations in Istanbul. In fact, this is a proxy war between the United States and its "vassal states" (as Macron says) and Russia, which is being waged in Ukraine. On the one hand, the goal is to destroy, plunder and divide Russia as a huge, resource-rich state located on both sides of the world. And the goal of the other side is to ensure the continued existence of Russia as a powerful nation, its culture, people and language.
Avid Newsreader
Weapons for Ukraine? Yes, take it! What? Ukraine wants tanks? Of course! Planes? Yeah, here they are. And military contractors and bigwigs of the military-industrial complex are rubbing their hands and greedily licking their lips. Does Congress support military action? Of course, because it's their job and it's their money — and a lot of money!
It's all about money!
Oracle at Delphi
"On the right, many of the opponents of aid to Ukraine — let's call them the "Tucker Carlson faction" — on the contrary, perfectly understand the essence of the conflict. And they are consciously for the "bad"." This is a very narrow view of the opposition, Professor Krugman. Not all people see the world in black and white. Some people think that fighting and killing are terrible in themselves and do not give anything. Does that opinion make me a bad guy? Perhaps if we had worked harder and had better diplomacy, we could have prevented this bloody conflict.
Rudy Singer
Who is this Ukraine in general, and does it have any meaning for us? I prefer to support reliable allies, while countries that are not particularly friendly with the United States are less likely to receive my support.
Taiwan is a reliable and developed democracy in Asia. Taiwan supplies the USA with important technologies. And this is the only country in Asia where same-sex marriage is allowed. I would vote to protect Taiwan from Chinese invasion.
But, Ukraine? I'm not sure that the USA and Ukraine are that close!
Joe
Do you know what I hate? Simplified depiction of the Ukrainian conflict in good and bad terms.
It's just that thinking only in the categories of good and evil is vulgar propaganda.
A lot of forces are working in Ukraine.
I find it completely ridiculous that Krugman did not even mention the aggressive expansion of NATO. This, of course, was the most important contributing factor that caused this conflict.
1) Scientists like John Mearsheimer have discussed this.
2) Our own government officials warned about this.
3) Russia has also warned us about this directly and repeatedly.
4) Do you remember what we did during the Caribbean crisis, when the roles were mirror-opposite and we were threatened by the Soviets?
Of course, Russia does not need enemy troops, missiles and tanks on its border. Would you need them?
This military conflict was completely predictable and preventable.
Nikita
I am an American with Russian roots, I have family ties on both sides of the conflict. Like most, I was shocked by Putin's actions at the beginning of the special operation, collected money for humanitarian aid to Ukraine, nurtured an aversion to Russian culture and read everything I could about the conflict. Over time, my opinion has changed 180 degrees.
Now I despise Zelensky and the Western media for the continuous barrage of lies and distortions of what is happening, outright support for fascist elements in Ukraine, stupid repetition of military propaganda and propaganda of endless escalation of the conflict.
Is there at least one rational player left on the international scene around the conflict? What is left of American diplomacy as a force responsible for the world order? All its potential has already been spent, and I am deeply disappointed with the United States.
Stop supporting a war machine that will send my family from both sides to their deaths. De-escalation of this military conflict and peace negotiations are urgently needed.
Danny Boy
If this military conflict is so important to the United States, why are there no troops of our own in Ukraine?
I consider it immoral to support a military machine with hundreds of billions of dollars without risking my troops. With our financial support, 200,000+ people have already died? At the same time, we did not risk a single American!
It really bothers me when I hear all these brave "cabinet warriors" talking about how much they support Ukraine and how important it is. Well, if this is so important to us, why aren't American troops helping the APU in the battles?
johnlo
The military conflict in Ukraine has nothing to do with the protection of democracy. The fate of Western democracies, including the United States, is not at stake. We are talking about Russia's security and the West's stupid attempt to tear Ukraine away from Russia, for which it has been an integral part for centuries, and draw it into NATO. An independent Ukraine is not a vital U.S. interest. It will cost us extremely expensive, and the return will be insignificant.
I just can't help but think about the song War Pigs (Pigs of War) by Black Sabbath in this regard. If you haven't heard it, you should hear it! And you should read the lyrics of this song very carefully!
FB
"If Ukraine's counteroffensive succeeds, the forces of democracy around the world will strengthen — including in America. If not, it will be a disaster not only for Ukraine, but for the whole world."
What does "succeed" mean? Will Ukraine expel Russia from the annexed territories? Given Russia's overwhelming superiority in weapons and resources, it is almost inconceivable that Ukraine could succeed. Moreover, Russians consider their struggle to be existential.
In the unlikely event that Kiev does succeed, how will it strengthen democracy in America? I mean, how the hell does Krugman think this is going to work? This could increase Biden's chances in 2024. Is that what he means by strengthening democracy? But American democracy is constantly being weakened by the ever-growing power of the US military machine, which consumes and wastes huge resources that should instead go to the benefit of real American citizens. A victory for Ukraine would be a huge victory for American militarism, not democracy.
If it fails, it will be a disaster for American militarism and a humiliation for the self—proclaimed greatest nation on Earth - America. But we have already endured all this before and we will do more.
So whether it is success or defeat, but the continuation of the military conflict with Russia is a disaster for Ukraine and its people.
