On November 23, 2020, I wrote an article for The American Conservative urging Catholics to be wary of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Later that day I received an email from a well-known traditionalist writer, someone I know quite well. The subject of the email was, “Be Careful About Lionizing Viganò”—the title of my article.
The email began, “Your Excellency: thank you.” Not how folks usually address me, but a nice change of pace. As I read on, though, I realized that my friend had been writing to Archbishop Viganò himself and had sent the email to me by mistake.
“I know this man and he thinks he’s a traditionalist,” my friend said. “But I have often had the feeling he is working for someone else, and this only confirms my suspicions.”
Now, I wonder who that “someone” could be. The USCCB? The Holy See?
It sounds like the plot of a Chesterton novel, doesn’t it? An intrepid Catholic journalist does an investigative report onto a fellow Catholic journalist, only to find that his colleague is secretly working for… the Catholic Church.
I’ve always liked to think of my friend going around telling people I’m a Vatican spy. And he may be surprised to find that I’m also an agent of the Kremlin.
That’s according to some readers who didn’t like my last two columns for TAC. Both were about the War in Ukraine, and both departed from the normal American line.
The first is called, “The Dangers of Ukrainian Revanchism”. In it, I point out that the overwhelming majority of eastern Ukrainians want to join Russia. Kiev’s mission to reclaim Donbas and Crimea is a war of conquest, not liberation. The United States’ support for that effort flies in the face of our own (nominal) commitment to the universal right of self-determination.
The second is called, “Threats of a Sino-Russian Partnership”. In it, I point out that America’s ill-advised support for Kiev is driving Russia into China’s arms. And that’s bad news. Not only does China pose an infinitely larger threat to the United States than Russia does, but we need the Russkies’ help to contain this new Red Menace.
Please note that I never once pay any compliments to Vladimir Putin. I have nothing kind to say about him or his government. I abhor Russia’s invasion of the Ukrainian heartland and the crimes it has committed there. My point is simply this: the United States has no reason to support Kiev’s claim to Donbas and Crimea. If anything, we should back Russia’s claim. Doing so would be more consistent with our country’s first principles. More importantly, it would bring this terrible war to a swift end. It would also open the door to a joint U.S.-Russian effort to contain China.
I would think that’s all just common sense. But, of course, these observations led some to accuse me of being a “Putin apologist” and a “Kremlin asset.” To these folks, I’ll say exactly what I said to my trad friend: if I was a mole, I’d be living in a much bigger hill.
But I understand why so many Americans are afraid of challenging the official narrative on Ukraine. They’re afraid of exposing a noble lie.
For decades, the United States and its allies have been antagonizing Russia over Ukraine.
Now, before you say anything, I know: that’s what the Kremlin has been saying all along. They insist that their “special military operation” in Ukraine was a pre-emptive strike against “NATO aggression.” But while Russia’s conduct in this war has been inexcusable, it’s time for the United States to face facts: on this point, Russia is right. I think we can establish this fact in three very brief points.
(1) NATO is an anti-Russian alliance. That is why it continues to exist—indeed, to expand—thirty years after it achieved its expressed goal of containing the Soviet Union.
(2) NATO began to court Ukraine immediately after the Soviet Union fell in 1991. Ukraine, for its part, has aligned with NATO on-and-off since Viktor Yushchenko took power in 2005. Vladimir Zelensky campaigned on a pro-NATO platform when he was first elected President of Ukraine in 2019.
(3) NATO openly boasts about the “multinational battlegroups” it fields in across Eastern Europe, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. If Ukraine joins NATO, the United States will station troops within its border. That’s the whole point.
So, unless the Kremlin was going to welcome American soldiers on its southern border, Russia didn’t have much choice but to lash out.
Now, none of this diminishes Russia’s culpability for its conduct in Ukraine. But it must color what our idea of a “fair peace” will look like.
The current consensus in Washington is that, for a peace to be fair, means Russia must admit that (A) its fears of NATO encroachment were totally groundless, but also (B) Ukraine joining NATO and inviting the U.S. Armed Forces to set up shop on their southern border would actually be a great boon to Russia. This, again, is in addition to ceding control of Crimea and Donbas, against both Russia’s best interests and the ethnically-Russian locals’ wishes.
Clearly that’s insane. Not even the anti-Putin, pro-Western “reformists” would accept such terms. But what other terms might NATO offer? We could admit that we’ve been relentlessly yet needlessly antagonizing Russia for at least thirty years, and that our myopic Russophobia has benefited no one except Xi Jinping. We could then cede Crimea and Donbas to Russia while agreeing not to admit Ukraine or Finland to NATO. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, though.
Why not, though? Honestly, why not?
Partly it’s because Washington elites have staked their careers on this anti-Russia schtick. But mostly it’s because Americans are afraid of admitting that our country can be wrong.
One of my first political memories is of the 2012 Republican debates, when Ron Paul was booed for saying that maybe Middle-Easterners hate us for putting troops in their countries and overthrowing their governments.
On the one hand, I get why folks booed. It feels dirty, criticizing your own government during wartime. We insist that our country is sinless, and therefore any criticism of our country is mere slander. Deep down, we all know that’s a lie. But it’s a noble lie. At least, it helps us sleep at night.
On the other hand it’s… well, a lie. Ron Paul was right. Thousands of Americans—and perhaps a million Arabs—would still be alive today if we’d simply treated other countries the way we’d expect to be treated. That’s the real cost of a noble lie, not only in Western Asia, but in Eastern Europe.
So, are we really going to drag out (or even escalate!) the War in Ukraine for this noble lie? How many people must die so Washington needn’t admit that NATO has poked Russia too hard, and too often?
Once again, I’m not exonerating Russia. I’m talking about what we in the West can do to help bring this horrible, pointless war to a close. And we can start by electing politicians who take a more balanced view of Russia. We should elect politicians who, at the very least, won’t throw our country’s interests out the window because Vladimir Putin is too nice to Stalin or too mean to gays.
But of course I’d say that. I’m a Kremlin shill. Me and Donald Trump and… uh, Steven Seagal. Maybe we should start a podcast.
Friends, my wife and I were amazed and deeply humbled by the outpouring of prayers and support for our daughter Adelaide. Just so you all know, she’s totally fine. We’re home now and settling into our new life together. Thanks be to God! And thanks to all of you. Truly.
By the way, if you try to contact me by responding to these emails, I won’t get your reply. But if you’d like to be in touch—and I’d love to hear from you—please write to davismw[at]pm[dot]me. Peace and the Good!