The new North Korea

March 7, 2022

[Audio version here]

          The cruelty of Putin’s war against Ukraine increases by the day. Russian soldiers are killing mothers and children as they flee cities being bombed by Russian soldiers. That is what Putin wants: Maximum terror, maximum cruelty, maximum damage. Putin’s initial battle plan assumed limited resistance and a hero’s welcome by Ukrainian citizens. Putin badly misjudged both the courage and sentiment of the Ukrainian people. As a result, his plan failed, and he has opted to destroy the country that he cannot subjugate. Indeed, over the weekend, Putin threatened to eliminate Ukraine’s existence as a sovereign nation: Putin said, “The current leadership needs to understand that if they continue doing what they are doing, they risk the future of Ukrainian statehood.” That has been Putin’s plan all along: Absorb Ukraine into “greater Russia” as one step in his effort to resurrect the “Russian empire.”

          Putin’s attack on Ukraine is so grotesque that he has imposed a news blackout to prevent Russians from learning the truth about the war. Journalists risk fifteen-year prison sentences for referring to the assault on Ukraine as a “war” or “invasion”—or otherwise reporting the truth of Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine. Putin recognizes that the price of maintaining his grip on power is to isolate Russian citizens from the free flow of information, a tactic attempted by only one other world leader—Kim Jong-un of North Korea.

          In essence, Putin is betting that he can return Russia to a “pre-internet” status in which all information is filtered through government censors. Perhaps nothing demonstrates Putin’s delusion more than his belief that he can isolate the largest country in the world from the sixteen nations with which Russia shares a border. Even in the pre‑internet world, borders are imaginary lines on maps, and information is like water—it seeps through cracks and soaks into the soil, following underground seams, re-emerging at fault-lines and long‑forgotten scars in the earth. In a wired world, information is like a virus—it exists to make copies of itself.

          If controlling information is Putin’s plan for remaining in power, he is doomed. See, e.g., The Kyiv Independent, Hacking group Anonymous interrupts Russian state tv programs with footage of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

          But while Putin slowly recognizes the gravity of his miscalculation, he is following his only instinct: Attack. That means that the people of Ukraine will continue to suffer violence, dislocation, starvation, and psychological trauma from Putin’s terrorist tactics. The global community has imposed withering sanctions on Russia, but they will not stop Putin. NATO is providing the Ukrainian military with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, which the military is using to great effect. NYTimes, NATO Countries Pour Weapons Into Ukraine, Risking Conflict With Russia.

          President Zelenskyy has called on NATO to declare a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine. That request has struck a chord with many Americans and readers of this newsletter. Over the weekend, a substantial portion of the emails sent directly to my inbox expressed support for a no-fly zone over Ukraine. I would ask anyone who urges imposition of a no-fly zone to recognize that a no-fly zone carries a not-insubstantial risk of drawing the U.S. and Russia into a nuclear war. The horrific slaughter of thousands of helpless Ukrainians must be evaluated against the risk that everyone in Ukraine would perish in the event of a “limited nuclear war”—as would hundreds of millions of people across the globe.

          Many readers with whom I corresponded expressed the view that Putin “would not risk” a nuclear confrontation with the U.S. or that we should “call Putin’s bluff” by imposing a no-fly zone. I am not in a position to evaluate the likelihood that Putin would resort to nuclear deterrence if the U.S. attacked Russian forces in Ukraine. But it seems clear that the U.S. intelligence community can eavesdrop on Putin’s communications in real-time. With the benefit of that classified information, the U.S. and NATO have gone way out of their way to signal to Putin that the U.S. and NATO do not seek a nuclear confrontation with Russia. I don’t believe any of us have the information to second-guess a judgment based on the best intelligence available about Putin’s state of mind.

          Moreover, as explained in an editorial in The Washington Post, a no-fly zone would secure only marginal benefits given the anti-aircraft missiles already in possession of the Ukrainian military. See Editorial, The Washington Post, For the dangerous skies over Ukraine, a calibrated NATO response works best. Per the Post,

          The Biden administration has been wise to reject a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine . . . . There would be no way to enforce such a measure without large-scale deployment of U.S. and other NATO aircraft, and their engagement in direct combat with Russian forces. This would dramatically escalate the war in pursuit of relatively marginal benefits: most of the damage being done to Ukraine right now is from ground-launched artillery and missiles, not from high-explosive weapons delivered by Russian aircraft.

          These are hard decisions not susceptible to easy answers. Let’s give President Biden support as he works to navigate difficult choices.

Merrick Garland’s apologists kick into high gear.

          Last week, the January 6th Committee filed a document in federal court. It argued that Trump’s former lawyer (John Eastman) could not assert the attorney-client privilege over documents subpoenaed by the Committee. The federal judge presiding over the case asked the Committee to address whether the documents were evidence of a crime. If the answer to that question is “Yes,” then the attorney-client privilege cannot be used to prevent disclosure of the documents in response to a subpoena.

          As requested by the judge, the Committee filed a brief in which it argued that the documents in Eastman’s possession did contain evidence of a crime and therefore fell within the “crime-fraud” exception to the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, the Committee argued, the documents could not be withheld on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. Then all hell broke loose—at least among the “Merrick Garland Apologists Brigade.” Over the weekend, multiple outlets published op-eds by former DOJ officials and legal pundits who explained that the Committee had not provided sufficient evidence to justify indicting or convicting Trump of a crime. See, e.g., The Atlantic, Democrats Are Still Delusional About Trump.

           Readers sent me several articles asking for comment. So, here’s my comment: It is not the burden of the January 6th Committee to prove anything. The Committee is conducting an investigation to evaluate whether Congress should pass legislation to prevent abuses by future presidents. It is the job of the DOJ to investigate and prosecute crimes. But Garland’s apologists demand that Committee perform the DOJ’s job, even though the Committee does not have the tools to do so (i.e., assistance from the FBI, subpoena power, and compulsory testimony before a grand jury).   

          The most egregious example of efforts to provide cover for Garland is the article in The Atlantic by David A. Graham, who writes,

          But Trump’s worst offenses—including the Big Lie, the open attempt to steal the election, and earlier sins such as his attempted blackmail of Ukraine—are not (or are not primarily) crimes.

          Note my highlight of the above phrase “are not primarily crimes.” Graham is arguing that Trump engaged in hardball politics and just happened to commit crimes along the way. So, let me explain a complicated legal concept to Mr. Graham. Under the law, crimes committed to achieve political goals are known as “crimes.” Trump’s political motivation doesn’t excuse the crimes—it makes them worse.

          Authors of an article in NYTimes excuse Garland’s inaction because “[l]osing such a case has far-reaching implications. It risks severely undermining the Department’s credibility.” But it is never a proper consideration in prosecution to consider “the Department’s credibility.” But that is Garland’s touchstone—preserving the DOJ’s reputation—above that of protecting the Constitution.

          There is more ground to cover, but here’s my point: The January 6th Committee doesn’t have to prove anything. That is the job of the DOJ. And, by the way, it looks like the federal judge may reject Eastman’s arguments. See this order issued on Friday in Eastman v. Thompson, Order denying request for Exculpatory Evidence. (Although this order doesn’t decide the issue, it is clear that the judge is decidedly unhappy with Eastman’s litigation tactics and arguments.)

Students for Justice needs your help!

          Over the weekend, I interviewed the founders of Students for Justice. SFJ is a great organization that is (among other efforts) funding internships for student organizers at Historically Black Colleges and Universities in Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida. In 2022, SFJ plans to fund 120 interns who will organize voter registration and GOTV drives in communities of color—which are often the target of voter suppression efforts. Listen to the podcast here: Students for Justice | Today’s Edition with Robert Hubbell.

          During the podcast, Claire Ullman and Sandy Radoff requested help from readers of the newsletter in three specific ways: (1) donations to help fund internships, (2) introductions to foundations that might be sources of grants, and (3) sponsoring or participating in Virtual House Parties to help inform, recruit, and motivate participants in the work of SFJ. If you are interested in helping to register and motivate college students to vote (especially in communities of color), please check out Students for Justice.

Concluding Thoughts.

          I struggled with how much to say about the reasons for not imposing no-fly zones over Ukraine. The topic immediately goes to a dark place, so my apologies if that is not how you were hoping to start your Monday morning. But I think it is important for President Biden’s supporters to explain why a seeming humanitarian response is not cost-free, risk-free, or likely to provide significant help. Biden faces a painful decision in which he is weighing horrible outcomes. But he is doing so in a responsible, measured way intended to protect Americans with the benefit of intelligence that is understandably secret.

          In making a considered and prudent judgment, Biden will incur (and stoically accept) criticism from some who are acting recklessly. In a confidential video briefing to the Senate by President Zelenskyy on Friday, Senator Marco Rubio tweeted a picture of Zelenskyy while he was speaking—potentially disclosing Zelenskyy’s location in real‑time. Rubio tweeted the picture to his followers to bask in the reflected glory of Zelenskyy’s courage—proving that Rubio is an insecure attention-seeker who will look for any opportunity to inflate his image, even at the cost of endangering President Zelenskyy’s life. Biden’s willingness to make hard choices and take the incoming flak stands in stark contrast to the politicization of the war in Ukraine by some in the GOP.

          We are in good hands with Joe Biden during this moment of crisis. It could have been otherwise. For that, we should be grateful.

          Talk to you tomorrow!