Tom Nichols Calls Out Masculinist Identitarian Politics

Tom Nichols and I see the world differently, but he’s managed to produce an insightful Twitter thread, which I summarize below. Of course, he probably won’t agree with what I’m going to say about it.

I am not concerned about “provoking” Putin in the sense of pissing him off. He’s already pissed off; that’s his natural state now. But this is a true crisis – that is, there’s a high risk of general war and an unsustainable situation…a crisis is something you try to prevent from getting out of control. You do what you can to defend your interests while not letting a terrible fire become a conflagration.

I have no real fear that Putin is going to go nuts and order a massive strike on America. He knows how that ends. But I am worried that he is reckless and, frankly, not that competent. He has always been a lousy strategist. Worse, he’s desperate. This was a gigantic blunder and now it is turning into an existential and *self-inflicted* threat to his regime. He will take more gambles now…He’s going to yell about assistance to Ukraine. Let him. He created this.

This is different than saying “Give in to nuclear threats.” I argued for ignoring his initial threats. I still do. But I am not in favor of creating a situation where so much military action is in play that one misstep can become a cataclysm *even Putin* doesn’t want.

In effect, I’m saying that Biden and NATO have to be the more responsible parties here to protect world peace. And yes, that sucks. But Kennedy had to help Khrushchev out of the Cuban bungle, even though that was no fault of the United States.

Our goals should be to raise the costs of war to Russia while closing off Putin’s attempts to inflict the burden of escalation on *us*. If he wants to escalate, he should have to take the step. This is a tight needle to thread, that’s why we pay diplomats and elect leaders.

Putin is losing this war, even if he “wins” in the short term. Russia will be weaker when it is over. If refusing to be baited into war while Putin is destroying his own army seems like “weakness” or “being afraid” to you, I can’t help you.

This is an utterly reasonable position. Tom has removed the gendered part of the arguments for a no-fly zone and a “stronger” US response to Russian aggression. That gendered part is freighted with emotions about masculinity that could lead to bad decisions.

Pat Porter reminds us that Thucydides recognized this too.

Here are some phrases I’ve seen with that masculinity frame from those advocating a no-fly zone and more.

Call Putin’s bluff

Push back as strongly as possible

We have let Putin dictate our decision-making

Bloody his nose

Give ourselves permission (self-deter is a variant)

Tell Putin in no uncertain terms

We’ve allowed ourselves to be put in a box

Afraid

Foreign relations is not a bar fight.

******

Since Paul has brought up the question of off-topic posts, here’s my preference. I usually (but not always!) monitor the comments on my posts until there are 200 or so and comment where I think it’s useful. I’d appreciate it if commenters would hold off on off-topic posts until after there are 100 or so.

Cross-posted to Nuclear Diner