To have any sense of historical memory in America nowadays is to feel like one is slowly going insane. Objective facts, once universally accepted across society, are either completely memory-holed, or twisted to mean the exact opposite. Sometimes I wonder: Am I the crazy one? Or are we all just being gaslit by nefarious actors seeking their own personal gain?
Think back just a few years, to the first Trump impeachment (yes, there were two Trump impeachments). The reason for this impeachment was that Trump tried to violate treaty obligations and withhold military defense aid from Ukraine, a fledgling democracy trying to bolster its defenses against potential Russian military aggression. Now here we are, and Ukraine is on the verge of invasion by Russia, with 120,000 soldiers on its border. Even without Trump in the Oval Office, Putin perceives weakness on the part of Ukraine and America alike, and only he knows what may happen next.
Despite the seeming inevitability of invasion, I would caution Putin to also remember the historical record. A seemingly weak American president choosing to react strongly against a Russian invasion of a border nation? It’s happened before, in 1980 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As I wrote for one of my senior seminars in college:
“President Carter is widely derided by many as a “dove” who let foreign powers walk all over the United States. At first glance, this view may seem accurate. Under Carter, the US economy faltered, Iranian radicals took over the American embassy in Tehran, Sandinista rebels took over Nicaragua, and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. However, Carter’s reaction to the latter event would surprise many: he immediately funneled immense amounts of military aid to rebel mujahedeen, threatened to boycott the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, and shut down SALT II nuclear arms reduction talks. This paper shall explore and analyze the Carter administration’s decision-making process in the wake of the Soviet invasion. Carter’s harsh line, seemingly out of character for him, can be explained when one examines the military, political, and societal forces surrounding the situation. Fearing Soviet influence over the Persian Gulf and eager to win back American opinion of his foreign policy, Carter chose to react forcefully against the Russians. Carter’s “hawkish” response to the invasion thus makes sense: the Carter administration was merely shifting in reaction to changes in the global and domestic environment.“
Nothing can unite a country like a military response to a foreign policy crisis (in political science this is known as the “rally-around-the-flag” effect). While Putin may sense an opportunity to expand Russia’s borders, the Biden administration may find that a strong response is not only militarily feasible, but politically popular. In am election year where he is (like Carter) facing inflation, deep unpopularity, and perceived weakness both at home and abroad, Biden may decide to pivot to a more muscular foreign policy in 2022.
Seem far-fetched? I invite you to read the rest of my research paper analyzing President Carter’s response to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, and consider: in what ways is this similar or different to a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine? How might Joe Biden respond, both publicly and secretly? What sympathy might images of Ukrainian refugees fleeing Russian aggression generate in the mass media? Post your comments and questions below.