The Guns of March

The Guns of August

Barbara Tuchman wrote a seminal book in 1962 called “The Guns of August”.  It made history “readable”, and explained the series of events that ended with an unintended consequence  – the First World War.  The book’s impact was immediate.  President John F. Kennedy and his aides read it, only months before the Cuban missile crisis began.  After nuclear war was narrowly averted, he mentioned that the book’s explanation of the unforeseen consequences of decisions made him even more wary as he picked his way through the crisis.

The essence of Tuchman’s book is that while each step leading to World War I was foreseeable, no one at the time believed that a final catastrophic war would occur.  My eighth grade classes from the 1980’s got their own version of “The Guns of August”, my favorite lecture.  It defined all of the inter-actions that ended up in the meat grinder of trench warfare and millions of casualties. 

The British Had Ships

 Those students are now fifty-something year-olds, trying to help children and grandchildren with history.  I’ve heard from some, that their class chanting the lesson still echoes: 

 “The British had Ships, the French had Guts,  the Germans had Plans, Russia was Slow, the Italians were Switch-hitters, Austria-Hungary was Confused, Belgium wanted to be left Alone, Turkey was Sick, and then there was little, tiny, Small, Serbia”.   

The story is complex.  Britain, France and Russia were allied in the “Triple Entente”.  Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Turkey were in the “Triple Alliance”.  Each of those nations also had “side treaties” with smaller nations in Europe.  If it all sounds like NATO and Russia and its allies today, it should.

The “spark” that ignited a world conflagration war happened in Sarajevo, the capital of a province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire called Bosnia.  It was in an obscure part of the world, but it set off the dominos that brought the whole world to war – even the United States was ultimately dragged in.

Courageous Citizens

Our media today is filled with the courage of “Small” Ukraine defending itself against the might of Russia.  There is no question that the Russian invasion is an exercise of military conquest, with no legitimate cause.  Russian President and authoritarian leader Vladimir Putin wants to reconstitute the Russian Empire (or the Soviet Union), and Ukraine is the first step.  

But we are in a different world, one that absolutely cannot allow a “small” war in Ukraine, in Kyiv, turn into a world conflagration.  The difference between now and 1914 is the same that Kennedy faced in 1962, nuclear weapons.  Russia and the United States are two of the “big three” of nuclear warfare. Any moment those three are directly engaged with each other creates the ultimate risk at stake.

I’m watching the moment-to-moment coverage of the Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion.  It’s an incredible story of courage:  the massive might of forty miles of Russian vehicles coming down the highway to Kyiv, as the  Ukrainian citizens make Molotov cocktails from wine bottles and gather their hunting rifles (and their US supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles).  It’s not that the ultimate result is in question – but the free citizens of Ukraine will extract every ounce of Russian blood before they fall.

Stand for Democracy

We Americans are always for the underdog.  Rightfully, we stand up for democracy against authoritarianism, both here and in Ukraine.  And the courage of Ukrainians demands that we act in their support.  But that support must be tempered by tactical and strategic reality.

Tactically, there is no place for United States ground forces in Ukraine.  It is a simple issue of supply lines – our lines would be stretched across oceans; the Russians are fighting in their own “backyard”.  And strategically, there is no place for American Air Forces in Ukraine.  It’s not that we can’t get there; our NATO bases in Turkey, Poland and Germany are all near enough to support air attacks.  

We could declare a “no fly zone” – and try to keep all of the Russian air-support on the ground.  That would be of great benefit to the Ukrainians.  The Russian columns are clearly stacked up along the highways, a Ukrainian helicopter or ground-support aircraft would devastate them.  The only reason it isn’t happening now is that Russia controls the skies over Ukraine.

Strategic Engagement

But a NATO (or US) “no-fly-zone” puts US aircraft in direct combat with Russian aircraft.  And that “crosses the line” of strategic engagement.  It puts our two nuclear powers directly at each other’s throats.  We engage their aircraft.  They (reasonably) attack our air support bases in NATO countries.  We (reasonably) have to respond in-kind, attacking Russian bases in Russia. Neither side can ultimately be defeated – because that would require their use of nuclear weapons to “even” the score.  The slippery slope to nuclear conflict is terrifyingly steep.

“The Russians had tanks, the United States had planes, and they both had bombs.  And then there was “little” Ukraine, the nation with guts”.  

That’s the “chant” today.  As we watch the invasion of Ukraine, the United States should do everything we can to support them.  Economic sanctions, military supplies, compassionate aid all make a difference.  And we should make clear to Mr. Putin that Article Five of the NATO agreement means what it says:  we will come to the direct military aid of NATO countries should he decide to invade them for his “Russian Empire”.  There’s the reason US troops are in Poland and the Baltic countries.  They are a “trip-wire” to trigger a direct US response to Russian aggression.  

But we cannot send US aircraft into Ukraine.  We can only make it clear what the cost of invading NATO nations will be.  And we can support democracy in Ukraine by every other means we have.  Those should be the lessons of the “Guns of March”.