Anybody who has ever experienced contested divorce knows there are three points of view: his, hers, and the truth. Both sides distort reality to construct narratives that make the other side look as evil as possible. Along with any innocent bystanders, the truth is always a victim. This pattern universally repeats across cultures and nations. Not only does it apply when people divorce, but it also applies when nations divorce.
A perfect example of a contested divorce is Ukraine and Russia. It started peacefully enough in 1991. Since then, however, too many loose ends existed for the couple to peacefully coexist. The biggest issue was the status of Crimea and the all-important naval base at Sevastopol1. This port was too import for Russia to give up without a fight, while Ukraine felt it was their rightful property.
Soviet Legacy
Like a contested divorce that divides the family, this divorce has split many innocent bystanders. Long before the outbreak of war, western Ukraine was solidly anti-Russian and pro-Europe. While eastern and southern Ukraine contained large Russian populations, many of whom were sympathetic towards Russia. Sadly, unlike failed marriages, there was no court to settle their disputes. Instead, both sides escalated to the point of war, starting in 20142.
Of course, war is evil. This war has claimed thousands of innocent bystanders’ lives and displaced millions. But the truth of this war is not an open and shut case. Just like divorce, there are three points of view: NATO’s, Russia’s, and the truth. In the Western world, we only have access to NATO’s approved version of reality. Russia has an official narrative too, but NATO nations banned all Russian media, including via Western social media platforms3.
Sea of Propaganda
So even if you want to know the true story, there is no easy way to reconstruct the truth. The only thing we know for sure is that both sides lie. The “Ghost of Kiev” and “Snake Island” are simple examples of Western media falsehoods4. Russia undoubtedly has their own continuous stream of propaganda and lies. In fact, the truth is so hard to find that both sides claim that they are winning. How can anybody make sense of what is really going on in the war?
For truth seekers like myself, it may be years to decades before hard evidence is available to dispel the ocean of propaganda. Until then, you should realize that mass media only gives you one side of the story. It doesn’t mean that Russia is right, and NATO is wrong (or vise versa). It only means the truth is complicated and never presented by either side. I suggest you keep an open mind and examine hard evidence as unbiased as possible.
Foundational Myths
If you’re willing to keep an open mind, you’ll find that this war isn’t unique. History has another example where a larger, stronger nation attacked a nation that peacefully divorced. Unfortunately, the truth for this other war is just as difficult to obtain as the war in Ukraine. Its myths and propaganda are so pervasive that most people refuse to accept this example. However, if you can think for yourself and have an open mind, please consider the following example.
They say that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. The rhymes between the American Civil War and the war in Ukraine are too similar to ignore. Both wars started with peaceful divorces. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina’s General Assembly called a convention to consider secession. The 169 delegates voted unanimously to become an independent nation5. It is important to stress that this was a peaceful secession, like Ukraine’s secession from the Soviet Union.
Confederacy Forms
Over the next several months, a total of 13 states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy6. In every case, the break away states held conventions to declare independence. None acted with violence or had intentions of conquering northern states. This is very similar to the 14 nations (including Ukraine) that broke away from Russia. In both cases, the break away nations desired peace with their previous partners.
At the heart of the Ukrainian conflict was the status of Sevastopol, a strategically vital naval base for Russia since the times of Catherine the Great (1783)7. Following the Maidan revolution (2014), Crimea’s pro-Russian parliament “voted” to join Russia8. That event and numerous escalations since then cumulated into the war currently raging in Ukraine.
Who Shot First?
The initial spark of the American Civil War was the status of Fort Sumter, a strategically insignificant fort for the Union. It was located in Charleston, South Carolina. And like Ukraine’s claim of sovereignty, South Carolina felt the fort rightly belonged to them and that the Union illegally occupied the land. On April 12, 1861, Southern forces fired on the fort9. Two days later, Union forces withdrew without sustaining a single casualty. One soldier died during the withdraw, but not due to fighting.
Most historians claim that this insignificant exchange over an insignificant fort started the war. But that is ahistorical. The attacking Southern force didn’t think they were at war. Otherwise, there is no way they would have allowed the Union soldiers to safely withdraw from the fort. Lincoln could have easily accepted the withdraw from the fort. The was no need for a war over Fort Sumter. However, similar to the Ukrainian war, both sides used this event to escalate and mobilizing towards a full blown war three months later10.
Manifest Destiny
The war, of course, had nothing to do with Fort Sumter. Instead, the Union wanted to reclaim the South. And why not? Just 13 years prior, America fought a war to conquer a significant portion of Mexican land11. Lincoln had no intention of letting American split apart. It was quite the opposite. He saw America as a great nation, one that should stretch from sea to shining sea. A bunch of rebels in the poor, agricultural South weren’t going to interfere with manifest destiny12.
Again, the parallels between the Civil War and Ukraine are intriguing. Putin sees himself in a similar light as Lincoln13. He wants to reunify the nations once under the yoke of the Soviet Union and connect the Russian Empire from the Pacific Ocean to the Black Sea. And like Lincoln, Putin used the conflict over a naval base as his justification for war. Thankfully for the people of Ukraine, it doesn’t look as though he will be successful. However, if he had more success, I have no doubt Putin would have taken over all of Ukraine.
Decapitation
Naturally, these wars aren’t identical. However, the first real battle of the Civil War followed a similar pattern to the Ukrainian war. On July 21, 1861, 35,000 Union soldiers invaded Virginia in the First Battle of Bull Run. Their goal was simple: knock out the Southern defenses and clear a path to Richmond, Virginia. Once at the capital of the Confederacy, they could end the war. The plan failed14. But even if it worked, I’m 100% positive the Confederacy would have established a capital somewhere else. As it was, the war lasted four more years before the final surrender.
Like Lincoln’s failed decapitation of the Confederacy, Putin attempted a similar move on Kiev. And it failed too15. It was just as foolish and ill founded as the original push by Union troops. Even if Putin succeeded in capturing Kiev, I’m 100% positive that Ukraine would have established another capital somewhere else.
Total Defeat
Another parallel between these wars is the willingness to fight against all odds. In the Civil War, the South faced a significantly stronger and better equipped Union army16. Unlike the North, however, they fought for independence and self-determination. Surrender was unthinkable until total defeat. The Ukrainian resistance is just as determined. They too fight for independence and do not surrender until the bitter end17.
But unlike the Union, Putin faces a much better equipped enemy18. The Confederacy had unwritten help from France, but nothing like the support for Ukraine19. As long as funding from NATO / US continues, Ukraine will have the resources to outlast the Russian invasion20.
Conclusion
Putin will almost certainly fail to knock out Ukraine, and ultimately lose in his quest to restore the Russian Empire. Lincoln, on the other hand, was great because the Union won. And this is where the two diverge. History rewards winners. If Lincoln had settled with the Confederacy, then he would be considered one of history’s worst leaders. Instead, Lincoln is remembered for saving the Union and freeing the slaves; two accomplishments that Putin can only dream about.
The future is unknown. It is possible that Putin restores the Russian Empire. But at this point, that looks extremely unlikely. The Ukrainian people have slowed his advance and may eventually push the Russians back. Whatever his desires for controlling Eastern Europe, they look dead on arrival. Without a major change in fortunes, Putin will be better known for incompetence and miscalculations than for restoring Russia’s status as an empire or superpower.
Recommended Reading
Support my blog by sharing this post or subscribing to my newsletter. You may also support my blog with the purchase of one of these excellent books. I get a tiny commission from each purchase, but only if you purchase using one of the links below.
Also, you might like my other blog posts on foreign policy or politics.
