What David Sacks Gets Wrong About the Russia Ukraine War
I want to uncover two things about the Russia Ukraine War. Who truly understands what is going on and who is proposing the best solutions for ending the war.
Like all feeling citizens of the world, I want the war to end. But neither Russia, Ukraine, the United States, or the NATO countries, are willing to concede something essential to the other side in negotiations. Thus, a Russian invasion that started on February 24, 2022, carries on. There’s an interesting argument that this war really started on February 20, 2014—when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine—a peninsula in Eastern Europe, on the northern coast of the Black Sea. Crimea is an important part of Russian history and is a strategic military and economic outpost.
What will determine when this war ends is what Presidents Putin, Zelensky, and Biden decide. (Or potentially what a new U.S. president decides in 2025.) Ukraine is the smaller military force compared to Russia, but with the backing of the U.S. and lots of Europe, it can continue on for longer than many, like Putin, expected. The Russian military has not basked themselves in glory, but neither have they been defeated in ways that would cause them to need to broker a peace deal.
David Sacks, an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, and member of the popular “All In Podcast” has been a strong critic of the U.S. for not doing enough to end this war diplomatically. Part of his argument is the U.S. ultimately wants regime change and if not, a weakened Russian state, so continuing the war is in the U.S. foreign policy establishment’s best interests. A coup remains unlikely because of the lack of a successor and the power that Putin still holds within the elite Russian power structure, even if the war is generally unpopular with the public.
One of the central justifications Putin has used for invasion is Ukraine’s desire to be a part of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). This treaty was signed in 1949, four years after World War 2, and this was the early years of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S.
Putin’s argument that Ukraine joining NATO threatens Russia’s security makes sense from the point of view that a hostile alliance, of which the U.S. is the key member, is right on their border. On the other hand, Ukraine being in NATO is a defensive measure, not a pretext for invasion.
On July 12th, at a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, of NATO allies, President Biden said:
"Ukraine's future lies at NATO.”
Bad preposition aside, Sacks’s argument is that Biden’s rhetoric is furthering the bloodshed and the seemingly limitless billions in aid that the U.S. is offering. I also worry about unconditional financial support for Ukraine because it’s already in a terrible fiscal deficit and a diplomatic based peace should be the U.S.’s main objective.
Sacks’s sharp criticism of the war and his unwavering conviction that he is right in his arguments is notable because he is not what you would call a foreign policy expert. His wiki bio:
general partner of Craft Ventures, a venture capital fund he co-founded in late 2017. Previously, Sacks was the founding COO and product leader of PayPal[1][2] and founder/CEO of Yammer.[3][4] In 2016, he became interim CEO of Zenefits for 10 months.[5] In 2017, Sacks co-founded Craft Ventures,[6] an early-stage venture fund. His angel investments include Facebook, Uber, SpaceX, Palantir Technologies, and Airbnb.[7][8][9
How much does his business success and overall intelligence, translate, directly or indirectly, to understanding this war? We should judge foreign policy arguments based on the quality of the arguments, not because someone is a “foreign policy expert”. It’s useful to have a robust discourse on foreign policy in the media and between democratic citizens. Even if it has little influence on what government leaders and policymakers do.
Simplistic arguments of the war though are misleading because there are four major players here with overlapping interests and strong differences. The principle players: Russia, Ukraine, the U.S. and the other NATO countries have their own objectives. And obviously differences so irreconcilable that the war is 18 months in and no end is in sight. War is a fundamental part of Russian history and therefore it’s ingrained in their national identity, especially to Putin. Even if many Russia citizens do not want war, and their soldiers and mercenaries have grown weary of fighting it. People can condemn Putin for authoritarianism and war crimes as much as they want, but that won’t make the war end any quicker and can obscure the realist balance of power issues at hand. There is something to be said for winning the messaging or “the hearts and minds” of the international public. But Ukrainians, like Americans, see the war through vastly different lenses.
In a recent article Sacks wrote:
Indeed, since Moscow has already declared NATO membership for Ukraine to be completely unacceptable and an existential threat — the prevention of which is one of its chief war aims — a Vilnius Declaration that Ukraine will join NATO when the war ends will effectively ensure that the war goes on forever. It will also take off the table the West’s central bargaining chip to achieve peace, which is a neutral Ukraine.
Is the argument that Ukraine entering NATO is an existential threat a fair one? If Putin say it’s “completely unacceptable” that’s his stated reality, but this is not an existential threat like an actual attack by a U.S. led NATO. To argue Ukraine entering NATO is about encircling Russia, to then invade and destroy it, is fanciful. It is ultimately a strategic defensive measure, but could lead to Ukraine taking back the contested Crimean territory.
Putin does not want Ukraine in NATO, as he sees Ukraine as “part of Russia”, and at the very least an important strategic interest and former ally. But just because there are plenty of ethnically Slavic, pro-Russian Ukrainians, does not make Ukraine a part of Russia. Ukraine as a sovereign nation has the right to join a military alliance.
A neutral Ukraine though seems like the best chance for a short term and long term peace. But Ukraine still has the will to fight. The war is arguably the most existential for them because they are fighting on and for their own land. The war may too be existential for Putin’s 20 plus year reign as head of Russia. A military failure, plus economic failure, which has not happened yet, could mean a forced retirement.
As many reasonable commentators have strongly argued, Sacks included I think, Putin is not about to be toppled any day now. It is that type of wishful thinking that is in part motivating support for the war in the U.S., even though the majority of the public has lost interest. The essential question for the U.S. becomes, “is it worth the billions of tax dollars to try and weaken a regime that is hostile to U.S. interests, and antithetical to democratic liberalism and a peaceful world order?”
The U.S. has it’s flaws, but it is not ruled by an autocrat that controls the media, citizen’s speech, and kills its political opponents. U.S. attempts to export democracy abroad, like in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been riddled with failures. The U.S. is good at killing and defeating it’s enemies with soldiers and drones, and very bad at helping to build new democratic institutions, where none existed; in a culture vastly different from their own.
Sacks seems to think that this conflict is becoming another “Forever war”, like Afghanistan and Iraq, or even Vietnam. These are simplistic historical comparisons and inaccurate ones. In those three wars the U.S. had major amounts of troops on the ground. While his point that with US financial and military aid, the smaller Ukraine can last seemingly indefinitely is mostly true. Sacks’s argument that this is a bad use of overall defense spending is fair but more complicated than he gives it credit for.
This has to be weighed against the objective and some would argue necessity, of supporting a country that has clearly had it’s sovereignty violated. This is a precedent that history shows should not be allowed to stand, and it’s not just neocons and warmongers that believe this. It is foremost the Ukrainians themselves who believe they are fighting a just war. The European counties of NATO have a geographic and self-interest case in stopping Russia’s aggression from continuing. Hence, Finland joining NATO in April of this year.
War is a central part of history and humanity. It was the defeat of Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan that ended centuries of wars between great European powers like Britain and France. The goal should not just be to end this war but to limit the odds of a new one starting. That means that Ukraine and the U.S. need to end the war with Russia in a way that Putin can save face, or you will add more resentment to a proud once great power. Germany after World War 1 is a fair comparison.
David Sacks has planted his flag on the argument that the war could have ended before it started if Ukraine committed to not joining NATO. This may be right, but the reality is the war is more complicated than his opinions and evidence suggest. One should hope for a swift ending to the war, but remain openminded to the complex realities of the situation.