Connect with us

homepage news

Lesbian Miss. minister inspires people to live ‘authentic lives’

Says Old South continues to haunt LGBT residents

Published

on

Brandiilyne Dear, Dandelion Project, gay news, Washington Blade
Mississippi, We Don't Discriminate, gay news, Washington Blade

Dandelion Project founder Brandiilyne Dear (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

LAUREL, Miss. — Rev. Brandiilyne Dear, an ordained minister who grew up in a small town in Mississippi’s Pine Belt, was 11 years old when she had her first “experience with a girl.”

Their parents found out they had been together because they could not hide the hickies on their necks.

“That was my best friend,” Dear told the Washington Blade during a July 9 interview at a coffee shop in Laurel, a city of about 18,000 residents that is roughly 90 miles southeast of Jackson, the state capital. “I was not able to see her anymore after that. We got in a lot of trouble.”

Dear has struggled and confronted personal demons throughout most of her life.

She began to smoke marijuana shortly after her first same-sex sexual encounter with her then-best friend.

Dear took ecstasy and other drugs when she lived in Birmingham, Ala., in her mid-20s. She told the Blade she began taking crystal meth once she returned to Mississippi.

“When I was 28 years old, I had lost everything,” Dear told the Blade. “I woke up in a hotel room; a cheap hotel and I didn’t have anywhere to go. I had lost everything and I had to call my mother. I’m 28 years old, I’m having to call mom. I didn’t have anywhere to go and she came and got me.”

‘I had an experience with God’

Dear’s son was 11 years old when they moved into her mother’s home.

“If you live under momma’s roof you live by momma’s rules,” Dear told the Blade. “That’s just how it is in the South. You have to do what momma says; I don’t care if you’re 40 or 14.”

Dear said her mother, whom she described as a “big Christian,” made her go to church.

“I walked into this church and these people were a little hyper,” she said, noting she had grown up Methodist. “I laid on the back pew and drew in the books. And so I go in here and they were raising their hands and they’re doing the thing and they’re amen and hallelujah.”

Dear was still living with her crystal meth addiction when she first went to the church.

“I’m just sitting there going these people are nuts, and mind you I’m a junkie at the time,” she said. “I’m a complete drug addict and I’m sitting in the church saying these people are nuts.”

Dear’s mother had volunteered her to paint a children’s mural inside the church.

A youth pastor insisted that she attend a weekend-long retreat known as an “encounter” in September 2003.

Dear resisted, even hiding in another room to avoid him. She finally relented and said she would go as a way to get him to leave her alone.

“I went to this encounter and I had an experience with God, I mean a genuine experience with God,” Dear told the Blade. “I never wanted another drug, never used another drug.”

“After that weekend, I just knew I wanted to help people,” she added. “I just felt the call of God and it was very strong.”

Dear in 2005 established a ministry for drug addicts in Laurel called Dying to Live Ministries.

“I thought my life was a mess,” she said. “I thought I had this horrible addiction, and I was a terrible drug addict. But I started working with drug addicts and I thought wow, I’m Mother Teresa compared to these people. I mean they would come in and they were just in horrible shape. I connected with people and I was able to help them.”

Dear met the couple that currently runs the ministry when they were struggling with their own addiction — the woman was in jail where she had been put on house arrest and her husband participated in the program as an alternative to prison. Dear married the couple.

“I saved a lot of people from prison,” she said.

She opened a center for recovering drug addicts in 2012 after a 19-year-old man who had joined her ministry died in a car accident.

Chris McDaniel, a local lawyer who challenged incumbent U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) in the state’s June primary, is among those who attended the groundbreaking.

“It was really tragic,” said Dear, referring to the man’s sudden death. “I decided I wanted to do more. I was having meetings every week and I had the jail ministry. I had all this going on, but I wanted to do more.”

‘Trying to pray the gay away’

Dear told the Blade that many of those who sought help through her ministry were gay men and lesbians.

“A lot of the LGBT people did cope through drugs and alcohol, so I had a lot of gay people in my ministry,” she said. “Of course I was trying to pray the gay away and rehabilitate, so I was involved in reparative therapy to a degree.”

She described the impact of reparative therapy as “devastating.”

“You’re telling people that you know God can deliver you through homosexuality, you just have to believe, you have to have faith,” said Dear. “When God doesn’t heal you or make you straight, you must have gone too far. God doesn’t love you and you’re not worth saving. Your self-worth is just depleted, completely depleted. It’s just a big thing. I started to see that in the last two years of my ministry.”

Dear said a judge referred a lesbian to her ministry during the time she had begun to grapple with her own sexual orientation.

The recovering drug addict’s partner, Brandi, attended meetings with her.

“She came in with her partner,” said Dear. “She’s like ‘I’m here to support her. I don’t want to be here.’”

“She’s completely against church and against pastors and understandably so because of the way LGBT people have been treated in the church,” she added.

Brandi’s partner subsequently died from an aneurism.

Dear became “kind of close” with Brandi after she presided over her partner’s funeral.

“She came into the ministry and she started working toward getting straight, and she just didn’t,” said Dear. “She wasn’t straight. Of course it didn’t work.”

Brandi soon began to date another woman, and Dear told the Blade the church “blackballed her.”

“It was really, really bad,” she said. “She was very vocal about it on social media and we were very vocal about it on social media. We were bullying her.”

Dear fell ‘head over heels’ for partner

Brandiilyne Dear, Susan Mangum, The L Word Mississippi, Dandelion Project, gay news, Washington Blade

Brandiilyne Dear and Susan Mangum (Photo courtesy of Dear)

It was during this period that Dear met her current partner Susan Mangum when she approached her at the women’s gym she owns — and where the lesbian who had just been kicked out of her church worked out — to see if the business would donate memberships for those in her ministry.

“I’m standing kind of behind my secretary and giving her my spiel and telling her what I needed and what I wanted,” said Dear. “She’s just looking at me and I’m thinking lord, she’s going to kick my ass. She’s going to get up out of this chair and kick my ass.”

Mangum was initially skeptical of the request, but she eventually agreed.

Dear also bought a membership for herself and began to work out at the gym.

“I started going to the gym and I thought Susan was just cute,” she told the Blade, noting Mangum’s partner of eight years had recently left her and took their children. “Susan wasn’t doing real well at the time. And Pastor Brandiilyne goes into minister mode. I’m trying to minister to her and I listened to her a lot. She talked a lot, so I listened and we really just became great friends.”

Dear was married to her then-husband, but she soon began to “fall head over heels in love with her.”

“Here I am, freaking out at this point, I’m like I don’t know what to do,” she said. “I’m married first of all and I’m Pastor Brandiilyne and this is Mississippi and this can’t happen. That’s when I started to think and go back. That’s when I remembered my little 11-year-old affair.”

‘I lost everything’

Dear nearly passed out during a boxing class one day, so Mangum brought her to her home.

“She went upstairs to get a shower and get changed,” Dear told the Blade. “She came back down and I was just like I’ve got to do something about this. It’s making me physically sick. I can’t function. I’ve got to do something about this.”

Dear said she told Mangum that she is “crazy about you” and she is “falling in love with you.”

“She was sitting on the other end of the couch,” said Dear. “She raised up and said hell no. I was just like, well, that is not what I had envisioned.”

“She said no, hell no, you have this great life,” she added. “You’re Pastor Brandiilyne, I’m not going to let you screw up your life. You don’t understand what this is going to do with you.”

Dear and Mangum agreed to remain friends, but a couple of weeks later decided they were “just going to pursue it.”

Dear told the Blade that she had already decided to leave her church because she “didn’t like the way” it treated people.

“I didn’t like the way they treated the LGBT community,” she said. “I was just as bad, but you do what you’re told to do. You follow the leader.”

Dear told the Blade that she decided to tell the couple who are now running her ministry because “they were my best friends, very close to me.”

“I came out to them and told them,” she said. “They outed me to my pastor and my pastor resigned me from the pulpit the next day.”

Dear described the day she came out as “the most liberating moment of my life” that “was quickly becoming the most devastating.” She lost her ministry, her family and her husband.

“My pastors were like my father and my mother,” said Dear, noting she spent every major holiday with them as she became emotional. “I literally spent all of my time with them. So I lost everything. It was a rejection that went so deep and it was so painful. It’s indescribable.”

LGBT people ‘so much more than our sexuality’

Dandelion Project, gay news, Washington Blade

Members of the Dandelion Project meet in Dear and Mangum’s Mississippi home. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Dear founded the Dandelion Project, a support group for LGBT people who live in Laurel and the surrounding areas.

“There’s so much more to it than just a weed,” she told the Blade, noting how she began studying the dandelion after she saw one while driving down a local road. “A dandelion is a beautiful thing and it’s a great thing and it’s a good thing. They’re everywhere and you can’t stop them.”

The group has more than 50 members, many of whom meet weekly at her Laurel home.

The Dandelion Project has produced a number of video campaigns that promote acceptance of LGBT people.

Dear and other members of the Dandelion Project also appear in “L Word Mississippi: Hate the Sin,” a documentary that premiered on Showtime on Friday.

“We’re so much more than our sexuality,” said Dear. “I don’t know how it is everywhere, but here in the South when people find out your sexuality, the rest of your identity is overshadowed by stereotypes. It’s the first thing they see. It’s like ‘hi lesbian’ and that’s it. They can’t get beyond that.”

“They can’t see that you’re intelligent; they can’t see that you’re professionals; they can’t see that you’re business owners,” she added. “They only see your sexuality and immediately it’s a negative thing. You’re a pervert, you’re demon-possessed.”

The Dandelion Project was also involved in the campaign against a law — Senate Bill 2681 — that opponents contend allows businesses to deny services to LGBT people based on their religious beliefs.

“You don’t have to have a law that says you can do it because of religious beliefs,” said Dear. “You can just do it because you’re a business owner. You can say you know I’m not going to serve you because you don’t have on your shirt or you don’t have on your shoes or whatever reason. It was basically we’re going to stand up and tell the gays how we really feel. That’s how we feel. That’s how I feel about it.”

Dear said the American Family Association, a Mississippi-based anti-LGBT organization the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a hate group, said in an article that her gym is among the businesses that are “discriminating against Christianity.” The AFA removed the reference after Dear threatened to sue and her lawyer sent a cease and desist letter.

“We’re battling with them,” she said. “They’re calling us bullies. The fact of the matter is they’re bullies.”

Old South ‘still haunts us’

Dear told the Blade she feels the “old South still haunts us like a ghost of the past.”

“The Confederate flag is the centerpiece of our state flag,” she said, referring to SB 2681. “We just can’t seem to get away from it. In the South people are proud; people are very proud and they’re proud of their heritage. That includes that mindset.”

She is nevertheless proud of Mississippi.

“Mississippi is moving to the front in the fight for equality, and I’m very proud of where it’s going,” said Dear. “I don’t think anybody expected Mississippi to progress so quickly and for people to stand up and say, hey, you know we’re not going to take this anymore and we’re not going to be quiet and we’re not going to be your sweet Southern girl and we’re not going to keep our mouths shut and we’re not going to be the Southern belles. We’re standing up for our rights.”

Dear told the Blade she and other members of her group are “very excited” about the growing momentum behind marriage rights for same-sex couples, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and other LGBT issues across the country. She nevertheless said nuptials for gays and lesbians will not become legal in Mississippi until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on it.

“That’s how we’re going to get it here,” said Dear.

She also said she welcomes the Human Rights Campaign — with whom she interviewed for a job she did not receive — and other national LGBT advocacy groups that want to work in Mississippi.

“I think a lot of people feel like they just swooped in and took the reigns away from us,” said Dear. “We’ve been working a lot and I think a lot of people feel that way. I think they’re handling themselves pretty well here.”

Group encourages members to ‘live authentic lives’

Brandiilyne Dear, Mississippi, Dandelion Project, gay news, Washington Blade

Brandiilyne Dear, on right, leads a protest in Jackson, Miss. against SB 2681. (Photo courtesy of Dear)

Dear said the Dandelion Project encourages people to come out and “live out.”

“Society needs to see us and our hometown needs to see us,” she told the Blade. “They need to see us in Walmart and holding hands or just walking close to one another.”

Susan was initially reluctant to hold Dear’s hand in public places, but she has subsequently changed her mind.

“I’m not willing to live quietly,” said Dear. “We need to live authentic lives and our communities need to see us and so we really encourage people to live authentic lives, especially in this area.”

Dear told the Blade she “would love to leave Mississippi,” but has decided to remain in her state and fight.

“If I don’t stay here and fight, I leave it to the next generation and I feel that’s irresponsible,” she said. “So if I can make a change and make a difference than I’ll just stay. This is my state and you know what I’ve just decided that you’re not going to run me off. I’m going to live my life and I’m going to do everything I possibly can to change things.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

homepage news

New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences

Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court is to set consider the case of 303 Creative, which seeks to refuse design services for same-sex weddings. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court, after a decision overturning Roe v. Wade that still leaves many reeling, is starting a new term with justices slated to revisit the issue of LGBTQ rights.

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court will return to the issue of whether or not providers of custom-made goods can refuse service to LGBTQ customers on First Amendment grounds. In this case, the business owner is Lorie Smith, a website designer in Colorado who wants to opt out of providing her graphic design services for same-sex weddings despite the civil rights law in her state.

Jennifer Pizer, acting chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, said in an interview with the Blade, “it’s not too much to say an immeasurably huge amount is at stake” for LGBTQ people depending on the outcome of the case.

“This contrived idea that making custom goods, or offering a custom service, somehow tacitly conveys an endorsement of the person — if that were to be accepted, that would be a profound change in the law,” Pizer said. “And the stakes are very high because there are no practical, obvious, principled ways to limit that kind of an exception, and if the law isn’t clear in this regard, then the people who are at risk of experiencing discrimination have no security, no effective protection by having a non-discrimination laws, because at any moment, as one makes their way through the commercial marketplace, you don’t know whether a particular business person is going to refuse to serve you.”

The upcoming arguments and decision in the 303 Creative case mark a return to LGBTQ rights for the Supreme Court, which had no lawsuit to directly address the issue in its previous term, although many argued the Dobbs decision put LGBTQ rights in peril and threatened access to abortion for LGBTQ people.

And yet, the 303 Creative case is similar to other cases the Supreme Court has previously heard on the providers of services seeking the right to deny services based on First Amendment grounds, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In both of those cases, however, the court issued narrow rulings on the facts of litigation, declining to issue sweeping rulings either upholding non-discrimination principles or First Amendment exemptions.

Pizer, who signed one of the friend-of-the-court briefs in opposition to 303 Creative, said the case is “similar in the goals” of the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation on the basis they both seek exemptions to the same non-discrimination law that governs their business, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, and seek “to further the social and political argument that they should be free to refuse same-sex couples or LGBTQ people in particular.”

“So there’s the legal goal, and it connects to the social and political goals and in that sense, it’s the same as Masterpiece,” Pizer said. “And so there are multiple problems with it again, as a legal matter, but also as a social matter, because as with the religion argument, it flows from the idea that having something to do with us is endorsing us.”

One difference: the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation stemmed from an act of refusal of service after owner, Jack Phillips, declined to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple for their upcoming wedding. No act of discrimination in the past, however, is present in the 303 Creative case. The owner seeks to put on her website a disclaimer she won’t provide services for same-sex weddings, signaling an intent to discriminate against same-sex couples rather than having done so.

As such, expect issues of standing — whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit — to be hashed out in arguments as well as whether the litigation is ripe for review as justices consider the case. It’s not hard to see U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to lead the court to reach less sweeping decisions (sometimes successfully, and sometimes in the Dobbs case not successfully) to push for a decision along these lines.

Another key difference: The 303 Creative case hinges on the argument of freedom of speech as opposed to the two-fold argument of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise in the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation. Although 303 Creative requested in its petition to the Supreme Court review of both issues of speech and religion, justices elected only to take up the issue of free speech in granting a writ of certiorari (or agreement to take up a case). Justices also declined to accept another question in the petition request of review of the 1990 precedent in Smith v. Employment Division, which concluded states can enforce neutral generally applicable laws on citizens with religious objections without violating the First Amendment.

Representing 303 Creative in the lawsuit is Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has sought to undermine civil rights laws for LGBTQ people with litigation seeking exemptions based on the First Amendment, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote in a Sept. 12 legal brief signed by her and other attorneys that a decision in favor of 303 Creative boils down to a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.

“Colorado and the United States still contend that CADA only regulates sales transactions,” the brief says. “But their cases do not apply because they involve non-expressive activities: selling BBQ, firing employees, restricting school attendance, limiting club memberships, and providing room access. Colorado’s own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actor’s speech.”

Pizer, however, pushed back strongly on the idea a decision in favor of 303 Creative would be as focused as Alliance Defending Freedom purports it would be, arguing it could open the door to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people.

“One way to put it is art tends to be in the eye of the beholder,” Pizer said. “Is something of a craft, or is it art? I feel like I’m channeling Lily Tomlin. Remember ‘soup and art’? We have had an understanding that whether something is beautiful or not is not the determining factor about whether something is protected as artistic expression. There’s a legal test that recognizes if this is speech, whose speech is it, whose message is it? Would anyone who was hearing the speech or seeing the message understand it to be the message of the customer or of the merchants or craftsmen or business person?”

Despite the implications in the case for LGBTQ rights, 303 Creative may have supporters among LGBTQ people who consider themselves proponents of free speech.

One joint friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, written by Dale Carpenter, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, and Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment legal scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, argues the case is an opportunity to affirm the First Amendment applies to goods and services that are uniquely expressive.

“Distinguishing expressive from non-expressive products in some contexts might be hard, but the Tenth Circuit agreed that Smith’s product does not present a hard case,” the brief says. “Yet that court (and Colorado) declined to recognize any exemption for products constituting speech. The Tenth Circuit has effectively recognized a state interest in subjecting the creation of speech itself to antidiscrimination laws.”

Oral arguments in the case aren’t yet set, but may be announced soon. Set to defend the state of Colorado and enforcement of its non-discrimination law in the case is Colorado Solicitor General Eric Reuel Olson. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would grant the request to the U.S. solicitor general to present arguments before the justices on behalf of the Biden administration.

With a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has recently scrapped the super-precedent guaranteeing the right to abortion, supporters of LGBTQ rights may think the outcome of the case is all but lost, especially amid widespread fears same-sex marriage would be next on the chopping block. After the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 303 Creative in the lawsuit, the simple action by the Supreme Court to grant review in the lawsuit suggests they are primed to issue a reversal and rule in favor of the company.

Pizer, acknowledging the call to action issued by LGBTQ groups in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, conceded the current Supreme Court issuing the ruling in this case is “a terrifying prospect,” but cautioned the issue isn’t so much the makeup of the court but whether or not justices will continue down the path of abolishing case law.

“I think the question that we’re facing with respect to all of the cases or at least many of the cases that are in front of the court right now, is whether this court is going to continue on this radical sort of wrecking ball to the edifice of settled law and seemingly a goal of setting up whole new structures of what our basic legal principles are going to be. Are we going to have another term of that?” Pizer said. “And if so, that’s terrifying.”

Continue Reading

homepage news

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign

Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Published

on

Kelley Robinson (Screen capture via HRC YouTube)

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman and veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is to become the next president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group announced on Tuesday.

Robinson is set to become the ninth president of the Human Rights Campaign after having served as executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and more than 12 years of experience as a leader in the progressive movement. She’ll be the first Black, queer woman to serve in that role.

“I’m honored and ready to lead HRC — and our more than three million member-advocates — as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,” Robinson said. “This is a pivotal moment in our movement for equality for LGBTQ+ people. We, particularly our trans and BIPOC communities, are quite literally in the fight for our lives and facing unprecedented threats that seek to destroy us.”

Kelley Robinson IS NAMED as The next human rights Campaign president

The next Human Rights Campaign president is named as Democrats are performing well in polls in the mid-term elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving an opening for the LGBTQ group to play a key role amid fears LGBTQ rights are next on the chopping block.

“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reminds us we are just one Supreme Court decision away from losing fundamental freedoms including the freedom to marry, voting rights, and privacy,” Robinson said. “We are facing a generational opportunity to rise to these challenges and create real, sustainable change. I believe that working together this change is possible right now. This next chapter of the Human Rights Campaign is about getting to freedom and liberation without any exceptions — and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.”

The Human Rights Campaign announces its next president after a nearly year-long search process after the board of directors terminated its former president Alphonso David when he was ensnared in the sexual misconduct scandal that led former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. David has denied wrongdoing and filed a lawsuit against the LGBTQ group alleging racial discrimination.

Kelley Robinson, Planned Parenthood, Cathy Chu, SMYAL, Supporting and Mentoring Youth Advocates and Leaders, Amy Nelson, Whitman-Walker Health, Sheroes of the Movement, Mayor's office of GLBT Affairs, gay news, Washington Blade
Kelley Robinson, seen here with Cathy Chu of SMYAL and Amy Nelson of Whitman-Walker Health, is the next Human Rights Campaign president. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

Former Ambassador Daniel Baer explains it all on Ukraine crisis

Expert downplays strategic thinking behind Putin’s move

Published

on

Daniel Baer, United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, gay news, Washington Blade
Daniel Baer served as U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Daniel Baer, who worked on LGBTQ human rights and transatlantic issues as one of several openly gay U.S. ambassadors during the Obama administration, answered questions from the Washington Blade on Ukraine as the international crisis continues to unfold.

Topics during the interview, which took place weeks ago on Jan. 27, included Putin’s motivation for Russian incursions, the risk of outright war, predictions for Russia after Putin and how the crisis would affect LGBTQ people in Ukraine.

Baer was deputy assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and U.S. ambassador to the Organization of Security & Cooperation in Europe.

The full interview follows:

Washington Blade: What’s your level of engagement with this affair? Are you doing any consulting work? Is the administration reaching out to you at all?

Daniel Baer: I actually think the White House is doing a pretty good job of recognizing that they need to not only have press conferences, but also talk to other people who are trying to figure out how to be constructive critics, idea generators from the outside.

Blade: OK, so you’re being solicited and engaging on this issue. My next question for you is why do you think Putin is doing this at this time?

Baer: So, I guess taking a step back from the whole thing, one of the things about a problem like this is that everybody is searching for the right answer assuming that there is a like comfortable or compelling or intellectually accurate answer, and I actually think we’re just in a really hard moment.

I don’t know why he’s doing it now. And in fact, I think that one of the puzzles that we haven’t solved yet is that all the things that he says are the reasons that he’s doing it — that he feels encirclement by NATO, … or that the situation in Ukraine is untenable — none of those things have changed. Setting aside the fact that they’re spurious, it’s not like there’s been some new move in the last 12 months that has precipitated [a reaction] on any of those fronts that you can say, “Oh, well, he’s responding to the recent meeting where Ukraine was offered membership in NATO, or he’s responding to a change in government in Ukraine that it’s clearly anti-Russia, or any other move that we’ve done.” The explanation just doesn’t hold water, and so I think we need to look for alternative ones.

The best I can come up with is actually just a broad — it doesn’t actually explain this particular moment, but I think you could look at the timing of his life. He has, I don’t know, 10 years left. And during those 10 years, it’s unlikely that Russia is going to grow more powerful; it’s much more likely that it’s going to become at least relatively and probably nominally less powerful. And so, if you’re unhappy with the status quo, and you feel like you’re a declining power, and you don’t have endless time, there’s no time like the present. And you’ll make up whatever reasons you need to in order to justify it.

I also think there’s a tendency on our part to attribute far more “strategery” to Putin than there necessarily is. I mean, he’s a bully and a thug. I think the whole Putin’s playing chess and we’re playing checkers is actually completely inverted. We’re in our own heads that there’s some kind of nuanced position that would mollify him. He’s just a gangster and he’s taking a punch because he has one. And I don’t think it gets much more complicated than that. And so, I guess the answer to why he’s doing this now, because the international conditions are such that he feels like the United States is focused domestically, the Ukrainians are not moving forward with succeeding to build — they’re kind of in stasis on building a European state— and he has, you know, he has the space to take a punch, so he’s contemplating doing it, or he’s already decided to do it. And he’s just extracting as much as possible before he takes it.

Blade: That leads me to my next question: What is your judgement of the risk of out and out war?

Baer: I don’t know because I have two hypotheses that cut both ways. One is that I think Putin is vastly underestimating the degree of resistance. On the other hand, I think that nothing short of domination is satisfactory. And so, I don’t know. I guess I think there’s a 90 percent chance that he does something, and I think there’s a 75 percent chance that what he does is not an all out invasion or ground invasion, at least not at first, but rather something that is aimed at confusing us. So some sort of hybrid or staged or false flag kind of attack in tandem with a political coup in Kiev, where he works to install a more Russia-loyal leader.

The thing with the ground invasion is that Russian soldiers’ moms are one of the only, like, powerful political forces in civil society in Russia. I just don’t see any way that a ground invasion doesn’t involve massive Russian casualties, even if they will be dominant. The people who are going to impose the consequences on him will be the Ukrainians, not the rest of us, and he should not invade, and if he does, we should, frankly, work hard to make it as painful and difficult for him as possible.

Blade: What will that look like?

Baer: I think we should at that point continue — we shouldn’t pause, we should continue to send the defensive equipment and backfill as much as possible their ability from an equipment basis to resist.

Blade: So if we were to look at a model for past U.S. engagements. I’m thinking Greece under President Truman, which was so successful that nobody really knows about it, I don’t think. Is there any model we should be looking toward, or not looking toward?

Baer: No, I guess. I’m not sure there’s any good historical model because obviously, any of them you can pick apart. I do think that one thing that has gotten lost in a lot of the analysis — and this goes back to Putin being a gangster thug, and not being such a genius — is there’s a moral difference between us. The reason why Putin gets to control the dialogue is because he’s willing to do things that we aren’t willing to do — as gangsters are, as hostage-takers are — and so yes, they get to set the terms of what we discussed, because we’re not holding hostages. We’re trying to get hostages released. And the hostage-taker has an upper hand and asymmetry because they are willing to do something that is wrong.

We shouldn’t lose the kind of moral difference there. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that Ukraine is being menaced. And I’m not saying it’s our obligation [to intervene militarily], certainly not our obligation. They aren’t a treaty ally. We have neither a political obligation nor a moral one to necessarily risk our own lives, our own soldiers in defense of Ukraine. But if Ukraine wants to defend themselves, there’s a strong moral case to be made that anything, short of risking our own lives, is something that is morally good. We generally believe that self-defense from lethal threat is a reasonable moral cause and assisting others in defending themselves is too — I think there’s a lot of back and forth that get glossed over whether that’s a provocation or whatever, and I want to say to people stand back, look at this: we’ve got one party that is attacking another. And the question is, does the other have a right to defend itself? Yes. And if they have a right to defend themselves, and they also have a right to have whatever assistance people will offer them in defending themselves.

That doesn’t mean that they get to demand that we show up and fight in the trenches with them, of course, and I don’t think there’s any serious people who are recommending that but it’s a good thing to help them. It’s not like a technical thing. It’s a good thing to help

Blade: Getting into that moral background, one thing I want to ask you was about the significance of what would happen in this concept of democracy versus autocracy. First of all, how much is Ukraine a functional democracy, in the sense that if we’re defending Ukraine, we are defending a democracy, and what signal do you think it would send if that Ukrainian government fell to Russian autocracy?

Baer: I think the institutions of government that the Ukrainian people have are not worthy of the Ukrainian people’s own demonstrated commitment …

They are not worthy of the Ukrainian people’s own demonstrated commitment to the idea of democratic institutions. So the answer is today’s Ukrainian government is a mixed bag and it’s very hard to build, on the rot of a Russian fiefdom, a functioning democracy, so I think it’s a mixed bag. I don’t want to sound like I’m minimizing [the changes], or that they’ve completely bungled an easy project. It was always going to be a hard project, and it was never going to be linear.

But I think that what we’ve seen from the Ukrainian people — by which I mean not Ukrainian people, but people of Ukraine — is that there is a broad part of society that a) does not want to live under a Russian thumb and b) sees its future in kind of European style democracy. And so I think that if there was, there’s no question that the Russian attack would be in part about subjugating the people of Ukraine and forcing them to live under some sort of new Russian satellite. And I think that there’s little space for serious argument that that’s something that the people of the country wish to have.

Blade: But I’m just kind of getting at — you’re kind of minimizing that this is a strategic move by Putin, but if he were to successfully dominant Ukraine it becomes a Russian satellite isn’t that saying like, “Well, ha ha West, you thought the Cold War was over and there’s going to be just be a unipolar world in the future but no, we’re gonna we have this we’re back and we’re gonna create a multipolar world for the future.”

Baer: Yeah, I mean, my answer to the Russians who always raise the multipolar world to me is, “Fine, it’s going to be a multipolar world. What makes you think that Russia is one of the poles?” Poles by definition draw people to them, they are compelling and a pole attracts, magnetically or otherwise, and there is nothing attractive about the model that Russia is pursuing. And if the only way that you can be a pole is by subjugating, to force your neighbors, you are proving that you are not one.

I think the benefits for Russia are far smaller than Putin thinks and I think the consequences for the rest of the world of allowing a violation of international order to go forward are much larger than many people recognize.

Blade: But that was their approach when they were the Soviet Union. They were subjugating the Eastern Bloc through Russian force. They did have, in theory, the concept of their worldview of you know, of socialism, or whatever you want to put it charitably, was going to be the right way to go. Is there really that much of a difference?

Baer: Yeah, however disingenuous it was, they did have an ideology . So you’re right, that was a key distinction. The other thing is that the Soviet Union in relative size — its economy and population etc. — was much larger than Russia is today. And Russia is shrinking, and its economy is less diverse than the Communist one was. I think it’s a delusion to think that they’re going to kind of rebuild an empire, even if yes, because of their willingness to do awful things, they could potentially for a time politically control through violence, their neighbors. I just don’t — in a multipolar world, I don’t see Russia being one of the poles, at least not on its current path.

Blade: How would you evaluate the U.S. diplomatic approach to this issue?

Baer: There’s been very clear over-the-top effort to include the Europeans at every step — meetings with them before each meeting and after each meeting, to force conversations into fora that are more inclusive and stuff like that. And I think that Secretary Blinken is rightly recognizing the need to kind of play a role of kind of keeping everybody on the side while we test whether diplomacy whether there’s anything to do, whether there’s any promise with diplomacy.

I think there’s kind of, sometimes kind of, two camps in U.S. foreign policy circles. One is like: We should give the Russians what they want because it just doesn’t matter that much. War is much worse than anything that we would give them. And another is that we can’t give them an inch and we have to punch them in the face whenever we can. And I think both of those are kind of knee-jerk positions that have become a bit religious for people and neither of them is paying attention to the practical challenge that’s in front of the administration, which is like this guy’s threatening to invade and we need to identify whether there’s any opportunity for a functional off ramp, and that doesn’t mean we do that in a vacuum and ignore the long-term consequences, but our problem is not a religious one, it’s a practical one. And I think they’re doing a pretty good job of threading the needle on that and being not too far forward and not too far back.

Blade: Do you see any significant daylight between the United States and Europe?

Baer: No, I mean, no more than the minimum that is possible. There’s a lot of talk about Germany these days. Look, I think some of the things they say are not particularly helpful, but I don’t actually think that in the long run, if Putin invaded, I don’t think that they would hold up sanctions or anything like that. So I think they’re on our side, even if they’re talking out of both sides, in some cases.

Blade: I am wise to the fact that this is a nuclear power. It might be a little old school, but could escalation get that far?

Baer: There can’t be war. There can’t be war between NATO and Russia. It should be avoided. Obviously, there can be, but it should be avoided.

Blade: How committed do you think President Biden is to protecting Ukraine?

Baer: Reasonably so. I think he’s enough of an old school trans-Atlantist that he understands that this isn’t just about Ukraine.

Blade: I was wondering because he had those comments from his press conference about “minor incursion” and I’m just wondering if you’re reading anything into that or not.

Baer: No, I think that was that was a — I think broadly speaking, everything he says is in line with the kind of view that you would expect. And of course, one sentence can catch [attention]. That wasn’t what he meant. What he meant was that he didn’t want to draw a “red line” that would prejudge policy in response to something short of the most extreme scenario.

I think it is a good caution to not obsess over a single sentence and to look at the broad considered policy statements.

Blade: What do you think if you were looking for developments, like what would you be looking out for is significant in terms of where we are going to be going in the near future? This is one thing to keep an eye out for but is there anything else that you are kind of looking out for in terms of the near future?

Baer: I guess I would look out for whether or not the United States joins meetings of the so-called Normandy Format, which is the France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia grouping, which has so far been unsuccessful, but I think can only be successful as the United States joins it, but the Russians, I think have misgivings with the idea of our joining it.

Blade: I’m not at all familiar with that. What makes this forum particularly so —

Baer: So it was started in the summer in like June of 2015, on the margins of some meeting between Merkel and Hollande. The French and the Germans are very committed to the idea that they might be able to mediate peace between Ukraine and Russia. It was supposed to implement the Minsk Agreement, and it just hasn’t been productive so far. I don’t think that the Russians will do anything — I don’t think the Ukrainians feel comfortable negotiating anything without the Americans at the table. And I don’t think the Russians feel like anything is guaranteed without the Americans at the table. So I just, I’m fine with France and Germany taking the lead, but I think the U.S. has to be there.

And there was a meeting of this group in Paris yesterday, and which the U.S. was supportive of, and so I’m watching to see whether or not the United States gets added in some ad hoc way, whether there are future meetings. I guess the reason I would watch it, if the U.S. were to join future meetings that would signal to me that it’s actually there’s some diplomacy happening there.

That’s meant to be focusing mainly on the existing Russian invasion, the occupation of the Donbas, so that’s not about the threat of the new invasion, but it would be interesting to me if there was forward movement on other parts of Ukraine. The announcement of the American ambassador is one. I think that last week movement of troops into Belarus was a game changer for the U.S., because there are all kinds of new implications if you’re using a third country as your launchpad for war, and so it complicates things and it also looks more serious if you’re starting to deploy to third countries and stuff like that. So I think that was that last week, you noticed a difference in the U.S. tone and tenor in response to that.

So things like that. But in general, like what I would do and I don’t think people always catch this is because there’s a boiling frog aspect to it. There are statements coming out from the White House or State Department. Almost every day on stuff related to this and like last week, there was a noticeable change in the tenor as the U.S. became less, I think more pessimistic about the prospects of diplomacy and those I don’t have anything better to look for in those statements as tea leaves, in terms of what the U.S. assessment is of the prospects of the escalation are, so it’s bad.

Blade: Right. That’s very sobering.

There’s a lot of talk, and I’ve just been seeing some like about in terms of, there’s like comparisons to Afghanistan and making sure that all Americans are able to get out of Ukraine. Is that comparing apples to oranges?

Baer: Yes.

Blade: And could you unpack that a little bit? I mean, I can kind of guess the reasons why. How is that apples to oranges?

Blade: Well, the level of development in Ukraine in terms of infrastructure and transport and stuff like that is not comparable to Afghanistan. I think it would be– if there were a Russian invasion–you would definitely want to, obviously, for safety reasons, it’s not safe to be in a war zone, so you would want people to be able to evacuate and you’d have to plan for that.

A major concern [in Afghanistan] was also that there were tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of locals who had worked for the Americans. The Americans that are in Ukraine are not a departing occupying power. There’s just not the same footprint there — the Americans are in Ukraine or there as business people or young [people working on] democracy assistance or whatever. And it’s just it’s a different context.

Blade: Why do you think the Russians put up with Putin? I mean, this is a country that was a world power and I would think has some economic potential just given its sheer size, first of all, and they do have oil to offer people. So why aren’t the Russians like angry at him for obstructing their participation in the global order as opposed to just putting up with him for years and years and years.

Baer: Successful instrumentalisation of cynicism. The lack of a belief in an alternative will keep you from fighting for it.

Blade: That’s pretty succinct.

Baer: I mean, I don’t think there’s any question that the people of Russia could be better off or different in terms of kitchen table issues, and ease of navigating the world, prospects for their future for their children’s future. The amount of money that Putin has invested into military modernization that Russia can ill afford, while he’s cut pensions and social services and health care. It’s just it’s objectively true that the average Russian person would be better served by a different leader. But he’s done a very good job of effectively selling off the country for profit and persuading people through repression and propaganda that there is no alternative.

Blade: And Putin won’t be around forever. Once he finally goes, is an alternative going to emerge, or will it be the next guy in Putin’s mold?

Baer: I think it’s far from clear that what comes after Putin isn’t worse and bloody. Regimes like this don’t reliably have stable transitions.

Blade: Wow, okay.

Baer: Yeah, we shouldn’t… we should be careful about wishing… wishing for his demise.

Blade: That’s good to know. It’s kind of a frightful note for me to end my questions. But actually before I sign off, there’s one more thing too because I do kind of want to talk about the intersection about your old job in democracy and human rights and then a Venn diagram of that with your experience in Eastern Europe in particular. Do you have a sense of what’s at stake for LGBTQ people in Ukraine or if they’re in more danger right now than they would be otherwise?

Baer: That’s a good question. I mean, my knee jerk reaction is yes. That — as mixed of a picture as Ukraine has been in the last seven years, or eight years — there have been meaningful steps forward, and certainly, in terms of visibility.

I guess, in the sense that Ukraine is better than Russia today, if you’re gay, if Russia is going to occupy or control Ukraine we can expect that it will get worse because it will become more like Russia.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular