Subscription

Thursday, February 24, 2022

The Bigger Picture

 


Friends, there's oodles to say about Russia's long-anticipated invasion of Ukraine, but as always I like to at least try to see the forest for the trees.  In other words, I don't regard the fate of Ukraine, in itself, as all that important.  The rejuvenation of Cold War tensions, on the other hand, and the increasing signs of an alliance between Russia and China -- both of which are aggrieved by U.S. and Western dominance -- is highly troubling and hugely consequential.  I agree with the analysis of the fine article below.  Russia's estrangement from the West, and its marriage of convenience to Red China, is the result of a long series of high-handed and ill-conceived moves on the part of a succession of U.S. and European leaders.  Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, we treated Russia like a pariah and like a threat.  During the Trump presidency, the Left even made Russophobia a fashionable trend.  Russia got the message: it would never be respected by the West or welcomed into NATO, the EU, or the global establishment.  Simultaneously, Russia got the clear message from both the Trump and Biden Administrations that, while the U.S. applauded Ukraine's shift towards the West, we would under no circumstances commit ourselves to the country's defense.  The predictable consequence?  Russia has invaded Ukraine, and, in the long run, it will reorient its economy and its military away from the West and towards a pact of some kind with communist China.  And China may, as some have suggested, learn a thing or two about the rewards for military aggression, and the pusillanimity of the West, that will make the world a far more dangerous place.  All in all, I regard these developments as highly injurious to U.S. national security -- and doubly unfortunate, because almost everything that has happened in the last 48 hours is the result of U.S. and Western miscalculations.  The West and Russia ought not to be enemies at all.  On the contrary, we are natural allies, based on our cultural and historic ties, against China.  A tantalizing opportunity has thus been lost.  Instead, we face a grim, uncertain future.


http://www.zzwave.com/plaboard/posts/3968357.shtml

 

And here are the details on Russia's invasion thus far:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/07bbc5c7-e620-4734-83b5-7bb261363c35?segmentId=b385c2ad-87ed-d8ff-aaec-0f8435cd42d9 


To my mind, Ukraine is toast.  There is little or no chance that the country will be able to resist Russian military superiority.  The key question, then, is: what penalty will Russia pay for its impertinence, as the West sees it?  And how long will it pay?  Will sanctions be mild or severe?  Will they last weeks, months, years, decades?  To me, the really important question is whether there will be any significant disruption to Russian oil and gas sales to the West.  If there isn't, and as you'll see below the early signs are that there won't be, then Russia is likely to weather this storm just fine.  This will also minimize economic pain in the West, of course, but it will send a clear message to Russia (and China) that the West's bark is worse than its bite.  Simply put, we may pity those poor Ukrainians, but we won't sacrifice our own comforts to ease their plight.  It kinda makes you wonder what precisely we'd be willing to do if Putin marched into Warsaw or Riga...  The answer could be: not much of anything!


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-may-retaliate-against-europe-153158107.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022/02/24/blinken-were-not-halting-gas-and-oil-purchases-from-russia-because-were-trying-to-minimize-pain-to-us/ 


https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/impact/2022/02/24/id/1058428/

13 comments:

  1. Dr. Nick,

    You and I both teach history (mainly European history as I recall), and you beat me by one degree, and you also wrote a Western Civilization textbook.

    With that said, I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on why The Ukraine is an integral part of Russia, and always has been. This fact needs to be brought forward in the light of historical reality. You know all of this begins with Grand Prince Vladimir of Kiev who is also a Saint by the way, and is called The Great. I'm talking about late 10th Century and early 11th Century.

    This is not to say that you have not presented an accurate picture of current events, but you have done so through from a big picture political standpoint, which can be confusing. As an historian, you know very well that The Ukraine is an integral part of Russia ethnically and otherwise, and has been for centuries.

    As a piece of real estate with all sorts of resources, The Ukraine has always been eyed by "The West" as a place that needs to be detached from Russia through propaganda and conquest. Does anyone know that long ago, Poland attacked Russia (and failed) to grab this area?

    So let's be the historian that I know you are Nick, and present a true picture of The Ukraine as a traditional part of Russia, and a place that has been played off for purposes of greed and all the related problems that flow from greed.

    And I am sure you know that Russia is an Asian power as well as a European one. And let me clarify the fact that the Communists (during the Soviet Union times) did not create/annex The Ukraine as part of an "Evil Empire". It was already a part of Russia, and was created over hundreds and hundreds of years by The Czars of Russia.

    In any event, Russia has far more rights and claims to The Ukraine then the United States does to its own Southwest, which was legally a part of Mexico until 1846 when our President Polk decided to invade it and annex it to the United States. Maybe Biden should do something really significant instead of ranting about The Ukraine, and return The Southwestern part of the U.S. to Mexico as a gesture of repentance for historical aggression.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One thing for sure, The Biden Regime has breathed new life into a NATO that was on life support for years. By making Russia the enemy (again) and creating a new "Cold War," the future will look bright for the military-industrial complex and its contractors composed of ex-U.S. Generals and their cronies among politicians, to include more Republicans than the average American can imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Waddy fromJack: I thought the matter was now simplified: Ukraine is on its own now. Nato's only concern now must be to man its defenses as much as to convince Russia that any thrust into a Nato country means all out at LEAST conventional war with Nato, the apocalyptic nuclear possibiities of which are well known. Its reflective of a cruel reality based deeply in history but for which the West bears much blame and shame. But the articles you posted maintain a far more complex labyrinth of factors!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr.Waddy from Jack : A vital point of such a relationship would be the elimination of a US Navy all potential adversaries must fear, as a factor. Ehh, carrier planes cannot threaten the new Silk Road China is constructing even now, to Russia and Iran. Supporting citation: The Return of MARCO POLO's WORLD; war , strategy and American interests in the 21st century by Robert D. Kaplan c2018 (a very creditable commentator).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ray, you've laid down a stiff challenge there. I am in no way an expert on the history of Ukraine. I just read up on it, and the overall impression I received was...complicated! Parts of Ukraine have been ruled by literally dozens of different states, dominated by almost as many ethnic groups, over the last five hundred years. Go back any further than that, and I don't even begin to understand the complex ethnic dynamics in play. Would I agree that Russia has a strong historic claim on Ukraine? Yes. Would I agree that several other regional powers, like Poland, Lithuania, and Turkey, might as well? I guess so. But the more pressing question is: how much ethnic and historical legitimacy do Ukraine's demands for "independence" have? Are the "Ukrainians" even a definable people, given the massive differences between the western and eastern parts of the country, for instance? I don't have solid answers to any of these questions. The history of Ukraine and her people are the definition of the word "messy", if you ask me. What I would say is: given the multiple layers of ambiguity involved, it is arrogant and myopic of the West to champion the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, especially since we've actively courted the disintegration of countries similarly afflicted with ethnic complexities (Yugoslavia/Serbia comes to mind). I don't prejudge the ethnic and historic questions, therefore. I base my policy recommendations and moral judgements on RealPolitik, which, to me, dictates that Ukraine must be acknowledged as a (strange, amorphous) place under more or less permanent Russian domination. I still maintain that it is in the interests of the Ukrainian people ultimately to accept and even cultivate these Ukrainian-Russian ties, rather than provoking or disparaging their Russian neighbors. And I view it as nearly certain that the West will never lift a finger to defend Ukraine, even if the country was a NATO member.

    Ray, you suggest that the present conflict will breathe new life into NATO. In a way, that's true. It will make NATO more important and relevant. By exposing NATO's weaknesses, however, and the disagreements about how to respond to Russian aggression, I think a case could be made that NATO will emerge having been tested -- and having failed the test. We all know that most of NATO is irrelevant to the security guarantees that the alliance gives. Belgian or Portuguese troops won't play any meaningful role in the future defense of Estonia. It is thus the willingness of the U.S., and the Brits, the French, and the Germans, to use force against a Russian incursion in NATO members in Eastern Europe that will decide the credibility and future of the alliance. The fact that troops are being deployed, in small numbers, to the east helps a little. In any case, my guess would be that Putin will need some breathing space in which to digest his new prize. We'll have a little while to think about NATO's future, and our future as its main backer.

    Jack, as I discussed above, I don't know what NATO would do if Russia moved further west -- and that uncertainty might cause some Eastern European countries to "Finlandize" and seek to avoid provoking Russia as a precaution. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr. Nick,

    Fair enough on your response to my comments regarding The Ukraine. You know, deep down I really do think The United States of America should get out of Europe, except for tourism, our embassies, and trade, and let the Euroweenies deal with Russia and so on.

    I prefer a fortress America, meaning that we have to start concentrating on building some serious relations and mending some fences with Mexico to the tip of Argentina. We live in the same hemisphere, and yet our foreign policy looks East and West instead of North-South. Large parts of our population speak Spanish and are legally and illegally integrated into our society and culture. The United States of America has a lot more in common with Mexico, Central America, and South American in the long run than we do with Europe.

    What has Europe really done for us? I know how you will answer that, but our institutions are still really uniquely American. Sure was a lot of our blood shed fighting two world wars that Europeans started. Sorry, but it really is time for our country to concentrate on our part of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nick, right now it appears that Russia miscalculated. Ukraine is inflicting a lot of punishment on Russian troops, and, so far, has dramatically slowed their momentum. Former office Mark Hertling, who served as an advisor in Ukraine, notes that the army is better trained than the Russians, whose troops are mostly one-year conscripts, who are not particularly well-trained.

    BTW, the West did work with Russia during the 1990s when Yeltsin was in power. It was when things shifted with Putin that Russia got ostracized. Had Yeltsin been replaced with a sober leader with a more Western outlook, Russia might be in NATO now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies


    1. Why would Russia be in NATO now, when NATO was originally founded as a military pact/organization against Russia (then the Soviet Union)? Is there anything you don't understand about 2+2=4?

      In any event Russia (when it was the Soviet Union) was the favorite country of most American Leftists, many of whom sold secrets to them. Now, all of a sudden that Russia is no longer Communist, our Leftists have decided that the PRC is their favorite country.

      Finally, the key to all of this, is why did The Ukraine (always an historical part of Russia), separate from Russia after the overthrow of Communism in the latter country? All The Ukraine became is a place far more corrupt than Russia.

      As a PhD you write at a junior high school level, and show no talent to become a professional historian. Looks like you need to read up on the history of Russia with regards to The Ukraine.

      All our great leader (and your hero) J.B. needed to do in order to smooth relations with Russia, and avoid this conflict, is convince them that The Ukraine would not become a part of NATO which is a threat to them (Russia). Instead he opted to antagonize Russia and in the process has instigated a new "Cold War".

      Anyway Rod, if you love The Ukraine that much, why don't you suit up and go over there and help your Ukrainian sisters and brothers fight the big bad naughty Bear? How about it Rod?

      Delete
  8. Ray, I agree with you that the U.S. security guarantee to all of Europe, which goes by the name of "NATO", has outlived its usefulness. NATO should have closed up shop in 1991, and, if it had, the Russians would probably be our buddies right now. Hindsight is 20/20.

    Anyway, you do have to wonder how those "Euroweenies" would handle their own security. If we left them to their own devices, there's a decent chance they'd all be eating borscht in no time. And would that be so bad? I bet its delicious.

    As for reorienting our focus to the Americas, that would indeed make a great deal of sense. That makes me ask, for the millionth time: why do we depend on China and other Asian countries for so many strategically important products? Wouldn't it make more sense to "outsource" to our own backyard, i.e. Latin America?

    You heard it here first, everyone! Rod is predicting a crushing Ukrainian victory over Russia. Okay, maybe I overinterpreted your observations a little. My take: so the Ukrainians are fighting back... The only thing that will achieve is more dead Ukrainians. Russia WILL prevail over Ukraine, whether it takes a week, a month, or a decade. I suppose a costly invasion/occupation might motivate the Russians to withdraw ASAP, but one way or another Ukraine is going to be at Russia's mercy...and it was our brilliant advice that brought our Ukrainian friends to this pass.

    Yes, we got along okay with Yeltsin, but not so great that we didn't begin the eastward expansion of NATO regardless. And why, pray tell?

    Ray, the Left's overweening Russophobia is a bit of a mystery to me. Was Russia just a target of opportunity, a more or less random stalking horse through which the Left could "get Trump"? Does the Left really dislike Russia for ideological reasons? And yes -- why are they so blind to the FAR GREATER crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Chicoms? My guess is that much of it has to do with successful Chinese subversion of Western elites. The Russians obviously need to study China's techniques!

    I agree, Ray: all we would have had to do to prevent this catastrophe is take Ukrainian membership in NATO off the table. Likewise, the Ukrainians could have done so themselves. Instead, we encouraged Ukraine to be obstreperous. Great advice! There may not be any Ukrainians left by the time we're done "helping" them.

    Good question, Ray: how many Westerners currently shedding crocodile tears for Ukraine will show up to fight for it? I expect you'll be able to count them on one hand.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nick,

    You got it. Outsource to Latin American. We need to make good friends with our immediate neighbors. This does not mean open borders as they are, but is does mean serious and respectful dialogue with all countries from Mexico on down to the tip of Argentine/Chile.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: Pardon my cynicism but I see one of your cited articles said that Putin had proposed Russian membership in Nato to a probably otherwise occupied Clinton. My take? Slick Willy had no doubt sampled the voluptary offerings of Moscow during his "student" sojourne in Moscow in them Vietnam days. He probably found them beneath him (so to speak),certainly not equalto the no'count gals of his preference, yes? So, why fly there? "So, ehh no Vlad! Ah mean, ahm PResident now and you know what that means, dontcha Vlad?"

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, Ray, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jack, on the contrary, I would think the charms of Russian babes would merit putting the country on the fast track to NATO membership! You may be right, though, that Soviet babushkas didn't knock Slick Willy's socks off in the early 70s. What's the old joke? "Russian women are like buses."

    Rod, don't mind ole Ray. If he insults you, it just means he's enjoying the verbal/ideological jousting!

    ReplyDelete