Recently, I started re-watching the excellent Robert McNamara documentary TheFog of War. It behoves us to look at such reflections on history- especially now at our moment of greatest crisis- because what many fail to realise was the successful conclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis had almost nothing to with any reliance on the illusory safety which can come from relying upon the rational self-interest of parties in a crisis of potential escalatory conflict and everything to do with pure, blind, improbable luck. What few realised at the time was that at the time of the Crisis, the Russians had already installed a considerable arsenal of nuclear weapons in Cuba and Castro urged Khrushchev to use these weapons, with 90 million Americans the first casualties in what was sure to become an all-consuming nuclear conflagration which wiped out all but small pockets of humanity reduced to near stone age subsistence.
This is the answer to those who would complain of a weakening of American resolve in the decades leading up to the current crisis- what’s done is done, and there is no use crying over spilt milk. Worse, we should not, by means of compensation for our previous lack of resolve, try to overcompensate now- long after the window for showing resolve has passed- and make pointless escalatory moves on the world stage, which accomplish little to help the Ukrainians and only serve to salve our consciences, with pointlessly bellicose virtue-signalling.
The die is cast. It should be noted that last Monday both sides have agreed in principle to three core conditions for a negotiated settlement. First, the legal recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Second, the ‘independence’ of the Donbas region from Ukraine. Third, the guarantee by Ukraine that they will not seek NATO membership. And it should noted that this should be major news, broadcast throughout the world’s media as cause for guarded optimism- with the hope that many lives, Ukrainians and Russian soldiers lives alike, might yet be saved. Instead, American cable news in particular choose to focus instead upon pointless vacillation over the alarming and most definitively escalatory step of imposing a No Fly zone and finding yet more ways to punish Russia with ever more sanctions, the latter of which at least has the virtue of only infinitesimally ratchetting up the chances of World War III.
And this is not the defeated air of a West in decline. Ukrainians have every right to boast of their noble and courageous defence of their homeland, and what small help we have been able to offer in weapons furnished to aid in this cause have doubtless proven decisive in turning what had originally been planned as a three day blitzkrieg into a quagmire of mounting costs, casualties and humiliations for the Russian military as their inept lack of adequate logistical planning is exposed for all the world to see.
But to borrow a now disproven theory from the world of physics, there is no such thing as a ‘steady state’ for any movement or process in the temporal world of politics, diplomacy and economics- the three aides-de-camp who accompany War on its journey of the continuation of politics ‘by other means’. Especially when emotions are charged, a move which might at first appear rational in its desire to bring an offending party to the negotiating table, can acquire a life of its own, growing into something never initially contemplated by its initiators, as ill-informed media pundits weigh-in and the perverse incentives of a media market which presents an oversimplified view of the situation- clear in its moral clarity, but all too lacking in nuance and knowledge- and politicians realise that all the popularity and accolades lie in adopting a superficially tougher, yet far more dangerous stance.
And the answer to those who would bemoan Western weakness in the decades leading up to the current conflict is that Western toughness was never the answer to the Russian question. The diagnosis is correct, but the medicine is lacking in its ability to do anything other than treat symptoms rather than cure the disease. The answer to the Russian quandary was to invite them into NATO when the urge for cooperation and mutual enrichment was at its zenith. It would have done much to salve the Russian dignity over what was their perceived loss of status on the world stage.
They may have acknowledged the need to end the Soviet system, but losing the status of one of the world’s two superpowers was surely a bitter pill to swallow, and given that the Soviet threat was over, and the diplomatic talk which followed was all of peace, cooperation and trade, why the need for the sudden inclusion of so many former Warsaw Pact countries to suddenly join NATO? To a paranoid Russian mindset, especially amongst the internal political powerhouse of the Russian military, such an action must have demonstrated an implicit lack of trust towards the Russian people, just as exiting the ABM treaty must have seemed like an attempt to disrupt the fragile balance of nuclear deterrence, in the same way that once secret first-strike nuclear Jupiter missiles in Turkey must have once seemed a needless provocation.
When you fear a man might become your enemy through truculence and mutual suspicion the best course is to make him your ally and set him to work on your enterprise, rather than stoke suspicion by demonstrating quite clearly your lack of trust and fears over potential future belligerence. Not only would the move of inviting Russia into NATO earned trust, but it would been a great salve to wounded Russian dignity over their perceived decline in importance in the world.
Creating alliances against a perceived potential future Russian threat- no matter how rational the concern- in many ways became a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereas making Russia an acknowledged senior partner and guarantor in securing the future peace and security of others could have only earned trust and cemented mutual cooperation, diminishing future dreams of Empire with the promise of becoming a force for good in the world, well-liked and respected. For the good man is like Narcissus staring into the pool of water- he cannot bear to parted from the image of himself as a good and noble man. If you want to win a future war tell your enemy you trust him to be a good man and constrain him with his self-belief. It costs nothing to a well-armed state girded for all eventualities and might save countless lives with little more than sentiment.
Still, hindsight is 2020- and we should spend less time dwelling on the road not travelled- wary of the urge to overcompensate out of guilt- and more time carefully considering the best exit strategy from our current crisis- drawing a roadmap to peace with which all parties, all begrudgingly, might live. Nobody is going to come out of this one covered in glory, or even in a position superior to how they began the game. As a young man, Churchill imagined that war was both glorious and squalid. By the end of his life he was still convinced of the latter. Our only hope of salvaging a modicum of moral salvation is to recognise that however much our pride might bristle, we must end this squalid loss of life as soon as possible.
Mar 18, 2022·edited Mar 18, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen
Geary: Should Israel invite Hamas into a mutual defense treaty? Should Saudi Arabia invite Iran? You are falling into the same trap that those on the left do "if only we are nice to someone they will be nice to us and we can all sit by the campfire and sing Kum By Ya." That has been the guiding force behind Obama and now Biden's policy in the Middle East. In fact Biden has added Venezuela into the list of nations we need to be nice to.
The world does not work that way. Neville Chamberlain tried being nice to Hitler. We all saw how that turned out. The reality is that being nice usually does not work. In fact being nice often conveys weakness. Carter's feckless handling of the Iran hostage crisis was an example of this. You deter through strength and the willingness to use it.
Putin respects strength. The way to have avoided this war would have been to arm Ukraine to the teeth before hostilities started and to have cut off oil imports when Crimea was annexed. The tepid response by the west to the Crimean annexation, the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, approval of Nordstream II, and Biden's kowtowing to Iran all convinced Putin that he could invade Ukraine with little cost.
However, we never got around to asking the Ukrainians how they felt about the situation, now did we. We never asked them if they wanted to live under a dictator. We never asked them if they felt it was better to die than to live in chains. After all, the west was getting cheap O&G from Russia so who cares about them. Turns out they had a different opinion than you. Yes they are dying. That happens in war. But sometimes a cause is greater than one's life. Some things are worth dying for.
Putin was a thug before he invaded Ukraine and he is still a thug. Inviting a thug into NATO is about as ridiculous as it gets. Do you even understand what you are saying? Inviting Putin into NATO would require NATO to have helped him invade Georgia and Chechnya and to help him bomb Syria into oblivion. British and American troops would now be fighting Ukraine! Is fighting for Russia in Syria worth your life? Is fighting to ensure Russian hegemony over Georgia worth the lives of young British men and women? Think carefully before you answer.
And while you are at it. Read one of the many excellent biographies on Churchill. Or if you have a lot of time, read Churchill's own works. Churchill was many things but he was never a pacifist. He wanted to land with the troops at Normandy on the first day of the invasion and it took a great effort by Eisenhower to convince him not to. Churchill always thought war was necessary. From the Boer War, in which he stated " Nothing in Life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result" through the beginning of Stalin's domination of eastern Europe. Churchill was the first to recognize the threat that Stalin posed and in 1954 Churchill stated in regard to the Cold War.
“We have surmounted all the perils and endured all the agonies of the past. We shall provide against and thus prevail over the dangers and problems of the future, withhold no sacrifice, grudge no toil, seek no sordid gain, fear no foe. All will be well. We have, I believe, within us the life-strength and guiding light by which the tormented world around us may find the harbour of safety, after a storm-beaten voyage.”
Does that sound like a pacifist to you? You do Churchill a great disservice by comparing him to the wimps that lead many of our western nations today
You are correct, inviting Russia to join NATO would have prevented this debacle. But there is also the dark and dubious business concerning the Biden family's strange connections to Ukraine. A big story about a 'lost laptop' and other mysterious goings on was simply denied by the increasingly criminal MM. We simply do not know the truth, and as Churchill (?) said, the first casualty of war is the Truth. We didn't even wait for it, we were telling big lies about Ukraine long before this invasion. And continue to do so.
Mar 18, 2022·edited Mar 18, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen
A very nice essay with a lot of well made points. The suggestion that Russia became a NATO member is very interesting and certainly counter-intuitive. I am not sure how it would have worked given Russia's imperialist nature.
What I would have liked to have seen in this article though is some discussion of why NATO expanded which acknowledges the fears of the ex-Warsaw Pact nations about Russia. The latter had direct experience of Russian behaviour and Russian trustworthiness and chose the security of NATO. Their experiences and perceptions are just as valid as the Russians. I suspect that what is missing is genuine Russian contrition and self-analysis and given this omission can't say I'm surprised that Russia ended up where it did. Talleyrand's comment about the Bourbons is equally applicable here.
Should Israel form a defense treaty with Hamas? Should Saudi Arabia form one with Iran? Think about what you are actually saying. If Russia was a member of NATO and invoked “Article Five”, we would be obliged to enter the war against Ukraine - ON THE SIDE OF RUSSIA. Are you really OK with that? Is fighting for Russia against Ukrainians worth your life. Is it worth the lives of young British or American men and women? And then there have been Russia’s other adventures, like fighting for the Assad regime in Syria or the brutal suppression of Georgia and Chechnya. Should we have committed British and American troops to Russia to fight those splendid little wars? You fall into the same trap that those on the left do. You think that if we would only be nice to to Russia than they would be come a Jeffersonian democracy because they really want to be just like us. We can all sit by the campfire and sing Kum by Ya together. We actually tried that for many years. Many companies did a lot of business with Russia. Europe became dependent on them for their energy supplies. It didn’t work.
You need to study your British history. Neville Chamberlain tried being nice to Hitler. It did not work out so well. What dictators respect is strength. The way to have avoided this war would have been to quietly arm Ukraine to the teeth before hostilities started and to have cut off Russian oil imports when Crimea was annexed. Putin invaded because he thought he could get away with it. He though the west was too weak and decadent to do anything about it and he would easily overwhelm the Ukrainians. He was right about the west. After the Crimean invasion, Obama sent blankets. Germany pushed for and got Nordstream II open. Putin watched Biden’s disastrous pull-out from Afghanistan and his kowtowing to Iran. Do you really think that it was a coincidence that Putin waited to invade until Trump was out of office?
But Putin was wrong about Ukraine. Corporate media is not stoking the Ukraine resistance, the Ukrainians are. In case you have not noticed. They are the ones fighting. Ukraine has shown the west what it should be. Ukraine has shown us that democratic values are worth fighting for. In your world does Ukraine get any say about their future. Are they simply puppets of the U.S. who don’t know what is really good for them? Someone like you should decide for them. Right?? Is it not OK that Ukraine fights for the same freedom that your grandfather and my father fought for? Or should they just condemn themselves to foreign domination because...War is bad.
War is bad. People die. But there are some things that are worth more than yours or my life. There are some things that are worth fighting for. For example, you are writing this column in English, not German and my parents were not executed in a concentration camp. Ukraine does not need YOUR permission to fight for their freedom. But it would be nice if they had your support.
While you are reading about your own history, perhaps you should read one of the many fine biographies of Winston Churchill. Or better yet, read some of Churchill’s own writings. Churchill was many things, but he was never a pacifist. During the Boer War he proclaimed: Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result. During World War II, he wanted to go ashore at Normandy on the first day of the invasion. It took several hours for Eisenhower to persuade him that that would be a bad idea. Churchill was the first to see the threat the Stalin posed with his domination of eastern Europe He coined the term “Iron Curtain” and in 1954 (later in his life) he stated:
“We have surmounted all the perils and endured all the agonies of the past. We shall provide against and thus prevail over the dangers and problems of the future, withhold no sacrifice, grudge no toil, seek no sordid gain, fear no foe. All will be well. We have, I believe, within us the life-strength and guiding light by which the tormented world around us may find the harbour of safety, after a storm-beaten voyage.”
Does that sound like something a pacifist would say? There was no person more important in setting the course of the western world through and after World War II than Winston Churchill. You dishonor his memory when you intimate that he would ever back down from or compromise with evil.
"You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.” Churchill to Neville Chamberlain.
We have in Britain witnessed the most active anti-Russian campaign of propaganda. The news is filled absolutely with bias and prejudice. The promotion is to justify asset stripping of Russians and full focus is promoted in this regard. The narrative is extreme. There is no nuance. There is no counter-narrative. The Russian perspective is censored heavily.
I’m not condoning the invasion. I am deeply anti-war. I want the Minsk agreement and the Russian side of the argument aired and debated squarely. I’ve always believed that deep wounds take many generations to heal, but they also always leave scars. Russia has 14 land borders, there are historical prejudices close to all these borders in varying degrees and Russia as the leading component of the USSR has a geopolitical interest in occupying or at least controlling in part these vulnerabilities. I equally understand the position of those on the other side of such borders. That is the realism of this situation. I detach my ideological biases from this and concentrate on the pragmatism of the situation.
I mostly retreat from the consequences of non- peaceful cooperation because they are obvious tit-for-tats that occur when human reactionary process takes over. I’m reminded of two families feuding. Families that have inter-marriages and torn loyalties. A fine line between loves and hatreds, a hotbed of multi-complex cause and effects that devolve such a coexistence when the stones start being thrown. -We thus concentrate on the later effects of primary errors.
Here in the west our emotional response is one of “frustrational injustice” we idealise the niceties of free-loving societies in full focus. We imagine ourselves being invaded, we picture ourselves as these oppressed innocents, their fight becomes ours. We are correct to feel this, but we are doing it from a disinformed, prejudiced, censored outlook. There are agreements that recognise what will happen in Ukraine if this balance is interrupted.
This understanding of the inter-relationship between Ukrainians and Russians both within Ukraine and from a Russian security POV has been omitted from disclosure. Left without nuance; with glaring omissions and with maximum attempt to vilify one side we collectivise with furious wrath against the evil Russian. An enemy we’ve cultivated since the end of WW2.
It was never going to be an easy ride getting people to reassess the Russian narrative, we had so many inbuilt prejudices that build and infuse as we assess with prejudice any perceived enemy. But the soviet era and its ideology was built deep into the western psyche. Even our movies paint the most dangerous nemesis as a Russian, endorsed especially by KGB association. We could of exerted such deep mistrust of our other global competitors, especially the Chinese, but we psychologically programmed benignly. The Russians are cemented in history, they are paranoid and pragmatic, extremely sensitive to a vulnerability to exploitation if they let down their guard. They did do this and as long as there was a Yeltsin in charge of Russia then it could be that ideal. It could be included in Europe. Russia could be our vassal state, our commodity supplier, aiding the wests ability to buy cheaply and exist comparatively wealthy, feeding off the lucrative and punitive imbalance.
The western neoconservatives and neoliberals had power-dominated hegemony always at the forefront of their minds. They seek to weaken nations and push for ever-increasing demands. Their only Achilles heal being that they see that if one controls the supply of money, that they have absolute control and dominance. Except that strong leaders with similar outlooks can find quiet ways to gain leverage in ways others don’t see threatening.
Putin is a nationalist, he quite possibly does want to reunite the soviets, or at least control the satellites. This would be his ideal status quo, just like the Chinese geopolitically would idealise Taiwan as part of their domain. So the Chinese exploited the weakness in manufacturing costs to create vast wealth and then place this wealth in areas best set to advantage China. Russia did it by its own quiet pragmatism. For currency is power, but it depends on vital commodities. Food and energy are the real components of power, especially independent power. So Russia exported, not benignly. It become that necessary and vital and indispensable component that Europe needed.
Having listened to Putin for 20 years I could make two very opposite opinions of him. One that his aim is principally motivated to control and subjugate the west and the other to be one of unification, cooperation and coexistence. I can’t know what goes on in another’s mind, but I can listen to his Q and A’s, his speeches, his appeals to the west, his patience, his handling of the Taliban, Syria, Libya. I can watch as he was courted by China and only reluctantly and quite recently went fully on board with this alliance. I can recall for 8 years now how he has requested that the neocons stop placing activists, mercenaries, CIA operatives amongst Ukrainian insurgents and militias within Ukraine and who were amassing ever increasing forces, weaponised with more and more deadly weapons and closing in on Russian ethnic areas.
My opinion based not on what may go on in Putin’s mind, but by his actions, including a soft war approach to Ukraine and not the hard war being propagandised in the west is that when the wall came down, when the old ideology was killed, that Putin did two things simultaneously. He protected Russian interests and retained a paranoia that certain elements wished to both overthrow him and subjugate Russia, but with an attitude of attempting to change this way of thinking so that Russia could live side by side with the rest of Europe as its ally. This is like you wanting to fight me, but I wishing to be your friend. It doesn’t mean that I won’t fight if pushed to my wits end. It means I can try and really try. It doesn’t mean with the best of effort that I shall succeed. :slightly_smiling_face:
Everything is found in the framing, perspective. Within transparency. When we are censored, omitted from truths, then we can not assess situations critically. There are no winners in the Ukraine fight. The globalists underestimated Putin and they’re doubling down. It may be the end of globalisation, but its gonna get so expensive that Europe will end up being a backwater. It will become like South America without the sunshine.
It’s not an original thought, but I can’t shake the sense that western policy makers were determined to reinvigorate Russia as a threat, following the collapse of the USSR. They knew that a permanent state of war keeps people distracted from problems at home. So expanding NATO eastwards and sponsoring anti-Russian border states made sense and now they have what they want again.
It may not be overtly calculated, but a natural tendency when your economies require enormous military capacity.
Hi Geary, sorry i am late, but i think you are missing two very small points.
Should Russia be invited to the NATO, what excuse we could have to develop new weapons, to sell them and get them used?, the more big countries in the NATO the less options to make business, yes, i am a bad one that is looking to the business side, not the safety & security provided by the NATO.
Should Russia be evolving alone with a proud Russian nationalist, industrializing & digitalizing, becoming a regional economic power house (like Brazil) with its population its resources. Would that be OK or we would prefer to drain Russian, create a crisis force a regime change and then be able to exploit the resources of Russia by ourselves, instead of leaving them to the Russians (be them people, oligarchs, Putin or whoever).
Finally, for a number of months we will have a show of an energy crisis with high prices (that would remain), qui prodest? (maybe Russia, and maybe somebody on the other side of the sea?).
I am against the invasion, i am against the war, I do not want any death or provocation but collaboration and peace, I am not in favour of Putin, far away from that. My point is
Putin has been chief for 20 years, in that time, i would not describe him as "crazy, mad, stupid, impulsive", many times he could be described as reflective, prepared, well advised, thoughtful. So why he would have decided to invade Ukraine, how come the situation there was “so desperate that he decided that”?, is it a problem with Ukraine? Is it a problem internally at Russia?
What is the explanation or views of Putin regarding it “action in Ukraine”? do we have it?, I mean the actual and real, not a fabricated story from the western media. If Putin is the “bogey man” that is being described by the media today then it should not be a problem to give him a voice, he would discredit himself straight away, and the cause of Ukraine would gain much more supporters overnight, why don’t we give him a microphone??
Sorry, but you have totally lost relevance here. Let's look at an analogy: should Europe have invited Hitler into the fold? Maybe even invite him t a potluck? After, his tiny little problem with "the Jews" was not our concern. Putin is a megalomaniac who wants to recreate the Russian Empire. He wants to be the Czar and Ukraine, and all the people he is murdering are just paving stones along the way. To dress this up as some sort of corporate media conspiracy or connection to Biden is pure horse shit. I suggest you watch this excellent doc.https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/video-putin-war-ukraine-documentary/
Seems like just last night I heard that Ukraine claimed it has agreed to nothing to end the unjustified attack and then just listed demands that Russia stop taking over and leave them alone, hardly an offer.
I must take issue with your headline. I’m not a big fan of “the mainstream media” but they can’t always be the bogeyman at fault for everything. If anything, they’re fairly irrelevant to this conflict. The no-fly-zone thing was dumb, but I’ve seen more people using this as an example of how out of touch the MSM is than I have seen actual serious people seriously propose a no fly zone. That said, I don’t watch cable news.
I like that you think outside the box but I highly doubt including Russia in NATO would have solved this conflict. Appealing to their better nature and sense of importance sounds realist but it’s not realistic. Why didn’t giving them a veto on the Security Council do what you’re suggesting?
I’d also point out that the three terms you suggest are all wins for Russia. Ukraine being in NATO - checks notes - wasn’t on the table prior to this conflict. It’s a fake talking point. Id also point out that the decision of many countries in Eastern Europe to join NATO looks like a brilliant move in retrospect. There’s a reason Putin is invading Ukraine and not Latvia. Finally, suggesting that NATO expansion made Putin nervous is a little tendentious. But (and I don’t think you do seriously think this) suggesting that NATO expansion forced his hand and therefore this whole thing is the fault of the US is - let me put it lightly - bull****. Every country that joined NATO did so out of their own free will/sovereignty. They choose NATO. Gee I wonder why? Maybe because they had a nuclear-armed nutcase on their border.
Good point on the Cuban missile crisis though. We should tread lightly here and take heed McNamara’s warning.
I don’t know what i don’t know about politics, but do you think they would join? I remember a saying from the hippie days “ if you cant beat em, join em” but that assumes there’s a desire for benevolence and unity, aren’t Russia and China more expansionist by Nature? Borg like. Or is that my conditioning being exposed? Ive thought of both a as societies with no middle class. Just losers and very big winners. The winners having ties to the ruling party. I dont see any move to democracy would be welcome.
NOTE: Apologies to anyone who has been experiencing difficulties with their comments not appearing on this thread. I find that if you click on the bubble icon (next to the like button) at the top of the page, it provides a fuller listing of all the comments on the thread.
Geary: Should Israel invite Hamas into a mutual defense treaty? Should Saudi Arabia invite Iran? You are falling into the same trap that those on the left do "if only we are nice to someone they will be nice to us and we can all sit by the campfire and sing Kum By Ya." That has been the guiding force behind Obama and now Biden's policy in the Middle East. In fact Biden has added Venezuela into the list of nations we need to be nice to.
The world does not work that way. Neville Chamberlain tried being nice to Hitler. We all saw how that turned out. The reality is that being nice usually does not work. In fact being nice often conveys weakness. Carter's feckless handling of the Iran hostage crisis was an example of this. You deter through strength and the willingness to use it.
Putin respects strength. The way to have avoided this war would have been to arm Ukraine to the teeth before hostilities started and to have cut off oil imports when Crimea was annexed. The tepid response by the west to the Crimean annexation, the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, approval of Nordstream II, and Biden's kowtowing to Iran all convinced Putin that he could invade Ukraine with little cost.
However, we never got around to asking the Ukrainians how they felt about the situation, now did we. We never asked them if they wanted to live under a dictator. We never asked them if they felt it was better to die than to live in chains. After all, the west was getting cheap O&G from Russia so who cares about them. Turns out they had a different opinion than you. Yes they are dying. That happens in war. But sometimes a cause is greater than one's life. Some things are worth dying for.
Putin was a thug before he invaded Ukraine and he is still a thug. Inviting a thug into NATO is about as ridiculous as it gets. Do you even understand what you are saying? Inviting Putin into NATO would require NATO to have helped him invade Georgia and Chechnya and to help him bomb Syria into oblivion. British and American troops would now be fighting Ukraine! Is fighting for Russia in Syria worth your life? Is fighting to ensure Russian hegemony over Georgia worth the lives of young British men and women? Think carefully before you answer.
And while you are at it. Read one of the many excellent biographies on Churchill. Or if you have a lot of time, read Churchill's own works. Churchill was many things but he was never a pacifist. He wanted to land with the troops at Normandy on the first day of the invasion and it took a great effort by Eisenhower to convince him not to. Churchill always thought war was necessary. From the Boer War, in which he stated " Nothing in Life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result" through the beginning of Stalin's domination of eastern Europe. Churchill was the first to recognize the threat that Stalin posed and in 1954 Churchill stated in regard to the Cold War.
“We have surmounted all the perils and endured all the agonies of the past. We shall provide against and thus prevail over the dangers and problems of the future, withhold no sacrifice, grudge no toil, seek no sordid gain, fear no foe. All will be well. We have, I believe, within us the life-strength and guiding light by which the tormented world around us may find the harbour of safety, after a storm-beaten voyage.”
Does that sound like a pacifist to you? You do Churchill a great disservice by comparing him to the wimps that lead many of our western nations today
You are correct, inviting Russia to join NATO would have prevented this debacle. But there is also the dark and dubious business concerning the Biden family's strange connections to Ukraine. A big story about a 'lost laptop' and other mysterious goings on was simply denied by the increasingly criminal MM. We simply do not know the truth, and as Churchill (?) said, the first casualty of war is the Truth. We didn't even wait for it, we were telling big lies about Ukraine long before this invasion. And continue to do so.
A very nice essay with a lot of well made points. The suggestion that Russia became a NATO member is very interesting and certainly counter-intuitive. I am not sure how it would have worked given Russia's imperialist nature.
What I would have liked to have seen in this article though is some discussion of why NATO expanded which acknowledges the fears of the ex-Warsaw Pact nations about Russia. The latter had direct experience of Russian behaviour and Russian trustworthiness and chose the security of NATO. Their experiences and perceptions are just as valid as the Russians. I suspect that what is missing is genuine Russian contrition and self-analysis and given this omission can't say I'm surprised that Russia ended up where it did. Talleyrand's comment about the Bourbons is equally applicable here.
Should Israel form a defense treaty with Hamas? Should Saudi Arabia form one with Iran? Think about what you are actually saying. If Russia was a member of NATO and invoked “Article Five”, we would be obliged to enter the war against Ukraine - ON THE SIDE OF RUSSIA. Are you really OK with that? Is fighting for Russia against Ukrainians worth your life. Is it worth the lives of young British or American men and women? And then there have been Russia’s other adventures, like fighting for the Assad regime in Syria or the brutal suppression of Georgia and Chechnya. Should we have committed British and American troops to Russia to fight those splendid little wars? You fall into the same trap that those on the left do. You think that if we would only be nice to to Russia than they would be come a Jeffersonian democracy because they really want to be just like us. We can all sit by the campfire and sing Kum by Ya together. We actually tried that for many years. Many companies did a lot of business with Russia. Europe became dependent on them for their energy supplies. It didn’t work.
You need to study your British history. Neville Chamberlain tried being nice to Hitler. It did not work out so well. What dictators respect is strength. The way to have avoided this war would have been to quietly arm Ukraine to the teeth before hostilities started and to have cut off Russian oil imports when Crimea was annexed. Putin invaded because he thought he could get away with it. He though the west was too weak and decadent to do anything about it and he would easily overwhelm the Ukrainians. He was right about the west. After the Crimean invasion, Obama sent blankets. Germany pushed for and got Nordstream II open. Putin watched Biden’s disastrous pull-out from Afghanistan and his kowtowing to Iran. Do you really think that it was a coincidence that Putin waited to invade until Trump was out of office?
But Putin was wrong about Ukraine. Corporate media is not stoking the Ukraine resistance, the Ukrainians are. In case you have not noticed. They are the ones fighting. Ukraine has shown the west what it should be. Ukraine has shown us that democratic values are worth fighting for. In your world does Ukraine get any say about their future. Are they simply puppets of the U.S. who don’t know what is really good for them? Someone like you should decide for them. Right?? Is it not OK that Ukraine fights for the same freedom that your grandfather and my father fought for? Or should they just condemn themselves to foreign domination because...War is bad.
War is bad. People die. But there are some things that are worth more than yours or my life. There are some things that are worth fighting for. For example, you are writing this column in English, not German and my parents were not executed in a concentration camp. Ukraine does not need YOUR permission to fight for their freedom. But it would be nice if they had your support.
While you are reading about your own history, perhaps you should read one of the many fine biographies of Winston Churchill. Or better yet, read some of Churchill’s own writings. Churchill was many things, but he was never a pacifist. During the Boer War he proclaimed: Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result. During World War II, he wanted to go ashore at Normandy on the first day of the invasion. It took several hours for Eisenhower to persuade him that that would be a bad idea. Churchill was the first to see the threat the Stalin posed with his domination of eastern Europe He coined the term “Iron Curtain” and in 1954 (later in his life) he stated:
“We have surmounted all the perils and endured all the agonies of the past. We shall provide against and thus prevail over the dangers and problems of the future, withhold no sacrifice, grudge no toil, seek no sordid gain, fear no foe. All will be well. We have, I believe, within us the life-strength and guiding light by which the tormented world around us may find the harbour of safety, after a storm-beaten voyage.”
Does that sound like something a pacifist would say? There was no person more important in setting the course of the western world through and after World War II than Winston Churchill. You dishonor his memory when you intimate that he would ever back down from or compromise with evil.
"You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.” Churchill to Neville Chamberlain.
We have in Britain witnessed the most active anti-Russian campaign of propaganda. The news is filled absolutely with bias and prejudice. The promotion is to justify asset stripping of Russians and full focus is promoted in this regard. The narrative is extreme. There is no nuance. There is no counter-narrative. The Russian perspective is censored heavily.
I’m not condoning the invasion. I am deeply anti-war. I want the Minsk agreement and the Russian side of the argument aired and debated squarely. I’ve always believed that deep wounds take many generations to heal, but they also always leave scars. Russia has 14 land borders, there are historical prejudices close to all these borders in varying degrees and Russia as the leading component of the USSR has a geopolitical interest in occupying or at least controlling in part these vulnerabilities. I equally understand the position of those on the other side of such borders. That is the realism of this situation. I detach my ideological biases from this and concentrate on the pragmatism of the situation.
I mostly retreat from the consequences of non- peaceful cooperation because they are obvious tit-for-tats that occur when human reactionary process takes over. I’m reminded of two families feuding. Families that have inter-marriages and torn loyalties. A fine line between loves and hatreds, a hotbed of multi-complex cause and effects that devolve such a coexistence when the stones start being thrown. -We thus concentrate on the later effects of primary errors.
Here in the west our emotional response is one of “frustrational injustice” we idealise the niceties of free-loving societies in full focus. We imagine ourselves being invaded, we picture ourselves as these oppressed innocents, their fight becomes ours. We are correct to feel this, but we are doing it from a disinformed, prejudiced, censored outlook. There are agreements that recognise what will happen in Ukraine if this balance is interrupted.
This understanding of the inter-relationship between Ukrainians and Russians both within Ukraine and from a Russian security POV has been omitted from disclosure. Left without nuance; with glaring omissions and with maximum attempt to vilify one side we collectivise with furious wrath against the evil Russian. An enemy we’ve cultivated since the end of WW2.
It was never going to be an easy ride getting people to reassess the Russian narrative, we had so many inbuilt prejudices that build and infuse as we assess with prejudice any perceived enemy. But the soviet era and its ideology was built deep into the western psyche. Even our movies paint the most dangerous nemesis as a Russian, endorsed especially by KGB association. We could of exerted such deep mistrust of our other global competitors, especially the Chinese, but we psychologically programmed benignly. The Russians are cemented in history, they are paranoid and pragmatic, extremely sensitive to a vulnerability to exploitation if they let down their guard. They did do this and as long as there was a Yeltsin in charge of Russia then it could be that ideal. It could be included in Europe. Russia could be our vassal state, our commodity supplier, aiding the wests ability to buy cheaply and exist comparatively wealthy, feeding off the lucrative and punitive imbalance.
The western neoconservatives and neoliberals had power-dominated hegemony always at the forefront of their minds. They seek to weaken nations and push for ever-increasing demands. Their only Achilles heal being that they see that if one controls the supply of money, that they have absolute control and dominance. Except that strong leaders with similar outlooks can find quiet ways to gain leverage in ways others don’t see threatening.
Putin is a nationalist, he quite possibly does want to reunite the soviets, or at least control the satellites. This would be his ideal status quo, just like the Chinese geopolitically would idealise Taiwan as part of their domain. So the Chinese exploited the weakness in manufacturing costs to create vast wealth and then place this wealth in areas best set to advantage China. Russia did it by its own quiet pragmatism. For currency is power, but it depends on vital commodities. Food and energy are the real components of power, especially independent power. So Russia exported, not benignly. It become that necessary and vital and indispensable component that Europe needed.
Having listened to Putin for 20 years I could make two very opposite opinions of him. One that his aim is principally motivated to control and subjugate the west and the other to be one of unification, cooperation and coexistence. I can’t know what goes on in another’s mind, but I can listen to his Q and A’s, his speeches, his appeals to the west, his patience, his handling of the Taliban, Syria, Libya. I can watch as he was courted by China and only reluctantly and quite recently went fully on board with this alliance. I can recall for 8 years now how he has requested that the neocons stop placing activists, mercenaries, CIA operatives amongst Ukrainian insurgents and militias within Ukraine and who were amassing ever increasing forces, weaponised with more and more deadly weapons and closing in on Russian ethnic areas.
My opinion based not on what may go on in Putin’s mind, but by his actions, including a soft war approach to Ukraine and not the hard war being propagandised in the west is that when the wall came down, when the old ideology was killed, that Putin did two things simultaneously. He protected Russian interests and retained a paranoia that certain elements wished to both overthrow him and subjugate Russia, but with an attitude of attempting to change this way of thinking so that Russia could live side by side with the rest of Europe as its ally. This is like you wanting to fight me, but I wishing to be your friend. It doesn’t mean that I won’t fight if pushed to my wits end. It means I can try and really try. It doesn’t mean with the best of effort that I shall succeed. :slightly_smiling_face:
Everything is found in the framing, perspective. Within transparency. When we are censored, omitted from truths, then we can not assess situations critically. There are no winners in the Ukraine fight. The globalists underestimated Putin and they’re doubling down. It may be the end of globalisation, but its gonna get so expensive that Europe will end up being a backwater. It will become like South America without the sunshine.
It’s not an original thought, but I can’t shake the sense that western policy makers were determined to reinvigorate Russia as a threat, following the collapse of the USSR. They knew that a permanent state of war keeps people distracted from problems at home. So expanding NATO eastwards and sponsoring anti-Russian border states made sense and now they have what they want again.
It may not be overtly calculated, but a natural tendency when your economies require enormous military capacity.
Hi Geary, sorry i am late, but i think you are missing two very small points.
Should Russia be invited to the NATO, what excuse we could have to develop new weapons, to sell them and get them used?, the more big countries in the NATO the less options to make business, yes, i am a bad one that is looking to the business side, not the safety & security provided by the NATO.
Should Russia be evolving alone with a proud Russian nationalist, industrializing & digitalizing, becoming a regional economic power house (like Brazil) with its population its resources. Would that be OK or we would prefer to drain Russian, create a crisis force a regime change and then be able to exploit the resources of Russia by ourselves, instead of leaving them to the Russians (be them people, oligarchs, Putin or whoever).
Finally, for a number of months we will have a show of an energy crisis with high prices (that would remain), qui prodest? (maybe Russia, and maybe somebody on the other side of the sea?).
I am against the invasion, i am against the war, I do not want any death or provocation but collaboration and peace, I am not in favour of Putin, far away from that. My point is
Putin has been chief for 20 years, in that time, i would not describe him as "crazy, mad, stupid, impulsive", many times he could be described as reflective, prepared, well advised, thoughtful. So why he would have decided to invade Ukraine, how come the situation there was “so desperate that he decided that”?, is it a problem with Ukraine? Is it a problem internally at Russia?
What is the explanation or views of Putin regarding it “action in Ukraine”? do we have it?, I mean the actual and real, not a fabricated story from the western media. If Putin is the “bogey man” that is being described by the media today then it should not be a problem to give him a voice, he would discredit himself straight away, and the cause of Ukraine would gain much more supporters overnight, why don’t we give him a microphone??
Excellent analysis of the present Ukrainian situation. See my blog which I wrote in January. https://agingcapriciously.com/2022/01/29/seeing-it-from-russias-point-of-view/
Another great read: https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/things-worth-fighting-for?s=r
Sorry, but you have totally lost relevance here. Let's look at an analogy: should Europe have invited Hitler into the fold? Maybe even invite him t a potluck? After, his tiny little problem with "the Jews" was not our concern. Putin is a megalomaniac who wants to recreate the Russian Empire. He wants to be the Czar and Ukraine, and all the people he is murdering are just paving stones along the way. To dress this up as some sort of corporate media conspiracy or connection to Biden is pure horse shit. I suggest you watch this excellent doc.https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/video-putin-war-ukraine-documentary/
Seems like just last night I heard that Ukraine claimed it has agreed to nothing to end the unjustified attack and then just listed demands that Russia stop taking over and leave them alone, hardly an offer.
I must take issue with your headline. I’m not a big fan of “the mainstream media” but they can’t always be the bogeyman at fault for everything. If anything, they’re fairly irrelevant to this conflict. The no-fly-zone thing was dumb, but I’ve seen more people using this as an example of how out of touch the MSM is than I have seen actual serious people seriously propose a no fly zone. That said, I don’t watch cable news.
I like that you think outside the box but I highly doubt including Russia in NATO would have solved this conflict. Appealing to their better nature and sense of importance sounds realist but it’s not realistic. Why didn’t giving them a veto on the Security Council do what you’re suggesting?
I’d also point out that the three terms you suggest are all wins for Russia. Ukraine being in NATO - checks notes - wasn’t on the table prior to this conflict. It’s a fake talking point. Id also point out that the decision of many countries in Eastern Europe to join NATO looks like a brilliant move in retrospect. There’s a reason Putin is invading Ukraine and not Latvia. Finally, suggesting that NATO expansion made Putin nervous is a little tendentious. But (and I don’t think you do seriously think this) suggesting that NATO expansion forced his hand and therefore this whole thing is the fault of the US is - let me put it lightly - bull****. Every country that joined NATO did so out of their own free will/sovereignty. They choose NATO. Gee I wonder why? Maybe because they had a nuclear-armed nutcase on their border.
Good point on the Cuban missile crisis though. We should tread lightly here and take heed McNamara’s warning.
I don’t know what i don’t know about politics, but do you think they would join? I remember a saying from the hippie days “ if you cant beat em, join em” but that assumes there’s a desire for benevolence and unity, aren’t Russia and China more expansionist by Nature? Borg like. Or is that my conditioning being exposed? Ive thought of both a as societies with no middle class. Just losers and very big winners. The winners having ties to the ruling party. I dont see any move to democracy would be welcome.
NOTE: Apologies to anyone who has been experiencing difficulties with their comments not appearing on this thread. I find that if you click on the bubble icon (next to the like button) at the top of the page, it provides a fuller listing of all the comments on the thread.