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.
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
'Inviting Putin into NATO would require NATO to have helped him invade Georgia and Chechnya and to help him bomb Syria into oblivion.' You seem to think that the current course of events was inevitable- it wasn't. Andrew Marr has stated that Putin was the smartest man he ever interviewed, and it's an impression which is generally held by most of the heavyweight interviewers from around the world who have tried the same- and is echoed by Oliver Stone. This is not to say that Putin isn't a thug, but it does mean he is not just a thug.
His aim was not originally revanchist in character, although it is safe to say that his principal goal has always been the recovery of Russian strength. Chechnya was always going to happen, it was never considered one of the 15 official Soviet Republics, and was always an integral part of the Russian Federations territory- a good analogy in Western terms would be the Basque separatists in Spain, who- although ethnically distinct from Spain have long been considered a part of Spain as a country. The Chechnyan issue also predates Putin's involvement in the Yeltsin presidency- although one can accurately place the conflict as key to his ascendency.
You're right about Georgia. It shows Putin as an opportunist- he used the conflict between the separatists and the Georgian government as a pretext for a quick knockout blow, which one presumes was the plan with Ukraine. Syria is a separate issue- because even a relative moderate like Boris Nemtsov would have backed Assad in Syria- Syria is the Russian foothold in the region, much as Israel has been long supported by American defence funding for not dissimilar reasons- although the strategic relationship with Turkey is of equally vital importance, just as America's support for the Saudis and their Yemen conflict is predicated on securing global oils supplies.
But the thing you miss is that if Russia had become a NATO member in 1999 along with Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary- or if NATO had moved more precipitously in the early nineties to secure lasting peace, then it is highly likely that Putin would have remained in relative obscurity, and Yeltsin would have chosen Boris Nemtsov as his successor and Russia would have been a very different place.
Putin's goal has always been the restoration of Russia to the status of great power, we see this in his heavy leaning on the works of Gumilev and the much lesser known Ivan Ilyan, although the latter may be a more recent influence on his thinking, whereas he might have actually known Gumilev in St Petersburg. But people don't consider that revanchism may not always have been central to his goal of returning Russia to the status of great power.
People forget that back in 2000 Putin was actively calling for Russian membership in NATO- in 2001 attempting to become the United States’ most important ally, he gave orders to provide any assistance and support to American troops in Afghanistan, he wanted to build a Greater Europe which would stretch from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and Putin not only gave a speech in the Bundestag in German in which he proclaimed Russia’s European choice, but emphatically encouraged the exchange of capital assets for the creation of a common economic space.
It was in the frustration of these goals that he turned to revanchism and the recovery of lost territory. The die was cast with Georgia, but there is every reason to believe that this was an opportunistic move on his part, based upon the inherent instability of Georgia as a country and its problem with separatism, and there is every reason to think, given the tepid Western response, that he may well not have fully realised the ramifications of his actions at the time in geopolitical terms, or how it would inevitably lead to a cooling relations with the West, every bit as far reaching as the gravity well of a black hole capturing light.
His goal may have become the recovery of former Soviet territory, but it didn't start that way at the outset. Over the course of his career it looks from the outside as though he blamed America's role as the global hegemon in frustrating so many of his long-term goals and became obsessed with overthrowing this power, wrongly intuiting that a change in the global order would somehow propel Russia to the top table of global powers.
A part of his problem stems from the WWII derived strategically obsolescent prevailing Russian thinking of the establishment of buffer zones to ensure Russian security. It's outmoded thinking and in particular he doesn't understand just how thoroughly the financial pervades the supply and logistical side of both economics and warfare. It's a strategic blunder which is in the process of making his country financially and military crippled.
It starts with the Napoleonic era. Although the British enjoyed superiority with the navy, they didn't really outfight Napoleon, they outspent him. The use of the innovation of Dutch bonds as a means of supplying the sinews of war was an exploit which made the British financial power infinite, even though they were considerably inferior on the battlefield, especially in the area of developing independent commands capable of pinning the enemy whilst other forces moved to exploit their weak points. This understanding of the role of finance was what allowed Reagan and Thatcher to topple the Soviet Union with hardly a shot being fired.
Putin wanted Russia to be a great power and he wanted to go down in history as the great man who accomplished it- but back in the early 2000s it is highly unlikely that envisaged this process taking place through the conquest or annexation of former Soviet territories. In this his true fault was in appointing loyal apparatchik as his oligarchs- had he selected more talented and able men to secure his vision he might well have achieved superior Russian greatness, given their resource wealth, with little need for territorial ambitions.
Here his history really did doom him- because his KGB past would have convinced him that most capitalists were corrupt and weak men- they may well be in some cases and in some ways, but it is their specialist skills which make them capable of greatness and which he could have harnessed towards Russia's greater good.
I didn't say that Churchill was a pacifist, merely that he had become thoroughly disillusioned with war, even though he still understood the need for its threat and occasional necessity. But like Eisenhower he deeply dreaded the prospect of nuclear war and hoped to avoid it, but not at any cost. He did however state "If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce."
It's worth noting that his three part strategy for the successful conclusion of the Cold War was ultimately prophetic. One of the three main aims was 'Constructive Relations with the Soviet Union'. Although I find it hilarious that he originally envisaged Britain at the head of a United States of Europe, and would have had some choice words about the pre-eminence of the Germans and the French.
'You do Churchill a great disservice by comparing him to the wimps that lead many of our western nations today' I didn't mean to besmirch his memory- our different take on the subject, and particularly Putin's history and the evolution of his aims, meant that we were arguing from different pretexts.
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.
'Talleyrand's comment about the Bourbons is equally applicable here.'- do you mean 'They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing'? It seems particularly apt given the more recent history. I think the fear of the Russians, even as they might once have developed, stems from the recent history of Europe, with many suspecting that the natural national antagonisms between Germany and Russia were sure to re-emerge, with Eastern Europe caught in the middle. Let's not forget that the Great War was predicated upon von Moltke's belief that war with Russia was inevitable, and best pursued at the earliest possibility when relative strengths were most favourable to the German cause.
'I am not sure how it would have worked given Russia's imperialist nature.' Well, the British provide a model as to how the imperial model can be withdrawn successfully, the Thucydides trap averted. A lot of it was about America stroking the wounded vanity of us Brits, making us feel like a partner in the post-war consensus and as though our former status entitled us to a special relationship.
I'm not sure whether it would necessarily work with the Russian though- on reflection, I wonder whether the Russian soul isn't that little bit too pragmatic to fall in love with its own moral rightness, the illusion of being an active participant on the right side of history, but on the other side of the argument one wonders whether the Russian Church might have been enlisted in this cause, as a repudiation of everything Soviet and as agents of the restoration of Russian virtues. I think there was ample opportunity to cast the perverse ideology of communism as the principal root of all Russian sins, with a view to establishing peace and security as a declaration of Russian's true character.
Still, it is dangerous to play with truth and lies, even if one perceives the lie to be in service to a noble cause. I'm not saying that communism wasn't a huge cause of inhumanity inflicted upon both Russians and others- but like most of our current woes around the world I would trace any absence of humane decorum to the failure to let the Enlightenment pursue its not yet fully realised course.
Yes - that is the quote. The Russia issue goes further than recent European history. We can trace worries about the Russian bear back to the 18th Century at least. Polish memory, of course, includes the partitions. Other Eastern European states retain Hapsburg fears and Russian conduct has done nothing to alleviate these. Then there was pan-Slavism, a more significant factor in the start of the Great War than Moltke but in the end only one of several causes.
The end of the British empire is more a case of the British tendency to make a virtue out of a necessity. Suez demonstrated the true nature of the 'Special Relationship'. What is important, I believe, is the psychological losses the fall of an empire brings to those who invest in it. These take a long time to work through and without a reassuring myth (like the British withdrawal from empire) are strong medicine. Whether the West was honest in its attempts to engage Russia as a partner after the collapse of the Soviet Empire is open to debate. Could things have been different? Given the dissonance between enlightenment values and Russian slavicism I am not convinced it was possible and that a situation of armed neutrality was the best that could be hoped for.
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.
Article 5 requires that the country invoking the article be the victim of an armed attack. I own the complete set of the first edition Second World War by Winston Churchill, including the original dustcovers. I inherited it from my grandfather, who was also a pilot in the RAF. My brother and I are the first generation in our family in memory who haven't served in the military.
Victimhood as you well know, is in the eye of the beholder. There has been an active shooting war in Donetsk and Luhansk since 2014. Who started it? Well according to the Russians, it was the Ukrainians. So, they would certainly tell you that they are the victims as they called for Article Five intervention. As far as the wider war- same thing. They are liberating Ukraine from the Nazis who run it. The Ukrainians clearly started shooting first. No need to find Russian propaganda. Read some of the posts in FV if you do not believe me.
You are looking at Putin through rose-colored glasses. If you read my energy article you already know that I am Oilman over there and you already know that I tried to do business with Russia after the fall of the Soviet Empire. So I know that when you make statements like "With the economic failure which the Washington Consensus courted" you are just plain wrong. WE WANTED TO MAKE MONEY!!!!!. You don't make money by courting economic failure. That is how you lose money. The fact that most U.S. companies did lose money was not because they set out to do. It was all about Russian governance. There is a joke in the oil biz that the more oil a country has, the less desirable it is to live in. Russia never recovered from being a communist to country. The people running the country are the same people who ran the Soviet Union and they use the same techniques. When the Soviet Union fell the commissars became the CEO’s who became the Oligarchs. Corruption is a way of life in many countries, but Russia is different.
Nigeria is a kleptocracy. Russia is a criminal enterprise. Putin, whose official salary is $135,000/year may be the richest man in the world. His estimated net worth is $225 billion. Like the mafia of old, the Oligarchs are the lesser families. Putin is at the top of the heap. Now people do business with the mob. Trump undoubtedly did in the NYC construction industry. But you understand who you are dealing with. These are not nice people. They are not interested in sitting around the campfire and singing Kum by Ya. They only understand strength and they fully understand that the biggest baddest mob boss of them all is Putin. Cross Putin and you end up in jail or dead. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the richest man in Russia. But he made the mistake of crossing Putin. He spent nine years in prison and all of his wealth was confiscated. He now lives in exile. He is lucky to be alive. Putin is all about intimidation. He knew Angela Merkel was scared of dogs so when he met with her, he had a German Shepard by his side.
So. spare me the bit about NATO encroachment and how the west was so unfair to poor Russia. I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it for a minute. Putin saw low-hanging fruit. He saw a western Europe dependent on his oil; and gas, in part due to heavy Russian investments in the green movement, and a Europe that could not cut defense spending fast enough. He saw that when he invaded eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea, Obama sent blankets to the Ukrainians not Javelins. He saw that a clueless ball scratcher occupied the oval office and had directed the U.S military to focus on climate change and white rage. He saw that the same clueless ball-scratcher could not get out of Afghanistan fast enough.
What he did not see was that the generals running his Army were skimming just as much as he was. What he did not see was that the Ukrainians actually cared about their freedom and are willing to fight for it. And what neither of us saw was the leaders in western Europe are actually capable of growing balls. Biden is not pushing punitive measures against Russia because he wants to. He is doing it because he has no choice. He wanted to continue buying oil for Russian, until Nancy Pelosi (amazing as that seems) stated she would not support him.
So now Putin has a real fight on his hands and his supply issues are only going to get worse. Whatever happens in Ukraine, his economy is crippled. And that is a very good thing Western Europe may actually have been shaken out of their torpor long enough to sack their disastrous green energy program and begin building nuclear reactors, like France again. They might actually spend some money on their own defense. Just because the left thinks Putin is a bad guy, does not actually mean that he is not a bad guy. Putin wanted the Soviet Union back. Now he has it.
As for Churchill, I have and have read his complete six volume set on World War II. I also have read numerous Churchill biographies. I am a real fan. Eisenhower stated that Churchill took the English language and marched it off to war. It is true that Churchill proposed a three-part plan for managing Russa during the Cold War and it is true that is was less confrontational than the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) doctrine preferred by the U.S. But he never contemplated the Soviet Union as being part of his “United States of Europe”.
I have seen the rumor that Putin mentioned to Clinton the possibility of Russia joining NATO, but it was never seriously considered by either side, and I have never seen any confirmation of that rumor. Gorbachev did propose it in 1990. But until now, NATO has been toothless, and everyone knew it, including Putin. In 2006 we had 72,400 troops in Germany. That number has dropped by more than 50%, even with Biden’s recent additions. Until now, EUCOM has had nothing to do. Putin has done more to strengthen NATO than anyone has in the past 40 years.
Sorry for the multiple posts. Something was not working .Feel free to delete all but the first
The fact that your grandfather was an RAF pilot is way cool. I have read numerous books on the Battle of Britain. Did he fly fighters or bombers?. I was an active pilot many years ago and a couple of friends of mine got to fly a Spitfire
Oh, hi mate! 'There is a joke in the oil biz that the more oil a country has, the less desirable it is to live in.' Well, dad lived in Port Harcourt, Nigeria for a while, when he was in the oil business (first tugs, then supply boat captain. When he was back onshore in the UK, a group broke into the compound and shot the guy doing his job whilst away, in the bed which he normally slept-in.
On the subject of oligarchs, I actually point out elsewhere in the thread that this was the huge flaw in the Washington Consensus- the economic plan designed to lift Russia out of the status of failed state and transform it into a modern advanced economy- just out of the Soviet era, the Russians were never going to use an open auction to international buyers to sell off Russian state-owned assets. Instead, they were going to keep the assets owned in country, and they simply didn't have the talent within the domestic bidding class to transform their economy for the better.
But he never contemplated the Soviet Union as being part of his “United States of Europe”. Agreed, I was simply pointing out the irony of Germany and France taking his plan and substituting themselves as Europe's leaders- rather than Britain- which was what Churchill envisaged.
'Putin has done more to strengthen NATO than anyone has in the past 40 years.' I definitely agree. This is why I was so shocked by Putin's actions in Ukraine- despite the fact that I loathe the man and see him as a threat- until now, with the possible exception of the Georgia move, every move has been calculated to Russia's maximum advantage, whilst in most cases weakening the West, and America's role as global hegemon specifically.
My nan divorced and remarried- which was quite unusual back in the day, and probably a sign of her status as a successful businesswoman- so, I have two grandfathers on my mothers side, both of whom served in the RAF. The first served with Coastal Command as a navigator- he was originally set to be a pilot, but watched a friend burn to death in training and decided he didn't want to be responsible for the lives of any crew- opting instead to fill the navigators slot. My second granddad was also with the RAF but I am a bit sketchy on the history- I feel a research project coming on- and will probably contact my aunt, who has a better memory than my mother for such things.
It was the latter who left me the books. He used to like afternoon naps after the pub on a Sunday, and was constantly vexed by my nan appearing at his bedroom door, asking "are you awake?" They say the local shopkeepers could set their watches by him- he owned a piano shop in Norwich and was quite insistent on shutting up shop for an hour for lunch, usually spent down the pub. When I was a kid, he told me he had a rare birth defect- a second stomach, which was the reason why he drink so much, never appearing the worse for wear. For years, I believed him- I swear I never once saw the man drunk or even anything other than a little cheerful from the drink.
The only place I ever refused to send people was Nigeria. The way my business worked is that I would solicit contracts around the world, then send out geoscientists and engineers to fulfill them. I would make money by charging more for their time than I paid them. However, when I got contracts for Nigeria. I would pass them off to a friend with no markup from me and no connection to or liability for my company. I only know two geoscientists that ever got shot and both got shot in Nigeria. It was also generally assumed that if you went to Nigeria for any period of time, you would get Malaria. Most did. And for most it was minor, but a good friend of mine spent three months in a coma with cerebral malaria.
The deals you talk about were leases not sales. The difference is important. No one was trying to "buy" anything" The way the oil biz works, both domestically and internationally is that companies lease the right to produce oil and gas from the landowner (or government) in a certain area in exchange for a percentage of the revenue. The company takes all of the risk and assumes all of the expense. The landowner walks to the mailbox and picks up a check.
But that is for exploration deals. In Russia most of the deals were joint ventures (JV’s) as the fields were already in operation. As you observed, we all knew Russia had tons of oil, but it was not being well produced. Most of the JV’s were very favorable to the Russians. Back then everyone thought we were running out of oil and the companies wanted to be in Russia for the long haul. But unlike even the Nigerians, the Russians saw even favorable contracts as “malleable”, and most companies lost money.
No one was trying to collapse Russia economically, either in business or the U.S government. Everyone was trying to turn Russia into Germany, which, only 45 years previous to the collapse of the Soviet Union, had been a ruthless dictatorship. The Neocons were never evil. They were naive. The Neocon movement began when Nixon went to China. It was assumed that capitalism would inevitably lead to western democracy, as had happened both in Germany and Japan. The problem is that no one looked at the culture of the countries and asked if their culture was amenable to western democracy. The failure of the Neocon movement is a direct function of that lack of cultural awareness, not some evil conspiracy. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Your “first” grandfather probably flew on the British Halifax bomber, or an American B-24 given to the British under the lend-lease program. These were the dominant aircraft used in the War in the Atlantic against U-boats. This was the main mission of Coastal Command. The early success of the U-boats was the only thing that had Churchill scared.
I agree with everything you say. The only thing I would point out is that Western institutional players and private concerns have been extremely naive in failing to appreciate the ways in which deals with in-country interests can be perceived by locals to be exploitative and supportive of corrupt internal structures. In many instances, as you so rightly point out, this may not be the case- but we cannot expect local populations to make such fine distinctions.
Unfortunately it creates systems of aligned interest which tend to acquire a life of their own over time, to the extent that they become rallying cries for extremists and radicals, and can lead even somewhat democratic countries into policies which reflect a population level antagonism that results in belligerence between countries.
Of course, this doesn't mean the foreign politicians don't engage in anti-Western rhetoric at every opportunity- in many instances they know full well that in many circumstances when things aren't going well domestically they need a convenient foreign antagonist whom they can blame for all a countries ills. But it was an intrinsic weakness in the push for globalisations, and one which Western thinkers drastically underestimated.
Western graduate programs should have made sure to make the deathbed scene from Henry IV, Part 2 required reading. In our overly optimistic bubble of neoliberal stability, most assuredly a period of history which bears an 'eye of the storm' analogy, we simply didn't see that this period of history was very much the exception in terms of global history.
"In our overly optimistic bubble of neoliberal stability, most assuredly a period of history which bears an 'eye of the storm' analogy, we simply didn't see that this period of history was very much the exception in terms of global history."
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.
Great comment. Recently, during one of the few meetings between the Biden Admin's military attaché and their Russian counterparts- the Russian got emotional and accused Ukraine and the West of trying to murder his parents in the Donbas. Apparently, the neocons in Washington were trying to sell it as a sign that the pressure is mounting.
I take it as something else- the absolute loyalty of the Russian military to the Putin perspective...
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.
It's a good point, but I would argue Hanlon's Razor "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." And people are really, really stupid in groups. I was watching a Russian YouTuber on Breaking Points the other day- and he had an interesting argument on the two responses to Germany in the twentieth century. The first was the one that everyone is familiar with- the Marshall Plan. The second was the shock therapy of the Treaty of Versailles, which was very much designed to punish.
Shock therapy in Russia in the 90s may have been based upon free market principles and wasn't necessarily designed to punish, but to an insider suspicious of American interests, it certainly would have seemed so. Inadvertently and somewhat naively we created exactly the types of conditions which brought Putin to power, and when Putin opportunistically took advantage of Georgian instability all the worst fears of the Hawks were realised.
In many ways there are direct connections between Reaganomics and the withdrawal of welfare. Conservatives in his circle honestly believed the problems would be addressed by the free market. He later admitted it was one of his worst mistakes. When Tony Blair tried something similar with intergenerational welfare in the UK in the 90s, you can bet your bottom dollar he has extremely well-funded programs in place to ensure the transition into employment through privately contracted training systems which actually worked.
The only 'Learn to Code' courses in place were in colleges, computer courses for the unemployed were actually adult literacy programs designed to help people read, with the side benefit of teaching them Windows, Excel and Word, whilst also giving them something to tell their friends, which helped them avoid stigma.
It is amazing just how much examples at the geopolitical and macro level can mirror problems which also occur when government tries to help the individual. Had we offered the Russians a Marshall Plan, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are in. Of course, the defence contractors would be lobbying politicians to spend money on solutions designed to tackle Chinese aggression...
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??
Unfortunately, he had a microphone recently- and used it as a pretext to air the belief that granting Ukraine independence was a historic mistake and further that the Russian people had their historic roots in Kyiv. Of course, this is not historically untrue- but it makes no mention of the fact that the Russian and Ukrainian people have since become culturally distinct identities. In particular the Holodomor under Stalin- what can only be described as a genocide- cultivated the feeling amongst Ukrainians that they needed a distinct national identity and sovereign rights to protect themselves from such predations in the future.
There may be some truth to concerns over the Western expansion of NATO. It is worth noting that missile defence systems located along Russia's western flank can rapidly be changed out for first-strike weaponry- but this presupposes that the West would ever want to push a scenario in which they would utilise a first-strike, when such would be tantamount to political suicide, and wouldn't work anyway, because the Russian arsenal is sufficient to ensure that mutually assured destruction would be an inevitability, regardless of whether the first-strike option was on the table.
The bigger problem is Putin's stance on the intrinsic Russian nature of the Ukraine with all its history- it deliberately avoids the reality that Ukraine already has a people of its own who are culturally distinct from Russians- despite the fact the two groups are often linked by family ties which makes the current situation all the more tragic.
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/
'Let's look at an analogy: should Europe have invited Hitler into the fold?'- they did! With the notable exception of Winston Churchill, who at the time was consigned to the political wilderness, there were many areas of Western establishment power who considered him a potential bulwark against communism- not the least inside Germany itself. The failure to act decisively to curtail many of his earlier moves was based at least in part on this sentiment.
My arguments on NATO posited two counterfactuals. One of which entailed an earlier inclusion in NATO and someone other than Putin taking charge of Russia. The other counterfactual asks the question 'was it always Putin's aim to indulge in territorial revanchism aimed at restoring a Russian Empire?'
I think here there is case to be made that at least in the early 2000s his mind wasn't made up on this future course. His aim was always a return to Russian greatness, but there was an extent to which he might have seen that this could have been accomplished by economic means.
The decision point has to be Georgia. Was it opportunism or was it an act which was long planned and deliberate? I think there is an ample case that it was the former, and he simply didn't understand how this decision would shutdown more legitimate options for Russia becoming a major power and economic powerhouse akin to Germany in prestige and world influence.
Western leaders and their advisories did see the action as a roadmap for his future intentions and adjusted their policies accordingly. There is an extent to which such shifts in thinking about an opponent or adversary can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is why I highlighted the Robert McNamara documentary at the top of the essay.
The problem is that all of our efforts should be aimed at a negotiated settlement. Unfortunately, both the Russians and the Ukrainians generally seem to think they are winning, and in the long-term at least it increasingly appears that the Russians may well be right. They are currently in the process of completing one encirclement pushing South of Kharkiv, cutting off major assets of the Ukrainian military, and are likely to accomplish something similar in relation to a linking up of forces between Kyiv and forces in the South of Ukraine at some point next month.
Most alarmingly, there are some at least in media, who seem to think that a Russian regime change would be a desirable thing. Quite the reverse- if Putin feels his back is against the wall, he may pursue the Russian doctrine of 'escalate to de-escalate'. This is exactly the thing that Western military and political leaders should be seeking to avoid at any cost- because it would doubt require a proportional nuclear escalation in kind, which would be misread as an escalation by the Russians, whose thinking on this issue is faulty to the extent that it represents a positive danger to the world of possible all-out nuclear escalation.
It may seem as though a push towards a negotiated peace may be appeasement or weakness, but we have to consider that even if we roll-back sanctions to the point that Russia can survive over the medium to long-term, the economic damage is such that it won't be a particularly pleasant place to live for the next decade or so. We have to consider the human cost of a war of attrition which sees casualties continue to mount on both sides, and most particularly in relation to civilians and we have to consider the potential for nuclear escalation, which continues to rise to a level where we face the greatest threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Putin cannot live forever, after all- and provided we can agree terms which are sufficiently painful to Russia to disincentivise further aggressions, this is what we should be aiming for.
'To dress this up as some sort of corporate media conspiracy or connection to Biden is pure horse shit.'- given that Jen Psaki recently had to address the issue of a No Fly zone for 167th time recently, I don't think is hyperbole on my part, given that there is no way that the imposition of a No Fly can be taken, other than as an Act of War which would lead to a hot war between Russia and the West- given that this scenario would definitely entail the shooting down of Russian military assets and might well include the targeting of Russian radar facilities and forward missile positions as a prerequisite of the ability to mount operations safely.
I actually agree with you. My point was to examine where we weren't wrong. Many believe Stalingrad was a turning point, but this neglects the problem that it was the decisions which led up to this disastrous campaign which were far more salient. In particular, it was highly uncharacteristic of Stalin to listen to Zhukov.
The real problem is that many Washington insiders are now looking at using the situation to leverage Putin out of office. If it does happen, neither the oligarchs or the Russian people will be responsible.
The only thing which might work is if the US offered Russia a Marshall Plan, in return for Putin stepping down. It's doubtful though- Putin would want assurances and after Gaddafi, Putin doesn't trust America.
Very interesting point of view and analysis by Ferguson, whom I too like. However, I think where he might be wrong is the outcome of Ukraine. Everyone has underestimated the people's unrelenting determination. It kind of reminds me of the Brits during the Battle of Britain. So although Putin may win bits and pieces tactically, he will never take and hold Ukraine. There will be urban warfare indefinitely. What will Putin do next? In that regard, I totally agree, "the current situation is fast careening out of control. "
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.
Apologies on the headline. I watched Jon Stewart's recent episode on the media, and thought I would try injecting a little urgency into the headline- a bit like 'Tonight! Exclusive! Trees crashing!' Getting a bit desperate about the fact that my readership numbers seem to have peaked.
See my comment above to Jory in relation to the NATO question. The counterfactual could have occurred pre-Putin and caused Yeltsin to choose Nemtsov as his successor, and I don't think that Putin's goals were always territorially revanchist in nature, but represent the closing off of other options to restore Russian greatness, with his opportunistic move into Georgia. Before then, he had shown every sign of wanting to explore other means, and it is highly likely that he was heavily and fatally influenced by military advice to take his irrevocable steps into Georgia. That single act was what left him with revanchism as his only course to recover Russian greatness, and led to his increasingly antagonism and friction with America.
But personally, before then- I don't his current actions were in any way inevitable.
Honestly personally I find the idea you floated (what if Russia had joined NATO) as more interesting and outside the box (even while I still don’t buy it) than more mainstream media bashing. I’d say just keep plugging away to try to keep the subscriber count growing. It takes time. Don’t be discouraged by any setbacks.
I think it’s an interesting hypothesis. Perhaps Yeltsin would have picked Nemtsov. Seeing as Putin was a KGB thug back in the day, I sort of doubt he’d have been amenable to diplomatic solutions even then. But hard to say. People change and obviously he’s an inscrutable character to some extent.
The other key driver was one key flaw in the Washington Consensus- the economic plan designed to lift Russia out of Soviet era poverty and transform it into a modern economy. The problem was that it required the sale of state-owned industries to a talented entrepreneurial class, specifically those used to running large-scale industrial concerns.
Given the history, the Russians were averse to selling off these concerns to talented Americans or Europeans, and homegrown talent of the type necessary was exceedingly thin on the ground. With the economic failure which the Washington Consensus courted and the societal disorder which followed and would have followed given any eventuality, it is less than 50-50 that Yeltsin would have picked Nemtsov and would have more likely looked elsewhere for a strongman. He also wanted immunity from future prosecution and Putin fitted the bill perfectly- he was also vulnerable to prosecution if the Yeltsin situation wasn't handled the retiring man's satisfaction.
But that being said it is just the type of counterfactual which can make history even more exciting. The road not travelled can be just as illuminating as actual historical events.
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.
China is only expansionistic in the sense that it is aiming for trade and diplomatic hegemony in the Pacific region, that's what is behind the movement into the South China sea area. Taiwan is part of a long-standing dispute in the area- at the end of WWII it was founded as a refuge for the exiles of the Chinese Nationalist movement under Chiang Kai-shek- a group which was backed by America in a bid to secure its own trade hegemony in Asia. The CCP and the Chinese Nationalists were at war until 1937 in a bitter struggle, but then prioritised combatting the Japanese in China over each other. Friction on the Indian border is also a long-standing dispute- but thankfully anything other than the occasional skirmish in this region is complicated by the terrain and the difficulties of mounting larger operations in the area.
The Taiwan issue is a flashpoint to be sure, because China believes that it has a limited timespan to accomplish long held objectives which it sees as slights to its national sovereignty and dominance in these areas- because when their 421 population decline bomb hits they will lack the resources to accomplish these objectives. A potential opponent is always most dangerous when they believe they are constrained by the limits of a perceived timespan to act.
The Chinese don't recognise Taiwan as a country. They never have. They have a point- of 193 countries in the UN, only 14 recognise Taiwan and all are minnows in international terms. The situations is further complicated by the fact that for 22 years the Taiwan authorities illegally usurped China's seat at the UN and the Chinese have long memories for such slights.
China does have a middle class, but it is largely confined to a portion the 300 million or so Chinese living in the more coastal area of China. Russia has a middle class, but it is small- only 14%. A large part of both middle classes consists of engineers and technical types- Russia has the highest number of engineers per capita of any nation- largely due to its extraction economy, as well as more diffuse and less productive tech sector. They don't seem to have the American genius for monetising innovation. Their largest tech company is Yandex, it's CEO recently stepped down 'as a result of EU sanctions', but some are questioning whether his subtle criticism of the Ukraine invasion might have played a role.
Your responses are so generous, thanks ;) Can we say, and it's a curious thing, that Putin doesn't appear to have the support of his people or his oligarchs or captains of industry? They all seem positioned to lose due to sanctions and whatever it is the us gov is doing to hunt down oligarch assets. Is Putin acting purely in the interest of regaining past glory and lands and a buffer between nato lands ... or are the benefits so great by acquiring Ukraine? Do you think he's regretting starting this, if internal dissent is great ... I don't see him as a dangerous psychopath who would pull the pin on a nuke but it appears the west take him seriously on that threat. Poor Ukraine. There's a netflix thing about the 2014 demonstrations to join the UN which were slammed down by Poroshenko.
The oligarchs are one thing, and anything which creates friction between them and Putin is a win for the West, but one has to consider that Putin's control over media has had its effect. Resistance to Putin is polarised towards the young, and he still enjoys more support with the older demographics. At the start of the conflict, support for Putin was running at about 60% to 65% accordingly to some of the more knowledgeable sources, and although it will probably wane as the conflict continues I wouldn't hold out hope of it dropping much below 50%.
Those who dream of leveraging his current reversals into regime change are engaging in wishful thinking. I do think he is regretting it already, but only because it wasn't accomplished in the three days he was probably promised.
In terms of gains from the conflict he was hoping to use the invasion as a means of overthrowing the American hegemony. In many ways he has actually accomplished the reverse- Germany in particular was beginning to look East rather than West, with polls before the conflict showing that Germans trusted Russia more than they did America.
Of course, both scored dismally- 25% for America and 28% for Russia, with France scoring 90% and the UK scoring 60%.
Robert McNamara's first rule is empathise with your adversary. It's how he won the Cuban Missile Crisis, by offering his opponent an out which he could sell the Russian people. His second rule is don't rely on rationality- as we've seen with Putin, it is a rule which prevails to this day- as the reason why so many Russia observers were wrong-footed by Putin was because it was an incredibly bad move geopolitically- guaranteed to sap Russian strength and prestige, whilst simultaneously not only reversing the Western decline, but actually reversing it, in some ways- despite the hardships for Western citizens which are already materialising.
It's a well-argued piece and well-informed, but the problem with the essay is that it sets a precondition that Russia cannot be seen to benefit in any way from their aggression. The problem is that this also precludes any sort of deal which the Russians would accept. The solution is to acknowledge asymmetry in any negotiated settlement- they will gain territorially, they will lose on the diplomatic front (because they won't have replaced the Ukrainian government with a puppet state, but they will also be left diplomatically isolated internationally, and with major sanctions in place- somewhat walked back in relation to Swift and the exclusion of their Central Bank from the world's financial system- but still painful and counter to their long-term wealth and affluence, but not enough to induce crippling resentment against the West amongst the Russian people.
We will want to reset the Russian relationship when Putin dies, after all- and he is sure to pop his clogs or lose his marbles sooner of later- older more active men tend to lose it quite suddenly. My grandfather declined quite suddenly after a fall mowing his two acre tiered garden adjacent to the river. He was dead within six months- despite being a model of fitness, hale and hearty, before. We can only hope that Mr Putin continues to enjoy as much strenuous and risky exercise as his health allows...
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
'Inviting Putin into NATO would require NATO to have helped him invade Georgia and Chechnya and to help him bomb Syria into oblivion.' You seem to think that the current course of events was inevitable- it wasn't. Andrew Marr has stated that Putin was the smartest man he ever interviewed, and it's an impression which is generally held by most of the heavyweight interviewers from around the world who have tried the same- and is echoed by Oliver Stone. This is not to say that Putin isn't a thug, but it does mean he is not just a thug.
His aim was not originally revanchist in character, although it is safe to say that his principal goal has always been the recovery of Russian strength. Chechnya was always going to happen, it was never considered one of the 15 official Soviet Republics, and was always an integral part of the Russian Federations territory- a good analogy in Western terms would be the Basque separatists in Spain, who- although ethnically distinct from Spain have long been considered a part of Spain as a country. The Chechnyan issue also predates Putin's involvement in the Yeltsin presidency- although one can accurately place the conflict as key to his ascendency.
You're right about Georgia. It shows Putin as an opportunist- he used the conflict between the separatists and the Georgian government as a pretext for a quick knockout blow, which one presumes was the plan with Ukraine. Syria is a separate issue- because even a relative moderate like Boris Nemtsov would have backed Assad in Syria- Syria is the Russian foothold in the region, much as Israel has been long supported by American defence funding for not dissimilar reasons- although the strategic relationship with Turkey is of equally vital importance, just as America's support for the Saudis and their Yemen conflict is predicated on securing global oils supplies.
But the thing you miss is that if Russia had become a NATO member in 1999 along with Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary- or if NATO had moved more precipitously in the early nineties to secure lasting peace, then it is highly likely that Putin would have remained in relative obscurity, and Yeltsin would have chosen Boris Nemtsov as his successor and Russia would have been a very different place.
Putin's goal has always been the restoration of Russia to the status of great power, we see this in his heavy leaning on the works of Gumilev and the much lesser known Ivan Ilyan, although the latter may be a more recent influence on his thinking, whereas he might have actually known Gumilev in St Petersburg. But people don't consider that revanchism may not always have been central to his goal of returning Russia to the status of great power.
People forget that back in 2000 Putin was actively calling for Russian membership in NATO- in 2001 attempting to become the United States’ most important ally, he gave orders to provide any assistance and support to American troops in Afghanistan, he wanted to build a Greater Europe which would stretch from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and Putin not only gave a speech in the Bundestag in German in which he proclaimed Russia’s European choice, but emphatically encouraged the exchange of capital assets for the creation of a common economic space.
It was in the frustration of these goals that he turned to revanchism and the recovery of lost territory. The die was cast with Georgia, but there is every reason to believe that this was an opportunistic move on his part, based upon the inherent instability of Georgia as a country and its problem with separatism, and there is every reason to think, given the tepid Western response, that he may well not have fully realised the ramifications of his actions at the time in geopolitical terms, or how it would inevitably lead to a cooling relations with the West, every bit as far reaching as the gravity well of a black hole capturing light.
His goal may have become the recovery of former Soviet territory, but it didn't start that way at the outset. Over the course of his career it looks from the outside as though he blamed America's role as the global hegemon in frustrating so many of his long-term goals and became obsessed with overthrowing this power, wrongly intuiting that a change in the global order would somehow propel Russia to the top table of global powers.
A part of his problem stems from the WWII derived strategically obsolescent prevailing Russian thinking of the establishment of buffer zones to ensure Russian security. It's outmoded thinking and in particular he doesn't understand just how thoroughly the financial pervades the supply and logistical side of both economics and warfare. It's a strategic blunder which is in the process of making his country financially and military crippled.
It starts with the Napoleonic era. Although the British enjoyed superiority with the navy, they didn't really outfight Napoleon, they outspent him. The use of the innovation of Dutch bonds as a means of supplying the sinews of war was an exploit which made the British financial power infinite, even though they were considerably inferior on the battlefield, especially in the area of developing independent commands capable of pinning the enemy whilst other forces moved to exploit their weak points. This understanding of the role of finance was what allowed Reagan and Thatcher to topple the Soviet Union with hardly a shot being fired.
Putin wanted Russia to be a great power and he wanted to go down in history as the great man who accomplished it- but back in the early 2000s it is highly unlikely that envisaged this process taking place through the conquest or annexation of former Soviet territories. In this his true fault was in appointing loyal apparatchik as his oligarchs- had he selected more talented and able men to secure his vision he might well have achieved superior Russian greatness, given their resource wealth, with little need for territorial ambitions.
Here his history really did doom him- because his KGB past would have convinced him that most capitalists were corrupt and weak men- they may well be in some cases and in some ways, but it is their specialist skills which make them capable of greatness and which he could have harnessed towards Russia's greater good.
I didn't say that Churchill was a pacifist, merely that he had become thoroughly disillusioned with war, even though he still understood the need for its threat and occasional necessity. But like Eisenhower he deeply dreaded the prospect of nuclear war and hoped to avoid it, but not at any cost. He did however state "If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce."
It's worth noting that his three part strategy for the successful conclusion of the Cold War was ultimately prophetic. One of the three main aims was 'Constructive Relations with the Soviet Union'. Although I find it hilarious that he originally envisaged Britain at the head of a United States of Europe, and would have had some choice words about the pre-eminence of the Germans and the French.
'You do Churchill a great disservice by comparing him to the wimps that lead many of our western nations today' I didn't mean to besmirch his memory- our different take on the subject, and particularly Putin's history and the evolution of his aims, meant that we were arguing from different pretexts.
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.
'Talleyrand's comment about the Bourbons is equally applicable here.'- do you mean 'They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing'? It seems particularly apt given the more recent history. I think the fear of the Russians, even as they might once have developed, stems from the recent history of Europe, with many suspecting that the natural national antagonisms between Germany and Russia were sure to re-emerge, with Eastern Europe caught in the middle. Let's not forget that the Great War was predicated upon von Moltke's belief that war with Russia was inevitable, and best pursued at the earliest possibility when relative strengths were most favourable to the German cause.
'I am not sure how it would have worked given Russia's imperialist nature.' Well, the British provide a model as to how the imperial model can be withdrawn successfully, the Thucydides trap averted. A lot of it was about America stroking the wounded vanity of us Brits, making us feel like a partner in the post-war consensus and as though our former status entitled us to a special relationship.
I'm not sure whether it would necessarily work with the Russian though- on reflection, I wonder whether the Russian soul isn't that little bit too pragmatic to fall in love with its own moral rightness, the illusion of being an active participant on the right side of history, but on the other side of the argument one wonders whether the Russian Church might have been enlisted in this cause, as a repudiation of everything Soviet and as agents of the restoration of Russian virtues. I think there was ample opportunity to cast the perverse ideology of communism as the principal root of all Russian sins, with a view to establishing peace and security as a declaration of Russian's true character.
Still, it is dangerous to play with truth and lies, even if one perceives the lie to be in service to a noble cause. I'm not saying that communism wasn't a huge cause of inhumanity inflicted upon both Russians and others- but like most of our current woes around the world I would trace any absence of humane decorum to the failure to let the Enlightenment pursue its not yet fully realised course.
Yes - that is the quote. The Russia issue goes further than recent European history. We can trace worries about the Russian bear back to the 18th Century at least. Polish memory, of course, includes the partitions. Other Eastern European states retain Hapsburg fears and Russian conduct has done nothing to alleviate these. Then there was pan-Slavism, a more significant factor in the start of the Great War than Moltke but in the end only one of several causes.
The end of the British empire is more a case of the British tendency to make a virtue out of a necessity. Suez demonstrated the true nature of the 'Special Relationship'. What is important, I believe, is the psychological losses the fall of an empire brings to those who invest in it. These take a long time to work through and without a reassuring myth (like the British withdrawal from empire) are strong medicine. Whether the West was honest in its attempts to engage Russia as a partner after the collapse of the Soviet Empire is open to debate. Could things have been different? Given the dissonance between enlightenment values and Russian slavicism I am not convinced it was possible and that a situation of armed neutrality was the best that could be hoped for.
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.
Article 5 requires that the country invoking the article be the victim of an armed attack. I own the complete set of the first edition Second World War by Winston Churchill, including the original dustcovers. I inherited it from my grandfather, who was also a pilot in the RAF. My brother and I are the first generation in our family in memory who haven't served in the military.
Victimhood as you well know, is in the eye of the beholder. There has been an active shooting war in Donetsk and Luhansk since 2014. Who started it? Well according to the Russians, it was the Ukrainians. So, they would certainly tell you that they are the victims as they called for Article Five intervention. As far as the wider war- same thing. They are liberating Ukraine from the Nazis who run it. The Ukrainians clearly started shooting first. No need to find Russian propaganda. Read some of the posts in FV if you do not believe me.
You are looking at Putin through rose-colored glasses. If you read my energy article you already know that I am Oilman over there and you already know that I tried to do business with Russia after the fall of the Soviet Empire. So I know that when you make statements like "With the economic failure which the Washington Consensus courted" you are just plain wrong. WE WANTED TO MAKE MONEY!!!!!. You don't make money by courting economic failure. That is how you lose money. The fact that most U.S. companies did lose money was not because they set out to do. It was all about Russian governance. There is a joke in the oil biz that the more oil a country has, the less desirable it is to live in. Russia never recovered from being a communist to country. The people running the country are the same people who ran the Soviet Union and they use the same techniques. When the Soviet Union fell the commissars became the CEO’s who became the Oligarchs. Corruption is a way of life in many countries, but Russia is different.
Nigeria is a kleptocracy. Russia is a criminal enterprise. Putin, whose official salary is $135,000/year may be the richest man in the world. His estimated net worth is $225 billion. Like the mafia of old, the Oligarchs are the lesser families. Putin is at the top of the heap. Now people do business with the mob. Trump undoubtedly did in the NYC construction industry. But you understand who you are dealing with. These are not nice people. They are not interested in sitting around the campfire and singing Kum by Ya. They only understand strength and they fully understand that the biggest baddest mob boss of them all is Putin. Cross Putin and you end up in jail or dead. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the richest man in Russia. But he made the mistake of crossing Putin. He spent nine years in prison and all of his wealth was confiscated. He now lives in exile. He is lucky to be alive. Putin is all about intimidation. He knew Angela Merkel was scared of dogs so when he met with her, he had a German Shepard by his side.
So. spare me the bit about NATO encroachment and how the west was so unfair to poor Russia. I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it for a minute. Putin saw low-hanging fruit. He saw a western Europe dependent on his oil; and gas, in part due to heavy Russian investments in the green movement, and a Europe that could not cut defense spending fast enough. He saw that when he invaded eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea, Obama sent blankets to the Ukrainians not Javelins. He saw that a clueless ball scratcher occupied the oval office and had directed the U.S military to focus on climate change and white rage. He saw that the same clueless ball-scratcher could not get out of Afghanistan fast enough.
What he did not see was that the generals running his Army were skimming just as much as he was. What he did not see was that the Ukrainians actually cared about their freedom and are willing to fight for it. And what neither of us saw was the leaders in western Europe are actually capable of growing balls. Biden is not pushing punitive measures against Russia because he wants to. He is doing it because he has no choice. He wanted to continue buying oil for Russian, until Nancy Pelosi (amazing as that seems) stated she would not support him.
So now Putin has a real fight on his hands and his supply issues are only going to get worse. Whatever happens in Ukraine, his economy is crippled. And that is a very good thing Western Europe may actually have been shaken out of their torpor long enough to sack their disastrous green energy program and begin building nuclear reactors, like France again. They might actually spend some money on their own defense. Just because the left thinks Putin is a bad guy, does not actually mean that he is not a bad guy. Putin wanted the Soviet Union back. Now he has it.
As for Churchill, I have and have read his complete six volume set on World War II. I also have read numerous Churchill biographies. I am a real fan. Eisenhower stated that Churchill took the English language and marched it off to war. It is true that Churchill proposed a three-part plan for managing Russa during the Cold War and it is true that is was less confrontational than the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) doctrine preferred by the U.S. But he never contemplated the Soviet Union as being part of his “United States of Europe”.
I have seen the rumor that Putin mentioned to Clinton the possibility of Russia joining NATO, but it was never seriously considered by either side, and I have never seen any confirmation of that rumor. Gorbachev did propose it in 1990. But until now, NATO has been toothless, and everyone knew it, including Putin. In 2006 we had 72,400 troops in Germany. That number has dropped by more than 50%, even with Biden’s recent additions. Until now, EUCOM has had nothing to do. Putin has done more to strengthen NATO than anyone has in the past 40 years.
Sorry for the multiple posts. Something was not working .Feel free to delete all but the first
The fact that your grandfather was an RAF pilot is way cool. I have read numerous books on the Battle of Britain. Did he fly fighters or bombers?. I was an active pilot many years ago and a couple of friends of mine got to fly a Spitfire
Oh, hi mate! 'There is a joke in the oil biz that the more oil a country has, the less desirable it is to live in.' Well, dad lived in Port Harcourt, Nigeria for a while, when he was in the oil business (first tugs, then supply boat captain. When he was back onshore in the UK, a group broke into the compound and shot the guy doing his job whilst away, in the bed which he normally slept-in.
On the subject of oligarchs, I actually point out elsewhere in the thread that this was the huge flaw in the Washington Consensus- the economic plan designed to lift Russia out of the status of failed state and transform it into a modern advanced economy- just out of the Soviet era, the Russians were never going to use an open auction to international buyers to sell off Russian state-owned assets. Instead, they were going to keep the assets owned in country, and they simply didn't have the talent within the domestic bidding class to transform their economy for the better.
But he never contemplated the Soviet Union as being part of his “United States of Europe”. Agreed, I was simply pointing out the irony of Germany and France taking his plan and substituting themselves as Europe's leaders- rather than Britain- which was what Churchill envisaged.
'Putin has done more to strengthen NATO than anyone has in the past 40 years.' I definitely agree. This is why I was so shocked by Putin's actions in Ukraine- despite the fact that I loathe the man and see him as a threat- until now, with the possible exception of the Georgia move, every move has been calculated to Russia's maximum advantage, whilst in most cases weakening the West, and America's role as global hegemon specifically.
My nan divorced and remarried- which was quite unusual back in the day, and probably a sign of her status as a successful businesswoman- so, I have two grandfathers on my mothers side, both of whom served in the RAF. The first served with Coastal Command as a navigator- he was originally set to be a pilot, but watched a friend burn to death in training and decided he didn't want to be responsible for the lives of any crew- opting instead to fill the navigators slot. My second granddad was also with the RAF but I am a bit sketchy on the history- I feel a research project coming on- and will probably contact my aunt, who has a better memory than my mother for such things.
It was the latter who left me the books. He used to like afternoon naps after the pub on a Sunday, and was constantly vexed by my nan appearing at his bedroom door, asking "are you awake?" They say the local shopkeepers could set their watches by him- he owned a piano shop in Norwich and was quite insistent on shutting up shop for an hour for lunch, usually spent down the pub. When I was a kid, he told me he had a rare birth defect- a second stomach, which was the reason why he drink so much, never appearing the worse for wear. For years, I believed him- I swear I never once saw the man drunk or even anything other than a little cheerful from the drink.
The only place I ever refused to send people was Nigeria. The way my business worked is that I would solicit contracts around the world, then send out geoscientists and engineers to fulfill them. I would make money by charging more for their time than I paid them. However, when I got contracts for Nigeria. I would pass them off to a friend with no markup from me and no connection to or liability for my company. I only know two geoscientists that ever got shot and both got shot in Nigeria. It was also generally assumed that if you went to Nigeria for any period of time, you would get Malaria. Most did. And for most it was minor, but a good friend of mine spent three months in a coma with cerebral malaria.
The deals you talk about were leases not sales. The difference is important. No one was trying to "buy" anything" The way the oil biz works, both domestically and internationally is that companies lease the right to produce oil and gas from the landowner (or government) in a certain area in exchange for a percentage of the revenue. The company takes all of the risk and assumes all of the expense. The landowner walks to the mailbox and picks up a check.
But that is for exploration deals. In Russia most of the deals were joint ventures (JV’s) as the fields were already in operation. As you observed, we all knew Russia had tons of oil, but it was not being well produced. Most of the JV’s were very favorable to the Russians. Back then everyone thought we were running out of oil and the companies wanted to be in Russia for the long haul. But unlike even the Nigerians, the Russians saw even favorable contracts as “malleable”, and most companies lost money.
No one was trying to collapse Russia economically, either in business or the U.S government. Everyone was trying to turn Russia into Germany, which, only 45 years previous to the collapse of the Soviet Union, had been a ruthless dictatorship. The Neocons were never evil. They were naive. The Neocon movement began when Nixon went to China. It was assumed that capitalism would inevitably lead to western democracy, as had happened both in Germany and Japan. The problem is that no one looked at the culture of the countries and asked if their culture was amenable to western democracy. The failure of the Neocon movement is a direct function of that lack of cultural awareness, not some evil conspiracy. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Your “first” grandfather probably flew on the British Halifax bomber, or an American B-24 given to the British under the lend-lease program. These were the dominant aircraft used in the War in the Atlantic against U-boats. This was the main mission of Coastal Command. The early success of the U-boats was the only thing that had Churchill scared.
I agree with everything you say. The only thing I would point out is that Western institutional players and private concerns have been extremely naive in failing to appreciate the ways in which deals with in-country interests can be perceived by locals to be exploitative and supportive of corrupt internal structures. In many instances, as you so rightly point out, this may not be the case- but we cannot expect local populations to make such fine distinctions.
Unfortunately it creates systems of aligned interest which tend to acquire a life of their own over time, to the extent that they become rallying cries for extremists and radicals, and can lead even somewhat democratic countries into policies which reflect a population level antagonism that results in belligerence between countries.
Of course, this doesn't mean the foreign politicians don't engage in anti-Western rhetoric at every opportunity- in many instances they know full well that in many circumstances when things aren't going well domestically they need a convenient foreign antagonist whom they can blame for all a countries ills. But it was an intrinsic weakness in the push for globalisations, and one which Western thinkers drastically underestimated.
Western graduate programs should have made sure to make the deathbed scene from Henry IV, Part 2 required reading. In our overly optimistic bubble of neoliberal stability, most assuredly a period of history which bears an 'eye of the storm' analogy, we simply didn't see that this period of history was very much the exception in terms of global history.
"In our overly optimistic bubble of neoliberal stability, most assuredly a period of history which bears an 'eye of the storm' analogy, we simply didn't see that this period of history was very much the exception in terms of global history."
Excellent Observation!!!
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.
Great comment. Recently, during one of the few meetings between the Biden Admin's military attaché and their Russian counterparts- the Russian got emotional and accused Ukraine and the West of trying to murder his parents in the Donbas. Apparently, the neocons in Washington were trying to sell it as a sign that the pressure is mounting.
I take it as something else- the absolute loyalty of the Russian military to the Putin perspective...
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.
It's a good point, but I would argue Hanlon's Razor "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." And people are really, really stupid in groups. I was watching a Russian YouTuber on Breaking Points the other day- and he had an interesting argument on the two responses to Germany in the twentieth century. The first was the one that everyone is familiar with- the Marshall Plan. The second was the shock therapy of the Treaty of Versailles, which was very much designed to punish.
Shock therapy in Russia in the 90s may have been based upon free market principles and wasn't necessarily designed to punish, but to an insider suspicious of American interests, it certainly would have seemed so. Inadvertently and somewhat naively we created exactly the types of conditions which brought Putin to power, and when Putin opportunistically took advantage of Georgian instability all the worst fears of the Hawks were realised.
In many ways there are direct connections between Reaganomics and the withdrawal of welfare. Conservatives in his circle honestly believed the problems would be addressed by the free market. He later admitted it was one of his worst mistakes. When Tony Blair tried something similar with intergenerational welfare in the UK in the 90s, you can bet your bottom dollar he has extremely well-funded programs in place to ensure the transition into employment through privately contracted training systems which actually worked.
The only 'Learn to Code' courses in place were in colleges, computer courses for the unemployed were actually adult literacy programs designed to help people read, with the side benefit of teaching them Windows, Excel and Word, whilst also giving them something to tell their friends, which helped them avoid stigma.
It is amazing just how much examples at the geopolitical and macro level can mirror problems which also occur when government tries to help the individual. Had we offered the Russians a Marshall Plan, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are in. Of course, the defence contractors would be lobbying politicians to spend money on solutions designed to tackle Chinese aggression...
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??
Unfortunately, he had a microphone recently- and used it as a pretext to air the belief that granting Ukraine independence was a historic mistake and further that the Russian people had their historic roots in Kyiv. Of course, this is not historically untrue- but it makes no mention of the fact that the Russian and Ukrainian people have since become culturally distinct identities. In particular the Holodomor under Stalin- what can only be described as a genocide- cultivated the feeling amongst Ukrainians that they needed a distinct national identity and sovereign rights to protect themselves from such predations in the future.
There may be some truth to concerns over the Western expansion of NATO. It is worth noting that missile defence systems located along Russia's western flank can rapidly be changed out for first-strike weaponry- but this presupposes that the West would ever want to push a scenario in which they would utilise a first-strike, when such would be tantamount to political suicide, and wouldn't work anyway, because the Russian arsenal is sufficient to ensure that mutually assured destruction would be an inevitability, regardless of whether the first-strike option was on the table.
The bigger problem is Putin's stance on the intrinsic Russian nature of the Ukraine with all its history- it deliberately avoids the reality that Ukraine already has a people of its own who are culturally distinct from Russians- despite the fact the two groups are often linked by family ties which makes the current situation all the more tragic.
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/
Thanks.
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/
'Let's look at an analogy: should Europe have invited Hitler into the fold?'- they did! With the notable exception of Winston Churchill, who at the time was consigned to the political wilderness, there were many areas of Western establishment power who considered him a potential bulwark against communism- not the least inside Germany itself. The failure to act decisively to curtail many of his earlier moves was based at least in part on this sentiment.
My arguments on NATO posited two counterfactuals. One of which entailed an earlier inclusion in NATO and someone other than Putin taking charge of Russia. The other counterfactual asks the question 'was it always Putin's aim to indulge in territorial revanchism aimed at restoring a Russian Empire?'
I think here there is case to be made that at least in the early 2000s his mind wasn't made up on this future course. His aim was always a return to Russian greatness, but there was an extent to which he might have seen that this could have been accomplished by economic means.
The decision point has to be Georgia. Was it opportunism or was it an act which was long planned and deliberate? I think there is an ample case that it was the former, and he simply didn't understand how this decision would shutdown more legitimate options for Russia becoming a major power and economic powerhouse akin to Germany in prestige and world influence.
Western leaders and their advisories did see the action as a roadmap for his future intentions and adjusted their policies accordingly. There is an extent to which such shifts in thinking about an opponent or adversary can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is why I highlighted the Robert McNamara documentary at the top of the essay.
The problem is that all of our efforts should be aimed at a negotiated settlement. Unfortunately, both the Russians and the Ukrainians generally seem to think they are winning, and in the long-term at least it increasingly appears that the Russians may well be right. They are currently in the process of completing one encirclement pushing South of Kharkiv, cutting off major assets of the Ukrainian military, and are likely to accomplish something similar in relation to a linking up of forces between Kyiv and forces in the South of Ukraine at some point next month.
Most alarmingly, there are some at least in media, who seem to think that a Russian regime change would be a desirable thing. Quite the reverse- if Putin feels his back is against the wall, he may pursue the Russian doctrine of 'escalate to de-escalate'. This is exactly the thing that Western military and political leaders should be seeking to avoid at any cost- because it would doubt require a proportional nuclear escalation in kind, which would be misread as an escalation by the Russians, whose thinking on this issue is faulty to the extent that it represents a positive danger to the world of possible all-out nuclear escalation.
It may seem as though a push towards a negotiated peace may be appeasement or weakness, but we have to consider that even if we roll-back sanctions to the point that Russia can survive over the medium to long-term, the economic damage is such that it won't be a particularly pleasant place to live for the next decade or so. We have to consider the human cost of a war of attrition which sees casualties continue to mount on both sides, and most particularly in relation to civilians and we have to consider the potential for nuclear escalation, which continues to rise to a level where we face the greatest threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Putin cannot live forever, after all- and provided we can agree terms which are sufficiently painful to Russia to disincentivise further aggressions, this is what we should be aiming for.
'To dress this up as some sort of corporate media conspiracy or connection to Biden is pure horse shit.'- given that Jen Psaki recently had to address the issue of a No Fly zone for 167th time recently, I don't think is hyperbole on my part, given that there is no way that the imposition of a No Fly can be taken, other than as an Act of War which would lead to a hot war between Russia and the West- given that this scenario would definitely entail the shooting down of Russian military assets and might well include the targeting of Russian radar facilities and forward missile positions as a prerequisite of the ability to mount operations safely.
Thanks for a very comprehensive and thoughtful reply. Where I agree with you is that we should have followed the advice of keeping our enemy closer than we have and gone out of our way not to alienate Putin. However, his personality disorders https://www.highconflictinstitute.com/podcast-episodes/is-putin-a-malignant-narcissist-if-so-can-we-predict-his-future-actions and https://www.highconflictinstitute.com/podcast-episodes/putins-potential-is-putin-a-malignant-narcissist-part-2 coupled with his desire for empire building really make conflict inevitable. Also, the West's poor foreign policy (BHO refusing to arm Ukraine, USA's neglect of Eastern Europe and Trump's selling out to Putin) sealed the deal. Now here we are. Your view albeit well-intentioned is a tad naive.
I actually agree with you. My point was to examine where we weren't wrong. Many believe Stalingrad was a turning point, but this neglects the problem that it was the decisions which led up to this disastrous campaign which were far more salient. In particular, it was highly uncharacteristic of Stalin to listen to Zhukov.
The real problem is that many Washington insiders are now looking at using the situation to leverage Putin out of office. If it does happen, neither the oligarchs or the Russian people will be responsible.
The only thing which might work is if the US offered Russia a Marshall Plan, in return for Putin stepping down. It's doubtful though- Putin would want assurances and after Gaddafi, Putin doesn't trust America.
Trying to use the situation to dethrone Putin is crazy. The current situation is fast careening out of control. Here is an article by one of favourite geopolitical historians- Niall Ferguson- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-22/niall-ferguson-putin-and-biden-misunderstand-history-in-ukraine-war
Where we *went* wrong.
Very interesting point of view and analysis by Ferguson, whom I too like. However, I think where he might be wrong is the outcome of Ukraine. Everyone has underestimated the people's unrelenting determination. It kind of reminds me of the Brits during the Battle of Britain. So although Putin may win bits and pieces tactically, he will never take and hold Ukraine. There will be urban warfare indefinitely. What will Putin do next? In that regard, I totally agree, "the current situation is fast careening out of control. "
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.
Apologies on the headline. I watched Jon Stewart's recent episode on the media, and thought I would try injecting a little urgency into the headline- a bit like 'Tonight! Exclusive! Trees crashing!' Getting a bit desperate about the fact that my readership numbers seem to have peaked.
See my comment above to Jory in relation to the NATO question. The counterfactual could have occurred pre-Putin and caused Yeltsin to choose Nemtsov as his successor, and I don't think that Putin's goals were always territorially revanchist in nature, but represent the closing off of other options to restore Russian greatness, with his opportunistic move into Georgia. Before then, he had shown every sign of wanting to explore other means, and it is highly likely that he was heavily and fatally influenced by military advice to take his irrevocable steps into Georgia. That single act was what left him with revanchism as his only course to recover Russian greatness, and led to his increasingly antagonism and friction with America.
But personally, before then- I don't his current actions were in any way inevitable.
Honestly personally I find the idea you floated (what if Russia had joined NATO) as more interesting and outside the box (even while I still don’t buy it) than more mainstream media bashing. I’d say just keep plugging away to try to keep the subscriber count growing. It takes time. Don’t be discouraged by any setbacks.
I think it’s an interesting hypothesis. Perhaps Yeltsin would have picked Nemtsov. Seeing as Putin was a KGB thug back in the day, I sort of doubt he’d have been amenable to diplomatic solutions even then. But hard to say. People change and obviously he’s an inscrutable character to some extent.
The other key driver was one key flaw in the Washington Consensus- the economic plan designed to lift Russia out of Soviet era poverty and transform it into a modern economy. The problem was that it required the sale of state-owned industries to a talented entrepreneurial class, specifically those used to running large-scale industrial concerns.
Given the history, the Russians were averse to selling off these concerns to talented Americans or Europeans, and homegrown talent of the type necessary was exceedingly thin on the ground. With the economic failure which the Washington Consensus courted and the societal disorder which followed and would have followed given any eventuality, it is less than 50-50 that Yeltsin would have picked Nemtsov and would have more likely looked elsewhere for a strongman. He also wanted immunity from future prosecution and Putin fitted the bill perfectly- he was also vulnerable to prosecution if the Yeltsin situation wasn't handled the retiring man's satisfaction.
But that being said it is just the type of counterfactual which can make history even more exciting. The road not travelled can be just as illuminating as actual historical events.
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.
China is only expansionistic in the sense that it is aiming for trade and diplomatic hegemony in the Pacific region, that's what is behind the movement into the South China sea area. Taiwan is part of a long-standing dispute in the area- at the end of WWII it was founded as a refuge for the exiles of the Chinese Nationalist movement under Chiang Kai-shek- a group which was backed by America in a bid to secure its own trade hegemony in Asia. The CCP and the Chinese Nationalists were at war until 1937 in a bitter struggle, but then prioritised combatting the Japanese in China over each other. Friction on the Indian border is also a long-standing dispute- but thankfully anything other than the occasional skirmish in this region is complicated by the terrain and the difficulties of mounting larger operations in the area.
The Taiwan issue is a flashpoint to be sure, because China believes that it has a limited timespan to accomplish long held objectives which it sees as slights to its national sovereignty and dominance in these areas- because when their 421 population decline bomb hits they will lack the resources to accomplish these objectives. A potential opponent is always most dangerous when they believe they are constrained by the limits of a perceived timespan to act.
The Chinese don't recognise Taiwan as a country. They never have. They have a point- of 193 countries in the UN, only 14 recognise Taiwan and all are minnows in international terms. The situations is further complicated by the fact that for 22 years the Taiwan authorities illegally usurped China's seat at the UN and the Chinese have long memories for such slights.
China does have a middle class, but it is largely confined to a portion the 300 million or so Chinese living in the more coastal area of China. Russia has a middle class, but it is small- only 14%. A large part of both middle classes consists of engineers and technical types- Russia has the highest number of engineers per capita of any nation- largely due to its extraction economy, as well as more diffuse and less productive tech sector. They don't seem to have the American genius for monetising innovation. Their largest tech company is Yandex, it's CEO recently stepped down 'as a result of EU sanctions', but some are questioning whether his subtle criticism of the Ukraine invasion might have played a role.
Your responses are so generous, thanks ;) Can we say, and it's a curious thing, that Putin doesn't appear to have the support of his people or his oligarchs or captains of industry? They all seem positioned to lose due to sanctions and whatever it is the us gov is doing to hunt down oligarch assets. Is Putin acting purely in the interest of regaining past glory and lands and a buffer between nato lands ... or are the benefits so great by acquiring Ukraine? Do you think he's regretting starting this, if internal dissent is great ... I don't see him as a dangerous psychopath who would pull the pin on a nuke but it appears the west take him seriously on that threat. Poor Ukraine. There's a netflix thing about the 2014 demonstrations to join the UN which were slammed down by Poroshenko.
The oligarchs are one thing, and anything which creates friction between them and Putin is a win for the West, but one has to consider that Putin's control over media has had its effect. Resistance to Putin is polarised towards the young, and he still enjoys more support with the older demographics. At the start of the conflict, support for Putin was running at about 60% to 65% accordingly to some of the more knowledgeable sources, and although it will probably wane as the conflict continues I wouldn't hold out hope of it dropping much below 50%.
Those who dream of leveraging his current reversals into regime change are engaging in wishful thinking. I do think he is regretting it already, but only because it wasn't accomplished in the three days he was probably promised.
In terms of gains from the conflict he was hoping to use the invasion as a means of overthrowing the American hegemony. In many ways he has actually accomplished the reverse- Germany in particular was beginning to look East rather than West, with polls before the conflict showing that Germans trusted Russia more than they did America.
Of course, both scored dismally- 25% for America and 28% for Russia, with France scoring 90% and the UK scoring 60%.
Ps you’ll find this interesting, Geary https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/russia-ukraine-off-ramp-potential-plan-drafted-by-cambridge-peace-negotiator
Robert McNamara's first rule is empathise with your adversary. It's how he won the Cuban Missile Crisis, by offering his opponent an out which he could sell the Russian people. His second rule is don't rely on rationality- as we've seen with Putin, it is a rule which prevails to this day- as the reason why so many Russia observers were wrong-footed by Putin was because it was an incredibly bad move geopolitically- guaranteed to sap Russian strength and prestige, whilst simultaneously not only reversing the Western decline, but actually reversing it, in some ways- despite the hardships for Western citizens which are already materialising.
It's a well-argued piece and well-informed, but the problem with the essay is that it sets a precondition that Russia cannot be seen to benefit in any way from their aggression. The problem is that this also precludes any sort of deal which the Russians would accept. The solution is to acknowledge asymmetry in any negotiated settlement- they will gain territorially, they will lose on the diplomatic front (because they won't have replaced the Ukrainian government with a puppet state, but they will also be left diplomatically isolated internationally, and with major sanctions in place- somewhat walked back in relation to Swift and the exclusion of their Central Bank from the world's financial system- but still painful and counter to their long-term wealth and affluence, but not enough to induce crippling resentment against the West amongst the Russian people.
We will want to reset the Russian relationship when Putin dies, after all- and he is sure to pop his clogs or lose his marbles sooner of later- older more active men tend to lose it quite suddenly. My grandfather declined quite suddenly after a fall mowing his two acre tiered garden adjacent to the river. He was dead within six months- despite being a model of fitness, hale and hearty, before. We can only hope that Mr Putin continues to enjoy as much strenuous and risky exercise as his health allows...
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.