… And how to fix it. This essay began as a response to an article in Quillette entitled What Putin Really Wants.
Before being critical, I would at least like to give the author credit for presenting the Russian position, even if the view is heavily distorted to present the Washington perspective. So what’s it really all about? In a word, hegemony. At the surface level, the military layer, Russia has a legitimate grievance. Let us remember, nobody ‘won’ the Cold War, unless by this we include the entire world and we have to remember that the fragmentation of Russian Empire and semi-self-governing autonomy of Russia’s bordering satellite states was contingent upon many prevailing pre-set conditions assumed within the Budapest Memorandum (1994) and the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership (1997) (at least in relation to the Ukraine specifically).
I won’t bore you with the details, but at least two of these assumed criteria have been breached. The first is continuing friendly relations between Washington and Russia- the relationship really began soured with America’s abandonment of its treaty commitment to not develop ABM’s. This frosting of relations only continued to sour as America began to apply economic, diplomatic and media pressure to Russian internal politics- blatantly ignoring the axiom that beyond the insistence on adherence to Treaty obligations and the pursuit of strictly limited enlightened self-interest the Sovereign Rights of any internationally recognised nation should trump the Human Rights of any population which falls under the jurisdiction of said Sovereign Nation. Both American Presidents and the Queen have stood and posed for photographs with true international monsters in pursuit of this very narrowly construed self-interest.
Regardless of how callous it may seem to many to state that Presidents and diplomats should simply ignore the free press and international observers on the subjects of Pussyhats, the Uyghurs and the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, one has to consider the downstream consequences of elevating peripheral considerations to the geopolitically relevant layer. Putin may have made his own bed in relation to internationally recognised breach of territorial sovereignty of the annexation of the Crimea and one might argue that there was no external means of averting the Novichok incident given that Putin has nothing to lose in terms of the exhaustion of the West’s cache of economic and diplomatic measures, but this doesn’t mean that deploying a chemical agent on foreign soil, with the risk of innocent bystanders being harmed doesn’t represent an unprecedented breach of international norms and didn’t constitute a hostile act bordering on a signalling of undeclared war. Even during the Cold War, Berlin rules applied in many instances, and all parties observed applied rational principles to avert uncontrollable escalation.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for either the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi or the plight of the Uyghurs. The first is a strategic irrelevancy and is the primary reasons why the Saudis refuse to open up OPEC oil and gas supply. Until President Biden eats a well-deserved slice of humble pie, and signals that the American breach of diplomatic norms has been repaired with a Saudi state visit, American citizens will suffer at the gas pump, the oil price-related compounding of global supply chain issues and inflation will continue, the European and NATO strategic position is weakened and no economic pressure can be brought to bear on Russia. Lower oil prices weaken Russia economically, and a greater global supply of natural gas injects steel into European spines.
The Uyghur position is even more important in geopolitical terms. Much as our hearts might go out to this population, we have to recognise that focusing upon this issue at the geopolitical layer depletes much needed American leverage in the economic sphere in relation to issues which are strategically relevant- such as guarantees to the Indian border, Hong Kong, territorial rights in the South China Sea, Taiwan and the right to supply arms to Americas allies. Plus, China need only point to the sheer hypocrisy- despite having only 5% of the world’s population, America has 25% of the world’s prison population, 40% of whom are African American (compared to a population percentage of 12.4%). America’s staunchest ally, the UK, has judicially refused extradition to the US repeatedly on the grounds of inhumane conditions, particularly in relation to resourcing for the mentally ill or cognitively diverse.
But the key distinction here is that this all makes American decision-making look rationally incoherent and strategically schizophrenic. International relations are governed as much by the adherence to expectation as it is about fulfilling treaty obligations and following one’s assurances. And it’s worth noting that Ukraine itself has strenuously objected to some of the needlessly bellicose and provocative language coming out of Washington. The European Allies’ language has been more restrained and diplomatic, but still demonstrably sceptical. To neutral observers it smacks of an American Foreign Policy Establishment which is desperate to appear strong after the weakness shown in Afghanistan (at least in terms of execution, particularly with regard to the premature withdrawal of air support- even though many, including myself, welcomed an end to the continued expense of American blood and treasure in a futile Forever War).
In the current instance, none of this makes Washington appear strong- other than in the eyes of a media which has a decidedly jaded interest in maintaining their access to power. If anything, on the world stage, the Biden Administration is beginning to look decidedly infantile and amateurish, unless once countenances the sacrifice of prestige and trust internationally for the transitory and puerile political power potentially earned on the domestic front (which is sure to fail anyway, given American dissatisfaction with supply shortages of things as basic as a groceries, or the wage and savings dilution they are experiencing through inflation). Washington could have long since greatly relieved global inflationary pressures and in the process increased their economic leverage over Russia. Instead they singularly failed to sacrifice a little domestic political capital, fearful of the response of their friends in media. It remains a blunder of the highest order.
My final point is that this not really about NATO or Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. It’s all about Nord Stream 2. Hegemony can exist beyond the military level, in terms of the application of economic and pressure by other means- namely by leveraging the economic to make a current foreign Administration unpopular with its own citizenry. Russia wants to punish Ukraine economically by depriving them of their lucrative pipeline fees. Washington rightly fears that the same pressure might one day be brought to bear to leverage its allies, particularly Germany. It’s a strategic stalemate not easily resolved. It should also be noted that this demonstrates yet another slice of Washington hypocrisy. America is quite happy to exercise economic and diplomatic hegemony in its own backyard over Central and South America, but it doesn’t like it when other world powers exercise similar strategic vetoes, by non-military means.
Here is a source which lays out many of the issues surrounding Nord Stream 2:
Ukraine, which like Poland earns gas transit fees, may have to find ways to diversify its own supplies and rethink its function in the European gas system. Until it does, it will continue to depend on Russia.
The irony is that Washington is being outplayed. Russia’s single greatest goal is to diminish American geopolitical power on the world stage. It’s succeeding. Moreover, the Washington position only solidifies the Russian geopolitical realignment with China. By opening up brinksmanship and bellicosity on two fronts, skating right up to the line and no further, China and Russia are effectively operating as a tag team, giving Washington the humiliating choice of either looking even more weak on the world stage, or appearing reckless to their allies by responding in kind. It would appear that Washington prefers to look recklessly strong rather than diminished.
Meanwhile, Russia is sure to extract concessions in relation to Nord Stream 2. It was never about NATO or Ukrainian entanglement in the European economic sphere, but was all about the Russian gambit to gain greater strategic resource leverage over America’s allies. This is why the concession over the Jamal Khashoggi affair to the Saudis is so strategically important. Germany is an export surplus economy which also happens to possess the third largest port in Europe with Hamburg, as well as Bremen. Strategic re-engagement with the Saudis is good for the global economy, blunts Russia’s strategic aims and weakens their economy through reduced oil and gas prices. It’s hurts Russia where it matters without the alarmingly bellicose rhetoric. Better still it outplays Russia at a strategic and diplomatic geopolitical level, recementing the faith of America’s allies- turning the tables by making America appear the master and Russia the rank amateur.
It’s a shame that Democrat political considerations over the potential impacts for the midterms, paired with an unfavourable perception in the corporate legacy media, means it will never happen. It would have been beautiful and would have reassured America’s allies to the point of an American diplomatic resurgence on the world stage. It also points to a singular failure on the part of the American political class to underestimate the American people. If the two events were paired in the American public’s mind, the average American would love it. It would appeal to their sense of national pride, restore faith in the current American presidency and as an added bonus, Americans would get to see their gas prices fall at the pump and a lessoning of the inflationary pressures devaluing their wages and their savings. On both the world stage and domestically Biden would appear strong to everyone- other than to the corporate media toadies whose opinion he seems to care most about. Although American corporate media may be irreversibly failing as a business model, it still enjoys outsized influence amongst anachronistic power brokers, movers and shakers.
I look forward to receiving your emails - helps me cut through the nonsense promulgated elsewhere and always gives a considered, rational and logical underpinning to the thrust and content of your article.
Cheers for the compliment. Personally, I enjoy Breaking Points on YouTube for my daily dose of sanity. I may not agree with many of their political positions, but it is nice to see two people from different parts of the political spectrum getting along and treating each other with good faith and respect.
What annoys me the most about the current political paradigm is that there is a growing consensus amongst elites from both political ends of the spectrum that average voters shouldn't be entrusted with deciding the course of a nation. They don't even consider that ordinary people's concerns or direct experiences may fundamentally contradict their expectations and beliefs.
I was a Remainer in the UK- I voted that way because I had worked in quite a technical role for the largest UK manufacturer of PVC windows and doors, and understood well the concerns of those who relied upon complex international supply chains. That being said, when the Remain campaign lost the referendum, I was lucky enough to have recently read Jonathan Haidt's Righteous Mind- so I was well prepared to understand that people from different backgrounds and at different places in the socio-economics spectrum would look at a particular policy or issue from radically different points of view. So I skipped the years of bitter recriminations failing to acknowledge the legitimate (and largely unheard) concerns of others entailed.
The other night I was thinking about the Ma'Khia Bryant shooting and how people can have radically different viewpoints, depending on their point of view. On the one hand, anyone with any sense can see that the cop had no choice in the matter, and evidenced a combination of measured professionalism and split second reactions which was entirely appropriate for the situation.
But on the other I can sympathise with the point of view of the likes of Whoopi Goldberg when she pointed to the often excessive caution exercised by social workers in a 'cover your ass' kind of way, which fails to take into account extended family support systems with the options which go with the removal of the child often far less than ideal and arguably often no more safe or developmentally secure.
But the analysis fails in two ways. First, Jen Psaki was completely wrong to link this particular cop in any way to anything systemic. Second, everyone would know what the real problem is, if they simply took the time to consider their own experiences. Everybody with any experience has had the terrible boss, the one who inevitably throws their people under the bus, rather than admit the responsibility which goes with authority.
The truth is social work is probably a fine balancing act between weighing the safety of the child against the individual imposition of state tyranny into the most intimate of settings, the familial. It's part of our modern paradigm that politicians, political appointees and climbers willing to concede to the mob and offer up the necessary hide- just not their own. As a field, it's probably underfunded and made considerably worse by the constant need to leave a paper trail that protects every decision from culpability and civil suits.
But the superficial analysis never goes deep enough to get to the real heart of the matter- the situation is made a thousand times worse by piss poor leadership. I always used to be brutally honest with my guys about why I was hard on them- my point of view was that I wasn't going to fall on my sword for them if they fucked up beyond the point of making an honest mistake. That being said I was willing to protect them to the hilt (and wasn't the only one willing to resign in one instance involving a progress chaser), when I felt they were being treated unfairly.
Most people completely miss the point about leadership- they think it's all about applying pressure to get people to work harder. Of course, you have to be able to say no and argue a position well and in good faith, but in my experience the two most important characteristics are consistency and fairness. If they know where they stand and know you really are loyal to them, then they will bust a gut trying to get the job done and return the favour many times over.
People watch too much television on such matters- too many police procedurals and too many high powered corporate environments in which everyone is a hard ass or slick negotiator. The first type is a pain, although at least many are generally honest- nobody trusts the second type. Fine words butter no parsnips.
I wondered where these two had gone - I used to watch them on The Hill and enjoyed their discussions too - thanks for the hint - I've subscribed to Breaking Points.
I had to look up Ma'Khia Bryant and understand the point - when I looked it up it reminded me of a short story by Camus - The Guest but in a more immediately existential way and one any reasonable person can understand - this is why police officers and soldiers have to have excellent training so that their response is immediately the right one to make in the situation without swithering and having to think - but not an easy situation to be in - not many "non combatants" get that or could hack it.
I agree that "two most important characteristics are consistency and fairness" in a leader - although I was a maths teacher - I used also to teach an 8 week drama module - at the end of which I gave the participants a questionnaire - asking which bits they liked and which bits they weren't too keen on - and told them that this was important to me as I would take their advice and adjust the next sessions content - which I always did.
the other thing I asked them about was "what makes a good teacher?" - the three top answers were good class control, fairness, and consistency.
“ Until President Biden eats a well-deserved slice of humble pie, and signals that the American breach of diplomatic norms has been repaired with a Saudi state visit, American citizens will suffer at the gas pump, the oil price-related compounding of global supply chain issues and inflation will continue, the European and NATO strategic position is weakened and no economic pressure can be brought to bear on Russia”
That’s only partially true. America has plenty of oil. Biden’s own environmental policies are standing in the way of fully exploiting it. In a completely laissez faire energy economy, America might be the biggest oil exporter in the world. There are plenty of companies ready to get to work if they weren’t shackled by environmental regulations. We didn’t need foreign oil two years ago to have low gas prices.
With all due respect, the false equivalency between China and the US is disgusting. I’m all for prison reform. But our situation isn’t remotely in the same universe as Chinese genocide. With both Russia and China, this isn’t a question of a competition between rival empires carving up the world. It’s about the free world vs. the autocrats.
“ And it’s worth noting that Ukraine itself has strenuously objected to some of the needlessly bellicose and provocative language coming out of Washington. “
That’s true. Biden’s admin has handled it poorly.
“ even though many, including myself, welcomed an end to the continued expense of American blood and treasure in a futile Forever War”
“Forever War” is a gross mischaracterization but we can agree to disagree. It’s water under the bridge.
“ My final point is that this not really about NATO or Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. It’s all about Nord Stream 2.”
That may be so, but I’ll point out that in all this talk of America being at fault because of NATO expansion, Russia and the US made a promise with Ukraine in 94 to get them to give up the nukes - a promise Russia broke 20 years later in Crimea. Ukraine also remembers when Stalin starved them - killing millions of Ukrainians. They know Putin is a criminal.
“ In the current instance, none of this makes Washington appear strong- other than in the eyes of a media which has a decidedly jaded interest in maintaining their access to power.”
I don’t know about that. Biden’s had plenty of bad press here in the States. I think he’s looked weak at every turn, and I don’t think he’s been successful in impressing the “corporate media,” if that’s in fact what he’s try to do - which I have my doubts about (monocausal explanations are overly reductive).
Anyway, perhaps this is the piece of yours that I’ve disagreed with most strongly. We likely have very different views on global affairs. Still, another very interesting article, Geary.
'With all due respect, the false equivalency between China and the US is disgusting. I’m all for prison reform. But our situation isn’t remotely in the same universe as Chinese genocide.'- I agree, and perhaps I wasn't clear- I was trying to point to what the Chinese say in response to the subject, when human rights is raised (I actually lifted the quote from Ai Weiwei). The problem is although there are problems with American sentencing and plea deals (a high rate of catching criminals is a far better deterrent than a long sentence, because they tend to be wildly overconfident about not getting caught) there are many people within government who believe the current narrative on mass incarceration, without looking any deeper for root causes (they tend to get quite annoyed when you mention fathers).
It's the same liberal bias which prevailed with NAFTA- the idea that American government should prioritise the needs of Mexican peasant farmers over the needs of their own citizens, when the former is not their job and the latter most assuredly is. And the policies which are introduced under Democrats tend to stick, institutionally. If a trade negotiator, diplomat or bureaucrat really believes that America is a uniquely oppressive nation with no right to lecture other cultures, then it will reflect in how hard they are willing to push on an issue. We get the same problem here in the UK.
'“Forever War” is a gross mischaracterization but we can agree to disagree. It’s water under the bridge.' I actually agreed with the initial decision to go into Iraq, but when I state Forever Wars I am referring to the American political tendency to stay well after the war is over and, in effect, become an occupying power. From a purely military perspective, it snatches defeat from the jaws of victory- but at a broader level when it comes to administering jus post bellum it's always better to do it an arm's length, by the means of a blank cheque.
People are liable to getting angry at having foreigners hanging around trying to help- the West has lower cultural ingroup overall, so many of leaders don't see that the most benign interventions will be resented if they come from outsiders, which the cultural anthropologists will tell you until quite recently (the past couple of hundred years) were almost universally considered non-people.
“ (a high rate of catching criminals is a far better deterrent than a long sentence, because they tend to be wildly overconfident about not getting caught) ”
True. I’ve never been a “law and order” guy since many who wear that label push for extralegal means for law enforcement to punish citizens who’ve committed crimes. We really do need prison reform in this country and I had hope that Sen. Scott would be able to get with some moderate dems and come up with some good compromise legislation, but we will see.
Sort of disagree with you on NAFTA. I’m a free trade guy. But I’d criticize nafta from a free trade standpoint. In any trade deal, neither country should end up with a better deal. It should just be an agreement not to use tariffs or quotas on each other’s stuff.
I don’t agree with everything we ever did in the Middle East. We made a lot of mistakes, including in Afghanistan. But by the time we left, it was a peacekeeping operation, not a war. We had a very small presence and mainly provided air support to the Afghan military. That was enough to keep the Taliban at bay and let Afghan women go to school. When we pulled out (leaving Bagram in the middle of the night), we signaled pretty strongly who was going to rule to country next (we didn’t even give the Afghan government a seat at the table in the “peace” talk). It’s hard to blame Afghan soldiers (who beforehand had been very brave and had done much of the fighting and the dying and the killing) for throwing down their arms rather than fight the Taliban and in doing so sign a death warrant for their families.
The press has played a significant role in political decisions throughout history. Much as we might wish it otherwise that is the sad truth. This is just another example.
Yes, and it's almost always a harmful role. Reporting the facts is a public service- but the insist upon drawing conclusions on behalf of the reader or viewer.
This is a great piece. I wonder if you are aware of the eminent historian, author and expert on Russia, Professor Joseph Kotkin? He always has fascinating insights into Putin and what he is up to...though keeping everybody guessing is really Putin's gameplan.
Kotkin's no dummy, but get real. He's in SoCal where the environment is being disfigured (nice term) by "homeless" addicts who are dependent on fentanyl/crystal meth salespersons who sell daily drug hits for cheap prices. They arrive daily because, heck, they don't commit felonies
I keep meaning to get the new Michael Schellenberger 'San Fransicko'. I really want to get my hands on the data from the Netherlands, where they give people who shoot up in public the choice between prison and rehab (apparently, most progressives don't believe this when told).
I really love arguments which actually use the aspired to Leftism's and turn them on their head by presenting what actually happens. Sweden is, for example, in many ways more free market capitalist than America- other than the higher taxes on the poor and middle classes. Inheritance tax doesn't exist and one of the main reasons why they have such high wealth inequality is because they offer a generous tax rebate for private home ownership and taking on a mortgage (30% of debt interest paid on loans refunded). It's a system which is friendly to capital and rewards entrepreneurship.
Like all the Scandinavian economies, they score high on the Index of Economic Freedom. It's only stronger worker protections and social engineering through tax on green issues which drops their rating. Sweden free market economist Johan Norberg did a really good hour long documentary on the subject which really made me think a couple of years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq3vVbdgMuQ&t=18s . He's also made a really great one about Adam Smith, which is free on Amazon Prime in some regions.
Yup...and the Germans and others were happy to oblige. Hence, why should NATO exist anymore? THE USA is coming across as a rube. Surprisingly, I read the other day that France will be building more nuclear reactors - the exact opposite policy of Germany. So what is the EU doing is terms of intra-European energy cooperation? Looks like not much.
Nuclear is the way to go. Unfortunately, our Tory Party butchered the finance side of our recent and ongoing nuclear project. It's one of those things which only really works when the risk is mostly undertaken by sovereign risk (one doesn't want to eliminate risk entirely for the private contractor). Unfortunately, the market doesn't like the risk profile of nuclear, because without sovereign investment at stake, there is every chance that whichever fools get elected next will decommission the plant 40 years early.
As a consequence, private risk usually entails agreements to prices per unit which are no real reflection of actual risks when the government borrows the money on the taxpayers behalf (it's a great investment, only exceeded by big hydro). Although the upfront costs are high, energy becomes as close to free as can be, after 15 years.
Well, Green is very present in their political landscape- which is ironic, given that nuclear is one of the few energy sources where the waste product, or fabrication profile, doesn't spew waste out into the environment...
I look forward to receiving your emails - helps me cut through the nonsense promulgated elsewhere and always gives a considered, rational and logical underpinning to the thrust and content of your article.
I wish more people could see how it really is.
I can only share to ease my despair.
Cheers for the compliment. Personally, I enjoy Breaking Points on YouTube for my daily dose of sanity. I may not agree with many of their political positions, but it is nice to see two people from different parts of the political spectrum getting along and treating each other with good faith and respect.
What annoys me the most about the current political paradigm is that there is a growing consensus amongst elites from both political ends of the spectrum that average voters shouldn't be entrusted with deciding the course of a nation. They don't even consider that ordinary people's concerns or direct experiences may fundamentally contradict their expectations and beliefs.
I was a Remainer in the UK- I voted that way because I had worked in quite a technical role for the largest UK manufacturer of PVC windows and doors, and understood well the concerns of those who relied upon complex international supply chains. That being said, when the Remain campaign lost the referendum, I was lucky enough to have recently read Jonathan Haidt's Righteous Mind- so I was well prepared to understand that people from different backgrounds and at different places in the socio-economics spectrum would look at a particular policy or issue from radically different points of view. So I skipped the years of bitter recriminations failing to acknowledge the legitimate (and largely unheard) concerns of others entailed.
The other night I was thinking about the Ma'Khia Bryant shooting and how people can have radically different viewpoints, depending on their point of view. On the one hand, anyone with any sense can see that the cop had no choice in the matter, and evidenced a combination of measured professionalism and split second reactions which was entirely appropriate for the situation.
But on the other I can sympathise with the point of view of the likes of Whoopi Goldberg when she pointed to the often excessive caution exercised by social workers in a 'cover your ass' kind of way, which fails to take into account extended family support systems with the options which go with the removal of the child often far less than ideal and arguably often no more safe or developmentally secure.
But the analysis fails in two ways. First, Jen Psaki was completely wrong to link this particular cop in any way to anything systemic. Second, everyone would know what the real problem is, if they simply took the time to consider their own experiences. Everybody with any experience has had the terrible boss, the one who inevitably throws their people under the bus, rather than admit the responsibility which goes with authority.
The truth is social work is probably a fine balancing act between weighing the safety of the child against the individual imposition of state tyranny into the most intimate of settings, the familial. It's part of our modern paradigm that politicians, political appointees and climbers willing to concede to the mob and offer up the necessary hide- just not their own. As a field, it's probably underfunded and made considerably worse by the constant need to leave a paper trail that protects every decision from culpability and civil suits.
But the superficial analysis never goes deep enough to get to the real heart of the matter- the situation is made a thousand times worse by piss poor leadership. I always used to be brutally honest with my guys about why I was hard on them- my point of view was that I wasn't going to fall on my sword for them if they fucked up beyond the point of making an honest mistake. That being said I was willing to protect them to the hilt (and wasn't the only one willing to resign in one instance involving a progress chaser), when I felt they were being treated unfairly.
Most people completely miss the point about leadership- they think it's all about applying pressure to get people to work harder. Of course, you have to be able to say no and argue a position well and in good faith, but in my experience the two most important characteristics are consistency and fairness. If they know where they stand and know you really are loyal to them, then they will bust a gut trying to get the job done and return the favour many times over.
People watch too much television on such matters- too many police procedurals and too many high powered corporate environments in which everyone is a hard ass or slick negotiator. The first type is a pain, although at least many are generally honest- nobody trusts the second type. Fine words butter no parsnips.
Thank you for your reply - very much appreciated.
I wondered where these two had gone - I used to watch them on The Hill and enjoyed their discussions too - thanks for the hint - I've subscribed to Breaking Points.
I had to look up Ma'Khia Bryant and understand the point - when I looked it up it reminded me of a short story by Camus - The Guest but in a more immediately existential way and one any reasonable person can understand - this is why police officers and soldiers have to have excellent training so that their response is immediately the right one to make in the situation without swithering and having to think - but not an easy situation to be in - not many "non combatants" get that or could hack it.
I agree that "two most important characteristics are consistency and fairness" in a leader - although I was a maths teacher - I used also to teach an 8 week drama module - at the end of which I gave the participants a questionnaire - asking which bits they liked and which bits they weren't too keen on - and told them that this was important to me as I would take their advice and adjust the next sessions content - which I always did.
the other thing I asked them about was "what makes a good teacher?" - the three top answers were good class control, fairness, and consistency.
Actions speak louder than words.
“ Until President Biden eats a well-deserved slice of humble pie, and signals that the American breach of diplomatic norms has been repaired with a Saudi state visit, American citizens will suffer at the gas pump, the oil price-related compounding of global supply chain issues and inflation will continue, the European and NATO strategic position is weakened and no economic pressure can be brought to bear on Russia”
That’s only partially true. America has plenty of oil. Biden’s own environmental policies are standing in the way of fully exploiting it. In a completely laissez faire energy economy, America might be the biggest oil exporter in the world. There are plenty of companies ready to get to work if they weren’t shackled by environmental regulations. We didn’t need foreign oil two years ago to have low gas prices.
With all due respect, the false equivalency between China and the US is disgusting. I’m all for prison reform. But our situation isn’t remotely in the same universe as Chinese genocide. With both Russia and China, this isn’t a question of a competition between rival empires carving up the world. It’s about the free world vs. the autocrats.
“ And it’s worth noting that Ukraine itself has strenuously objected to some of the needlessly bellicose and provocative language coming out of Washington. “
That’s true. Biden’s admin has handled it poorly.
“ even though many, including myself, welcomed an end to the continued expense of American blood and treasure in a futile Forever War”
“Forever War” is a gross mischaracterization but we can agree to disagree. It’s water under the bridge.
“ My final point is that this not really about NATO or Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. It’s all about Nord Stream 2.”
That may be so, but I’ll point out that in all this talk of America being at fault because of NATO expansion, Russia and the US made a promise with Ukraine in 94 to get them to give up the nukes - a promise Russia broke 20 years later in Crimea. Ukraine also remembers when Stalin starved them - killing millions of Ukrainians. They know Putin is a criminal.
“ In the current instance, none of this makes Washington appear strong- other than in the eyes of a media which has a decidedly jaded interest in maintaining their access to power.”
I don’t know about that. Biden’s had plenty of bad press here in the States. I think he’s looked weak at every turn, and I don’t think he’s been successful in impressing the “corporate media,” if that’s in fact what he’s try to do - which I have my doubts about (monocausal explanations are overly reductive).
Anyway, perhaps this is the piece of yours that I’ve disagreed with most strongly. We likely have very different views on global affairs. Still, another very interesting article, Geary.
'With all due respect, the false equivalency between China and the US is disgusting. I’m all for prison reform. But our situation isn’t remotely in the same universe as Chinese genocide.'- I agree, and perhaps I wasn't clear- I was trying to point to what the Chinese say in response to the subject, when human rights is raised (I actually lifted the quote from Ai Weiwei). The problem is although there are problems with American sentencing and plea deals (a high rate of catching criminals is a far better deterrent than a long sentence, because they tend to be wildly overconfident about not getting caught) there are many people within government who believe the current narrative on mass incarceration, without looking any deeper for root causes (they tend to get quite annoyed when you mention fathers).
It's the same liberal bias which prevailed with NAFTA- the idea that American government should prioritise the needs of Mexican peasant farmers over the needs of their own citizens, when the former is not their job and the latter most assuredly is. And the policies which are introduced under Democrats tend to stick, institutionally. If a trade negotiator, diplomat or bureaucrat really believes that America is a uniquely oppressive nation with no right to lecture other cultures, then it will reflect in how hard they are willing to push on an issue. We get the same problem here in the UK.
'“Forever War” is a gross mischaracterization but we can agree to disagree. It’s water under the bridge.' I actually agreed with the initial decision to go into Iraq, but when I state Forever Wars I am referring to the American political tendency to stay well after the war is over and, in effect, become an occupying power. From a purely military perspective, it snatches defeat from the jaws of victory- but at a broader level when it comes to administering jus post bellum it's always better to do it an arm's length, by the means of a blank cheque.
People are liable to getting angry at having foreigners hanging around trying to help- the West has lower cultural ingroup overall, so many of leaders don't see that the most benign interventions will be resented if they come from outsiders, which the cultural anthropologists will tell you until quite recently (the past couple of hundred years) were almost universally considered non-people.
“ (a high rate of catching criminals is a far better deterrent than a long sentence, because they tend to be wildly overconfident about not getting caught) ”
True. I’ve never been a “law and order” guy since many who wear that label push for extralegal means for law enforcement to punish citizens who’ve committed crimes. We really do need prison reform in this country and I had hope that Sen. Scott would be able to get with some moderate dems and come up with some good compromise legislation, but we will see.
Sort of disagree with you on NAFTA. I’m a free trade guy. But I’d criticize nafta from a free trade standpoint. In any trade deal, neither country should end up with a better deal. It should just be an agreement not to use tariffs or quotas on each other’s stuff.
I don’t agree with everything we ever did in the Middle East. We made a lot of mistakes, including in Afghanistan. But by the time we left, it was a peacekeeping operation, not a war. We had a very small presence and mainly provided air support to the Afghan military. That was enough to keep the Taliban at bay and let Afghan women go to school. When we pulled out (leaving Bagram in the middle of the night), we signaled pretty strongly who was going to rule to country next (we didn’t even give the Afghan government a seat at the table in the “peace” talk). It’s hard to blame Afghan soldiers (who beforehand had been very brave and had done much of the fighting and the dying and the killing) for throwing down their arms rather than fight the Taliban and in doing so sign a death warrant for their families.
The press has played a significant role in political decisions throughout history. Much as we might wish it otherwise that is the sad truth. This is just another example.
Yes, and it's almost always a harmful role. Reporting the facts is a public service- but the insist upon drawing conclusions on behalf of the reader or viewer.
This is a great piece. I wonder if you are aware of the eminent historian, author and expert on Russia, Professor Joseph Kotkin? He always has fascinating insights into Putin and what he is up to...though keeping everybody guessing is really Putin's gameplan.
I'll have to give him a try! Thanks for the compliment.
Kotkin's no dummy, but get real. He's in SoCal where the environment is being disfigured (nice term) by "homeless" addicts who are dependent on fentanyl/crystal meth salespersons who sell daily drug hits for cheap prices. They arrive daily because, heck, they don't commit felonies
I keep meaning to get the new Michael Schellenberger 'San Fransicko'. I really want to get my hands on the data from the Netherlands, where they give people who shoot up in public the choice between prison and rehab (apparently, most progressives don't believe this when told).
I really love arguments which actually use the aspired to Leftism's and turn them on their head by presenting what actually happens. Sweden is, for example, in many ways more free market capitalist than America- other than the higher taxes on the poor and middle classes. Inheritance tax doesn't exist and one of the main reasons why they have such high wealth inequality is because they offer a generous tax rebate for private home ownership and taking on a mortgage (30% of debt interest paid on loans refunded). It's a system which is friendly to capital and rewards entrepreneurship.
Like all the Scandinavian economies, they score high on the Index of Economic Freedom. It's only stronger worker protections and social engineering through tax on green issues which drops their rating. Sweden free market economist Johan Norberg did a really good hour long documentary on the subject which really made me think a couple of years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq3vVbdgMuQ&t=18s . He's also made a really great one about Adam Smith, which is free on Amazon Prime in some regions.
Ya just have to laugh at "a greater global supply of natural gas injects steel into European spines." - What spines?!
Lol. Putin earned his early bones conceiving of a plan to weaken the West through gas dependence. Looks like he succeeded, in many ways.
Yup...and the Germans and others were happy to oblige. Hence, why should NATO exist anymore? THE USA is coming across as a rube. Surprisingly, I read the other day that France will be building more nuclear reactors - the exact opposite policy of Germany. So what is the EU doing is terms of intra-European energy cooperation? Looks like not much.
Nuclear is the way to go. Unfortunately, our Tory Party butchered the finance side of our recent and ongoing nuclear project. It's one of those things which only really works when the risk is mostly undertaken by sovereign risk (one doesn't want to eliminate risk entirely for the private contractor). Unfortunately, the market doesn't like the risk profile of nuclear, because without sovereign investment at stake, there is every chance that whichever fools get elected next will decommission the plant 40 years early.
As a consequence, private risk usually entails agreements to prices per unit which are no real reflection of actual risks when the government borrows the money on the taxpayers behalf (it's a great investment, only exceeded by big hydro). Although the upfront costs are high, energy becomes as close to free as can be, after 15 years.
yup nuclear is the way to go....so what's gotten into the usually sane & rational Germans?
Well, Green is very present in their political landscape- which is ironic, given that nuclear is one of the few energy sources where the waste product, or fabrication profile, doesn't spew waste out into the environment...