Trying to understand the "why" so that we do not need to go through the "what" repeatedly...
I have abstained from engaging in this thread so far, because my analysis will likely surprise, but let me preface by saying that Russian military aggression cannot be condoned, period, and that I do not aim to offend.
My point here is NOT to
justify what is happening, I condemn it, it is to propose that we try to
understand what is happening.
If you allow me, Joe, I will use one of your posts as a starting board
The Monroe Doctrine
I agree. This is THE reason. Period.
And not only do the United States have the military and economic power to prevent it, but we also actually have a political doctrine to support it.
It is called the Monroe Doctrine. Going clear back to 1823 this doctrine articulates the fact that the United States will not tolerate interference of any other world power in the Western Hemisphere. The doctrine held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.S.
For example (and I am surprised to have not seen this mentioned already - unless I missed it, in which case I apologize), the United States could not tolerate the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba, 1,000 miles from Washington DC in 1962, and JFK was likely ready to go to full nuclear WW III over it.
A few bottom line points here can be:
1- The Monroe Doctrine is not based on notions of freedom or democracy. As
Red Leg correctly surmised, it is based on sheer power. The US did not invite the world to agree to the Monroe Doctrine, we dictate it, because we unilaterally deem it in our national interest, and we have enforced, it because we indeed had the power to do it.
2- When the sovereign nation of Cuba decided to exercise their freedom to allow the Soviet Union to install military bases on their soil, the United States deemed their national interest threatened, and we engaged air and sea military action to prevent it, including the threat of nuclear WW III. Thankfully, Khrushchev who knew what war was (he was engaged throughout the entire Great Patriotic War (a.k.a. WW II for us) and he was Political Commissar at Stalingrad) understood that he had gone too far and he withdrew the Soviet missiles from Cuba (and we, discreetly, our missiles from Turkey).
3- Is the Monroe Doctrine obsolete? Mercifully for our security, and indeed thanks to our military and economic power, as correctly outlined by
Red Leg, no one has tested it in recent history. Good! But for the sake of discussion, let us take an hypothetical. Imagine Canada was to invite or allow China to establish military bases, likely including anti ICBM capability and hypersonic missiles capability in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta. What do you think the United States reaction would be? Accept the freedom of the Canadian people to ally with China?
Realpolitik
It was Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's statecraft in unifying Germany in the 1800’s that brought the concept of Realpolitik to the world. Real here is to be understood in its German meaning: realistic, practical. Realpolitik is diplomatic or political action based primarily on pragmatic considerations rather than moral or ethical premises.
A few examples here can be:
1- One can likely credit Realpolitik for the fact that neither Russia (since Cuba) nor China (so far) have tried to install military bases in Canada or Mexico. Nobody in their right mind would think about trying it, because everybody in their right mind would know that it is pragmatically a non-starter.
2- NATO control by the US is a given because the US is the overwhelming military power in NATO. Sure, the Bundeswehr was likely the core of ground forces in Western Europe during the Cold War, and, to be objective, French forces are today the core of military power in Europe, but the bottom line is that NATO does what the US say, because, until Western European Defense becomes a reality, if ever in the near term, NATO for all practical purposes IS the US. Which explains why there is a mutually defeating contradiction at play: most of Europe does not dare to challenge NATO/US because they do not dare step away from under the American defense umbrella; and as long as they do not, they are not motivated to construct a European Defense.
Note that I am not arguing a side or another here, nor do I loose myself in the usual conspiration theories about the US domination of the world, but this discussion is itself a great example of Realpolitik. Realpolitik IS, it is not about what would/should/could it is about what IS.
Which leads us to quoting
Red Leg's post again (Thank You Joe):
Under the wonderful principles dear to American foreign policy, of democracy, freedom of the people to choose their own destiny, etc., the concept of allowing Ukraine in NATO and the EU sounds great; it is the right thing to do; and Russia indeed has no say in it.
However, Russia happens to disagree with that notion, and, right, wrong, or indifferent, this is a fact.
Ukraine
The Realpolitik questions here are not:
--- whether Russia is right or wrong in its assertion that Ukraine is part of their cultural and historical heritage (although there are indeed reams of historical evidence to this point...);
--- whether Russia is right or wrong in its assertion that Ukraine joining NATO will lead to the creation of American military bases on its soil, likely deploying anti ICBM capability and short to mid range nuclear-capable cruise missiles - Tomahawk currently, hypersonic vehicles soon (although the examples of Estonia, Poland, Romania, etc. are difficult to ignore...);
--- etc.
The Realpolitik questions here are whether Russia - again: right, wrong, or indifferent - perceives it this way - the same way the US perceived Soviet missiles in Cuba as a threat - and whether they can do something about it. The clear answers are yes and yes. Period.
Arguing that NATO is only taking defensive steps in Estonia, Poland and Romania, and if they could in Ukraine and Belarus, and is not a threat to Russia, is as irrelevant as arguing that the Soviet Union was only taking defensive steps in Cuba and was not a threat to the US. This is not the way the US perceived it then, and it was our reality; and it is not the way Russia perceives it now, and it is their reality. Period. This is why Russia has been raising their "security demands."
The fact that Russia did nothing about the NATO expansions of 1999 (Poland) and 2004 (Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia) was also Realpolitik, they were too weak then, and it explains why they did nothing, but this should not hide the fact that they were deeply angered about it. But they could only talk about it, so, of course, nobody listened.
The fact that Russia went to war in 2008 over the attempted inclusion of Georgia in NATO likewise was Realpolitik, but this time Russia could do something about it and did. But Georgia was too far, and not really in Europe, so everybody soon forgot about it.
The fact that Russia is, again, going to war over the attempted inclusion of, this time, Ukraine in NATO, continues to be Realpolitik, and nobody should be surprised about it. It is not like they have not been telling us for 10 years that this is their (hemi)sphere, and that they too have their own version of our Monroe Doctrine, and their own red lines.
The gain and the pain
Therefore, the question in 1962 for Cuba for the Soviets became: is it important enough for us to have bases in Cuba to risk WW III?
And the question in 2022 for US/NATO is exactly the same: is it important enough for us to have bases in Ukraine and Belarus to risk WW III?
In so many words, is the gain worth the pain?
I know, I know, nowhere in the above are the values of democracy and freedom considered. We are purely in the realm of Realpolitik.
Clearly, the unambiguous - and completely logical and with which I wholeheartedly agree - statements by the US, NATO, France, Germany, that under no circumstance whatsoever would a single American, French, German, etc. soldier be deployed in Ukraine, and that military response options are not on the table - which again, I totally agree with – make it somewhat obvious that the gain is not worth the pain.
But it also makes it somewhat untenable for the West to refuse to consider diplomatically Putin’s security demands.
And it also raises incredibly pertinent questions about NATO's expansion in Eastern Europe.
Everyone will of course understand, agree and sympathize with the almost panic desire of former Eastern Block countries to shelter under the American defense umbrella. One would be a monster to not understand these people.
But the Realpolitik question is unnerving: if these countries are apparently NOT of vital interest to the US (
which is precisely the reason why we are not intervening militarily in Ukraine), why did we give them an Article 5 guarantee that we will come defend them and die for them?
Will we honor Article 5? Many folks believe we will, just as we went to war over Poland in 1939 after the Munich appeasement proved to be just what it was: a ruse.
But these were the days before the Atom. Will the USA go to global nuclear WW III to protect itself? Assuredly. Will we do it to protect Ukraine, or Romania, or Slovakia, or Slovenia, or Latvia, or Lithuania, or Croatia, etc. Tough call...........................
What appears clear, it that we are not doing it over Ukraine, which is patently much larger and much more important than all these other recent NATO members (aside from Poland)..........................
Sure, Ukraine is not part of NATO, we have not signed a piece of paper with them, but will such a piece of paper commit New York, Chicago, Dallas, etc. to be on the nuclear front line, push comes to shove, over Slovenia? Again, tough call..........................
The Kurds made the mistake to heed the American encouragement to overthrow their Iraqi master in 1988. They failed to analyze that despite all good human rights principles they were not of vital national interest to the US. They now boast the terrible claim of being the sole population attacked with nerve agents sarin and tabun. America did not react.......................
Georgian President Saakashvili too felt emboldened after the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, where the Membership Action Plan (MAP) to integrate Georgia and Ukraine was discussed, even though Germany and France warned that offering a MAP to Ukraine and Georgia would be "an unnecessary offence" for Russia. But then again, Germany and France have been practicing Realpolitik a few centuries, and have paid a heavy price when they ignored it. The Russia-Georgian was ensued. America did not react.......................
Are we misleading Eastern Europe? Are we encouraging democracy and freedom principles that we back only by words (and diplomatic condemnations, and economic sanctions, and equipment deliveries, etc.) but not by blood, because we too, obviously, and logically, and rightly, abide by the principles of Realpolitik?
Should Realpolitik prevail?
In the name of the great principles of democracy, freedom of the people to choose their government and destiny, etc. America recently involved itself in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. We even did with Kosovo exactly what we blame Russia for doing in the Donbass with the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic!
The fundamental issue is that the Western Christian Democracy principles do not seem to work very well with peoples of other cultural heritages, and that despite our laudable intents, our interventions often create pandemonium. Is life for Iraqis better today than it was under Saddam? Is life today in Syria better than what it was before we attempted to remove Bashar al-Assad? Is Libya today better than it was under Gaddafi? Is Afghanistan returned to the Taliban better than it was under Hamid Karzai? Etc. etc.
This is another application of Realpolitik, the ability to accept some evil, as clearly existed under Saddam, Bashar al-Assad, Gaddafi, etc., to continue to use the above example, in order to prevent greater evil: the disintegration of entire States - dictatorships indeed - into utter chaos, and the Butcher's Bill climbing from tens of thousands into multiple hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
And if indeed the principles of freedom and democracy are so sacred that Russia considering Ukraine its buffer toward the West is so unacceptable, what are we waiting for to bestow them on Bahrein, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, China, etc.?
Ah, I get it: we cannot touch Bahrein, Qatar, Saudi Arabia because their oil keep our economy alive; and we cannot touch China because they likely can touch us back. We ARE applying Realpolitik.
This is a complete "two ships passing each other in the dark". Putin is probably laughing at Biden's lecturing him on not attempting to effect regime change or resolve political situations by force, in view of the our recent track record in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. (thanks God we dodged the bullet – barely! – in Egypt). This is the eternal American weakness in foreign politics: do as we say, not as we do...
And both the blessing and the drama is that the US, splendidly geographically isolated in our Western hemisphere, really do not have to pay the heaviest price for ignoring Realpolitik, this is a privilege left to those we leave in place after we retreat.
Is Putin crazy?
Regarding the military developments, I will abstain from prognosticating, but I note that the world opinion seems driven by completely ignorant (from a military perspective) journalists. I personally doubt very, very much that had Russia decided on a complete rapid
invasion of Northern and Eastern Ukraine, to Kiev, this would not have been accomplished in three days, such is the disproportion of forces. Maybe someone should provide the definition of invasion to the press. It is patently different from the definition of attack. As
Red Leg and I who trained in similar times, in similar positions, in similar places to face the Fulda Gap onslaught, this is NOT was is taking place in Ukraine right now.
Without being callous, and in all respect to the casualties, the very fact that Ukraine report only between 200 and 300 casualties after 4 days of war, tells me that the Russians have not rolled out the Armored Steamroller. I do not interpret Kiev as not haven "fallen" as the Ukrainians preventing the Russians from doing it. Kiev was not taken (yet?) because the Russians have not decided to take it (yet?). Ukraine has not been overrun because Russia likely does not intend to overrun Ukraine.
What is clear to me at this stage, is that Putin is achieving militarily what he could not do diplomatically: the non entry of Ukraine in NATO, and the non deployment of US strategic weapons on his border, what he calls "demilitarization of Ukraine".
I always thought that cornering him too tightly was a mistake, but I am surprised that he chose to attack on a large geographic scale now, although not yet on a large military scale – and this distinction is important. Is he exploiting a combined external/internal perceived American weakness after the withdrawal of Afghanistan and the complete unravelling of the Russian hoax?
So, a question deserves to be asked: are the limited air and ground attacks, Putin’s ultimate raising of the diplomatic stakes? Or is he really committed to full scale ground invasion? But to do what? Occupy Ukraine long term? I doubt it…
Another question that deserves to be genuinely asked is whether Putin is crazy, cunning (e.g. the NATO expansion East is just a pretext and his true aim is to rebuild the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe – as so many pundits are saying…….. ), or is he genuinely desperate after his constant warnings about Russia security needs being ignored for 10 years?
I lean on desperate, because Russia does not have the beginning of the military power anymore to rebuild the Soviet Union or something like it, and any action against a NATO member (e.g. Poland) would immediately trigger NATO Article 5 with the entire alliance being automatically at war with Russia, a risk that even Putin cannot take. Let us not forget that we are not responding militarily in Ukraine, precisely because Ukraine is NOT part of NATO.
In any case, desperate or not, what Putin did cannot be condoned, and this is what makes the game so easy for the West: it will not be hard to condemn Putin and continue to ignore his rational demands, which will of course extend indefinitely the problem.
As to Crimea...
As to Crimea, the historic reality is that it was never Ukrainian. It was captured from the Turks by the Tsars in the 1700’s and “given” by Khrushchev to Ukraine as recently as 1954 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the unification of Ukraine with Russia in 1654, which was a purely symbolic gesture within the boundaries of the Soviet Union, especially considering that 90%+ of its population have been ethic Russians for centuries, and up to now.
In Crimea, Russia has built and operated for over 300 years Sevastopol, the only major warm waters Russian naval base, from which they exert control over the Black Sea, and from which they get passage to the Mediterranean. It is as vital to Russia as San Diego, Norfolk, or Pearl Harbor are to the US. It is as irreplaceable to the Russians sea power in the Mediterranean as Naval Station Guantanamo Bay is irreplaceable to the US sea power in the Caribbean.
Notwithstanding the fact that Crimea is likely genuinely historically Russian, from a Realpolitik perspective, would we really expect the Russians to give up Sevastopol? After all the US kept Guantanamo in Cuba...
Is this analysis crazy?
Over the last two weeks, I thought it might be, because it seems so distant from what must obviously be a common sense analysis of the situation (e.g. Ukraine is right, Putin is just a megalomaniac thug), because that analysis is so common.
Then, yesterday while looking for data on the 2014 beginnings of the Donbass movements, I found this fascinating University of Chicago's R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in Political Science, John J. Mearsheimer's conference:
UnCommon Core: The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis.
As incredible as it sounds, this is an 8-year-old conference. You would think it was given yesterday.
This reassured me, for I apparently stand in good, although meager, company as my analysis is apparently akin to that of the great Henry Kissinger.
View attachment 454739
Another great piece worth reading, this one referring George Kennan, the architect of America’s successful containment of the Soviet Union, is the editorial of Thomas L. Friedman in the Washington Times:
Russia’s president is trying to hide his poor leadership by becoming a nationalist avenger.
www.nytimes.com
View attachment 454740
I will finish the way I started: the Russian military aggression cannot be condoned. Period. My point here is NOT to
justify what is happening, I condemn it, it is to propose that we try to
understand what is happening.
In summary, from a Realpolitik perspective, Russia is as entitled to its own Monroe Doctrine - we could call it Greater Russia, or as the Tsars once said "Tsars of all the Russias", as the United States of America are, and it is my understanding that they are asserting it.
I hope this was of interest...
