Jordan Peterson and Frederick Kagan talk about Ukraine — 67 Comments
I watched the precursor to this video last night – will have to set aside the half hour for this one. The first one was fascinating to me.
You mean Fred Kagan, brother-in-law of Victoria Nuland? Hmmm…
Soviet of Washington:
Do you march in lockstop with your brothers-in-law?
I can assure you that I don’t, and I don’t think most people do.
I had quite a few Communist relatives. As far as I know, the ones who are still alive are still Communists. And they’re my relatives, not my in-laws.
Who gives a rat’s ass?
Not mentioned are nukes. Mad Vlad has all but said he’ll use them if some line in the sand of his defining is crossed. IMO it’s no idle threat and thus our response options have to be indirect, ie., sanctions, SWIFT, etc.
One slip-up, or if/when Putin decides we have crossed that line . . . God help us.
And I don’t see that any ‘offramp’ will be acceptable to Putin. He’s betting it all this time around.
No one in our government, or In Europe, it seems to me, has figured out what kind of fig leaf we can offer Putin so he can climb down without losing face to an unacceptable (to him) degree. And I kind of doubt HE has been pondering possible ways to climb down without losing face. Lacking that, I think Putin will just continue to pour men and materiel into Ukraine until the rubble bounces, as the war fighters say.
Right now Zelensky can take heart about the number of expatriate Ukrainians who have returned to fight, about the number of foreigners who are going to fight on Ukraine’s side, and about the fact that most major cities have avoided falling. But I think time is Putin’s side.
“Lacking that, I think Putin will just continue to pour men and materiel into Ukraine until the rubble bounces, as the war fighters say. “
It may be that the progression is: Ukraine falls in the conventional sense –> an insurgency ensues –> it bleeds Russia tremendously –> Putin annihilates Ukraine –> Russia becomes isolated from the world at large (no internet, no space program, no international trade) –> Putin rules over an isolated Russian empire the way Kim Jong-un rules over North Korea.
I shudder to think it. Probably the third worst outcome (after nuclear war and a resurgent Russia launching an invasion of all or most of Europe). Ugh.
mkent:
It really depends how good Putin’s security is from his own confederates, who might want to off him before it gets that bad.
Stalin may have been killed by his associates, for example, although it’s unknown whether that really happened. See this as well as this.
Nugget: “In sum, nothing would be geopolitically clearer to [John Quincy] Adams than that natural policy for both America and Russia is not to go looking for opportunities to get in each other’s way.”
I think Trump understood this. The current crowd does not.
“In sum, nothing would be geopolitically clearer to [John Quincy] Adams than that natural policy for both America and Russia is not to go looking for opportunities to get in each other’s way.”I think Trump understood this. The current crowd does not.
We’re not in each other’s way. One part wants to stomp on neighboring countries. The other is antagonistic to such object.
Hubert:
And yet Trump bragged about warning Putin that if he invaded Ukraine he’d nuke him.
J. Q. Adams and when misuse of history.
Anyone aware of a fair and balanced discussion of the corruption in Ukraine, the US’s role in that corruption, and how it impacts what is happening now?
The media seems extraordinarily invested in portraying Ukraine as a wonderful democracy and innocent victim. Yet, others have made a number of allegations that claim the Ukrainian power brokers are ruthless and corrupt. After all, somebody paid the bribes to the Bidens (and just how much have those bribes influenced American policy?)
I suspect that there is a lot we should know but aren’t being told. It feels like I am being manipulated.
stan:
You can choose either Russian information or Ukrainian information. There are very few truly objective sources, but at least one of those is lying, or perhaps both are although to different degrees, and I believe the Russian sources are the bigger liars.
I have responded to various comments on this blog with comments of my own showing my research and tentative conclusions. I probably should have consolidated all those comments of mine into one post, but I didn’t and I’m not sure where they all are.
I’m also not sure what you’re referring to when you say “Ukrainian power brokers.” There is and has been corruption there for a long time; I don’t think anyone disputes that. The same is true, big time, of Russia. However, the government officials in charge now (Zelenskyy and others) were not the ones dealing with Biden or Hunter Biden. That occurred during Obama’s presidency, and Zelenskyy took office only in 2019 as a reform candidate. The question is: is he also corrupt? And how corrupt is he, if so? I have seen allegations from the Russians and pro-Russian people, and find them unconvincing. I wrote about some of that in this comment of mine.
I think it’s important to be skeptical, but I think it’s also very important to guard against Russian lies and also not to reject a story just because our media is telling it.
“The other is antagonistic to such object.”
One would hope that is correct.
One might also be tempted to ask, “Just HOW antagonistic is that other?”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“…and also not to reject a story just because our media is telling it.”
That is the crux, isn’t it? (Or A crux…)
They’ve lost ALL credibility. Why should they be telling the truth in this particular “theatre”?
(To be sure, they might be, mightn’t they? But how can anyone be sure?)
Neo: “And yet Trump bragged about warning Putin that if he invaded Ukraine he’d nuke him.”
Well, good for Trump, if true.
IIRC, Trump warned Putin off in private. According to Trump, Putin didn’t believe him at first. It would appear that Trump somehow convinced Putin that he wasn’t joking. Also IIRC, Trump only bragged in public about the (purported–as far as I know, it hasn’t been independently confirmed) exchange after Putin had already invaded Ukraine, as part of his “This [the invasion] wouldn’t have happened on my watch” interview. Of course Trump would say that, but it doesn’t mean he’s wrong. I think the old saying about walking softly and carrying a big stick applies here.
Trump gets a lot of grief for his public buddy-buddy act with Putin and his buttering-up of the Russian’s ego and appetite for recognition. Whether Trump’s public praise was sincere or insincere (and I’m sure at least some of it was sincere), I think his handling of Putin was rather shrewd. Compared with what we are seeing now, it was also effective. We have heard on this forum that Putin has been driven for the past thirty years by his desire to avenge the collapse of the Soviet Union and reconstitute the Russian empire. Why didn’t he make his big move while his alleged good buddy Trump was in the White House?
Deco and Om: I took Codevilla’s channeling of J. Q. Adams to mean that Russia and the U.S. didn’t have to be enemies in the post-Cold War world. That ship has now sailed, but it arguably hadn’t when Codevilla wrote those lines (YMMV, of course). I also took it to mean that it’s stupid to go looking for a fight if you don’t have to–especially if you don’t have the will to back up your tough talk. Again, the fact that Putin has now brought the fight to the West (“You may not be interested in war…” etc.) and in an unavoidable way doesn’t change that. Recall what I said on an earlier thread about the need to put Putin in a box, figuratively or literally. My hope is that Putin’s cack-handed performance in Ukraine and his threats against other countries will result in him sharing Dutch Schultz’s fate, and for the same reasons (poor judgment, loose cannon, too much heat, bad for business).
Barry Meislin:
You wrote of the media:
They’ve lost ALL credibility. Why should they be telling the truth in this particular “theatre”?
(To be sure, they might be, mightn’t they? But how can anyone be sure?)
I’ve been doing what I do for 17 years. One of the things that propelled me into it was knowing how much the media lies, and my desire to find the truth or the closest thing I could find to it. I spend many many many hours a day reading on both sides of a question, and I think it takes a lot of time and effort to sort it out. Liars in the media are clever, and they exist on both sides. One of the many reasons I’m on the right is that I’ve found that there is less lying on the right, not that it’s non-existent. And there is some truth in the MSM as well.
How can you tell who is telling the truth? You must treat it on a case-by-case basis and do a LOT of homework. Most people don’t have the time or the inclination, and I understand that. Most people who comment here have either more time than average or more inclination than average, or both. But it probably takes even more than most people here will give it.
I give it a lot of time and effort – and I’m not saying I always get it right. I don’t. But my track record isn’t so bad on telling truth from falsehood. I think a person also has to use his or her gut. Right now both the research I’ve done and my gut are telling me that Ukraine’s story is much much closer to truth than Russia’s. Both countries have plenty of corrupt people, but IMHO Putin is one of them and for the most part Zelenskyy is not.
And yet I really don’t know about the war news in terms of how it’s going and who will ultimately win. I don’t write much about that, you may notice.
For example, I was looking at the evaluations of two ex-military guys recently. One says the Russian convoy vehicles are hopelessly bogged down and the other says no, they’ve purposely stopped. I don’t really know which is true. Both sources seem to have a pro-American position, but they disagree entirely on the topic they’re discussing, and they each have explanations that sound believable. So I am suspending judgment on that sort of issue – for now.
Hubert:
Thank you for your explaination and elaboration.
IIRC JQA spent a while as the ambassador in Russia so he at least knew something and loved America. Not so sure that is so for about our junta.
Arguably, Frederick Kagan is now advocating a return to 1979. The pre-Gorbachev era when an American led NATO was fully prepared for invasion and the outbreak of nuclear war.
“No one in our government, or In Europe, it seems to me, has figured out what kind of fig leaf we can offer Putin so he can climb down without losing face to an unacceptable (to him) degree.” F
Here’s an idea. Call Putin’s ‘bluff’. By offering to give him what he claims to be most justified in demanding.
Specifically, the US, EU and NATO offer as part of a permanent cease fire, a three point treaty based upon…
1) a UN resolution that the western part of Ukraine will permanently remain a demilitarized, buffer State.
2) Accepting Russia’s incorporation of Eastern Ukraine up to the Dniper River.
3)That NATO will guarantee that the Baltic States will not install offensive* weapon systems at pain of revocation of the Baltic States NATO membership if they violate that provision.
*Patriot missile batteries like Israel’s “Iron Dome” system are defensive not offensive weapon systems.
If Putin refuses a clearly advantageous offer, then clearly his primary motivation is expansionist. In which case, prepare for another cold war.
“NATO countries have ‘green light’ to send fighter jets to Ukraine, Blinken says”
Arguably, NATO fighter jets shooting down Russian fighters is an act of war. As how will the Russians know that NATO pilots are NOT flying those fighters? How many pilots can the Ukraine have left?
It definitely escalates the conflict.
Geoffrey Britain:
NATO countries are allowed to send fighter jets. NATO will not block them from doing it. These are not “NATO jets.” They are jets sent by countries that belong to NATO, the country in question at the moment being Poland.
Geoffrey Britain:
I wasn’t under the impression that Ukraine was a US, EU, and NATO territory to divide up as they wish. Usually that only happens at the end of a war when that country is defeated, or when an empire is broken up.
So, you are proposing something sort of like the Sudetenland? Hitler took the offer, promised no more demands after that, and so that’s how we knew his motive wasn’t expansion into more of Europe?
I also want to address the people of Ukraine. I sincerely want you to understand us: we do not want to harm you in any way, or to hurt your national feelings. We have always respected the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state, incidentally, unlike those who sacrificed Ukraine’s unity for their political ambitions. They flaunt slogans about Ukraine’s greatness, but they are the ones who did everything to divide the nation. Today’s civil standoff is entirely on their conscience. I want you to hear me, my dear friends. Do not believe those who want you to fear Russia, shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that.
How reassuring! But even back in 2014, the article contains a rebuttal that adds: “Let’s not forget that a week ago at his press conference he said he was not considering the option of Crimea rejoining Russia.”
But hey, I’m sure that Putin doesn’t want further expansion now. He may have lied then, but not now.
“These are not “NATO jets.” They are jets sent by countries that belong to NATO”
It’s a good thing splitting hairs like that never leads to any bad outcomes. I mean, it’s not like Russia would be legally entitled under the rules of war to shoot down those jets as they’re being flown to Ukraine. Wait…I’m pretty sure they would be.
And I don’t understand this comment:
“Right now both the research I’ve done and my gut are telling me that Ukraine’s story is much much closer to truth than Russia’s.”
What is Ukraine’s story? I mean, no one believes Putin’s talk of neo-Nazis running rampant. And more importantly, who cares what Ukraine’s “story” is? Russia invaded Ukraine. What difference does the narrative make?
Stories don’t matter. Policies do. Diplomacy does. We need to be evaluating the policies and diplomacy that led us to this point because this is close to the worst-case scenario. Until we know how we got here and who got us here, we’ll never be able to get out of her because we won’t know who to stop listening to.
Mike
Geoffrey (Jen):
Call whose bluff? Vlad has already invaded Ukraine is that a bluff? He has threatened NATO, Sweden, Finland with nuclear attack if they respond or interfere with his invasion and you want to give him what he’s done on the promise he won’t do something similar?
Have you ever read history and seen what happens when you appease a despot who has shown little regard for borders of his neighbors” I guess not or you may be a slow learner.
Patriot systems use an explosive warhead, they are not the most advanced anti-ballistic missile system. That is THADD which has been deployed in NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US. Here is another link about it:
You are a slow learner it seems. And I am beginning to realize you aren’t serious.
“So, you are proposing something sort of like the Sudetenland?”
Just stop with the Nazi analogies. Adolph Hitler isn’t ADOLPH HITLER because he wanted the Sudetenland back. The Nazis weren’t evil because they wanted to expand the borders of Germany. They were evil because they wanted to exterminate and enslave entire classes of people.
Mike
“Have you ever read history and seen what happens when you appease a despot who has shown little regard for borders of his neighbors”
Well, you clearly haven’t read much history because “what happens when you appease a despot who has shown little regard for borders of his neighbors” is a relatively tiny slice of it, yet that’s all you can repeat like a brain-damaged parrot.
Mike
neo,
Hopefully the Russians will see it that way. What if they don’t?
“I wasn’t under the impression that Ukraine was a US, EU, and NATO territory to divide up as they wish.”
Realpolitik. Of course the West and Russia have the ability to divide up the Ukraine as they wish. They would just ‘persuade’ Zelensky and his government that it was the only pragmatic solution… with the implied threat that absent agreement, there’d be no way of stopping Putin from putting Zelensky et al up against a wall.
“So, you are proposing something sort of like the Sudetenland?”
No, what I proposed was making an offer that would put Putin in the position of getting some of what he wants to avoid Putin’s taking all of the Ukraine. Which despite reports he is fully capable of doing. If he turns down the offer or attaches even greater ‘conditions’ it exposes him as another expansionist dictator without the national security rationale to stand behind.
Of course Putin lies as does every other leader. As for Crimea, the West working to cut off Russian access to Sevastopol was the impetus for that move. The claim of the Ukraine engaging in oppression of Russian speakers was used because it justified Putin’s annexation of the Crimea upon ‘humanitarian’ grounds. So yes, Putin lied about why he was annexing the Crimea. There were reports in the West, pre-invasion of Crimea of how Russia would view efforts to cut off access to Sevastopol, which arguably is a huge military asset.
An alternative view of the potential consequences of a deepening Ukraine/Russia conflict;
“Do We Want Small Wars or World Wars?”
“In the current conflict in Ukraine, if NATO were to get involved directly, it would pit the United States and other nuclear powers like France and Great Britain against a nuclear-armed Russia.
Such a conflict would further join China and Russia together, as each views the United States as a hostile power.
Needless to say, coupled with Putin’s obvious appetite for risk, this radically increases the danger of a global nuclear war, even though no one directly intends that outcome.”
Bunge doesn’t realize that if Vlad shoot down zoom zoom jet thing and capture pilot they can parade pioltski in front of camera and show NATO perfidy. If Vlad shoot down zoom zoom jet thing with Ukrainian (“Nazi” in Vlad speak) pilot, no good camera footage. DA?
Bunge doesn’t understand concept of information/disinformation warfare. Information/disinformation warfare affects morale of troopski, and public opinionski in nations interested but not in the war, yet. Public opionski can cause official policy to change. Understand, Bunge? Nyet?
Sad. Another slow learner.
The Nazis weren’t evil because they wanted to expand the borders of Germany. They were evil because they wanted to exterminate and enslave entire classes of people.
For which they had to expand the borders of Germany.
Apart from that, conquering and liquidating neighboring states actually is nefarious most of the time.
Regardless of Putin’s actual reasons for invading Crimea, note that, “A status referendum was held on 16 March 2014 in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the local government of Sevastopol. The referendum essentially asked the people if they wanted to join the Russian Federation as a federal subject or remain part of Ukraine.
Note that 97 percent of the Crimean population voted for the integration of the region into the Russian Federation. The voter turnout was 83 percent.
Following the results, the Crimean Supreme Council declared independence from Ukraine.”
Geoffrey can’t accept the difference between lying and invading. Although lying can lead to invading, as is the current situation. Funny that (not).
Words and deeds. Sort of like “Speech Is Violence?” Not serious.
Geoffrey Britain:
I had no idea you think it’s fine to take a country and give parts of it away without permission of that country. You call it “realpolitik” and excuse it that way. Do it because you can do it.
I think you don’t even see what you are saying. The process you are describing is almost exactly like Munich. It’s astounding to me that this is your contention.
In fact, come to think of it, Munich made more sense because Hitler hadn’t yet shown the scope of his naked and violent aggressiveness. So the negotiators were more naive about Hitler than we are today about Putin.
You think Putin’s lies are just like those of every other leader?
I think it has become a waste of time to talk to you on this particular topic.
Those Crimea numbers sound remarkably similar to Wisconsin nursing home stats.
Geoffrey also doesn’t remember the Stalin quote about what counts in voting is who counts the votes (Vlad). What a sad display Jen.
Parading a captured pioltski in front of camera and showing NATO perfidy does rest upon the pilot surviving being shot down. A somewhat problematic proposition.
No neo, I don’t think its ‘fine’ for one country to take over another.
I just recognize that accepting it may be the lesser of two evils.
When practiced with integrity, Realpolitik isn’t about excusing evil, it’s accepting that you pick which hill to die upon.
As I’m sure you know, choices in life sometimes boil down to bad and really bad.
om,
Fraud is always a possibility. Given that the Crimea is heavily Russian speaking, I suspect that a significant % of those opposed stayed home.
Good thing Biden and his cronies don’t think the way Stalin did…
om,
I’ve tried taking you seriously for quite some time but you keep refuting it.
On the other hand, if my comments haven’t convinced you of my seriousness, then the difficulty lies with you.
neo, as you wish.
Geoffrey Britain:
Apparently you would have been right there with Chamberlain at Munich. Because Hitler seemed much more peaceful and believable then than Putin does now.
Geoffrey:
Those pilots in the zoom zoom jetski survive kabooms, not always, but often enough to be paraded in front of cameras. They have those things called “ejection seats.” You remember the Vietnam War, Gulf War, Syria, and it appears even Vlad’s excellent adventure.
And regards the Crimea and Ukraine, I’ve read that a lot of people in Ukraine who are fighting Vlad speak, wait for it, wait, speak Russian! How could that be?
You are not serious, just obstinate.
I had no idea you think it’s fine to take a country and give parts of it away without permission of that country. You call it “realpolitik” and excuse it that way. Do it because you can do it.
Since the dust settled from WWi ca. 1923, it’s hardly been done except during the unpleasantness running from 1938 to 1947.
Art Deco:
Actually, except for the Sudetenland, I can’t think of a time in modern history it was done in the way that Geoffrey Britain is suggesting.
It was done after a war when the country being forced to give up territory was being divided after defeat, or punished after defeat in a war. And it was done sometimes when an empire was being broken up, sometimes after a war and sometimes through choice (parts of the British empire, for example).
Except for Sudetenland I can’t think of a time when a bunch of countries got together and decided to somehow make a country give up territory when that country did not want to do so and had not been defeated in a war or surrendered as part of an empire.
I’m not aware of everything that ever happened in history, however, even in the 20th Century. I’d be curious if you know of another example that isn’t about the end of a war or an empire.
Sudetenland, of course, was about the beginning of a war.
“Apparently you would have been right there with Chamberlain at Munich.” neo
What a terribly unkind thing to say.
“And regards the Crimea and Ukraine, I’ve read that a lot of people in Ukraine who are fighting Vlad speak, wait for it, wait, speak Russian!” om
It’s good to know that we can trust as factual what we read on the internet.
Your accusation of obstinacy would have more credibility if you didn’t lace your responses with incivility.
Nor is a refusal to bend the knee to disagreement obstinacy, when you have yet to address my singular assertion that Russia has legitimate security concerns with NATO on its borders.
Geoffrey, Geoffrey,
You just can’t stop beating that dead pony, it’s past the pink pulp stage, there’s more on you than anywhere else.
I don’t give a flying F what Vlad’s fears are. Understand? His fears are not a permission slip to skip class and invade anyone.
Do you understand “invade” and “anyone?”
Using Geoffrey apologetics Vlad can rearrange all of Europe. Don’t worry Europe, Geoffrey has a plan,
not a new plan, aka, warmed over appeasement and submission to despotism.
That’s why your arguments aren’t serious, just verbose.
P.S. It is sort of cute hoe you swallow Vlad’s arguments and the wrap yourself in the mantle of wisdom.
Geoffrey Britain:
It wasn’t said in order to be unkind. It was said to point out what I think is the proper analogy about what you are suggesting.
om,
A nation’s legitimate national security concerns are not unfounded ‘fears’. They are precautionary conditions every nation must consider when they believe the possibility exists of an unacceptable approaching national vulnerability.
That you deny it illustrates that your bias is so deep that you reject the most basic of defensive measures for any nation and leader whom you deplore. Measures you no doubt would never surrender for America.
I know, Vlad’s the bad guy and cannot by definition have legitimate security concerns.
In your categorical rejection of Russia’s basic security you would condemn Russia to a permanent vulnerability.
Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine is only exceeded in its unjustness by the West leaving Putin no other practicable choice. He tried talks and negotiations for 8 years. NATO has repeatedly violated the terms of its agreements. The politicians who control NATO have utterly ignored Russia’s most basic security conditions.
And you dismiss it as of no consequence.
The brutal reality is that had Putin not invaded, the Ukraine would have joined NATO and Russia would have no choice but to henceforth bend the knee to the West. Its national self-determination would be over.
That would be a predictable military reality. That you deny it is truly either the obstinacy you falsely accuse me of or an utter ignorance of strategic realities.
I know this is not currently an acceptable position. Had you any decency you’d at least render me the courtesy of acknowledging my sincerity rather than accusing me of being a water carrier for ‘Vlad’. Clearly, that is asking too much of you. And that truly is sad.
neo,
This is not the first time that you have personalized your accusations to me on this subject. It is at least the third time and that reveals a pattern that contradicts your assertion that unkindness was unintended. I do not think it is consciously intentional. What I presume to be an unconscious emotional rejection has occasionally leaked through in your objecting to my assertions. I suspect others have noticed it but have refrained from mentioning it out of the very high respect we all have for you.
As you well know, words matter.
@ F > “No one in our government, or In Europe, it seems to me, has figured out what kind of fig leaf we can offer Putin so he can climb down without losing face to an unacceptable (to him) degree.”
..
Think back in recent history to October and examine the Biden administration’s visit to Ukraine. Never mind researching the 1939 European borders or understanding the results of America’s war to defeat Naziism.
While you’re at it, consider the history of the Budapest Agreement, three identical political agreements signed at a conference of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Budapest, Hungary, on Dec. 5, 1994. It provided security assurances from its signatories related to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. (Look it up — we are all in violation of it.)
….
In this piece, I want to offer an option. There are many — most are not good, and all will come with compromise and cost. However, without these, the real advent of a nuclear standoff — or worse, a nuclear exchange — is on the horizon. We can no longer kid ourselves about this reality. We have allowed ourselves to get to this avoidable point in history.
…
First, let’s try to understand Vladimir Putin. He is not crazy, as the propaganda media is trying to portray him as now. He is behaving as he always does. The best example of Putin’s personality is the story of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and his Super Bowl ring.
If you aren’t aware of the story, here goes: In 2005, Kraft met Putin. He took off the ring to show it to Putin, Putin admired it, and Kraft held out his hand to take it back. Putin put the ring in his own pocket and walked out, essentially stealing it. The White House insisted that Kraft said it was a gift, but many years later he told the true story of the theft of his ring.
Putin will do anything he can if he thinks he can get away with it. He will stop only when he thinks he cannot get away with it. It was why nothing ever happened when Trump was in power. He respected Trump and knew he couldn’t get away with anything. Now, under this feckless U.S. administration, Putin has seized his opportunity. He knows well what he can get away with.
He also believed (wrongly) that Ukraine would at least moderately support the invasion. If Ukraine did not welcome the Russians as heroes, Putin believed they would at least be tolerated. He and his advisers and generals have miscalculated badly.
There is an option that would give Putin an out. This option needs to be thoroughly analyzed and discussed. It gets Putin what he wants, affords Ukraine a unique and long-term security opportunity, allows Europe and the world to take a deep breath, and can stop this madness along with the horrible killing taking place on both sides (and this may only be the beginning).
I believe the key to unlocking this crisis is the Budapest Agreement.
…
Among other critical issues, the Budapest Agreement stipulated that Ukraine would give up its nuclear weapons if both Russia and the U.S. agreed not to invade it. That is the basic agreement. Putin is in gross violation of this agreement, which affords the U.S. (and select European nations) the opportunity to enforce it. But this is only a starting point to a broader conversation about a peaceful solution.
The real conversation goes like this.
Part One: Russia wants a neutral Ukraine. The Budapest Agreement can be considered an agreement of neutrality. Obviously, if Russia adheres to the agreement, then Ukraine doesn’t need to join NATO. And NATO can agree that having Ukraine join would be a violation of the Budapest accord. This is something that I believe Putin would seriously consider (and possibly accept), and it meets half of his demands. This gives him a way out without killing more people.
Part Two: Putin wants Ukraine to renounce any claim to Crimea. Ukraine should agree, with a major caveat.
Putin argues that Crimea was unlawfully given to Ukraine in the 1950s and, true or not, he wants it back. Well, Ukraine will never get Crimea back under any conditions without a major war. Most don’t realize it, but Putin is popular in Crimea and there is a strong attachment to Russia in the region, so it is a loss to Ukraine, but not a substantial loss. (That is the reality of global geopolitics.)
The major caveat should be that Ukraine has made a lot of improvements in Crimea since the ’50s. A large price should be put on that. Russia is not just taking Crimea; it is paying for all the care that Ukraine has given Crimea since the ’50s. It should be a significant and long-term repayment.
Part Three: Finally, Putin must emphasize that the targeting of civilians was against his orders and that he will help to rebuild some of Ukraine. He can claim that senior generals or other Russian defense officials failed to follow his orders and publicly fire them. (Maybe those fired will be allowed to come to the U.S. and work at a Washington, D.C., think tank). However the provision may be described, it gives Putin the chance to call this insane war off.
In the end, America has always stood for self-determination and the right to choose one’s government. Whatever claim Putin may try to make on Ukraine, either based on reality or his own fiction, it will never outweigh the people’s right to a free and fair election for a government that represents them.
…
What I don’t know is whether Ukraine would be agreeable. I do believe that if Ukraine can forgo NATO, it should be given immediate consideration for European Union membership. Obviously, Crimea would be a bigger pill to swallow, but Ukraine isn’t getting it back anyway. Bite the bullet for the good of humanity and the reality that you stand to lose your entire nation or worse if the situation continues. Push for a large payment from Russia and it will likely give it.
On this latter note, which I’m certain will get the most attention, Russia will lose the money in any case, either to economy-crushing sanctions or in paying back Ukraine. Better the money goes to Ukraine than just disappears due to sanctions. Russia doesn’t lose too much, and Ukraine gains a lot.
This option is sound. I believe it would be acceptable to both sides, and it gives Putin an off-ramp, something he desperately needs.
The bigger problem is that our current administration is not strong enough to deal with Putin. He likely has other cards to play against us. Maybe this option is one the U.S. should stay away from and instead can be pushed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the U.K. or President Emmanuel Macron in France.
A final point to be highlighted regarding the Budapest Agreement is nuclear weapons on a sovereign nation’s soil. The accord encouraged certain countries to give up nuclear weapons. With other nations now contemplating joining the nuclear club (like it or not), one lesson in all of this is to never give up your nuclear weapons. If a nation-state cannot rely on other countries to honor its borders, possessing nuclear weapons acts as a guarantor of security.
Like all options, this one is worthy of consideration. As I asked above, what do we have to lose (except everything)?
Geoffrey:
You have decided to accept Vlad’s position in your first sentence and deem it “legitimate.” Thanks for putting that admission first. It follows that Vlad can use “legitimate national security interests” to justify anything now it seems.
An armed robber or child rapist may have all kinds of things in his mind justifying his actions. The victim’s perspective is different.
But you persist.
Don’t play the victim with Neo. That truly is sad.
The brutal reality is that had Putin not invaded, the Ukraine would have joined NATO and Russia would have no choice but to henceforth bend the knee to the West. Its national self-determination would be over.
This statement is false.
My, it’s warm in here.
Geoffrey Britain, you do us a service by reminding us of the older mode of analysis that existed before the advent of Wilsonian Moralism-Legalism, that of raison d’etat/Staatsraison/Realpolitik. What is “legitimate” there is not “legitimate” to the Wilsonian mind. The Wilsonian mind is prone to manifest itself in diplomacy as some combination nagging and hysterics. Well, we live in a time of nagging hysterics.
There are three separate questions: What is our legal requirement? What is our interest? What is our moral requirement? It is wonderful when they are all the same. We don’t have to choose between Realpolitik and Moralism-Legalism. Life is often not that wonderful.
Realpolitik is about interests, and it depends on the accuracy of analysis, in this case of both hard military analysis and softer political-economic analysis. Fred Kagan, whom I met a couple of years ago at the Concordia Annual Summit in NYC, talks about the failure of Net Assessment in this case. That should give us all pause. We were wrong about Russia’s net military advantage over Ukraine. Putin was wrong, too. Putin was wrong about the fragility of NATO and how punishing economic sanctions would be. The US government was wrong about how much deterrent making threats about sanctions would be versus shipping more defensive weapons to Ukraine long before they were needed. Blinken bragged before the invasion started about $600 million in military aid to Ukraine; he didn’t mention that that was less than 1% of what we left behind in Afghanistan, to make an order of magnitude comparison. Analysts like Ian Bremer were wrong in assigning a low probability to a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. China might have been wrong in assuming they could help the Russians evade the impact of sanctions, that they could put a spoke in NATO’s wheel, that it would be valuable to have a closer relationship with Russia in opposing the US.
I note that if Putin IS Hitler, then we still want his help on the Iran JCPOA, on Climate Change, on exporting energy, and on mining rare earths to support the Green Economy. So he’s not beyond the pale when it comes to what’s really important. (I hope the /sarc didn’t need explaining.) We are still slow to push forward missile defenses, for reasons that baffle me. Arming Ukraine with defensive weapons BEGINNING in 2014 and building missile defenses in Europe seemed like the obvious strategy at the time, given Russia’s economic and demographic weaknesses.
The new Net Assessment must say that the road and rail-bound Russian army would not be much threat to any NATO country that has air superiority, and that Russian training, command and control, and technology are badly out of date. Reports say that 190,000 men are involved in the invasion. Compare this to complaints about the insufficiency of a couple hundred thousand men to occupy Iraq, and recognize that Ukraine is 50% larger than Iraq. A hostile occupation of Ukraine would tie the Russian military down and bleed the state dry.
So I don’t think Poland 1939 or Czechoslovakia 1938 are really the right analogs to this situation. Consider Czechoslovakia. France had an alliance and a legal obligation to go to war if Germany invaded. The Czech alliance was part of the network of eastern alliances France put in place to create a second front threat to Germany, given that Imperial Russia had collapsed and Soviet Russia had a history of collaborating with Germany. The problem was twofold. First, France was considerably weaker than Germany, even more than in 1914. It couldn’t go to war without British assistance, and the British were not allied to Czechoslovakia. The British hoped that some combination of French and Italian troops would deter Germany. (ha.) Second, France’s strategic position for supporting its eastern allies had collapsed when it allowed the re-occupation of the Rhineland in 1936. This is an event that really deserves more study, though the British also played a role in undermining the French position. Britain has a long history of appeasement as a primary tool for foreign policy on the cheap. So France was forced into a situation where she did not have any practical means of supporting an ally under threat. That France and Britain caved at Munich reflected that very negative Net Assessment, especially when Italy was collaborating with Germany. And so the entire alliance system collapsed.
Why is Ukraine different? Germany was the leading industrial power in Europe and adding Czech resources added between 10-15%, so representing a swing of about 20-30% in the correlation of forces in Germany’s favor. Russia is no economic power, and Ukraine is a basket case, with the lowest per capita GDP in Europe by miles. Ukraine doesn’t add much, and we have discussed how the internal and external costs of invading and holding her will make Russia relatively weaker. Ukraine is not an ally, so the legal implications are quite different. A Russian occupation of Ukraine, or a puppet government in Kyiv, doesn’t impair NATO’s ability to assist its members. The opposition of Sweden and Finland to Russian aggression counts ten times as much as Kyiv’s enthusiastic support could, and Ukrainian opposition means Russia won’t have even that.
Geoffrey Britain, you do us a service by reminding us of the older mode of analysis that existed before the advent of Wilsonian Moralism-Legalism,
Oblio, Realist perspectives are perfectly standard in the study of international relations. There are liberal perspectives on international relations, but they’re promoted by people who study the behavior of persons, the behavior of institutions, and activity within markets. Woodrow Wilson is a historical figure, and had a legal-formal-theoretical take on political life, as you might expect of a man who actually had been a lawyer. You want the liberal take on international relations, read Robert Keohane or Joseph Nye.
Political science in general and IR in particular has tended to suffer from a deficit of clarity about whether positive or normative questions are under review, whether you are thinking theoretically or practically.
The Realist aspiration is to study international relations as a mechanistic process and its contention is that the process is almost completely immune to culture or to the evolution of states as physical or social entities. The problem at the core of Realism as a school of thought was stated by the sociologist Stanley Rothman: the content of what you conceive of as your interests is influenced by culture. Mearsheimer or Geoffrey Britain channeling Mearsheimer may try to pretend this is a chess game. It is not.
Russia is no economic power, and Ukraine is a basket case, with the lowest per capita GDP in Europe by miles.
Russia has a satisfactory productive base (the world’s 6th largest in terms of output) and has been quite dynamic economically in the last 20 years. The Ukraine is one of about a half-dozen countries who bring up the rear in Europe and who have similar levels of real income per capita.
Geoffrey Britain:
And yet you are a person. A person expressing an opinion. As are all of us here (except the bots that end up in the spam folder).
You are a person expressing an opinion that, if carried out in the real world, would have consequences. That is true of all the opinions here, including mine.
You and I disagree strongly on an issue regarding Russia and Ukraine. And yes indeed, I address you as a person with an opinion which, if carried out in the real world, would have certain consequences. In pointing out what I think those consequences could be I did quite a few things, including drawing historical analogies. When I wrote “Apparently you would have been right there with Chamberlain at Munich” I meant that your proposal was very similar to what Chamberlain did at Munich.
What’s so “unkind” about that? Is being compared to Chamberlain so terrible? Chamberlain was actually no dummy; his flaw was that Hitler fooled him. Actually, it’s not even certain that Hitler fooled him, because I’ve read that one of the reasons Chamberlain acquiesced to Hitler was that England wasn’t yet ready to be on a war footing.
Churchill actually praised Chamberlain in a speech Churchill gave on the latter’s death in 1940. Here’s part of it:
It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong.
Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values.
History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days…
It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed?
‘What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused?
‘They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour.
Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged.
‘This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned…’
When, contrary to all his hopes, beliefs and exertions, the war came upon him, and when, as he himself said, all that he had worked for was shattered, there was no man more resolved to pursue the unsought quarrel to the death.
The same qualities which made him one of the last to enter the war, made him one of the last who would quit it until the full victory of a righteous cause was won.
I had the singular experience of passing in a day from being one of his most prominent opponents and critics to being one of his principal lieutenants, and on another day of passing from serving under him to become the head of a Government of which, with perfect loyalty, he was content to be a member.
We all voice opinions here and often make analogies to historical events. But – as Churchill said – none of us can see the future.
Remarkable eulogy.
Remarkable rhetoric.
Thanks…
Barry Meislin:
Yes.
Churchill is one of the few world leaders whose eloquence can bring me to tears.
1) the late, great Angelo Codevilla, writing in 2019 about Russia, Ukraine and the U.S.
I’ve listened to Barnes at some length on the topic of Ukraine, although not the video you linked, and so far I find him remarkably ill-informed. As I said, I haven’t listened to a newer video by him (the last one I saw was a week ago), so perhaps he’s saying something different now. I rather doubt it, but I don’t have time to listen to the new one at the moment.
Neo,
Thanks for the reply. I understand your point about Barnes’s insulting reference to the Ukraine president, but if you watch his Hush Hush especially, or today’s Barnes and Baris, and couple either one with the Codevilla piece, you’ll see the large overlap. Codevilla was a wise man. Barnes has been a political/history junkie for a very long time. And he’s brilliant. Rather than playing catch-up, he seems on this issue like a person finally given a reason to express opinions formed over many years. If you listen to either of those links, you’ll see what I mean. It should give a person pause that Soros, Adam Schiff, the Clintons, the Deep State and everyone else you don’t trust is so intensely against Russia. Big red flag. This is a Globalists vs Nationalist fight.
No, Howard, first and foremost it’s Ukraine being invaded by Russians misled by Vlad. Occam’s Razor.
Howard:
Barnes showed himself to be puerile with his remark about Zelenskyy. But that was hardly the only thing he said about Ukraine that bothered me. I thought he was repeatedly factually inaccurate as well, with very incomplete knowledge. And yet he seemed to think he had a lot of authority on the subject.
You write:
It should give a person pause that Soros, Adam Schiff, the Clintons, the Deep State and everyone else you don’t trust is so intensely against Russia.
It gives me zero pause and I’ll tell you why. That’s not the way I evaluate a situation. I do my own research, learn as much as I can, and come to my own conclusions. Sometimes I disagree with the right. More often – much much more often – I disagree with the left. But I never reject a position because people I’ve disagreed with most of the time take that position. Nor do I adopt a position because people I usually agree with take that position.
I’m not interested in bandwagons or groupthink, positive (agreement) or negative (disagreement). So I literally could not care less what the people you list think about this, nor do I understand why anyone would think it a good thing to use that as a reason to disbelieve something.
Or maybe it’s a “Nationalist vs. Nationalist” fight? (I.e., Ukraine vs. Russia?)
Or maybe it’s a “Nationalist vs. Thugocracy” fight? (i.e., Ukraine vs. Putin?)
Which raises some questions: Are Ukrainians defending their country—are volunteers flocking to the Ukraine to help—in defense of, er, Globalism?
Is NATO led by the “Leader of the Free World” reluctant to engage militarily in Ukraine’s defense due to “Globalism”?
Are the “Globalists” spinning hard to protect Ukraine…or something else? (Hint: Take a peek at Germany’s decisions on energy of late and the impact that MIGHT have on the Globalist agenda). To be sure one can try, or claim to try, to be protecting many different things at the same time. (Might this also fall under the category of “the fog of war”?)
This is getting a bit convoluted. Let’s start again….
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
“This is a Globalists vs Nationalist fight…”
…keeping in mind that in WWII the Soviets were allied with Britain, the US, France, et al. (that is, after the Soviet alliance with the Nazis blew up in their faces)….
IOW, everyone has his/her/their/xer reasons. (I’m not really up on my pronouns…)
To take a relatively small example, let’s look at Hungary.
The globalists DESPISE Orban (though Orban is certainly not shy about returning the favor).
The EU and Soros have been trying EVERYTHING to dislodge Orban from power (invoking the name of “Democracy” to be sure—Soros in particular possessing a most creative, even ingenious, Orwellian bent, though the EU are no slackers in this department either).
Orban has been if not necessarily allied to, then very supportive of Putin, let’s say due to nationalist and cultural reasons, i.e., because Orban is a Hungarian nationalist and has had to defend Hungary from the EU’s (and progressives’)—let’s call it—“Cultural Offensive”—against his government and worldview. (Before we draw too many conclusions here, Hungary is one of the safest places to be Jewish in Europe, at the moment at least.)
But Orban is no longer supportive of Putin. In fact, he’s been very critical of Putin’s latest effort to “liberate” Ukraine. And he has his reasons for being critical. Hungary also has a memory of times past—even if sometimes this memory can be rather selective. And Putin has enabled Hungary’s memory of the joys of being under the Soviet (the Russian?) thumb to kick back in. Big time.
So we know why Orban, like Poland, like Slovakia, like Czechia, like the Baltic states, etc. have arrayed against Putin.
But are these the same reasons as the “Globalists”?
True there may be some—or even quite a bit of—overlap.
But I suspect that one of the main reasons for the “Globalist” alarm is that this war is screwing up their OWN carefully made (and laid) plans for destruction (for “conquest”?); has endangered them by causing certain things to be brought out into the open; has possibly brought about a delay—or worse—in implementation of their global revolution (or if you wish, “fundamental transformation”—of the world).
Perhaps.
I may be a bit of a complicated, even confused guy but things in this regard, for me, are quite simple:
Everywhere, those responsible for destruction, subterfuge, sabotage, deceit, systematic illegality and perversity, and amassing unlimited power MUST BE FOUGHT. Therefore,
– Putin MUST BE FOUGHT—i.e., Ukraine must be supported and defended—because it’s the absolutely right thing to do.
– The Globalists MUST BE FOUGHT…because it’s the absolutely right thing to do.
…though having said all that, one must remember that Churchill did say that to fight and defeat Hitler, he’d make a pact with—EVEN—the devil….
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
I watched the precursor to this video last night – will have to set aside the half hour for this one. The first one was fascinating to me.
You mean Fred Kagan, brother-in-law of Victoria Nuland? Hmmm…
Soviet of Washington:
Do you march in lockstop with your brothers-in-law?
I can assure you that I don’t, and I don’t think most people do.
I had quite a few Communist relatives. As far as I know, the ones who are still alive are still Communists. And they’re my relatives, not my in-laws.
Who gives a rat’s ass?
Not mentioned are nukes. Mad Vlad has all but said he’ll use them if some line in the sand of his defining is crossed. IMO it’s no idle threat and thus our response options have to be indirect, ie., sanctions, SWIFT, etc.
One slip-up, or if/when Putin decides we have crossed that line . . . God help us.
And I don’t see that any ‘offramp’ will be acceptable to Putin. He’s betting it all this time around.
No one in our government, or In Europe, it seems to me, has figured out what kind of fig leaf we can offer Putin so he can climb down without losing face to an unacceptable (to him) degree. And I kind of doubt HE has been pondering possible ways to climb down without losing face. Lacking that, I think Putin will just continue to pour men and materiel into Ukraine until the rubble bounces, as the war fighters say.
Right now Zelensky can take heart about the number of expatriate Ukrainians who have returned to fight, about the number of foreigners who are going to fight on Ukraine’s side, and about the fact that most major cities have avoided falling. But I think time is Putin’s side.
“Lacking that, I think Putin will just continue to pour men and materiel into Ukraine until the rubble bounces, as the war fighters say. “
It may be that the progression is: Ukraine falls in the conventional sense –> an insurgency ensues –> it bleeds Russia tremendously –> Putin annihilates Ukraine –> Russia becomes isolated from the world at large (no internet, no space program, no international trade) –> Putin rules over an isolated Russian empire the way Kim Jong-un rules over North Korea.
I shudder to think it. Probably the third worst outcome (after nuclear war and a resurgent Russia launching an invasion of all or most of Europe). Ugh.
mkent:
It really depends how good Putin’s security is from his own confederates, who might want to off him before it gets that bad.
Stalin may have been killed by his associates, for example, although it’s unknown whether that really happened. See this as well as this.
mkent:
At best Cold War 2.0. At worst MIRVs.
Looks like “Biden” is trying to screw the Poles, too.
‘White House Says It’s Working With Poland To Get Jets To Ukraine – Warsaw Responds: “Fake News” ‘—
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/white-house-says-its-working-poland-get-jets-ukraine-warsaw-responds-fake-news
Is there any country that’s NOT immune from a “Fundamentally Transformed” America?
And the Pope chimes in (and not a moment too soon):
“Pope Francis: Ukraine Conflict ‘Not a Military Operation But a War’ “—
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/pope-ukraine-war-russia/2022/03/06/id/1059842/
(But then, “How many divisions does NATO have?”)
More Codevilla, from his forthcoming posthumously published book (some overlap between the two excerpts):
https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/05/missing-angelo-codevillas-counsel-on-russia-and-ukraine/
https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-is-russia-to-us/
Nugget: “In sum, nothing would be geopolitically clearer to [John Quincy] Adams than that natural policy for both America and Russia is not to go looking for opportunities to get in each other’s way.”
I think Trump understood this. The current crowd does not.
“In sum, nothing would be geopolitically clearer to [John Quincy] Adams than that natural policy for both America and Russia is not to go looking for opportunities to get in each other’s way.”I think Trump understood this. The current crowd does not.
We’re not in each other’s way. One part wants to stomp on neighboring countries. The other is antagonistic to such object.
Hubert:
And yet Trump bragged about warning Putin that if he invaded Ukraine he’d nuke him.
J. Q. Adams and when misuse of history.
Anyone aware of a fair and balanced discussion of the corruption in Ukraine, the US’s role in that corruption, and how it impacts what is happening now?
The media seems extraordinarily invested in portraying Ukraine as a wonderful democracy and innocent victim. Yet, others have made a number of allegations that claim the Ukrainian power brokers are ruthless and corrupt. After all, somebody paid the bribes to the Bidens (and just how much have those bribes influenced American policy?)
I suspect that there is a lot we should know but aren’t being told. It feels like I am being manipulated.
stan:
You can choose either Russian information or Ukrainian information. There are very few truly objective sources, but at least one of those is lying, or perhaps both are although to different degrees, and I believe the Russian sources are the bigger liars.
I have responded to various comments on this blog with comments of my own showing my research and tentative conclusions. I probably should have consolidated all those comments of mine into one post, but I didn’t and I’m not sure where they all are.
I’m also not sure what you’re referring to when you say “Ukrainian power brokers.” There is and has been corruption there for a long time; I don’t think anyone disputes that. The same is true, big time, of Russia. However, the government officials in charge now (Zelenskyy and others) were not the ones dealing with Biden or Hunter Biden. That occurred during Obama’s presidency, and Zelenskyy took office only in 2019 as a reform candidate. The question is: is he also corrupt? And how corrupt is he, if so? I have seen allegations from the Russians and pro-Russian people, and find them unconvincing. I wrote about some of that in this comment of mine.
I think it’s important to be skeptical, but I think it’s also very important to guard against Russian lies and also not to reject a story just because our media is telling it.
“The other is antagonistic to such object.”
One would hope that is correct.
One might also be tempted to ask, “Just HOW antagonistic is that other?”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“…and also not to reject a story just because our media is telling it.”
That is the crux, isn’t it? (Or A crux…)
They’ve lost ALL credibility. Why should they be telling the truth in this particular “theatre”?
(To be sure, they might be, mightn’t they? But how can anyone be sure?)
Neo: “And yet Trump bragged about warning Putin that if he invaded Ukraine he’d nuke him.”
Well, good for Trump, if true.
IIRC, Trump warned Putin off in private. According to Trump, Putin didn’t believe him at first. It would appear that Trump somehow convinced Putin that he wasn’t joking. Also IIRC, Trump only bragged in public about the (purported–as far as I know, it hasn’t been independently confirmed) exchange after Putin had already invaded Ukraine, as part of his “This [the invasion] wouldn’t have happened on my watch” interview. Of course Trump would say that, but it doesn’t mean he’s wrong. I think the old saying about walking softly and carrying a big stick applies here.
Trump gets a lot of grief for his public buddy-buddy act with Putin and his buttering-up of the Russian’s ego and appetite for recognition. Whether Trump’s public praise was sincere or insincere (and I’m sure at least some of it was sincere), I think his handling of Putin was rather shrewd. Compared with what we are seeing now, it was also effective. We have heard on this forum that Putin has been driven for the past thirty years by his desire to avenge the collapse of the Soviet Union and reconstitute the Russian empire. Why didn’t he make his big move while his alleged good buddy Trump was in the White House?
Deco and Om: I took Codevilla’s channeling of J. Q. Adams to mean that Russia and the U.S. didn’t have to be enemies in the post-Cold War world. That ship has now sailed, but it arguably hadn’t when Codevilla wrote those lines (YMMV, of course). I also took it to mean that it’s stupid to go looking for a fight if you don’t have to–especially if you don’t have the will to back up your tough talk. Again, the fact that Putin has now brought the fight to the West (“You may not be interested in war…” etc.) and in an unavoidable way doesn’t change that. Recall what I said on an earlier thread about the need to put Putin in a box, figuratively or literally. My hope is that Putin’s cack-handed performance in Ukraine and his threats against other countries will result in him sharing Dutch Schultz’s fate, and for the same reasons (poor judgment, loose cannon, too much heat, bad for business).
Barry Meislin:
You wrote of the media:
I’ve been doing what I do for 17 years. One of the things that propelled me into it was knowing how much the media lies, and my desire to find the truth or the closest thing I could find to it. I spend many many many hours a day reading on both sides of a question, and I think it takes a lot of time and effort to sort it out. Liars in the media are clever, and they exist on both sides. One of the many reasons I’m on the right is that I’ve found that there is less lying on the right, not that it’s non-existent. And there is some truth in the MSM as well.
How can you tell who is telling the truth? You must treat it on a case-by-case basis and do a LOT of homework. Most people don’t have the time or the inclination, and I understand that. Most people who comment here have either more time than average or more inclination than average, or both. But it probably takes even more than most people here will give it.
I give it a lot of time and effort – and I’m not saying I always get it right. I don’t. But my track record isn’t so bad on telling truth from falsehood. I think a person also has to use his or her gut. Right now both the research I’ve done and my gut are telling me that Ukraine’s story is much much closer to truth than Russia’s. Both countries have plenty of corrupt people, but IMHO Putin is one of them and for the most part Zelenskyy is not.
And yet I really don’t know about the war news in terms of how it’s going and who will ultimately win. I don’t write much about that, you may notice.
For example, I was looking at the evaluations of two ex-military guys recently. One says the Russian convoy vehicles are hopelessly bogged down and the other says no, they’ve purposely stopped. I don’t really know which is true. Both sources seem to have a pro-American position, but they disagree entirely on the topic they’re discussing, and they each have explanations that sound believable. So I am suspending judgment on that sort of issue – for now.
Hubert:
Thank you for your explaination and elaboration.
IIRC JQA spent a while as the ambassador in Russia so he at least knew something and loved America. Not so sure that is so for about our junta.
Arguably, Frederick Kagan is now advocating a return to 1979. The pre-Gorbachev era when an American led NATO was fully prepared for invasion and the outbreak of nuclear war.
“Putin has changed the world — and the US must adapt or lose”
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/595304-putin-has-changed-the-world-and-the-us-must-adapt-or-lose
“No one in our government, or In Europe, it seems to me, has figured out what kind of fig leaf we can offer Putin so he can climb down without losing face to an unacceptable (to him) degree.” F
Here’s an idea. Call Putin’s ‘bluff’. By offering to give him what he claims to be most justified in demanding.
Specifically, the US, EU and NATO offer as part of a permanent cease fire, a three point treaty based upon…
1) a UN resolution that the western part of Ukraine will permanently remain a demilitarized, buffer State.
2) Accepting Russia’s incorporation of Eastern Ukraine up to the Dniper River.
3)That NATO will guarantee that the Baltic States will not install offensive* weapon systems at pain of revocation of the Baltic States NATO membership if they violate that provision.
*Patriot missile batteries like Israel’s “Iron Dome” system are defensive not offensive weapon systems.
If Putin refuses a clearly advantageous offer, then clearly his primary motivation is expansionist. In which case, prepare for another cold war.
“NATO countries have ‘green light’ to send fighter jets to Ukraine, Blinken says”
https://www.foxnews.com/world/nato-countries-green-light-send-fighter-jets-ukraine-blinken
Arguably, NATO fighter jets shooting down Russian fighters is an act of war. As how will the Russians know that NATO pilots are NOT flying those fighters? How many pilots can the Ukraine have left?
It definitely escalates the conflict.
Geoffrey Britain:
NATO countries are allowed to send fighter jets. NATO will not block them from doing it. These are not “NATO jets.” They are jets sent by countries that belong to NATO, the country in question at the moment being Poland.
Geoffrey Britain:
I wasn’t under the impression that Ukraine was a US, EU, and NATO territory to divide up as they wish. Usually that only happens at the end of a war when that country is defeated, or when an empire is broken up.
So, you are proposing something sort of like the Sudetenland? Hitler took the offer, promised no more demands after that, and so that’s how we knew his motive wasn’t expansion into more of Europe?
Sounds great!
Review what happened in Crimea in 2014. You might also want to peruse this speech Putin made in 2014 about the Crimea annexation. Here’s one quote:
How reassuring! But even back in 2014, the article contains a rebuttal that adds: “Let’s not forget that a week ago at his press conference he said he was not considering the option of Crimea rejoining Russia.”
But hey, I’m sure that Putin doesn’t want further expansion now. He may have lied then, but not now.
“These are not “NATO jets.” They are jets sent by countries that belong to NATO”
It’s a good thing splitting hairs like that never leads to any bad outcomes. I mean, it’s not like Russia would be legally entitled under the rules of war to shoot down those jets as they’re being flown to Ukraine. Wait…I’m pretty sure they would be.
And I don’t understand this comment:
“Right now both the research I’ve done and my gut are telling me that Ukraine’s story is much much closer to truth than Russia’s.”
What is Ukraine’s story? I mean, no one believes Putin’s talk of neo-Nazis running rampant. And more importantly, who cares what Ukraine’s “story” is? Russia invaded Ukraine. What difference does the narrative make?
Stories don’t matter. Policies do. Diplomacy does. We need to be evaluating the policies and diplomacy that led us to this point because this is close to the worst-case scenario. Until we know how we got here and who got us here, we’ll never be able to get out of her because we won’t know who to stop listening to.
Mike
Geoffrey (Jen):
Call whose bluff? Vlad has already invaded Ukraine is that a bluff? He has threatened NATO, Sweden, Finland with nuclear attack if they respond or interfere with his invasion and you want to give him what he’s done on the promise he won’t do something similar?
Have you ever read history and seen what happens when you appease a despot who has shown little regard for borders of his neighbors” I guess not or you may be a slow learner.
Patriot systems use an explosive warhead, they are not the most advanced anti-ballistic missile system. That is THADD which has been deployed in NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US. Here is another link about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense
You are a slow learner it seems. And I am beginning to realize you aren’t serious.
“So, you are proposing something sort of like the Sudetenland?”
Just stop with the Nazi analogies. Adolph Hitler isn’t ADOLPH HITLER because he wanted the Sudetenland back. The Nazis weren’t evil because they wanted to expand the borders of Germany. They were evil because they wanted to exterminate and enslave entire classes of people.
Mike
“Have you ever read history and seen what happens when you appease a despot who has shown little regard for borders of his neighbors”
Well, you clearly haven’t read much history because “what happens when you appease a despot who has shown little regard for borders of his neighbors” is a relatively tiny slice of it, yet that’s all you can repeat like a brain-damaged parrot.
Mike
neo,
Hopefully the Russians will see it that way. What if they don’t?
“I wasn’t under the impression that Ukraine was a US, EU, and NATO territory to divide up as they wish.”
Realpolitik. Of course the West and Russia have the ability to divide up the Ukraine as they wish. They would just ‘persuade’ Zelensky and his government that it was the only pragmatic solution… with the implied threat that absent agreement, there’d be no way of stopping Putin from putting Zelensky et al up against a wall.
“So, you are proposing something sort of like the Sudetenland?”
No, what I proposed was making an offer that would put Putin in the position of getting some of what he wants to avoid Putin’s taking all of the Ukraine. Which despite reports he is fully capable of doing. If he turns down the offer or attaches even greater ‘conditions’ it exposes him as another expansionist dictator without the national security rationale to stand behind.
Of course Putin lies as does every other leader. As for Crimea, the West working to cut off Russian access to Sevastopol was the impetus for that move. The claim of the Ukraine engaging in oppression of Russian speakers was used because it justified Putin’s annexation of the Crimea upon ‘humanitarian’ grounds. So yes, Putin lied about why he was annexing the Crimea. There were reports in the West, pre-invasion of Crimea of how Russia would view efforts to cut off access to Sevastopol, which arguably is a huge military asset.
An alternative view of the potential consequences of a deepening Ukraine/Russia conflict;
“Do We Want Small Wars or World Wars?”
https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/05/do-we-want-small-wars-or-world-wars/
Bunge doesn’t realize that if Vlad shoot down zoom zoom jet thing and capture pilot they can parade pioltski in front of camera and show NATO perfidy. If Vlad shoot down zoom zoom jet thing with Ukrainian (“Nazi” in Vlad speak) pilot, no good camera footage. DA?
Bunge doesn’t understand concept of information/disinformation warfare. Information/disinformation warfare affects morale of troopski, and public opinionski in nations interested but not in the war, yet. Public opionski can cause official policy to change. Understand, Bunge? Nyet?
Sad. Another slow learner.
The Nazis weren’t evil because they wanted to expand the borders of Germany. They were evil because they wanted to exterminate and enslave entire classes of people.
For which they had to expand the borders of Germany.
Apart from that, conquering and liquidating neighboring states actually is nefarious most of the time.
“Why Did Russia Invade and Annex Crimea?”
https://www.profolus.com/topics/why-did-russia-invade-and-annex-crimea/
Regardless of Putin’s actual reasons for invading Crimea, note that, “A status referendum was held on 16 March 2014 in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the local government of Sevastopol. The referendum essentially asked the people if they wanted to join the Russian Federation as a federal subject or remain part of Ukraine.
Note that 97 percent of the Crimean population voted for the integration of the region into the Russian Federation. The voter turnout was 83 percent.
Following the results, the Crimean Supreme Council declared independence from Ukraine.”
Geoffrey can’t accept the difference between lying and invading. Although lying can lead to invading, as is the current situation. Funny that (not).
Words and deeds. Sort of like “Speech Is Violence?” Not serious.
Geoffrey Britain:
I had no idea you think it’s fine to take a country and give parts of it away without permission of that country. You call it “realpolitik” and excuse it that way. Do it because you can do it.
I think you don’t even see what you are saying. The process you are describing is almost exactly like Munich. It’s astounding to me that this is your contention.
In fact, come to think of it, Munich made more sense because Hitler hadn’t yet shown the scope of his naked and violent aggressiveness. So the negotiators were more naive about Hitler than we are today about Putin.
You think Putin’s lies are just like those of every other leader?
I think it has become a waste of time to talk to you on this particular topic.
Those Crimea numbers sound remarkably similar to Wisconsin nursing home stats.
Geoffrey also doesn’t remember the Stalin quote about what counts in voting is who counts the votes (Vlad). What a sad display Jen.
Parading a captured pioltski in front of camera and showing NATO perfidy does rest upon the pilot surviving being shot down. A somewhat problematic proposition.
No neo, I don’t think its ‘fine’ for one country to take over another.
I just recognize that accepting it may be the lesser of two evils.
When practiced with integrity, Realpolitik isn’t about excusing evil, it’s accepting that you pick which hill to die upon.
As I’m sure you know, choices in life sometimes boil down to bad and really bad.
om,
Fraud is always a possibility. Given that the Crimea is heavily Russian speaking, I suspect that a significant % of those opposed stayed home.
Good thing Biden and his cronies don’t think the way Stalin did…
om,
I’ve tried taking you seriously for quite some time but you keep refuting it.
On the other hand, if my comments haven’t convinced you of my seriousness, then the difficulty lies with you.
neo, as you wish.
Geoffrey Britain:
Apparently you would have been right there with Chamberlain at Munich. Because Hitler seemed much more peaceful and believable then than Putin does now.
Geoffrey:
Those pilots in the zoom zoom jetski survive kabooms, not always, but often enough to be paraded in front of cameras. They have those things called “ejection seats.” You remember the Vietnam War, Gulf War, Syria, and it appears even Vlad’s excellent adventure.
And regards the Crimea and Ukraine, I’ve read that a lot of people in Ukraine who are fighting Vlad speak, wait for it, wait, speak Russian! How could that be?
You are not serious, just obstinate.
I had no idea you think it’s fine to take a country and give parts of it away without permission of that country. You call it “realpolitik” and excuse it that way. Do it because you can do it.
Since the dust settled from WWi ca. 1923, it’s hardly been done except during the unpleasantness running from 1938 to 1947.
Art Deco:
Actually, except for the Sudetenland, I can’t think of a time in modern history it was done in the way that Geoffrey Britain is suggesting.
It was done after a war when the country being forced to give up territory was being divided after defeat, or punished after defeat in a war. And it was done sometimes when an empire was being broken up, sometimes after a war and sometimes through choice (parts of the British empire, for example).
Except for Sudetenland I can’t think of a time when a bunch of countries got together and decided to somehow make a country give up territory when that country did not want to do so and had not been defeated in a war or surrendered as part of an empire.
I’m not aware of everything that ever happened in history, however, even in the 20th Century. I’d be curious if you know of another example that isn’t about the end of a war or an empire.
Sudetenland, of course, was about the beginning of a war.
“Apparently you would have been right there with Chamberlain at Munich.” neo
What a terribly unkind thing to say.
“And regards the Crimea and Ukraine, I’ve read that a lot of people in Ukraine who are fighting Vlad speak, wait for it, wait, speak Russian!” om
It’s good to know that we can trust as factual what we read on the internet.
Your accusation of obstinacy would have more credibility if you didn’t lace your responses with incivility.
Nor is a refusal to bend the knee to disagreement obstinacy, when you have yet to address my singular assertion that Russia has legitimate security concerns with NATO on its borders.
Geoffrey, Geoffrey,
You just can’t stop beating that dead pony, it’s past the pink pulp stage, there’s more on you than anywhere else.
I don’t give a flying F what Vlad’s fears are. Understand? His fears are not a permission slip to skip class and invade anyone.
Do you understand “invade” and “anyone?”
Using Geoffrey apologetics Vlad can rearrange all of Europe. Don’t worry Europe, Geoffrey has a plan,
not a new plan, aka, warmed over appeasement and submission to despotism.
That’s why your arguments aren’t serious, just verbose.
P.S. It is sort of cute hoe you swallow Vlad’s arguments and the wrap yourself in the mantle of wisdom.
Geoffrey Britain:
It wasn’t said in order to be unkind. It was said to point out what I think is the proper analogy about what you are suggesting.
om,
A nation’s legitimate national security concerns are not unfounded ‘fears’. They are precautionary conditions every nation must consider when they believe the possibility exists of an unacceptable approaching national vulnerability.
That you deny it illustrates that your bias is so deep that you reject the most basic of defensive measures for any nation and leader whom you deplore. Measures you no doubt would never surrender for America.
I know, Vlad’s the bad guy and cannot by definition have legitimate security concerns.
In your categorical rejection of Russia’s basic security you would condemn Russia to a permanent vulnerability.
Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine is only exceeded in its unjustness by the West leaving Putin no other practicable choice. He tried talks and negotiations for 8 years. NATO has repeatedly violated the terms of its agreements. The politicians who control NATO have utterly ignored Russia’s most basic security conditions.
And you dismiss it as of no consequence.
The brutal reality is that had Putin not invaded, the Ukraine would have joined NATO and Russia would have no choice but to henceforth bend the knee to the West. Its national self-determination would be over.
That would be a predictable military reality. That you deny it is truly either the obstinacy you falsely accuse me of or an utter ignorance of strategic realities.
I know this is not currently an acceptable position. Had you any decency you’d at least render me the courtesy of acknowledging my sincerity rather than accusing me of being a water carrier for ‘Vlad’. Clearly, that is asking too much of you. And that truly is sad.
neo,
This is not the first time that you have personalized your accusations to me on this subject. It is at least the third time and that reveals a pattern that contradicts your assertion that unkindness was unintended. I do not think it is consciously intentional. What I presume to be an unconscious emotional rejection has occasionally leaked through in your objecting to my assertions. I suspect others have noticed it but have refrained from mentioning it out of the very high respect we all have for you.
As you well know, words matter.
@ F > “No one in our government, or In Europe, it seems to me, has figured out what kind of fig leaf we can offer Putin so he can climb down without losing face to an unacceptable (to him) degree.”
Here’s one guy you’ve heard of with a plan, but he’s no longer in government.
https://www.westernjournal.com/exclusive-gen-flynn-can-end-ukraine-crisis-today/
Geoffrey:
You have decided to accept Vlad’s position in your first sentence and deem it “legitimate.” Thanks for putting that admission first. It follows that Vlad can use “legitimate national security interests” to justify anything now it seems.
An armed robber or child rapist may have all kinds of things in his mind justifying his actions. The victim’s perspective is different.
But you persist.
Don’t play the victim with Neo. That truly is sad.
The brutal reality is that had Putin not invaded, the Ukraine would have joined NATO and Russia would have no choice but to henceforth bend the knee to the West. Its national self-determination would be over.
This statement is false.
My, it’s warm in here.
Geoffrey Britain, you do us a service by reminding us of the older mode of analysis that existed before the advent of Wilsonian Moralism-Legalism, that of raison d’etat/Staatsraison/Realpolitik. What is “legitimate” there is not “legitimate” to the Wilsonian mind. The Wilsonian mind is prone to manifest itself in diplomacy as some combination nagging and hysterics. Well, we live in a time of nagging hysterics.
There are three separate questions: What is our legal requirement? What is our interest? What is our moral requirement? It is wonderful when they are all the same. We don’t have to choose between Realpolitik and Moralism-Legalism. Life is often not that wonderful.
Realpolitik is about interests, and it depends on the accuracy of analysis, in this case of both hard military analysis and softer political-economic analysis. Fred Kagan, whom I met a couple of years ago at the Concordia Annual Summit in NYC, talks about the failure of Net Assessment in this case. That should give us all pause. We were wrong about Russia’s net military advantage over Ukraine. Putin was wrong, too. Putin was wrong about the fragility of NATO and how punishing economic sanctions would be. The US government was wrong about how much deterrent making threats about sanctions would be versus shipping more defensive weapons to Ukraine long before they were needed. Blinken bragged before the invasion started about $600 million in military aid to Ukraine; he didn’t mention that that was less than 1% of what we left behind in Afghanistan, to make an order of magnitude comparison. Analysts like Ian Bremer were wrong in assigning a low probability to a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. China might have been wrong in assuming they could help the Russians evade the impact of sanctions, that they could put a spoke in NATO’s wheel, that it would be valuable to have a closer relationship with Russia in opposing the US.
I note that if Putin IS Hitler, then we still want his help on the Iran JCPOA, on Climate Change, on exporting energy, and on mining rare earths to support the Green Economy. So he’s not beyond the pale when it comes to what’s really important. (I hope the /sarc didn’t need explaining.) We are still slow to push forward missile defenses, for reasons that baffle me. Arming Ukraine with defensive weapons BEGINNING in 2014 and building missile defenses in Europe seemed like the obvious strategy at the time, given Russia’s economic and demographic weaknesses.
The new Net Assessment must say that the road and rail-bound Russian army would not be much threat to any NATO country that has air superiority, and that Russian training, command and control, and technology are badly out of date. Reports say that 190,000 men are involved in the invasion. Compare this to complaints about the insufficiency of a couple hundred thousand men to occupy Iraq, and recognize that Ukraine is 50% larger than Iraq. A hostile occupation of Ukraine would tie the Russian military down and bleed the state dry.
So I don’t think Poland 1939 or Czechoslovakia 1938 are really the right analogs to this situation. Consider Czechoslovakia. France had an alliance and a legal obligation to go to war if Germany invaded. The Czech alliance was part of the network of eastern alliances France put in place to create a second front threat to Germany, given that Imperial Russia had collapsed and Soviet Russia had a history of collaborating with Germany. The problem was twofold. First, France was considerably weaker than Germany, even more than in 1914. It couldn’t go to war without British assistance, and the British were not allied to Czechoslovakia. The British hoped that some combination of French and Italian troops would deter Germany. (ha.) Second, France’s strategic position for supporting its eastern allies had collapsed when it allowed the re-occupation of the Rhineland in 1936. This is an event that really deserves more study, though the British also played a role in undermining the French position. Britain has a long history of appeasement as a primary tool for foreign policy on the cheap. So France was forced into a situation where she did not have any practical means of supporting an ally under threat. That France and Britain caved at Munich reflected that very negative Net Assessment, especially when Italy was collaborating with Germany. And so the entire alliance system collapsed.
Why is Ukraine different? Germany was the leading industrial power in Europe and adding Czech resources added between 10-15%, so representing a swing of about 20-30% in the correlation of forces in Germany’s favor. Russia is no economic power, and Ukraine is a basket case, with the lowest per capita GDP in Europe by miles. Ukraine doesn’t add much, and we have discussed how the internal and external costs of invading and holding her will make Russia relatively weaker. Ukraine is not an ally, so the legal implications are quite different. A Russian occupation of Ukraine, or a puppet government in Kyiv, doesn’t impair NATO’s ability to assist its members. The opposition of Sweden and Finland to Russian aggression counts ten times as much as Kyiv’s enthusiastic support could, and Ukrainian opposition means Russia won’t have even that.
Geoffrey Britain, you do us a service by reminding us of the older mode of analysis that existed before the advent of Wilsonian Moralism-Legalism,
Oblio, Realist perspectives are perfectly standard in the study of international relations. There are liberal perspectives on international relations, but they’re promoted by people who study the behavior of persons, the behavior of institutions, and activity within markets. Woodrow Wilson is a historical figure, and had a legal-formal-theoretical take on political life, as you might expect of a man who actually had been a lawyer. You want the liberal take on international relations, read Robert Keohane or Joseph Nye.
Political science in general and IR in particular has tended to suffer from a deficit of clarity about whether positive or normative questions are under review, whether you are thinking theoretically or practically.
The Realist aspiration is to study international relations as a mechanistic process and its contention is that the process is almost completely immune to culture or to the evolution of states as physical or social entities. The problem at the core of Realism as a school of thought was stated by the sociologist Stanley Rothman: the content of what you conceive of as your interests is influenced by culture. Mearsheimer or Geoffrey Britain channeling Mearsheimer may try to pretend this is a chess game. It is not.
Russia is no economic power, and Ukraine is a basket case, with the lowest per capita GDP in Europe by miles.
Russia has a satisfactory productive base (the world’s 6th largest in terms of output) and has been quite dynamic economically in the last 20 years. The Ukraine is one of about a half-dozen countries who bring up the rear in Europe and who have similar levels of real income per capita.
Geoffrey Britain:
And yet you are a person. A person expressing an opinion. As are all of us here (except the bots that end up in the spam folder).
You are a person expressing an opinion that, if carried out in the real world, would have consequences. That is true of all the opinions here, including mine.
You and I disagree strongly on an issue regarding Russia and Ukraine. And yes indeed, I address you as a person with an opinion which, if carried out in the real world, would have certain consequences. In pointing out what I think those consequences could be I did quite a few things, including drawing historical analogies. When I wrote “Apparently you would have been right there with Chamberlain at Munich” I meant that your proposal was very similar to what Chamberlain did at Munich.
What’s so “unkind” about that? Is being compared to Chamberlain so terrible? Chamberlain was actually no dummy; his flaw was that Hitler fooled him. Actually, it’s not even certain that Hitler fooled him, because I’ve read that one of the reasons Chamberlain acquiesced to Hitler was that England wasn’t yet ready to be on a war footing.
Churchill actually praised Chamberlain in a speech Churchill gave on the latter’s death in 1940. Here’s part of it:
We all voice opinions here and often make analogies to historical events. But – as Churchill said – none of us can see the future.
Remarkable eulogy.
Remarkable rhetoric.
Thanks…
Barry Meislin:
Yes.
Churchill is one of the few world leaders whose eloquence can bring me to tears.
1) the late, great Angelo Codevilla, writing in 2019 about Russia, Ukraine and the U.S.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-is-russia-to-us/
2) tune into Robert Barnes’s Hush Hush #45, a brilliant overview of the situation, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com
A mind is a difficult thing to change, but as everyone here knows, it can be done.
3) listen to Barnes and Baris, recorded today
https://youtu.be/3avyOSHXvbs
Howard:
I have written about Barnes and Ukraine previously in this lengthy comment as well as this shorter one.
I’ve listened to Barnes at some length on the topic of Ukraine, although not the video you linked, and so far I find him remarkably ill-informed. As I said, I haven’t listened to a newer video by him (the last one I saw was a week ago), so perhaps he’s saying something different now. I rather doubt it, but I don’t have time to listen to the new one at the moment.
Neo,
Thanks for the reply. I understand your point about Barnes’s insulting reference to the Ukraine president, but if you watch his Hush Hush especially, or today’s Barnes and Baris, and couple either one with the Codevilla piece, you’ll see the large overlap. Codevilla was a wise man. Barnes has been a political/history junkie for a very long time. And he’s brilliant. Rather than playing catch-up, he seems on this issue like a person finally given a reason to express opinions formed over many years. If you listen to either of those links, you’ll see what I mean. It should give a person pause that Soros, Adam Schiff, the Clintons, the Deep State and everyone else you don’t trust is so intensely against Russia. Big red flag. This is a Globalists vs Nationalist fight.
No, Howard, first and foremost it’s Ukraine being invaded by Russians misled by Vlad. Occam’s Razor.
Howard:
Barnes showed himself to be puerile with his remark about Zelenskyy. But that was hardly the only thing he said about Ukraine that bothered me. I thought he was repeatedly factually inaccurate as well, with very incomplete knowledge. And yet he seemed to think he had a lot of authority on the subject.
You write:
It gives me zero pause and I’ll tell you why. That’s not the way I evaluate a situation. I do my own research, learn as much as I can, and come to my own conclusions. Sometimes I disagree with the right. More often – much much more often – I disagree with the left. But I never reject a position because people I’ve disagreed with most of the time take that position. Nor do I adopt a position because people I usually agree with take that position.
I’m not interested in bandwagons or groupthink, positive (agreement) or negative (disagreement). So I literally could not care less what the people you list think about this, nor do I understand why anyone would think it a good thing to use that as a reason to disbelieve something.
Tucker, tonite
https://youtu.be/1PC7DzTRS7A
Woo, hoo!
“This is a Globalists vs Nationalist fight…”
Or maybe it’s a “Nationalist vs. Nationalist” fight? (I.e., Ukraine vs. Russia?)
Or maybe it’s a “Nationalist vs. Thugocracy” fight? (i.e., Ukraine vs. Putin?)
Which raises some questions: Are Ukrainians defending their country—are volunteers flocking to the Ukraine to help—in defense of, er, Globalism?
Is NATO led by the “Leader of the Free World” reluctant to engage militarily in Ukraine’s defense due to “Globalism”?
Are the “Globalists” spinning hard to protect Ukraine…or something else? (Hint: Take a peek at Germany’s decisions on energy of late and the impact that MIGHT have on the Globalist agenda). To be sure one can try, or claim to try, to be protecting many different things at the same time. (Might this also fall under the category of “the fog of war”?)
This is getting a bit convoluted. Let’s start again….
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
“This is a Globalists vs Nationalist fight…”
…keeping in mind that in WWII the Soviets were allied with Britain, the US, France, et al. (that is, after the Soviet alliance with the Nazis blew up in their faces)….
IOW, everyone has his/her/their/xer reasons. (I’m not really up on my pronouns…)
To take a relatively small example, let’s look at Hungary.
The globalists DESPISE Orban (though Orban is certainly not shy about returning the favor).
The EU and Soros have been trying EVERYTHING to dislodge Orban from power (invoking the name of “Democracy” to be sure—Soros in particular possessing a most creative, even ingenious, Orwellian bent, though the EU are no slackers in this department either).
Orban has been if not necessarily allied to, then very supportive of Putin, let’s say due to nationalist and cultural reasons, i.e., because Orban is a Hungarian nationalist and has had to defend Hungary from the EU’s (and progressives’)—let’s call it—“Cultural Offensive”—against his government and worldview. (Before we draw too many conclusions here, Hungary is one of the safest places to be Jewish in Europe, at the moment at least.)
But Orban is no longer supportive of Putin. In fact, he’s been very critical of Putin’s latest effort to “liberate” Ukraine. And he has his reasons for being critical. Hungary also has a memory of times past—even if sometimes this memory can be rather selective. And Putin has enabled Hungary’s memory of the joys of being under the Soviet (the Russian?) thumb to kick back in. Big time.
So we know why Orban, like Poland, like Slovakia, like Czechia, like the Baltic states, etc. have arrayed against Putin.
But are these the same reasons as the “Globalists”?
True there may be some—or even quite a bit of—overlap.
But I suspect that one of the main reasons for the “Globalist” alarm is that this war is screwing up their OWN carefully made (and laid) plans for destruction (for “conquest”?); has endangered them by causing certain things to be brought out into the open; has possibly brought about a delay—or worse—in implementation of their global revolution (or if you wish, “fundamental transformation”—of the world).
Perhaps.
I may be a bit of a complicated, even confused guy but things in this regard, for me, are quite simple:
Everywhere, those responsible for destruction, subterfuge, sabotage, deceit, systematic illegality and perversity, and amassing unlimited power MUST BE FOUGHT. Therefore,
– Putin MUST BE FOUGHT—i.e., Ukraine must be supported and defended—because it’s the absolutely right thing to do.
– The Globalists MUST BE FOUGHT…because it’s the absolutely right thing to do.
…though having said all that, one must remember that Churchill did say that to fight and defeat Hitler, he’d make a pact with—EVEN—the devil….