Hurricane Ian should remind us of one thing: Weâre all in this life together. Itâs easy to let your partisan flag fly with âgotchasâ since weâre talking about Florida.
We could be smug watching Republicans like Governor DeSantis, who happily stoked outrage about âgovernment tyrannyâ over vaccines and masks, getting frustrated when his constituents fail to follow evacuation orders.
We could go for the schadenfreude when watching the up-by-your-bootstraps types in Florida line up for government assistance from FEMA. Or what was the best part? Watching DeSantis, whose entire MO is trolling Biden and the Democrats, happily accepting help from Dark Brandon and the federales.
âBut hereâs the thing: Weâre not talking about debating points. Weâre talking about human beings…. Whoâve had tragedy visited on them. And the only responses should be empathy, charity, and love.â
On to cartoons.
Uncle Sam does his job, regardless of politics:
Some say that stronger hurricanes aren’t an indication that the climate is changing:
Joshua Tree NP, CA – September 2022 photo by Bart Aldrich
This week, Wrongo and Ms. Right watched the Ken Burns program on the Holocaust on PBS. The three-part series is about how America responded to the Holocaust. An overriding theme in the film is that Americaâs aversion to immigrants framed much of our response to what Germany was inflicting on Jews throughout Europe.
You will not find a better or clearer narrative about the unfolding of the ideas and events that led ultimately to the Holocaust. Learning about Americaâs response in the run up to WWII is something we all should confront. Itâs part of the ongoing conversation of what sort of country we believe the US to be, versus the kind of country it actually is.
âThere are many revelations in the film. Burns, Novick and Botstein explore at length the connections between the American Eugenics movement, American genocidal policies towards Native Americans, and Jim Crow laws and Hitlerâs policies and Nazi laws.â
Granted, the Germans didnât need to learn racism or xenophobia from Americans. They did quite well on their own. They had already figured out how to export that to their African colonies. But, itâs true that here in America, we had the genocide of the Native Americans: Round them up, confine them, eliminate a major food source, and kill as many as you can. Genocide against Black people: Forced servitude, rape, and murder.
One thing that was beyond the scope of the film is why there was so much ambivalence by Americans to Hitler, and why we didn’t take in more European refugees. They show that until the late 19th century, America was a nation that welcomed immigrants. Then as the country grew and rates of immigration increased, by the turn of the 20th century, nativist sentiment was at an all-time high. Even Progressives, who prided themselves on helping the less fortunate, generally favored anti-immigration policies.
Ultimately, the US governmentâs anti-immigrant legislation normalized xenophobia in America. Nationalism and fear of immigrants has apparently been with us ever since. The film says that Hitler copied our tactics (!) and took them to a new extreme while the world watched.
On the last night (of 3), the film reminds us of the irony that Russia benefited from Rooseveltâs “Lend-Lease” arms program to help defeat the German invasion in WWII. A supreme irony now is that Russiaâs complaining about our 2022 version of “Lend Lease” where the US is sending weapons to Ukraine to use against Russia.
Weâre often inconsistent in our policies, but here we are in 2022 with a similar interest: The continued existence of an attacked sovereign nation. Only this time Russia is the aggressor, not Germany.
The last five minutes of the film provides a montage of the rising white supremacism and antisemitism in the US (including a clip of the marchers at Charlottesville in 2017) that, regrettably makes âThe US and The Holocaustâ all too relevant to today. Itâs a very difficult history, but itâs also important that it is not forgotten.
Despite whatâs going on in Ukraine and Russia, or with Trumpâs many legal quagmires, letâs shut down the politics and posturing for this week. Itâs time for our Saturday Soother.
Here on the fields of Wrong, the lawn has greened up from several decent rainstorms over the past few weeks. The bluebird houses are coming down for the winter. As we bid farewell to summer, leaves are beginning to turn color and fall. The summer classical music venues that we love have ended their seasonal programs. Wrongo wore a down vest this morning.
Time to grab a mug of Ethiopia Nano Genji Bergamot coffee ($25.50/12 oz.) from Sacramento, CAâs Temple Coffee. The roaster says it has flavors of tangerine and ginger with a long finish.
Now grab a seat by a south-facing window, put on your wireless headphones and listen to Van Morrison perform âWhen the Leaves come Falling Downâ from his 1999 album âBack on Topâ. We usually feature classical music on Saturdays, but this effort by Van the Man is very mellow and features wonderful fall photos:
Good strategy is supposed to include a look at what the logical outcomes may be, once youâve implemented your strategic plan. Was that done when the US and the EU decided to sanction Russia about its Ukraine invasion after having sanctioned Iran, well, for being Iran?
When you treat much of the world as your enemy, you should expect them to eventually find common cause and fight back. Weâre speaking about the worldâs supply of natural gas (NatGas). There is a new alliance between Russia and Iran on NatGas. At Oil Price, Simon Watkins says that a new energy cartel is forming: (brackets and emphasis by Wrongo)
âThe US $40 billion memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed last month between [Russiaâs] Gazprom and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) is a steppingstone to enabling Russia and Iran to implement their long-held plan to be the core participants in a global cartel for gas suppliers in the same mold as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) for oil suppliers.â
The article describes how Russia and Iran are creating a NatGas OPEC. The two countries are first and second respectively in holding the worldâs largest NatGas reserves. Russia has just under 48 trillion cubic meters (tcm) and Iran has nearly 34 tcm, so the two countries are in an ideal position to form a cartel.
NatGas is a vital commodity. It is widely seen as the optimal product in the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. And controlling the global flow of it will be the key to energy-based power over the next 10 to 20 years. This has already been demonstrated in Russiaâs hold over the EU through its NatGas supplies.
From a top-down perspective, this Russia-Iran alliance might also draw other Middle East gas producers, who have tried to be neutral between the Russia-Iran-China axis or the US-EU-Japan axis.
Qatar has long been seen by Russia and Iran as a prime candidate for this kind of gas cartel because it shares its gas field with Iran. Iran has exclusive rights over 3,700 sq.km of the well-known South Pars field (containing around 14 tcm of gas), with Qatarâs North Field comprising the remaining 6,000 sq.km (and 37 tcm of gas).
If they can enlist Qatar, this new cartel would control 60% of world gas reserves, allowing them to control NatGas prices globally. It would be logical for prices to rise, given the growing demand for NatGas in the coming decades.
But this means that in a decade or so, the US, Europe, and Asia will all be more dependent on imports from Russia, Iran, and Qatar, while competing with the rest of the world for our share in order to maintain our economy and lifestyle.
So, strategy can be a bitch. By creating a global political and economic environment that pushes Russia, Iran, and Qatar into a cartel, weâve created a significant future economic vulnerability.
â…about 1 in 6 American homes…have fallen behind on their utility bills. It is, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA), the worst crisis the group has ever documented. Underpinning those numbers is a…surge in electricity prices, propelled by the soaring cost of natural gas.â
Thatâs 16% of American homes for the math challenged. Winter in the US may not be as big a disaster as in the UK and Europe, (better insulation). But plenty of people here will have to choose between food and heat.
The world is sorting itself out into blocks of countries aligned with each other. Russia, China, Iran and perhaps India, want their own commodity-based financial system to reduce their exposure to the political impacts from the Westâs corporate/state âfreeâ market system, which has used trade as a weapon for the past few decades.
There are two ways of looking at this. We could just build this energy vulnerability into our economic planning and prepare to devote a growing share of our GDP to paying the cartel for more NatGas.
Or, we could immediately start seriously building out our renewable energy capacity. Thereâs a model. Europe is attempting to pivot away as quickly as possible from its dependence on Russia.
We could do the same thing.
That could reduce our exposure to imported NatGas because itâs largely a bridge from coal to renewables. Massive investing in renewables would give Russia and Iran a shorter bridge than they think theyâre getting.
Rio Grande, near Taos, NM – February 2022 photo by Augustine Morgan
âGod created war so that Americans would learn geographyâ â Mark Twain
Yesterday we woke up to a new world order created by Russiaâs invasion of Ukraine. Details are still sketchy, but it seems that Russia attacked from the north, east and south. Cruise missiles hit targets even in western Ukraine. The NYT provided this early map of reported Russian attacks:
The shaded areas on the right are Donetsk and Luhansk, the Ukrainian provinces that Russia recognized a few days ago as independent republics. The smaller area inside is the area currently controlled by the Russian separatists.
This news and Putinâs kabuki play leading up to the invasion obscures the fact that weâre now seeing the revival of war as an instrument of statecraft. History shows that wars of conquest used to be common. In the 19th century, thatâs what strong states did to their weak neighbors. Since the mid-20th century, wars of conquest are the exception not the rule. Russia has now brought wars of conquest back on the geopolitical stage.
Putinâs attack has the goal of regime change, plus the annexation of the breakaway provinces. While NATO and the US seem to have no real countermeasures, other than sanctions. That demonstrates another of Russiaâs goals: exposing NATOâs impotence.
NATOâs late-stage impotence has many causes.
The collective defense provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Charter has held the alliance together. It provides that if a NATO ally is attacked, all members of the Alliance will consider it an armed attack against them and take action to assist the attacked ally.
For much of the Cold War, (including when Wrongo served in Europe) NATO had a standing army prepared to deter an attack by the Soviets and/or its Warsaw Pact allies. NATO also maintained significant air and naval forces to confront Soviet aggression. NATOâs forces were anchored by a massive US military presence in Europe, including hundreds of thousands of troops, tens of thousands of armored vehicles, thousands of combat aircraft, and hundreds of naval vessels.
All of this gave Article 5 teeth.
When the Cold War ended in 1990-91, this combat-ready military force was gradually dismantled. Now, if there were to be a conventional fight in Europe, the Russian military is much stronger. It would defeat any force NATO could assemble.
Today the ability to deter a potential adversary from considering military action against a NATO member is no longer a certainty. That means the notion of NATO providing European collective self-defense is questionable.
In the past, NATO planned on countering the Soviet Unionâs weapons and manpower superiority with tactical nuclear weapons. But The Heritage Foundation says that we canât do that because thereâs an imbalance in our nuclear arsenals:
âWhile the US and Russia have a similar number of deployed strategic (i.e., high-yield) nuclear weapons as limited under New START, Russia has a 10:1 advantage over us in nonstrategic (i.e., low-yield) nuclear weaponsâaka tactical or battlefield nukes.â
They report that Russia has about 2,000 nonstrategic nuclear weapons, while the US has about 200. Half of them are in the US and half are with NATO, so we have about 100 tactical nukes on the ground in Europe. You might say no one is ever going to use nukes in Europe, but on Wednesday Putin warned: (emphasis by Wrongo)
âAnyone who tries to interfere with us, or even more so, to create threats for our country and our people, must know that Russiaâs response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history.â
Putinâs threat could mean anything from cyber-attacks to nuclear war. But Global Security Review reports that the current edition of Russian military doctrine says that Russia:
â…reserves the right to use nuclear weapons to respond to all weapons of mass destruction attacks…on Russia and its allies.â
That significantly lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. The idea is Russia might employ tactical nuclear weapons during a conventional conflict with NATO forces to prevent a defeat, to consolidate gains, or to freeze a conflict in place without further fighting. The last two could happen in Ukraine.
Given that the disparity between Russian and European tactical nuclear weapons is so large, Moscow probably thinks any potential NATO nuclear response to their threat of using nukes isnât credible.
This means NATO today can no longer stave off a Russian threat in Europe without using strategic nuclear weapons, a major escalation. That would be a very unlikely scenario if Russia is taking small bites of Western territory, as in Ukraine:
(hat tip, Monty B.)
Since World War II, the US has reserved the right to the “first use” of nuclear weapons should the need arise. But in January, several Democrats urged Biden to promulgate a “no-first-use” policy for US nuclear weapons. Eleven Senators and 44 House members signed a letter urging Biden to accept the policy. Imagine the consequences if a policy of no-first-use was in place, given whatâs happening in Ukraine. Or what might happen if the fight was with a NATO member.
Weâre now in a place where the West either accepts Russiaâs new European order, or we gear up to make them recalculate Putinâs strategy.
If we choose to oppose the new Russian order, the US and Europe will incur costs. It will hurt our economies, since while sanctions will hurt the Russians, weâre hoping they will not hurt us as much, or more. Russian cyber-attacks may seriously hurt our infrastructure. The West will be forced to provide large levels of military and humanitarian support to a damaged and smaller Ukraine, possibly for years.
We will see increased defense spending. Our military will once again be deployed to Europe where they will serve as a tripwire against Russian aggression like they did in the Cold War.
This will require a unified NATO to work together for many years. Is that a realistic plan, given that different US presidents, like Trump, may not support the goals of this new NATO?
Weâre in a different world now. This war will almost certainly be transformative for Europe and the world. The full effects of Russiaâs attack on Ukraine will play out not just for years, but for decades.
Letâs close with the Beatles âBack in the USSRâ:
Lyrics:
Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out,
They leave the West behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
That Georgia’s always on my mind
(The hosting service for the Wrongologist continues to have intermittent problems with the RSS feed that sends subscribers an email version of the column in the morning. Please go to the website to see earlier columns.)
The tense standoff between Ukraine and Russia took an ominous turn towards war when, as Wrongo forecasted on Feb 14, Putin recognized the independence of the two breakaway eastern Ukraine provinces:
âWrongo has no crystal ball but thinks that Russia will formally recognize Ukraineâs disputed Eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states….But Ukraine doesnât recognize these provinces as independent….Ukraine could be lured into trying to regain control of both provinces. At that point Russia would help defend them against Ukraine, most likely assuring that they would remain independent, although still technically part of Ukraine.â
Putin also said that he was ordering âpeace-keepersâ into both provinces. That effectively blunts most military responses that Ukraine might attempt.
One way to look at the situation is that Putin didnât âinvadeâ Ukraine. Instead, using this pretext, Russia is prepared to fight on behalf of two independent Republics who asked for Putinâs help. By recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk, Putin is following the model of how Western nations handled the 1990s breakup of Yugoslavia into three separate republics, ending communist rule in the nation.
This is a watershed moment for European security. Russia has dared Ukraine and the West to attack the breakaway provinces in the face of Russia defending them. The absolutely central question is: What aid and comfort are NATO and the US going to give Ukraine?
Biden has announced what he called the “first tranche” of sanctions on Russia, targeting two Russian banks, VEB and Russiaâs military bank, along with the country’s sovereign debt. That means Russia can no longer raise money from the West and will not be able to trade its debt in US or European markets.
Biden also said sanctions on Russian elites and their families members would be rolled out starting tomorrow.
Wrongo doubts that Russia will move significant numbers of its forces into the two âindependentâ regions unless Ukraine attempts to re-occupy them. If Ukraine does that, itâs likely that a general war between Ukraine and Russia will begin.
Americans (specifically Republican chicken hawks) should remember that eastern Ukraine is very remote in logistical terms. Even if the US wanted to help defend Ukraineâs east, the logistics of movement and supply would be absurdly difficult.
We should immediately implement our strongest sanctions. Biden shouldnât meet with Putin, although Blinken and Lavrov should meet. Diplomacy should determine if recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk is what Putin will settle for. If so, the task is to see if Ukraine would be fine with that. If both agree, so should the West and the US.
One thing NATO could do is close the Bosphorus, the narrow straits between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. NATO member Turkey controls access to the Bosphorus under a 1936 treaty called the Montreux Convention. In wartime, Turkey is authorized to close the straits to all foreign warships. It can also refuse transit for merchant ships from countries at war.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently has emphasized his support for Ukraine. Erdogan has said Turkey will do what is necessary as a NATO ally if Russia invades, without elaborating. But Turkey is also reliant on Russia for energy and tourism. It has forged close cooperation with Moscow on energy and defense, even deploying Russiaâs S-400 missile air defense system.
Imagine the pressure on Putin if Russia couldnât send warships or merchant ships through the Bosphorus so long as the Ukraine crisis is hot.
In effect, Ukraine lost its Eastern territories along with Crimea, eight years ago. If Russian forces now start patrolling the line of contact with the new âRepublicsâ, that will probably end the shooting. People on both sides of the border could then get back to a more normal life.
It would still leave an unstable Eastern Front for NATO and an unstable Western Front for Russia. That is something diplomacy could work on solving. Russia would have to deal with a Western-facing Ukraine integrating even more deeply into the EU. NATO would remain in Eastern Europe from the Baltics to the Balkans. NATO would then have a true mission, rather than floundering around without purpose.
Putin wonât be totally happy with this. But right now, he isnât getting his demands met, even though he has more than half of his army on the Ukrainian border.
Letâs close with a tune. Hereâs 1974âs âYou Ainât Seen Nothing Yetâ from Bachman Turner Overdrive, because in Ukraine, you ainât seen nothing yet:
Sunrise, Head of the Meadow Beach, Truro, MA – February 2022 photo by Maia Gomory Germain
Today is Presidents Day. Originally we celebrated George Washingtonâs birthday on February 22, until it was moved to the third Monday in February in 1971. It later morphed into Presidents Day (with no apostrophe).
Each year, in honor of Washington, a US Senator reads Washingtonâs farewell address. The political Parties alternate in the reading. Last year, Republican Rob Portman of Ohio read the address. This year, Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont has the honor. He’ll do the reading on Feb. 28.
This part of Washington’s farewell address remains relevant today: (emphasis by Wrongo)
âThe alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction…turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.â
Words to live by.
Hereâs another view on the Ukraine crisis. Foreign Affairs has an article, âWhat if Russia Wins?â The assumption in the US media is that Putin has little to gain by invading. Wrongo has said as much. But the Foreign Affairs article says that if Putin succeeds, he stands to gain a lot by weakening NATO and also the US.
The authors remind us that in 2015, after Russia joined the Syrian civil war, then-President Obama said that Syria would become a âquagmireâ, that Syria would be Russiaâs Vietnam or Putinâs Afghanistan, a mistake that would cost Russia dearly.
Syria wasnât a quagmire for Putin. Russia changed the course of the civil war. It then translated its military force into diplomatic leverage. Russia kept its costs and casualties sustainable, and today, it canât be ignored in the Middle East.
Obama failed to anticipate the possibility that Russiaâs intervention would succeed.
Once again, most analysts are warning of dire consequences for Russia if they invade. All of our cost-benefit analyses say that the price of full-scale war in Ukraine would be very high, including significant bloodshed. The thinking is that war and the escalation of western sanctions would undermine Putinâs support among the Russian elite, endanger Russiaâs economy and alienate the Russian public.
At the same time, it could leave Russia fighting a Ukrainian resistance for years. According to this view, Russia would be trapped in a disaster of its own making.
âPutinâs cost-benefit analysis seems to favor upending the European status quo. The Russian leadership is taking on more risks…Putin is on a historic mission to solidify Russiaâs leverage in Ukraine (as he has recently in Belarus and Kazakhstan). And as Moscow sees it, a victory in Ukraine might well be within reach.â
Russia could just continue the current crisis without invading, but if Putinâs calculus is right, as it was in Syria, then the US and Europe need to think through that eventuality. Putin may conclude that political dissension in America gives him a decided advantage, along with an opportunity to remake the map in Eastern Europe, where Ukraine is second only to Russia in size.
If Russia gains control of Ukraine, Western Europe and the US enter a new geopolitical era. Theyâd face the challenge of rethinking European security while trying to avoid being drawn into a war with Russia. Overhanging that is the possibility of nuclear-armed adversaries in direct confrontation.
The two goals of a robust defense of Europe, but one that also avoids military escalation with Russia, arenât fully compatible. The US could wake up to find ourselves unprepared for the task of having to create a new European security order after Russia controls Ukraine.
Invading Ukraine would also put enormous pressure on American democracy and national cohesion. Biden would go into the midterms with two extraordinarily difficult-to-justify foreign policy disasters â the Afghanistan withdrawal and Putinâs win in Ukraine.
Bidenâs defenders would argue that both had complex causes and werenât really solely Bidenâs doing. But what the average American would see, even before the eventual Republican chicken hawk posturing, will be that Americaâs diminished effectiveness and power occurred on Bidenâs watch. Biden will be blamed, and Putin might then help get his old buddy, the easily manipulated, NATO-hating Trump, back in power.
If Putin succeeds, the potential consequences in the US are great, and they would be a boon to Russia.
Time to wake up America! If/when the sanctions donât work, weâre probably bringing back the Cold War under a new Republican administration. To help you wake up, watch Playing For Changeâs cover of Led Zeppelinâs âWhen the Levee Breaksâ, about the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, the most destructive river flooding in US history.
Here, original band member John Paul Jones is accompanied by Stephen Perkins of Jane’s Addiction, Susan Tedeschi, Derek Trucks and 20 other musicians from seven different countries:
(The hosting service for the Wrongologist is having problems with the RSS feed that sends subscribers an email version of the column in the morning. Please go to the website to see earlier columns.)
Is there a better metaphor for todayâs America than this?:
âA ship carrying cars from Germany to the United States caught fire in the Atlantic Ocean on Wednesday, forcing the crew’s 22 members to abandon the vessel and leave it burning and adrift.â
So, thereâs a 60,000-ton cargo ship adrift off the Azores yesterday with no crew. Itâs carrying an estimated 4,000 cars, including 189 Bentleys and 1,100 Porsches. Tow boats from Gibraltar and the Netherlands are on their way to the site with three expected to be there by next Wednesday. The abandoned and burning vessel is operated by the Japanese shipping company Mitsui O.S.K. Lines.
Think about America as a ship adrift, in flames. One that its essential workers had to flee to survive. And itâs loaded with Porsches and Bentleys. On to cartoons.
Putinâs always thinking ahead:
Rumors of Russiaâs pullback are deceiving:
Irrational discourse is Americaâs brand:
When a priest says âI baptize,â instead of âwe baptize,â thereâs no baptism:
Trumpâs CPA walks away:
Sarah Palin vs. New York Times:
Sarah Palin sued The New York Times for defamation but failed to prove her case. In 1964, the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, said that public figures (like Palin), have to prove a defamatory statement was made âwith knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.â
âItâs weird how Republicans claim they love the United States Constitution, refer to themselves as âconstitutionalistsâ, yet hate press freedom and do everything in their power to destroy it. The Supreme Court has affirmed the right to a free press time and time again, yet Republicans like Donald Trump have argued to limit press freedom, if not outright destroy it.â
Press freedom doesnât belong to liberals or conservatives, it belongs to everyone. Free speech is a Constitutional right and if you try to kill it because someone said something about you that you didnât like, youâre not just killing free speech for your enemies, youâre killing it for yourself.
Winter in the Palouse, near the town of Oakesdale, WA – January 2022 photo by James Richmond Photography
We talk a lot about a nation’s credibility in foreign policy. The US strives to be credible regarding its positions with allies and foes alike. We have often failed. Russia has also proven many times over that it isn’t a credible partner.
The world is well-aware of Russiaâs ostentatious military buildup along Ukraineâs border. Putin added to the tensions by making demands requiring a new European security order. He wants Russia to be allowed its own sphere of influence that roughly corresponds to the old Soviet Union. That means NATO should certainly not expand, and possibly should contract.
Letâs look at history between the US and Ukraine:
In 1994, President Clinton asked Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons. In return, Ukraine got a financial settlement and the Budapest Memorandum which provided non-aggression assurances by both the US and Russia. Ukraine shipped 1700 or so nuclear warheads back to Russia and destroyed the missiles.
In 2014, President Obama looked at the big, muddy land called Ukraine and asked if its strategic importance was worth war. Meaning a real war, with an enemy that could fight back. He decided on economic sanctions.
In 2020, President Trump attempted to blackmail the Ukrainian president into interfering on his behalf in an American election.
In 2022, President Biden rules out military intervention should Russia invade Ukraine, talking mostly about more economic sanctions as the consequence.
Regardless of whether Russia invades Ukraine or not, the US is walking down a perilous path. It faces efforts to divide and neutralize its alliances in both Europe and Asia.
In Europe, Russia wants to bury the post-Cold War order. Putin wants Europe to recognize its sphere of influence in the former Soviet countries. Putin wants to separate Ukraine from NATO permanently. He would like to fracture the European alliance by making Germany a more neutral party as Russia attempts to create its western buffer zone.
Europeans think that Putin wonât invade but will follow a hybrid strategy â keeping a military presence on the border, continuing weaponization of Russiaâs European energy supply and increased cyberattacks â which will serve to keep NATO from becoming fully anti-Russian the way an invasion of Ukraine would. From the NYT:
âBefore the crisis, Germany was Americaâs closest ally in Europe, boasted a special relationship with Moscow and was the most important partner for Eastern and Central Europe. Today…Berlinâs relationship with Moscow is fast deteriorating….Germanyâs difficulties are a hint of what could come if Mr. Putin continues his brinkmanship, without providing the certainty of an actual invasion.â
The US and Germany arenât singing from the same choir book right now, so Putin may be on to something.
In Asia, China would like to drive a wedge between the US and some of its Eastern allies. It already has agreed with Russia on the demand for NATO to pull back in Europe.
India tilted toward Russia at the UN Security Council meetings last week. After China and Russia cast ânoâ votes in the Security Council on whether to hold an official session to discuss the Ukraine crisis, Responsible Statecraft says that India abstained. It was effectively a rejection of the US attempt to hold Russia accountable.
Any person can see whatâs coming in cold war 2.0 and should be very wary and worried. We need to learn to navigate in what has become a multi-polar world, one with worthy competitors in Russia and China.
We should remember that during cold war 1.0 in 1962, the stationing of Russian missiles in Cuba let to a great power deal. Russia took its missiles out of Cuba and the US pulled its missiles from Turkey and Italy. Back then, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was willing to consider Kennedyâs fears about Moscowâs missile deployment in Cuba. That became the basis for ending the confrontation.
The enormity of how close the world came to thermonuclear war led to an easing of tensions. Â The next 50 years were a period of relative calm in US/Russian relations.
Todayâs warlike tensions between the US and Russia over Ukraine have most of the same elements present, with the roles reversed. Now, Putin is telling the West that Ukraine should not be allowed to join NATO. He also demands that the US should not place offensive weapons in Ukraine.
Like Cuba in 1962, is Ukraine now the chessboard for these superpowers? Is there a lesson here from that history?
Time to wake up America! You arenât uniquely qualified to run the world, and there are competitors who will work really hard to prevent you from trying to continue doing so. To help you wake up, listen to Pink Floyd perform âDogs Of Warâ from their album âDelicate Sound Of Thunderâ at the Nassau Coliseum, NY in 1988. While the singing is a bit muffled, the band sounds fine, and thereâs a great saxophone solo by Scott Paige:
Sample Lyric:
Invisible transfers and long distance calls
Hollow laughter in marble halls
Steps have been taken, a silent uproar
Has unleashed the dogs of war
You canât stop what has begun
Signed, sealed, they deliver oblivion
The dogs of war won’t negotiate
The dogs of war don’t capitulate
Baileyâs Island, ME – January 7, 2022 photo by Eric Storm Photo
Russia has decided the time is right to challenge the balance of power in Europe. The talks between Moscow and the US, and between the EU, NATO and Russia were motivated by two reasons. First, Russiaâs long time concerns about NATO encroaching on their Western border. Second, the view in the West that Russia, after massing troops on the Ukraine border, is going to invade Ukraine and absorb it.
Putin told Biden in early December that he was looking for European security guarantees. They were later presented by Moscow in the form of two draft treaties, one a Russian-US security treaty, the other a security agreement between Russia and NATO. That led to the recent talks that seemingly went nowhere.
The pawn in this diplomatic game is Ukraine. The basic options for Ukraine are the same as were discussed in 2014: Alignment with Russia, alignment with the EU/NATO or balancing between the two.
But to Moscow, Ukraine isnât the problem. Putin thinks itâs Washington.
We should remember that Putin laid out his position to not accept any further eastward expansion of NATO in his speech to the Munich Security Conference in February, 2007. He hasnât changed his thinking.
Both sides know that Ukraine is an impoverished, de-industrialized, divided, and corrupt mess. Ukraine ranks 117 out of 180 countries on Transparency Internationalâs corruption index. Why would either side want to take over responsibility for Ukraine?
Also, Russia understands that the NATO expansion hadnât been on the table for years until Putin brought it up. Suddenly, he has the West debating an issue that wasnât an issue for a long time. Ukraine hardly qualifies as a potential NATO member â it doesnât have the resources to defend itself. Thereâs no way it could really contribute to defending other countries in Europe, even though they did send a few troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
So why would Russia attack Ukraine? Moscow is fully aware that while its troops would be welcomed in Eastern parts of Ukraine they wouldnât be in others. Yet, we learned yesterday that Russia withdrew its diplomats and their families from Kyiv:
âAccording to one senior Ukrainian security official, 18 people â mostly the children and wives of Russian diplomats boarded buses from Kyiv back to Moscow. About 30 more Russians left within the ensuing days, from the Kyiv embassy and a Russian consulate in Lviv. The Ukrainian security official said Diplomats at two other Russian consulates have been told to prepare to leave Ukraine.â
Anatol Lieven, writing in Responsible Statecraft, wonders what the US, NATO and the Europeans are thinking. Theyâve rejected Russiaâs conditions for an agreement since they were not willing to rule out expansion to Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics: (emphasis by Wrongo)
â…NATO has no real intention of admitting Ukraine, nor of fighting Russia in Ukraine. Both Washington and Brussels have openly ruled this out. Indeed, NATO could not do so even if it wanted to. US forces in Europe are wholly inadequate to the purpose, as are what is left of the British and French armies.â
Itâs possible that Russia is attempting to split Germany from the rest of Europe. Germany is reliant on Russiaâs natural gas to a greater extent than other European countries. Assuming that Lieven is correct about NATO military weakness, itâs also possible that Russia is trying to intimidate NATO. According to Adam Tooze, Russia accounts for about 40% of Europeâs gas imports. And a rupture of relations will result in the complete embargoing of Russian gas and oil to European customers.
While the US, NATO, and the EU have all promised âunprecedented sanctions,â against Russia if they invade Ukraine, sanctions only matter if the other side cares. If Russia decides to rupture relations with the West, it will have calculated that it would survive more economic sanctions. The primary Western threat is to block Russia from using the SWIFT electronic payments system. But itâs possible that Russia could survive being blocked from SWIFT for longer than Europe can survive without Russian energy.
Despite that threat, Western allies are sending dangerously contradictory messages about their willingness to impose anything on Russia beyond a financial slap on the wrist. One variable that sums up Russiaâs commanding position in a sanctions environment is Russiaâs foreign exchange reserves:
With north of $600 billion in reserves, Russia is just behind China, Japan, and Switzerland. This gives Putin the capacity to withstand sanctions on the rest of the Russian economy.
Putin has a timeline. In 2024 he faces a choice as to whether to continue in power or to begin to prepare for his final exit. At that point, he will be 72. We have to assume that by then, he would like to have drawn a line on Western expansion.
Also, 2024 overlaps with the end of Bidenâs first (only?) term as president. So, setting the terms of Russia-US relations on the expansion issue must be a priority for the Kremlin. Biden has clearly signaled that his priority is China and that he is willing to pay a political price for retrenching its strategic position (Afghanistan). Perhaps that opens the door for a Russian deal in Europe.
Lost in this discussion is the possibility that directly confronting Russia could drive them to sign a joint defense treaty with China. That would be a world-changing diplomatic move, assuming it included a mutual defense provision.
It would be a balance of power earthquake, a real-life demonstration Mackinderâs Heartland theory, which states that:
Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland
Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island
Who rules the World Island commands the world
Mackinder thought of the heartland as the core of Eurasia, and he considered all of Europe and Asia as the World Island. Think of such an alliance controlling much of the worldâs natural resources, having global leadership in manufacturing, and the best of STEM education. Imagine their combined military and naval might joined in a military pact.
There is still a chance that US flexibility in two areas may avert a diplomatic meltdown with Russia. The first would be a NATO commitment to deploy no new forces in NATO countries close to Russiaâs borders, in return for Russian limits on new deployments and the stand-down of the troops now deployed on Ukraineâs borders.
The second would be genuine US support for the failed Minsk II agreement which focused on autonomy for a demilitarized Donbas region within Ukraine. Donbas autonomy within Ukraine would be a serious barrier both to Ukraine seeking NATO membership and would therefore indirectly meet Russiaâs key concerns.
NATO, the US, and the EU need to come to a more modest view of themselves and their role in the world. We should abandon the empty and hypocritical false promise of further NATO expansion and seek a reasonably cooperative relationship with Russia.
Otherwise, we can go on living in our world of make-believe, a world that may easily be shattered by harsh realities.
Controlled burn, Yosemite NP, CA – Early Summer 2021 photo by mrcnzajac
(Note: The Wrongologist is taking an end of summer break. Our next column will appear on September 7)
Yesterday brought the final evacuation of Kabul airport by US forces. The actual deadline for all US troops to be out of Afghanistan was 3:29 pm EST Tuesday, which is Tuesday 11:59 pm local time in Kabul. But we exited a day early. This was the time of greatest risk to our troops, since fewer and fewer of them were available to maintain security at the airport for those getting on planes.
Several other news outlets are confirming Southpaw’s report. Here’s Natasha Bertrand of CNN:
3:29 pm EST is 11:59pm on Aug 30 Kabul time. A day early.
The Biden administrationâs end game relied on the Taliban acting in good faith as the last of our troops departed, including protecting the final American evacuees. Reuters had reported that the Taliban were waiting for “the final nod” from US forces before securing full control of the Kabul airport.
It seems like Biden’s faith was well-placed.
What follows is Wrongo’s thinking written before hearing that the US had successfully left Afghanistan and turned over the airport to the Taliban.
Let’s pull back and get some historical perspective on our decision to go to Afghanistan. Michael Krepon of the Arms Control Wonk blog makes a great observation about what was called the âunipolar momentâ in 1990, after the Soviet Union had collapsed.
The concept held that the US, as the worldâs sole superpower, didnât need to respect weakness, limit NATO expansion, or pay allegiance to international norms. Washington could and should throw its weight around. The sole superpower could play by its own rules.
That idea may have caused the downfall of the US in the Middle East. GW Bush subscribed to the unipolar moment. Before 9/11, he wanted to exit the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ATBM) Treaty with Russia, even though Putin was willing to accommodate some changes. Putin indicated that if he and Bush couldnât make a deal, Russia would exit the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (SALT II), which prohibited land-based missiles carrying multiple warheads.
Bush didnât care about the prohibition and walked from both. That meant that Bush dispensed with limitations on national missile defenses and the abolition of land-based missiles carrying multiple warheads, two central tenets of our hard-won nuclear arms control strategy.
Bush then reacted to the 9/11 strikes with a ânever againâ impulse that was also fueled by unipolar moment hubris. Krepon reminds us that Bushâs 2006 National Security Strategy declared:
 âIt is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.â
âThese sentiments fueled the ill-fated war and institution building project in Afghanistan….The end of the unipolar moment was hastened by these wars… For those harboring any doubt, the unipolar moment definitively crashed and burned with the fall of Kabul.â
More: (emphasis by Wrongo)
âThe finest hours of US expeditionary forces in Afghanistan came at the front and back ends of this two-decade-long saga. The routing of al-Qaeda was essential….The final act of leaving Afghanistan was suffused with grace even in the midst of chaos and terror. Evacuation efforts at Kabul airport were truly heroic, reflecting a nobility of purpose that had previously been buried by US counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies.â
As the sun sets on our physical military presence in Afghanistan, we can be happy that we’ve gotten all of our remaining troops out safely. Krepon reminds us that John Kerry began his career in public life as a young veteran, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry asked them:
âHow do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?â
Where will we go from here? Air strikes by the US wonât end with Afghanistan. Krepon also reminds us that going forward, we really need âMore Think, Less Tank.â
Winter in the Palouse, near the town of Oakesdale, WA – January 2022 photo by 
