The latest monthly jobs report shows 431,000 jobs were added. The report marked the 11th straight month of job gains above 400,000, the longest such stretch of growth in records dating back to 1939. So far in 2022, the economy has created 1.69 million jobs. Thatâs in just three months. By any fair measure, itâs an extraordinary total.
We are still about 1.6 million jobs below the number of employees in the workforce in February 2020 just before the pandemic hit. At the current average rate for the past six months, it will take three more months to get back to that level.
Leisure and hospitality jobs, which were the hardest-hit during the pandemic, rose by 112,000, but are still 1.5 million below their pre-pandemic peak. They comprise most of the jobs that are still missing in the economy.
Wage growth, which averaged 5.9% in the 2nd half of 2021, was up again, now showing a 6.7% year over year gain. Aside from April 2020, this is the highest wage growth in 40 years. And aside from three months in 2019 and 2020, the unemployment rate was the lowest (or equal to the lowest) in over 50 years.
The blemish is inflation. Most likely, inflation-adjusted wages have risen by 1% or less in the last year. On to cartoons.
A brief history of recent misspeaks:
Biden tries a different way to get Putin:
Floridaâs Governor DeSantis says the mouse is the real enemy of kids:
This Thomasâs dinner conversation is straight-up ok:
Fox hires Caitlyn Jenner, but there were unforeseen issues:
Sunset, Lake Waramaug, Warren, CT – February 2022 photo by Dave King
Weâre feeling helpless as we watch whatâs happening in Ukraine, because America and NATO wonât step up and stop Putin from laying waste there. Last week, Biden declared:
âI want to be clear: We will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full might of a united and galvanized NATO….But we will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War III. And something we must strive to prevent.â
Biden has drawn a red line. Unfortunately, heâs signaling to Putin the things we won’t do. The catch is that Bidenâs red line doesnât cover several non-NATO European countries that Putin might be interested in taking over. It creates a couple of strategic problems.
First, it puts a target on non-NATO countries. NATO fought for Kosovo and Kuwait in similar circumstances. And what about Finland or Taiwan? Second, what should NATO do if Putin uses WMD in Ukraine? Bidenâs statement is a failure of strategy. Every time the US says, “We will defend every inch of NATO territory,” Russia hears, “Itâs OK to take the rest.” When Putin learns that NATO will do nothing directly to stop his invasion, it decreases his costs of war, and increases what he will demand in the âpeaceâ negotiations.
Back to helplessness. When we feel helpless, our level of anxiety goes up. When our anxiety is high, we say âWe have to do something.â It doesnât take long for us to say, âThis is something, so letâs do it.â
That has led Ukrainians and Americans to talk about a No Fly Zone (NFZ) over Ukraine. Robert B. Hubbell had a practical take on what an NFZ requires: (brackets by Wrongo)
â…the no-fly zone over Washington, DC after 9/11 required twelve fighter jets in the air continuously…. DC is 68 square miles, and Ukraine is 233,031 square miles….Ukraineâs [landmass] is 3,400 times larger than DC….it would require a massive commitment of fighter jets to enforce a no-fly zone.â
Hubbell points out that jets on patrol must refuel every two hours, requiring KC-135 tankers to refuel them in mid-air over Ukraine. Our KC-135 tankers would be easy targets. The KC-135s can only stay aloft for six hours, requiring a constant rotation of multiple refueling tankers to keep our combat jets in the air.
We would have to establish air traffic control for our hundreds of aircraft over Ukraine. That would require AWACS aircraft to manage the airspace and detect oncoming threats from Russian jet fighters. Our AWACS would also be targeted by Russiaâs advanced S-400 air defense systems that can see deep into Ukraine.
To maintain a no-fly zone in Ukraine, the first action necessary to protect US jets would be to attack S-400 missile systems on Russian territory â an act of war.
The threat of using nuclear weapons is palpable. We know that Putin has thousands of tactical nuclear weapons, while NATO has less than 100 in Europe. Putin declared two years ago that Russia reserved the right to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks. Nuclear weapons are real and deadly threats. Weâre in a tight spot with Putin and he seems more willing to use the threat of nuclear weapons than is NATO.
âIt would be wrong to assume that, if the US military enters the conflict in Ukraine in some capacity, nuclear war would inevitably follow. First, it wouldnât be the first time that Americans and Russians have killed each other. The Soviets reflagged their aircraft during the Korean and the Vietnam Wars and directly engaged with their American enemy. They also launched missiles at American aircraft during the war. The United States, on the other hand, has killed Russian mercenaries as recently as 2018 with no ramifications.â
There have been just two conflicts between two nuclear-armed states, (between China and Russia in 1969 and India and Pakistan in 1999). Both were border disputes rather than major wars, partly because the parties were wary of a nuclear escalation.
Nobody knows for sure how Russia and the US would react if they fought in earnest.
Direct military confrontation doesnât always mean war, much less World War III. Remember that Turkey shot down a Russian warplane on the border with Syria in 2015, without setting off a global conflagration.
Is there a point when NATO will show Putin that it’s not afraid to act? Donât count on that.
The pressure to act in the coming days will become enormous. The images of Ukrainian suffering already stirs the public, and the images will get worse. The calls for Biden to act will grow louder. American and NATO support to Ukraine has helped the country to resist so far. But Washington and its allies must be honest about the limits of that support and whether we have the willingness to step up to support Ukraineâs needs.
How will Biden handle the great dilemma presented by our feeling of helplessness in Ukraine? Will he play annihilation chicken with Putin?
Watch Fiona Appleâs cover of the Lennon/McCartney song âAcross the Universeâ. See if it provides you with any insight into Bidenâs dilemma:
A federal district court judge in Florida issued an order preventing disciplinary action against a Navy officer who refused to take the Covid vaccine on religious grounds. In the military, this is called insubordination, and is subject to many different forms of punishment. But not according to Florida District Court Judge Steven Merryday:
âThe military is well aware of the frailty of their arguments in defense of their practices….The record creates a strong inference that the services are discriminatorily and systematically denying religious exemptions without a meaningful and fair hearing.â
The officer is in charge of a guided missile destroyer that is about to deploy. The warship carries 320 officers and sailors, along with missiles and torpedoes. The Navy isnât saying where itâs headed. But now, the Navy canât deploy its warship, even though it says it has lost trust in its commanding officer, an anti-vaxxer who has repeatedly disobeyed lawful orders.
Perhaps the craziest aspect of the judgeâs ruling is that the Navy is prohibited from reassigning the insubordinate commander to a position at the same rank, pay grade etc. while the case is litigated. Thatâs something that the military normally has absolute discretion to do.
But the judge has overruled the Navy, along with the many senior officers who have said under oath that deploying the ship with the anti-Vaxx commander could imperil national security. Instead, the judge has ordered the Navy to keep the disobedient officer in charge of its $1.8 billion warship.
Now, the Navy and the judiciary are at a standoff. The Navy wonât deploy its warship until the commander is stripped of command. The judge will not allow it to do so. As a result, the judge has effectively commandeered a Navy guided-missile destroyer.
The issue seems to be about the limits of individual religious freedom. Military courts don’t usually decide these issues. The controlling law is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that requires “reasonable accommodation” for religious requirements, like for service members who must have beards or wear religious headgear. Â They are permitted to do so, even if regulations would otherwise prohibit them. The question is should it apply to vaccinations for commanders when the Navy says they must be vaccinated.
Another problem is jurisdiction. A US district judge shouldn’t have any jurisdiction when the dispute is between the US Military and an officer or enlisted person. Soldiers do surrender some of their Constitutional or legislatively guaranteed rights while in the military, but not all. So some actions must be resolved by civilian courts.
This is a clear example of how the band of authoritarian theocrats with lifetime judicial appointments are trashing decisions taken by both our political and military institutions. In the coming years, the center and left must decide if theyâre OK with right-wing judges carrying out a slow motion religious coup under the color of law. On to cartoons.
Strongman has a new meaning:
Does love between two authoritarians amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world?
March Madness used to mean basketball on TV, not war:
Can nuclear war bring Red and Blue together for a one night stand? Nope:
Trans kids being who they are is bringing out the true nature of Republicans:
After last weekâs revelations, is the tide turning for Trump? Letâs root for the undertow:
Garden of the Gods Park, Colorado Springs, CO – February 2022 photo by Daniel Forster
Biden will give his first State of the Union (SOTU) address to the nation tonight. If you read Wrongoâs column yesterday, itâs no surprise that he will address a country that remains sharply polarized about Americaâs priorities:
âAccording to a Pew Research Center survey, 71% of US adults rated strengthening the economy as a top policy priority, followed by reducing health care costs (61%), addressing the coronavirus (60%), improving education (58%) and securing Social Security (57%).â
Americans are concerned about the state of the economy (71%), with 82% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats agreeing it is a top political priority.
Anyone outside of the Right-wing bubble knows that Biden is already committed to tackling inflation, but Americans remain anxious about the economy, despite record job growth in 2021 and solid wage gains.
So Biden is vulnerable on inflation, particularly since Republicans will stress high gas prices. They will also make the point that excessive spending on Covid relief added to inflation while increasing the budget deficit. In the Pew study, 63% of Republicans said that the budget deficit should also be a top priority.
â…rather than go on the offensive, infrastructure spending in hand, they sat quiet. There would be no publicity blitz, no attempt to capture the nationâs attention with a campaign to sell the accomplishments…no attempt to elevate members who might shine in the spotlight and certainly no serious attempt to push back on the right-wing cultural politics that helped Republicans notch a win in Virginia.â
This is an opportunity for Biden to recount his accomplishments. The pandemic is (again) trending in the right direction; the economy is roaring (even though inflation must be addressed); respect of our foreign partners continues to be restored around the world (just when US leadership was urgently needed).
Heâs probably had to rewrite the speech a few times since Putin invaded Ukraine, so itâs anybodyâs guess what will be emphasized about that.
Biden faces strong political opposition from Republicans, who will fault him for a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the surge in migrants at the US-Mexico border. Some Republicans see Bidenâs nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, as a wedge issue to keep Whites from voting for Democrats in November.
But as John Harris says at Politico, Democrats shouldnât beat themselves up. They should remember:
â…that the modern presidency offers its occupants nearly inexhaustible capacity for political revival. While Biden faces a growing roster of doubts and doubters â including within his own party â his two immediate Democratic predecessors offer vivid examples showing that the tools for him to reverse perceptions and regain control of his presidency are within his grasp.â
Harris says that the Biden administration has failed to tell a compelling story to Americans:
âBy outward evidence, Biden and his aides have either not settled on a narrative or have not effectively promoted it. It is on this score that the Obama and Clinton examples are especially notable. Since both Obama and Clinton recovered from midterm blowouts for Democrats to win second terms, why canât Biden employ their strategies for recasting their presidencies before being blown out?â
The goal of the SOTU should be to give those voters who have open minds a chance to see Biden in new light. Weâre always interested in success stories that show the main character growing from start to finish, discovering new ideas and new energy while amplifying his/her original values.
Biden ran and won on âBuild Back Betterâ. It was a practical approach for dealing with the pandemic and the economic catastrophe that came with it. It encompassed straightforward solutions, many of which have been enacted into law.
He ought to use the SOTU as the start of the 2022 mid-term campaign. Heâs not an agile politician like Obama, Clinton, or Trump. But he is easily their equal and possibly their superior in terms of understanding the day-to-day practical burdens and aspirations of the voters he needs to sell on staying with Democrats in 2022.
He needs to show America that heâs managing an office with unmatched power in a successful manner. He should work every day to tell the story about who he is and what heâs trying to achieve for the country.
Tonight, weâll see in what direction heâs taking both the country and the Democratic Party.
Itâs doubtful that Ukraineâs President Zelensky will remain in power, or indeed, live to the conclusion of Putinâs War. Thereâs a very good likelihood he will not physically survive this weekend, but heâs been remarkably courageous in the face of all this. Ukraine posted a video in which Zelensky said, when the US offered him safe passage out of the country:
âI need ammunition, I donât need a ride.â
We knew Zelensky had guts because he stood up to Trump when Trump attempted to blackmail Ukraine into sabotaging Joe Bidenâs campaign in 2020; but his strength now is at a different level. Three years ago, he was playing a president in a popular television comedy. Today, heâs confronting Russiaâs military, having become his TV character in real life.
Weâre so used to posturing, talking points and brand management by politicians that itâs almost breathtaking to witness actual courage, resolve, and leadership. Zelensky is rising to this moment.
Many âwiseâ western pundits have been saying that the guy was hopelessly in over his head. But clutch moments show us to be who we are. And there he is: Not running. Compare that to Americaâs former ally, the last President of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, who got the f outta Dodge at the first hint that things were going south.
Very few of us will ever face Zelenskyâs situation. But we all have moments where we must face our fears and live out our principles or run. Zelensky is passing that test. On to cartoons, all about Putin.
Putinâs War has some support:
Itâs hard to campaign when your leader undermines the message:
Sedona, AZ dusted in snow- February 2022 photo by Valentina Tree
Late on Friday, the US, Britain and EU said they will sanction Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. This is the third round of Biden’s sanctions, and blocks the Russian president from any economic activity within the American financial system. White House press secretary Jen Psaki indicated the US would also implement a travel ban for Putin.
These sanctions effectively place Putin in the same category as North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.
As with other Russian sanctions, it isn’t clear how effective the Putin asset freeze will be. According to the Pandora Papers investigation, Putin appears to control assets in Europe, but the amounts are trivial compared to estimates of his wealth. The travel ban is significant. It says that the West considers Putin to be an international pariah. Earlier, Biden also announced a second round of sanctions against Russia.
The challenge facing Biden is how to avoid either starting or losing, a World War. He’s done a decent job rallying other nations towards a common viewpoint about Putinâs War. Putin believed he could at least neutralize certain allies within both NATO and Europe, along with some politicians and the public in a few EU countries.
But thus far, Bidenâs had success at undercutting Russiaâs efforts. He has been able to achieve broad unity by making it clear that Russia is an unprovoked aggressor. Yet Kyiv may soon fall to the Russian invaders. Addressing his nation, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky said the Russians are coming after him specifically:
âThe enemy has marked me as enemy number one.â
We canât ignore whatâs happening, but the US wonât risk all-out war over Russiaâs invasion of Ukraine. We hope to avoid these choices by imposing sanctions that might turn the Russian people against Putin, by depriving Russia of cash and other resources. The sanctions are impressively multilateral.
However, the new sanctions have some loopholes. Adam Tooze reports that the sanctions specifically exclude energy: (emphasis by Wrongo)
âEnergy is the really critical issue in the sanctions saga for both sides. It is what will hurt Russia most. It is also what is most critical for Europe. And, on energy… Biden…made this aside:
âYou know, in our sanctions package, we specifically designed to allow energy payments to continue.ââ
Really Joe? The sanctions say that as long as your energy-related transactions are channeled through non-sanctioned, non-US financial institutions, for instance a European bank, buying gas from Russia is peachy. So, all of the payments for Russian gas will be paid free of problems for as long as sanctions are in place.
âThe German government has pushed for an exemption for the energy sector if there is a move to block Russian banks from clearing US dollar transactions….other major western European nations hold similar views.â
It gets worse. The carve-out isnât limited to energy, it also applies to Russiaâs agricultural commodity exports. So long as those transactions run through non-US, non-sanctioned banks, the US sanctions will not apply.
This shows how dependent our European partners are on Russia for gas and agriculture. It also shows how hollow the sanctions are, and how they will not be the âpunishingâ sanctions Biden promised.
Itâs useful to remember that Germanyâs use of Russian gas has been a completely tenable and a mutually beneficial relationship for 40+ years.
Finally, Biden didnât announce excluding Russia from the SWIFT global financial payments system because Italy, Germany, and Cyprus werenât willing to do it. Part of this has to do with buying Russian gas. It also has to do with how dependent their economies are on exports to Russia. Although, as Biden noted, full blocking of Russian financial institutions should achieve the same, or even greater, effect as a SWIFT ban.
Except for that gas and agriculture thingy, so not the same at all.
The question is whether the EU and NATO are truly willing to bear the costs of inflicting pain on Russia in order to end the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As of today, it seems that they are not.
Time to take a break from geopolitics and whether Lindsay Graham will support Bidenâs new Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Itâs time for our Saturday Soother, where we turn away from the news and focus on trying to calm the f down.
Today is a typical winter day in Connecticut. Itâs chilly and thereâs snow on the ground, but far less than predicted.
Since Putin is acting like the Honey Badger, letâs start by upping your honey badger game by brewing a mug of Honey Badger Espresso from Intelligentsia Coffee. Theyâre a Chicago-based chain with locations in Chicago, Los Angeles, Austin, Boston, and NYC. Leave the intelligentsia and take the honey badger.
Now grab a seat by a window and listen to Handelâs âOmbra mai fuâ, known as Handelâs Largo of Love, itâs the opening aria in the 1738 operaXerxes. Here it is performed in 2017 by  Czechoslovakiaâs Janacek Chamber Orchestra with soloist soprano Patricia JaneÄkovĂĄ:
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:
Red barn, white snow, in Spatford, NY – 2022 photo by Michael Erb
In last nightâs Superb Owl, the LA Rams won. Your guacamole was probably better than the commercials.
Today is Valentineâs Day, a marketing triumph for the greeting card industry. There are no other triumphs to celebrate this morning, so letâs talk about a less than triumphal situation: Is something big about to happen in Ukraine?
Biden says America wonât fight for Ukraine; that would lead to âa world war.â Putin reads that as saying heâs got a free hand there assuming that heâs willing to take on whatever pain the Westâs sanctions bring. Assuming Russia has economic support from China, Russia will probably be able to cope with the strain of new sanctions.
Wrongo has no crystal ball but thinks that Russia will formally recognize Ukraineâs disputed Eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. Today, Russia acts as if they are a part of the Russian Federation. The people living in these ethnically Russian provinces already speak Russian and carry Russian passports.
But Ukraine doesnât recognize these provinces as independent. That has been a stumbling block in the current negotiations between France, Germany Russia, and Ukraine around what were formerly known as the Minsk accords, agreed in 2015, but never implemented.
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. That would be a huge win for Putin since its long been clear that NATO will not accept any new member that has a substantial Russian population.
That would achieve what Putin wants without the US having to put it in the form of a written guarantee.
Finally, it is hard to believe that Russia really wants to become responsible for the economic basket case called Ukraine. Hereâs a comparison by Adam Tooze, of Ukraineâs GDP per capita compared to Russia, Poland, and Turkey:
From Tooze: (emphasis by Wrongo)
“Ukraineâs performance between 1990 and 2017 was not just worse than its European neighbors. It was the fifth worst in the entire world. Between 1990 and 2017 there were…only 18 countries with negative cumulative growth and…Ukraineâs performance puts it in the bottom third…. amongst the four countries that delivered less growth for their citizens than Ukraine were the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and Yemen.â
Why are things so terrible in Ukraine? Itâs due to corruption, demographic decline, and lack of investment in most industry sectors.
Disputes are negotiated when each side can call it a “win”. Itâs obvious that an invasion of Ukraine would not be a win for Putin, so what heâs doing now seems more like a negotiating tactic. If he declares these two breakaway provinces to be an independent part of Russia, look for Belarus to be next.
Since the US and NATO have put up such a big stink, Russia probably wonât try to overthrow the government in Kyiv. OTOH, Putin doesnât want to be seen as losing in this standoff over Ukraine, so recognizing the disputed provinces is an available middle ground.
And the US has already tacitly agreed to this once before when Russia annexed Crimea.
A Morning Consult Poll — done on February 7th that sampled 2,005 registered US voters showed that if there was a complete Russian occupation of Ukraine, then 42% of Americans support sending in troops. Thatâs a plurality, but not a majority.
The Morning Consult found a different response in Europe. Respondents in France (31%), Germany (37%) and the UK (37%) support the primary sanction, closing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Interestingly, in Germany, another 37% also opposed closing the pipeline if Russia invades.
So viewpoints are more nuanced the closer you get to the front lines.
Time to wake up America! Ukraine isnât core to US strategy in Europe or in NATO. Yes, Ukraineâs right of self-determination is at stake. But given the GDP rankings above, you could say it’s already a failed state. And what about US support in other low income countries looks like the ticket out of failed state status for Ukraine?
To help you wake up, listen to Billy Bragg perform âTen Mysterious Photos That Can’t Be Explainedâ from his 2021 album âThe Million Things That Never Happenedâ.
Sample Lyrics:
I’ve been down rabbit holes
I’ve seen the rabid trolls
Cackling in the twilight
Of the Age of Reason
One thing I’ve noticed
As I get older
Common sense like art
Is in the eye of the beholder