As I lay in bed last night, I thought of writing a self – mocking post about my deep military experience 65 years ago in the Massachusetts National Guard as a lead-in to some comments about the failures of the Russian military in Ukraine, but the situation we confront is too desperately serious for such lighthearted literary amusements. Instead, I want to talk about the box the United States is in as a consequence of Russia’s possession of an enormous nuclear arsenal.
Stymied by the disastrous performance of his military
forces, Vladimir Putin has resorted to the bombing of maternity hospitals in an
effort, one presumes, to terrorize the Ukrainians into giving him the victory
that he is unable to gain on the battlefield. The United States military could
easily defeat Russian forces, it is my impression, but is held back from doing
so by the fear that Putin, facing defeat, would launch nuclear weapons, first
against the Ukrainians and quite possibly, if we took action against them,
against the United States. Such an action would be disastrously self-defeating for Putin and would almost certainly result in his own death, but we are fearful that he
would not be moved even by elementary self-interest to refrain from so
disastrous a step.
Are we then to sit by and watch Ukrainians die at Putin’s
hand because we are afraid that he will not act in his own rational
self-interest? The answer, quite simply, is yes.
This is not a new thought. As soon as nuclear weapons were
invented and used the one and only time in battle by the United States, it was
obvious that their existence had completely changed the age-old logic of war.
That is why the central concepts of offense and defense gave way to the
entirely new and fundamentally nonmilitary concept of deterrence. It took very
little thought and virtually no battlefield experience to recognize that a war
between nuclear powers was simply unthinkable, to be avoided at all cost.
For three quarters of a century now the United States,
Russia, and the other nuclear powers have fought local wars and proxy wars in
which they avoided directly confronting one another. The problem is quite
simple. If a country armed with nuclear weapons chooses to launch them against
an opposing nation, there is nothing that can be done to stop it. The only
thing one can do is to try to dissuade it from ever making that decision – to
deter it. But there is no defense against a civilization ending nuclear attack.
More than 60 years ago, as a young man in his 20s, I got
involved in politics because of my fear of nuclear weapons. I have lived with
that fear for my entire adult life and it has not diminished one whit. Let me be clear what we are talking about.
Russia is said to have 5000 nuclear weapons. A single strategic thermonuclear
weapon launched by Russia against Washington DC would completely obliterate the
city and everyone in it. If Vladimir Putin were to order a full-scale nuclear
attack on the United States and if the Russian military officers to whom that
order was given were to obey it, probably 100 million or more Americans would
die immediately and countless other millions would die of radiation poisoning
not long afterward. There would be absolutely nothing that the United States
could do to stop such an attack. All it could do is launch an equally
destructive attack against Russia.
I am not a big fan of Joe Biden, needless to say, but in the
present situation his preternatural caution is completely wise and admirable.
100 comments:
I agree with your position about the U.S. avoiding a direct confrontation with Russia. But do you believe that we should also refuse to provide jets, either directly or through an intermediary, to Ukraine which Ukrainian pilot know how to fly, to defend themselves, out of concern that Putin will regard this as an attack by the U.S., justifying the use of nuclear weapons? If not, there is no question that eventually the Russian army will overrun the Ukrainian defenses, turning Ukrainian cities in to rubble, and likely capturing Zelensky and his family and executing them.
It might be time for Russians to get themselves a different leader.
... NATO declares that at the latest when Article 5 of the NATO Treaty has to come into force, it would no longer be possible to take into account whether Putin and his generals resort to nuclear weapons. So if Prof. Wolff answers the question whether the Ukrainians should be left to die in the hands of Putin with "yes", the dilemma is not solved with that, because the question follows: What has to happen until we ignore the risk?
The modelling of a Russian/Us war is complicated not just by the nuke factor but by the fact that we and they are playing a different game with different triggers payoffs and rules.
Someone more versed in strategy and game theory can elaborate- but even economic warfare is viewed by the Russians as crossing the line for instance.
It's not that they are irrational actors per se, even though Putin comes off as whacked, it's that they play by a different set of rules altogether
The "one and only time" nuclear weapons have been used "in battle" was not once but twice, and not in battle. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"What has to happen until we ignore the risk?"
The best way to find out is to keep giving in. Allowing ones adversary to set conditions and rules guarantees that happening what one wishes to avoid.
If war crimes gets good results then every figment of Putin's imagination will produce more war crimes. Back in the Cold War days, both sides were rational actors regarding nuclear war. If that isn't the case today then we need to adapt.
The MIGs may be important or not but allowing the aggressor in an unprovoked war to dictate how the war is fought seems unwise.
I wonder if the U.S. will send Patriot missile systems to Ukraine? They worked very effectively in the Persian Gulf War.
@ aaall
Even unwiser, istm, than letting an aggressor dictate how the war is fought would be directly entering a war -- in which one is not obligated by treaty to do so -- in a way that carries risk of escalation to a conflict between nuclear-armed countries.
Where is Jack Ryan when we need him.
The first and best Jack Ryan is being unjustly blamed for something I believe he didn't do. However, I believe Without Remorse was almost just as good a movie as The Hunt.
LFC, that is why we shouldn't directly enter the war. However there is a lot to be done before that point is reached. It would be long term useful to max out Ukraine's ability to degrade Russia's forces as soon as possible, both for Ukraine's sake as well as giving China a reality check. That Putin likely wouldn't survive would be a bonus.
Also, while Putin would have a legitimate beef if NATO forces directly intervene, I don't recall us nuking the Soviet Union over its providing North Vietnam with SAMs so there's that. Given the day, we might ponder that too much caution can be as bad as too little. "...then I will go to the king contrary to the law, and if I perish, I perish." That one did turn out well.
ML, had Clinton won in 2016 (in spite of the Russian meddling) then Ukraine might well have them some Patriots. My understanding is that it takes months to train and deploy while the Ukrainians should already be familiar with the S-300.
AA, what is needed is tailor made for Black Widow's skills...and the Hulk's.
I believe what *they might do is take the S-300s, give them to Ukraine, and get Patriot missile batteries to replace them. --I could be mistaken, though.
*the western neighbors of Ukraine
I wonder, does Putin cook his own meals, or does he use a test taster?
aaall,
How fitting, a quote from the Megillah on Purim. (I must admit, I had to Google it.)
Groggers should be publicly distributed to be used every time Putznik’s name is uttered.
" Back in the Cold War days, both sides were rational actors regarding nuclear war."
Really? Take a look at Philip Green's study, "Deadly Logic," to see just how rational the Cold Warriors were. I imagine prof. Wolff might also have something to say about that.
NATO insiders and Western military planners claim that Russian missiles would be destroyed before leaving Russian airspace by immediate counter-strikes, or that if there is a wild west style shoot out between Russia and NATO, then NATO has about 15 times more firepower and military strike capacity which it will use to destroy most of Russian threat.
However, Putin has at least 2 nuclear command bunkers in the Ural Mountains and Russia has a system called "Perimeter" which is supposed to launch a retaliatory strike with whatever missiles are left and thus destroy the rest of the world, as a world without Russia existing in it is not worth living in. So NATO insiders are not worried about who wins the initial shoot out, but about a revenge strike by wounded Russia from submarines or other missile forces that escape initial NATO strikes. NATO has much more modernized systems which give it an initial advantage, also making it have a very nervous trigger finger as it must respond within minutes to a Russian nuclear attack once confirmed. But they are fairly certain that Putin won't attack with nuclear missiles as it would indeed be suicidal and he knows it. His army is more likely to cause a nuclear accident in Ukraine's 15 powerplants or 10 hydroelectric plants by careless shelling or misguided missiles.
The worst case scenario would literally happen within hours, some part of it would be televised and then the Internet/electricity grid would go down and darkness would spread every where.
President Zelensky is writing and arguing to save his life and his people and makes daily social media posts on his President of Ukraine web site with English translations. Here is a link to March 17 critical speech to Germans: https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/promova-prezidenta-ukrayini-volodimira-zelenskogo-u-bundesta-73621
Arnold Schwarzenegger has released a 9 minute video clip addressing Russian friends and the people who should oppose Putin now: search Twitter for "Arnold" to see it pinned at top. The Austrian strong man has much to say to the Russian would be strong man. Our hope lies in making enough Russians oppose Putin to rise up against him.
meantime, according to a report on NPR this morning, Germany is going to go about creating what will, seemingly, be the 3rd largest military force in the world after the US and China.
not just Russia but France, I imagine, as well as others will be troubled to learn this.
Excellent interview today on Fresh Air (NPR) w M.E. Sarotte, historian and author of 'Not One Inch' re NATO expansion etc. Heard the last 10 minutes. Plan to listen to whole thing.
Anonymous @1:48 p.m.
Germany has announced plans to increase defense spending, but I'm surprised to hear -- assuming it's an accurate report -- that it plans to create the world's third largest military. However, Germany is no longer a "revisionist" power, to use the jargon, so unless you buy the view that all 'major' countries, irrespective of how they are situated so to speak, engage in calculated aggression (which I don't), it's not something France etc shd be worried about. Obvs the weight of history has its effect, but in terms of "objective" reasons for worry, I see very few, esp since the neo-Nazi movement is, if I'm not mistaken, illegal under German law. There are legal right wing parties but I don't think starting a world war in Europe is on their agenda. (W the caveat that I am very far from an expert on German politics.)
Germany's announcement says a lot about Germany's confidence in the country that elected Trump, the country that it trusted for 75 years. Something similar is going on with South Korea and nuclear weapons.
LFC, you may already have come upon this:
M.E. Sarotte, “How to enlarge NATO: The debate inside the Clinton administration,” accessed at https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/44/1/7/12232/How-to-Enlarge-NATO-The-Debate-inside-the-Clinton
Surely of relevance to some of the arguments that have been going on here is this early passage:
“A number of European actors, including both former East European dissidents and Western leaders, proposed new alternatives for their countries' future security after the opening of the Wall—all of them anathema to Washington. Among the worst alternatives from the U.S. point of view was a proposal by former peace activists who had helped to end Soviet domination of their homelands. They called for Central and Eastern Europe to become a demilitarized zone and neutral buffer between East and West (although some dissidents would later change their view and support NATO enlargement to the region). Also worrisome was Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's interest, shared by some West European leaders, in creating a pan-European security organization, perhaps based on the existing Conference for Security and Cooperation (CSCE), which already had members from both NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In response, President Bush moved swiftly and assertively to ensure that NATO—and thereby U.S. leadership in Europe, given the United States' domination of the alliance—would not only survive the end of the Cold War but also shape the post–Cold War future. Through a series of successful diplomatic maneuvers, Bush perpetuated NATO's leading role in European security and set a precedent of acquiring new eastern territory, all without signing anything binding about the alliance's future behavior (other than on former East German soil, where there were some restrictions).” [references in text eliminated]
What follows is a detailed analysis of what then followed. (Perhaps unnecessary note: every analysis, even—especially?—a scholarly one is part of a complex argument; no analysis is beyond criticism; the criticism may take a number of different forms, from the evidentiary, to the logical, and looking to the consequences, to the ethical, to the political.)
There is an interesting post over at Prof. Leiter's blog with apt comments by LFC.
"Do not forget that I am the only Chancellor Germany has ever had who preferred the unity of Europe to the unity of his country."
That was Konrad Adenauer in 1954. The rearmament of Germany and its integration into NATO was a big thing in the mid-1950s (vague memories). With all the NATO references going around we should remember that in respect to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact it was always defensive. An unarmed Germany would have been easy pickings and a separately rearmed Germany hasn't worked out well in the past.
While I hope we never have to find out, I have to wonder about Russia's actual nuclear capabilities. The current invasion has shown Russia's conventional forces to be lacking in all sorts of things that are necessary to a modern army. Nukes need all sorts of maintenance, something a corrupt system would be bad at. Just asking questions.
Anon., "rational" doesn't mean "perfect," just that we are still here. LeMay's and MacArthur's suggestions were dismissed. In 1963 both sides withdrew missiles. The use of nukes in Vietnam was rejected. At least twice orders and doctrine were ignored by Soviet officers.
aaall ""rational" doen't mean "perfect," just that we're still here."
Surely this is a problematical definition of "rational." It suggests (to me, at least) that since we're still here after all that has happened in human history, everything that has happened in human history has been somehow rational? I guess the World Spirit has been active all along?
Anon @2:43 pm
Thks for the ref.
As I said, I heard the last 10 mins of Sarotte interview. Plan to listen to whole thing.
At the end she was summarizing her argument as expressed in her book. As I understand it, her view there is that NATO enlargement itself was not the problem, it was *the way it was handled* and done.
aaall
NATO was founded in 1949. The Warsaw Pact was formally set up after that in '50s (I forget the exact date). So NATO might well have been, and I think was, 'defensive' wrt USSR and its bloc but the formal Warsaw Pact postdates it.
If there is one point I would like to hammer on in these discussions (I have a comment at Leiter's blog in moderation, I think, still on this), it is that "security" is not an objective thing for the most part, it is a subjective judgment in the minds of political decision makers, a judgment formed by a whole bunch of things. A country's "vital security interests" are not chiseled on on a stone tablet somewhere. Palmerston, I believe, said Britain had "eternal interests" in this area, but that's wrong. No country has eternal interests. They change over time and with the changing intl context.
This may sound like a bunch of obvious generalizations but so much discussion, at least online, seems to assume that "interests" exist in some realm outside of perceptions. They don't. Perceptions in turn are not determined by objective facts or not solely by them.
Occasionally situations are very clear-cut. X invades Y. Z launches a war of world conquest. Events like that don't happen often. More often it's e.g
a diplomatic maneuver that can be interpreted more than one way. A treaty that looks defensive to one actor, maybe looks not-so-defensive to another. Short of an actual launch of hostilities, perceptions are almost everything. See e.g. Robert Jervis, _Perception and Misperception in Intl Politics_ (1976). Ok I've said enough. Time for a break from all this.
LFC, I was referring to the rearmament of Germany and its joining NATO in the mid-1950s which moved the viable defensive perimeter eastward. I believe the Warsaw Pact was a defensive response.
OMG, I'm looking at a video on the TV of Trump and Putin sitting on a stage. Putin looks like one of my cats, Trump looks like one of the soon-to-be-a-snack rodents around here - totally wack body language from Trump.
Anyway, while we have to be aware of others perceptions, we can never take them at face value. Stated perceptions are too often, in statecraft and in regular life, attempts to obfuscate, intimidate, or manipulate. They are things to be understood and managed but can not be allowed to control ones decisions.
NATO has always been a threat to Russia's (and the SU's) imperialist ambitions. That is a good thing. A Russia that was minding its business would only have legitimate worries about China.
Anon., Green had a point in 1966. However in a few years we would recognize the PRC and be doing arms control talks with the Soviet Union so maybe it was the best ad hoc we could muster back then. Not sure how it applies now.
My deep, dark recollection (I haven't done any research) is that NATO grew out of the US program for the economic recovery of Europe after WWII. The initial US reaction was in large part a return to isolationism. The troops were, for the most part, brought home. However, the economic destruction of Europe was seen as possible tinder for Communist control of the West. The US was very concerned about Communist strength in France and Italy. The US also didn't want a repeat of Versailles; the Morgenthau plan for the de-industrialization of Germany was rejected in favor of developmental assistance for all of Europe, including Germany and even the Soviet Union (although this was pretty much a pose; no one expected Stalin to agree to US demands). This assist-all-of-Europe approach, including Germany, didn’t sit well with Britain and particularly with France. Their agreement to go along with the US program was dependent on a US security guarantee with regard to Germany. That quickly grew to be seen as a need for a guarantee against the USSR, and thus NATO was born, but it’s roots, if I recall correctly, were in British and French concern about assistance to Germany.
DP, that is why the "NATO threat to Russia" notion is so bogus. With the threat of Communism and Soviet imperialism, turning Germany into pasture land was not going to happen. As the Adenauer quote above shows, attitude adjustments were needed and made. German potential was needed and past problems needed to be avoided.
As you point out, avoiding the earlier problems of nationalism led to several organizations: the Council of Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the European Economic community. Nationalism in the past and Soviet imperialism then were things. Viewing NATO as a American imperialist project and as an existential threat to a non-hostile Russia is ridiculous.
Over at Leiter's blog, a commenter named Peaceful IR Realist has been making the case that "control of Ukraine" had long been seen as a "vital Russian security interest."
The argument -- if it has a kernel of truth -- would have to rest heavily on the notions of fear, mistrust, and making worst-case assumptions about others' intentions. Or so it seems to me, if one were going to make the argument for the post-1989 era.
As I point out at Leiter's thread, making worst-case assumptions about others' intentions is what Mearsheimer says rivals do. So from within M's framework, the whole argument perhaps makes some sense.
But as I also point out in that thread, M's way of looking at things is not the only way.
I keep coming back to the points that security interests and threats are not "objective" things. As even Peaceful IR Realist admits, they can be contested and change over time.
So in short there are non-ridiculous arguments on all sides of this NATO question, it seems to me as of now. A lot depends on the particular historical record. To what extent did Russian leaders in the '90s actually think that NATO enlargement that excluded Russia was a threat? What did they say about it in private and public? Did they mean what they said? That is why Sarotte's book Not One Inch might be valuable -- she's apparently dug into these details.
I don't view NATO as "an American imperialist project" but I am willing to entertain the possibility that Russian leaders in the 90s saw it, if it excluded them, as a threat, whether that perception was tied to 'reality' or not. One has to look at the historical record, which Sarotte apparently has. That doesn't nec mean she's right but her work is obvs worth taking into account.
I'm re-reading the professor's book The Poverty of Liberalism (1968) as preparation for Raymond Geuss's next book How not to be a Liberal (to be published at the end of May) which contains inter alia a chapter on The Poverty. Interestingly, the professor was pondering 54 years ago the issue of knowledge of nuclear weapons; he invokes it on page 11 as part of showing the absurdity of John Stuart Mill's 'Baconian' assumption that knowledge tends to increase human happiness. After citing Leo Szilard's attempt to persuade his fellow scientists from refraining from investigating how to trigger a nuclear fission reaction, the professor comments: "When we consider the history of the past quarter-century, can we so readily echo Mill's confidence that the advance of knowledge serves the enlightened interests of humanity?"
"I keep coming back to the points that security interests and threats are not "objective" things. As even Peaceful IR Realist admits, they can be contested and change over time."
I can do little with the term "objective". What access do I have to someone who says he feels threatened to check whether he really feels his feelings or not. If he says "I feel threatened because ... x or y exists", then that is something else. And in this sense Putin claims all those allegedly "objective facts" which are the cause of his feeling and reason for his actions.
These justifications, even if they were credible, which they are not, do not justify a war of aggression and war crimes. The fact is, he attacked Ukraine, while no NATO soldier has entered Russian territory with belligerent intent in the last 70 years. Mr. Putin has been at war for 1 decade, far outside Russia in Syria. He waged war in Georgia and Crimea and the Donbas. He has people killed in his own country and abroad (Politkovkaya, Skripal), he manipulates elections abroad, engages in massive disinformation, and engages in sabotage as and where it fits into his concept.
And in view of these facts, Western intellectuals discuss the question of whether NATO is aggressive and whether Putin feels justifiably threatened? Since February 24, the people of Romania, Slovakia, Poland and the Baltic States have been thanking God and the intelligence of their political representatives 20 years ago that they are in NATO.
I think, Achim, that the record of US/NATO actions during the present century alone are sufficient to cause not just intellectuals but a great many others to ponder its aggressiveness.
A.K.
I have said over and over and over again here, repeatedly, that nothing -- nothing -- can justify the illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine.
Here's an idea: why don't you write an email to Prof Sarotte at Johns Hopkins U (I think that's where she teaches) and tell her to resign her position as she is unfit to hold it bc her historical research is justifying Putin's invasion of Ukraine?
I've wasted too much time on these comment threads. I'm not even going to look at this blog for the next month. I'm sure you'll all get along just fine and dandy w.o my annoying interventions that "justify" immoral and illegal violent acts that cause death, suffering, and destruction.
At this stage this discussion has become entirely irrelevant to the issues facing us. The past facts are what they are. How we interpret them, and who is more correct than whom has become a meaningless exercise. We are potentially facing another World War, which could culminate in the use of nuclear weapons. Yesterday, Russian rockets landed in Lviv, 43 miles from the Polish border. Should a Russian rocket misfire and land in Poland, or any other NATO member, NATO will be forced to invoke Article 5 and declare war on Russia. There are also unconfirmed reports that Russian drones have been seen in the airspace over Romania, yet the U.S. and NATO are concerned about the possible escalatory effect of sending jet to Ukraine.
The possibility of a nuclear war is becoming more and more real every day. It is time to put aside this bickering. Spend time with your families, friends and loved ones. We may be running out of time.
LFC,
Your contributions here are very valuable. I know the feeling of commenting in this blog and afterwards seeing vehement criticisms by people who haven't even read with attention what one writes, but I do hope (and I'm sure others do too) that you'll reconsider your decision not to comment here for a month.
Below, a link to an interview with Countess Alexandra Tolstoy – Count Leo Tolstoy’s great-granddaughter, and the former partner of billionaire oligarch Sergei Pugachev, a close adviser to Putin. She comments on Putin’s personality and objectives.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/03/17/former-partner-tolstoy-oligarch-russia-ebof-intv-vpx.cnn
Another,
When you say “At this stage this discussion has become entirely irrelevant to the issues facing us.” you raise an interesting question, a question which also links with LFC’s most recent comment, and with s.w.’s response re valuable contributions.
The question is, what significance do our conversations here actually have? We engage, often heatedly, sometimes with obvious ill temper, as if what we say will have some influence on the world. But that is surely a mistaken belief. I don’t know how many blogs there now are and how many people are commenting on them. Does that outpouring of words/ideas actually flow anywhere to any effect, or doees it all just flow down the nearest drain into oblivion? If, on the other hand, we learn something new from what others say (and that I somehow doubt since most of us who appear here with some regularity seem more to dig in our heels and become self defensive) what do we then do with what we learn?
My guess is that commenting serves some psychological function. I hesitate to say it gives a psychological benefit to the commentator or to the respondents, since all too often (taking this site as typical, perhaps even better than most) we commentators seem to enter into agitated states and all too often reveal aspects of ourselves—I speak from my own experience—which we recall with some shame once we step outside of this small blog-world.
To conclude by returning to what you said, Another, “At this stage this discussion has become entirely irrelevant to the issues facing us.” In what ways are our discussions ever relevant? That’s not just a question for you. I’d really like to learn how my addiction might have a positive aspect to it.
Will there be a nuclear war with Russia?
There is no number any commentator on this blog at least can place. That is because we lack the requisite experience and if there aren't too many variables we lack an equation.
It is a matter of judgment or maybe guesswork. Our chances are too dicey for my liking
Maybe someone really know what is going on; God knows, but he does not comment on this blog
Anonymous,
I'm not sure if the discussions per se are ever relevant in the sense you seem to refer to,
but like any other human activity, if one comments with their eyes open, one learns about oneself and about others, for example, about group behavior, about groupthink, about one's own tendencies to be contrarian or to try to fit in, etc. You can do that in the corner bar, if there is a bar on your corner or you can do that here.
For example, as a result of being accused of being "overly sensitive" in a previous thread, I googled "can you be too sensitive?" and discovered that highly sensitive personalities have been studied, that being highly sensitive is not considered to be an illness or a personality disorder, but a personality trait and that 15 to 20% of the population can be considered to be highly sensitive. Here's a short test to determine whether or not one is highly sensitive.
https://hsperson.com/test/highly-sensitive-test/
As I said, I could have learned the same thing in the corner bar, but I'm here.
Anonymous,
I agree that, generally speaking, Prof. Wolff’s posts and our comments have no significant effect on current events or intellectual issues. And I agree that it is unlikely that any of us change the views of those commenters who do not agree with us. This is true of dialogue in general, whether it be in the U.S. Congress or at a dinner party. But I do believe, as Prof. Wolff believes, that clarifying our views in as coherent a manner as possible does have value. Communication among people with differences of opinions has inherent value. Although many have taken issue with my opinions, and some have agreed with them, I find it intellectually stimulating to try to clarify my views and to devise analogies which s. wallerstien finds ineffectual. And I suspect that LFC, s. wallerstein, aaall, He Man, John Rapko, Achim Kreichel, the Usual Suspect, etc., derive the same kind of gratification from articulating their views in as persuasive a manner as possible.
However, my point in my comment above is that the Ukraine issue and our current circumstances are different. We are facing a possible existential threat to the continuation of our species. In this context, repeatedly arguing about whether the expansion of NATO and the role of the U.S. and its allies, did or did not play a role in provoking Putin’s invasion of Ukraine seems to me, at this stage, pointless and rather self-indulgent (for me as well). We are at the point where a miscalculation or misstep like those discussed in Tuchman’s The Guns of August can result in the catastrophic annihilation of mankind. Who is correct regarding the NATO debate has become irrelevant. We are where we are – regardless how we got here. In one to two months – perhaps less - we may be having dinners like the last dinner depicted in the Netflix movie Don’t Look Up. And we who comment on this blog have little to no control whether we face Armageddon or not. I think it would be preferable that we spend our time on this blog discussing issues totally unrelated to who caused what regarding the Ukraine invasion. And we definitely should be spending as much time with family and friends as possible. I do not state this sarcastically or cynically. The title of this post, after all, is Dark Thoughts. We are facing a grim reality. We cannot afford to spend our time on abstruse arguments about international affairs.
It's like we're staggering across a minefield in total darkness and nobody has a clue how to find the door- there are only a few mines in the room, and there is a psycho with us in the room who is wildly stalking us- there is a chance everything will go kapooey there is a chance we'll get out alive, there's a chance either or both of us will die on the spot.
Admittedly the analogy needs tuning- there's a chance everything will blow up- and we have to fight off the psycho, ie Putin while all this is going on- if anybody agrees and would like to augment it, feel free.
We are in this situation, we can't bitch and moan, we have to fucking deal with it.
The truth is it might be tragic and unnecessary, but the reality is we are in some undefineable danger- there are people, some in power who are managing the situation or tryiing
May he who makes peace in his high places...
Howie,
Yes, a Khaddish for the world.
Anonymous writes: "My guess is that commenting serves some psychological function." Anonymous also describes commenting as an addictive activity that seems to have little if any impact on the world or even the participants themselves (apart from agitation and shame).
I definitely relate to this, though I still think it's a little too negative, and I'm not altogether clear on what the psychological function would be.
For me, writing and submitting a comment seems to do a few things. It allows me to "try out" some ideas and arguments (and occasionally a cathartic confession) that would otherwise make for an idle racket in my own head; if I didn't articulate them or share them with others, I wouldn't have as good a sense as to whether or not I'm nuts, or stupid, or weird, etc., for thinking X, Y, and Z. I guess this means the "psychological function" has to do with the need for validation.
But again, that seems too one-sided and negative. "Validation" is sometimes successful, after all! And it can be contagious, in a way; if you think you've discovered from experience that your thoughts and ideas are in many cases the opposite of stupid and nuts etc., then you can be sure that your expressions of them are in many cases valuable to others. But valuable in what way? To answer that, I simply think of what I value about other people's comments - it might be that they occasionally make me laugh or smile, or correct an error in my thought, or add a book to my reading list; or that they stimulate me to engage with an interesting problem; or that they impress me as insightful and well-stated, as a clearer and better thought-out version of something I might've been struggling to realize and express for myself (almost like the psychic equivalent of constipation relief).
I think this goes for conversation in general. There seems to be a basic human need for validation, and a person suffers if this need goes unmet - but, the validation can be shared among a group of people; and besides, the activity of conversing can be pleasant and helpful in simpler, more direct and obvious ways. (The laughs, the movie recommendations, etc.)
It's also interesting to wonder about the significance of the Internet itself as a conversational medium - e.g., the anonymity (or quasi-anonymity), the selective silence and invisibility of the audience, the ability to take one's time in weighing and revising one's words: How do these things improve or detract from the experience of conversing, and insofar as they do detract from it, what does it say about the participants themselves if they continue to passionately engage in it? I haven't made much headway with these questions.
Discussing politics seems akin to voting in elections. In an election there is always a clear, unambiguous outcome (in the sense that someone has to be declared the winner), and one can always point to that outcome and say “I played my part in that.” But except for those exceedingly rare elections that are decided by a single vote, does one really play a part? Does a single person’s vote really *matter*?
Obviously it depends on how you look at it. But from a game-theoretic perspective, the idea of voting-as-a-duty makes complete sense. Much to the chagrin of Democrats and progressives, the GOP is filled to the rafters with angry, old white people, none of whom seems wise enough to realize that their individual vote doesn’t actually count — and yet thanks to that collective naïveté, they keep winning elections!
Again I think discussing politics is much the same. At the very least, you might persuade a single person to change their voting behavior — or you might have your opinion changed.
There’s also the psychological issues others have brought up. To this I would even add the idea of *spiritual* edification. In totalitarian societies, I imagine, people don’t openly discuss politics; they are drone-like in this matter. By contrast, for people in free societies, developing an articulate awareness of one’s place in a larger community — even a global and historical community — is part and parcel of a healthy spiritual flowering. The individual’s achievement of autonomy is important to the whole. Though, I’m afraid I haven’t read enough 19th century German philosophy to be able to articulate this better.
The philosopher Charles Taylor used the following story in class to explicate what changes when people articulate (perhaps even in blog comments) matters of common concern: Imagine two people, hitherto unknown to each other, sitting in a compartment on a train on a boiling hot day in Spain. [Why Spain? I don't know.] They glance at each other over many minutes. Each experiences herself as broiling in the heat, lightly panting, sweat pouring down her face, and can hear and see the other suffering the same. Does A know herself to be suffering? Yes. Does A know that B is suffering? Yes. Does A know that B knows that A is suffering? Yes, and so forth to infinity. But finally A says: "God, it's hot!" [Taylor left the language unspecified] What changes is that a common 'space' begins to come into existence. There's a kind of acknowledgement of mutual humanity in suffering, and the possibility of further conversation, maybe even some relationship.--None of this changes the temperature, nor a fortiori does it induce an immediate withdrawal from Ukraine.
LFC,
I for one will miss your comments and hope you will reconsider. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of some of the responses and their resort to ad hominem. My advice (which I sometimes fail to follow) is just to ignore those posts and move on in a discussion with those who prefer civilized discussion.
David,
I disagree with your explanation of why LFC has indicated he is going to take a respite from commenting on this blog. It had nothing to do with certain commenters’ use of ad hominem insults. It was in response to Achim Kriechel’s criticism of certain analysts whose views he saw as apologia for Putin’s aggression. A.K. did not use any ad hominems in his comment. LFC has every right to disagree with A.K., just as A.K. has every right to express his perspective. But to equate A.K.’s expression of his perspective as nothing more than an insult is inaccurate and unfair. LFC does not have the right to expect that others not disagree with him. And stating that he has condemned Putin’s actions as war crimes is not a response to A.K.’s criticism. As I have expressed to LFC in prior comments, just because you don’t like the heat in the kitchen doesn’t mean you have a right not to be disagreed with. And if you want to castigate someone for using ad honimens, why don’t you start with DJL’s and use of his accusation that I am a see-you-next-Tuesday. I have seen no one taking DJL to task for his resort to obscenity to attack someone who disagrees with him.
This is interesting. Putin's staged event in a stadium looks like a Trump Rally and both look like homages to Vince McMahon. We live in a strange timeline.
Have to wonder how Leni Riefenstahl would have handled it.
Another,
David Palmeter and I, for once, agree on something, that it would be a loss if LFC stops commenting here. I for one am not particularly concerned about the nuances of LFC's motivations.
While I did not condemn the obscenities used to refer to you, I did solidarize with you and if you had said that as a result of being insulted, you were going to stop commenting, I certainly would have urged you to stay.
In fact, I recall that when even Professor Wolff (as well as many others) asked you to stop commenting a while ago, I suggested that you simply take a short vacation, wait for things to calm down a bit and then return if you wished.
So my general policy is to urge regular commentators to continue commenting in spite of rough weather.
s. wallerstein,
Don't be so stingy! We've agreed on a number of things in recent months, though I can't remember an example. That's a comment on my memory. I remember my first girl friend's telephone number, but I can't remember my own cell phone number let alone that of my wife and kids. I have to keep a list of them in my wallet. So my not remembering the other specifics on which we agreed doesn't mean they haven't occurred.
I'm sure that we agree that holding a civil conversation in this forum is important. Have a good night.
I have stayed out of these discussions largely because the cryptic nature of blog commentary, especially in this context, can easily be misinterpreted. Today, however, I read Jeffrey St. Clair's (editor of CounterPunch) comment that nicely expressed my point of view, so here it is:
One of the most recurring complaints in my inbox (along with emails reminding me of my status as a CIA Gatekeeper covering up their role in 9/11) is that I spend too much time criticizing NATO and the US instead of Putin. Let me be clear: I loathe Putin and his menacing regime, which has jailed several of my friends and CP writers (Boris K. several times). I think his invasion of Ukraine is reactionary, imperialistic and criminal. But I don’t have any influence over Putin or responsibility for his actions, except to the extent that my own government has helped set the stage for the unfolding carnage in Ukraine. As a US citizen whose taxes (such as they are) help finance the world’s largest and deadliest military machine, I have an inherent obligation to criticize my own govt. for provoking war and not peace, for risking the lives of millions of civilians to advance its dangerous geo-political objectives, for continuing to leave the entire planet cowering under the threat of nuclear annihilation thirty years after the end of the Cold War. There are no clean hands and ours are among the filthiest.
@ LFC,
I must apologize to you, I have expressed myself very misleadingly and I must confess that you had to misunderstand my comment. Here is my clarification.
Only the first paragraph of my comment refers to your text passage in which you talk about "security interests and threat" in connection with the term "objective".
When I speak of "justification" in my second paragraph, I am referring exclusively to Mr. Putin's attempts to justify the war. He alone, and the vassals who surround him, are in my eyes solely and directly responsible for this war. In this context, I find it very good that a former German Interior Minister and a former German Justice Minister have filed criminal charges against Putin, Lavrov and other collaborators.
In the third paragraph I used the word "Western interlektuels". Of course, that is much too general. I had in mind an open letter that 8 German members of parliament of the Left Party gave to the newspapers this week, condemning the war in three sentences and using the rest of the text to argue about the responsibility of NATO, the EU, the USA. Btw. I don't know Prof Sarotte and her work.
I hope you understand my comment in this sense. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to be brief without being misleading.
By the way, I would be happy if I could continue to read your comments here.
Jerry Fresia,
I agree with your comments above. It's good to see you commenting again.
By the way, I heard the theory expressed last night by a very respectable Chilean foreign policy analyst that Putin, seeing that his invasion is not going as well as he expected, wants peace and that Zelensky obviously wants peace, but that the guy who wants the war to continue is, yes, Joe Biden, who sees the war as an opportunity to weaken Russia completely, so Biden pressures Zelensky to stay tough, sends him weapons and ups the anti-Putin rhetoric, calling him a "war criminal", etc.
s. wallerstein
Here's where we probably disagree. How does the Chilean foreign policy analyst know that Biden was the war to continue?
A weak but nuclear armed Russia isn't in the interest of the US or anyone else. A democratic Russia that would continue, along with the US, to reduce its nuclear arms inventory, would be in Biden's interest and just about everyone else's. It seems to me that if both Putin and Zelenskyy want peace, Biden's preferences wouldn't matter.
David Palmeter,
No one reads minds and the guy (Raul Sohr) may be wrong.
However, this forum and the U.S. and Western European mainstream media have been full of those who "read" Putin's mind, who are sure that he is a crazed, neo-Ivan-the-Terrible/Stalin, out of conquer Europe, capable of using nuclear arms if his nefarious aims are frustrated.
I suppose that Sohr has as much insight into Biden's mind or Putin's mind as any of have.
However, I sent it, not because I was 100% convinced by his thesis (or by any thesis about this war at this point), but because I wanted people here to see that to doubt that U.S. war aims are 100% good and pure and to see Putin's war aims as rational (within the logic of power politics) is perfectly mainstream and respectable outside of the bubble produced by the U.S. and Western European mainstream media.
s. wallerstein]
Would it be equally rational and perfectly mainstream and respectable for the US to invade Canada or Mexico?
Jerry Fresia,
I would like to ask you some questions regarding your assertion, “There are no clean hands and ours [the United States’] are among the filthiest.”
This is the predicate for, while conceding that Putin is a war criminal, your the United States’ role as contributing to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.
Conceding, for the sake of argument, that the U.S.’s military actions in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were the actions of a country intended on expanding its sphere of influence, you would concede, I assume (because factually true), that the U.S. no longer has military forces in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq.
Russia, by contrast, has, and has had for years, military forces in: Armenia; Belarus; Georgia; Kazakhstan; Kyrgstan; Moldova; and Tajkistan. In addition, Russia controls Chechnya, which arguably is part of Russia, but which waged a war for independence which Russia brutally suppressed.
Again, even conceding, arguendo, that the U.S. waged wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq for the purpose primarily, if not solely, of increasing its sphere of influence, with hegemonic designs, given the fact that it no longer has military troops in any of these countries, whereas Russia has military troops in the countries listed above, none of which has ever waged war against Russia, on what basis do you claim that the unclean hands of the U.S. are “among the filthiest”?
If your rejoinder is that the U.S. continues to have military bases in Germany, Japan, the :Philippines, and South Korea, they are there as a result of two wars which the U.S. waged in order to defeat other armies intent on expanding their countries’ spheres of influence, and we are there with the approval of the host countries. You cannot say that about Russia’s presence in Armenia or Moldova, for example.
Take Chechnya, for example. Russia regards Chechnya, as it currently regards Ukraine, as part of Russia, and therefore it had the right to suppress its demand for independence, and it did so in a particularly savage manner.
Compare this with the U.S. treatment of the Philippines, which the U.S. acquired as a result of the Spanish-American War. It then granted the Philippine Commonwealth status in 1935, and it then became an independent country. The U.S. did not invade the Philippines and savagely suppress its desire for independence, unlike what Russia did in Chechnya.
If you are referring to the nuclear arms race which was initiated by the U.S. because it was the first to develop the atomic bomb, the reasons for this have been addressed on this blog in past posts and comments. Suffice it to say that whether Truman made a wise or unwise decision in releasing the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a never-ending dispute that will not be resolved. But there is no dispute that Truman did not make that decision in order to foster any hegemonic objective of the U.S. As for the concerns that motivated Julius Rosenberg to provide nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, that the U.S. would use its atomic weapon arsenal to subjugate the world, it is Putin who has threatened to use nuclear weapons in order to secure his conquest of Ukraine.
Thus, even conceding, arguendo, that the U.S.’s military actions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were conducted for no other reason but to advance the U.S.’s geo-political aspirations (propositions which I am willing to concede for the sake of argument, but with which I do not agree), given the above facts (and do you dispute that they are facts?), I have difficulty understanding on what basis you claim that the unclean hands of the U.S. are “among the filthiest,” particularly because this is the premise for your justifying criticizing the U.S.’s role in increasing the membership of NATO, at the same time that you claim being even-handed by conceding that Putin is a war criminal.
I didn't actually insult anyone because they disagreed with me - that's a gross misrepresentation, and another exemplar for the collection, really.
Back to the real world, I resented the fact that I was accused, completely gratuitously and unjustifiably - indeed, intolerably so - of justifying/explaining/rationalising/exonerating Russia's war crimes in Ukraine, and when I demanded a retraction and an apology, there was only doubling down. So, to my lights, in this case calling someone a term of abuse, that in British usage, is often used for a despicable, contemptible or foolish person, is entirely justified (whatever the American sensibilities regarding the word 'cunt'; it's just a word). As I wrote in the previous post yesterday, it is much worse to accuse someone of justifying/explaining/exonerating/rationalising war crimes and atrocities, gratuitously and unjustifiable so, and to double down when called out on this, than it is to be called a bad word.
s. wallerstein
Interesting; reminds me of the early sixties when the CIA (before and after Dulles), LeMay and the JCS, and the State Dept wanted very badly to "win" the Cold War with nukes at several key policy junctures but were frustrated time and again by "Reckless" Jack. Now Biden, sinking in the poles thinks he has found a way to go down as the president who "saved America's soul" - or some dumb thing. Dinosaurs all around, AKA "adults in the room."
Jerry Fresia,
Let me get this straight – are you suggesting or implying that the reason President Biden is taking the position he is taking regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is primarily to compensate for his decline in the polls?
This is another one of your skewed perspectives regarding the United States, where you apparently had the misfortune of being born and now prefer to live elsewhere (which, of course is your right, one you probably could not enjoy if you had been born in Russia). It is statements and implications such as this that, in my mind, discredits you as an objective interpreter of current and historical events, and which, I should think, would discredit you in the eyes of others readers of this blog.
X does something to Y in some way harming or injuring Y.
Z had done something – it does not matter what that something is, other than it was not daring or advocating that X act as he did towards Y - prior to X’s action towards Y which X and others regard as having provoked X’s action against Y.
X and others assert that the something which Z did makes Z partially responsible for the action that X took against Y. In saying this, they insist that they are not “blaiming” Z, but that asserting, objectively, that the something which Z did is part of the “explanation” as to why X did what he did, injuring Y. According to these people, saying that something Z did is an “explanation” for why X did what he did to Y is not the same as “blaming” Z for the something he did which “explains” why X acted as he did.
AA points out that this is the specious nonsense which DJL, s. wallerstein, Jerry Fresia and others are offering on this blog, which DJL then claims justifies his spewing obscenities at AA for pointing out this sophistry, and then insists that he is not spewing out the obscenities because AA disagrees with him, but only because AA has refused to retract and apologize for pointing out the sophistry. Such is the level of analytical thinking in this and prior threads on this subject. And I understand, s. wallerstein, the analogy I am offering does not make sense, is incoherent, and irrelevant to boot.
Post-script:
Such an “explanation” as to why X did what he did to Y, injuring Y, would not, thank God, hold up in a court of law. And should not hold up here, either.
@ Achim K. 4:45 a.m.
Thank you for the clarification. (Also thks to s.w. and D Palmeter for their remarks.)
I am still going to take a break from commenting, because, among other things, I have some personal matters that require my attention.
What sophistry? You really a riot.
All I said was that NATO expansion was a factor in the conflict - and I did say the conflict, not the actual invasion or war, let alone that this has been THE reason for any of these events. And this point is of course completely unremarkable, remarked as it has by myriad experts on the topic these last few months or so; what is truly remarkable is your capacity to misrepresent, and your penchant for pointless verbosity.
And I obviously didn't ask for a retraction and apology for your pointing out my "sophistry" (there wasn't any); as I have explicitly stated already, I asked for retraction and apology because I was literally accused of justifying/explaining/exonerating/rationalising (these are your words) Russia's act of aggression and war crimes. An outrageous and ridiculous charge, and one you really should retract and apologise for.
We’ve heard from s.w. about one Chilean interpretation of what’s happening in Ukraine. Here’s the interpretation of a former Portuguese minister for Europe—an interpretation which does not indulge in fanciful psychologising of the sort s.w. criticizes— which makes points I haven’t encountered here or elsewhere in the Western media (you may need to clear your browsing history to read it):
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2022/03/does-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-signal-the-end-of-the-american-empire
I’ll admit it goes counter to my own apprehension that the war in Ukraine is fostering a strengthened, more forceful western alliance harboring a much weakened internal capacity for self criticism.
DJL,
Again, No, I will not withdraw or apologize for accusing you of rationalizing Putin’s invasion of Russia. You say, well, I did not say that the expansion of NATO was an “explanation” of why Putin invaded Ukraine, I only said it was a “factor” in his decision to invade Russia. What kind of “factor”? A major factor, a minor factor, insignificant factor? What does it matter that the expansion of NATO was a “factor” in Putin’s decision to invade Russia, just as the something which Z did in my analogy was a “factor” in why X struck Y? Saying its was a “factor” is attributing some level of responsibility to NATO and the U.S. for Putin’s decision – a decision which he made as an adult, without being advocated by the U.S. or NATO, without being compelled by the U.S. or NATO. Your resort to the word “factor” is just another rationalization you are making for Putin’s conduct, and is pure sophistry, i.e., b.s. And feel free to spew more obscenities at me – which merely reflect the level of your crude ignorance..
Another interesting interpretation (which in its penultimate paragraph mentions my previously indicated apprehensions):
https://bostonreview.net/articles/nato-and-the-road-not-taken/
Its author, the director of the grand strategy program at Defense Priorities and senior research fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, also comments on several of the IR commentators referenced by others in this thread.
Finally, this, an argument for a less biassed discussion of oligarchism especially where it relates to English soccer:
https://www.conter.scot/2022/3/18/abramovich-anatomy-of-a-moral-panic/
My ignorance? What do you know about what I know about the conflict - nay, what I think about the conflict? What I said was very brief and very unremarkable: that NATO expansion is a factor in understanding the conflict (I was just about to link to the BR piece just posted above, which I think summarises the main points very well). No more, no less - and certainly no justification or rationalisation of anything. Nothing of the sort, that's just your own fabrications.
The bottom line is that it is simply unconscionable to accuse anyone of rationalising war crimes - or Putin's conduct, as you put it - when they are clearly not doing such thing, an accusation that I am deeply offended by. But there's no need to call you a cunt any more, though you have certainly earned the honours; all I feel for you now is pity, and it is simply better to ignore your pisspoor takes (though I do find it unbelievable that you continue to be allowed to share your hateful vitriol on this blog). You wouldn't survive long in the UK, by the way, with the more robust libel laws here (we all know your name). Anyway, bye bye Marky Marc.
Another,
Legal responsibility is a binary thing: you're either declared guilty or innocent.
But in real life at least as I see it, most problems are more complex than that. If I get into a minor argument with a street gang member and he insults me, I will not insult him back because I'm fairly sure that the insults will escalate and he'll end up beating me half to death or even stabbing me. Of course he'll be legally guilty, but as I recuperate in the hospital (if I survive), rather than consider him to be "evil" or "blameworthy", I'll consider myself to be a "fool" for not walking away from the argument before it escalated. I'm sure of that. I've been mugged a couple of time and I always ended up seeing myself as a fool for having walked in a crime-ridden neighborhood at a late hour, etc.
Moreover, a sociologist or a psychologist studying the incident might take into account the street gang member's childhood, if he were abused or treated violently, if he had been been socialized into a culture of violence, etc.
That is, by the time we finish analyzing a simple criminal act, the binary division between good and evil has evaporated.
By the way, the situation which I narrate is not meant to be an analogy about Ukraine, just the first idea which occurred to me to illustrate how complex real life situations are and why some of us in this blog try to explain the factors in NATO's behavior which played a role in Putin's criminal decision to invade Ukraine.
The listserve in the retirement community I live has been carrying posts concerning an article about the current situation in Ukraine, NATO and its birth, and the so-called American Empire in Europe. Here's a post that I think puts the background in perspective. I have left the author's name of because I don't have his permission:
Sorry, the copy and past technique didn't take and it's too long for me to retype.
DJL,
Feel free to sue me for defamation, either here in the U.S. or in Britain. I am confident that I could offer a more than adequate legal defense in either venue, with an effective counter-claim against you as well.
From the article u.s. referenced:
"Something similar should have been attempted in Ukraine. Instead, the US absconded, unable to deal with the difficulties of the task: acting in a world that is no longer American-built."
The "something similar" referenced is that "Moscow now must deal with a series of Turkish military outposts around Idlib. It has no appetite for a direct confrontation."
U.s. as gently as possible might I suggest a screen? Sweeping, ahistorical, emotionally based articles aren't particularly useful. Also, a lot of that Oligarch money has effected politics on the right in quite a few countries. Remember we likely never found all of the Americans.
On the one hand a somewhat fraught, over two decades long dance between NATO and Ukraine was provocative (and don't forget Yanukovych and Maidan)) but the US unilaterally establishing bases in Ukraine (when wasn't clear) would have been NBD?
"By the way, I heard the theory expressed last night by a very respectable Chilean foreign policy analyst that Putin, seeing that his invasion is not going as well as he expected, wants peace and that Zelensky obviously wants peace, but that the guy who wants the war to continue is, yes, Joe Biden, who sees the war as an opportunity to weaken Russia completely, so Biden pressures Zelensky to stay tough, sends him weapons and ups the anti-Putin rhetoric, calling him a "war criminal", etc."
s.w. the internal logic of this "analysis" seems to be that Zelensky is willing to mostly surrender and Putin wants to accept that surrender but Biden is forcing Zelensky to accept all these weapons and is somehow motivating Ukrainians to keep fighting which somehow forces Putin to keep destroying innocent non-combatants. Oh, and Joe is being mean to Putin who would be reasonable and rational except Joe is being mean. Only things missing are a mirror and lipstick.
BTW, what does your local analyst call shelling hospitals and residential areas and setting up "safety corridors" for non-combatants and then turning them into shooting galleries?
"That is, by the time we finish analyzing a simple criminal act, the binary division between good and evil has evaporated."
Not at all. Mugging and arbitrarily stabbing folks for no real reason is always wrong (evil). Analysis can lead to ways to deal with underlying factors. Courts can deal with possibly mitigating factors but wrong is wrong.
aaall, as usual, I'm afraid, your response just leaves me puzzled. Who is it you're accusing of being sweeping, ahistorical, emotional. Or perhaps you're referring to all the pieces I referenced? That would strike me as very odd.
"BTW, what does your local analyst call shelling hospitals and residential areas and setting up "safety corridors" for non-combatants and then turning them into shooting galleries?"
When Americans and their allies do it, it's called collateral damage. That's not to excuse these or any other consequences of war. It's a call for moral judgement not one-sided moralising.
Anonymous,
I must have missed the news when the US and its allies shelled hospitals and residential areas and called it collateral damage. Could you be more specific as time, place etc? Thanks.
How's this for starters?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/politics/u-s-airstrike-hospital-afghanistan-investigation/index.html
One could go on. I Libya, e.g., another "war of choice"
Civilian losses
14 May: NATO air strike hit a large number of people gathered for Friday prayers in the eastern city of Brega leaving 11 religious leaders dead and 50 others wounded.[190]
24 May: NATO air strikes in Tripoli kill 19 civilians and wound 150, according to Libyan state television.[191]
31 May: Libya claims that NATO strikes have left up to 718 civilians dead.[192]
19 June: NATO air strikes hit a residential house in Tripoli, killing seven civilians, according to Libyan state television.[193]
20 June: A NATO airstrike in Sorman, near Tripoli, killed fifteen civilians, according to government officials.[194] Eight rockets apparently hit the compound of a senior government official, in an area where NATO confirmed operations had taken place.[194]
25 June: NATO strikes on Brega hit a bakery and a restaurant, killing 15 civilians and wounding 20 more, Libyan state television claimed. The report further accused the coalition of "crimes against humanity". The claims were denied by NATO.[195]
28 June: NATO airstrike on the town of Tawergha, 300 km east of the Libyan capital, Tripoli kills eight civilians.[citation needed]
25 July: NATO airstrike on a medical clinic in Zliten kills 11 civilians, though the claim was denied by NATO, who said they hit a vehicle depot and communications center.[196][197]
20 July: NATO attacks Libyan state TV, Al-Jamahiriya. Three journalists killed.[198]
9 August: Libyan government claims 85 civilians were killed in a NATO airstrike in Majer, a village near Zliten. A spokesman confirms that NATO bombed Zliten at 2:34 a.m. on 9 August,[199] but says he was unable to confirm the casualties. Commander of the NATO military mission, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard says "I cannot believe that 85 civilians were present when we struck in the wee hours of the morning, and given our intelligence. But I cannot assure you that there were none at all".[200]
15 September: Gaddafi spokesman Moussa Ibrahim declares that NATO air strikes killed 354 civilians and wounded 700 others, while 89 other civilians are supposedly missing. He also claims that over 2,000 civilians have been killed by NATO air strikes since 1 September.[201] NATO denied the claims, saying they were unfounded.[202]
2 March 2012: United Nations Human Rights Council release their report about the aftermath of the Libyan civil war, concluding that in total 60 civilians were killed and 55 wounded by the NATO air campaign.[203] In May that same year, Human Rights Watch published a report claiming that at least 72 civilians were killed.[15]
And lest we forget:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvFpT-iypw
a crime for which only Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange have been made to suffer--for reporting it
Here's a "classic", the U.S. "accidental" bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade#:~:text=On%20May%207%2C%201999%2C%20during,and%20outraging%20the%20Chinese%20public.
Anon, I can only speak for myself and I have no problem calling actions that are war crimes, war crimes, regardless of what nations commit them. Causes of civilian causalities can range from the "fog of war" to deliberate policy. Russia's policies, approved at the highest levels and in the past and now, are clearly war crimes. With Ukraine we are dealing with policy. I can list all sorts of war crimes off the top of my head. Not all are the result of policy.
Maybe I'm not your audience. I would have had folks like Jeff Davis, Alexander Stevens hanged. Col. Chivington should have been executed for Sand Creek and Lt. William Calley should have been executed for My Lai. Lots more between. If you want more suggestions just ask.
BTW, I think I did see an RPG, etc. in the video. The US had a coup and then got into two wars of choice. Big surprise! Some food for thought: Some of those guys went on to join various law enforcement agencies after they were discharged.
It seems to me that my question of our Chilean analyst stands.
u.s., the Boston Review article is better and links to an even more interesting article about China
https://uscnpm.org/2022/03/12/hu-wei-russia-ukraine-war-china-choice/
The problem with your articles, besides the both sides, is that the Russian pooch was screwed back in the Brezhnev days. I'm not aware of anything between then and now that could have been a trend break.
By the turn of the century, it was clear where Putin was headed.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/03/28/how-putins-oligarchs-bought-london?currentPage=all
aaall,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Some commenters on this blog are unable to distinguish, or effuse to distinguish, between intentional taking of life and accidental loss of life. The law distinguishes them via premeditated murder and manslaughter.
In terms of war criminals related to the Civil War, where would you place Tecumseh Sherman and his Mach to the Sea through Georgia?
"effuse to distinguish"? Interesting phraseology.
Meant "refuse to distinguish."
Anon,
I would echo aaall's response above. Hospitals, schools, apartment houses and the like are specific targets of Russian bombs. Russian military doctrine is that these attacks lower the enemy's will to resist and thereby reduce casualties suffered by the attacking forces. Their plans specifically include (if press reports are accurate) steps that are on their face a violation of the laws of war.
“Laws of war”, lol, so easy to discuss, debate, moralize and condemn from the safety of the ivory tower.
It seems to me, aaall, we are fated to disagree. I’m opposed to capital punishment for anyone, at least in part because—the slippery slope sort of argument—once it’s socially accepted that some may/should be killed for their crimes, it will likely soon happen that more and more crimes will become punishable by death. (It didn’t take Thompson's and Linebaugh’s discussions of the Black Acts, Tyburn's fatal tree, and the like to make me think that way. But they sure helped confirm me in that point of view.) For the nitpickers, I do, of course, acknowledge that recourse to capital punishment fluctuates over time in particular places.
But that aside, I’m of the opinion that those—all those—who initiate war, no matter what rules of conduct, "laws of war," they claim to espouse and no matter what rules of conduct they’re actually able to enforce on those who carry out their orders often under unbearably difficult circumstances, bear ultimate responsibility for everything their agents actually do.
I’m further of the opinion that it’s in the very nature of war that, however well and precisely targeted the violence supposedly is, a great many innocent people will suffer either directly or indirectly. That is to say, as I view it, it actually matters very little whether the warmaker’s policy is to be discriminate to some degree or indiscriminate. In other words, while I can see that there’s some abstract distinction between—as Another Anonymous has it—“intentional taking of life and accidental loss of life,” in actuality the nature of war is such as to make such a distinction pretty meaningless in practice. And all too often it’s a distinction which deteriorates into a biassed claim that ‘our side makes unfortunate and much regretted mistakes’ while ‘that other side is monstrously evil.”
I’ll admit that those on the receiving end of a war of choice—as are the Ukrainians, as were the Iraqis and the Afghans—are in some respects differently located in this moral calculus. But it’s an unfortunate consequence of the nature of war that those responding to mass organised violence with mass organised violence will themselves inevitably end up inflicting suffering on innocent people. No combatant comes out of a war with clean hands. ("A French Village" brought that out rather well I thought.)
Just to make things a little bit clearer, Anonymous at 1:35 pm is not Anonymous at 1;27 pm.
Iraq Body Count calculates that coalition forces (the U.S. and its allies) have killed around 14 thousand civilians in Iraq. That includes of course those Iraqi civilians intentionally killed by U.S. forces in the video linked to at 8:25 PM above. They do not specify how many of those civilians deaths were intentional and how many were people who "got in the way". Many claim that Iraq Body Count underestimates the amount of civilian deaths. The controversy is there in the Wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=According%20to%20a%202010%20assessment,insurgents%2C%20militias%2C%20or%20terrorists.
Do Russians intentionally target civilians targets or do they just not care much whether they kill civilians or not? I have no idea and I suspect that no one besides the Russians really knows. I distrust the mainsteam media's reports on Russian atrocities and actually, there have been some cases, like the video of a supposed Russian tank crushing a car, where it is clearly fake news.
In any case, as has been pointed out above, neither the Russians nor the U.S. has particularly clean hands.
"Do Russians intentionally target civilians targets or do they just not care much whether they kill civilians or not?"
"Or"? How about both? Given Soviet and Russian behavior over the past century the "care" part seems obvious. Russian conduct from Chechnya through Syria to Ukraine would point to doctrine and the intentional. BTW, it seems the Russians have now kidnapped thousands of Ukrainians and taken them into Russia.
"In any case, as has been pointed out above, neither the Russians nor the U.S. has particularly clean hands."
Which is besides the point. Nobody has clean hands. There is a current problem with really bad implications that won't be solved with a Delorean and a flux capacitor.
I don't get the reluctance to call a spade a spade. We live in a fallen world in which high functioning sociopaths (as well as real dummies) can often find a path to power. In Putin's case, as with all dictators, there is no clear path out of power.
While we may not yet know exactly what's wrong with Putin, but merely observing what's available makes it obvious that the boy ain't right. The recent Trump-like rally in Moscow was beyond weird (what do you call a dictator who can't compel tens of thousands of state employees to assemble at will? answer - deposed/dead).
AA, the Civil War was arguably the first modern war so it was never going to be pretty. Any evaluation of that war has to be made considering the disasters that would have resulted from an independent CSA. On the other hand we have Sherman et al in the West where genocide was a thing. Sometimes a mixed bag, but still genocide overall.
s. wallerstein, usual suspect, jerry fresia,
You might appreciate this interview of retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, who was the top planner for Gen. Wesley Clark, the commander of NATO, during the Kosovo War. (Macgregor also has a doctorate in international relations.) He is hardly a liberal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFngc_8RiVc
thanks, Eric. But I have to say I don't really appreciate this. That's largely because I fear we are now inundated in an ocean of propaganda from all sides that I find it very difficult to trust any of what I hear or read, especially when it comes from anyone arguing very confidently from a particular point of view. That of course makes it harder for me to come to any even tentative conclusions about what's going on. I really envy in a way those who arrive with ease, seemingly, at certainty. I understand this is not how some on this site view me. But it's me. I'm actually one of the world's doubters.
Thank you, Eric.
Like usual suspect, I too am one of the world's doubters, but we are saturated 24-7 with the
news from the hegemonic mainstream media, and any alternative point of view is welcome.
u.s. you might google the good Gol. Shades of Flynn! The guy is a racist culture warrior who is a Fox regular and was nominated by Trump as Ambassador to Germany which nomination the Senate rejected. He has good and bad points in the video but is overall a crank. He just dragged in George Soros so maybe antisemitic
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/politics/kfile-douglas-macgregor-german-ambassador-pick/index.html
Now this is interesting:
"According to Ilyin, the purpose of politics is to overcome individuality, and establish a “living totality” of the nation. Writing in the 1920s and ’30s after his expulsion from the Soviet Union, when he became a leading emigré ideologue of the anti-Communist White Russians, Ilyin looked on Mussolini and Hitler as exemplary leaders who were saving Europe by dissolving democracy. His 1927 article “On Russian Fascism” was addressed to “My White brothers, the fascists.” Later, in the 1940s and ’50s, he provided the outlines for a constitution of a fascist Holy Russia governed by a “national dictator” who would be “inspired by the spirit of totality.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/how-a-russian-fascist-is-meddling-in-americas-election.html
"Russian liberal-conservatives were never democrats as understood in the West, and it is not surprising that many here reject their ideology. Richard Pipes considers that Chicherin’s philosophy “was an abstract and unrealistic doctrine.” The idea that the powerful state “could respect civil rights was plainly quixotic.” Similarly, Ilyin’s vision of a limited, law-based, and accountable dictatorship seems naïvely impractical."
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/putins-philosophy/
I don't see how this ends well.
Usual Suspect,
There's nothing wrong with approaching all claims with a certain amount of skepticism. That seems to me to be the most prudent way to evaluate any information. But to listen to just one point of view, or worse still, to completely turn away from any discussion of a difficult subject out of frustration, I think would be a mistake.
My problem is, Eric, I have too many views to listen to or read. To be sure, it was difficult in the past when one had to keep in mind that the relatively few and influential interpretive gatekeepers had their own axes to grind. At the same time, with a little time and patience one could, to be sure, begin to discern what their particular bent was. But now, in this age of 'democratised' information/opinion peddling, how on earth is one supposed to handle that great flood, most of it coming from people whose idea of research--as in, e.g., "i did my research into vaccination"--extends only as far as their favourite (mis)information site. On the other side, trying to offer a thought out point of view, even if it goes no further than to suggest 'consider that you might be mistaken,' is more likely than not to elicit vigorous attacks from 'true believers.' We live in very odd times.
We do live in very odd times.
I listened to most of the video Eric linked to. It seems strange that two leftwing journalists should interview a pro-Trump, conservative ex. U.S. military officer and yet he seems worth listening to. The discussion between the two journalists, at the end of the interview, is also worth tuning in to.
One's first reaction is that Trump is a liar and "bad" and thus, everything his supporters say is obviously suspect and that the Democrats, being anti-Trump, are thus "good" and worth trusting, but life isn't so simple. The enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend.
Thanks once again, Eric.
s.w., the Col. on the interview has advocated martial law on the border and empowering the stationed troops to use deadly force against folks who attempt to cross the border. An O-6 who has gone down that road has lost it.
It's the case that someone who randomly drags in George Soros as a reason for something they consider bad is most likely antisemitic.
Also, while politics is inescapable in promotions at the level he reached and folks do get screwed over, the guy was passed over three times for a command position as an O-6. That's at least a massive red flag.
You have the luxury of viewing things at some remove. Some of us live in the U.S. and have to deal with a system accidentally designed to require two functioning political parties and a functioning press. Sadly we only have 0.8 of a party and a lame media environment.
While not all Democrats are "good." there is at least hope for the party. A handful of sort of OK Republicans doesn't change the reality that the party itself has become an insurrectionist, herrinvolk entity and is beyond repair.
aaall,
All of what you say is true, but on some specific issues a possibly anti-semitic rightwing colonel may be more trustworthy than the New York Times. That takes some getting used to for me, but life proves more complicated than many of us once imagined that it was.
Or to quote our Nobel prize winner: I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEoZfu-XNZc
Wallerstein,
Do you think you could specify a topic or issue on which this right-wing anti-semitic colonel is more trustworthy than the New York Times? Like, something the Times said that was wrong, but that he says is right.
You seem to be in a constant state of gesturing, insinuating, wondering, waiting, hinting, implying, speculating. Clearly your sympathies are with the position that the US and its “imperialist” arm NATO are to blame for the current war in Ukraine (I use the word “blame” because that is the word Mearsheimer has expressly used in one of his discussions), but it’s as if you’re embarrassed to come out and say so; hence you retreat behind a fog of epistemic uncertainty (could be...who knows?...maybe). From here, it looks like what ‘takes some getting used to” for you is the fact that this wacko military official is saying these you are antecedently inclined to agree with — namely that blame for the war must be laid at the US’s doorstep at all costs — and that causes you discomfort.
Post a Comment