Although I have been spending most of my time caring for my wife, I have along the way been watching the endless television coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I wrote a brief post several days ago designed to emphasize the danger that is posed by Vladimir Putin’s implied threat of using nuclear weapons. Today I would like to expand on this because it is far more important than anything else happening at the present time. It was the danger of a nuclear war that got me involved in politics more than 60 years ago. I was one of many people around the world who worked unsuccessfully for nuclear disarmament. If it was obvious then it is equally obvious now that a war fought with nuclear weapons would simply end the world as we know it. I will not bother to take any time explaining why this is so unless there is someone reading this blog so dim as not to understand it.
From the very beginning, it was obvious that there were
three ways in which we could stumble into nuclear war: through escalation of
conventional warfare that got out of hand and led to the use of nuclear
weapons; through accident or the mistaken interpretation of unclear evidence in
a battlefield situation; and through the deliberate decision of someone who had
lost the ability to make rationally self-interested decisions and self
destructively initiated the use of nuclear weapons.
All three of these are threats in the present situation. It
is obvious that direct military confrontation between NATO and Russian forces
could easily lead to an escalation resulting in the use of “tactical” nuclear
weapons which could then very quickly and uncontrollably lead to the use of
strategic nuclear weapons. It is also clear that if Soviet and American fighter
jets were to confront one another over Ukraine, it would be fatally easy for a
jet pilot armed with nuclear weapons to misread a battlefield situation and
make a split-second wrong decision that would result in nuclear weapons being
used. It also appears to be the case, although I am an absolutely no position
to judge the likelihood of this, that Vladimir Putin, confronted with a
humiliating and even career ending military defeat in Ukraine, could issue
orders for the use of nuclear weapons, even though it would certainly result in
his death. Whether those orders would be obeyed or not is something that none
of us can rationally judge.
If we do survive this, God willing, I think it is actually
possible that this crisis will work to the benefit of the Democrats in the
midterm elections. Wouldn't that be enjoyably ironic!
I have been reassured by the flat refusal of Pres. Biden and the American military to even consider establishing a “no-fly zone” over
Ukraine through the use of American military jets. The calls for the
establishment of such a no-fly zone by American politicians are irresponsible
and literally insane, but at least thus far the American military establishment
and its political rulers appear firmly committed to resisting all such demands.
This gives Russia a great tactical advantage, of course.
That fact was well understood half a century ago by people thinking and writing
about nuclear war and it was one of many reasons why those of us who sought
nuclear disarmament argued that nuclear weapons were never a satisfactory form
of defense. But we lost that argument and so here we are, in 2022, hoping that
Vladimir Putin is rationally self-interested or, alternatively, that close to
him are advisors and generals who will if necessary kill him.
63 comments:
What is more probable that Putin is deranged enough to launch nuclear weapons for his selfish reasons or that if the answer is affirmative but someone will stop him (maybe by killing him). I still have the optimism that all the talk about nuclear weapons from Putin is for intimidation and to make European nations indecisive. That he is extremely selfish I have no doubt of however.
I desperately hope that you are right.
That was badly written. Let me try again
Which of the following scenarios has a higher probability of occurring: that Putin is deranged enough to launch nuclear weapons for his own selfish reasons or that if the answer for the first scenario is affirmative, that someone will stop him (maybe by killing him). I still have the optimism that all the talk about nuclear weapons from Putin is for intimidation and to make European nations indecisive. That he is extremely selfish I have no doubt of however.
The danger that a humiliated Putin would resort to nuclear weapons is related to the reason why it is vital that nuclear powers such as the US, Russia, China avoid war with each other. None of them is likely to accept defeat in a conventional war before resorting to nuclear weapons. I don't know what to do about a humiliated Putin. I'd love to see him humiliated, but not at the expense of a nuclear weapon being used. The best solution would be the one some senator, forgot who, said we should do about Viet Nam: Declare victory and leave.
David Palmeter,
That line is attributed to George Aiken (R-Vt.), but a glance at his Wikipedia entry indicates that he did not use those exact words.
Some New Age religionists believe in the idea that advanced civilizations in our galaxy (& throughout the rest of the universe) keep tabs on nuclear powers on every planet & try to stop nuclear missiles from completing their reentry orbits into the atmosphere of civilized planets. Of course, if true that doesn't explain the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The only explanation I can think of for that is that space faring civilizations are not able to stop nuclear detonations 100% of the time. They too make mistakes and mess up. Plus there is the idea that advanced civilizations cannot & do not interfere in our wars and in the murdering of civilians, but there is an exception just for stoping nuclear exchanges between two or more nations. Meaning they can only interfere either when we are about to cross the line gravely or when their hidden methods do not affect our social evolution. --I've also read somewhere that such civilizations have no right to interfere if a large comet or meteor or flood will destroy or ruin the Earth. For they believe it is not for them to decide such an outcome since it is part of our universal evolution.
The question that keeps popping up in my mind is where does the West draw the line in terms of engagement. How far are we going to allow Putin to go? If he does take Ukraine (which from my limited understanding would be a very long drawn out occupation), what's next?
Please no one attack my previous post with this premise contradicts this premise or that conclusion etc. I have no such answers to the mysteries of the universe. If I did I wouldn't be here. I would instead be on a paradise world like Star Trek's Risa loving life & not worrying about wars, nuclear exchanges etc.
Michael Llenos,
Assuming such an alien civilization was committed to such intervention, it would not have prevented the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, because the atomic bombs which were used never entered interstellar space. They were dropped from B-52 bombers. I do not know if the Strategic Air Command still operates such bombers day and night (as depicted in Dr. Strangelove), but if they are, the project you describe would not prevent homo sapiens from annihilating itself.
I'm pretty sure they can shoot down a bomber with nuclear weapons inside it. In the WW2 air war over western Europe the U.S. Army Air Corps crewman called UFOs Foo-Fighters. I don't think Advanced Space faring civilizations are only capable of operating just in outer space.
I believe they were B-29 bombers. B-52 bombers made their debut in Vietnam.
Michael Llenos,
Understood But the way you framed the project, I assumed the alien civilization wanted to intervene to prevent the use of nuclear weapons without killing Earthlings. This, of course, could nob be avoided if they started shooting down bobbers carrying nuclear weapons.
I find it very strange that all the comments so far seem to assume that Putin's war on the Ukraine is the doing of a deranged person. In fact, his invasion of Ukraine is a perfectly sane response to the United States' and NATO's steady encroachment on the border of Russia going back to the breaking of the promise made to Gorbachev in 1990 and 1991 that NATO would not expand into the eastern European countries formerly under the control of the Soviet Union. When we started to consider the possibility of adding the Ukraine into NATO we crossed Putin's red line just as was done by considering the incorporation of Georgia into NATO. There simply is no way Russia can allow having a hostile country directly on its border. Just look at what happened when Russian missiles were installed in Cuba. Imagine what the response of the United States would be if Russia tried to incorporate Mexico into its orbit. The sad thing is the United States has so little understanding of the security concerns of Russia and is totally unable to put itself into Russia's shoes. A far more detailed presentation of my comment has been made recently by the professor of political science at the University of Chicago, John Mearsheimer which can seen on youtube.
@ Robert Shore
If you look at some of the comments on previous threads at this site, you'll find that the issues you raise have been debated and discussed extensively here.
"Perfectly sane" is not the best phrase, I think, to describe Putin's actions. "Instrumentally rational" *maybe*, but not perfectly sane -- that would not be a particularly appropriate phrase even if one agreed entirely w the Mearsheimer argument.
@ Jason 4:22 pm
"The West" has already drawn the line. It's defined by NATO membership.
This leaves Finland, e.g., in an uncertain place, but I don't see Putin attacking Finland. (Then again, who knows.)
So let's equate Putin to the mass killers at malls and public schools: the paranoia is there, the megalomania, the stockpiling of nuclear missiles not guns, the raw anger and rage and resentment, the out of sight and off the chart psychopathy.
He's like those kids in Colorado in the nineties except he knows judo, he's like the guy who destroyed the courthouse in Oklahoma City.
He is instrumental but his reason is bent to his psychopathy and his paranoia and his narcissism.
They are my missiles he says, NATO is out to get him, the whole world is, he is a great figure in Russian history.
He is doing a suicide by cop and is prepared to take us all out the US too with him
@ R Shore
In case you're still reading, not all of us agree w Howie, above.
My own view is that he's prob. not clinically insane; his invasion of Ukraine can be read as strategically or instrumentally rational but that does not justify it at all, plus he's apparently miscalculated in several ways.
@LFC
So that is the physical line in terms of nations Putin is allowed to invade without triggering a full scale WW3. Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, etc are all off the table?
Is there any ethical line Putin could cross in regards to Ukraine? A hospital was bombed killing or injuring many women and children, but in order to not trigger WW3 it appears the US and NATO have their hands tied?
In the interest of time, which I lack rt now, I'll just say I think that's pretty much it. He's already violated intl law in more than one way. There may yet be a deal to transfer jet fighters as well the other weapons, but I see no prospect of direct NATO involvement. All the decision makers have said no & I wd take them at their word on that.
Prof. Dan Kaufman has some thoughts on the war (some good discussion there, as well): https://theelectricagora.com/2022/03/06/some-thoughts-on-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine/
"Imagine what the response of the United States would be if Russia tried to incorporate Mexico into its orbit."
Imagine the response of Mexico or does Mexico lack agency? Anyway, Germany already tried that during WWI. Had Russia transitioned into a liberal democracy NATO would have withered away. A poster on an earlier thread was on point: Russia is an autocratic trending totalitarian kleptocratic petrostate with serious demographic problems. It couldn't tolerate a successful liberal democracy on its border.
Speaking of alliances, China - Russia would have Russia as the nephew which would, I imagine, chap Putin's hide.
Prof. Wolff, nukes of any kind are not routinely used as an option on American or NATO fighters. An O-3 or 4 isn't going to be in a position to make that decision - the nukes are locked up. First use of tactical nukes are part of Russian doctrine so there's that. I imagine parallel discussions are happening.
Isn't it amazing that the conversation keeps going back to Putin's mental health? Even high functioning sociopaths slip a cog as age encroaches.
So, I just watched the interview of Tariq Ali on Democracy Now recommended by s. wallerstein in a previous thread, and I am confused. It is my understanding that those on the Left, among whom I have counted myself in that past, support increasing human freedom and liberty against those who wish to exercise power and authority over them, whether that power be economic or military. They condemn the U.S. for its efforts to control the people of other countries via capitalism or by military invasion, as in Iraq. Yet, when it comes to Russia, they state that the U.S. and NATO should have known that expanding NATO and inviting Ukraine to join NATO was a red line and that the failure of NATO to respect that red line has caused Putin to invade Ukraine. And, since it caused Putin to invade Ukraine, and the U.S. and NATO should have known better, Putin has a rational reason for invading Ukraine, and the U.S. and NATO bear responsibility for his invasion of Ukraine.
How is that consistent with their general philosophy that expanding freedom and liberty is good, and control of people by others is bad? Suppose Jones dislikes his neighbor Smith who lives two doors down, because he believes Smith has plans to break into Jones’ home and steal his property. He warns his next-door neighbor, Johnson, not to go to a party that Smith is throwing, and to which Smith has invited Johnson, and Johnson disregards Jones and goes to the party anyway, how does Jones have a right to invade Johnson’s home because he warned Smith and Johnson that Johnson should not attend the party? How can other neighbors who claim to support expressions of liberty and freedom come to Jones’ defense and say, well Jones warned everybody, they should have listened. And how can wise and sage liberals like Tariq Ali support this reasoning? This analogy may seem simplistic and not really capture what is going on here, but how is it different? Why should Jones’ concern – whether legitimate or not - that Smith has designs on his property give him the right to dictate how others should interact with Smith, and how can liberals who are supposed to support freedom and liberty, endorse Jones’ perspective? Why are these so-called liberals rationalizing that the U.S. and NATO are, when you get down to the bottom of it, responsible for Russia’s aggression? And saying that, well you have to be realistic about these things and this is just how the world works, doesn’t seem to square with their so-called liberal philosophy of increasing freedom and liberty. Sorry, my simplistic mind doesn’t get it.
Post-script:
What I found particularly astounding about Tariq Ali’s exposition, offered in his studied and wise baritone voice, was his assertion that providing arms and weapons to Ukraine is a bad idea, because it only encourages the Ukrainians to resist, which will only result in more blood-shed on both sides. The solution, he says, is to avoid all this blood-shed by just partitioning Ukraine, and the sooner this is done, the better. This guy is the academic darling of the liberal Left? And Amy Goodman and her co-host listen to this crap with a demeanor of respect and admiration, and s. wallerstein recommends it as a “good” discussion.
Chess Post-script:
When the Russian invasion of Ukraine occurred, I decided to boycott playing any Russian chess players. Players are identified by the flag of their country, which appears next to their chess moniker, and I decided to message every Russian player that I was boycotting Russia and declined to move, which results in a cancellation, without any loss of points. Yesterday, however, I inadvertently forgot my boycott commitment and moved a piece before I had checked the player’s flag. It was Russian. So I decided to continue the game, but as we played, I sent a message, “Do you know what your country is doing to the Ukrainian people?” No response. So I systematically began demolishing him/her - exchanging Queens and taking his/her rook; then a knight; then one pawn after the other. And as I checkmated him/her, I messaged, “Long live Ukraine!” It felt good.
Suppose Jones dislikes his neighbor Smith who lives two doors down
Let's try a better analogy.
After finding Smith trying to break into his house, Jones asks him as politely as possible to leave. Jones doesn't adopt a conciliatory tone because he's a pacifist who hates violence, but rather because he knows he cannot possibly fight Smith, who is 60 pounds heavier and a foot taller.
Smith scoffs. Not only he does not leave, but Jones' wife tells her husband Smith is there because she wants him to stay.
Outmuscled and outnumbered, Jones relents.
A moment later, Smith and Jones' wife go to the bedroom.
Jones snaps. Grabs a gun and puts the gun to his and his wife's kid's head and tells Smith: "Get the fuck out of here or the kid cops it".
Smith laughs: "You are bluffing. We both know you won't pull the trigger. You don't have the guts. Your wife and I are gonna have a mighty good time and you won't do shit".
To everybody's horror and shock, Jones pulls the trigger.
Now, it's pretty clear to me that Jones is a murderer. It's equally clear to me that the kid is an innocent victim. That is undeniable.
But, to me, it's every bit as clear that Jones' wife and Smith share some responsibility. They aren't free of guilt. That is what Another Anonymous is hellbent on denying, either by feigning idiocy or by cheap sophism.
- The AnonyMouse.
I have already written this elsewhere and I just want to say it again briefly: I think the question of whether Putin is mentally healthy or not is irrelevant. He will suffer from the "disease" that almost every dictator suffers from if he stays too long in the position that makes him what he is. This can be called "power psychosis" and its functioning is probably better described in the world literature than in the textbooks of psychiatry. I think what can be said is that after a certain point it is incurable and ends with the death of the patient.
In my opinion, one of the most complex studies of the psyche of a man in power like Putin is the film adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear by the Japanese director Akira Kurosawa. The film is titled "RAN," which translates as chaos. The film shows how the fate of a man in power (absolute power) is determined by two simultaneous processes that can be called isolation and escalation.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
AnonyMouse,
You must be kidding? This is your idea of a better analogy?
Am I to understand that the Jones in your analogy is Russia, and Smith is the U.S. or NATO? When did the U.S. or NATO invade Russia or the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union did not break up because the U.S. or NATO invaded it. And incorporating the former members of the Soviet Union (Poland, Latvia, Lithuania) into NATO did not constitute an invasion of Russia. Your analogy is nonsense.
Another Anonymous,
I never can follow your analogies, they always seem too far fetched.
However, the only way out is a negotiated settlement of some kind. I imagine that in a negotiated settlement Ukraine is going to have to give up at least Crimea. There has to be some kind of agreement about Donbas and that Ukraine will not join NATO.
Otherwise, the war will continue, more innocent Ukrainians will die and the country will be destroyed.
Some have spoken of China as a possible go-between, which would be great because Russia needs good relations with China and is very unlikely to break an agreement which includes Chinese participation.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/a-letter-to-the-western-left-from-kyiv/
DDA,
Yes, exactly.
@ S.wallerstein,
a negotiated settlement in which Putin achieves his goals by means of bombs and missiles on women and children? Mediated by a regime that has been trying for years to find a way to achieve the same goals and will continue to do so? We are already closing our eyes to what is happening in Hong Kong. To take the risk that a country like Ukraine becomes a puppet like Belarus because the West refuses the protection under which a democratic society could develop? Georgia, Syria, Crimea, the Donbass doesn't that sound like: The Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland? By the way, this is not a domino theory, it is not a theory because it has already happened. The only negotiated solution that I find acceptable is the one: back to zero before the attack and no condition that dictates to an independent country what treaties it makes with others.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/world/europe/evgeny-maslin-dead.html
s. wallerstein,
Re-reading your comment above, its irony struck me. Yes, the analogy is farfetched – that’s it purpose, to underscore the preposterousness of the actual situation which it is analogizing to, to underscore the fallacy of Putin’s contention that he has the right to dictate to Ukraine whether it can join NATO, and the preposterousness of those who claim that NATO’s failure to adhere to Putin’s warning of a red line makes them responsible for Putin’s aggression.
s. wallerstein,
You have finally succeeded. Your last comment has left me speechless.
>If Zelensky survives….
Yes, Wallerstein, and that is a big “if”. The alternative is that Zelensky will be captured and executed, perhaps brutally tortured. (By contrast, the average soldier will likely be allowed to live once s/he lays down arms). The man was offered evacuation from Ukraine in the early days — when everyone thought Kyiv would fall very quickly, when everyone was still underestimating the resolve and strength of the Ukrainian people — and he refused. Could you imagine yourself undertaking such an act of bravery? I realize that your endless and cynicism about the US, about the West, about capitalism, about media culture, about Hollywood — though certainly justified to some extent — have nevertheless left you entirely bereft of any capacity to appreciate genuine moral courage. I hope that you have it in you to engage in some reflection on these aspects of your character.
Honestly — after you bought into the twitter-leftist line about Putin’s impending invasion being nothing more than state department propaganda, one would imagine you’d think twice about taking facile digs at the “mainstream media”. I guess not. Here I’m reminded of a famous remark by Susan Sontag (paraphrasing): “the average reader of Reader’s Digest in the 30s would have had a clearer understanding of what was going on in the Soviet Union than would have all those sophisticated readers of The Nation.” I guess some people never learn, and history does repeat itself.
As to this idea that Zelensky is refusing to accept a deal for the sake of his ego — What deal!? Look at the latest reports. Russia is demanding nothing less than total capitulation. What you are proposing is simply appeasement — “better red than dead.” But not only is this not what Zelensky wants, it is also not what the Ukrainian people want, based on all the reporting. And as you must realize, your rationale can be extended endlessly: suppose Putin wants to take Germany. Ought the German people surrender in order to avoid the suffering of nuclear war? Suppose he wants to take the UK, the US, Chile? … He won’t, of course. But the point is that if you acknowledge that a line must be drawn somewhere, then you owe it to the Ukrainians to explain why you think the line must be drawn just beyond their territory.
As for Leiter, I’m glad to see him just today stating explicitly that this is an illegal war of aggression. The Chomsky-Mearsheimer position, to which Leiter seems to subscribe, does seem to me incoherent. I have seen Leiter make the argument that it is rational for Russia to want forfend against a hostile military alliance moving to its borders, and that the US wouldn’t take kindly to Mexico entering into a military alliance with China. Those are deeply flawed arguments, but as they have been endlessly discussed here in recent days, I’ll stop.
1) I do think Zelensky is showing a lot of courage, genuine heroism. However if it is possible to cut a deal -- a big "if" -- that would somehow preserve at least aspects of Ukrainian independence/sovereignty, maybe he should take it. But it's not clear right now whether this kind of deal is possible.
2) Leiter, from what I can tell, has said all along that this is an illegal war of aggression.
He Man,
Ditto everything you have written - and you have done it without using a single "confusing" analogy.
@ DDA
Thanks for posting the obit for Maslin. I read it w interest.
Some may find this of interest:
https://forward.com/news/483607/chicago-student-nazi-propaganda-assignment/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_3846890
There is no deal with Russia which will survive Putin's brain worms. The Belarus Constitution had neutrality as one of its items. That Constitution was just amended to eliminate that provision and allow Russian forces as well as nukes to be stationed there. Making deals with autocrats and expecting them to be honored is foolish. On the other hand, be a shame if a refinery or two went boom. Also I see Japan is agitating about those northern islands.
Anon, you only established that Jones has a firearm and makes bad choices.
He Man,
Of course, somewhere you have to draw a line, but so far we have absolutely no evidence that Putin wants anything more than a promise that Ukraine will not enter NATO, the independence of Donbas and recognition that Crimea is part of Russia. So why bring back the domino theory? That is, if Ukraine falls, tomorrow Putin's tanks will be in Paris. There's no reason to believe that so far.
Better red than dead: yes. I told the same story in Leiter's blog, but I'll repeat it here. I came back from grammar school one day in the 50's convinced by my teacher that we were better dead than red. One father, who was not a leftist or a pacifist, challenged me and explained that no tyranny lasts forever, that even if living under Communism (or under Putin who is not a Communist of course) is as bad as they say it is, sooner or later, the nightmare will end and that survival is certainly better a nuclear holocaust.
Moral courage. Salvador Allende, in the La Moneda presidential palace surrounded by Pinochet's tanks during the September 1973 coup, resisted for a while, then gave a farewell address to Chileans, saying that resistance was futile and that it would just produce more deaths and affirming, as did my father and as I do, that one day, sooner rather than later according to Allende, free men would build a new society in Chile. Allende was right, formal democracy returned to Chile after 17 years and now almost 50 years later we are drawing up a new constitution to replace the authoritarian and neoliberal constitution Pinochet left us with. After that, Allende committed suicide, firing a gunshot into his head.
To Wallerstein:
You say"...so far we have absolutely no evidence that Putin wants anything more than a promise that Ukraine will not enter NATO."
Yes, we do have such evidence: He illegally seized Crimea. That is pretty good evidence that he wants more than the assurance you cite.
Sheesh.
David Zimmerson,
This is getting incredible. I said above a few minutes ago that Putin is demanding that Ukraine recognize that Crimea is part of Russia.
There's no point in talking with you people if you don't even read what I write. I write fairly concisely.
@Wallerstein,
You are wrong. Putin wants all those things plus a guarantee that Ukraine will drop its aspirations to join the EU. Putin has said explicitly (did you not hear him?) that he doesn’t consider Ukraine a real country and that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people.” He will accept nothing less than a client state in Ukraine, and indeed the Ukrainian peoples’ resistance to that proposition is what set off this entire ordeal back in 2014. Are you seriously of the opinion that Ukraine simply give in to all of Putin’s demands? Ukrainians, at least, are probably wise enough to see where that road leads.
I did not mean to invoke the domino theory. Your contention is that Ukraine — or, rather, Zelensky — should “sacrifice freedom and independence” for the basics of food, heat, and life. Well, this is a rather cowardly mindset, I’m convinced. And thank god not everybody would subscribe to it. I doubt you think the French would, or the Germans, or the Americans. So why should the Ukrainians? As things stand now, there’s no reason to think that Ukrainian resistance, coupled with Western sanctions, will not eventually force Russia into making concessions, if not lead to Russia’s outright defeat. (And the crucial concession, of course, is some guarantee of respect for Ukraine’s autonomy.)
Therefore, the analogy with Chile is inapt, as there is no indication now that resistance in Ukraine is “futile”. Furthermore, I think it’s naive to presuppose that Putinism will just whither away in a couple decades’ time. Nothing is permanent, of course, but certainly political systems can last for many decades and even centuries.
Finally, your admiration for Allende is irrelevant to me. The little vignette you painted, according to which Zelensky is letting his show biz aspirations get in the way of a peaceful solution for his people, is repugnant. Frankly, it says more about your personal resentments and neuroticisms than anything else.
In 15 days, Russia has launched over 775 missiles of all sizes into Ukraine, and these Kalibr or Iskander type missiles have done most of the damage. ShadowBreak Intl, a geospatial information company from London, has been capturing Russian troop "chatter" on the battlefield in Ukraine and translating it, putting links online for the whole world to hear the war crimes and military reports in action. It is certain that these front line Russian troops do not have proper communication equipment, so their central command cannot send them ceasefire orders or any kind of order. Russians destroyed communication infrastructure in Ukraine at start, making their military radio network unworkable, so they are using Motorola equipment without encryption or their own cell phones.
I have listened to some of these insider reports which indicate why Russian soldiers are failing. Many of their commanders are being killed in battle and they have no logistical support. Some of them are looting Ukrainian houses and phoning their wives back in Russia (one told his wife he had stolen 3 fur coats, a TV, stereo speakers, and a $7000 bottle of cognac which he drank the night before). He told his wife that they were filling trucks with loot and sending them back to Russia. Putin thus really has no effective control over these poorly trained soldiers, they have no supplies, and they are trying to survive as best they can and don't want to kill civilians.
Putin is also purging his generals and blaming intelligence reports for underestimating Ukrainian resistance. His attacks on 2 nuclear power plants and occupation with hostage technicians forced into slavery are probably more concerning than escalation to nuclear bombs, as they could cause nuclear accidents. IAEA has lost control and should arrest these Russian soldiers for war crimes, but they enforce through the UN, which is vetoed by Russia in Security Council.
Putin could also do a nuclear test over the North Pole just to demonstrate that his bomb works to the world, and bluff us even more. Putin has lost control of his frontline soldiers, he is losing information war, and the property of his cronies is being seized around the world. Ukraine will not surrender, and Putin will not stop himself. Millions of people could be killed by non-nuclear missiles and fall out from power plant accidents if they happen. There are an infinite number of bad ways for the world to end, but I don't think 70 year old Putin will escape his war crimes by disappearing. May I suggest hari kari/suicide for Putin as the most honorable way out?
For any one interested, here is a link to stories of Russian soldiers looting including the phone call to the wife back in Russia telling her the good news about the 3 fur coats:
Scroll down to story titled: Ukrainian blogger shows Russians plundering mink coats in Ukraine
10 March, 2022
https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukrainian-blogger-shows-russians-plundering-mink-coats-in-ukraine-50223803.html
Central command (Putin) is not in control of his arms and legs, and his body politic is going to collapse due to inner rottenness, not survive and flourish due to his iron will. The Russian will to power and empire should be a miserable flop with such lack of intelligent agency at the top.
To S Wallerstein:
Your response to my message is not on point at all:
I your earlier post you said: ".....so far we have absolutely no evidence that Putin wants anything more than a promise that Ukraine will not enter NATO."
That is simply false... because Putin has already demonstrated that he wants more than that Ukraine not be admitted to NATO.... In 2014 he seized part of Ukraine, i.e. Crimea.... and that is very good evidence that now he wants to annex more of Ukraine.
Your latest point that: "Putin is demanding that Ukraine recognize that Crimea is part of Russia" is utterly beside the point at issue here, which is what the evidence on the ground demonstrates that Putin really wants in the awful war he is waging on an independent country.
Sheesh and double sheesh, Sir.
What are you really arguing here?
D Zimmerman
Pls just go back and read what s.w. said in the post in question -- you're putting in a period after the word "NATO" where in fact there was no period, it makes a difference. And then you can proceed to take issue, say he's all wrong etc.
Personally I don't presume to know exactly what Putin's aims are. It's unclear from what he has done and even said so far. Possibly at this pt he doesn't know himself. The brutality is clear enough, but not the precise aims.
To some of the other non-NATO countries, the experience of Ukraine may be exactly why they would like to be in NATO. Their not being in NATO amounts to a message to Russia that says, "Go ahead and take them; we won't defend them. We've picked the ones we want (Poland, the Baltics et al) you can have the others if you want." The severe sanctions are a counter message, but so far not enough to stop the Russians.
To LFC
The rest of S.W.'s sentence you quote after "...Nato..." is "...the independence of Donbas and recognition that Crimea is part of Russia." This does not alter my criticism of what S.W. said.
My point is that Putin's goals in this war are not limited in the way that S.W. is suggesting. In 2014 Putin illegally seized part of Ukraine, Crimea. S.W. now says that Putin wants "no more than" legal recognition of this seizure plus the annexation of an eastern province of Ukraine. That is bad enough, for in and of itself it manifests a desire to control and possibly annex much more of Ukraine.
Has S.W. not been paying attention to what is actually going on in Ukraine now? Russian is waging a savage war upon a neighbouring country, which has a right to run its own affairs as it chooses, all the way to joining the EU and NATO if it bloody well chooses. Spheres of influence be damned, that is Ukraine's own prerogative.
As for what I suspect is the underlying issue here: One does not have to be a naive supporter of US foreign policy since WW II [which I am emphatically not], recently and most egregiously in Iraq, to recognize blatant and criminal intervention by Russia in an autonomous country.
I have been trying to think about what might really be Putin's Achilles Heel and how we might get to him better in his bunker mentality. I know that he is a very hockey obsessed, sports-oriented type of guy (macho sports fan). He has cultivated many relationships and posed for photos with many Russian hockey stars. I have been tweeting the following question to Twitter accounts of as many hockey pundits/reporters/broadcasters as I can:
Should NHL President Gary Bettman suspend the 55 Russian hockey players active in the NHL until Russia agrees to a proper ceasefire (verified/enforced by peacekeepers) in Ukraine? Please discuss this relevant political issue and Putin's vulnerability to pressure from hockey biz!
The idea behind this is that Russia has millions more hockey fans that would not believe Putin's propaganda defending his invasion as a just war provoked by Ukraine (that Putin is a legitimate leader looking out for their national interests), if the sporting world made a statement that is utterly unambiguous: You will not entertain us with your hockey skills and support this tyrant and his regime, you have to choose human decency over being a loyal Russian citizen, and if you won't denounce Putin and his plans, then you get sanctioned. Your salary is seized temporarily and given to Ukrainian causes instead of Russia when you pay your taxes or spend it later.
President Zelenskyy of Ukraine is doing social media overtime and making many video clips which are put online in his struggle for world recognition. He is using his acting and comedic skills to great effect and his charisma is really Ukraine's secret weapon. Search online for "President of Ukraine" and you can find his video clip archive, and English translations of his speeches. There is also a long interview with Zelenskyy available on the Die Zeit (German national newspaper) which is greatly shocking to read but so authentic that I realized how well suited he is for his role as modest savior of his people's freedom. Ukraine will win the information war against Putin if Zelenskyy survives the missile onslaught.
Here is the link to interview:
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-03/wolodymyr-selenskyj-ukraine-russia-war-interview-english?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Tony Couture
Suspending the hockey players strikes me as a penalty not so much on Putin as on likely innocent by-standers. What did they do? What about all the Russian citizens who have emigrated to the West and are now working here? Should they be fired?
I think it is obvious to almost everybody except perhaps extreme ideologues that what Putin has done and is doing amount to war crimes, humanitarian crimes, etc. It is also obvious that he is a thug, a liar and extremely selfish, let alone a corrupt authoritarian leader. Yet I think it is appropriate to have a healthy amount of cynicism with regards to the coverage of the events in the media. In that sense, I think there is a bit of over-reaction to SW's comments. If you are an educated person with regards to history and have lived outside the US it is impossible not to carry cynicism with regards to how the US portrays its actions in foreign policy. If you don't then you are suspect. I am a US citizen and have loyalty to the nation, but I was also born outside of it and understand how foreigners see the US.
I think it is appropriate that the international community is united in condemning Putin and applying the sanctions, but I would hope that one of the lessons learned from the crisis, the invasion and the catastrophe that follows is that NO NATION has a right to carry out wars unilaterally. Sadly the coverage of war is extremely narrow in perspective and this is may not be feasible. Because of the narrowness you allow less pleasant individuals like the clown, hypocrite Tucker and disappointing greenwald to get the spotlight with their 'against the current' perspectives.
To Marco Aurelio Denegri:
To be sure, let us all embrace a healthy cynicism when it comes to "how the US portrays its actions in foreign policy."
However, the reactions to SW's comments have not been about that, but about the behaviour of the Russian Federation in waging an unprovoked war upon an independent country. SW downplays the extent and scope of Russia's ambitions and actions, comes very close to justifying them in terms of realpolitik.
THAT is what some of us object too.
The issue here I think is that whenever you criticize a party for its actions (whether fairly or not) many in the audience immediately assume you are trying to excuse the crimes of the other party. I think that there are ideologues that fall into that category, but I am not sure that SW was trying to do that. I suppose that what I am calling for in this debate is to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. The issues we are discussing are very serious but we should not resort to indirect or direct insults because all of us here, are arguing from the heart and conscience, i.e. we are not some paid clowns on tv or youtube looking for attention.
To Marco Aurelio Denegri:
To take seriously, and literally, what someone says is not to "resort to direct or indirect insults."
Again, you miss the point being made by SW's critics [by me at least]. It is not that we take him to "criticize a party for its actions [the US and its allies]" and then "assume [he is] trying to excuse the crimes of the other party [the Russian Federation]." No, it is about his under-estimation of the ambitions and actions of "the other party," the Russian Federation.
Putin's war has taken him far beyond an objection to possible expansion of NATO and even beyond the annexation of Crimea and Donbas. He is attacking the entire country and driving into exile millions of those citizens he does not manage to kill or maim.
THAT deserves unequivocal condemnation, not the offering of rationalizations.
To be clear, my issue with Wallerstein is not that he invokes realpoltik to quasi-justify Putin’s war of aggression — though that is very annoying. Rather, my issue is that in the last long thread, this blog was being spammed with nakedly pro-Putin propaganda; and Wallerstein, while far from the worst malefactor, was nevertheless all to happy to join in the pile-on. He seems so curdled in his anti-American attitudes that he is willing to credit *anything* which shifts blame onto the US, even if it happens to be nakedly pro-Putin progaganda.
And then he has the gall to mention Leiter’s blog as a model for responsible discourse. Well, I agree that the discussion on Leiter’s blog was (mostly) sane and instructive. But what Wallerstein doesn't’ seem to realize is that Leiter, who moderates his comments, wouldn’t approve of half the comments that that the pro-Putin trolls were spamming this forum with, and which Wallerstein happy to endorse.
He Man and others,
I can see you guys being indignant about Putin and what the Ukrainian people are suffering, but so much righteous indignation about Wallerstein starts to reck of the political commissar and the woke politically correct brigade.
To Wallerstein:
"...but so much righteous indignation about Wallerstein starts to reck of the political commissar and the woke politically correct brigade."
Really?
This "snowflake" comment is unworthy of you and anyone else on this blog. [Sidebar: beware the person who refers to himself in the third person.]
Rather than whining, you might start to pay attention to the substance of the criticisms directed against you. He Man makes the pertinent point about your recent posts very effectively.
Professor Zimmerman,
I've been called a "snowflake" before on this blog (I'll not mention by whom) and I replied: "I'm a snowflake and proud of it".
In the spaces I inhabit and hang out in, we males, under the influence of the women's movement and that of gender non-conformity, have begun to examine and accept the feminine side of our selves, to deconstruct a view of masculinity as tough and insensitive, the view of the junior high gym class locker room back in 1959.
You know that, I'm sure, but if you still choose to mock and deride those who are openly sensitive (I say "openly sensitive" because as one grows older one discovers the sensitive spots in the most macho tough guys that one knows, the football players, the gangsters, etc.), then it's just another indicator of how different our values are.
I suppose that if we are both going to participate in this space, mutual tolerance and courtesy would be recommenable for both of us.
To S Wallerstein:
I think you misconstrue the meaning of "snowflake" in the current discourse.... It does not designate someone who is appropriately sensitive and in touch with "the feminine side" of himself, but rather someone who wilts, and complains about the harshness of it
all, in the face of well aimed, albeit strong, messages.
"Mutual tolerance and courtesy"... sure. But failure to criticize what one takes to be seriously wrong positions... no.
I think that you have lately come very close to being an apologist for Putin and his war on Ukraine on this blog and that you should be called out for it.
Professor Zimmerman,
I suppose that there could be some debate about what is "appropriately sensitive" and about who gets to define that, but that's not the subject in this thread.
Thank you for clarifying your point of view.
Post a Comment