With such destruction, what need for nuclear weapons?
It remains true that a conflict between nuclear powers would be beyond foolish. So how should NATO react?
The New York Times has weighed in: "A deliberate explosion inside the Kakhovka dam, on the front line of the war in Ukraine, most likely caused its collapse on Tuesday, according to engineering and munitions experts, who said that structural failure or an attack from outside the dam were possible but less plausible explanations." – https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/world/europe/ukraine-kakhovka-dam-russia.html (paywall)
Backing away from the cliff edge of war is a good move, until you find your back is against a wall. That's never a good place from which to negotiate. A state that has opted for war reached a point at which the perceived cost of compromising its ambition became greater than its believed cost of armed conflict.
You keep on bringing up negociation - at this point that is really no longer an option. Once hostilities are started it's better to engage ferociously and defeat your enemy than hope he wont just kill you for the fun of it.
Hi Kirk. I just posted a comment which didn't connect in time. And please note that I am not advocating a negotiation between NATO and Russia. Any negotiation at this point must be between the two principals, Russia and Ukraine. Diplomacy, sanctions, maybe a bit of Spy vs. Spy and more Russian stuff mysteriously blowing up, but diplomacy isn't necessarily just negotiating, though that could well be part of the endgame.
Replying to my own comment...I meant to add, in case I didn't stress this before; just as armies to keep men and materiel in reserves, and not throw everything they have in the initial attack, "amping up to 11" a la Spinal Tap by umping into war with Russia on June 10th 2023 would not be a judicious use of resources. None of the NATO countries has the men or munitions needed to make that work at this point, so the whole issue is merely theoretical.
With hindsight, it is becoming clear that had the US and NATO allowed shipments of more, and more advanced, tanks. HiMARS, fighter jets, etc. pre-conflict or even earlier after the invasion, Ukraine might be in a better position now. That is now "water under the bridge", to use an extremely inapt turn of phrase. The question is, what can we give them that they can actually use in the short term, given the need for training crews to use them effectively and the long logistics train needed to support advanced weaponry (apart from manufacturing and delivery, providing on-going resupply, spares & repairs). What opportunities exist beyond the current sanctions and trade restrictions for cutting off the flow of needed materiel to Russia? Could Russian imports of Iranian drones and missiles be interdicted by some form of sabotage, for example?
I disagree. NATO should not unilaterally declare war on Russia; for one thing, Russia has not declared war on NATO. That said, we know that Russia views NATO as an antagonist on the side of Ukraine, and has used aggressive measures against NATO countries (cyber warfare, etc. etc.), and of course generates enormous propaganda to say how badly treated the Russian Federation has been treated by NATO, etc. But a declaration of War by NATO -- which would, in essence, be a declaration of war by the United States et alia -- will create more destruction of lives and the environment, and could well escalate into a nuclear exchange. As we know, it only takes one nuclear bomb to ruin your day (and change the definition of war for evermore, incidentally). Short of a declaration of war, there are other means available. If it ever comes to a point where direct action against Russia is required of NATO, I would opt for a partial blockade of Russian oil shipments (i.e. those by tanker - not much one can do about pipelines other than blow them up, a la Nord Stream), which can certainly be construed as an "act of war" but which is an action short of war, aimed at bringing an antagonist to the bargaining table rather than causing maximum damage to military and civilian assets and personnel.
Sorry, that is appeasement, and it doesn't work - see WW2 as an example. The "civilized" world had no qualms about forming a coalition to kick Iraq out of Kuwait - so just because they didn't have nukes (but were suspected of chem WMDs) we should have left Saddam alone? Russia will only use nukes if it feels it's existence as a nation is militarily threatened. So NATO declares war, with the goal of ejecting Russian and it allies from all the recognized lands of Ukraine, but explicitly states that it will not put a boot into Russian territory unless nukes are used - while retaining the right to engage with conventional weapons any Russian weapon system in Russia that poses an active threat to NATO or Ukraine; with the obvious caveat that if the Russian forces promptly leave Ukraine it will not be engaged or hotly persued. Russia will not commit suicide.
Snyder’s point that advancing armies in history don’t blow up dams right in front of themselves, has to be the most commonsense argument as to why Ukraine didn’t do it, even if one knew none of the other info about Russia’s plans to blow it up. Every news outlet should lead with that. I would like to see what theoretical gymnastics Tucker Carlson would resort to, to counter it. So so stupid and so incredibly insulting
Yuk. The Russian destruction (on steroids) of Ukraine suggests to me that Russians are losing the war. How does that effect Russian psyche? I ask because I do not want Russia to become even more cuckoo. Years ago, a friend went cuckoo and engaged in harm to his own reputation by acting cruel towards others. Among Russia’s allies, I imagine some are “Changing the locks at home”, so to speak- because of Russian performance in Ukraine.
On Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk; politicized perspectives on both the left and right lock people into rigid “opposition to political enemy at home” mindset. If you asked many “off-camera”, and independent of any political consequence at home, you would encounter greater honesty, and empathy for Ukraine.
Claire- thank you for attention to Russia-Ukraine war.
Don't you think that both Musk and Carlson are themselves polarizing factors? Anytime Musk tweets a comment or Tucker does his "quizzical Preppie face" thing, the discussion veers away from the subject at hand and becomes a referendum on the individual.
As Claire and others pointed out very early in the conflict, Russia is running a similar playbook to the one they used in Chechnya and Syria - do whatever it takes to gain an advantage. Their willingness to break every convention and rule of civilised conduct makes them, in Putin's view, superior.
I see that some strategic commentators are suggesting that Putin is now moving to a mode of maximum destruction - achieve "victory" by deliberately making Ukraine untenable as a functioning state and creating a massive disaster area that causes long term problems for western europe and their Ukraine-adjacent allies. There's some logic to that, and if it's true then the west has to find a way of reacting that will change the perspective of Putin and other key Russians.
Otherwise, as Claire says, this is going to escalate further, and if nuclear weapons seem like a useful option, then Russia will use them.
However, I don't think we should fixate on just the nukes - there are other dams under Russian control, and other ways to cause further environmental disasters for Ukraine.
Your comment, WigWag, is nonsensical, ill-informed and in terrible taste. Claire has just taken the trouble to quote descriptions of the terrible, widespread and long-lasting destruction that Russia has brought upon helpless civilian populations and vital infrastructure. How can you trivialize this atrocity as some sort of petty policy spat between sleazy politicians? No, make that.,“How dare you?”
I’m sorry you didn’t like my remarks, R Hodson but you’re conflating a comment section with an amen corner. I’ll give you a short version and a longer version of my view of all this. That’s what a comment section is for, isn’t it? I apologize in advance if any of these opinions cause you to feel unsettled.
What I wrote is true; Putin is a monster. To use your words, Biden, American neoconservative politicians in both political parties and the leaders of most NATO nations are “sleazy” at best and repugnant at worst. Instead of attempting to deter Putin they instigated him. They were motivated by pure politics. They were desperate to show that after Trump, NATO and the U.S. led international order were back. The best way for them to do this was to antagonize as much as possible their old Cold War adversary; the Russians. But the politics don’t end there. The Ukrainians need to win this war quickly: I hope they do. If the American public sours on the costs of the war (it’s already happening) as the elections approach, Biden will drop Ukraine like a hot potato. He has no moral center; he’s a disgrace. If you don’t believe me, ask the Afghan women now cowering in their homes thanks to the Taliban.
Trigger warning R Hodson; here’s the longer version. Read on only if you have the stomach for it.
The bombing of the dam was a horrific act that can’t be justified by whatever strategic advantage it might have provided to the perpetrator, whoever that was. It’s hard to think of any act as despicable as this in Europe since the Second World War. Putin increasingly looks like he’s joining the ranks of Hitler, Stalin and Mao as one of history’s great monsters. But Joe Biden and America’s NATO allies played a terrible role as instigators of this whole disaster.
Biden and the rest of the globalist crowd knew Putin was itching for a fight with Ukraine. They knew that Putin (and many Russian leaders) were humiliated and incensed by the loss of the Soviet Empire and especially by the expansion of NATO right up to the Russian border. They knew that the long Russian history in Ukraine gave many Russians the impression that Ukraine was not a real country at all but merely a province of Russia. They knew that Russia itself had been invaded through Ukraine and they knew that for more than a century the naval port in Crimea was one of the single most important priorities of the Russian military. They knew that a substantial number of Russian speaking citizens in Ukraine’s east were more loyal to Russia than to their own Government in Kyiv. Most importantly, they knew that Putin had revanchist fantasies that made him particularly dangerous and deluded.
In spite of all this, instead of trying to deescalate tensions, Biden deliberately goaded Putin. Perhaps one reason he did this was his family’s financial interests in Ukraine (there’s been quite a bit of discussion about the interests of the Biden Crime Family) but at this point that’s merely speculation. What’s not speculation is that Biden, most of Europe’s leaders, Atlanticist imbeciles and the neoconservatives in the American Uniparty were desperate to show that after Trump, America was back, NATO was back and their beloved American-led international order was back. Appeasing Russia would have been wrong, but deliberately antagonizing Russia was equally wrong and it was stupid. Yet that’s what the Biden Administration did. The American President demanded that Putin be overthrown; the Secretary of State admitted that a major American goal was weakening the Russian military and the venal grand dame of neoconservative arrogance, Victoria Nuland, was interfering in Ukrainian affairs since the Obama years.
It all failed spectacularly. We will never know if Russia would have invaded anyway but we do know that Russia only invaded Ukraine when Obama and Biden were in office but never when Trump was in office.
How spectacular was the failure? Ukraine lays in ruins and much of it is now under water. Ukraine’s best and brightest have left, perhaps never to return. Once the carnage ends, the only nation with the ambition and more importantly, the funds, to rebuild Ukraine will be the China. American defense capabilities and weapon stockpiles have been denuded. China and Russia are closer than ever. The United States is weaker and more divided than it’s been in generations. The flight from the U.S. dollar has begun and it’s unclear if it will ever be reversed. China is now ascendant in the Middle East and while American diplomats once promised to make Saudi Arabia a pariah nation, they are now flocking to Saudi Arabia to genuflect on bended knee to MBS. India, Brazil, South Africa, and many other nations now know they can ignore American requests with impunity. All of this is the legacy of the West’s failure to deter the Russian invasion.
The record of globalist failure that started at the end of the Cold War has been capped off by the tragedy of Ukraine.
None of this absolves Putin or the Russians but the complicity of the West should not be ignored.
It is increasingly impossible to contemplate an end game in a Ukraine that is not disastrous. What’s an open question is how much longer Americans will allow neocons to continue to bleed the United States to death.
Your analysis is pointless because you don’t mention the EU once. The real provocation to Putin for the past 20 years has been the amazing success the EU has had pulling former Russian satellites into the West. Putin won’t allow Ukraine to become another Poland or Bulgaria. The Neocons have very little to do with any of this.
Well you’re right; I didn’t mention the EU even once, but I don’t think that makes my argument pointless. In fact, I agree with you in part. Putin was appalled at the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU. But what horrified him was the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. In the run-up to the War, the Biden Administration refused to take NATO membership for Ukraine off the table. That’s because sticking it to Russia was more important to them then preventing an invasion that they actually yearned for.
The Biden Administration took a page out of the book of Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski who armed the Afghan Mujahadeen in the hopes of enticing the Soviets to invade Afghanistan and end up with “their Viet Nam.” Those are his precise words not mine.
Of course, thanks to the American Uniparty, specifically Presidents Bush (the second) and Obama, the United States ended up with our own “Viet Nam, the sequel” including scenes of desperate people clinging to American aircraft while trying to escape. Afghans ended up with a destroyed and desperate nation all thanks to the same globalist mob that is now working it’s wonders in Ukraine.
The EU itself is seriously unwell. If you don’t believe me, just ask the Dutch Farmers. Or you can ask the Poles or the Hungarians. No nation has done more to help fleeing Ukrainians than Poland. What the Poles have done is nothing short of extraordinary. They’ve been wonderfully generous. How does the EU plan to pay them back? Well, just this week, the EU threatened to sanction Poland to the tune of several hundred million Euros because a cadre of arrogant EU legal eagle elites don’t like Poland’s method of selecting judges. What especially incenses EU elites is the refusal of Poles to subordinate their judicial branch to the ridiculous judges who reign supreme in Luxembourg. The EU doesn’t think much of Hungary’s judicial selection either.
The sclerotic EU is becoming less relevant every day. If Putin had any brains in his demented head, he would demand that Ukraine be admitted to the EU. The EU would finish the job for him. Instead of destroying Ukraine militarily, EU bureaucrats would simply hector Ukraine to death.
Thank you. Your detailed response and apology for my unsettlement deserve more careful consideration than I am able to offer at this time.
My apologies if I came across as a grumpy old git. I was rather shocked at the offhand tone you took in response to the horrible events described in Claire’s post. I have been a reader for over a year now, and have noticed that at times you have made wry (or even cynical?) comments. I did not feel such a tone was warranted after reading the terrible situation described in “The Flood”.
It is not my intention to turn this thread into a (no doubt tiresome) back-and-forth recitation of our differing points of view, but I do wish to understand, amongst other things, why you consider President Biden to be a “neocon”, a term which I would assume applies most accurately to Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, et al., authors of the 2nd Iraq war debacle.
I will re-read your email when I have the time to give your points my full attention.
I used the term “neoconservative” for Biden as shorthand. Biden and virtually every member of his foreign policy apparatus are more correctly called “liberal internationalists.” In reality there’s not much difference between the two. Both are Wilsonian in their orientation and both obsess about Democracy promotion. Perhaps liberal internationalists are modestly more partial to foreign aid while neoconservatives are a bit more partial to military aid. But liberal internationalists and neoconservatives are kissing cousins who view the world through a similar lens. In the United States they have dominated both political parties since the end of the Cold War. One of the growing cleavages in the GOP is the fissure that’s opened up between neoconservatives and what are now referred to as NatCons (national conservatives).
Many years ago, the American historian, Walter Russell Mead introduced a new nomenclature that more accurately describes the four schools of American foreign policy thought. You can find out about it here,
With such destruction, what need for nuclear weapons?
It remains true that a conflict between nuclear powers would be beyond foolish. So how should NATO react?
The New York Times has weighed in: "A deliberate explosion inside the Kakhovka dam, on the front line of the war in Ukraine, most likely caused its collapse on Tuesday, according to engineering and munitions experts, who said that structural failure or an attack from outside the dam were possible but less plausible explanations." – https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/world/europe/ukraine-kakhovka-dam-russia.html (paywall)
Backing away from the cliff edge of war is a good move, until you find your back is against a wall. That's never a good place from which to negotiate. A state that has opted for war reached a point at which the perceived cost of compromising its ambition became greater than its believed cost of armed conflict.
You keep on bringing up negociation - at this point that is really no longer an option. Once hostilities are started it's better to engage ferociously and defeat your enemy than hope he wont just kill you for the fun of it.
Hi Kirk. I just posted a comment which didn't connect in time. And please note that I am not advocating a negotiation between NATO and Russia. Any negotiation at this point must be between the two principals, Russia and Ukraine. Diplomacy, sanctions, maybe a bit of Spy vs. Spy and more Russian stuff mysteriously blowing up, but diplomacy isn't necessarily just negotiating, though that could well be part of the endgame.
Replying to my own comment...I meant to add, in case I didn't stress this before; just as armies to keep men and materiel in reserves, and not throw everything they have in the initial attack, "amping up to 11" a la Spinal Tap by umping into war with Russia on June 10th 2023 would not be a judicious use of resources. None of the NATO countries has the men or munitions needed to make that work at this point, so the whole issue is merely theoretical.
"jumping" not "umping" - umps have nothing to do with it - the problem is my typing skill deficiencies and dislike of editing.
I'd favor destroying Russia's Black Sea fleet. Failing that, give Ukraine every and any weapon they need. Now.
With hindsight, it is becoming clear that had the US and NATO allowed shipments of more, and more advanced, tanks. HiMARS, fighter jets, etc. pre-conflict or even earlier after the invasion, Ukraine might be in a better position now. That is now "water under the bridge", to use an extremely inapt turn of phrase. The question is, what can we give them that they can actually use in the short term, given the need for training crews to use them effectively and the long logistics train needed to support advanced weaponry (apart from manufacturing and delivery, providing on-going resupply, spares & repairs). What opportunities exist beyond the current sanctions and trade restrictions for cutting off the flow of needed materiel to Russia? Could Russian imports of Iranian drones and missiles be interdicted by some form of sabotage, for example?
I'm done. It's time for NATO to declare WAR on Russian and end this atrocity. This is equal, if not worse, than a tactical nuke.
I disagree. NATO should not unilaterally declare war on Russia; for one thing, Russia has not declared war on NATO. That said, we know that Russia views NATO as an antagonist on the side of Ukraine, and has used aggressive measures against NATO countries (cyber warfare, etc. etc.), and of course generates enormous propaganda to say how badly treated the Russian Federation has been treated by NATO, etc. But a declaration of War by NATO -- which would, in essence, be a declaration of war by the United States et alia -- will create more destruction of lives and the environment, and could well escalate into a nuclear exchange. As we know, it only takes one nuclear bomb to ruin your day (and change the definition of war for evermore, incidentally). Short of a declaration of war, there are other means available. If it ever comes to a point where direct action against Russia is required of NATO, I would opt for a partial blockade of Russian oil shipments (i.e. those by tanker - not much one can do about pipelines other than blow them up, a la Nord Stream), which can certainly be construed as an "act of war" but which is an action short of war, aimed at bringing an antagonist to the bargaining table rather than causing maximum damage to military and civilian assets and personnel.
Sorry, that is appeasement, and it doesn't work - see WW2 as an example. The "civilized" world had no qualms about forming a coalition to kick Iraq out of Kuwait - so just because they didn't have nukes (but were suspected of chem WMDs) we should have left Saddam alone? Russia will only use nukes if it feels it's existence as a nation is militarily threatened. So NATO declares war, with the goal of ejecting Russian and it allies from all the recognized lands of Ukraine, but explicitly states that it will not put a boot into Russian territory unless nukes are used - while retaining the right to engage with conventional weapons any Russian weapon system in Russia that poses an active threat to NATO or Ukraine; with the obvious caveat that if the Russian forces promptly leave Ukraine it will not be engaged or hotly persued. Russia will not commit suicide.
Snyder’s point that advancing armies in history don’t blow up dams right in front of themselves, has to be the most commonsense argument as to why Ukraine didn’t do it, even if one knew none of the other info about Russia’s plans to blow it up. Every news outlet should lead with that. I would like to see what theoretical gymnastics Tucker Carlson would resort to, to counter it. So so stupid and so incredibly insulting
Yuk. The Russian destruction (on steroids) of Ukraine suggests to me that Russians are losing the war. How does that effect Russian psyche? I ask because I do not want Russia to become even more cuckoo. Years ago, a friend went cuckoo and engaged in harm to his own reputation by acting cruel towards others. Among Russia’s allies, I imagine some are “Changing the locks at home”, so to speak- because of Russian performance in Ukraine.
On Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk; politicized perspectives on both the left and right lock people into rigid “opposition to political enemy at home” mindset. If you asked many “off-camera”, and independent of any political consequence at home, you would encounter greater honesty, and empathy for Ukraine.
Claire- thank you for attention to Russia-Ukraine war.
Don't you think that both Musk and Carlson are themselves polarizing factors? Anytime Musk tweets a comment or Tucker does his "quizzical Preppie face" thing, the discussion veers away from the subject at hand and becomes a referendum on the individual.
The Russians have just committed a major escalation in this war.
Will the West react aggressively, as it should, or passively stay the course? I hope it is the former.
The only acceptable way for this war to end is with Ukraine in full control of all its territory, including Crimea and the Eastern provinces.
As Claire and others pointed out very early in the conflict, Russia is running a similar playbook to the one they used in Chechnya and Syria - do whatever it takes to gain an advantage. Their willingness to break every convention and rule of civilised conduct makes them, in Putin's view, superior.
I see that some strategic commentators are suggesting that Putin is now moving to a mode of maximum destruction - achieve "victory" by deliberately making Ukraine untenable as a functioning state and creating a massive disaster area that causes long term problems for western europe and their Ukraine-adjacent allies. There's some logic to that, and if it's true then the west has to find a way of reacting that will change the perspective of Putin and other key Russians.
Otherwise, as Claire says, this is going to escalate further, and if nuclear weapons seem like a useful option, then Russia will use them.
However, I don't think we should fixate on just the nukes - there are other dams under Russian control, and other ways to cause further environmental disasters for Ukraine.
Here’s what we can conclude; Putin is a monster and Joe Biden and his neoconservative allies in America’s Uniparty got the war that they yearned for.
How’s the weather on Earth 2?
Warm but smoky, Erik. What about on your planet?
Wetter than it should be ... especially in some places.
Your comment, WigWag, is nonsensical, ill-informed and in terrible taste. Claire has just taken the trouble to quote descriptions of the terrible, widespread and long-lasting destruction that Russia has brought upon helpless civilian populations and vital infrastructure. How can you trivialize this atrocity as some sort of petty policy spat between sleazy politicians? No, make that.,“How dare you?”
I’m sorry you didn’t like my remarks, R Hodson but you’re conflating a comment section with an amen corner. I’ll give you a short version and a longer version of my view of all this. That’s what a comment section is for, isn’t it? I apologize in advance if any of these opinions cause you to feel unsettled.
What I wrote is true; Putin is a monster. To use your words, Biden, American neoconservative politicians in both political parties and the leaders of most NATO nations are “sleazy” at best and repugnant at worst. Instead of attempting to deter Putin they instigated him. They were motivated by pure politics. They were desperate to show that after Trump, NATO and the U.S. led international order were back. The best way for them to do this was to antagonize as much as possible their old Cold War adversary; the Russians. But the politics don’t end there. The Ukrainians need to win this war quickly: I hope they do. If the American public sours on the costs of the war (it’s already happening) as the elections approach, Biden will drop Ukraine like a hot potato. He has no moral center; he’s a disgrace. If you don’t believe me, ask the Afghan women now cowering in their homes thanks to the Taliban.
Trigger warning R Hodson; here’s the longer version. Read on only if you have the stomach for it.
The bombing of the dam was a horrific act that can’t be justified by whatever strategic advantage it might have provided to the perpetrator, whoever that was. It’s hard to think of any act as despicable as this in Europe since the Second World War. Putin increasingly looks like he’s joining the ranks of Hitler, Stalin and Mao as one of history’s great monsters. But Joe Biden and America’s NATO allies played a terrible role as instigators of this whole disaster.
Biden and the rest of the globalist crowd knew Putin was itching for a fight with Ukraine. They knew that Putin (and many Russian leaders) were humiliated and incensed by the loss of the Soviet Empire and especially by the expansion of NATO right up to the Russian border. They knew that the long Russian history in Ukraine gave many Russians the impression that Ukraine was not a real country at all but merely a province of Russia. They knew that Russia itself had been invaded through Ukraine and they knew that for more than a century the naval port in Crimea was one of the single most important priorities of the Russian military. They knew that a substantial number of Russian speaking citizens in Ukraine’s east were more loyal to Russia than to their own Government in Kyiv. Most importantly, they knew that Putin had revanchist fantasies that made him particularly dangerous and deluded.
In spite of all this, instead of trying to deescalate tensions, Biden deliberately goaded Putin. Perhaps one reason he did this was his family’s financial interests in Ukraine (there’s been quite a bit of discussion about the interests of the Biden Crime Family) but at this point that’s merely speculation. What’s not speculation is that Biden, most of Europe’s leaders, Atlanticist imbeciles and the neoconservatives in the American Uniparty were desperate to show that after Trump, America was back, NATO was back and their beloved American-led international order was back. Appeasing Russia would have been wrong, but deliberately antagonizing Russia was equally wrong and it was stupid. Yet that’s what the Biden Administration did. The American President demanded that Putin be overthrown; the Secretary of State admitted that a major American goal was weakening the Russian military and the venal grand dame of neoconservative arrogance, Victoria Nuland, was interfering in Ukrainian affairs since the Obama years.
It all failed spectacularly. We will never know if Russia would have invaded anyway but we do know that Russia only invaded Ukraine when Obama and Biden were in office but never when Trump was in office.
How spectacular was the failure? Ukraine lays in ruins and much of it is now under water. Ukraine’s best and brightest have left, perhaps never to return. Once the carnage ends, the only nation with the ambition and more importantly, the funds, to rebuild Ukraine will be the China. American defense capabilities and weapon stockpiles have been denuded. China and Russia are closer than ever. The United States is weaker and more divided than it’s been in generations. The flight from the U.S. dollar has begun and it’s unclear if it will ever be reversed. China is now ascendant in the Middle East and while American diplomats once promised to make Saudi Arabia a pariah nation, they are now flocking to Saudi Arabia to genuflect on bended knee to MBS. India, Brazil, South Africa, and many other nations now know they can ignore American requests with impunity. All of this is the legacy of the West’s failure to deter the Russian invasion.
The record of globalist failure that started at the end of the Cold War has been capped off by the tragedy of Ukraine.
None of this absolves Putin or the Russians but the complicity of the West should not be ignored.
It is increasingly impossible to contemplate an end game in a Ukraine that is not disastrous. What’s an open question is how much longer Americans will allow neocons to continue to bleed the United States to death.
Your analysis is pointless because you don’t mention the EU once. The real provocation to Putin for the past 20 years has been the amazing success the EU has had pulling former Russian satellites into the West. Putin won’t allow Ukraine to become another Poland or Bulgaria. The Neocons have very little to do with any of this.
Well you’re right; I didn’t mention the EU even once, but I don’t think that makes my argument pointless. In fact, I agree with you in part. Putin was appalled at the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU. But what horrified him was the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. In the run-up to the War, the Biden Administration refused to take NATO membership for Ukraine off the table. That’s because sticking it to Russia was more important to them then preventing an invasion that they actually yearned for.
The Biden Administration took a page out of the book of Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski who armed the Afghan Mujahadeen in the hopes of enticing the Soviets to invade Afghanistan and end up with “their Viet Nam.” Those are his precise words not mine.
Of course, thanks to the American Uniparty, specifically Presidents Bush (the second) and Obama, the United States ended up with our own “Viet Nam, the sequel” including scenes of desperate people clinging to American aircraft while trying to escape. Afghans ended up with a destroyed and desperate nation all thanks to the same globalist mob that is now working it’s wonders in Ukraine.
The EU itself is seriously unwell. If you don’t believe me, just ask the Dutch Farmers. Or you can ask the Poles or the Hungarians. No nation has done more to help fleeing Ukrainians than Poland. What the Poles have done is nothing short of extraordinary. They’ve been wonderfully generous. How does the EU plan to pay them back? Well, just this week, the EU threatened to sanction Poland to the tune of several hundred million Euros because a cadre of arrogant EU legal eagle elites don’t like Poland’s method of selecting judges. What especially incenses EU elites is the refusal of Poles to subordinate their judicial branch to the ridiculous judges who reign supreme in Luxembourg. The EU doesn’t think much of Hungary’s judicial selection either.
The sclerotic EU is becoming less relevant every day. If Putin had any brains in his demented head, he would demand that Ukraine be admitted to the EU. The EU would finish the job for him. Instead of destroying Ukraine militarily, EU bureaucrats would simply hector Ukraine to death.
Dear WigWag —
Thank you. Your detailed response and apology for my unsettlement deserve more careful consideration than I am able to offer at this time.
My apologies if I came across as a grumpy old git. I was rather shocked at the offhand tone you took in response to the horrible events described in Claire’s post. I have been a reader for over a year now, and have noticed that at times you have made wry (or even cynical?) comments. I did not feel such a tone was warranted after reading the terrible situation described in “The Flood”.
It is not my intention to turn this thread into a (no doubt tiresome) back-and-forth recitation of our differing points of view, but I do wish to understand, amongst other things, why you consider President Biden to be a “neocon”, a term which I would assume applies most accurately to Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, et al., authors of the 2nd Iraq war debacle.
I will re-read your email when I have the time to give your points my full attention.
He uses “neocon” because it’s more socially acceptable than saying “the Joos.”
I used the term “neoconservative” for Biden as shorthand. Biden and virtually every member of his foreign policy apparatus are more correctly called “liberal internationalists.” In reality there’s not much difference between the two. Both are Wilsonian in their orientation and both obsess about Democracy promotion. Perhaps liberal internationalists are modestly more partial to foreign aid while neoconservatives are a bit more partial to military aid. But liberal internationalists and neoconservatives are kissing cousins who view the world through a similar lens. In the United States they have dominated both political parties since the end of the Cold War. One of the growing cleavages in the GOP is the fissure that’s opened up between neoconservatives and what are now referred to as NatCons (national conservatives).
Many years ago, the American historian, Walter Russell Mead introduced a new nomenclature that more accurately describes the four schools of American foreign policy thought. You can find out about it here,
https://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/the-four-schoolmasters-1181
"The destruction of the dam was, among other things, a way for Putin to test how the West would react to the detonation of a nuclear weapon."
And this is the key.
If Putin can use a weapon of mass destruction like the dam with no consequences, he has conditioned us for the next escalation.
Better said, Putin apologists in the west have conditioned us.
Many Americans are like Neville Chamberlain, expressing distaste for "a quarrel in a faraway land between people of which we know nothing."
Well, we know where ignorance leads.
Well said.