Let’s apply Occam’s Razor to the question: What does the Biden Administration think it’s doing about Ukraine? Answer: No one’s in charge. Biden himself is patently incapable of exercising leadership, and the presidency is so structured that no one can take his place. So the various factions within the administration, doves and hawks, are fighting it out, and Biden’s bloviations represent the views of the last person he talked to.
On the substance of the issue: Unless Ukraine enters NATO after this war ends, another war is inevitable. Only a united front based on the principle of collective security can hold Russia in check.
Well, that's all rather depressing. We're so far down the Tory batting order now that I'm prepared to believe that anything a British minister says is likely a result of personal and collective government inadequacy, but there's obviously more going on that. Claire's suggestions seem plausible, and I guess it's likely that messages from all sides were crafted with an eye on domestic consumption, but public signs of disunity are not good. Russia needs to see implacable and collective opposition.
"But are Ukrainians not allowed to have a preference? A strong one? Must we belittle them for being insufficiently grateful if this preference doesn’t accord with that of the White House?"
This line captures exactly how morally repulsive those lectures on gratitude were. Colossal the detachment and entitlement. By the way Jake Sullivan is the most despicable member of the Biden Administration besides Biden himself. That guy is so enamored of himself, the architect of Biden's "foreign policy for the middle class,"-- whatever in God's name foreign policy has ANYTHING to do with socioeconomic status and middle class incomes, and his strategy for "derisking" trade with China as a pretext to employ the white working class, patronizing them with free jobs and money like guinea pigs, to build chipfabs and Ev's. If he is one, I can almost understand why people are so mad at "elites."
From the reporting I've seen after publishing this, either the Biden White House is intolerably thin-skinned or something much more serious was happening behind the scenes. The Washington Post reports that the administration was "furious" about the tweet and considered taking even the minimal language about Ukraine's future membership out of the communiqué. Either they're eggshell-fragile, emotionally, or this was about something more than meets the eye.
Yeah I just restacked your post and offered my own speculation that, which as you suggested a little near the end, it's about Biden's clout with the electorate, if not Escalation (and I'm sure it's that too). Biden will do just about anything for votes. That's probably why he rolled out the red carpet for Modi the other week, which I thought was extremely distasteful; that Modi of all people is now one of only two or three people, including Churchill, to address a joint session of congress twice is just horrendous. America has a big Indian diaspora, and Biden wants their vote. See he also remains determined to cancel student debt, which originated as a base pander to the Gen Z vote before the midterms, even after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. He's a highly calculating politician, which no one should let his senility deceive one otherwise. Damn it if he knows nothing about how to govern and lead a nation, evidenced by all his gaffes and confusion, his mind is very clear, and he's perfectly lucid when it comes to recognizing and exploiting opportunities to get votes. Like you were saying on your first podcast with Mr Davidzson, no one leads anymore. They let the caged-animal willfulness of the rabble pull them hither and thither, and they let that inform or even create their policies for them. I think it's because of the culture that social media has shaped and institutionalized. No one can lead, because people are so empowered by their ability to be vocal that they're basically radicalized to oppose authority from a behavioral standpoint, so a Margaret Thatcher for example can never lead or have any power nowadays, to the extent that leading involves telling people what to do. You can almost see this playing out between Zelensky and the Biden Administration at Vilnius. Zelensky gets justifiably irate, then the populist administration scolds him and says, hey how dare you talk down to us! Not even bothering to consider the merits of Zelensky's complaint, sidestepping right around it, or forgetting about it, just to scold the guy.
WigWag is (pardon the expression) dead on. Where are the preparations for Ukraine losing? Russia absolutely cannot be defeated in the way Japan and Germany were in 1945: accept unconditional surrender on pain of annihilation by the victors. There is no conceivable scenario under which Russia can be brought to that point or even remotely close to it. Ukraine might regain its territories (not a given) and destroy Russia's armed forces (not likely), but even those would not constitute anything like a defeat for Russia. So Ukraine will not win no matter what, and indeed may very well eventually fall to Putin's armies. What is the plan for that?
Well, if Ukraine regains all or most of its territory while smashing
the Russian armed forces, that would be a signal defeat for Russia. In fact, Russia has already suffered a major defeat, in the sense that V. Putin’s original plan misfired badly. One can hardly argue that Russia has scored any great victories thus far.
NATO was created for exactly one purpose and had exactly one job: stop Russia's (then branded as "the USSR") aggression. It has failed to stop Russia's aggression. Ukraine has successfully stopped Russian invasion and is now pushing it back. So maybe it is NATO who should apply to join Ukraine's military initiative.
Why can't Ukraine, the most powerful military in Europe by far, form its own coalition? Poland, Estonia, and others would absolutely jump at something like that. Perhaps the U.S. could be invited to join later too -- once it had met the necessary conditions.
Some back-in-the-day British politician—I forget who—said that the purpose of NATO was to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out.
Ref: "a subversive, seditious bomb like Trump..." Don't hold it in Claire, let it all hang out, tell us what you really think! Also —if minimally OT here— did anybody here actually find illuminating that NATO blog offshoot interminably going on about electric main battle tanks, blah blah?
Jul 14, 2023·edited Jul 14, 2023Liked by Claire Berlinski
I’m confused why NATO couldn’t provide a conditional accession plan. They could offer to begin the accession and even admit Ukraine so long as Ukraine didn’t invoke Article 5 for this particular war. Seems like an easy win-win.
BTW, do I get a prize for seeing rightwing media types lighting their hair on fire about WWIII starting because DoD’s calling specialist reservists back to the flag for ordinary, run-of-the-mill, annual NATO maneuvers? #WhatWouldAbleArcherDo?
A comprehensive, informative and beautifully written review of the public session. There are more questions than answers but how could it be otherwise? Claire’s conjectures about what happened behind the scenes seem very thoughtful.
But the real elephant in the room went unmentioned; what happens if Ukraine is defeated. So far, the much-touted offensive is a slog at best and has bogged down at worst. There’s some evidence that Russia has mounted a counter-offensive in spots with some success.
Western tanks, which were supposed to turn the tide on the battle field, haven’t turned the tide and to anyone who’s reasonably objective, American provision of cluster munitions is an act of desperation. Biden himself admitted that he’s doing it because Ukraine’s allies are running out of ammunition to provide.
August is approaching. That gives the Ukrainians no more than 100 days to make real progress before the weather turns and things become difficult or impossible due to weather.
Truth be told, at this point it is at least as likely that Ukraine is defeated as it is that it emerges victorious, at least if victory is defined as Ukraine re-conquering all of its territory.
While I think Biden is a co-conspirator with Putin in instigating the war, it’s critical that Ukraine and it’s NATO allies prevail. A Russian victory, after the American defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention Korea and Viet Nam) could very well spell the end of the United States as a great power in much the same way that Great Britain’s dominance was crushed by World War II. The world simply won’t be a better place with the United States humbled while China becomes a colossus.
I didn’t listen to the public sessions at NATO because those sessions occurred at the same time as the House Hearings on the COVID pandemic. Specifically the star witnesses were Drs. Anderson and Gary, the two main authors on the Proximal Origin article in Nature that insisted a lab leak could not be the proximate cause of the pandemic. Based on Claire’s essay, the COVID hearing and the NATO public sessions had something in common. They both were populated by blow-hards more interested in covering their backsides than in facing reality.
I was sorry to see Claire rely on reporting by Timothy Garton-Ash. He’s a famous journalist but he’s an awful person. Back in 2010, with his colleague, Ian Buruma, he championed Islamic extremism in Europe and he made light of the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch artist by a Islamic radical. It was reminiscent of the recent attempted murder of Salman Rushdie, except that sadly it succeeded. The assassination seemed to hardly trouble Garton-Ash at all.
To top it off, Garton-Ash and his fellow travelers proceeded to blame Ayan Hirsi Ali and her exposure of the tenets of radical Islam as an inspiration for extremism in Europe. Surely there is someone with a greater sense of decency who’s commentary Claire could have cited.
Van Gogh had produced a film entitled “Submission” about Islamic extremism in Europe. His assassin stabbed Van Gogh and pinned a note on his dead body promising that his collaborator, Hirsi-Ali was next.
Garton-Ash and Burima famously responded to Hirsi-Ali’s activism against Islamic extremism by labeling her as an “enlightenment fundamentalist.” Their implication was clear; in their view the fundamentalism practiced by radical Islamists and Hirsi-Ali’s “enlightenment fundamentalism” were comparable.
It was an argument devoid of decency. That’s Garton-Ash.
How would you account for the fact that the supposedly fourth most corrupt country in the world has mounted such a spirited, indeed heroic, defense in the face of V. Putin’s aggression. It seems …counterintuitive.
One of the four most corrupt administrations on the planet, you say? Who's your source for that? I wonder if you should be placing your confidence in that source, seeing as he's suggesting Ukraine is more corrupt (depending who the top three are) than Haiti, Syria, South Sudan, Venezuela, Yeman, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, North Korea, Libya, Chad, Nicaragua, Comoros, Turkmenistan, CAR, Eritrea, Sudan, Congo, Iraq, Honduras, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Tajikistan, Guatamala, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Liberia, Cameroon, Mozambique, Paraguay, Gabon, Pakistan, Egypt, Bolivia, Angola, and--of course--Russia. And many more, of course. Does that sound about right to you? Even in the right time zone? I submit that it's risible. So wherever you read that .... I'd suggest treating that publication, from now on, as "entertainment," not news analysis.
Let’s apply Occam’s Razor to the question: What does the Biden Administration think it’s doing about Ukraine? Answer: No one’s in charge. Biden himself is patently incapable of exercising leadership, and the presidency is so structured that no one can take his place. So the various factions within the administration, doves and hawks, are fighting it out, and Biden’s bloviations represent the views of the last person he talked to.
On the substance of the issue: Unless Ukraine enters NATO after this war ends, another war is inevitable. Only a united front based on the principle of collective security can hold Russia in check.
Well, that's all rather depressing. We're so far down the Tory batting order now that I'm prepared to believe that anything a British minister says is likely a result of personal and collective government inadequacy, but there's obviously more going on that. Claire's suggestions seem plausible, and I guess it's likely that messages from all sides were crafted with an eye on domestic consumption, but public signs of disunity are not good. Russia needs to see implacable and collective opposition.
"But are Ukrainians not allowed to have a preference? A strong one? Must we belittle them for being insufficiently grateful if this preference doesn’t accord with that of the White House?"
This line captures exactly how morally repulsive those lectures on gratitude were. Colossal the detachment and entitlement. By the way Jake Sullivan is the most despicable member of the Biden Administration besides Biden himself. That guy is so enamored of himself, the architect of Biden's "foreign policy for the middle class,"-- whatever in God's name foreign policy has ANYTHING to do with socioeconomic status and middle class incomes, and his strategy for "derisking" trade with China as a pretext to employ the white working class, patronizing them with free jobs and money like guinea pigs, to build chipfabs and Ev's. If he is one, I can almost understand why people are so mad at "elites."
From the reporting I've seen after publishing this, either the Biden White House is intolerably thin-skinned or something much more serious was happening behind the scenes. The Washington Post reports that the administration was "furious" about the tweet and considered taking even the minimal language about Ukraine's future membership out of the communiqué. Either they're eggshell-fragile, emotionally, or this was about something more than meets the eye.
Yeah I just restacked your post and offered my own speculation that, which as you suggested a little near the end, it's about Biden's clout with the electorate, if not Escalation (and I'm sure it's that too). Biden will do just about anything for votes. That's probably why he rolled out the red carpet for Modi the other week, which I thought was extremely distasteful; that Modi of all people is now one of only two or three people, including Churchill, to address a joint session of congress twice is just horrendous. America has a big Indian diaspora, and Biden wants their vote. See he also remains determined to cancel student debt, which originated as a base pander to the Gen Z vote before the midterms, even after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. He's a highly calculating politician, which no one should let his senility deceive one otherwise. Damn it if he knows nothing about how to govern and lead a nation, evidenced by all his gaffes and confusion, his mind is very clear, and he's perfectly lucid when it comes to recognizing and exploiting opportunities to get votes. Like you were saying on your first podcast with Mr Davidzson, no one leads anymore. They let the caged-animal willfulness of the rabble pull them hither and thither, and they let that inform or even create their policies for them. I think it's because of the culture that social media has shaped and institutionalized. No one can lead, because people are so empowered by their ability to be vocal that they're basically radicalized to oppose authority from a behavioral standpoint, so a Margaret Thatcher for example can never lead or have any power nowadays, to the extent that leading involves telling people what to do. You can almost see this playing out between Zelensky and the Biden Administration at Vilnius. Zelensky gets justifiably irate, then the populist administration scolds him and says, hey how dare you talk down to us! Not even bothering to consider the merits of Zelensky's complaint, sidestepping right around it, or forgetting about it, just to scold the guy.
WigWag is (pardon the expression) dead on. Where are the preparations for Ukraine losing? Russia absolutely cannot be defeated in the way Japan and Germany were in 1945: accept unconditional surrender on pain of annihilation by the victors. There is no conceivable scenario under which Russia can be brought to that point or even remotely close to it. Ukraine might regain its territories (not a given) and destroy Russia's armed forces (not likely), but even those would not constitute anything like a defeat for Russia. So Ukraine will not win no matter what, and indeed may very well eventually fall to Putin's armies. What is the plan for that?
Well, if Ukraine regains all or most of its territory while smashing
the Russian armed forces, that would be a signal defeat for Russia. In fact, Russia has already suffered a major defeat, in the sense that V. Putin’s original plan misfired badly. One can hardly argue that Russia has scored any great victories thus far.
NATO was created for exactly one purpose and had exactly one job: stop Russia's (then branded as "the USSR") aggression. It has failed to stop Russia's aggression. Ukraine has successfully stopped Russian invasion and is now pushing it back. So maybe it is NATO who should apply to join Ukraine's military initiative.
Why can't Ukraine, the most powerful military in Europe by far, form its own coalition? Poland, Estonia, and others would absolutely jump at something like that. Perhaps the U.S. could be invited to join later too -- once it had met the necessary conditions.
Some back-in-the-day British politician—I forget who—said that the purpose of NATO was to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out.
Lord Ismay.
Ref: "a subversive, seditious bomb like Trump..." Don't hold it in Claire, let it all hang out, tell us what you really think! Also —if minimally OT here— did anybody here actually find illuminating that NATO blog offshoot interminably going on about electric main battle tanks, blah blah?
I’m confused why NATO couldn’t provide a conditional accession plan. They could offer to begin the accession and even admit Ukraine so long as Ukraine didn’t invoke Article 5 for this particular war. Seems like an easy win-win.
BTW, do I get a prize for seeing rightwing media types lighting their hair on fire about WWIII starting because DoD’s calling specialist reservists back to the flag for ordinary, run-of-the-mill, annual NATO maneuvers? #WhatWouldAbleArcherDo?
A comprehensive, informative and beautifully written review of the public session. There are more questions than answers but how could it be otherwise? Claire’s conjectures about what happened behind the scenes seem very thoughtful.
But the real elephant in the room went unmentioned; what happens if Ukraine is defeated. So far, the much-touted offensive is a slog at best and has bogged down at worst. There’s some evidence that Russia has mounted a counter-offensive in spots with some success.
Western tanks, which were supposed to turn the tide on the battle field, haven’t turned the tide and to anyone who’s reasonably objective, American provision of cluster munitions is an act of desperation. Biden himself admitted that he’s doing it because Ukraine’s allies are running out of ammunition to provide.
August is approaching. That gives the Ukrainians no more than 100 days to make real progress before the weather turns and things become difficult or impossible due to weather.
Truth be told, at this point it is at least as likely that Ukraine is defeated as it is that it emerges victorious, at least if victory is defined as Ukraine re-conquering all of its territory.
While I think Biden is a co-conspirator with Putin in instigating the war, it’s critical that Ukraine and it’s NATO allies prevail. A Russian victory, after the American defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention Korea and Viet Nam) could very well spell the end of the United States as a great power in much the same way that Great Britain’s dominance was crushed by World War II. The world simply won’t be a better place with the United States humbled while China becomes a colossus.
I didn’t listen to the public sessions at NATO because those sessions occurred at the same time as the House Hearings on the COVID pandemic. Specifically the star witnesses were Drs. Anderson and Gary, the two main authors on the Proximal Origin article in Nature that insisted a lab leak could not be the proximate cause of the pandemic. Based on Claire’s essay, the COVID hearing and the NATO public sessions had something in common. They both were populated by blow-hards more interested in covering their backsides than in facing reality.
I was sorry to see Claire rely on reporting by Timothy Garton-Ash. He’s a famous journalist but he’s an awful person. Back in 2010, with his colleague, Ian Buruma, he championed Islamic extremism in Europe and he made light of the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch artist by a Islamic radical. It was reminiscent of the recent attempted murder of Salman Rushdie, except that sadly it succeeded. The assassination seemed to hardly trouble Garton-Ash at all.
To top it off, Garton-Ash and his fellow travelers proceeded to blame Ayan Hirsi Ali and her exposure of the tenets of radical Islam as an inspiration for extremism in Europe. Surely there is someone with a greater sense of decency who’s commentary Claire could have cited.
For more on Garton-Ash see,
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/fellow-travelers
and
https://www.amazon.com/Flight-Intellectuals-Controversy-Islamism-Press/dp/1935554441
I knew I’d read that name somewhere!
Van Gogh had produced a film entitled “Submission” about Islamic extremism in Europe. His assassin stabbed Van Gogh and pinned a note on his dead body promising that his collaborator, Hirsi-Ali was next.
Garton-Ash and Burima famously responded to Hirsi-Ali’s activism against Islamic extremism by labeling her as an “enlightenment fundamentalist.” Their implication was clear; in their view the fundamentalism practiced by radical Islamists and Hirsi-Ali’s “enlightenment fundamentalism” were comparable.
It was an argument devoid of decency. That’s Garton-Ash.
Yep. I read Garton-Ash’s name in Berman’s book.
"...the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Thucydides
Our (many) billions buy us control of the issue.
And American politics is the driver of NATO indecision.
To paraphrase Churchill, we will eventually do what is right, after having tried everything else.
Hope that the Ukrainians can hold out.
Eventually, the Intermarium Alliance may come into its own; Western Europe is too distant from the Russian problem.
Where does it say, "fourth-most corrupt in the world?"
How would you account for the fact that the supposedly fourth most corrupt country in the world has mounted such a spirited, indeed heroic, defense in the face of V. Putin’s aggression. It seems …counterintuitive.
One of the four most corrupt administrations on the planet, you say? Who's your source for that? I wonder if you should be placing your confidence in that source, seeing as he's suggesting Ukraine is more corrupt (depending who the top three are) than Haiti, Syria, South Sudan, Venezuela, Yeman, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, North Korea, Libya, Chad, Nicaragua, Comoros, Turkmenistan, CAR, Eritrea, Sudan, Congo, Iraq, Honduras, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Tajikistan, Guatamala, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Liberia, Cameroon, Mozambique, Paraguay, Gabon, Pakistan, Egypt, Bolivia, Angola, and--of course--Russia. And many more, of course. Does that sound about right to you? Even in the right time zone? I submit that it's risible. So wherever you read that .... I'd suggest treating that publication, from now on, as "entertainment," not news analysis.