Things are moving fast—a hallmark of an authoritarian inspired, emotionalist leader seeking to endear his loyal base and exhaust the opposition—so I’m taking another break from my 3-part letter to the prez to revisit what a rational foreign policy looks like.
As you likely understand, Anders, we both share the ideals of individual responsibility and the individual moral/political "rights" logically demanded for its exercise. Having stated this, the context in which you base your opinions on the war in Ukraine and the exercise of U.S. diplomacy, I find to be contextually lacking.
NATO was created in 1949 because of the threat posed by the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” (USSR). It immediately manifested following the Allies victory over Germany in 1945. USSR military and governing authorities refused to leave Eastern Europe and the 1/4th of occupied Berlin they had taken, and returning to the USSR’s previous borders.
It subsequently then attempted to “starve-out” the other occupying powers of Berlin (France, England, U.S.), by blocking their access to Berlin. Led by the U.S., what followed became known as “The Berlin Airlift.” It demonstrated that the Soviet’s strategy to gain control of the entire city of Berlin was not going to succeed. The airlift, begun in April of 1948, lasted until September of 1949. Beginning in 1961, German authorities in East Berlin, with approval of the USSR, began erecting a wall guarded by sentries with orders to shoot anyone attempting to leave any Communist-occupied territory.
Concurrently, with what was going on in Germany, project “Verona,” begun by nascent U.S. Intelligence during WWII, was continually monitoring Russian nuclear activities. While no official record of a report of which I am aware, there is little doubt that the looming test of the USSR’s first nuclear bomb, tested on August 30, 1949, had entered into the motivation for the formal creation of NATO on April 4th, 1949. Its purpose was to pose an insurmountable threat to Soviet Socialist aggression by uniting a number of “Western” allies to provide deterrence from what was about to become a looming nuclear threat – not just another plain “vanilla” potential world war!
It initially contained 12 members States with two more added in 1953. The arms race between the Soviet Union and the “West” (in reality, the U.S.) was now gathering mutually-pledged “steam.”
Fast forward to December, 1991, when the USSR “dissolved.” Three of the USSR’s “Republics, Russia, Beloruse, and Ukraine, declared that the Soviet Union no longer existed. Eight more republics joined their declaration shortly thereafter. The “reason” for the creation of NATO no longer existed. Ukraine was induced to surrender its Nukes. What remained of “Russia” struggled with its new isolated “sovereignty.” In spite of this, not only did NATO not dissolve itself as well, but:
- In the late 1990s, NATO expanded to include former Eastern Bloc countries, with the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joining in 1999.
In 2004, seven more countries joined, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
- Montenegro joined in 2017, and North Macedonia became a member in 2020, bringing the total to 30 member countries.
While this was going on, Putin, who became the dictator in Russia while wearing various political monikers, repeatedly warned each American President from 2000 forward, that he would not allow Ukraine to join NATO. He continually received assurances from Clinton and after, that Ukraine joining NATO would NOT be pursued! Yet, mysteriously, politicians in Ukraine who were opposed to it becoming the 31st member State of NATO were eventually replaced by an elected leader who indicated he could see Ukraine as a new member of NATO.
With respect to “Ukraine sovereignty,” Russian involvement in the East of it, and what are Putin’s intentions, I have previously made my opinions and the underlying reasoning for them clear. There are plenty of sources for information on such things in the record. The “bottom-line” is the fact that we are antagonizing a nuclear-armed-to-the-teeth dictator who does not trust the West’s politicians any more than they (we) trust him! If ever a recipe for Armageddon, I cannot imagine a worse one save for the idea that it is “in our interest” to support a/the war in Ukraine!
My belief underlying my going to the trouble to cite what I have, is to challenge the idea that “we” have been on the side of “our interests” in Ukraine; that what has gone on in Europe since the reason for NATO’s existence no longer existed; that NATO – for now over 30 years has been generating the usual flows of money from those who have it to those who don’t; that after 1991, those receiving it no longer have reason for getting it; that “NATO” (meaning European politicians and some of us) finally precipitated a further reason for continued appeals/demands for continued flows of it, are the underlying and real reasons behind the frantic and continued cries of “Russia, Russia, Russia!”
Putin is a thug. He is not a fool, however. As Vance’s visit/reminder to the gathering of actual and potential thugs in Munich demonstrated, European leadership has become closer to the values we oppose than to those we once shared (we share in responsibility for such a development).
As I have said to several friends, “though containing halitosis, Trump, Vance, Rubio, and others – at least thus far in less than one month, are providing breaths of fresh air! Actual leadership is tough, inviting critics from all persuasions. It is so because engaging in leadership is fraught with pitfalls. It features the potential that criticism, often in abundance, is entirely valid. Conversely, applause the occasional exception.
As I mentioned in my article, I have been and still am ambivalent to U.S. involvement in Ukraine and applaud any initiative that require Europe to shoulder its own defense. As I also argue, I think NATO should be replaced with a defense alliance that is explicitly in the U.S.'s self-interest. However, I don't see how, in the current environment, appeasing Putin will benefit anyone, which appears to be the opening gambit of the current administration. It will only embolden him or his successor to continue Russian authoritarian expansionism, holding the world hostage with its threat of nuclear aggression. Where do you draw the line? When Russia demands a return of Alaska? Or perhaps the lower 48 are good enough for us?
Yes, I too am ambivalent, recognizing that the context demands it! I went to the trouble to pen my response to you in order to underscore why “ambivalence” is not just warranted but demanded!
In your response you state:
“As I also argue, I think NATO should be replaced with a defense alliance that is explicitly in the U.S.'s self-interest. However, I don't see how, in the current environment, appeasing Putin will benefit anyone, which appears to be the opening gambit of the current administration.”
Is not your first sentence confirmation of your (our!) abiding ambivalence? In the face of your second sentence, however, did not my lengthy response cause at least some reconsideration of your use of the word “appease,” resulting from
We can certainly agree that Putin is a thug. But do you not question the basis for his “thuggery” in Ukraine? You trust him no further than do I, but had not our State Department with its endless support for NATO expansion and Ukrainian politicians endorsing it - within the context of what Putin was continually promised that Ukraine would NOT be a NATO member, caused you to reconsider? Not reconsider that Putin is a dictator, and that if he could easily get away with “expansion” he would do so, but how is Putin different that any number of them throughout the world – except of course that he is nuclear armed with the means of delivering them!
Put yourself in Putin’s place as has, apparently, Trump or others within his spere of influence. Putin likely trusts no one representing the “West,” NATO, or America, except, perhaps Trump! Hell, I don’t even know that he trusts Trump. He is a thug, after all, and such a mentality sees everyone through his own eyes. I could “mind-numbingly” go on and on.
I view NATO, Europe, America, and the “players” on this stage, IN CONTEXT” – foreign and domestic. The same disgusting behaviors that have been practiced and now revealed as almost never-before, are at work globally as well as domestically. The important difference is that those “offshore” include the potential for death, destruction, AND thermonuclear exchange, though initially at least, not to “us.” It is entirely rational for me to believe that in spite of being a dictator, who may have some sort of “ambivalent” vision for restoring Russia to its “days of glory” – as those domestic and European academic, media, political, and Intelligence “interests” would lead us all to believe, he is – in the final analysis a Pragmatist. As such he repeatedly informed all who would listen – beginning almost immediately upon his rise to power following Yeltsin, including those of us “common folk” who are NOT part of those academics, media punditry, politicians, and the world’s “Intelligence services,” that he would not tolerate Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.
Putin is using Ukraine's NATO ambitions as an excuse; he would have started the war with or without them; he wants Ukraine because of Kyiv being the supposed ancestral home of the Russian empire, and the cradle of the Russian Orthodox Church. He needed no NATO threat to turn Belarus into a vassal state, to invade Georgia, to support Russian separatists in Moldova (Transnistria), and infiltrating regimes across the Middle East and Africa. I maintain that we have nothing to win by courting him and fueling his neurotic ambitions, nuclear threats not withstanding. Russia is a basket case, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see Putin's regime fall in a similarly surprising way we saw Assad's fall in Syria. Instead, it appears we're going to buy him time and allow him to rebuild Russia's economy and military power in preparation for the next assault.
As you likely understand, Anders, we both share the ideals of individual responsibility and the individual moral/political "rights" logically demanded for its exercise. Having stated this, the context in which you base your opinions on the war in Ukraine and the exercise of U.S. diplomacy, I find to be contextually lacking.
NATO was created in 1949 because of the threat posed by the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” (USSR). It immediately manifested following the Allies victory over Germany in 1945. USSR military and governing authorities refused to leave Eastern Europe and the 1/4th of occupied Berlin they had taken, and returning to the USSR’s previous borders.
It subsequently then attempted to “starve-out” the other occupying powers of Berlin (France, England, U.S.), by blocking their access to Berlin. Led by the U.S., what followed became known as “The Berlin Airlift.” It demonstrated that the Soviet’s strategy to gain control of the entire city of Berlin was not going to succeed. The airlift, begun in April of 1948, lasted until September of 1949. Beginning in 1961, German authorities in East Berlin, with approval of the USSR, began erecting a wall guarded by sentries with orders to shoot anyone attempting to leave any Communist-occupied territory.
Concurrently, with what was going on in Germany, project “Verona,” begun by nascent U.S. Intelligence during WWII, was continually monitoring Russian nuclear activities. While no official record of a report of which I am aware, there is little doubt that the looming test of the USSR’s first nuclear bomb, tested on August 30, 1949, had entered into the motivation for the formal creation of NATO on April 4th, 1949. Its purpose was to pose an insurmountable threat to Soviet Socialist aggression by uniting a number of “Western” allies to provide deterrence from what was about to become a looming nuclear threat – not just another plain “vanilla” potential world war!
It initially contained 12 members States with two more added in 1953. The arms race between the Soviet Union and the “West” (in reality, the U.S.) was now gathering mutually-pledged “steam.”
Fast forward to December, 1991, when the USSR “dissolved.” Three of the USSR’s “Republics, Russia, Beloruse, and Ukraine, declared that the Soviet Union no longer existed. Eight more republics joined their declaration shortly thereafter. The “reason” for the creation of NATO no longer existed. Ukraine was induced to surrender its Nukes. What remained of “Russia” struggled with its new isolated “sovereignty.” In spite of this, not only did NATO not dissolve itself as well, but:
- In the late 1990s, NATO expanded to include former Eastern Bloc countries, with the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joining in 1999.
In 2004, seven more countries joined, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
- Montenegro joined in 2017, and North Macedonia became a member in 2020, bringing the total to 30 member countries.
While this was going on, Putin, who became the dictator in Russia while wearing various political monikers, repeatedly warned each American President from 2000 forward, that he would not allow Ukraine to join NATO. He continually received assurances from Clinton and after, that Ukraine joining NATO would NOT be pursued! Yet, mysteriously, politicians in Ukraine who were opposed to it becoming the 31st member State of NATO were eventually replaced by an elected leader who indicated he could see Ukraine as a new member of NATO.
With respect to “Ukraine sovereignty,” Russian involvement in the East of it, and what are Putin’s intentions, I have previously made my opinions and the underlying reasoning for them clear. There are plenty of sources for information on such things in the record. The “bottom-line” is the fact that we are antagonizing a nuclear-armed-to-the-teeth dictator who does not trust the West’s politicians any more than they (we) trust him! If ever a recipe for Armageddon, I cannot imagine a worse one save for the idea that it is “in our interest” to support a/the war in Ukraine!
My belief underlying my going to the trouble to cite what I have, is to challenge the idea that “we” have been on the side of “our interests” in Ukraine; that what has gone on in Europe since the reason for NATO’s existence no longer existed; that NATO – for now over 30 years has been generating the usual flows of money from those who have it to those who don’t; that after 1991, those receiving it no longer have reason for getting it; that “NATO” (meaning European politicians and some of us) finally precipitated a further reason for continued appeals/demands for continued flows of it, are the underlying and real reasons behind the frantic and continued cries of “Russia, Russia, Russia!”
Putin is a thug. He is not a fool, however. As Vance’s visit/reminder to the gathering of actual and potential thugs in Munich demonstrated, European leadership has become closer to the values we oppose than to those we once shared (we share in responsibility for such a development).
As I have said to several friends, “though containing halitosis, Trump, Vance, Rubio, and others – at least thus far in less than one month, are providing breaths of fresh air! Actual leadership is tough, inviting critics from all persuasions. It is so because engaging in leadership is fraught with pitfalls. It features the potential that criticism, often in abundance, is entirely valid. Conversely, applause the occasional exception.
Count me in the applause!
Dave,
As I mentioned in my article, I have been and still am ambivalent to U.S. involvement in Ukraine and applaud any initiative that require Europe to shoulder its own defense. As I also argue, I think NATO should be replaced with a defense alliance that is explicitly in the U.S.'s self-interest. However, I don't see how, in the current environment, appeasing Putin will benefit anyone, which appears to be the opening gambit of the current administration. It will only embolden him or his successor to continue Russian authoritarian expansionism, holding the world hostage with its threat of nuclear aggression. Where do you draw the line? When Russia demands a return of Alaska? Or perhaps the lower 48 are good enough for us?
Yes, I too am ambivalent, recognizing that the context demands it! I went to the trouble to pen my response to you in order to underscore why “ambivalence” is not just warranted but demanded!
In your response you state:
“As I also argue, I think NATO should be replaced with a defense alliance that is explicitly in the U.S.'s self-interest. However, I don't see how, in the current environment, appeasing Putin will benefit anyone, which appears to be the opening gambit of the current administration.”
Is not your first sentence confirmation of your (our!) abiding ambivalence? In the face of your second sentence, however, did not my lengthy response cause at least some reconsideration of your use of the word “appease,” resulting from
We can certainly agree that Putin is a thug. But do you not question the basis for his “thuggery” in Ukraine? You trust him no further than do I, but had not our State Department with its endless support for NATO expansion and Ukrainian politicians endorsing it - within the context of what Putin was continually promised that Ukraine would NOT be a NATO member, caused you to reconsider? Not reconsider that Putin is a dictator, and that if he could easily get away with “expansion” he would do so, but how is Putin different that any number of them throughout the world – except of course that he is nuclear armed with the means of delivering them!
Put yourself in Putin’s place as has, apparently, Trump or others within his spere of influence. Putin likely trusts no one representing the “West,” NATO, or America, except, perhaps Trump! Hell, I don’t even know that he trusts Trump. He is a thug, after all, and such a mentality sees everyone through his own eyes. I could “mind-numbingly” go on and on.
I view NATO, Europe, America, and the “players” on this stage, IN CONTEXT” – foreign and domestic. The same disgusting behaviors that have been practiced and now revealed as almost never-before, are at work globally as well as domestically. The important difference is that those “offshore” include the potential for death, destruction, AND thermonuclear exchange, though initially at least, not to “us.” It is entirely rational for me to believe that in spite of being a dictator, who may have some sort of “ambivalent” vision for restoring Russia to its “days of glory” – as those domestic and European academic, media, political, and Intelligence “interests” would lead us all to believe, he is – in the final analysis a Pragmatist. As such he repeatedly informed all who would listen – beginning almost immediately upon his rise to power following Yeltsin, including those of us “common folk” who are NOT part of those academics, media punditry, politicians, and the world’s “Intelligence services,” that he would not tolerate Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.
He has demonstrated he was serious.
Dave,
Putin is using Ukraine's NATO ambitions as an excuse; he would have started the war with or without them; he wants Ukraine because of Kyiv being the supposed ancestral home of the Russian empire, and the cradle of the Russian Orthodox Church. He needed no NATO threat to turn Belarus into a vassal state, to invade Georgia, to support Russian separatists in Moldova (Transnistria), and infiltrating regimes across the Middle East and Africa. I maintain that we have nothing to win by courting him and fueling his neurotic ambitions, nuclear threats not withstanding. Russia is a basket case, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see Putin's regime fall in a similarly surprising way we saw Assad's fall in Syria. Instead, it appears we're going to buy him time and allow him to rebuild Russia's economy and military power in preparation for the next assault.