In contrasting our treatment of others as competitors or enemies in my blog on “What to do About China” I am reminded of the 120 days I spent in Baghdad as an advisor to the Central Bank of Iraq paid for by the USAID and supervised by the US Treasury. Our occupation of Iraq included staff from the US Treasury, USAID, Commerce Dept, State Department, and, of course, the Dept. of Defense. Competition by each of them to do a better job than the others would clearly be win-win making our overall occupation more successful. But too often one agency treated the others as enemies diminishing and undermining their efforts rather than supporting them. My biggest fear with my dual association with USAID and Treasury was that each would see me as on the other side, which would have undermined my effectiveness. Luckily the each saw me as on their own side. “Iraq-An American Tragedy-My Travels to Baghdad”
Category: War
Goodbye Unipolar World, and Good Riddance
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton. The United States has accomplished a lot—a lot of it good—as the world’s indispensable nation. But as Lord Acton said, power tends to corrupt and as the time of American dominance has gone on its diplomatic skills have eroded. It behaves more and more like a bully that expects to get its way. It is in our interest to recognize and adjust to our diminished relative power and to rebuild our diplomatic, soft power skills of persuasion. It will help us better adhere to the values and rules we preach to others but increasingly ignore ourselves.
In the July, 2023 issue of Foreign Affairs, Justin Winokur offers an excellent review of the adjustments we need to make in The Cold War Trap How the Memory of America’s Era of Dominance Stunts U.S. Foreign Policy “Cold war trap-America foreign policy”
These days our most important international challenge is our relationship with China. While each sovereign nation is entitled to its own approach to its internal governance, its interactions with the rest of the world require mutual understandings and/or agreements. Following World War II, the rules for such cross border interactions have generally been developed by international organizations to which all or most countries are members, such as the UN and its many agencies, the World Bank and regional development banks, and the IMF. To take but one example, the skies full of telecommunications satellites would not be able to serve anyone properly without the rules and spectrum allocations via the International Telecommunications Union.
It is in America’s interest, as well as the interest of most countries, to draw China more fully into the international organizations established after World War II—the Bretton Woods and UN Institutions. “Chinese competition-Asia stability-institutional balancing” But China is increasingly going its own way and creating its own international organizations. BRICS, China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Asian Development Bank, The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Why?
Why have we failed to convince China that its interests are also serviced by joining and cooperating with the liberal international order? When China was admitted to the World Trade Organization on December 11, 2001, and requested help from the IMF with how best to satisfy the WTO’s rules, the IMF sent me. The officials I met with in China told me over and over that there was no differences of opinion in China over where it wanted to go (in joining the liberal international order). The debate was only over how fast to get there. In recent years this has changed. It has changed, in my view, in part because the U.S. has abused its dominance in the world and failed to yield (balance) appropriate power to China.
As I have spent most of my professional life with the International Monetary Fund, let me illustrate these points with the determination of IMF quota’s which is meant to reflect its members voting strength and financial contribution to world trade. A member country’s quota reflects its size and position in the world economy. The basic formula, which provided the base line for quota decisions is: Quota = (0.50*GDP + 0.30*Openness+ 0.15*Variability +0.05*Reserves)^K.
But when the IMF was created, the US wanted to ensure that it would dominate it. It insured that some important decisions could only be taken with super majorities. A few even required an 85% majority, such as to adjust quotas, or amend the IMF’s Article of Agreement. The U.S. was initially given a quota well above that 15% that gave it veto power over these limited policies. As the rest of the world has grown, the size of the US economy relative to the whole world’s output has fallen from 40% in 1960 to 24% in 2019. “US share of global economy over time” China’s GDP relative to world GDP, on the other hand, rose from 4.5% in 1960 to 16.3% in 2020. Thus, a strict adherence to the IMF’s quota formula should have significantly increased China’s quota and reduced the US quota.
Quoting from Wikipedia: “China has been trying to expand its political and decision-making power within the IMF. The IMF’s voting system weights each country’s vote based on the amount of that country’s monetary contribution to the Fund. China has been trying to raise its quota. In May 1980, the Chinese government appealed to adjust its IMF quota. With approval from the IMF board, the quota of China was increased from 1.2 billion SDRs to 1.8 billion SDRs. China also obtained a single-country seat on the IMF executive board, which expanded the number of IMF directors to 22 members. As of 2017 the quota of China in the IMF was 30.5 billion SDRs, giving it 6.09% of the total vote.
“To further rebalance power in the IMF, China appealed for changes that would transfer voting power to developing economies.[5] In 2010, the Chinese executive director of the Fund, Zhou Xiaochuan, addressed the board and asserted that giving more power to the emerging economies was critical for the group’s legitimacy, accountability and long-term health.” China and the International Monetary Fund – Wikipedia
Currently the IMF quota for the US is 17.43%, remaining well above the critical 15% needed to retain its veto power, while those of other larger economies are China 6.40%, Canada 2.31%, Germany 5.59%, Japan 6.47%, and UK 4.23%. This is not in keeping with the IMF’s base line quota formula.
This exploitation of American dominance is driving China away and dividing global cooperation to the detriment of the whole world, including the U.S. The current U.S. approach to “competing” with China is not consistent with our values nor our long run interest. “Competing with China”
Our economic and political success—the beacon on the hill that has attracted the best and the brightest to our shores—is the result of our individual freedom and rule of law, not our coercive power and its bullyish use. I hope that we wake up before it is too late. “Why do we promote growth in other countries?”
The Debt Deal
CNN reported today on the compromise bill to raise the Federal debt ceiling agreed between Biden and McCarty, saying that:” The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would reduce budget deficits by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, and reduce discretionary spending by a projected $1.3 trillion from 2024 to 2033.”
Language can be tricky. Debt and deficit are not the same. Reducing projected spending need not mean a reduction in actual spending. In fact, the package agree to by Biden and McCarthy will continue to increase the Federal debt (though at a slower rate than was proposed initially by Biden) and all categories of spending will continue to grow. Not only will they continue to grow, they will be growing from the abnormally high levels reached during the COVID pandemic.
If we really want all of these expenditures, we should, and will ultimately need to, raise taxes to pay for them. But do all of them pass the cost benefit test? Do all of them contribute to American wellbeing?
One Republican blind spot is defense spending (which, by the way does not include foreign aid to, for example, Ukraine). The defense budget for 2023 is 9.8% higher than in 2022 and is projected in the Biden/McCarthy package to continue to grow over the next two years covered by that deal. Our huge defense budget has resulted from (or encouraged?) American military adventurism that does not contribute to our security.
Ukraine War—How does it end?
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is wrong in every way (legally, morally, strategically). Ukraine’s fight to defend its sovereignty is heroic, brave, and impressive. The U.S. is supporting Ukraine to the last Ukrainian soldier. But there are a limited number of potential Ukrainian fighters left and causalities are high.
The fighting can end when: a) Russia kills or disables Ukraine’s remaining soldiers and puts a Russian friendly President in Kyiv; b) the West (NATO) provides soldiers to support the Ukrainian Army perilously launching WWIII; c) The advice offered in the letter to President Biden from 30 congressional members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to press Zelensky and Putin to negotiate leads to a truce and end to the fighting. “CPC letter for diplomacy on Russia-Ukraine conflict” However, the letter was later withdrawn (perhaps because the signers now foolishly believe that Ukraine can defeat Russia). “Obama already said some of what the Progressive Caucus got slammed for about Ukraine”
Of Ukraine’s total population of almost 44 million, all of fighting age and condition are on the battle fields and their numbers are shrinking every day. Of its total standing military of about 200,000 when the war began, 70,000 to 80,000 have already been killed or wounded. Another approximately 300,000 have since joined the fight. “Ukraine-Russia military comparison” “Russia-Ukraine crisis-how big is the Ukraine army size compared to Russia’s”
Of Russia’s total population of a bit over 143 million (three times that of Ukraine), almost one million are in the military. Putin sent an estimated 190,000 into Ukraine this year. Half of them have been killed or wounded. However, unlike Ukraine, which is already all in with virtually no more potential fighters to draw on, Russia plans to send in an additional 135,000 soldiers before Spring and has 800,000 military personnel stationed elsewhere to draw on. “Putin could cripple Ukraine without using nukes”
Ukraine cannot win this war without additional soldiers from the West. “David Petraeus’s recent suggestion that Washington and its allies may want to intervene in the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev. According to Petraeus, the military action he advocates would not be a NATO intervention, but ‘a multinational force led by the US and not as a NATO force.’” “Playing at war in Ukraine” Just think about that for a second. Whether the resulting WWIII would be nuclear or not is an open question.
I don’t want to see Ukraine lose and I don’t want to see the start of WWIII that my children and grandchildren will hopefully survive to clean up. It was a terrible mistake for us to break our promise not to expand NATO East in the early 1990s. It was a terrible mistake for us not to insist that Ukraine honor its commitments under the Minsk agreements in2014 and 2015. It was a terrible mistake to finally (2016) build the missile launch sites in Poland and Romania first announced in 2009. It was a terrible mistake for us not to press Ukraine and Russia to negotiate their semi sensible offers the first quarter of this year. I am not sure how many more mistakes we can get away with — if any.
The Ukraine War
Ukrainian President Zelensky says his country will file an expedited application to join NATO immediately. “’De facto, we have already proven interoperability with the Alliance’s standards, they are real for Ukraine — real on the battlefield and in all aspects of our interaction,’ Zelensky said. ‘Today, Ukraine is applying to make it de jure.” “Zelensky says Ukraine filing expedited application to join NATO” This reverses Zelensky’s statements he made in March of his willingness to stay out of NATO.
NATO members should just say no. Hell no! After successfully serving to protect the West from the USSR, post-Soviet NATO has become a liability. After breaking our promise not to expand NATO further east in exchange for Russia’s agreement to the reunification of Germany, NATO has done nothing but cause problems.
In December 2021, Russia released an eight-point draft treaty to prevent its invasion of Ukraine. At the top of its list was no NATO membership for Ukraine. Soon after Russia’s invasion, President Zelensky offered to give up seeking NATO membership and agreed to much of what Russia demanded. The status of the largely Russian Donetsk and Lugansk was the largest sticking point. For reasons I totally fail to understand, the United States and its NATO allies refused to remove Ukraine’s NATO membership from the table while stating that membership was not a near term prospect. “Ukraine-Russia-NATO”
In March, following Russia’s stalled Feb 23 attack on Kyiv, representatives of Russia and Ukraine met at Belovezhskaya Pushcha, on the border of Poland and Belarus, for initial ceasefire talks.
Putin made six key demands:
- No NATO membership and a neutral position.
- Russian should be the second official language of Ukraine, with laws prohibiting it abolished.
- Recognize Crimea as Russian territory.
- Recognize the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk.
- Demilitarization of Ukraine and abandonment of weapons that could be a threat to the Kremlin.
- Banning of ultra-nationalist parties and organizations in Ukraine.
Of these, only #4 would be difficult for Ukraine to accept, but no agreement was reached, and the fighting continued with more and more Western support. “Ukraine’s and Russia’s war” The U.S. and NATO can bring Ukraine to the peace table anytime they want (by threatening to end their military and financial support). No compromise agreement was reached in December, February, March or beyond. And NATO keeps expanding. Why? Why is the U.S. and NATO not pushing to make a peace agreement happen? If Russia still thinks it can come out ahead, China, India and others should convince it otherwise.
In a recent column in the Washington Post former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, former U.S. senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and former U.S. energy secretary Ernest J. Moniz, all of whom serve on the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s board of directors urged China to step forward:
“The most sensible policy choice for China is to wield its unique position of influence to encourage more “rational” decision-making by Putin. In particular, President Xi must make clear to Putin that nuclear use is a line he must not cross and that nuclear saber-rattling itself threatens the global nuclear order…. The United States and China can — and must — now work together with Europe and other nations to help end this war on the “just terms” called for by Biden in his speech to the United Nations.” “Xi Putin Ukraine nuclear arms”
Every few months, I have urged us to stop this destructive war now. As winter approaches Europe with mounting energy shortages, I say it again. Stop it now. “End the war in Ukraine”
Nancy Pelosi in Taiwan
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, just arrived in Taiwan. Why is this a big deal? Shouldn’t anyone be able to visit any country that has opened their doors to them? It depends on the context and purpose.
The civil war for control of China was won by the Chinese Communists lead by Mao Zedong in 1949. The opposition, led by General Chiang Kai-shek, fled to Taiwan and reestablished the Republic of China (POC) there. The civil war was fought on and off between 1927 and 1949 when the victorious Mao established the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and designated Taiwan as its 23rd province. Both the PRC and POC claimed to be the legitimate governments of all of China.
Following President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China in 1972, “the United States moved to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognize the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, [and] the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was ‘the sole legal Government of China.’ Sole, meaning the PRC was and is the only China, with no consideration of the ROC as a separate sovereign entity.
“The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (which is the name preferred by the United States since it opted to de-recognize the ROC). Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. To this day, the U.S. ‘one China’ position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China.
“Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979 to protect the significant U.S. security and commercial interest in Taiwan. The TRA provided a framework for continued relations in the absence of official diplomatic ties…. The TRA sets forth the American Institute in Taiwan as the corporate entity dealing with U.S. relations with the island; makes clear that the U.S. decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;… mandates that the United States make available defensive arms to Taiwan; and requires that the United States maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”
“What is US one China policy and why does it matter?”
All American Presidents have affirmed this one China commitment while maintaining its “strategic ambiguity”. “U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said [that] the Trump administration is committed to the long-standing ‘One China’ policy as it reviews U.S. policy toward China, but also intends to keep all of its commitments to Taiwan.” June 13, 2017. “USA China-Tillerson committed to one China policy”
More recently: “Joe Biden made a potentially dangerous statement on Monday. In Tokyo, he gave a flat ‘yes’ to a reporter’s question of whether he was willing to ‘get involved militarily to defend Taiwan’. ‘That’s the commitment we made,’ the president claimed. In fact, the United States scrapped its formal commitment to defend Taiwan in 1979…. This is the third time in less than a year that Biden has publicly declared that the United States would use force to keep Beijing from seizing the island. “Biden defend Taiwan-China invasion”
Pat Buchanan asks: “But if the U.S. went to war to defend Taiwan, what would it mean? We would be risking our own security and possible survival to prevent from being imposed on the island of Taiwan the same regime lately imposed on Hong Kong without any U.S. military resistance.” “Is Taiwan’s independence worth war?”
What is Pelosi’s objective in going to Taiwan? What does she hope to accomplish with her poke in the Chinese eye? Our interest should be to promote the integration of Taiwan with the rest of China “by peaceful means.” Our diplomacy should be deployed to that end. President Biden’s repeated slips and Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan visit do not provide the tone nor context for such diplomacy. I believe that her visit to Taiwan is a dangerous mistake. While we would be hard pressed from thousands of miles away to win a war with China, China would suffer enormously as well and probably has better sense than to start such a war. But what is the purpose of such a challenge?
End the war in Ukraine
With regard to Russia’s war in Ukraine, are you in the “peace camp” or the “Justice camp”? Do you want a peace agreement to end the war or do you want to punish Russia for the terrible things it has done no matter how long it takes? “The Economist on Ukraine” It is rarely wise to take strategic decisions when enraged by someone’s behavior. It is currently hard not to want to flatten Russia for its illegal and brutal war with Ukraine (the Justice camp) but it would not be in our or the world’s interest to do so (Peace camp). “The Russian war in Ukraine”
Everyone will suffer from continuing the war even without escalation. The world will suffer serious food shortages, oil and gas shortages, disruption and reorganization of the global trading system, and Ukraine and its economy will be in ruins. And no one should forget that Russia is a nuclear power, in fact it has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Ukraine President Zelensky said that he is willing to keep Ukraine neutral and out of NATO (but in the EU). He also demanded that Russia withdraw to the territories it occupied on February 23, 2022, which included the Crimea and parts of the largely Russian speaking Donbas. In a face-to-face interview with the managing editor of the Economist magazine on March 27 and as quoted in my blog above, Zelensky stated that: “Victory is being able to save as many lives as possible…because without this nothing would make sense. Our land is important, yes, but ultimately, it’s just territory.”
But on April 17, “President Volodymyr Zelensky told CNN that Ukraine is not willing to give up territory in the eastern part of the country to end the war with Russia.” “Zelensky Russia war tapper interview-cnn-tv”
Speaking at the Davos World Economic Forum last week, Henry Kissinger stated that “it’s time to think about a diplomatic settlement to end the war, and that settlement will have to include territorial concessions to Russia. ‘Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,’ referring to the pre-war lines in which Russia controlled the Crimean Peninsula and approximately a third of territory in the Donbas. ‘Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.’” “Does Henry Kissinger have a point?”
It is politically very difficult for either Ukraine or Russia to give up territory they hold or aspire to. Edward Luttwak, a strategist and author of “The Logic of War and Peace” among many other books, has proposed a solution to this political dilemma, which like all political compromises should be acceptable to both sides without being fully satisfactory to either. He proposes to settle the territorial issues via an internationally supervised plebiscite for determining the fate of each Oblast:
“That leaves the disposition of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, substantial territories that Zelensky does not have the authority to give up, and without which Putin cannot leave the table where he has gambled and lost so much. While Putin cannot be given the two regions he demanded before starting the war, he can be provided with something that he can portray as a victory: plebiscites in both regions where properly certified residents, including returning refugees, would be allowed to vote on whether their oblast should remain Ukrainian or join Russia.
“Upon acceptance of the plebiscites in principle, a cease-fire would come into immediate effect, with Russia’s respect of their terms guaranteed by the ease of reimposing sanctions just lifted.” “How the Ukraine war must end” Allowing the residents of each region to determine their own affiliation can hardly be objectionable to the rest of us.
The Justice Camp and the military industry that cheers it on should yield to the Peace Camp in the interest of all of us. “Ukraine’s and Russia’s war”
Ukraine’s and Russia’s War
Russia’s attack on Ukraine is horrifying, unjustified and illegal. We can’t help admiring the courage of the Ukrainian people in attempting to defend their country nor being enraged at Russia’s brutality.
In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, Alexander Vindman argued that: “America Must Embrace the Goal of Ukrainian Victory It’s Time to Move Past Washington’s Cautious Approach” “Will America embrace Ukraine victory goal?” Vindman, best known to us as Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, was born in Ukraine. It is understandable, but not excusable, that Vindman puts Ukraine’s interests above those of the United States.
As a naturalized American, Vindman proved his patriotism by testifying on October 29, 2019, before the U.S. House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, for whom he worked as a member of the White House’s National Security Council. But when determining our role in Ukraine’s war with Russia, we should give primacy to America’s best interests in both the short and long term.
Historian and military expert Edward Luttwak tweeted recently that “Friends complain that my suggested war aim of restoring the Feb 23, 2022, status quo ante is too modest; some want the expulsion of all Russian forces from all parts of Ukraine incl Crimea, with others emphasizing the need to drive Putin from office. But both mean much more war…” “Luttwak on war in Ukraine”
It is hard not to sympathize with the desire to punish Russia for what Putin has done and is doing—i.e., to demand justice. Many aspects of the world are not to our liking or of our making, even here at home. But we must deal rationally with the world that exists in the hopes of moving it bit by bit toward a better place.
In today’s Washington Post Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Catlin Talmadge wrote an oped titled: “The U.S. is expanding its goals in Ukraine. That’s dangerous. Comments by political and military leaders suggest the goal is no longer to drive Russia to the negotiating table but to seek a total defeat of Russian forces. That increases the odds of catastrophe.”
“Talk of total victory aligns well with another recently floated objective: an extended bloodletting of the Russian army. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin asserted on April 25 that the United States wants ‘to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.’ Yet crippling Russia’s military or expelling Russia from Ukraine are significantly more dangerous aims than preventing the further loss of Ukrainian territory or, through limited offensive operations, gaining some of it back. Unfortunately, if Russian President Vladimir Putin begins to think that his back is against the wall, he may lash out by directly confronting NATO, intensifying the conventional war in the east, or even using nuclear weapons.” “Ukraine war expansion risks nuclear”
Mr. Vindman wants us to make Russia a permanent enemy. That is never a good objective. Over the last half year both Presidents Zelenskyy and Putin have offered peace conditions that represented reasonable starting points for serious negotiations. Why haven’t we pressed them both to the negotiating table?
Vindman stated that: “A Ukrainian victory against Russia will be defined, first and foremost, by the Ukrainians themselves.” But then he also says that the US should give Ukraine more and better weapons. I am not sure that he sees the disconnect here. We should not push Putin into feeling he must escalate or lose. We should exert maximum pressure to bring this war to an end that is acceptable to both Ukrainian and Russian people and in a way that opens the door to a more peaceful Russia in the future. “Ukraine-France playing good cop with Putin”
Aside from the strong emotional desire to punish Russia for what it is doing, several of the usual suspects are dangerously prolonging this war. Billions of dollars are pouring into our defense industries, which, as always, have a profit incentive to keep things going. Though we are confronted with horrifying pictures of mangled buildings and bodies, they are “over there” somewhere. For most Americans the assumed horrors of war are academic, while in fact they are all too real for those involved. The huge cost of war in lives lost, human suffering, and economic and property damage are rarely given the weight they deserve as we cheer on the brave Ukrainians fighting to the last Ukrainian. Those very well-meaning Americans thanking our soldiers for their service rarely have any idea what we have asked of them to go and fight in other people’s wars.
So our emotions cry out to smash and punish the Russians. But how it ends will have a large impact on conditions in the world ten or twenty years from now. Our standard of living and the degree of security and cooperation in the world—particularly with Russia—will depend on when and how this war ends. We need to temper our emotions and engage our minds.
Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, looked quite different at the end than they did as we undertook them. Ukraine is ranked only slightly less corrupt than Russia. “Transparency International” It is much more difficult doing business there than in Russia (Ease of doing business ranking lists New Zealand at the top, Russia 29 and Ukraine 64). “World Bank Ease of Doing Business index” Thus it is a small wonder that John Hudson wrote in today’s Washington Post that: “Flood of weapons to Ukraine raises fear of arms smuggling Vague U.S. assurances spark concern about lost military equipment in Ukraine, a longtime hub of arms trafficking.” “Ukraine weapons trafficking”
It is too late to point fingers and ask why we did not press Ukraine and Russia to the bargaining table six months ago or four months ago. It is in our self-interest and the interest of Europe and the world to do so now.
Ukraine: How should we help?
It is impossible not to admire the bravery of the people of Ukraine as they fight for their independence and freedom. Without help, Russian troops are almost certain to capture Kyiv and other key cities. The EU and many other countries have pulled together as never before to impose serious sanctions and provide military and humanitarian supplies. See: “Sanctions” Putin’s failure to prepare the Russian people for a military attack on their fellow Russians and cousins in Ukraine is provoking protests in Russia against this war. But these may not be enough to save Ukraine and it is tempting to think we should provide boots on the ground to insure a Russian defeat. President Biden is right to believe that this would be a grave mistake.
Military interventions always look more compelling at the start, while going through the front door. Sure, our army can squash whoever. Years later, as we leave or are pushed out the back door (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.), they are revealed as foolish endeavors from the beginning. While Vietnam has prospered after our withdrawal and Iraq’s development is promising, they might well have reached these achievements sooner if we had stayed out. Why is this so? Why can’t we just take over countries under attack and make them better?
Generally, the countries we attack are engaged in civil wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya). Even Russia’s attack on Ukraine has elements of a civil war. We almost never understand the nuances of such battles nor have sufficient military and diplomatic officials who speak their languages and know their histories as they rotate in for two years then out. We can never be sure which side or sides we should support.
Putting aside that we don’t really have the resources to fully police the world, we have rarely achieved our objectives in the wars we have undertaken since WWII even if those objectives seemed reasonable at the outset. Iraq is an example where we did not have a good reason (or any reason at all except feeding our military industrial complex) to begin with. Part of the reason is that we have never invested in the training needed to be successful imperialists. We are bad at running other countries. You can read some of my firsthand experiences with just how bad we were at running Iraq in my book: “My travels to Baghdad”
If we send in the American Army to defend Ukraine against Russia, even if no escalation in fighting results (which is by no means certain), we will be forced to remain there for X number of years to keep the peace. Which factions would we support or favor? Why do we imagine that it would be different than our experiences in Afghanistan or Iraq? While it is emotionally hard not to walk through that front door with our troops, we must remember what the back door feels like, not to mention the X years in between. President Biden is right not to do so. “Reflections from the netherworld”
Most Americans are good hearted and want to help those in need. However, I am hard pressed to think of a time when we successfully did so with our Army.
Sanctions
About 5 days ago, on February 24, Russia illegally and without provocation and cause attacked the sovereign country of Ukraine. It is in everyone’s interest (with the exception of the military industrial complex) to end the fighting and establish a sustainable peace as quickly as possible. I explored options in my blog Saturday. “Ukraine-Russia-NATO”
Sanctions are being piled on as the main counter weapon of choice around the globe, along with supplying Ukraine with military equipment. But which sanctions of what activities (use of SWIFT, banning access of Russian airlines, banning any travel across Russian borders, banning trade in military products, banning all trade, etc.) should be imposed? If all or almost all countries joined together to shut down all trade, travel, and financial flows between Russia and the rest of the world until Russia ends this war and fully withdraws it troops, the impact on Russia (and hopefully to a lesser extent the rest of the world) would be devastating. While it is hard to predict whether the Russian people would primarily blame the U.S. and the West or Putin’s government for the hardships imposed—it is unlikely that Russia would withstand such isolation for long. Russia seems well on its way to such isolation.
While sanctions have historically not been a very effective tool for changing a country’s behavior, such total isolation, if it can be achieved, would almost certainly be more effective than the more limited sanctions normally imposed. “A new history of sanctions has unsettling lessons for today” Putin will have to back down or escalate. Putin would indeed be boxed into a very difficult position and there is no knowing how he might react. It is hard to imagine Russian military escalation beyond Ukraine’s borders, but it is possible, especially in the ambiguous ways often favored by Moscow (e.g., cyber-attacks). If Putin is squeezed too hard, the risk of nuclear war could no longer be ignored. This is a dangerous period. “Just short of nuclear–the latest financial sanctions will cripple Russia’s economy” Such comprehensive sanctions should be largely removed as soon as Russian troops are withdrawn from Ukraine territory.
But while it is foolish (i.e., contrary to American interests) to keep Russia as an enemy in the long run, and it was foolish to have made it one in the first place, the Kremlin should pay a price for its attack on Ukraine.
Sanctions impose a cost on their target but also on those imposing the sanctions. If, for example, Russia is denied access to western products, the sellers are also denied the sales. Moreover, for many if not most economic sanctions, the people of the sanctioned country tend to suffer more than the government that is the real target. For post conflict sanctions, thought should be given to the most effective ways to sanction Putin and his friends specifically with minimal damage to the Russian economy. The borders and trade should be reopened to all but a small list of Kremlin officials including Putin. Putin’s properties and other assets abroad should be frozen or confiscated to contribute to Russian reparations for damage now being inflicted on Ukraine. “Russia’s military attack on Ukraine will have consequences for Putin”
Yesterday (2/27.22 6:37 PM), Edward Luttwak tweeted: “Putin’s agreement to talks with Zelensky’s reps is an abject surrender: by now the Russians should have been in control in Kiev and across the Ukraine with Zelensky dead or exiled. Frantic to divert attention, Putin has placed Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert. Meaning: zero”
Let’s hope that he is correct.
Every action should be carefully measured against is costs and benefits both short term and long term. Another protracted cold war would be a costly mistake for everyone. All measures should ultimately contribute to peaceful and secure relations between all countries. Greenwald–War propaganda about Ukraine
Warren's space 