Insurgents, including perhaps Russian soldiers, in Donetsk, in contested eastern Ukraine.
Congressional Republicans, some Democrats, and the military-industrial complex want us to go deep in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Arm Ukraine. Send troops to nearby NATO countries. Even puts boots on the ground in Ukraine itself.
Or go deeper. Some believe Washington and the CIA played a significant role in destabilizing and ultimately ousting the elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. But this overlooks Yanukovych's blunders and mishandling of both foreign relations and brutality against demonstrators. If he was corrupt, welcome to Ukraine.
Contrary to the dSi narrative, Russia actually does have vital national interests at stake. Ukraine was for centuries a province of the Russian empire and then a "republic" in the USSR. Even when things were cozy between Washington and Moscow in the 1990s, Russian President Boris Yeltsin declared Ukraine part of his country's "near abroad."
The United States has no — no — vital national interests in Ukraine.
Let's do a thought exercise. Imagine that a time came when the American empire fell apart and states exercised their "sovereignty" or whole regions left the United States. After all, the Constitution is lethally silent on secession and remains so even though we fought our bloodiest war to preserve the union.
So imagine the Republic of Cascadia, including northern California, Oregon and Washington, took a vote and declared independence. Maybe it would accept membership in a very loose confederation with the remains of the United States. Let's call it the Commonwealth of Independent American States. And it would become a nuclear-free nation, kicking the Navy's ballistic missile subs out of Bangor, Wash.
At first, an America dominated by the New Confederacy would be happy to be rid of what it sees as the costly liberals in the Northwest. But the ties forged by centuries of union, history, a common language, and many cultural commonalities would not be lost.
Also, the eastern counties of Cascadia are very sympathetic to the old union (consistently voting New Confederacy before the breakup) and grow more so as time passes. The United States, similarly, misses Cascadia (in real life, it is a huge contributor to the national economy) and is fearful of what it will make of its independence. The United States, a one-time superpower, doesn't like being called "a regional power."
Now imagine Cascadia spurned the other Washington's desire for a close economic agreement, deciding instead to pursue its own deal with China and Japan. Not unimaginably, Cascadia's liberal politics are often turbulent and divisive. A president is elected from the east, say from suburban Spokane.
He decides to pursue the economic union with the United States and is met with a popular revolt. Some say it was orchestrated from Beijing and Tokyo, eager to extend their geopolitical power to North America.
This is an admittedly very imperfect yet instructive analogy to Ukraine and Russia. I use it to remind us that empathy and humility are as useful here as blind hatred of Vladimir Putin.
In 1991, when George H.W. Bush was handling the death of the Soviet Union with a skill that would be impossible to imagine today, he still had limited influence to keep Mikhail Gorbachev in office or hold the USSR together (primarily to avoid a "Yugoslavia with nukes" nightmare).
Two big reasons: Russia, led by Yeltsin, was tired of the imperial burden. And Ukraine was eager to become independent and as far from the Moscow center as possible. Russia sought a rebirth without communism. It never stopped thinking of itself as a great power. Or as an exceptional nation and civilization.
In the years since, Russia lost its chance to become democratic and has turned authoritarian under Putin. But it is nothing like the USSR as a threat to the United States, even though it retains the world's largest nuclear arsenal. And Ukraine turned into a political and economic calamity.
This exposed huge rifts, especially between the largely Russian-speaking and Russophile eastern part of Ukraine, and the western provinces that are more Western-oriented, have a historical memory separate from Moscow, and want to be part of the European Union.
NATO expanded to Russia's borders, breaking Washington's earlier assurances to Yeltsin (who wanted Russia to eventually join the alliance). It also conducted its first war against Serbia to "save" Kosovo, a fraught adventure that Moscow opposed and that rubbed Russians the wrong way. Remember, Russia went to war in 1914 to "protect" its interests in Serbia.
It was reckless of the EU, which has problems of its own, to court Ukraine. Angela Merkel is said to be the Western leader with the closest relationship with Putin (she speaks Russian fluently).
Did it not occur to the chancellor that Russia is touchy about its near neighbors, not least because they have been the pathways for invasions by Napoleon and a previous German chancellor? And meanwhile, we have to push and sweet-talk Europe to maintain its NATO military spending obligations. Maybe it's time to give NATO an honorable end.
I'm also not outraged that Putin annexed Crimea. This was long a part of Russia and home to the Black Sea Fleet. Sure, redrawing borders by force is a no-no, but so is much of what we have done throwing our weight around. In the thought exercise above, had the United States leased Naval Base Kitsap from Cascadia for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, do you think Washington would have hesitated for a second to take it at the first sign of Cascadian intransigence or instability?
Look, I'm sorry Ukraine is a mess and the democracy whose potential was embodied in the heroic yet flawed Yeltsin didn't happen. But we don't need to make Moscow our new enemy — or let Putin put us into such a foolish position. All our sanctions and symbolic slights only strengthen Russian nationalism.
We need high-speed rail, trillions in infrastructure, investment in rebuilding the middle class, teeth for people in Siler City, N.C. We don't need to keep searching the world, as John Quincy Adams said, "in search of monsters to destroy" — much less a new Cold War.
Speaking of which, Russian ground forces are so weak relative to NATO now — a reversal of the Cold War array of forces — that its military doctrine calls for first use of nuclear weapons against the West to "de-escalate" a conflict it is losing.
We also don't need the Russian Federation falling apart and its loose nukes becoming "the greatest crisis of the next decade," as Stratfor worries.
Here's what needs to happen: President Obama and all the major Western heads of state and government need to attend the victory day parade in Moscow marking the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. And take stock.
All things Putin might be,
I believe he has a romantic and heart tugging psychological need and desire for "Mother Russia".
I have kept up with Modern Russian History since 64 and agree with a lot here in.
Excellent piece, Jon.
Posted by: cal Lash | March 12, 2015 at 07:10 PM
The US warmongers today are more interested in profitable war action against Iran than they are in war profiteering in Europe. Either will do at the end of the day, and from their greedy viewpoint, both would be better. The flag waiving American electorate will undoubtedly support military action after military action. The US has more blood on its hands than any other in history. What a legacy!
Posted by: Worldview | March 12, 2015 at 07:31 PM
I heard a brilliant analysis about the problem on NPR.
The Russian/Ukraine problem belongs primarily to the EU.
Let them solve it. They have the most to lose.
Posted by: INPHX | March 12, 2015 at 09:32 PM
Putin is a romantic and has a heart tugging need for mother Russia!
No need to enter this insane discussion!
Posted by: Tom G | March 13, 2015 at 10:53 AM
Historical justifications change depending upon which part of history one chooses to emphasize. By the late 800s Vikings sailing down the rivers and across the seas of the region became rulers of the local Slavs. The Viking rulers were called Rus. Russia actually means land of the Rus. Chief among these was a Viking named Oleg who declared himself Prince of Kiev, who said (as recorded in The Primary Chronicle) "May this be the mother of all Russian cities." Kiev took control of territory between the Baltic and Black seas and the Danube and Volga rivers and ruled the region until overrun by the Mongols in 1240.
So you see, Russia is really Ukrainian. ;)
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 13, 2015 at 11:30 AM
Excellent point, Emil. Kiev-Rus is seen as the cradle of Russian civilization. This is more complicated than John McCain and his Mini-Me Lindsey "I don't use email" Graham make out.
And the grand prince who returned from exile in Scandinavia and consolidated (and Christianized) Kievin Rus was named Vladimir.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes."
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | March 13, 2015 at 12:07 PM
Side-note: new reply to INPHX re REITs in the previous thread.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 13, 2015 at 12:19 PM
Quite so, Rogue. Ironic, eh?
Another famous ruler of Kievan Russia was Yaroslav who organized the legal code and system under the title Pravda Russkia which means Russian Justice. It was known as Pravda for short.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 13, 2015 at 12:29 PM
tom sorry you cannot visualize Putin having feelings about Mother Russia. You know like "Love your Mother Earth". like any thug he wants to create a New Mother along with a few getaway castles in the country side. After all he does have a new (romance) girlfriend. And then he has his good times motorcycle gang.
Posted by: cal Lash | March 13, 2015 at 03:08 PM
Emil:
On the REITS-
1. You didn't say mortgage REITS, you said REITs.
2. Most REITS aren't mortgage REITS.
3. The article was from 2013 (not 2008). It discussed federal regulators thinking about additional regulation for mortgage REITS(not all REITS) because they might have systematic risk. So, yes, as hard as it might be to believe, a federal regulator thinks that their power should be expanded.
I know that's hard to get your mind around. I mean, who would think a federal regulator would want to expand there power???
Posted by: INPHX | March 13, 2015 at 03:11 PM
A good description of the mechanics of the secession process in question:
"During the last fortnight, several cities, whose names were familiar to most Ukrainians though they had little idea where exactly they were, have witnessed mass occupation of their government buildings. In Kramatorsk, Horlivka, Mariupol and Slovyansk buildings were seized in accordance with a previously agreed plan: first there was a demonstration, with groups of ‘outraged’ citizens demanding a local referendum, then local inhabitants supported by ‘little green men’ occupied police stations and security service buildings. The explanation was very simple – this is where arms are kept. When the separatists had armed themselves and, probably, ensured the support of local siloviki (security services, police and armed forces) along the way, they took control of the local authority offices, city or village. The flag of the unlawful and self-declared People’s Republic of Donetsk would then be raised."
https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/valery-kalnysh/little-green-men-slovyansk-donetsk
It is unclear to me that this could take place without substantial cooperation from the local Ukrainian security services, and police.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 13, 2015 at 03:22 PM
Don't have a cow, INPHX. Please post your reply in the correct thread (the previous one). And I explained why there is a delay in addressing the older aspects of the matter. Also, I should not have to spell out what should be obvious from the context. If we are discussing Napoleon Bonaparte the term "emperor" is self-indicative despite the existence of many emperors.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 13, 2015 at 03:34 PM
A far more likely scenario than your "Cascadia" example is the eventual "reconquista" of Arizona and possibly other areas ceded by Mexico after the Mexican-American War in 1848. From the point of view of those who view Arizona only as a "Continuing Crisis", the only solution even better than "watering down" all the--as you put it--"New Confederacy"--voters with presumably liberal Hispanics (who might not prove to be all that liberal after all) would be to be rid of Arizona & Co. altogether!
Having written all that, I think that taking care of our "homework" first--rebuilding our infrastructure, adding rail, developing suitable funding for education, figuring out how to assimilate minorities and immigrants into our culture while allowing them to nurture their ethnic pride and laying the "race card" to rest once and for all--before pursuing more overseas adventures is actually a conservative point of view. No one denies that the "City on the Hill" is a little less shining and more blemished than before and some house-cleaning and polishing are in order.
The EU should take the lead with regard to Ukraine. Iran? They may be the best means of countering ISIS. Arizona Republic columnist Bob Robb wrote recently to the effect that a "bad deal with Iran might be better than no deal at all." I agree. As a right-winger, I even support the Bricker Amendment, but that doesn't infer approval of Congress' attempt to co-opt foreign affairs. The President shouldn't legislate, either, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by: Robert H. Bohannan | March 13, 2015 at 04:08 PM
The only reconquista worth recognizing is the historical one (the recapture of Spain from the Moors by Christians of the Spanish March). The belief that Mexican immigration to the United States is a conspiracy to colonise and (by means of an attained majority) return the southwestern U.S. to Mexican possession is merely the delusion of Tea Party and other right-wing nativist elements. Perhaps Mr. Bohannan was making a more figurative point?
My understanding of the so-called Bricker Amendment (actually a set of proposed legislative bills) is that it was primarily the province of John Birch types fearful that the United Nations (under presumed secret domination by the Soviets) might be able to use the language of international agreements to which the U.S. was signatory to undermine the Constitution and national sovereignty. This has a counterpart today in Tea Party conspiracy theories about international environmental treaties and even nonbinding statements of principle.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 13, 2015 at 05:20 PM
A "Right Winger". Ever see a chicken with a broken wing try to fly. reminds me of the sound of one hand clapping.
your pal the Republican , cal with a left and right wing.
Posted by: cal Lash | March 13, 2015 at 05:53 PM
It may be that one component of Putin's was the (noted above) extra-legal ousting of a pro-Russian government and its replacement by a hostile one: that is, Putin may have considered himself to be on firmer ground in conducting his own "popular revolution" in Eastern Ukraine.
My belief, which I have stated before, is that Putin fears a turn to the West will result in the development of Ukraine's substantial unconventional oil reserves and see Ukraine challenge Russia as a source of natural gas for Russia's European clients. Not only would this break Russian hegemony by offering another energy supplier to states under Russia's thumb (energy based political blackmail would no longer be possible) but Western European countries might shift some or all of their patronage.
Aside from the loss of some share of export sales essential to the Russian economy and a loss of hegemonic political power, the increase in supply would drive prices down, something Russia's already fragile economy cannot weather. With economic crisis would come political instability and vulnerability to Putin and his coterie.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 13, 2015 at 05:57 PM
@Emil :(partial) response to issues raised by you on previous thread.
Posted by: wkg_in_bham | March 13, 2015 at 06:12 PM
@Cal: (partial) response about education on previous thread.
Posted by: wkg_in_bham | March 13, 2015 at 06:14 PM
(That should read "one component of Putin's calculation" in the comment above.)
P.S. As long as Eastern Ukraine remains in turmoil and Putin is rattling his saber, western investors eager to help Ukraine develop its natural resources will be unable to obtain financing. Banks don't like lending large sums of money to projects in unstable countries where at any moment their capital may be lost.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 13, 2015 at 06:14 PM
You all are living in the past.
New Orleans remains "unrepaired".
Hurricane Sandy damage remains "unrepaired".
The U.S. of A is incapable of accomplishing ANYTHING. Here, or anywhere on the planet.
The empire is in its death spiral.
Posted by: Common Cents | March 13, 2015 at 06:46 PM
" Shell’s only remaining exploration project in Ukraine is the Yuzivska well, which has been under force majeur since the summer of 2014 due to the conflict in the country."
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2015/03/13/shell-abandons-two-exploration-wells-in-east-ukraine/
Note that force majeur is a contract clause allowing the suspension without liability of a project due to unexpected and disruptive events.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 13, 2015 at 06:50 PM
Good clause. Doesn't look like it is enough for RDSA. The stock is dropping like a rock.
Posted by: Trader Joe | March 13, 2015 at 08:28 PM
Wkg, left you the "truth" of learning next door
Posted by: cal Lash | March 13, 2015 at 09:56 PM
I agree with Common Cents. We have screwed things up since the priests attacked.
"Until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" Ed Abbey
Then it will be better.
Posted by: cal Lash | March 13, 2015 at 10:00 PM
@Cal: back at you on art on previous.
Posted by: wkg_in_bham | March 14, 2015 at 12:50 AM
cal: Denis Diderot said it first.
"Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre
Serrons le cou du dernier roi."
Posted by: krazy bill | March 14, 2015 at 01:05 AM
US Priests (read american corporations and CIA and Obama) still trying to take down Venezuela
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/14/in-venezuela-whos-threatening-whom/
Posted by: cal lash | March 14, 2015 at 02:29 PM
Benjamin and his Las Vegas buddy, Sheldon in charge of congress.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/13/gop-senators-take-orders-for-aipac/
Posted by: cal lash | March 14, 2015 at 02:34 PM
For your reading room.
http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=yLmSHl1EP3aanhSXyw6zd67urT4xH14R
Posted by: cal lash | March 14, 2015 at 02:36 PM
Common Cents- suggest that you visit morrisberman.blogspot.com. He is author of (among many other books) Why America Failed. Think the unthinkable.
Posted by: Dawgzy | March 14, 2015 at 04:43 PM
OK, INPHX, I've posted some documentation of the role of REITs in the sub-prime mortgage collapse, in the previous thread. Here's a small excerpt giving a simplified chain of cause and effect:
Sub-prime and other mortgage borrowers unable to make payments -- > Highly leveraged REITs increasing liabilities to banks --> REITs default on their obligations to banks --> Banks' own liabilities are suddenly magnified as real estate assets lose value and REITs are unable to compensate --> financial defaults spread as numerous leveraged financial institutions are unable to meet their statutory and/or contractual obligations...
http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/2015/03/driving-phoenix-history.html
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 14, 2015 at 04:48 PM
P.S. Note also that the Reuters material above was published in August, 2007, before the stuff REALLY hit the fan...
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 14, 2015 at 04:52 PM
Sorry, that postscript should have been added to the other thread.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | March 14, 2015 at 04:53 PM
The Republic of Cascadia analogy is brilliant! Russia is the world's most paranoid major nation, with lots of good reasons, some dating to the 19th century, and it considers the Ukraine in its sphere of influence. Poking The Bear with a stick only makes it worse. At least, since we have nothing to gain, somebody else should be doing the poking. Those who imagine that Russia wants to take back Eastern Europe are surely wrong – that would be swallowing a huge poison pill. But whether we get sucked in or not, everybody is going to lose. The Western World desperately needs for the United States and Russia to be on the same side, as peacekeepers. Yep, that's right.
Posted by: Darwin Sator | March 16, 2015 at 10:16 AM
Russian paranoia goes back centuries primary to its land locked and somewhat hostile environment. I believe Russia and friends will continue to expand to ensure the future of Mother Russia.
Posted by: cal Lash | March 16, 2015 at 01:47 PM
Russia and friends? Russia doesn't have any friends, which is one reason to be paranoid, isn't it? And a somewhat hostile environment? The country has been repeatedly threatened by, or overrun by Germans and Austrians, Ottoman Turks and Mongols. In 1918 Russia was physically occupied by French, British, Americans, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, Australians, Estonians and Czechs. Post World War II, the United States ringed Russia with a fantastic electronic spy network and reconnaissance planes and satellites, and with nuclear missiles, some of which could reach Moscow in 15 minutes. Then there's NATO, and so much more.
Posted by: Darwin Sator | March 16, 2015 at 09:05 PM
Darwin I agree.
Posted by: cal Lash | March 16, 2015 at 10:01 PM
Dawin, Oriental Review.org has a comment supporting your posts.
Posted by: cal Lash | March 16, 2015 at 10:06 PM
For sure, I agree that we eventually might have to have a showdown with Russia, but the EU and NATO are inclined to be reckless,as Jon points out, and I don't think we need to be part of that. We shouldn't be a hired gun for the Europeans, the Likud or anybody else.
Posted by: Darwin Sator | March 17, 2015 at 07:08 AM
I agree
Posted by: cal Lash | March 17, 2015 at 10:12 AM