4. b. Red

Mike Norton on Oct 18

David, I take it you’re a history major, and now I will point out why there are political scientists and not just history majors. I was poly sci at the Naval Academy and my research paper written in 1981, predicted the dissolution of the Soviet Union along the ethnic lines that finally occurred in the 90s. My own ethnic background is half Russian and Polish Jew, 1 quarter Roma, and a quarter Polish Christian with roots in Belarus, Poland, Silesia Lithuania and Romania. My focus was on Eastern European, Russian history and politics as well as a good amount of study of Marxism and diplomacy. I also got the opportunity as a midshipman to study at the German Naval School in Flensburg and while in Germany arranged to travel to East Berlin (yes, I got to walk through Checkpoint Charlie and spend a day on the other side of the Berlin Wall) .

When I read your three statements, they come from a very western and US centric understanding of the world. Let it be known that I am and have been a strong supporter of Ukraine. You will find in past posts that to be true and I put my money where my mouth is. I have contributed to relief efforts in Ukraine as well as Israel, but since I am a Zionist that should be no surprise.

Now let’s get some facts on the table before I respond to your three points. First, let’s talk about the history of Russia and wars or should I say invasions.

Across the centuries Russia has been invaded. Starting with the Mongols in the 13 through the 15th century, millions of Russians were killed and whole regions depopulated. In the early 19th century, Napoleon invaded resulting in the loss of over a half million Russian soldiers and civilians. In the mid-19th century, Turkey with its allies, France and England attacked Russia in the Crimean War resulting in a quarter million Russian soldier’s deaths and again, many more civilians. At the beginning of the last century, the Japanese attacked Russia which incurred 120,000 military deaths and many more civilian deaths. Then, less than 10 years later, in World War I, Austro-Hungary attacked Russia with 2 to 3 million Russian casualties and the subsequent fall of the government and social order resulting in a civil war and famine and 8 to 10 million more Russian deaths. 25 years later Hitler invaded Russia including Kiev and Leningrad (St, Petersburg) costing Russia 28 million deaths. In all, Russia has suffered close to 40 million or more dead due to foreign invasions. Over that same span from 1300 to 2000, Russia did initiate 2 wars, one in the 1500s and again in the early 1700s against the Swedes over control of the Baltic states. But by and large, Russia was regularly and often, the victim of invasions from the east and the west with casualties comparable only to the internal Chinese Wars and the self-inflicted wounds of the Kaiser and Nazi led wars.

The point is that the Russians are reasonable in not trusting foreign nations intentions and have every reason to maintain defensible borders.

That brings me to my next point, Russia, much like Poland, when its borders are retracted are surrounded by indefensible plains. And so, as is common knowledge among political scientists and military historians, the Russians have always attempted to maintain a border in its huge territory that requires mountains, seas and choke points at 9 geographic positions and with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they lost several of those, making them vulnerable to invasions and so they have indeed, been trying to restore those defensible borders. Now you can make an argument that they have nothing to worry about from the West but given their conditioning from 700 years of violent aggression from neighbors including Turkey, Germany, France, Britain and Sweden and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, you cannot expect any level of trust. In addition, all their major cities and military sites are targeted by American and Chinese nuclear weapons.

My next point is that Ukraine has been historically since its inception one and the same with the heartland of Russia. In fact, Russia’s birthplace is not St Petersburg, nor Moscow, nut Kiev itself. And during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which was not a series of revolts but rather a negotiated new series of states with Moscow’s cooperation, it was fully expected that Ukraine would be a partner to Russia, so after the Orange Revolution where pro-western leadership took over from the previous Russian friendly leaders, there was certainly alarm in Moscow. Just as there was when Castro replaced the Batista regime in Cuba. Oh, and what did we do. Only attempt to invade under the JFK administration. And to keep your dates straight, that was before the Cuban missile crisis. When the west was in discussions before the fall of the Berlin Wall, they agreed with Gorbachev to not extend NATO into East European nations nor to station any NATO troops east of the current West German borders of the time. Those were key terms that allowed Gorbachev to loosen his grip on Eastern Europe. But both terms were violated. I won’t even get into the role of the Obama administration and the CIA in the Orange revolution in Ukraine.

The point is, that even though none of us like Putin and we would love to see democracy spread, The Russians across their political spectrum and the Russian people have every reason not to trust the west and to desire a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine. So to look at their actions as without cause is political naive.

That being said, let’s look at your three statements David.

On the first point, my only point of disagreement is that the initiative to increase NATO nations contributions was initiated under the Trump administration, where he used leverage to motivate the nations to begin increasing their budget. Now the invasion of Ukraine was a flash point that accelerated that and caused Sweden and Finland to join the fold, but I’d hardly give Biden that credit unless you are saying that Biden’s weak policies made the Russian invasion more likely. And if that was intentional, I’d have a big problem with it, but I attribute it to a show of weakness on his administrations part. Remember the first actions in Donetsk and Luhansk were during the Obama administration and the Russian invasion under Biden. Weakness always invites aggression. Not only was diplomacy weak, but under both administrations, the size of the military shrunk. I would argue that the great peace of the second half of the 20th century was a result of America’s agreement to ensure freedom of the seas through strong naval power, but our record on promoting democracy, as you claim, is sketchy at best. We supported many dictators in Central and South America, the Middle East and Southern and Southeast Asia. Think Marcos, the Shah of Iran, Diem in South Vietnam, Gaddafi in Libya to name a few. In fact, the mess we are in today in Iran can be directly attributed to the CIA led overthrow of the first democratically elected leader of Iran, Mosaddegh which was followed by the Shah a dictator who ruled by force imprisoning his opponents and regularly using brutal torture. So I concur, through strength, we promoted peace and free trade, but our record on promoting democracy is very mixed and there are far fewer people living under democracies today, than there were in 1948. And Biden can be given credit for supporting Ukraine post-war, but his weakness as a President and his willingness to entertain Ukraine NATO admission, both encouraged the Russian invasion.

I agree with your second point, with the Ukraine invasion being a given, Biden has done a good job giving them military support and balancing the real threat of tactical nuclear weapon use. I think he could have been a bit more aggressive in weaponry and leeway to use it, but that is an arguable point on how much is too much. (CONTINUED IN NEW POST)

On the Final point, I disagree on all your conclusions. First, I do not think Ukraine would have been invaded. I think it would have been a continued frozen conflict between the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics and Ukraine. I do not think Trump would have entertained or encouraged any discussion of Ukraine being in NATO taking that major Russian concern off the table. And I believe the relations between the US and Russia would not have become so frosty. Trump would have pursued policies akin to Reagan and Bush Sr, where we encouraged more economic ties aligning with Germany’s strategy of economic interdependence and broader communications. Instead we are butting heads with and have isolated economically the second or third strongest military power in the world and only reinforced the deeply embedded historical fears of Russia. We are not the same US diplomatically we were under the Kissinger and Reagan eras. Instead we are bombastic but we don’t back it up with a well-funded military. Teddy Roosevelt said ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’ but Biden whittles down the stick while being bombastic.

Regarding your outcome predictions. We will not see Ukraine in NATO. To do so, will force a full invasion of Ukraine and perhaps worse. And you will not get full agreement from all NATO nations, a requirement, to allow them in. Turkey, Hungary and Italy for sure will not agree to that. And there will be others But also, you cannot accept a country in a current conflict to join NATO so for that very reason alone, Russia will not sign a peace accord. No way will Russia leave Donetsk nor Luhansk. There might be a few towns traded here and there at best. Peace will require three things, Recognition of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea and a non-NATO Ukraine with some horse trading on towns and territory. Russia will keep at it until then and, although, Ukraine has been successful in hitting some targets in Russia which I applaud along with some territory gains in the Kursk region, the borders of Donetsk and Luhansk are growing day by day and the defenses to the existing territory are regularly being fortified with anti-tank and anti-personnel mines and barriers making military wins in that area near impossible.