Saturday, March 12, 2022

The Plank in Uncle Sam’s Eye: A Plea for Humility as War Pigs Move to “Close the Sky”


 
COUNTERPUNCH
MARCH 11,2022
Facebook

Photograph Source: Ittmust – CC BY 2.0

Is it inherently wrong to ask, “what about” X’s crimes and evil when confronted with Y’s crimes and evil? Is that “what about-ist” rationalization of Y’s crimes and evil? Not necessarily. Not when: one does not cite X’s crimes and evil to excuse Y’s crimes and evil; X’s crimes and evil are relevant to understanding Y’s crimes and evil; X’s crimes are actually bigger and more far reaching than Y’s crimes; acknowledging X’s crimes is relevant to stopping Y’s crimes.

Take Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine. It is a clear violation of international law and human decency. Putin’s forces have laid waste to civilian apartment complexes, schools, and hospitals, causing hundreds if not thousands of Ukrainian civilian deaths along with deaths of untold thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers. None of the Kremlin’s grievances against the Ukraine government, the United States (US), and US-led NATO justifies the mass-murderous Russian invasion, with the predictable commission of war crimes (targeting power plants, including nuclear ones, assaulting civilians and civilian targets, etc.) Putin was not forced to descend to this grotesque level. He could have tried to address his complaints through diplomatic, economic, and political channels. War is not the answer.

When a Leftist like myself likens Putin’s invasion of Ukraine to the United States’ devastating and mass-murderous invasion of Iraq in 2003 or to the US-funded and US-equipped ally and client state Israel’s devastating and mass murderous assaults on Gaza or to the US-funded and US-equipped US ally and client Saudi Arabia’s devastating and mass-murderous assault on Yemen, I do not do so to excuse Putin’s inexcusable crimes but to suggest the wisdom of some “spoken word” voiced by an olive-skinned Mediterranean anti-imperialist peasant-carpenter from Roman times:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:3. A translation of this advice I used to hear from relatives as a grade-schooler: “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”)

Two things to note in this passage from The Holy Bible, the text on which US presidents place their hand on the day of their inauguration. First, Jesus does not deny that there’s a speck of sawdust in one brother’s eye and that it needs to come out. Think of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as the speck in one brother’s eye. Second, a plank is a lot bigger than a speck, just as the US-American Empire and its crimes dwarf the crimes of the Putin regime (more on this below).

Make no mistake: Putin is a killer at home and abroad. “Speck” is too mild for his transgressions, some of which were described by Rutgers political scientist Alexander Motyl five years ago:

When Putin came to power in 1999, he almost certainly approved, and perhaps even orchestrated, the bombings of two apartment buildings in Moscow, in which hundreds of innocent Russians lost their lives…Putin used the bombings to reignite the Second Chechen War, in which he launched a massive air and land campaign that produced thousands of refugees, reduced much of the Chechen capital Grozny to rubble and killed at least 25,000 civilians…Russia’s ruthless bombing of Syria’s civilian population and targets has been termed criminal by various Western leaders and human rights organizations…During Putin’s years in office, a series of Russian democrats, journalists and opposition leaders have been killed in mysterious circumstances — the most prominent being Alexander Litvinenko, Anna Politkovskaya, Boris Nemtsov, Sergei Magnitsky, Natalia Estemirova, Sergei Yushenkov, Paul Klebnikov, Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova…Some 12 opposition leaders from various parts of the former Soviet Union have also been killed in mysterious circumstances in Turkey, suggesting Russian assassins may be at work.”

Putin’s body count has certainly grown since Professor Motyl wrote this indictment 13 days before the Russian head of state congratulated his good fascist friend Donald Trump on his inauguration. (And, by the way, it is naïve to think that Russian realpolitik intervention in the 2016 election had “absolutely nothing” to do with the outcome of that very close contest – the defeat of the “lying neoliberal warmonger” Hillary Clinton.)

It’s awful stuff, but it is minor league mayhem compared to Uncle Sam’s record of transgression in the post-Cold War era (not to mention during the Cold War). Washington directly and indirectly killed more than two million Iraqis during two invasions, one occupation, and one long and deadly sanctions regime between 1990 and 2012. Washington’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan after 9/11 killed at least 241,000 people. Only time will tell how many tens if not hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians will die because of US economic sanctions on Afghanistan. Last fall, the United Nations reported that the US-sponsored death count in Yemen would reach 377,000 by the end of 2021 and would reach 1. 3 million by 2030, with 70% of the victims being children under five years old.

Two years ago, the International Middle East Media Center reported that the US-sponsored Judeo-fascist state of Israel’s “forces invading Palestinian Territory have just killed a 15-year-old unarmed Palestinian boy. A sniper shot him in the head with an expanding bullet. This is the 10,000th Palestinian killed by an Israeli since the round of violence that began in fall 2000. The boy was reportedly shot in the face.” Further:

During the same period, Palestinians have killed 1,270 Israelis. See the list and details on this Timeline of Israeli and Palestinian deaths. Because US media rarely cover Palestinian deaths, while often emphasizing Israeli deaths, most Americans are unaware that Israeli forces have killed far more people than Palestinian resistance groups, and that Israel kills first in nearly all cycles of violence. If the situation were reversed, and a Palestinian military force invaded an Israeli town and shot a teenager in the head, it would in all probability be front page news across the U.S.”

The US-Israeli slaughter of Palestinians has continued since this report came out. According to the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories:

In 2021, Israeli security forces killed 313 Palestinians, including 71 minors: 236 in the Gaza Strip, 232 of them during ‘Operation Guardian of the Walls’; and 77 in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem). Three other Palestinians were killed either by armed settlers or by soldiers who were escorting them; another Palestinian minor was shot by an Israeli civilian and later by Border Police officers; and two Palestinians were killed by armed settlers.”

All told, US and US-sponsored murder numbers mark Uncle Sam as global Mafia Boss #1 by far and away. These numbers would be much bigger if it included masses killed by US climate, border/migration, trade/investment, and “regional security” policies in the Americas.

Putin is a lethal but medium-sized mobster by comparison, though with the very significant caveat that he carries a giant nuclear arsenal around in his pocket – a stash of doomsday weapons that make it impossible for Washington and NATO to march into Ukraine and Russia without likely triggering Mutually Assured Destruction.

Beyond body count numbers, something else merits mention by way of contrast: the US kills, cripples, starves, and sickens people much further from its own borders than does Russia. The main Russian killing fields are on its immediate borders and in its regional sphere of great power interest and influence. The 20th Century US Empire built an astonishing body count in Asia from the conquest and suppression of the Philippines through the massive US carpet-bombing of Korea, the US sponsorship of the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia, and the US crucifixion of Southeast Asia between 1962 and 1975. The 21st Century US Empire has concentrated its lethality in North Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia, killing millions from Libya through Iraq, Palestine, Syria, and Afghanistan. And Washington runs an historically unprecedented global Empire that accounts for roughly 40 percent of world military spending and maintains more than 800 military bases across more than 100 “sovereign” countries.

Why bring up the plank(s) in Uncle Sam’s eye? Two reasons. First, US-Americans look like hypocrites to much of the world when they reject the young Jewish carpenter’s advice. Unless and until they drop the epically moronic and monumentally false (one might even say “Orwellian”) notion that their nation represents some sort of grand and exceptional model of democratic and humanitarian benevolence (the world’s Shining Saxon City on a Hill), they can hardly expect to be taken seriously when they claim to care for peace and freedom in Ukraine or anywhere else. And the world needs people in the world’s most powerful nation to be heard calling for peace right now, before more Ukrainians and Russian conscripts die and before the Ukraine conflict escalates beyond Ukraine’s borders and becomes a direct confrontation between the world’s two leading nuclear powers.

Second, plank-eyed Uncle Sam, whose leaders typically claim to be “Christians,” is a major driving force behind the Ukraine Crisis. In cold defiance of promises that the U.S. would help Russia and Europe would enter an era of progressive European peace and cooperation after the collapse of the Soviet Union, US foreign policymakers have led the provocative post-Cold War eastward expansion of the nuclear-tipped NATO military alliance right up to Russia’s western front – the very Eastern European corridor that was repeatedly invaded by mass-homicidal Western forces from Napoleon to the German Kaiser and Hitler’s Third Reich, which killed more than 20 million Soviet Russians. The leading Cold War architect George Kennan warned in 1997 that such expansion could only trigger disaster. Then US Senator Joe Biden agreed that same year, saying that the only thing that could provoke a “vigorous and hostile” Russian response to the West would be if NATO expanded as far as the Baltic states. NATO now claims four Baltic states on Russia’s western boarder: Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. A NATO-aligned Ukraine – a reckless US foreign policy goal that the Ukraine government refuses to formally foreswear – would extend the Western military alliance well southwest of Moscow. Love the fascist Putin and the Kremlin (as some campist “leftists” oddly seem to do long after Putin’s Russia became a fossil-capitalist gangster kleptocracy) or hate them (as I do from the international socialist perspective), a question remains: how was eastward NATO expansion not certain to “poke the bear” and provoke precisely the ugly Russian reaction that no less of a Cold Warrior than George Kennan himself warned against?

Here is another aphorism from the aforementioned Mediterranean peasant that might bear reflection: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). In the more commonly worded version, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Apply this advice to the world’s two top nuclear superpowers and then ask yourself: how long would it take the United States to re-invade Mexico (from which it militarily stole the southwestern United States and California in the late 1840s) or invade Canada if some of its southern neighbor’s states and/or some of its northern neighbor’s provinces began joining a military alliance with China and/or Russia? Would Washington be justified in murdering thousands of Mexican and/or Canadian civilians in the event of such developments? Of course not. Would the US face the possibility of Russian and/or Chinese military intervention in North America because it invaded Canada and/or Mexico? Certainly not. Any attempted Russian and/or Chinese interference would raise the specter of US nuclear attack, justified in the name of the early 19th Century Monroe Doctrine, which bars non-U.S. military interference in the Americas. Bear in mind that Uncle “We One and World” and “What We Say Goes” Sam has long felt justified in invading other nations, carrying out regime changes, and dictating policy far from its shores.

Meanwhile, I wonder how many US-Americans know that the US in 2019 withdrew from a critical 1987 US-Russia pact in which intermediate-range nuclear weapons – those with a range of 500 to 5,500 km (310 to 3,400 miles) – were banned in Europe. Cable News Warmongers like Wolf Blitzer and Joy Reid seem unlikely to report such provocations while fueling their audiences’ hearts and minds with bloodlust over Putin’s (very real) crimes in Ukraine.

Significant historical humility and self-examination is much to be desired to help US voices for peace be heard. Right now, the US plank-eyed Blitzer-Reid-FOX War Media is encouraging precisely the opposite mindset. It is crafting a Zelensky Cult and fueling and fanning the flames of war with its one-sided American-exceptionalist coverage of and commentary on the Ukraine crisis, leading three-fourths of the US populace to insanely back a US-/NATO-imposed No Fly Zone over Ukraine.

What could go wrong with Zelensky’s call for US/NATO to “close the sky” above Ukraine? Quite a bit. A No-Fly Zone means direct military confrontation between US forces and Russian forces, which means World War III, which means nuclear war, which means nuclear winter, which means terminal mass extinction (global warming would be solved, though).

Question: is the sky closed if there’s nobody left alive to see it?

The plank in the eye is not just about domestic policy. US warmongering abroad is intimately related to US capitalist oligarchy, racial oppression, patriarchy and eco-cidal practices at home. How does a criminal imperial nation that is poised to re-impose the menace of forced motherhood on much of its female population while its top top-thousandth possesses as much wealth as its bottom 90 percent think it has anything to tell any other nation on Earth about how to conduct its affairs? How does a nation so racist that its median Black households own less than five cents on the median white household dollar think it is qualified to lecture other powers and peoples on how to run their lives? How does a nation with the world’s single biggest per capita carbon footprint and a political class that is leading the world over the eco-exterminist climate cliff (with its powerful fossil capitalist faction now trying to exploit the Ukraine Crisis to accelerate the disastrous mass extraction, pipelining, refining, and burning of North American oil, and gas) think it has anything to say about human and policy decency? How does a nation that leads the world in mass incarceration and police state brutality, a nation too reactionary and dumbed-down to respond properly to the Covid-19 crisis (“the world’s greatest nation” has been the world’s leading covid Sanctuary State), a nation that lets millions of its children live below its pathetically inadequate poverty level while granting more than of its federal discretionary spending to the war machine…does such a nation as that summon the gall to pretend to speak with moral authority to other nations and peoples across this planet? And how does a corporate plutocracy like the US, a nation where majority public opinion is regularly and indeed routinely trumped by concentrated wealth and power, think it has any business claiming to defend “democracy” in Ukraine or anywhere else?

Oh war media that interrupts scenes of human carnage in Ukraine with childish insurance and Appleby’s commercials (see this): take those American Exceptionalist planks out of your eyes and try to roll back this horrific mass sentiment for a No-Fly Zone you have helped cultivate, which can only lead to disaster. Try to show and nurture national humility in the name of humanity.

Postscript

Speaking of Joy Reid, to whose commentary Zelensky-worshipping liberals I know are essentially addicted, she recently set up a now-standard cable news cult segment on Zelensky with a brief account of the Nazi Jewish Holocaust in Ukraine that deleted the participation of many Ukrainians in the mass murder of Jews in Ukraine. Relying just on Reid, you’d think it was just Germans who killed Jews in Ukraine. Actually, however, the Nazis made a point of recruiting and empowering Ukrainians to kill Jews in Ukraine, Poles to kill Jews in Poland, and Lithuanians to kill Jews in Lithuania. A Romanian activist living in the US wrote to say this about Reid’s little history lesson:

“This was unhelpful…for the next few months, every leftist and every liberal — and every one of us Eastern Europeans living in the US –who wants to discuss the complex history of Ukraine will have to argue with misinformed folks who exclusively depend on people like Joy Reid. Besides erasing the roles of domestic Ukrainian fascists in WWII, I can’t even start with how infuriating it is — especially as an Eastern European — to once more see Eastern European’s peoples’ own struggles and organization against fascism (both in Ukraine and in many other Eastern European countries) be erased under quick first-world attempts to flatten all our histories for easy consumption. In broad enough strokes a lollipop and a tree are very similar.”

Meanwhile, here are some numbers that might be relevant in deciding whether or to get behind a No-Fly Zone, which means getting behind WWIII, which means getting behind nuclear war:

World population = 7,953,952,577

Ukraine population = 43,192,122 = .00543 of homo sapiens.

My point is not that it’s okay to sacrifice the people of Ukraine. My point is to demand negotiations and peace now. We must end this war. Another bit of scriptural advice for the self-declared church-going Christian Joy Reid, who needs to save her soul by rejecting the kind of war-fanning reporting and commentary that could help close the sky for good: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” (And I’m not even religious.)

The Russian people need to rise up against their parasitic ruling class oligarchs, fossil capitalists/capitalist fossils and war pig police state. The US-American people need to rise up against their own parasitic ruling class oligarchs, fossil capitalists/capitalist fossils, and war pig police state. The people of the planet need to rise up against the bourgeois-imperialist system that generates war, police statism, fossil-capitalist ecocide, and parasitic class rule the world over.


Ukraine’s War of Illusions

 
COUNTERPUNCH

 MARCH 11, 2022
Facebook

The Big Three—Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin—at Livadia Palace, Crimea, site of the 1945 Yalta Conference. Photo: Matthew Stevenson..

“The first casualty when war comes is truth.”

—U.S. senator from California, and isolationist in World War I, Hiram W. Johnson

While it might not match the barbarity of President Vladimir Putin’s genocide in Ukraine, the West has hardly advanced the cause of peace with its endless rush to judgements—most of which are based on the video feeds of talking heads waging the good war from the safety of their Zoom redoubts.

Just this morning, I watched retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman—the Boy Scout of impeachment fame who is now working on his cable news merit badge—bang the drum of a wider war in Eastern Europe.

In arguing for Apocalypse, Now!, Vindman is making the point that Putin is a combination of a Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible who must be stopped with Patriot missiles, Stealth bombers, and Abrams tanks; otherwise, before you know it, he will be astride the continent, if not raping Belgian nuns (one of the rumors that fueled the early days of World War I).

Vindman could well be right, although his pious primetime pronouncements all seemed geared to restarting his brilliant career, cut short by the long knives of the Trump clan. For many propped in front of the instant-analysis cameras, the Ukraine war is a gold mine, if not a bulging wallet of cryptocurrencies.

So what other myths are clouding judgements about this war?

Europe’s Not So Magic Mountain

From the news dispatches, you might get the impression that Europe is one big happy continental family that has no cares other than ministering to Ukrainian refugees swarming across the Polish, Romanian, and Slovakian borders.

I wish it were the case, but the reality is that the European idea has been on life support for some time, ever since (you pick the start date) the Greeks ran up a bar bill on its Euro credit card and sent the invoice to Brussels and Berlin, or since a number of Eastern European countries (such as Hungary) decided to give fascism another chance.

In my mind, Europe lost its way over its handling of Yugoslavia’s demise in the early 1990s, which not only ruptured relations with Russia (going through its own post-communist devolution) but called into question the premise that Europe was a united continent.

Had Yugoslavia (as one flawed, ethnically diverse, bankrupt entity) been admitted to the European Union and paved over with subsidies, as happened in East Germany, there’s a chance that the wars that fractured the Balkans could have been avoided and better relations with Russia might have been maintained. (One reason Slovenia and Croatia bolted for the door is that they didn’t want to be on the hook for Belgrade’s Tito-era indebtedness.)

Instead, Europe decide that the war was the result of Serb (i.e., eastern Orthodox or Russian) aggression and divided Yugoslavia into what are now seven countries (Montenegro, Slovenia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, and North Macedonia), few of which have become modern European nations (the average salary in North Macedonia is about $400 a month).

From the Yugoslav dismemberment and the Kosovo precedent, Russia deduced that it could share a similar fate if ever the EU and NATO could get their hands on Chechnya, Transnistria, Ingria, or other borderland statelets.

Elsewhere, the Yugoslav wars left Europe divided between West and East. There may be no longer an Iron Curtain running from Lübeck to Trieste, but many communities and countries in Eastern Europe find life Euro expensive, Brussels authoritarian, and democracy another word for corporate favoritism and corruption.

Finally, let’s not leave the subject of European solidarity without giving Brexit and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson a shoutout for yet another rejection of pan-European-ism, a rupture that would not have been lost on Vladimir Putin as he made his plans for a Soviet Risorgimento.

NATO’s Tin Soldiers

Prior to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Europe had at its core the Holy Roman Empire (it dissolved in 1806), although later historians liked to quip that it was “neither holy, nor Roman, nor much of an empire.”

The same could be said about NATO, which—for all that it is now rushing out-of-date East German surplus weapons to the Polish-Ukraine border and standing tall on the talk shows to Vladimir Putin—also isn’t “much of an empire”.

The NATO critique of the Russian army in Ukraine is that it is overly dependent on technology (cruise missiles, fighter jets, etc.) and less effective when fixing bayonets to rush a Kyiv housing project.

At the same time, don’t believe all the press releases that you read about NATO’s effectiveness as a fighting force, as more than anything else it has lived well in the shade of the American nuclear umbrella, and when it has seen limited action its performance has been at best lackluster.

In theory, it was NATO jets (mostly they were American, but also some British and French) that ended the Yugoslav wars with a 78-day air campaign over Belgrade and Serbia, breaking the back of Slobodan Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

Few, however, remember that the NATO air campaign over Belgrade was largely a comedy/tragedy of errors. Despite claims of pinpoint accuracy with its laser-guided missiles, NATO bombs hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, numerous residential apartment buildings, a TV tower, and a regional passenger train near Grdelica. (Note: Milosevic remained in office after the bombing ended.)

Nor did NATO forces cover themselves with glory in the Afghan wars. NATO sent a symbolic number of troops to the Khyber Pass in support of the United States after September 11, but it was enough of a presence in the campaign to share in some of the losses—and reinforced the damaging image that NATO is just another American posse.

Painting the War By the Ratings Numbers

Pretty much anyone who was deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq is now working full-time for the networks, analyzing the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

They stand in front of illuminated maps that have thrusting arrows and shaded areas of occupation, and drone on (forgive me) about how this armor column is stuck in the mud or how that advance into Kharkiv has stalled near a metro station.

It all sounded fairly persuasive to me until, about a week into the fighting, I started seeing the same photographs and video uplinks, no matter what the attack or the front under discussion. (Walt Whitman: “The real war will never get on cable.”)

And that mired column of Russian armor, stretching miles back toward the Belarus frontier, makes a primetime appearance whenever one of the online generals is making a point about struggling Russian supply lines or the water in the canteens of stalled paratroops outside Kyiv.

I suppose that it’s possible that the Russian army is as bad as described in numerous interviews, but I also think that many of the retired generals on the silver screen may have no idea what they are talking about.

Keep this in mind: what drives the ratings of the network war coverage is the narrative of the plucky Ukraine resistance, the steely resolve of President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the incompetent cruelty of Putin’s advancing columns. That doesn’t mean what’s being broadcast is true.

General David Petraeus Makes His Pitch

I have spent innumerable evenings in the video company of the retired American general (and unfrocked CIA director) David H. Petraeus while he explains the complexities of urban warfare or how helicopters can be vulnerable when they are “low and slow”.

To hear Petraeus tell the war stories, you might think that the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were something other than an unmitigated disaster that helped to bankrupt the economy (except for those Blackwater-ish contractors) and defiled the idea of what it means to be American.

From his primetime press box Petraeus poses as the military heir of Stonewall Jackson or George Marshall, when in fact he was a political general, in the mode Alexander Haig, who earned his many stars briefing his superiors and making nice to the likes of President Barack Obama (who didn’t want his generals to sound or act like William Tecumseh Sherman or George Patton).

Now in his military afterlife (leaving aside that he broke the law in trying to impress his mistress, Paula Broadwell, by giving her classified documents when he was head of the CIA), Petraeus is the pitchman and talking head for the military-industrial complex, serving as the chairman of the KKR Global Institute, a private equity poster child on the nexus between corporations and government that never saw a war or military contract it didn’t love.

Here are his corporate marching orders, as described on its website: “To accomplish its mission, KGI [KKR Global Institute] integrates expertise and analysis about emerging developments and long-term trends in geopolitics, macroeconomics, demographics, energy and natural resource markets, technology, and trade policy, as well as environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations.”

No wonder Dave is working so hard to land the new Cold War account.

Come Out With Your Yachts Up

It says something about the American way of war that the Biden administration is pinning its hopes for a Russian retreat on the seizure of a few oligarchs’ yachts in the Mediterranean.

By this logic the keelhauled sailors, down to their last several billion in gold bars and Bitcoins, will rise up in rebellion against Putin’s autocracy and aggression and yet again make the world safe for August along Sardinia’s Costa Smeralda.

Needless to say, there are sanctions in force other than yacht impoundments, but again all those frozen bank accounts and trade blockades are based on the premise that only rich people can effect change in government—in Russia or, presumably, elsewhere. (Notice that no one grounded any of the paddle boats on the lake in Moscow’s Gorky Park.)

According to the received wisdom about Russia’s government and ruling class, Putin created an oligarchy so that it could manage his offshore wealth and so that he could place the Russian means of production in a small boyar class beholden to his munificence. By American and EU logic, the loyalty of that lumpenproletariat is now open to the highest bidder.

It would be nice to imagine that war is a variation on leveraged buyouts or a Sotheby’s auction, but the forces guiding any society into battle are more complex than the name on the back of a bearer bond, even if that name happens to be that of Vladimir Putin.

Question: would the United States have withdrawn from Vietnam in 1967 if the Russians had levied fines against chief executives of the Fortune 500?

Sanctions: Fool’s Gold

What drove the president’s legions to attack Ukraine were a myriad of reasons, from Putin’s anger at President Zelensky to a personal desire to restore the Russian empire to its imperial glory—what Winston Churchill once described as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”

I doubt whether even oligarch billions, even with a few angry phone calls, can either put Humpty Dumpty back together again or, for that matter, remove him from office.

I confess that I have always looked upon sanctions as fool’s gold, a coin of the realm in foreign affairs that has little fungibility. They didn’t do much to change hearts and minds in South Africa; nor, for that matter, in the ayatollah’s Iran. But as a way to corner distant markets, or drive competitors into bankruptcy, I am sure they are unrivaled.

For Putin to lay waste to Ukraine (clearly his intention) he just needs enough soldiers on the march and home-made weaponry in his casements to see him through whatever botched tactics his commanders unleash initially on Kyiv or Kharkiv. Rape and pillage aren’t necessarily weapons of war that are sourced in foreign markets—certainly not for anyone ruling the roost in the Kremlin.

In many ways it seems two wars have broken out that have almost nothing in common. The Russians are fighting a war to wipe Ukraine from the map and incorporate its land into the Russian Federation, while NATO and its allies would seem to be fighting an economic war, with the goal being to seize as many assets as can be rounded up.

One fight sounds like Hitler’s invasion of Poland; the other has the feel of an IRS audit, or of railroad robber barons trying to squeeze the Union Pacific.

The Mask of War

I realize that worrying about the climate during a war is akin to wondering if Russian soldiers, when crossing into Ukraine, were required to test for covid or quarantine for two weeks in their tanks.

At the same time in addition to charging Putin and his henchmen with crimes against humanity, it would be nice if charges could be brought on grounds of environmental destruction.

Think of all the damage that the war has caused not just on the ground in Ukraine, but in the air and the water table.

Then there is the aspect of the assault that has acted as a corner on fossil fuel markets, driving up prices in a host of commodities, foremost oil and gas (Russia’s primary exports), and has relegated discussions about climate change to a realm concerned, say, with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.

Reparations: Making the Hun Pay

The specter of war reparations (appropriate here) has had an ugly history since the Treaty of Versailles, settling World War I, put the screws to Germany for damages inflicted on the allies during the fighting.

The French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau pushed hardest for reparations against the defeated Germans (in Versailles parlance it was called “Making the Hun pay”) while President Wilson and the American delegation were most concerned that Britain and France repay their American war loans. (Speaking later on the question, Calvin Coolidge expressed the views of many when he asked: “They hired the money, didn’t they?”)

Postwar, assuming the fighting doesn’t end with Putin and his forces in Paris, Russia and its oligarchy could well afford with their petrodollars to rebuild Ukraine, beginning with the city hall in Kharkiv brought down by a thermobaric bomb. But countries like Ukraine rarely find themselves, as the judicial phrase has it, “made whole” after a war.

Years after NATO bombed Belgrade, the buildings hit from the air were left untouched as skeletal remains, although that might have been to remind the local population that Serbia had been the victim of Western aggression.

In many Russian cities, German war damage is often incorporated into local memorials. Volgograd, formerly Stalingrad, not only has soaring monuments to recall the cataclysmic battle that saved the Soviet Union, but many hollow buildings, lest we forget what the Germans wrought.

One of the ironies of the attacks on Ukraine is that many of the Russian cruise missiles have targeted the governmental administration, which tends to be housed in Soviet-era buildings.

Thus Putin, whether he realizes it or not, will have destroyed some of the last links between Ukraine and the Soviet Union (all those 1950s wedding-cake buildings of socialist realism with red stars on the roof). Politically, that may be the biggest reparation of all.

Matthew Stevenson is the author of many books, including Reading the RailsAppalachia Spring, and The Revolution as a Dinner Party, about China throughout its turbulent twentieth century. His most recent book, about traveling in France and the Franco-Prussian wars, is entitled Biking with Bismarck.

HOW DARE YOU!

US congressional hearing questions India’s UN vote on Ukraine issue

Permanent representative and Ambassador of India to United Nations TS Tirumurti 
speaks at the UNSC meet on Ukraine, in New York on Tuesday. (ANI Photo)

By: Pramod Thomas

US lawmakers have questioned India’s UN vote on the Ukraine issue during a Congressional hearing on the Indo-Pacific on Wednesday (9).

India, a non-permanent member of the powerful United Nations Security Council for a two-year term ending December this year, has repeatedly abstained on resolutions against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Several lawmakers, including Indian American Ro Khanna, questioned the Pentagon leadership as to why India did not vote along with the US and its allies at the UN.

Responding to the questions, Ely Ratner, assistant secretary of defence for Indo-Pacific security affairs, told the House Armed Services Committee that India has a complicated history and relationship with Russia,

Ratner said that the majority of weapons that India buys are from Russia.

“The good news is that they are in a multi-year process of diversifying their arms purchases away from Russia. That’s going to take some time, but they are clearly committed to doing that, including increasing the indigenous — indigenisation of their own defence industry. That’s something we should support. So, I think in terms of their relationship with Russia, the trend lines are moving in the right direction,” he said.


Congressman Ro Khanna (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

Khanna asserted that it was the US that supported India in its war against China in 1962 and again when it was engaged in a border conflict with China in 2020.

“Did Russia do anything to protect India when China was violating the Line of Actual Control, to your knowledge?” Khanna asked.

Khanna added: “I’ll just conclude by saying that I think it’s obvious that the US would stand against Chinese aggression on the Line of Actual Control far more than Russia or Putin would, and that we really need to press India to not be as dependent on Russian defence and to be willing to condemn Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, just like we would condemn Chinese aggression beyond the Line of Actual Control.”

Congressman Joe Wilson said that he is shocked that India has abstained on the issues of the mass murder in Ukraine.

“I am concerned a lot of this is because of foreign military sales and the different technicalities and whatever. What’s being done to address issues to make sure that previously brought up by Democrats and Republicans of their fondness for India that were not their main support of the military, which is in the interest of the people of India and the people of the Indo-Pacific,” Wilson said.

“The relationship with prime minister Narendra Modi should be with the US, not in any way associated by way of abstention with a megalomaniac Putin in Putin’s war. I saw our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans appalled that there would be abstention by India.”

Ratner, in response to another question from Congresswoman Lisa McClain,  said: “India, on its own accord as a sovereign decision, has been diversifying its arms purchases and development, including its own indigenisation and making some substantial purchases from the US as well.”

India’s Ambassador to the UN T S Tirumurti has earlier said that India has been deeply concerned over the rapidly deteriorating situation in Ukraine and the ensuing humanitarian crisis.

“We Are Witnessing a New Form of Warfare”
A military-intelligence source explains Ukraine’s chances of victory and how the embattled nation might still get those MiG fighters.

by Paul Glastris
March 11, 2022
The situation near the cities of Irpin and Bucha, west of Kyiv, Ukraine, during the Russian invasion of UKraine, pictured on March 9, 2022.
 Photo/Pavel Nemecek (CTK via AP Images)


On March 9, I had a conversation about the war in Ukraine with a longtime source of mine who has had a decades-long career in the military and in the intelligence community, serving both in and out of government. The source requested anonymity to speak freely. The following Q&A has been edited for brevity.

Q: What do you make of the offer by Poland to provide MiG fighters to the United States that we would then deliver to Ukraine?

A: It was really not smart of the Poles to float this publicly. It was an unforced error on their part. The more visible this discussion is, the less helpful it is.

Q: So how will Ukraine get the fighters it needs?

A: There are countries that have MiGs that are not members of NATO. This is a classic case where the U.S. government gets its checkbook out and quietly goes to one of those countries. The fighters just show up in Ukraine. The Russians wouldn’t even necessarily know where they came from—remember, right now, they don’t even control the airspace over Ukraine. They would obviously know what happened, but the United States and NATO would have deniability. It’s called “foreign material acquisition.” We did this all the time during the Cold War.

Q: How vital is it to get those MIGs to Ukraine?

A: I don’t see it as being decisive. Maybe I’m wrong. The Ukrainians seem to want them badly. I’m sure they want to use them to hit Russian tanks and deny Russia control of the airspace. But they are doing an amazing job of that with the weapons we already gave them. We’ve supplied them with something like 17,000 anti-tank missiles and I don’t know how many [antiaircraft] Stingers. We should be giving them thousands more.

We are witnessing a new form of warfare. To put a tank on a battlefield costs maybe $30 million. A Javelin anti-tank missile costs $175,000. Similarly with fighter jets and antiaircraft missiles. You can defend territory at a tiny fraction of what it costs the aggressor to take it. The drones the Ukrainians bought from the Turks are doing incredible damage. But just the cheap commercial drones you buy at Walmart can give you total tactical awareness of the battlefield. So Ukrainians can see everything the Russians are doing. They don’t even need satellites. But you can buy satellite imagery on the commercial market, too, and that gives you strategic awareness.

Q: How worried are you that the Russians will be able to cut off the supply of weapons and other key material from the West to the Ukrainians?

A: The Russians are said to be able to interdict supplies. But if you have Ukrainian convoys equipped with Stingers and also teams equipped with Stingers on fixed sites along the routes, all they need to do is shoot down a few Russian aircraft and the Russians are going to be saying, “Forget it, I don’t want to go there.” Will it be harder to get supplies into Kyiv if the Russians manage to blockade the city? Yes. But the Ukrainians can then attack the Russians from behind.

Q: How much of the military resistance we are seeing in Ukraine is the result of citizens rising up themselves and how much of it is being directed by the Ukrainian military?

A: Yeah, you see the photos in the media of the handmade Molotov cocktails. No question: The will of the Ukrainian people is incredible. You saw a taste of that determination in 2014. I saw it when I was in Ukraine right after the 2014 revolution. If Putin had been paying attention, they would’ve seen that, too. But also, we’ve had Green Berets going into Ukraine for years training Ukrainian special forces for just this kind of moment. This resistance was very well planned out.

Q: How does this end?

A: It’s a race against time. The Ukrainians are killing hundreds of 19-year-old Russian conscripts. The Russians are killing hundreds of Ukranian civilians. Thousands are going to die. But the Ukrainian people have had a taste of the West, a taste of freedom, and they don’t want anything to do with Russia. The Russian people, on the other hand, have had a tacit understanding with Putin: They don’t get involved in politics, and he gives them some semblance of economic stability. But now, with the war and the sanctions, Putin has broken the deal. Average middle-class Russians can’t go to Greece for vacation anymore. They can’t watch soccer. They can’t even go to McDonald’s. That tacit understanding has been broken. It’s really a case of this being one man’s war: Putin’s.

PAUL GLASTRIS
 is the editor in chief of the Washington Monthly. A former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, he is writing a book on America’s involvement in the Greek War of Independence.
Altercation: How Did So Many People Quickly Become Experts on Ukraine and Russia?

The media (both mass and social) are full of freshly minted authorities on Eastern Europe and the complexities of warfare.


BY ERIC ALTERMAN
MARCH 11, 2022


ALEXEY MAISHEV/SPUTNIK VIA AP
Russian President Vladimir Putin is seen on a screen as he delivers a speech at the plenary session during the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum, June 4, 2021, in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Sometimes, albeit rarely, 280 characters is exactly the right amount of space to make a crucially necessary intervention on America’s political discourse. Case in point, from comic Robby Slowick: “Bittersweet announcement but after an amazing 2 years as an infectious disease expert I am moving on. I am now an expert in no-fly zones and Eastern European affairs. Excited to make the most of this new opportunity.”

Yes, of course, journalists have always acted as if it required an hour or two for them to “get up to speed” on whatever issue interested them: nuclear fission, the internal politics of Moldova, or the infield fly rule. And yes, that is intensely annoying. But academics, many of whom devote their entire lives to trying to understand a single topic—and often complain about just this tendency in journalists—should know better. They should understand, based on their own professional experience, that various complexities that are invisible to all but those who have immersed themselves in their subjects are bound to interfere with the kind of dime-store, simplistic analysis that rules the day in our punditocracy’s discourse. The proper reaction, therefore, ought to be to stay at least in the vicinity of one’s lane when mouthing off on social media.

Read more Altercation

But it turns out the opposite is true. I can’t tell you how many people in my various networks whose subspecialties have nothing whatsoever to do with anything related to Russia, Ukraine, or war are mouthing off like Nate Silver on the intricacies of epidemiology. They need to take a chill pill and listen to people who’ve put in sufficient work to know what they are talking about. It’s bad enough that our cable networks don’t care, but the members of our scholarly and professional networks certainly should. Respect for expertise is, after all, what they’ve devoted their entire professional lives to.

Listen people, it’s time to get out more. Your Twitter followers, Facebook “friends,” and members of your listservs are not really your friends, and no one on any social media network cares how you “feel” about Putin, Biden, or Trump. Why not make some real friends, or maybe go to the movies? (I recommend Parallel Mothers, Licorice Pizza, and Drive My Car.) But however you decide to spend your time, please stop pontificating on Twitter et al. about things you know as much about as Donald Trump knew about drinking cleaning products. It’s just another form of pollution and minimizes our already minuscule possibility of having an intelligent public conversation about the extremely difficult and dangerous problems our country faces. In The Atlantic, we find a fuller account of a similarly annoying phenomenon, here.

One thing I will venture to say about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—staying in my lane as I do so—is that it should give us cause to rethink the Cold War. Sure, the Bolshevik Revolution looked awfully frightening to American elites in 1917, given its take-no-prisoners, anti-democratic embrace of mass violence (and especially when they started murdering the members of the Romanov family). But by 1924–1925, when Stalin had consolidated his power and declared his dedication to “Socialism in One Country,” it ceased to be a significant threat to anyone in the United States. All of the “Red Scare” hysteria could have been avoided if we had just accepted the fact that the Soviet Union was still just the Russian Empire, and that its post-Lenin/Trotsky ideology was just a gloss to justify what any Russian autocrat would have wanted to do anyway. We would be a far healthier democracy today and millions of people would not have died in unnecessary, counterproductive wars if the U.S. had shown more self-confidence in its own values and beliefs rather than feeling that we had to counter the Soviets everywhere of their choosing.

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: The Tragedy of American Diplomacy 


I say all of the above because, while I know we would all love to see Putin gone, either in defeat or in retreat, no one can really be sure how that might be accomplished without setting off World War III. The Ukrainians can likely wage a spirited guerrilla war against a Russian occupation and drive up its cost over time, but it’s hard to imagine they can defeat an army eight times the size of their own in conventional warfare should Putin decide to go all out. In the hopes of avoiding that—or worse, of somehow inspiring Putin to respond to his army’s failure so far to capture the country by setting off a few tactical nuclear weapons—well, all I can say is I hope nobody in a position in power is taking seriously all the dumbass suggestions I keep seeing on social media. (It hardly needs saying that by far the stupidest of these have come from this man, though if you check the media coverage of his remarks, you will find it typically respectful, in the manner one treats the words of infants who have just learned to talk.)

The fact is that no one seems to know whether Putin is politically vulnerable inside Russia, or what he might do should he turn out to be. We don’t know if he can be overthrown from within or even if the Russian people would want that. Our intelligence agencies appear to be guessing on the basis of their own ideological predilections, rather than reliable data. Putin is a one-man show and were I to play poker with him, I’d have no choice but to play the cards and not the man. And our cards are all lousy.

Perhaps it is true that the Russian people would wish to get rid of him if they properly understood the crimes he has committed and the irreversible damage he has done to their country. We don’t know that either. What we do know is that such information won’t be available to them, because in Russia, just as in the United States and much of the world, democracy is in rapid retreat.

I know this because I’ve been reading the new detailed report by Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem), “Democracy Report 2022: Autocratization Changing Nature?,” based on over 30 million data points for 202 countries from 1789 to 2021. It enlisted over 3,700 scholars to measure hundreds of different attributes of democracy and found that “the level of democracy enjoyed by the average global citizen in 2021 is down to 1989 levels,” and “the last 30 years of democratic advances are now eradicated.” Dictatorships now govern 70 percent of the world population—5.4 billion people. The number of liberal democracies, which were rising up until 2012, have since fallen to their lowest level in more than 25 years and now account for just 13 percent of the world population. (And I think they are still counting the United States.) The democratic decline, the authors note, is especially evident in Asia Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, as well as in parts of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Odds and Ends

Cancel culture is dumb and destructive and should always be opposed, but:

(a) It happens far more on the right than on the left.

(b) The people who complain about it the most are often the people who practice it the most. (Of a million examples I could choose, I’m going with Bari Weiss.)

(c) No matter how bad it may be in elite universities, it is nowhere near as important a problem as the editors of the New York Times op-ed page seem to think it is. And once again, I repeat, it’s a scandal how much journalistic attention is given to schools like UVA and Yale, etc., when the vast number of students in American colleges attend non-elite, usually public universities that are criminally underfunded. I like to think I teach at one of the best.

(d) Ms. Weiss should watch her back. (I borrowed that one from someone on Twitter, but I forget who.)

(e) P.S.: It’s just as dumb when you’re canceling Russians.

I’m a little late in mentioning this, but has anyone in the world had a better year than Paul McCartney? Just a few months ago, he was thought to be the guy who broke up the Beatles with his bossiness and refusal to go along with the business plans the other three had agreed to, and hence being the first to announce publicly that “the dream was over.”

Thanks to the release of Get Back, we now know that it was Paul who actually held the Beatles together as long as it was possible to do so. By the time of the 1970 breakup announcement, John had already informed the rest of the band that he was leaving to pursue projects with Yoko. (What’s more, George’s blossoming songwriting talent had become uncontainable in the band any longer.) But Paul’s a hero now, thanks to the charm and intelligence on display in the documentary in keeping things together, but also the way we got to see him write “Get Back” in front of our eyes like the insanely handsome genius he still clearly was. In the past few months, the 80-year-old mop top has enjoyed elder-statesman treatment from David Remnick, Terry Gross, and Rick Rubin and can be seen in superhuman size (and charm) with the rest of the boys in the terrific IMAX version of the Rooftop Concert currently traveling the country. Here’s 20 minutes of the show. Paul is also touring this summer. Maybe I’ll see you in the cheap seat


ERIC ALTERMAN is a CUNY Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College, an award-winning journalist, and the author of 11 books, most recently ‘Lying in State: Why Presidents Lie—and Why Trump Is Worse.’ Follow him on Twitter @eric_alterman