Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Russia and Eastern Europe Page 13 of 18

Fools Russians Where Angels Fear to Tread

By

On February 18, 2017

Comments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5phTXGN_0

(NB: post by Mandos.)

Recent events suggest that, whatever they may have originally thought, the Trump administration is in the process of being pulled back into the overall historical attractor of US policy regarding Russia. The Russian establishment had made no secret of its preference for Trump and its belief that Trump was a person with which they could deal on a more even footing, a politician in a mold they understood, etc.

I’m not here to argue whether or not Trump (or Flynn) is some kind of Russian plant, an issue that seems to be occupying many others.  I gather that conclusive evidence on this matter has yet to be produced and that it so far lies in the realm of (negative) wishful thinking.  However, Russian policy-makers are already voicing disappointment that Russia-favorable entities in the Trump administration are increasingly weakened. The US state, particularly its intelligence community, are deeply set up for conflict with Russia, for better or for worse, and it turns out that the White House is only part of a large infrastructure, and any fantasies of an election resulting in a vast purge and house-cleaning were just that: fantasies. The intelligence community still believes to its core in the necessity of containing Russia.

However, one thing that is different now is the position of Western social liberals. Unfortunately, Russia had decided to back in spirit, if not always materially, movements that are identified with various strains of nationalist conservatism that are hostile to the goals and beliefs of social liberals. This is not only in the USA, but especially so in Europe, with the on-going rise of the Le Pens, the Wilders, and other groups in the world. Once upon a time, social liberal groups were principally parochial movements which were relatively indifferent on foreign policy questions regarding Russia, and to a very large extent also overlapped with anti-war movements — and so were once at odds with the intelligence community.

However, the apparent desire of Russia to return to a world of ordinary nation-state politics, and therefore its willing appearance (at minimum) of siding with conservative nationalist movements, have led to many social liberals now viewing Russia as mortal threat to their projects, and therefore, having a plausible motive to try to subvert political movements like that of Trumpism to their aims.  In this situation, social liberals (or “identity politics” movements, or whatever you want to call them) will quite rationally stake out a position that the devil you know (American intelligence forces) are better than the devil you don’t (Vladimir Putin). This is not helped by the appearance of things like Russia loosening its laws on domestic violence.

While social liberals have not lately been winning elections on their platforms (most notably, in the USA due to the Electoral College structure), it would be a mistake to assume that these groups have no power whatsoever. In fact, they have broad and deep bases of popular support (merely electorally inefficient), and those bases are being pushed into the arms of forces hostile to Russian interests. The combination of Cold War-style intelligence community conservatism with popular social liberalism is one that is likely to lead to an even more hostile neo-Cold War posture on the part of the Western establishment in the medium-term, unless in the short term Trumpism can generate the political competence required to coerce the establishment in the other direction.

For its part, Russia has been attempting to play, in the “further abroad”, a soft power role given that its other options are not effective. It is attempting to play the part of a rival global hegemon without actually being a hegemon. It does not currently have the cultural or technological reach to do so.  While it operates a technologically advanced, developed economy, it is still highly dependent on natural resource development and export. That means that the risks accruing from a strategy of using cultural divisions in the currently hegemonic Western social order are high: should social liberals gain the upper hand due to the inability of nationalist populism to operate the levers of state effectively, they will be confirmed in a resolve for further containment and suppression of a Russia that took sides against them.

The Trump China Showdown Aligns with Reality

By

On December 12, 2016

Comments

Trump received a phone call from the Taiwanese president. That was a violation of the One China policy, where in order to have diplomatic relations with China, one cannot have formal relations with China.

It is quite clear that Trump did this deliberately, it was not a gaffe, but planned.

China stated this was unacceptable, but was willing to pretend it was a gaffe.

Trump doubled down, accusing China of currency manipulation hurting the US (not true right now, but massive in the past), of not helping enough with North Korea, and of unacceptable behaviour in the South China Sea, where it has been building islands in order to seize control of the sea. He said he sees no reason to abide by One China if the US isn’t getting something in return.

China’s official response is that there will be no negotiations over anything without One China first.

A Chinese tabloid which is party associated said that if the US rescinded One China, China should invade Taiwan and arm American enemies.

And here we are.

Some basics. One power maximum; the potential power, of a modern state, is equal to its industrial power. Many nations may not have as much power as their industry allows, but this is the limiter.

China is now the world’s largest manufacturer. It is the world’s potentially most powerful nation. However, China’s policy has been (quite sensibly) to gain the base first, then arm, for classic guns or butter reasons.

China did manipulate its currency to gain their manufacturing base, but the US and other Western elites were entirely complicit. China offered large profits to individuals and corporations, and they took that money. It’s that simple.

China’s ascension did not just hurt the US, it hurt Japan, who is probably America’s most loyal ally (with the possible exception of the UK or Canada).

The manufacturing jobs performed in China would have been, in an alternate universe, done by the people who elected Trump in the Rust Belt.

Trump and his advisors do not believe that China and the US’s interests are aligned; they see China as the rising power, who is rising at the expense of the US.

This is not insane. In fact, it is accurate. It is possible to imagine a world in which that rise led to shared prosperity, but no one is offering such policies and no one ever has.

Now, I want you to turn your attention to Russia. Yes, Russia.

See, the problem with NATO expansion, the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, the color revolutions, and sanctions against Russia, and all that stuff, is that it was forcing Russia into China’s camp.

Russia does not want to be China’s ally. Russians (at least in the past, not so sure any more) would far rather have allied with Europe and the US, but Europe and the US would simply not allow it. Running on crazed fumes from the Cold War, the US and Europe feared Russia, who is no longer a threat to take first sport, rather than China, who is.

Note that Trump has also expressed great skepticism about NATO. He puts it in money terms: “Why should we pay for Europe’s defense?” But the end is the same, a NATO pointed at Russia doesn’t make sense to Trump or his advisors.

And Trump’s plans for the US involve a change in trade, anyway. People are scared of a trade war, and they should be.  Right now, what Trump is saying is at a meta-level which most people are too stupid to get: China is going to have to make a deal which helps American manufacturing, and everything is on the table in order to negotiate that. Everything.

Because Trump owes his election to the Rust Belt. He must deliver for them, in four years, or he will not be re-elected. His people, at least, will understand this. The election was too close. Trump must deliver.

And if China won’t cut a deal? Fine, slap tariffs on them. America is still America; American consumers can still consume, and if it turns into a trade war, manufacturing jobs may well come back to the US.

This is high stakes poker. It could cause a serious war, or it could send the world economy into a serious tailspin.

It is also a realignment moment. The US is pivoting from treating Russia as a big enemy, to treating China as the big threat. This is, whether you like it or not, rational: China is the actual threat to American hegemony.

I assume Trump thinks there is a deal to be made–perhaps he even thinks there is a way to make the deal into a win/win. We will see.

But do not think this is pure insanity, or that it is not well thought out. This is based on a world model in better accord with actual world conditions–more so than the world model under which Obama was operating.

If the status quo continues, the US will be superseded by China. At that point, if China and Russia are allies, options for the US are extremely limited. China is the rising power, Russia is a great power, but won’t a threat at the “super power” level again in the immediate future.

I will remind readers, once again, to stop assuming that Trump and his team are idiots just because they are doing things in new ways. I do not know if this pivot will work, and it could blow up spectacularly, but it is not prima facie stupid.

In fact, politicians who actually put the US’s real interests first would have never allowed China into the WTO, and certainly would have gone out of their way to make sure that China’s ascendence was a win/win, rather than a win/lose OR (if they were ruthless and slightly less smart) they would have done everything they could to prevent it. (I would not have favored that, to be clear).

Certainly, the US should have pivoted East years ago. This is a move which is made much more dangerous and problematic than it could have been by the fact that it wasn’t done when it should have been, enabled by an absolutely deranged policy towards Russia, which schizophrenically treated Russia as if it were both powerless and a huge threat.*

The world is getting a lot more dangerous, fast. But it was going to anyway. This may not be the best China policy possible, but it at least acknowledges reality.

(*I understand the impulse to prevent Russia from turning back into a huge threat, but that could have been managed with far less difficulty and in ways that wouldn’t have estranged Russia.)

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Stopping Violent International Aggression

By

On November 2, 2016

Comments

We need to clear up some fundamental thinking.

US politicians and foreign policy groupniks spew about how Putin is the next Hitler and must be stopped.

The implication here is that Putin will keep doing bad things if he isn’t forced to not do them.

What are the bad things that Putin’s Russia has done?

Put down an uprising in Chechnya, through mass killing, and with the justification of a likely false-flag attack. Note that Chechnya was, and is, part of Russia. This was a domestic operation.

Attacked Georgia over a couple of provinces which were majority ethnic Russian, and (sotto voce) because Georgia was talking about joining NATO.

Annexed Crimea, the majority of whose population wanted to join them. (There was a referendum in the 80s, which got the same results as the most recent referendum.)

Interfered in the Eastern Ukraine, which is majority ethnic Russian.

All of this happening after a coup, run by neo-Nazis and supported by the West, which would likely have (drumroll) lead to the Ukraine joining NATO.

Bombing the hell out of parts of Syria in rebellion against the Syrian government after being invited in by Syria. Russia has been Syria’s ally for decades and has interests there. Russia regrets allowing a no-fly zone over Libya after being assured by Clinton herself that it would not be used for regime change.

Now, what has the US done over the same span of time?

Invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban said they would turn over OBL if evidence was given to them that he was behind 9/11. You may not believe them, but the US did not even attempt to give that evidence. The US is still there, fifteen  years later, occupying a foreign country. (Yes, occupying, the Kabul government would fall if the US left, and we all know it.)

Invaded Iraq, which had done nothing to the US and was no threat to it, on the basis of lies (including that it was behind 9/11). Occupied it for years, and essentially destroyed it as a modern secular country (this after having subjected it to a bombing campaign in the 90s, which, among other things, targeted civilian sewer systems, then subjected it to punishing sanctions which restricted basic medicines and probably caused the deaths of half a million children, as well as many more deaths amongst adults).

Supported an attack on Libya which wound up destroying that country and leaving it in anarchy.

Supported the destruction of Syria, which has led to millions fleeing that country. The likely next US President wanted a no fly zone. This is, essentially, an explicit alliance with at least one al-Qaeda affiliate.

Meanwhile, the US runs a nearly worldwide drone assassination program which has killed thousands and regularly hits weddings and funerals. It is widely acknowledged that this program often kills civilians, often targets “the wrong” people based on an algorithmic “Well, he’s probably a terrorist” calculations, and has even been used to kill an American citizen without due process. This program, lacking all respect for sovereignty or due process, is clearly terrorism by any definition which doesn’t say “The US can’t engage in terrorism.”

So. Russia has acted to: (1) prevent nations on its borders, many of whom have been part of Russia for centuries, from joining NATO, which it considers an existential threat; (2) put down a rebellion in its own territory, and; (3) aid a multi-decade ally who is in danger due to a US- and US ally-supported uprising (these allies include Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States).

The US has attacked three countries, only one of whom may have attacked it, all of which are half the world away. Two of them were clearly no threat to the US, and the third threat was questionable (and there were plans on the shelf to just go in, and take out OBL without occupying Afghanistan). The US kills people with impunity throughout the world, with little regard for civilian casualties, in countries it is not even at war with.

Who is the rogue state? Who needs to be stopped before they kill, and kill again?

One can disagree with much of what Russia has done (the unfettered bombing of Aleppo and the atrocities of Chechnya inparticular) and still say that the US is clearly a rogue nation, and the greater threat to world peace.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Russia Is Preparing for War

By

On October 18, 2016

Comments

I don’t think there’s much question about it. Even if they think it’s unlikely, Russia thinks war is possible enough that preparatory steps are required.

Citing routine drills, Russia has even moved missiles within striking range of NATO targets, into the Kaliningrad enclave bordering Poland and Lithuania.

Meanwhile, CNN informs us that:

“Moscow abruptly left a nuclear security pact, citing U.S. aggression, and moved nuclear-capable Iskandar missiles to the edge of NATO territory in Europe. Its officials have openly raised the possible use of nuclear weapons.”

And:

This tension is spilling out into territory beyond the U.S. as well, as reports show the  European Union is less likely to ease sanctions on Moscow over Ukraine, now that Russia has intensified air strikes on E.U. and U.S.-friendly rebels in Syria. They are even considering more punitive steps.

…Press Secretary Josh Earnest said this week the U.S. was considering a “range” of “proportional” responses to alleged Russian hacking of U.S. political groups like the DNC. The accusation from Washington, CNN reports, came after the Syrian ceasefire talks broke down when U.S. officials suggested Russia should be investigated for war crimes.

Sigh.

This is all profoundly stupid and unnecessary. Crimea and the Ukraine are not worth a war with Russia. (Especially Crimea, which was part of Russia for centuries, and whose population, as best I can tell, genuinely did want to join Russia.)

Unlike everyone else in Syria, Russia was invited by the recognized Syrian government. And no Western nation should have much of an interest in destabilizing Syria. There are reasons for the Gulf Arabs, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey have such an interest, but not the West. Furthermore, to note the blitheringly obvious, there are NO “moderate” rebels of any significance in Syria. If Assad, nasty as he is, loses, an awful Islamic state will be set up in Syria.

The evidence of Russian interference in the US election is circumstantial at best, and even if they have given Wikileaks some documents, so the fuck what? All the documents released by Wikileaks are real documents, the information they reveal is what matters. The US has interfered far more extensively in a long list of other countries’ elections, including in Russia’s.

Let us remember, Russia still has enough nuclear weapons to destroy civilization multiple times over. So does the US. The Russians have been quite explicit that if they start losing a conventional war, they WILL use tac nukes, and it is a short step up from there to strategic nukes.

Over Syria? Over the Ukraine and Crimea, which were part of Russia for centuries and are clearly in their sphere of influence?

Clinton is an uber-hawk. Hillary has said that Putin is echoing Hitler in the 30s. She also called for a no-fly zone in Syria, after Russia was there.

Apropos of “rhetoric,” if you sincerely say someone is Hitler in the 30s, gobbling up territory, you are saying “only force can stop him.”

This is deranged. This is insane. This is potentially genocidally insane.

I hope that Clinton and other Western leaders are just spewing rhetoric, but I also know that that rhetoric is leading to real, concrete actions, like moving weapons and men to the borders of NATO; real sanctions which are doing real harm, and so on.

Contrary to what many seem to think, you can back yourself into a war (see World War I). We can’t afford to back into a war with Russia.

(Update: the “return of officials story” is wrong and I have removed it.)

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Most Russians Would Like the USSR Back

By

On April 21, 2016

Comments

This is what happens when you mess up the transition from Communism:

When researchers asked the public if they would like the Soviet Union to be restored, 58 percent replied in the affirmative, with 14 percent saying they considered such project quite realistic at the moment. Forty-four percent view the restoration of the USSR as unfeasible, even though preferable. Thirty-one percent said they would not be happy if events took such a turn, while 10 percent could not give a simple answer to the question.

Of course, much of it is nostalgia by people who have no memory of the USSR, but I still find it interesting that, in some of the countries that were Communist, people would like to go back.  The number in East Germany was 57 percent recently.

I wonder what the number would be in China. The interesting metric is this: Those who stay in their ancestral villagers are happier than those who leave. Pollution is terrible in the new mega-cities and safety is way down. I know many people familiar with China in the 80s who say you could leave your possessions in public, come back hours later and be certain they would be thre.

History never ends. Neither capitalism, nor democracy, nor the current capitalist philosophy of neo-liberalism will be eternal.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

Russia Sells Six to Seven Billion Dollars of Planes After Syria

By

On March 28, 2016

Comments

Not a bad return indeed:

What I wrote November 13th, 2015:

What is happening in Syria is a demonstration that Russia can be counted on to help its allies—meaning its customers. It is a demonstration that Russia’s new weapons, and particularly its cruise missiles and airpower, are comparable to US product, and maybe, even in the case of its most advanced fighter/bomber, better.

It is a demonstration that if you buy Russian you aren’t buying crap that US-supplied forces can roll right over any more.

Putin: If he’s not the world’s most capable leader, he’s certainly in the running. One doesn’t have to like him, or approve of him, to acknowledge this.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Guardian Pushes for Western Countries Involvement in Invasion of Syria

By

On February 15, 2016

Comments

So, Michael Clarke in the Guardian writes that the Saudi Arabian threat to invade Syria isn’t credible (it isn’t, if acting alone, but Saudi Arabia claims Turkey is onside, and Turkey is a credible threat.)

He then goes on as follows:

Militarily, the Saudi threat issued at Munich has to be made credible. If a ceasefire does not materialise soon, the Russians, Iranians and Assad himself have no incentives to quit while they are ahead. Only the possibility of Arab ground forces, from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE, heavily backed by western logistics and intelligence, air power and technical specialists, could force Assad and his backers to make a strategic choice in favour of cessation. Only the US could make that work for the Saudis and others – and only Britain could bring along other significant European allies.

So, he wants America involved in this invasion in a big, visible way, along with Europe.

The sheer crazy here is awe-inspiring. Clarke believes that a “vengeful Assad” would be a huge problem for the West if he reconstitutes Syria.

Big enough to risk nuclear war?

Why?

It’s a small country, destroyed by war, run by a pragmatist. I suppose it is possible Assad could sponsor terrorism, but he’s unlikely to risk anything truly large that would entail risking his own life in retaliation, nor could he expect Russia to defend him if he was truly sponsoring terrorism.

There is nothing in Syria, and never was, that was worth a war there, at least not for the West. Destabilizing Syria has caused nothing but headaches for the West, including the current refugee crisis, which is likely to seen, historically, as one of the causes of the EU either breaking up or becoming a largely toothless and ceremonial organization.  (The main cause will be that the EU cripples its own members economically.)

(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year.  If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)

I am shocked at the level of political thinking which the Guardian considers worth publishing. Truly shocked, not just rhetorically. Insane NeoCon warmongering is one thing when you’re dealing with countries like Iraq and Libya, it is another when you are dealing with a country where one of the world’s great nuclear powers is currently fighting.

Stupidity like this could get a lot of people very dead, and not just Middle Eastern people the West doesn’t care about.

Nothing in Syria is worth risking a war with Russia over. Nothing.

 

 

And This Is Why You Don’t Screw Up Post-USSR Russia

By

On January 31, 2016

Comments

Sigh.

These days most Russians regard the loss of the USSR as a negative event. A poll conducted this month by the independent Levada Center found that 63 percent see the collapse “negatively” while just 14 percent think it was a “positive” event. Asked which type of political system they would prefer to live under, 13 percent named “Western democracy,” 23 percent said the present Russian setup was best, while 37 percent said the Soviet system would be most desirable.

As the article itself says, the USSR was a superpower, it produced consumer goods Russia does not (produced, not bought from other countries) and it claimed to seek to create a better world.

This wasn’t necessary. But we, the West, deliberately chose to wreck Russia through shock therapy: We sold everything off as fast as we could, dismantled industries, allowed oligarchs to rise, and generally plundered the country. Russian mortality actually exceeded births, the average age of death dropped, and so on.

It was a terrible time.

The joke back then, was, “Everything the Communists told us about Communism was a lie. Unfortunately everything they told us about Capitalism was true.”

Sigh.

The stage is now set for a new ideology, claiming to fix the failures of Communism, but keeping its ideals.

This was easily enough avoided; we could have eased them in the way we did Poland, for example, and ensured that they thought Capitalism was ace. If we’d given them European social democracy, by now they’d be asking to join the EU (because any elites competent enough to follow this policy wouldn’t have borked the EU the way the last 20 years of EU bureaucrats and European officials have.)

Geopolitically, this would have left China isolated, ensured American dominance for a few more decades, and so on.

A world that never was to be, but could have been, had we not been run by neo-liberal ideologues and carpetbaggers.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

Page 13 of 18

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén