How the West Made the War in Ukraine Almost Inevitable

The Soviet Union had collapsed, the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe were free, the world balance of power had changed; the cold war was over.  Russia was starting to work with the US and Europe as a friend.

But then policy makers and Europe decided to take advantage of the situation and expand NATO right up to Russia's borders.   Was there a threat current or future that caused this move?  No.   It was instead a visceral desire to contain Russia; a never again vow.   Russia would not even be allowed to have a reasonable zone of influence in Eastern Europe, such as the US has in the Americas.

But by so doing, the west embarked on a new cold war.   There was no question that Russia would react negatively to this move.   It was an in-your-face aggression prompted by the weakness of Russia.   

Putin became obsessed with preventing Russia from being hemmed in.   He reached out to China to secure his southeastern flank.   He fought the war in Chechnya and the Crimea.   

And then he clearly made moves indicating that he was planning on invading Ukraine.   There was lots of rhetoric about the Russian people and mother Russia, but it was mostly really all about stopping the accretion of NATO. 

The question is, given these basic facts, why didn't President Biden and the EU, prior to the Russian invasion, offer to keep the Ukraine out of NATO in exchange for Russia guaranteeing that it would never invade Ukraine?  The Ukraine did say it was not pursuing NATO membership.

This would have been no loss to the west, and a huge gain for Putin.   But Biden and other western leaders don't like to appear to give in to bullies like Putin.   And they certainly don't like giving Putin a big win domestically.  

So Ukraine is being bombarded and lives destroyed because of a desire by Biden and others to save face.

But at it's core, it's much the same mentality that has always viewed as a friend a country that was friendly to US interests regardless how barbaric and undemocratic its leadership, and to see as a foe any country that was not friendly to our interests, regardless how democratically elected they were.   It is the desire for empire, not in the old sense but in tactical control and influence.

But we aren't willing to go to war to defend this empire.   We instead use other means such as sanctions.   That's because it's really not about national interests in any true sense, certainly not one that the American people would support.   

And so the Ukrainian people suffer.  They are caught in the middle of the West and Russia not wanting to loose face and power, but the West not willing to put its military force into the equation and so leaving the ground to Russia.

The Mueller Report and the AG’s Decision

The long-awaited report has arrived and, at least as it’s been summarized by the Attorney General, Democrats are very disappointed.  

Regarding Russia’s interference in the election, Mueller found no collusion or coordination.  Given the information that has been made public over the course of the investigation, this is not a surprise, or should not be.  Knowledge of  Russia’s dirty tricks, and hoping to benefit from the dirt, is not the same as colluding or coordinating.

Regarding obstruction of justice, the Special Council declined to make a “prosecutorial” decision.  He has just presented evidence for and against.  Why he chose to not make a decision is beyond me.  

Without question, Trump acted to obstruct, he had the intent to obstruct, and it pertained to an ongoing proceeding, namely the investigation.  So it would seem that the Attorney General’s three requirements for prosecution were met.  One of course needs evidence to prove all three points, but just from Trump’s own Tweets, one would seem to have sufficient evidence on all three points.  

The fact that the report exonerated Trump and the campaign from collusion with Russia should not in any way impact the obstruction charge.  Perhaps most people would not try to obstruct a proceeding if they knew they were innocent.  But Trump is not most people.  He obviously was obsessed by this investigation.  The mere fact of it roiled him.  So not only should the exoneration on collusion not be determinative regarding the obstruction charge, as the Attorney General said in his letter, it should really have no impact.

As for the Attorney General’s decision to make the decision his and say there wasn’t sufficient evidence, it is unseemly and reeks of politics.  Mueller, after months of deliberation, was very careful to say that while he wasn’t recommending a charge, the report did not exonerate the President regarding obstruction.  

Yet the Attorney General did just that, although actually what he said was that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to charge the President.  Now, insufficient evidence does not mean not guilty.  But for the public, and certainly for Trump’s supporters, that is a distinction without a difference.

Congress and the American people clearly need to see the entire report.

American Exceptionalism - The Myth Exploded, Part II

In a previous post, I discussed why American exceptionalism is a myth ... that the data show clearly that Americans are not better off than those of other developed countries in the areas of health, education, income equality, social mobility, and equal opportunity.  The promise of the Declaration of Independence has not been realized by large segments of America’s citizenry.

Another way in which American exceptionalism presents itself is in our undying belief that our system of government, democracy, is the best system of governance in the world and that all people should live in a democracy and experience its benefits.  Connected to this is our belief that from a geopolitical perspective, a government will more likely be our ally if it is a democracy than if it is not.

In the cases of Russia and Iraq we see the absolute fallacy of this reasoning.  Russia was a Communist dictatorship.  It was the evil empire, our blood enemy for half a decade.  But for all the failures of the Soviet Union’s Communist system regarding the lack of freedom of its citizens and the weakness of its economy, as well as of course the horrors of Stalinism, it provided important benefits to its citizens ... order, security, jobs, normalcy, a sense of place.  

After the fall of Communism and the overnight transformation of Russia into a democracy, everything fell apart.  There was no more authority and Russia became a gangster state, overrun by criminals, thieving oligarchs, and politicians whose only concept of governance was personal enrichment and absolute control.  Far from becoming an ally of ours, Russia has remained a thorn in our side, although a less powerful one.

Iraq was without question under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein a terrible place ... at least if you happened to be viewed as an enemy of his.  But even more so than in Russia, Iraqis benefitted from order, security, jobs, and a sense of place.  There was no freedom, but people were able to live their lives for the most part in an atmosphere of normalcy.  

After the American invasion and the introduction of democracy, Iraq fell apart as a country.  It became instead a place of warring factions, continual violent conflict, with no security, no order, no normalcy, and not many jobs.  America’s experiment in exporting democracy to Iraq has been a dismal failure.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, and every person on earth should be able to live in an atmosphere of free speech, religion, politics, etc.  But if you talk to people on the street, what is more important than freedom is order, security, normalcy, jobs, and a sense of place.   In some cases, notably in most of the former Eastern bloc Communist countries, the introduction of democracy has been beneficial to its citizens.  But in many others, we have seen the introduction of democracy in a country fail miserably to benefit the people.

The United States government must learn, as it apparently hasn’t, that for a democracy to function as intended and deliver its promised benefits requires a combination of societal background elements.  For example, if, as in Iraq and many other countries, you have a population divided by religion, ethnicity, or tribe with a history of violence in dealing with conflict, the implementation of democracy will be almost impossible.  If you have a country, such as Russia, in which the populace has gotten used to and wants a strong authoritarian government, democracy will produce the same.  If you have a country, such as the Gaza Strip and Egypt, in which Islamic fundamentalist forces have a strong presence, democracy will produce a government of that nature.  Note:  Recently Secretary of State John Kerry said that the military coup in Egypt deposing the lawfully elected president was restoring democracy; is there something I’m missing here?

In many cases, democracy is not the form of government which will best meet the needs of the people for order, security, jobs, normalcy, and a sense of place.  I remember the point made in a Political Science class in college that often countries need a transition government, such as a benevolent authoritarian government, to allow the necessary elements for a functioning democracy to develop.  In other cases, the democracy it championed may turn out to bite the U.S., but that makes it no less legitimate.

So both from a humanitarian standpoint and a geopolitical perspective, the exporting of democracy is of questionable value except in carefully considered circumstances.  The United States should both have other options that it is open to and when democracy produces an undesirable result from a geopolitical perspective, as in Egypt and as in Chile in the 1970s, it needs to respect the legitimate expression of the wishes of the citizens of that country.