Ukraine Settlement

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated this week that the way to a settlement of the war in Ukraine would be to give up the idea of Ukraine ever entering the NATO alliance. In other words, Ukraine would be independent of both East and West with no foreign troops on its soil. There is no doubt in my mind that when former President Biden opened the door to NATO membership for Ukraine, Vladimir Putin regarded it as a provocation. A few months later Russian troops invaded Ukraine. 

I have put up a number of posts on Ukraine in the past and readers who think I am too old or ill-informed, might be surprised to find that I anticipated the Trump administration position ten years ago. See the following post that originally appeared on February 13, 2015, seven years before the war began.

*****************

In an interview in last Saturday's Wall Street Journal, General Frederick B. Hodges, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, made the case for military aid to the Ukraine and for an increased NATO involvement. Nevertheless, the General made some admissions that make one wonder if there might be another alternative. 

The General argued that Russia is preparing for war some five or six years in the future with some unspecified enemy. He believed that the Russians regard China as their greatest threat but that at the same time noted that they were conducting simulations of a nuclear attack on the United States. He did not mention that they might be concerned with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism all along their southern borderlands.

To counter the Russian threat the General pointed out that our own resources are stretched thin. Nine out of ten of our divisions are currently engaged in missions all over the world. The General insisted that we cannot act on our own anymore and must rely increasingly on our allies. However, our NATO allies have not and will not live up to their treaty commitments. Only four of them dedicate more than the required 2% of GDP to defense spending.

Finally, the General admitted that we need a strategy, and that military aid to the Ukraine or any other country does not by itself constitute a strategy. He asks that we consider the outcome we want to achieve in the Ukraine.  Do we really want the Ukraine to become a battlefield where millions might die? Do we want a city like Mariupol on the Black Sea to become a desert like Mosul?

Why can't we consider Russia as an ally and not an enemy? Instead of confronting Russia with NATO, why not guarantee that an independent Ukraine will never be part of NATO. The Ukraine provides Russia with millions of customers for its vast energy reserves. After all, both the US and Russia will more and more have to deal with the growing power of China, as well as with radical Islam. 

The Journal has launched a barrage of editorial comment against Russia in the past week. One op-ed suggested that a military buildup is not necessary because we could crush the Russians economically with increased sanctions and low oil and gas prices. This is another dangerous suggestion since if we drive the Russians to the wall, they might become desperate. Why isn't a strong Russia to our advantage? If we think economic sanctions hurt the Russian oligarchs, what do we think they will do to the ordinary Russian citizen.

Journal columnist Bret Stephens, a longtime proponent of arming the Ukrainians, even quoted and praised a practically insane statement by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham who claimed that he did not know what the outcome of military intervention would be, and did not care how many Ukrainians or Russians might die, or even if we lost. All that mattered was that the US not back down and appease Putin.

It would be so much less costly in terms of men and money to bring the Russians into NATO than to confront them with a flaming sword on their historical Western front. It would be better to have a strong, economically viable Russia as an ally rather than an enemy in the ongoing war against radical Islam.

###

Note: The flaming sword is the insignia of the U.S. Army in Europe.

President Trump and Fairness

A recent article in the Connecticut Mirror, an online newspaper, announced a Navy award of over $22 Billion to Groton’s Electric Boat company to build nine or possibly ten Virginia class attack submarines. The article quoted Connecticut’s Democratic leaders including Second District Congressman Joe Courtney, the State’s two Senators, and even Governor Lamont in praise of the huge boost to the State’s economy.

The article failed to give President Trump or the Trump Administration any credit for the Navy’s award. It quoted Connecticut Democratic politicians but did not even mention the President’s name. After all, the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. 

President Trump referred to this reluctance to give credit or even just report significant news in his recent joint press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. In the course of that press conference, the questioning turned to Korea and the President took the opportunity to point out that in the past year his administration had succeeded in getting South Korea to contribute $500 Million more to the cost of stationing American troops in South Korea.

He asked the reporters if they were even aware of this news, and urged them to tell the story, especially since he was the first President in decades to ask the very prosperous South Koreans to pay their fair share.

No matter what you think of President Trump, you will have to admit that fairness is an important word or concept for him. One of the reasons the NATO meeting turned contentious was that the President repeated his claim that other NATO members were not paying their agreed upon, fair share of the cost of their own defense. For too many years they had been content to leave the lion’s share of the burden to the USA.

The President also uses fairness to describe his position on trade and tariffs.  To the dismay of the Wall Street Journal and other conservatives, he claims to be a “fair” trader and not a “free” trader. If the Chinese insist on putting high tariffs on American cars and motorcycles, he will retaliate by raising tariffs on their manufactured products. 

The economic arguments for or against tariffs don’t seem to concern him. He just argues that he will not play the chump, as his predecessors have done, and give away the store to China or any other country.

Fairness is also at the heart of his treatment of the press. Who can blame him for lashing out at the media or taking to Twitter to make his case. After almost three years in office, few have bothered to discuss or assess what he and his administration have actually done in office so far. There has been a steady flow of vitriolic venom directed against his person, his words and even gestures, but no real discussion or evaluation of his public policies or actions. 

Speaking of the press, I thought the President’s comportment in the press conference with Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, was remarkable in many ways. He did not think it necessary to dominate the conference but listened attentively to his ally’s comments and allowed him plenty of time to participate.

He then took questions that he answered with dignity, calm, and intelligence even when they inevitably swerved off the subject of NATO and on to impeachment. It was a remarkable performance. He spoke off the cuff in striking contrast to his predecessor in the Oval office, who rarely spoke without a teleprompter. 

In the press conference the President came off as a very magnanimous person, in striking contrast to those who are calling for his impeachment. He is not an ordinary politician. How else can one explain the $22 Billion award to a Connecticut company, one of the bluest states in the Country? 

The Senators from Connecticut have been two of his harshest critics over the past three years. My own representative from prosperous Fairfield County is one of the leaders in Congress in the impeachment process. I can’t think of any other President who would have allowed the Navy to award such a contract to a State from which he had nothing to gain politically. 

It’s just not fair to constantly blame and deride the President, and not give him credit for anything, especially when the Navy contract will provide much needed aid to the Nation’s defense, and the Connecticut economy.

### 

Russia: Friend or Foe?

Russia has been constantly in the news since the election of Donald Trump in 2016. I would like to make a comparison with the formidable task that President Trump faces, and the one faced by Vladimir Putin, the recently re-elected leader of Russia. It has been said that the job of President of the United States is the most difficult one in the world, but it seems to me that the Russian Premier’s job is much more difficult.

You just have to glance at a map to see that Russia is surrounded by enemies. If Islamic militancy is a great danger to us, it is a far greater threat to Russia which is bounded on the south by Iran and Kazakhstan. Even within its borders the large Muslim population, especially the fiercely independent Chechens, constitutes a constant menace.

American commentators on both the left and the right like to blame Putin for his involvement in Syria but Putin has much more to fear from ISIS and other radical Moslem extremists than America does. These same commentators should ask what business the United States has in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan.  Geographically, we are 6000 miles away from the war-torn scene.

Moreover, while we worry about trade relations with nearby Canada and Mexico. Russia is bordered by industrial and military superpowers. To the West the economy of the European Union dwarfs that of Russia, a third-world economy compared to Germany alone. In addition, the NATO alliance is a very serious military presence on Russia’s doorstep and seems to continually seek new members. Of course, the presence of NATO is also the presence of the United States.

To the East, Russia is bordered by Mongolia, a Chinese province, and then by China itself, an industrial and military superpower. The Chinese population and economy far outstrip that of Russia. In recent years Putin has negotiated deals that have made Russia a leading supplier of energy to the growing Chinese population and economy. In this respect, Russia’s relationship with China resembles Canada’s with the USA.

Even though Russia doesn’t border North Korea, Pyongyang the capitol of North Korea is only 400 miles from the Russian Pacific port city of Vladivostok. That’s about the same as the distance from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Who should have more to fear from a North Korean nuclear weapon, Russia or the USA? I would also guess that the South Korean economy is further advanced than Russia’s.

We should try to put ourselves in Putin’s shoes. Twenty-five years ago the collapse of the Soviet Empire was a tremendous loss both strategically and psychologically. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, Russia effectively lost the Cold War. Former satellite countries like East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and the Ukraine fell away into independent states that sought entrance into the NATO military alliance. Geographically, Russia is still the largest country in the world, but its population has shrunk to 143 Million. Compare this figure with China’s 1.3 Billion population or even with the more than 300 Million population of the USA.

When Germany and Japan were defeated in World War II, we rebuilt those shattered countries and they became not only two of the world’s great powers but two of our most reliable allies. When Russia lost the Cold War we could have attempted something similar instead of seeing it as a threat.

During the Presidential campaign Donald Trump made some remarks about seeking a new, positive relationship with Russia. However, since the election a number of reasons has led his administration to act tough on Russia. Economic sanctions have been imposed, and diplomats have been expelled in response to some of Putin’s moves. Also, NATO has been flexing its muscles, and the new 1.3 Trillion USA budget promises an escalation of the arms race.

I fail to see the value of driving Putin’s back to the wall, especially since his country has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Why tempt him to use it over the poisoning of a spy? I think it would be much more advantageous to take the pressure off Russia both economically and militarily.

Economically, our objective should be to help rebuild the Russian economy in the same way that we did for Germany and Japan after World War II. The United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are the world’s three leading suppliers of oil and natural gas. Russia’s geographic position should make it the largest supplier for energy poor Europe. We should encourage this natural trade relationship and not try to upset it with sanctions or price manipulation designed to weaken the Russian economy. A prosperous Russia with a growing middle class is in the best interests of the United States.

Militarily, we could ease the pressure on Russia so that such a large percentage of their GNP does not have to go into military spending. The first step would have to be an agreement that would guarantee the independence of the Ukraine. If Putin would agree to that, NATO could agree to pull back its forces from the Ukrainian border.

Actually, I fail to see why we should not offer NATO membership to Russia itself. After all, it is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Originally, NATO was designed to counter the military might of the aggressive Communist Soviet Empire. Now that Empire no longer exists, and Communism is a dead letter. The United States and Europe would be much better able to deal with the great geo-political problems of the twenty first century if Russia was an ally and not an enemy.

###

Russia: Friend or Foe?

Who has more business in the Middle East?

The recent Islamic terrorist attack in Paris has led the French government to respond with air strikes against ISIS in Syria. These events might lead American politicians to re-evaluate their thinking about the Russian military intervention in support of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad in his two-pronged struggle against Syrian rebels on one front, and ISIS militants on the other.

In a recent Republican debate front-runner Donald Trump supported Putin’s intervention and argued that the United States can no longer act as the world’s “policeman.” In response, Jeb Bush argued that the United States should not give up its leadership role in world affairs. There is something to be said for both positions but sometimes leadership means stepping back from untenable positions and recognizing one’s limitations.

What could be President Putin’s motives for entering the Syrian conflict? I could think of a number of them but the first one that comes to mind might be his fear that the Islamic revolution could spread to his own borders. Any observer can see that the so-called “Arab Spring” has been a disaster. The toppling of “strongmen” or dictators in Libya and Egypt has led to chaos in Libya and military rule in Egypt.

If you look at a map of modern Russia you will see that almost its entire southern border is made up of non-Russian states whose population is overwhelmingly Islamic. ISIS and other Islamist militants pose a much greater threat to Russia than they do to the United States or Europe. When Russia lobs its cruise missiles into Syria, they only have to travel 1000 miles compared to the 6000 miles or so that separate the USA from the area.

The ISIS terror and bloodshed in Syria and Iraq certainly must be stopped but why can’t American politicians and commentators see that if the USA can ask England, France, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to help, why can’t we accept a role for Russia?

After the Second World War and the total defeat of Germany and Japan, we set about rebuilding those two battered nations. We had learned the lesson of the First World War where the victorious powers kept a foot on the throat of defeated Germany by saddling it with an enormous war debt.  The resulting chaos in Germany led to the rise of Hitler, the Nazis and the Second World War. As a result of the USA’s participation in the political and economic recovery of Germany and Japan after WWII, these two countries have become real allies. 

However, after the defeat of the Soviet Empire in the “Cold War”, we still continued to regard Russia as an enemy.  As former Soviet “republics” gained independence from a Russia in both political and economic chaos, we stepped up the pressure by welcoming them into the Western orbit, and, in some cases, even letting them become members of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, a military organization formed after WWII to counter the Soviet threat.

Today, Russia strikes me as Europe’s Canada. It has tremendous oil and natural gas reserves and both Europe and the now independent former Soviet republics are major customers. Wouldn’t it be in the interests of the USA to regard Russia as an ally and not an enemy?

It is true that Russia recently reclaimed its long-time sovereignty over the Crimea and is making threatening gestures in eastern Ukraine. But how many people are being beaten, raped, tortured or beheaded in the Crimea? The Crimea has literally disappeared from the news.

Someone should ask the Ukrainians if they prefer their current independent status within the Russian sphere of influence, or if they would prefer to be in the middle of an all out shooting war? The Ukrainians are major users of Russian oil and gas. We should consider whether it would be better for the Ukraine to be independent of both Russia and NATO.

Nevertheless, the USA and its NATO allies continue to call for increasing military and political pressure on Russia. Just this week NATO has offered membership to Montenegro, a tiny republic in the Balkan Peninsula that has only recently gained its independence from Serbia. Most of the NATO members provide little military or economic to NATO but it will add another country to the list of those that could involve NATO and the USA in a terrible war.

Last year we remembered the hundredth anniversary of the start of the First World War that began with a political assassination in a small Balkan state. Now we should remember the terrible fighting of 1915 and 1916 that caused millions to lose their lives in the trenches. The USA and Russia have much in common. It would be much better if we were allies rather than enemies.

###

Russia: Friend or Foe

Flaming Sword Insignia
U.S. Army Europe

In an interview in last Saturday's Wall Street Journal General Frederick B. Hodges, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, made the case for military aid to the Ukraine and for an increased NATO involvement. Nevertheless, the General made some admissions that make one wonder if there might be another alternative.

The General argued that Russia is preparing for war some five or six years in the future with some unspecified enemy. He believed that the Russians regard China as their greatest threat but that at the same time noted that they were conducting simulations of a nuclear attack on the United States. He did not mention that they might be concerned with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism all along their southern borderlands.

To counter the Russian threat the General pointed out that our own resources are stretched thin. Nine out of ten of our divisions are currently engaged in missions all over the world. The General insisted that we cannot act on our own anymore and must rely increasingly on our allies. However, our NATO allies have not and will not live up to their treaty commitments. Only four of them dedicate more than the required 2% of GDP to defense spending.

Finally, the General admitted that we need a strategy and that military aid to the Ukraine or any other country does not by itself constitute a strategy. He asks that we consider the outcome we want to achieve in the Ukraine.  Do we really want the Ukraine to become a battlefield where millions might die? Do we want a city like Mariupol on the Black Sea to become a desert like Mosul?

Why can't we consider Russia as an ally and not an enemy? Instead of confronting Russia with NATO, why not guarantee that an independent Ukraine will never be part of NATO. The Ukraine provides Russia with millions of customers for its vast energy reserves. After all, both the US and Russia will more and more have to deal with the growing power of China, as well as with radical Islam.

The Journal has launched a barrage of editorial comment against Russia in the past week. One op-ed suggested that a military buildup is not necessary because we could crush the Russians economically with increased sanctions and low oil and gas prices. This is another dangerous suggestion since if we drive the Russians to the wall, they might become desperate. Why isn't a strong Russia to our advantage? If we think economic sanctions hurt the Russian oligarchs, what do we think they will do to the ordinary Russian citizen.

Journal columnist Bret Stephens, a longtime proponent of arming the Ukrainians, even quoted and praised a practically insane statement by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham who claimed that he did not know what the outcome of military intervention would be, and did not care how many Ukrainians or Russians might die, or even if we lost. All that mattered was that the US not back down and appease Putin.

It would be so much less costly in terms of men and money to bring the Russians into NATO than to confront them with a flaming sword on their historical Western front. It would be better to have a strong, economically viable Russia as an ally rather than an enemy in the ongoing war against radical Islam.

###

NATO Dangerous War Games

NATO expansion (original members in blue)

All year the Wall St. Journal editorial page has been unrelenting in its call for an escalation of an arms build up in Eastern Europe. Editorials, op-eds, and columnists have all called for confronting Russia. This week the Journal pulled out the big guns with an op-ed jointly written by Anders Fogh Rasmussen and General Philip M. Breedlove, the civilian and military heads of NATO.

The article was entitled “A NATO for a Dangerous World” but a close reading would indicate that NATO bears some of the responsibility for making the world more dangerous. The authors refer to an imminent NATO summit where steps will be urged to make NATO forces “fitter, faster, and more flexible to address future challenges from wherever they come.” Can anyone doubt that Rasmussen and Breedlove believe that the major challenge comes from Russia?

In particular the authors call for “the presence of NATO forces in Eastern Europe for as long as necessary,” and that intelligence capability, defense plans, training and exercises all be expanded and upgraded. In addition, they see the need to upgrade “rapid reaction” capability, and even “pre-position equipment and supplies” along NATO’s borders for future rapid deployment. I wonder what borders they are thinking of.

If this is not an arms race and escalation of tension in Eastern Europe, I don’t know what is. Ironically, if you read between the lines, you will see that Rasmussen and Breedlove believe that after all these years NATO is not ready to deal with new circumstances in a changing world. NATO performed a valuable service during the Cold War but with the break-up of the Soviet Union, it is time to consider whether it is still needed.

The Journal likes to compare the situation in the Ukraine with the appeasement of Hitler before the Second World War. It seems that a more apt comparison would be with the arms build up and entangling alliances that led to the start of the First World War 100 years ago. Today, the threat of an increased military build up in central Europe with the potential of a nuclear exchange makes the world a much more dangerous place than it ever was.

In his famous farewell address George Washington warned that the new American nation should avoid any foreign entanglements. Washington was not only the first President of the newly formed United States of America but he was also the general who had guided the American colonies through their seven-year struggle for independence from the British Empire. When Washington uttered his warning, Great Britain and France were in the midst of a life and death struggle for supremacy in Europe.

About a hundred and sixty years after Washington’s warning, another American President cautioned about the growing influence of a military/industrial complex in America after the great victory in World War II. Like Washington, Dwight Eisenhower was also a general before becoming President. He had experienced the horrors of the greatest and most devastating war in history. During his term in office he brought an end to the Korean War and subsequently warned that the United States should never become involved in a land war on the continent of Asia.

Perhaps it is time for us to re-consider the entangling alliances and commitments that have involved us militarily all over the world. Rather than a summit in Wales to escalate the arms race, the United States, the European Union and Russia should convene a summit meeting to limit NATO expansion, calm Russian fears, and de-militarize Eastern Europe.

###