Russia: Twelve Angry Men

  

                                

 

As President Trump attempts to negotiate an end to war between Russia and Ukraine, politicians and pundits are flooding him with advice as if he had no competent advisors on his team. It is interesting to note that Trump has set a priority on ending the killing, while former President Biden did little to bring the fighting to an end. 

To my mind Biden's greatest failure as President was his inability or unwillingness to act as an agent of peace. Indeed, in his interview with Tucker Carlsen last year, Vladimir Putin claimed that then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had quashed a peace settlement hammered out between Russia and Ukraine at a meeting in Turkey. It is hard to believe that the British P.M. would have acted without the support of the Biden administration.

In any event, I suspect that many people offering unsolicited advice to President Trump are not really aware of the situation in Russia today. Their repeated references to Hitler and Stalin indicate that they are living in the past. They do not understand that a second Russian revolution occurred after the break up of the Soviet Empire. The ineptness of our media makes it difficult for Americans to understand what is going on in Russia.

I have had an almost lifelong fascination with Russia. I suppose it started with literature during my high school and college years. I never took a formal course on Russian literature, but I read War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, the Brothers Karamazov and others with fascination although perhaps little understanding. A few years later I discovered the novels and histories of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, one of the greatest and most influential authors of the twentieth century. No one ever explained the nature of Communism in Russia netter than he did. Just a couple of years ago I waded through The Icon and the Axe, James Billington’s magisterial study of Russian history and culture.

Today, I doubt if any of my college educated grandchildren have ever read or will read any of these great authors. I doubt that they have even heard their names. I suppose that their knowledge of Russia, like that of our own politicians, is likely superficial and unhistorical. Since books are too time consuming, and seemingly irrelevant in our age, film may be the only way to provide insights into a country like Russia, especially after the revolutionary events that followed upon the collapse of the Soviet empire. Here is a brief review of a film that sheds much light on this extremely diverse country that extends over nine time zones. 

In 2007 Russian filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov produced, directed, wrote, and acted in “12”, a film based on the American drama and film “Twelve Angry Men.” Mikhalkov won a special award at the Venice film festival that year, and his film also received an Academy Award nomination for best foreign film. The film is a masterpiece that far exceeds the earlier American version in power and intensity. 

The film also opens a window, actually twelve windows, into post-Soviet Russia. "12" refers to the twelve jurors who are hearing a case involving a young man accused of murdering his stepfather. Complicating matters is the fact that the young man is a Chechen, a member of that ethnic group that has never been fully assimilated into Russian society. Chechens are, at the same time, hated and feared by most Russians. Alexander Solzhenitsyn claimed that even Gulag prison guards feared the Chechen prisoners who often terrorized the other prisoners.

The film, however, is not about the prisoner but about the jurors. These twelve men, each represents an aspect of Russian life after the fall of Communism. They are a diverse group that includes, among others, a successful post-communist businessman, a doctor educated in Moscow but originally from the provinces, a Russian TV executive with a degree from Harvard, a former Soviet bureaucrat who fondly remembers the good old days of Communism, and even a bigoted cab driver.

The case against the young man seems open and shut but doubts arise. Inevitably, each juror reveals himself in dealing with what turns out to be a very complicated case. In revealing their own stories, they tell us more about modern Russia than we will ever find in our own media.

As mentioned above the film is powerful and intense, and filled with often mysterious flashbacks that eventually come together like pieces in a puzzle. But most of the power and intensity takes place in the makeshift jury room where twelve fine actors strut their stuff.

###

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.

Tucker Carlsen Interviews Vladimir Putin

Last week my wife and I watched Tucker Carlsen’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The interview lasted a little over two hours, and it took us two nights to get through it, but it was well worth the effort. So far, the interview has received over 18 million hits on YouTube although the American media seems reluctant to mention it.

Credit must go to Tucker Carlsen not only for scooping the rest of the journalistic world, but also for allowing us to see Putin unfiltered by media bias. Carlsen limited himself to a few questions and then just let Putin respond with hardly any interruption. It was a breath of fresh air. In the beginning Putin asked if it was going to be an interview or a talk show, and for the most part Carlsen was content to hear him out, and not engage in incessant back and forth.

I did not take notes but here is my recollection of some of the insights provided by the Russian leader. Putin came across as extremely articulate, experienced, and levelheaded with a deep grounding in Russian history, as well as in current world affairs. Indeed, he prefaced his response to Carlsen’s first question on the Ukraine war with an almost 30-minute disquisition on the history of Russia in which he went all the way back to its ninth century origins. In that discussion he included an historical analysis of the origins of what is now known as Ukraine, a word that means fringes or borderlands in Russian. Indeed, he believes that Ukraine has always been a part of Russia, and that the Ukrainians are Russian, and not a separate ethnic group. 

To Putin the war in Ukraine is a Civil War and not an invasion of a foreign country. He traced the current conflict in Ukraine back to 1991 with the demise of the Soviet Union. In the West, we call it the collapse of the Soviet Union, but he regards it as an attempt by the then Soviet leaders to normalize relations with the West and usher in an era of mutual security and prosperity. He even stated that he had asked President Clinton if Russia could join NATO. Initially, Clinton seemed agreeable but after consulting with his security advisors, the offer was rejected. Instead of a partner, the US would continue to regard Russia as an adversary.

Moreover, he claims that after 1991 Russia received assurances that the NATO alliance would not extend any further east, but that the promise was subsequently broken, especially during the Obama administration when the door seemed to be opened to Ukrainian membership in NATO.  Putin traced the start of the war in Ukraine to 2014 when a coup in Kiev overthrew the then pro-Russian government. He believes that the coup was engineered by Western security services, and that the new government in Ukraine then began to seek close ties with NATO. He also believes that the new Ukrainian leadership contains many who had fought with the Nazis against Russia during WWII.

Nevertheless, he insisted that he is open to a negotiated settlement of the war and argued that he had agreed to one only months after the fighting started. At a meeting in Istanbul both sides had agreed to a settlement but at the last minute, Boris Johnson, the then British Prime Minister, had stepped in to quash the deal, obviously with the backing of his NATO and US allies. 

Johnson has retired but the war goes on. Putin claims to be still open to a negotiated settlement. He also believes that the war is hurting the West more than Russia. Western sanctions have not hurt Russia whose economy is now the largest in Europe, but they have forced Europe to pay exorbitant prices for imports of liquified natural gas. Speaking of that, Putin did not claim to know who blew up the Nordstream gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea, but pointed out that the culprit would have to have had both a motive and the capability to pull it off.

These are just a couple of the issues that Putin discussed with ease and calmness, but I would like to end with Carlsen’s last question concerning a reporter from the Wall Street Journal who has been imprisoned by the Russians for espionage. Actually, Carlsen asked if Putin, as a goodwill gesture, would release the jailed reporter to him for return to the USA claiming that everyone knew that the reporter was not a spy. Putin responded that the man had been caught red-handed with classified documents but that he would prefer to leave his fate to the negotiations currently going on between the security agencies of both countries. 

In this interview Putin did not appear as a madman or a Hitler out to dominate the world. As mentioned above, he spoke with calm, self-assurance. He knows his geo-politics. He is aware that China has overtaken the US economy, and that India is in third place. It is a new world, and the West must learn to live with it. Tucker Carlsen has been criticized for even conducting this interview. Some have even called him a traitor, but we are not at war with Russia, and Carlsen deserves great credit for letting us see the Russian leader with our own two eyes.

###

Note: By now it is difficult to find the whole interview on YouTube but it is well worth viewing in its entirety. Here is a link.

Russia, the USA, and Ukraine

In going through the archives of The Weekly Bystander today, I came across this strangely prophetic post, dated 2/13/2015 during the last year of the Obama administration, about the war in Ukraine. Today, I underline some especially prescient remarks. 

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.

Notes:

*Before the recent invasion, Russia apparently made a deal with China.

** Readers will remember that not only did President Trump try to make NATO live up to its treaty obligations, but also, that his efforts to strike a deal with Russia were hampered by incessant partisan attacks claiming that the 2016 election was stolen by the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia.

*** Lindsay Graham is still a senator from South Carolina.

### 

Trump-Putin Summit 2018

It is still too early to assess the results of the recently concluded summit meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argued as much in his testimony yesterday before a Senate committee. Nevertheless, Democrat politicians and anti-Trump media were quick to claim that President Trump had sold out his country to the Russian premier to the point of treason. In previous years the Soviet Union was a darling of leftists in this country, but now that Trump is President, it is a different story.

The Weekly Bystander is taking a little break this month but I have written about Russia before. Below is a reprint of a March 2018 post  that dealt with the subject of the relationship between the United States and Russia. It is still relevant.

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?

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.

###