See other Resistance Articles
Title: What If Putin Doesn’t Back Down?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.theamericanconservative. ... hat-if-putin-doesnt-back-down/
Published: Feb 4, 2015
Author: SCOTT MCCONNELL
Post Date: 2015-02-04 06:55:28 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 1380
Comments: 75
The Beltway's blind confidence in its ability to break Russia could push Moscow into desperate measures. What if Vladimir Putin really was tough? What if he would prefer to fight to the death rather than see his country humiliated by the West or his regime collapse into chaos—outcomes he likely regards as equivalent. Is this not possible? There is no shortage of American politicians ready to attribute the most vile traits to Putin: Hillary Clinton, far from America’s most extreme rhetorician, likened him to Hitler. It’s not, of course, a remotely legitimate comparison. But if Putin were one-tenth as reckless as he is commonly depicted, what conclusions ought we to draw? Leading papers of the Anglosphere are now promoting American plans to escalate the fight against Russia and its Ukraine intervention. Former government officials, polishing up their tough-minded credentials in preparation for their next administration job, recommend we begin major weapons shipments to Ukraine. Are trainers and advisers on how to use them included as well? Strobe Talbott in the Washington Post, Ivo Dalder in the Financial Times, the Washington Post editorial board, other major figures from Clinton-land and the permanent government are all on board for a major roll-out. Their idea is to make Russia pay a higher price in casualties if it continues to intervene on behalf of anti- Kiev rebels in the eastern parts of Ukraine. Mr. Putin “will settle only when the costs of continuing the war are too high” says Dalder. Supplying arms will “raise the costs” to Russia thereby leading to a settlement. Strobe Talbott says the same thing in the Washington Post—”further aggression” must be rendered “so costly” that Putin is deterred. Nowhere in these admonitions is there a suggestion that a negotiated settlement might include a codification of neutral, non-aligned status for Ukraine. The Russian leader who is regularly likened to Hitler is expected apparently to own up to his mistake and allow the country that has countless times served as an invasion route into Russia to be incorporated into NATO. Here’s a thought experiment—not original to me. I heard it voiced last week at a Washington think tank; it was expressed by a Russian immigrant to America, a man I know to be well informed about the thought processes of Russian leaders. What, so the idea was presented, would happen if the tightening economic sanctions, in conjunction with the collapsing oil prices, really did bring about a crise de régime in Moscow? Faced with hard currency shortages and galloping inflation, would the Putinites say simply, “OK NATO You Win. The Ukraine is Yours”? Or would they contemplate measures that might totally rejuggle the underlying realities? Take, for instance, the price of oil. It’s low, it’s collapsing. It’s the major source of Russia’s fiscal difficulties. Would it remain low if Israel launched an attack on Iran? The hawkish Israeli foreign minister Avigidor Lieberman was warmly received in Moscow last week. I don’t think Netanyahu would require much in the way of encouragement to launch an attack, and the promise of the backing of one major outside nuclear power might suffice. Or, playing the other side, would the oil price remain depressed if Saudi Arabia’s monarchy—we all know how stable monarchies are—began facing an armed insurgency, potentially targeting its oil rich eastern provinces? Take your pick, the Islamic State or Shi’ites, it’s not hard to find people who need little encouragement to fight the Saudi monarchy. Could Russia accelerate such insurgencies? Surely a desperate enough Russia could try. Or consider this scenario, the most shocking thing suggested by my Russian emigré interlocutor. Which Baltic country, in the midst of some manufactured crisis between pro- and anti-Russian elements, would be the best place to try out a tactical battlefield nuclear weapon? I can’t imagine such a thing happening—it would certainly be the most alarming event in international politics since what—the Cuban missile crisis? But, to say the least, one such explosion would pretty rapidly put an end to all speculation that Putin and his government are going to meekly comply if we only “raise the cost” to Moscow of intervening in Ukraine. I’m not a Russia expert, though I’m not really persuaded that Ivo Daalder and Strobe Talbott and company are either. But they, like much of the Washington political class, are convinced that it is their God-given role as elite Americans to manage the world, to bend it to our neoliberal capitalist sense of what the good society is. They are part of the seamless Washington web—the term military-industrial complex hardly seems adequate anymore—whose role it is to continuously expand the range of human activities that are supposedly Washington’s business, our ” vital interests”—invariably presented as what is best for everyone else. The Ukraine crisis originated, of course, with the efforts of various American and European elites to exploit longstanding historic resentments in that tragic land in order to count up a win for the West, a defeat for Moscow. Billions of dollars were spent laying the groundwork for a coup d’état and popular revolution—the Maidan campaign was a bit of both—and the efforts were successful. Bravo, said everyone. “It’s one for the history books” said our meddling ambassador after last February’s coup. Then Russia responded, and Washington and all the chanceries of Europe were taken aback by the vigor and violence of the response. So now they plot how to respond to Russia’s reaction. If the West amplifies the pressures just a bit, “raises the price” to Putin for trying to keep NATO out of his backyard, he surely must then submit and bless the transfer of Ukraine into the Western alliance. It’s logical that he would, just as it was logical that the North Vietnamese would submit to Washington’s carefully calibrated escalations of bombing of their homeland. Doesn’t Putin realize that he is up against a superior, more advanced social system? But what if Putin doesn’t respond as all the think tank warriors say he will, then what? Has anyone thought about that? Scott McConnell is a TAC founding editor.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 39.
#1. To: Ada (#0)
More dead Ukranians, along the scale of the Holodomor. Cannon fodder to the New World Order, once again.
We need to put things in proper perspective, with consideration of current geo/politics and past history. In the past, Germany confirmed the olde adage, never involve yourself in a two front war, never, ever. If we do not accept that as a given, even thinking about the situation is a waste of time. If Poot insists on invasion, either the US backs down or WWIII is on. Nuclear? No. Russia has always backed away from confrontation, always because they initiated the problem. There is another geo/political headache that weighs on Poot every day of his life, China. Does he risk war with the west, with two billion Chinese sitting there, on his back doorstep? Only a fool would move west against White Europe, with billions of yellow people waiting to finish you off. This a close rerun of the thinking of Stalin in 1938-39.
If Poot insists on invasion, either the US backs down or WWIII is on. Nuclear? No. I'm not sure I would agree with that. Agree on the general two-front war, which Germany never wanted. In fact Hitler is on record, not the propagandized "winners write the history books" record, the other, the real one, as not having wanted war at all and all but on his knees begging the US to avoid one along with Germany. Here's the thing in this scenario, two things really. Two-front wars are no longer what they meant in the mid or late 20th century. So much is conducted now via unmanned technology, drones, etc., or by air power which includes missiles. Secondly, China would presumably have to make any ground attack inroads via NE China, but that's very unpopulated as is SE Russia. I don't see that Russia would hesitate to create a nuclear wasteland in that region simply to create an impasse. I mean who sees China taking adavantage of a Russian war with the US using Ukraine as its surrogate (and maybe NATO) via an exchange of missiles and air attacks? I don't see that. China has much more to lose than to gain by doing that. JMO I think that many still operate under the dated delusion that ground troops are what win wars, or at least create them. I don't think that Russia would hesitate for a second if China unleashed millions of troops across that region, to nuke them out there in sparsely populated land. Lastly, this notion that nukes (tactical) have not been used is also ridiculous. Places like Fallujah are polluted with nuclear waste from us, the US troops. Even our troops have and continue to suffer from related even if unknown ailments as a direct result. The next step is simply larger tactical nukes, that's all. Otherwise, it's madness. What, will we not stop until the entire world is involved in war? It's unfortunate, but IMO the only way in which Americans are going to learn is the hard way. As a nation we will keep pushing and pushing until some country out of desperation wreaks havoc on us from afar whether it be nuclear or other. Then Americans will be screaming bloody murder. Perhaps at that time the new chant will become we're all Palestinians now! I doubt it, but no one's going to get it until such a time. As it is now the police in this country are far more a threat to the average American, death wise that is, not merely politically, than terrorism of any sort. Yet, the same people hell bent, literally, on pursuing terrorists while simultaneously supporting something that has thousands of times the likelihood of killing them or their family members than terrorism. Talk about idiocy.
Excellent considered thinking. I like and appreciate that. Historic issues you may be too young to recall. Much 0f Eastern Russia belongs to China, including Vladivostok, their only warm water port on the Pacific. Russia seized that part of China just as they are doing now, by bluff, and intimidation of a weaker country. Second...There are untold millions of Chinese in Eastern Russia, some legal, most illegal. In many parts they outnumber the Russians. Poot knows that this is a cancer, just waiting to erupt. There is an area where Korea,Russia and China all have a common boundary. Pull up photos of the area. Worth a thousand words. Third...Russia as a white race, knows full well that in case of land war, it will be Asians against whites, with Western Europe and US their only possible allies. If the US backs down, Poot will know he has no ally in the West. Our military understands that if we leave Asia, write it off, Poot will be all alone among billions of people that do not like them.
You have a distorted view of things. A) Russia did not sieze Ukraine, the US overthrew their government and put neo- nazi fascists in its place. B) If you're talking about Crimea, they voted to succeed from a country that never was their own, and return back to Russia after 5 decades of administrative placement under the Soviet republic of Ukraine. The Russian parliment accepeted their request. C) Being that B is the case, there is no bluff, and if there's intimidation, it's by the US imposed regime that is committing genocide against the population of East Ukraine. D) Russia did not TAKE Vladivostok, the area was ceded by China to Russia as a result of the Treaty of Aigun of 1858 and the Treaty of Peking of 1860. Why do you feel the need to lie, and why do you use childish names for a president of a nation who has far more integrity and love of his nation than our own does?
From the Treaty of Aigun page. See also the nifty map below and more history: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/29263.stm Russia and China have apparently come to an understanding on how to endtheir centuries-old border dispute, agreeing to the joint development of several islands on the Amur and Ussuri rivers, which divide the countries. President Boris Yeltsin has spoken of it as a possible model for settling of other border disputes in the region. Is this just a pious hope, or a real possibility? Here's our regional analyst, Malcolm Haslett. The islands in the middle of the rivers which separate Chinese and Russian territory have been one of the main causes of the border disputes between the two countries. In 1969, for example, there was a major gunbattle on Damansky island [Chinese - Zhenbao] on the Ussuri [Wusuli] river, in which dozens of soldiers were killed on both sides. This was territory already claimed by the Chinese Empire, though never effectively controlled. There was sporadic fighting between the two sides before the Treaty of Nerchinsk, in 1689, defined the border well north of the Amur river, along which it runs today. But later, with China weakened by the various Opium wars of the 19th century, Russia was able to force the local Chinese commander to sign the Treaty of Aigun, ceding everything north of the Amur, and the large slice of land east of the Ussuri, to Russia. This in effect established today's frontiers. But efforts to resolve the issue permanently only began again when Mikhail Gorbachov was in power in the 1980s. The improvement in relations has continued under Boris Yeltsin. Clearly if joint exploitation goes ahead as planned, it would help greatly to overcome past suspicions. A lot remains to be done, however, to put them into practice
#41. To: Deasy (#39)
So when will Mexico be taking Texas back from the US? Oh that's right, they already have. As other posters have so aptly stated, China has no intent on facing off against Russia, and at the moment they are allies and share mutual defense agreements. Russia is in fact selling them their latest generation anti- aircraft missile systems, the SS-400. In terms of Vladivostok, Russia did not TAKE it from China, but ok, they did prod them a bit for it. So should the US give the majority of the US back to the Native Americans, since the US government pretty much stole all their land a couple of hundred years ago? They didn't just prod them for it, they TOOK it.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Deasy (#1)
More dead Ukranians, along the scale of the Holodomor. Cannon fodder to the New World Order, once again.
#7. To: Cynicom (#2)
In the past, Germany confirmed the olde adage, never involve yourself in a two front war, never, ever. If we do not accept that as a given, even thinking about the situation is a waste of time.
#8. To: Katniss (#7)
Secondly, China would presumably have to make any ground attack inroads via NE China, but that's very unpopulated as is SE Russia.
#9. To: Cynicom (#8)
(Edited)
Much 0f Eastern Russia belongs to China, including Vladivostok, their only warm water port on the Pacific. Russia seized that part of China just as they are doing now, by bluff, and intimidation of a weaker country.
#39. To: FormerLurker, Cynicom, Katniss, Ada, Obnoxicated, Hmmmmm, X-15 (#9)
FL:
D) Russia did not TAKE Vladivostok,
At a link from his source: Treaty of Aigun From 1850 to 1864, China was heavily fighting the Taiping Rebellion, and Governor-General of the Far East Nikolay Muraviev camped tens of thousands of troops on the borders of Mongolia and Manchuria, preparing to make legal Russian de facto control over the Amur from past settlement. Muraviev seized the opportunity when it was clear that China was losing the Second Opium War, and threatened China with a war on a second front. The Qing Dynasty agreed to enter negotiations with Russia.
Russia and China end 300 year old border dispute
End article.
Where 2 huge countrys meet
The dispute, however, dates back much longer, to the time in the early 17th century when the first Russian settlers reached the sparsely-populated regions north of the Amur river. ![[ image: There
have been border clashes for 300 years]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_29263_border1.jpg)
There have been border clashes for 300 years
But China has never acknowledged the legitimacy of the "unequal treaty" of Aigun. And disputes continued until the fighting of 1969. That was ended after talks between prime ministers Zhou Enlai and Kosygin in that same year. ![[ image: Troops still patrol the area]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_29263_border3.jpg)
Troops still patrol the area
Both sides are hailing the new "understanding" as the effective end of their border dispute. But it's only been made possible by the introduction of the idea of "joint exploitation" of a number of islands in the Amur, Ussuri and Argun rivers. The details of how this is to be done, contained in a separate agreement, are not yet clear. ![[ image: Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin shake on the deal]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_29263_shake150.jpg)
Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin shake on the deal
Replies to Comment # 39.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 39.