But
at any rate, the consortium of Germany and France (Chancellor Angela Merkel and
President Francois Hollande) with tacit nod from the White House, have apparently concluded that war in Europe
must be avoided at any cost that can be paid by others.
To be somewhat sure (“somewhat” is the best they are capable
of) that Putin does not start tearing across NATO’s boundaries, they insist the West should not
be sending weapons to Ukraine.
Having settled the Putin problem in that manner (by dumping
Ukraine, so to speak), the White House can now turn to more pressing matters, such as the ISIS crisis in Iraq and,
yes, make another turn into the Afghan
graveyard of empires — which seems to have an exorable pull for
Washington. Ashton Carter, the newly confirmed U.S. Secretary of Defense was off
to Kabul, as his first order of business, to reassess American withdrawal plans
from Afghanistan and probably have U.S.
troops stay beyond the year 2016.
The only glitch in solving the Putin problem as above is
that it is equivalent to a quiet capitulation, produced from concluding (among
Europe’s elders) that NATO will not be able stop Russia in case of a war in
Europe. NATO could not win now for the same reason it was never able to stop
the Soviets in a conventional war on land. As of today, the West will continue
to rely on American strategic nuclear deterrent against Russia, as it did
during the Cold War.
Surprised? There is more. As we keep hearing from Western
politicians that “there is no military solution in Ukraine,” expect a similar
song when Russia invades central Europe: No military solution in Poland or the
Baltic states. U.S. President Barack Obama is not sending US troops to fight the
Russians in Europe any time soon. Will Germany defend Poland?
Germany this time is not prepared to defend itself, as aptly
described by Anne Applebaum (“The risk of putting Germany front and center in
Europe’s crises”, Kyiv Post op-ed, February 22). Not that Poland looks to
Germany for salvation.
This chapter in the history of Europe would be amusing if it
were not tragic to the point of disbelief. Almost amusing is also US President
Obama’s concepts of patience and placing climate change and disease control as
America’s top strategic priorities. An interesting nuance is his yielding to
pressures from the national security state (including the Chiefs of Staff among
others) to continue some action in Iraq and Afghanistan, but omitting Ukraine
from the action item list.
Senator John McCain, however, is not amused, and he put it
very bluntly on the CBS “Face the Nation” on Sunday February 22.
On the other hand, many Westerners are impressed by Russian
pugilism and unabashed impudence, if not by proclivity of Russia’s leaders to
mouth straight lies. Writes Brad Bird, Canadian journalist: “Russia is a nation
worthy of respect. To de-escalate tensions now (in Ukraine), it is essential
that Russia be given space. NATOs strategy and policy of crowding Russia is
unwise and has been since the Soviet Union’s collapse. This must change, and a
good starting point is Ukraine”. (“Ukraine’s best path to peace is
non-alignment”, op-ed in Kyiv Post, Feb 23). And don’t forget: “Russia deserves
credit for making it easier for Western allies to defeat Germany in WWII”).
Russia must be given space? In addition to Crimea and the
space she is carving out in Donbas by arming, reinforcing the separatists with
a stream of heavy weapons and with thousands of Russian special force troops?
And what about all the space Russia has swallowed over the centuries of
ravaging from the Sakhalin island stolen from Japan all the way to the land
grabbed from Finland in 1940 and Koenigsberg in what was East Prussia?
Thousands of kilometers not enough for the
former 14th century tiny Moscow duchy? Is NATO crowding Russia with 400
US soldiers temporarily stationed in the Baltic states under menacing guns of
Moscow’s hybrid-dressed “militia”? According to Professor John Mearsheimer,
quoted by Brad Bird: “Let us shed the
hubris of thinking the West should be in Ukraine, in Russia’s sphere of
influence”. And what about the University of Chicago becoming Russia’s sphere
of influence?
Russia seems to be under some economic stress from western
sanctions, but it has a minor effect on its ability to wage war. Wartime
mentality is the norm in the Kremlin and for most of patriotic Russia. It stands
in a sharp contrast to America’s economic and defense traditions. The
inefficiency of US defense spending can be surprising.
By way of numbers, the
Pentagon 2013 base budget was $530 billion, not including war funding (about $100 billion in that year, $88 billion for Afghan war). But another nearly $300 billion went
for defense-related spending, such as Homeland Security ($50 billion), nuclear arsenal
maintenance ($18 billion), international assistance ($24 billion), Veterans Assistance
($138 billion), pensions for non-veteran military retirees ($55 billion), etc.
The massive amount of U.S. defense dollars spent each year
after the end of the Cold War seems to be out of proportion to the achievable
goals of the U.S. in many places, and especially in Eastern Europe (where almost
nothing was spent). Or look at the
massive spending in the Afghan war, now 13 years. Was it motivated by the national interest or by
emotional memories, and still is?
This leaves Ukraine to fend for itself, with plenty of
oratory from America and negligible help for Kyiv’s ongoing wartime
effort. No help in weapons, despite
rational need in the interest of both countries.
