Thank you for gathering all these resources in one place! Related: Just heard Jeffrey Sachs do some articulate and candid venting about NordStream 2 on an "UnHerd" podcast with Freddie Sayers. Some of Sachs' vehemence may be a lingering aftereffect of his well-intentioned but unsuccessful efforts soon after the break-up of the Soviet Union (?) But I think he basically is sincerely frustrated by what he sees as a reliance on arms and covert operations in interacting with Russia, rather than on energetic diplomacy and negotiation. And by how difficult it is--in the current foreign policy climate--to push for more diplomacy and negotiation.
When some 20-odd years ago a Kuwaiti classmate of mine at Warwick university started foul-mouthing Americans (read: the then American foreign policy), I thought that he was being a little more than unkind given that the US had liberated his country from Saddam Husein. Little did I know that a few decades later, I too, with regret and reluctance, would tend to view Ametica as a disruptive force in this world...
...echoed by these words in Mary Beard's "The Parthenon" that I have stumbled on: "Like many superpowers since, Athens [ie the ancient Athens] saw no contradiction between democratic freedom at home and aggressive imperialism overseas. Pericles' hawkish influence almost certainly lay behind the increasingly ruthless treatment meted out to Athens' overseas 'allies' in the course of the century".
She could not have made here an innuendo about the blowing up by the US of the Nordstream 2 pipeline (which could not have done any favours to its ally, Germany), as she wrote this excellent book in 2002.
I appreciate your perspectives on the war, diplomacy and cognitive empathy. However, like everything, these things need a lot of introspection and retrospection. In my view, this war reminds me too much of Hitler and WWII. The allies tried so hard to appease Hitler to their own detriment. One has accept that there is no negotiate with most bullies, like Hitler and Putin. Cold War deterrence is better than a real war. NATO should have been in Ukraine and other countries a long time ago. The only thing bullies ever fear is strength, especially in numbers. Cowing to a bully is a fool's errand.
Amen Pete. I agree with almost all of what Bob writes. I never would have thought of it all myself of course so he does educate me. In the future I do hope things change to the way Bob is thinking. I even will continue my monthly subscription although I now rarely listen to the pre-parrot room and parrot room any longer. Now, given that. The bottom line is my thinking is as you write. No matter how Putin got to doing what he has been doing and no matter how poorly the USA has acted over the last several decades, the situation as Putin played it he must be stopped. End of story in my mind. Even if it means at the risk he uses nuclear weapons. Failure to do so will only embolden other world leaders like Putin. Even better would be if the Russian people are enlighted so they don't allow Putinism to flourish in their country or culture to rise up yet again. End rant.
Of possible interest to fellow Nonzero readers (and perhaps cheering to some of us): In the Mar/April issue of Foreign Affairs, Andrew Bacevich has a leading piece titled "The Reckoning that Wasn't" that arguably is an informed call for intelligent restraint. Near the end, he writes, "Washington urgently needs to follow the advice that Kennan offered in 1948 and that generations of policymakers have ignored: avoid needless war, fulfill the promises in the country’s founding documents, and provide ordinary citizens with the prospect of a decent life. A place to begin is to reconfigure the U.S. military into a force designed to protect the American people rather than to serve as an instrument of global power projection. The United States should require the Defense Department to defend."
War is the result often when there are madmen on both sides.
As I try to understand the Ukrainian invasion and all its effects, the one that seems to be most unsettling is the post Viet Nam syndrome and shame of losing a war to a supposed 3rd rate military force. Now the USA is post disastrous war outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan and our government, our armed force industries, our people desperately need a win. If that means avoiding guerrilla warfare and backing a proxy conventional war with the most advanced military equipment in the world against an ill equipped enemy, so be it. War hawks will have their glory and revenge and 2nd Cold War. The propaganda machine was greased up and ready months before the invasion and there has been no in-depth analysis in MSM of the run up to this conflict.
The USA is on the side of the lily white Ukrainians against the evil Russians.
The haunting million deaths and destruction of Iraqis and Afghanis are now vague “missteps” except for our veterans who are daily committing suicide from involvement in those horrors.
With the supply of more advanced weapons systems by USA/NATO into Ukraine we will be extremely lucky to avoid a widening conflict and potential nuclear war and world wide destruction. I am not impressed with the fight to save democracy against autocracy there, I am more interested in doing this battle here at home.
Thank you Robert for your battle to speak truth to power.
I think there is more factual information and intelligent thought in your podcasts than in the NYT, The Guardian and Der Spiegel combined. Future historians will be discussing the systemic failure of the West's entire so-called free press to inform the people, and worse, how it became a vehicle for massive US government propaganda.
For example, there is no doubt that the US and Germany promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move an inch eastwards if he agreed to a reunited Germany within NATO and removed the half a million Soviet soldiers from the GDR. There are the 2017 declassified minutes of the meetings which prove that this was actually US Secretary of State Baker's proposal (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early). There is even a public statement by then German Foreign Minister Genscher, who explicitly says that this was agreed, adding that the agreement was not only that NATO would not move eastwards in what was Eastern Germany, but in general. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-_j_Bu-eUY&t=1260s "We were clear that there was no intention of extending NATO's defence area eastwards. By the way, this is not only in relation to the DDR, which we do not want to annex, but in general"). The same Baker, in a 2009 interview with CNN, categorically denied that any such assurances had been given ("Never. Never." https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/ampr/date/2009-11-09/segment/01). Amazingly, the EU has a fact-checking website to combat misinformation which does precisely the opposite: It argues that this promise was never made because there is an interview by the 85-year-old Gorbachev to a Russian news site in which he says that the question of NATO enlargement was not even discussed - as if this single interview could override all other evidence. Never mind other interviews in which Gorbachev complains bitterly about having been deceived. As a federalist European, I am astonished that the EU is actively working to promote US warmongering propaganda in relation to a conflict that seriously harms EU interests. As far as I am concerned, Western civilisation is sinking into a morass of lies.
"For all the talk about what would constitute “winning” or “losing” for each side, this war is a loss for both sides and for the whole world."
Yes--I wish this point were made at the start of every report or story about this needless conflict. Given what we know about history (and human foibles), it was almost entirely avoidable--it's a great tragedy. Thank you for continuing to shine the light.
Thank you for your continued focus and nuanced take on this situation.
Thanks for your thanks!
Thank you for gathering all these resources in one place! Related: Just heard Jeffrey Sachs do some articulate and candid venting about NordStream 2 on an "UnHerd" podcast with Freddie Sayers. Some of Sachs' vehemence may be a lingering aftereffect of his well-intentioned but unsuccessful efforts soon after the break-up of the Soviet Union (?) But I think he basically is sincerely frustrated by what he sees as a reliance on arms and covert operations in interacting with Russia, rather than on energetic diplomacy and negotiation. And by how difficult it is--in the current foreign policy climate--to push for more diplomacy and negotiation.
Yes, I heard that podcast, and 'vehemence' is the right word. I agree that it probably grows out of frustrations of the kind you describe.
The single event that would do the most to improve humanity's chances of a good future would be to make Jeffrey Sachs the next UN Secretary-General.
When some 20-odd years ago a Kuwaiti classmate of mine at Warwick university started foul-mouthing Americans (read: the then American foreign policy), I thought that he was being a little more than unkind given that the US had liberated his country from Saddam Husein. Little did I know that a few decades later, I too, with regret and reluctance, would tend to view Ametica as a disruptive force in this world...
...echoed by these words in Mary Beard's "The Parthenon" that I have stumbled on: "Like many superpowers since, Athens [ie the ancient Athens] saw no contradiction between democratic freedom at home and aggressive imperialism overseas. Pericles' hawkish influence almost certainly lay behind the increasingly ruthless treatment meted out to Athens' overseas 'allies' in the course of the century".
She could not have made here an innuendo about the blowing up by the US of the Nordstream 2 pipeline (which could not have done any favours to its ally, Germany), as she wrote this excellent book in 2002.
P.S. Putin's teachers: "kinetic military action"="special military operation"? See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369656/Libya-It-war-kinetic-military-action-says-National-security-adviser.html
Thanks for your commentary on these issues. I do wish you would interview Frank Fukuyama on these issues. It would be interesting.
I appreciate your perspectives on the war, diplomacy and cognitive empathy. However, like everything, these things need a lot of introspection and retrospection. In my view, this war reminds me too much of Hitler and WWII. The allies tried so hard to appease Hitler to their own detriment. One has accept that there is no negotiate with most bullies, like Hitler and Putin. Cold War deterrence is better than a real war. NATO should have been in Ukraine and other countries a long time ago. The only thing bullies ever fear is strength, especially in numbers. Cowing to a bully is a fool's errand.
Amen Pete. I agree with almost all of what Bob writes. I never would have thought of it all myself of course so he does educate me. In the future I do hope things change to the way Bob is thinking. I even will continue my monthly subscription although I now rarely listen to the pre-parrot room and parrot room any longer. Now, given that. The bottom line is my thinking is as you write. No matter how Putin got to doing what he has been doing and no matter how poorly the USA has acted over the last several decades, the situation as Putin played it he must be stopped. End of story in my mind. Even if it means at the risk he uses nuclear weapons. Failure to do so will only embolden other world leaders like Putin. Even better would be if the Russian people are enlighted so they don't allow Putinism to flourish in their country or culture to rise up yet again. End rant.
Of possible interest to fellow Nonzero readers (and perhaps cheering to some of us): In the Mar/April issue of Foreign Affairs, Andrew Bacevich has a leading piece titled "The Reckoning that Wasn't" that arguably is an informed call for intelligent restraint. Near the end, he writes, "Washington urgently needs to follow the advice that Kennan offered in 1948 and that generations of policymakers have ignored: avoid needless war, fulfill the promises in the country’s founding documents, and provide ordinary citizens with the prospect of a decent life. A place to begin is to reconfigure the U.S. military into a force designed to protect the American people rather than to serve as an instrument of global power projection. The United States should require the Defense Department to defend."
War is the result often when there are madmen on both sides.
As I try to understand the Ukrainian invasion and all its effects, the one that seems to be most unsettling is the post Viet Nam syndrome and shame of losing a war to a supposed 3rd rate military force. Now the USA is post disastrous war outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan and our government, our armed force industries, our people desperately need a win. If that means avoiding guerrilla warfare and backing a proxy conventional war with the most advanced military equipment in the world against an ill equipped enemy, so be it. War hawks will have their glory and revenge and 2nd Cold War. The propaganda machine was greased up and ready months before the invasion and there has been no in-depth analysis in MSM of the run up to this conflict.
The USA is on the side of the lily white Ukrainians against the evil Russians.
The haunting million deaths and destruction of Iraqis and Afghanis are now vague “missteps” except for our veterans who are daily committing suicide from involvement in those horrors.
With the supply of more advanced weapons systems by USA/NATO into Ukraine we will be extremely lucky to avoid a widening conflict and potential nuclear war and world wide destruction. I am not impressed with the fight to save democracy against autocracy there, I am more interested in doing this battle here at home.
Thank you Robert for your battle to speak truth to power.
March 19th, 2023 will be the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War invasion.
I think there is more factual information and intelligent thought in your podcasts than in the NYT, The Guardian and Der Spiegel combined. Future historians will be discussing the systemic failure of the West's entire so-called free press to inform the people, and worse, how it became a vehicle for massive US government propaganda.
For example, there is no doubt that the US and Germany promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move an inch eastwards if he agreed to a reunited Germany within NATO and removed the half a million Soviet soldiers from the GDR. There are the 2017 declassified minutes of the meetings which prove that this was actually US Secretary of State Baker's proposal (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early). There is even a public statement by then German Foreign Minister Genscher, who explicitly says that this was agreed, adding that the agreement was not only that NATO would not move eastwards in what was Eastern Germany, but in general. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-_j_Bu-eUY&t=1260s "We were clear that there was no intention of extending NATO's defence area eastwards. By the way, this is not only in relation to the DDR, which we do not want to annex, but in general"). The same Baker, in a 2009 interview with CNN, categorically denied that any such assurances had been given ("Never. Never." https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/ampr/date/2009-11-09/segment/01). Amazingly, the EU has a fact-checking website to combat misinformation which does precisely the opposite: It argues that this promise was never made because there is an interview by the 85-year-old Gorbachev to a Russian news site in which he says that the question of NATO enlargement was not even discussed - as if this single interview could override all other evidence. Never mind other interviews in which Gorbachev complains bitterly about having been deceived. As a federalist European, I am astonished that the EU is actively working to promote US warmongering propaganda in relation to a conflict that seriously harms EU interests. As far as I am concerned, Western civilisation is sinking into a morass of lies.
"For all the talk about what would constitute “winning” or “losing” for each side, this war is a loss for both sides and for the whole world."
Yes--I wish this point were made at the start of every report or story about this needless conflict. Given what we know about history (and human foibles), it was almost entirely avoidable--it's a great tragedy. Thank you for continuing to shine the light.