Tag Archives: NATO

Political Rants

Meeting the indefensible with the unthinkable

Leave a comment

The onslaught continues, in more ways than one. Putin’s wholly unjustified invasion of Ukraine is entering its third week with no end in sight. At the same time, the corporate media is propagandizing the living hell out of the conflict, platforming rhetoric that could lead to World War III. Nothing less than that.

The Biden Administration has thus far remained cautious with regard to involving the U.S. or NATO directly in Ukraine. They deserve some credit for that, though I’m not sure what the appropriate prize is for NOT burning down the house. Of course, the neocon wing of the Republican party and the various networks are pushing hard to get Biden to agree to some crazy shit. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at how irresponsible they’re being, but it is kind of shocking.

Preaching to the choir

I can’t remember a time when the media worked so hard to convince the American people to support something they already agree with. Their coverage of Ukraine is wall-to-wall, and there’s a meme-like repetitiveness to the content they’re pushing out. I have seen that little boy crying while he’s walking up the street so many times. Then there’s the armed men in the balaclavas who talk about revenge on the Russians and demand a no-fly zone.

I’m not denying the authenticity or even the heartrending nature of some of these clips. But their repetition seems to have a point – we should be doing more. And when the corporate media talks about doing more, it’s always in the context of a conversation with a general. They have been entranced with the U.S. military since the Gulf War, and the national security state is their go-to source on how to end a conflict.

There’s a reason why a majority of Americans support a no-fly zone in Ukraine: they hear it talked about incessantly on T.V. Even when the commentators say it’s a bad idea, the conversation continues as if there’s some controversy.

The planes, boss, the planes

Then there’s the debate over delivering fighter planes to the Ukrainians. Someone cooked up a plan to have Poland give them 26 old MIGs in return for new planes from the United States. The Poles reasonably considered this a bad idea, as it would make it seem as though they were directly involved in the conflict. Then they doubled back and suggested the United States do the transfer via a base in Germany. Not so good.

This story has been hashed over by the press almost incessantly. Very few, however, have questioned the utility of this effort on Ukraine’s behalf. Where would they base these planes, or keep the Russians from bombing them to bits on the first day? How would these 40-year-old MIGs fare against a far larger, modern Russian air force? This is totally beside the fact that such an obvious move would be tantamount to joining the fight in earnest. And yet, the conversation continues, in part because the Ukrainians want the planes, like they want the no-fly zone.

Backing away from the brink

It is incumbent upon those of us who are still sane to encourage the administration and the political class more generally not to make the mistake of becoming a combatant in this war. While many have seemingly forgotten that we are living on a nuclear powder keg, the rest of us need to encourage our fellow Americans not to play with matches.

This is not 1939, folks, Churchill allusions notwithstanding. There were no nukes in 1939. Russia is not prewar Germany, which was the world’s greatest industrial and military power at the time. This is more like 2003, when a rogue superpower decided to defy the world and invade another country for no good reason. There can be no Russo-American war – not now, not ever. Not if the world is to survive. It’s that simple.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

It’s the assholes vs. the fuckers

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Russian invasion of Ukraine began a day after I finished this post. The points are still relevant, in my humble opinion.. jp

In light of some of the Twitter arguments I’ve been getting into, I thought it might be a good idea to return, once again, to the Russia/Ukraine issue. It’s not hard to find people who are more well-informed on this score than I am. I am not an expert. That said, many of the commentators I see on cable television are not experts, either. I see that as a license to bloviate in these dark and disturbing times.

As many of you know, Twitter is no place for a nuanced foreign policy debate, and I’m not certain that blogging is any better suited to the task. I’ll let you be the judge of that. I have blogged on this issue before, most recently just a couple of weeks ago. And so here I go, as the shadow of war falls over all of us once again. Let’s make a few things clear, shall we?

Point one: Putin is not a nice man

When I criticize the United States’ role in bringing about the Ukraine crisis, people on Twitter accuse me of being an apologist for Putin, even a fan of the Russian president. Oldest trick in the book. For the record, Putin is an autocratic creep-ass, willing to put thousands of people at risk or engage in mass murder just to make a point. I’ve never liked him, but neither do I ever conflate him with the country he leads. His somewhat unscrewed speech from a few nights ago just confirms what I’ve always assumed – he’s a craven neo-czarist thug, and he has a constituency that wants just that.

Point two: We wanted an autocratic Russia

Today’s Russia is partly the product of decades of bad policy. Few seem to remember that in 1993, when then-president Boris Yeltsin shelled the Russian parliament because they weren’t doing his will, the nascent Clinton administration was very supportive. This is simply the most gross example of how we favored a dominant executive in Russia from the very start of the post-Soviet era.

It totally makes sense, when you look back on the history of U.S. foreign policy. We like having one dude or a small gaggle of dudes (but really just one) to deal with in a foreign country, rather than some random elected body of representatives. Yeltsin was dictatorial but compliant with U.S. direction, which is why when Russians reflect on the demographic and economic catastrophe that rolled over them in the 1990s, they reserve much of the blame for us.

Point three: Don’t blame socialism

Okay, let’s put this to bed once and for all. Russia was an expansionist imperial power during the Czarist period. To a limited extent, this was true during the communist period as well. Now, in post-communist Russia, they’re trying to build a cordon sanitaire to their west once again. This is a Russia thing, not a commie thing – Russia will always throw its weight around to some extent, because – like us – it thinks highly of itself. Nothing to do with socialism .

Point four: Whose mutual defense obligation?

Those who insist that Ukraine should be invited to join NATO should consider what they’re suggesting. How many nation states should our young people be asked to defend with their lives? Our military men and women are already on the hook for defending Poland, the Baltic States, Montenegro, Romania, Slovenia, for crying out loud. Are we also going to ask them to stand between Ukraine and Russia? What’s next – Quemoy and Matsu? Just because so many of our young people are willing to wear the uniform doesn’t mean we should be eagerly pitchforking them into one hopeless fight after another.

Point five: There is a NATO already

Another common rejoinder from my Twitter friends is that if we appease Putin now, he will roll into Poland, occupy Eastern Europe, and drive to Germany and France. Now, I know it’s cold comfort, but Twitter friends, for god’s sake, Russia is faced with a solid wall of NATO allies to its west, each on a hair-trigger to call in the American military if it even smells like Russian tanks are on their way. Any attempt by Vlad to channel Peter the Great would result in World War III and probably the end of effing everything. So … uh … no worries?

I could go on, but for right now, let’s at least agree to pray for peace and encourage our leaders to find that off-ramp I was talking about a couple of weeks ago. There’s plenty of blame to go around for this debacle, but my hope is that cooler heads will prevail.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

Muddle in the middle.

Leave a comment

A snapshot from the day’s news – MSNBC is obsessing over Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s announcement that we’re withdrawing 12,000 troops from Germany. The various former Republicans that populate its talk show panels are lamenting Trump’s undermining of the NATO alliance. In real time, we are seeing the Biden foreign policy take shape. I won’t say it’s a more aggressive posture, as Trump is aggressively pursuing conflict with Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China, and others. There is, however, a somewhat nostalgic turn to the emerging centrist doctrine Biden will no doubt pursue. It appears we may be in for a slight return of the cold war model, the east-west divide, the Russian menace. If that’s the case, it would be a bitter trade in exchange for the crap show we’re living through now.

I am tentative about this observation because it’s hard to be certain what a Biden foreign policy will be when the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has consistently avoided posting any details about it on his campaign site. Since it’s likely to be formulated by committee, I’m guessing it will be bellicose, but measured; assertive, but mindful of precedent; proactive, but not necessarily the first to any party. Where will we bomb, drone, invade next under a President Biden? One can only guess. Likely he will re-deploy those 12,000 troops to Germany, whether or not they pony up the Euros for costs associated with the posting. Indeed, the only net positives might be a return to some type of arms control regime with Russia, Iran, and others, and perhaps a re-commitment to the tepid, voluntary goals of the Paris Accord on Climate. Not nearly enough for my taste, but there you have it.

I think the most compelling case for this muddle in the middle, from a foreign policy standpoint, derives from the very nature of the presidency and who holds that office. The U.S. president is too powerful. It is an office that wields force, both military and economic, in unlimited magnitude. No one should be THAT powerful, particularly not someone who is accountable to an electorate that makes up less than five percent of the world’s population. Placing Donald Trump in the cockpit of that titanic killing machine is not only irresponsible, it’s sheer madness. Regardless of any minor departures from the hard-line Republican orthodoxy on foreign relations and national security, Trump has proven his propensity to flub his way through any situation, with disastrous consequences. We’ve seen this in his response to the Coronavirus. Even as he seems inclined to curry favor with Putin, we’ve seen him tear up crucial arms agreements with the Russians, hurtling us back into a deadly arms race.

Plainly, Biden’s foreign policy will likely be as imperial and neoliberal as he can get away with. But every moment Trump sits behind that so-called Resolute Desk, we are in mortal danger. He simply has to go.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

Empire redux.

Leave a comment

There were some hair-on-fire moments on talk television this week about Trump acting as a Russian “agent” or “asset” or something similar. I have my own thoughts on this issue, which I’ve shared previously on this blog, but what I find kind of interesting about this discourse is the degree to which it reveals the state of mainstream opinion on national security issues. Mind you, I don’t mean popular opinion; rather, “articulate” opinion of the kind you find on Morning Joe and other similar platforms. The ability of the American imperial project to repackage itself in such a way as to appeal to another generation of gullible subjects has always fascinated me, and we’re seeing it play out again on screens large and small all across the nation.

One of the points of outrage regarding Trump came from a newspaper piece that reported on the president floating the idea of pulling the U.S. out of NATO. The reaction went beyond just the usual tropes about NATO’s vital mission of keeping the peace in Europe since the end of the last war and how Russia is dedicated to pushing it back and splitting it up. Some commentators suggested that the idea of ending NATO is something so outlandish and outside of the mainstream that it simply had to come from Russia. Of course, unless these people are all younger than they look, they might all recall that at the end of the cold war many Americans questioned whether NATO still had a mission. People can disagree on that, but it isn’t outlandish to raise the question, particularly in that context.

NATO expansion since 1945

What’s more, it doesn’t take a Putin apologist to suggest that the Russian government has a more than defensible reason to be suspicious of the NATO expansion that has taken place over the past three decades. For one thing, Russia was promised by the U.S. – George H.W. Bush specifically – that NATO would not expand one inch to the east. That was a lie, of course. Why would Russians care about that? The biggest reason is that they have been invaded by foreign alliances three times in the last century, the last time at the cost of 20 million lives. When the Soviet Union ceased to be a thing, I’m sure their expectation was that NATO would go away. It didn’t, and like any hammer looking for something to do, it sees everything as a nail.

As Trump prepares another generation of phony missile defense weapons, one can only hope that these aren’t coffin nails.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

The state of it.

Leave a comment

I imagine if you didn’t watch the president’s state of the union address and listened to NPR (aka Empire) news the next day, you might think they were talking about a speech made by a reactionary republican legislator or pundit. That’s all they had on their guest list for the two days following the address. You have to wonder why they feel these people need all this air time. Instead of wallowing in the predictable knee-jerk partisan reactions to the speech, why don’t they drill into some of the issues? Sure, they do a little “fact check” report, kind of like Politifact (and just about as superficial). But report on, say, oil and gas drilling and its implications for climate change and ultimately human survival? Not when one of their big sponsors is “think about it dot org”.

Doing too little? Seriously?Then there’s “Morning Joe” (or “Morning Blow”) on purportedly liberal/progressive MSNBC. Their foreign policy braintrust of, well, Joe Scarborough, Richard Haas, and various senior editors from Politico have been engaging in a narrative that goes something like this, in short – “W” Bush did too much, Obama does too little, and both put us in greater danger from the scourge of jihadist terrorism, which has killed nearly one person in the United States so far this year (call it none). Setting aside the obsessive focus on this rare and sensational threat, I agree with the assertion that both presidents’ foreign policies have put us in greater danger, breeding a new generation extremists, several of whom, for instance, attacked the offices of Charlie Ebdo in Paris. But the notion that Obama does too little is ludicrous. Bush and Obama basically have the same foreign policy. Obama is following Bush’s playbook from 2006-08. And yes, it is murderous and destabilizing and designed to radicalize people.

Of course, the pundit circle’s prescriptions for what we should be doing are drawn from the same volume. This week on Morning Blow they were latching onto co-host Mika Brzezinski’s father’s suggestion that we should deploy troops to the Baltic states to provide a “tripwire” against further action by Vladimir Putin. The braintrust was opining that NATO should be beefed up; more troops in Poland, etc. Again – Obama has been following the same policy as Bush, in essence. Aggressive eastward expansion of the U.S.-European trading zone and of NATO, right into Ukraine, which is as integral a part of Russian security planning as Canada and Mexico are for the U.S. Want to keep Putin from overreacting? Stop boxing the Russians in. Just saying.

The only new piece of foreign policy from Obama has been the Cuba opening, but like Boehner’s invite to Netanyahu as a way of scuttling the Iran talks, there are many ways for Congress to undermine the new policy.

Next week: Domestic policy. Stay tuned.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

The year (2014) that was.

Leave a comment

It’s the end of the year, and news organizations far and wide are doing their annual retrospective clip shows. From a production standpoint they are a terrific money saver, no doubt, which would explain why the various networks seem so enthusiastic about it. This is the week when you get a distillation of the year’s worst reporting; a big ball of conventional wisdom, served up on a plate. Open wide!

NPR’s Morning Edition – as reliable a servant of empire as any imperial bureaucrat could hope for – wasted no words in putting one of the world’s most dangerous conflicts into the proper context:

You can learn a lot about 2014 by tracing the story of one man, Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader hosted the Winter Olympics proudly showing off a place that’s near and dear to him, the Black Sea Resort of Sochi. But the feeling of global goodwill there disappeared so quickly. Putin infuriated the West by annexing Crimea then he stirred a deadly conflict in Eastern Ukraine.The West imposed sanctions, and there’s been talk of a new Cold War. But at home, even with his economy tanking, Putin remains popular.

This just in from Empire News.

That’s David Greene, now Morning Edition co-host and formerly one of NPR’s correspondents in eastern Europe. Here he is joining his colleagues at all the major news networks parroting the administration line about the crisis in Ukraine, making it a story about Putin rather than a story about a decades-long conflict over economic and military policy on the continent. This is a lead-in to a conversation with Peter Pomerantsev, a Russian-born writer at The Atlantic, in which they dissect the phenomenon of the manipulative Russian leader, pointing out the appalling fact that the Russian government is (gasp!) “choreograph(ing) politics to make Putin look good.” Whoever heard of such an outrage!

They followed this edifying conversation with a story from two NPR European correspondents illustrating how Putin’s government is offering support to right-wing opposition parties across Europe, delivering funding in a way that would be illegal within the borders of Russia. In other words, NPR has made the astonishing discovery that Russia does exactly what we do in nations all around the world – sluice money into opposition groups, support opposition candidates with money and other resources, and insert ourselves into their political process in a manner forbidden by U.S. law if someone were to try it here. In fact, this is precisely what we’ve been doing in Ukraine as part of our efforts to integrate them into the European trading bloc and, ultimately, NATO.

With a long history of devastating invasions from the West, that’s a non-starter for Russia, just as Mexico’s entry into a foreign military alliance would be frowned upon in Washington. But far be it from NPR or any other major corporate news organization to report on that. That would require stepping out of line ever so slightly. Never going to happen.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Bad guys.

Leave a comment

When I watch news reports about the Ukraine crisis, I’m reminded of that Dave Mason song from back in the seventies, that went something like this:

So let’s leave it alone
Because we can’t see eye to eye
There ain’t no good guys
There ain’t no bad guys
There’s only you and me and
We just disagree

Are you scared? Really scared?Right, well … I was never a big fan of Dave’s, but you get the idea. Part of the problem with our once-over-lightly media culture is that there is an extraordinarily rapid resort to black-and-white, wrong vs. right narratives that are easy to report, easy to digest, easy to repeat again and again. In all that, we lose the sense that it’s possible to have two assholes in a fight – adversaries who are divided by conflicting claims, not by a contrast between absolute good and absolute evil.

I guess what particularly galls me about the current state of play is that when you draw attention to this fact, you are accused of being an apologist for the Putin regime. Fact is, Putin’s regime is the model of governance in Russia that the United States clearly preferred, one we actively encouraged and supported relatively uncritically until the falling out around the Iraq war. What we’re staring in the face right now is the product of two failed American policies: (1) support for a strong executive in Russia from the Yeltsin years forward, and (2) insistence not only on perpetuation of NATO after the end of the Cold War, but expansion of the alliance deep into eastern Europe, over the vehement objections of the Russians.

Russia’s objection to NATO expansion? Well, this is just a guess, but I’m pretty sure they are against any major military alliance on their western flank, probably because they were invaded four times, starting with Napoleon, the last time nearly destroying Russian society. That’s a living memory for some in Russia, and something no doubt written in their DNA at this point. You can say they’re a little sensitive about threats from their west. Just a little.

That doesn’t excuse beastly behavior, but you have to admit … compared to the suppression of Hungary or Czechoslovakia, this invasion and  annexation of Crimea has been pretty tame. I’m just saying, we need to dial it back a little, and remember that we still have thousands of nuclear weapons. Indeed, there can be no military conflict between Russia and the United States that won’t practically guarantee the destruction of all of humankind.

If we fight, no one wins. Take that to the bank.

luv u,

jp