Russia

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      The Contradictory Musings of Biden’s Speculator of State

      by

      In the world of both journalism and diplomacy, words often take on a meaning that turns out to be close to the opposite of their official definition in the dictionary.

      In an article published on the day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, CBS News summed up journalist Norah O’Donnell’s conversation with the top foreign policy official in the US in these words: “Secretary of State Antony Blinken said it is obvious Russian President Vladimir Putin has goals beyond Ukraine and may have other countries in his sights.”

      Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Obvious:

      Possibly true, maybe even unlikely, but what the speaker hopes people will believe is true

      Contextual note

      With everyone in government and the media speculating about — rather than thinking through — the real reasons behind the Russian assault on Ukraine, CBS News, like most of US legacy media, wants its readers to focus on the most extreme hypothesis. That is the gift any war offers to the media: the possibility of not just imagining but supposing the worst.

      An Expert Explains Why We Need a New Cold War With China

      READ MORE

      It works because the idea that Vladimir Putin has designs that go beyond Ukraine is certainly credible. But it has no basis in fact. In wartime, the media, even more than politicians, will always do their damnedest to damn beyond redemption the party designated as the enemy. One crime is never enough. The public must be encouraged to believe that other, more serious crimes are in the offing. That will incite the audience to return for more.

      The article is about Antony Blinken’s understanding of the conflict, but he never used the word “obvious.” Instead, he speculated out loud about what an evil dictator might be thinking. “He’s made clear,” Blinken asserted without citing evidence, “that he’d like to reconstitute the Soviet empire.” He then shifts to a less extreme interpretation. “Short of that,” Blinken continues, “he’d like to reassert a sphere of influence around neighboring countries that were once part of the Soviet bloc.” And he ends with what is a perfectly reasonable assumption: “And short of that, he’d like to make sure that all of these countries are somehow neutral.”      

      Embed from Getty Images

      Blinken’s contention that Putin’s “made clear” his intention to restore the Soviet empire undoubtedly prompted CBS’ choice of the word “obvious,” which is a bold exaggeration. But Blinken is exaggerating when he claims it’s “clear.” Something is clear if it is visible, with no obstacle that prevents us from seeing it. In this case, clarity would exist if Putin had ever expressed that intention. But that has never happened. So, what Blinken claims to be clear is mere suspicion.

      Blinken cleverly evokes “the Soviet empire” that he is convinced Putin wants to restore. The Soviet Union was a communist dictatorship, the ideological enemy of the United States. But Putin is an oligarchic capitalist who inherited a Russia whose economy was transformed by American consultants after the fall of the Soviet Union. Blinken knows that Americans are horrified by any association with communism and quasi-religiously “believe in” capitalism, even oligarchic capitalism, since the US has produced its own version of that. Blinken’s statement can therefore be read as clever State Department propaganda. He designed it to evoke emotions that are inappropriate to the actual context.

      Things become linguistically more interesting when Blinken goes on to offer a softer reading of Putin’s intention, introduced by “short of that.” He descends the ladder of horror by moving from “empire” to “sphere of influence.” It is far less fear-inspiring, but he continues to evoke the communist threat by alluding to “countries that were once part of the Soviet bloc.” 

      The next step down the ladder, again introduced by “short of that,” reads like a puzzling anti-climax. “And short of that,” Blinken says, “he’d like to make sure that all of these countries are somehow neutral.” Is he suggesting that the neutrality of surrounding nations is the equivalent of reconstituting the Soviet Union? If they are truly neutral, like Switzerland or Finland, they belong to no bloc. Blinken apparently wants the undiscerning listener to assume that being neutral is just a lighter, perhaps less constraining version of being part of a new Soviet empire.

      This kind of speculation based on mental reflexes acquired during the Cold War may seem odd for another reason. Blinken was speaking at the very moment when actual hostilities were breaking out. In the previous weeks, discussions between the two sides had taken place, which meant they could continue. Things changed, of course, at the beginning of last week when Putin declared, “I deem it necessary to make a decision that should have been made a long time ago — to immediately recognize the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic.”

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      That statement on February 21 should have created a new sense of urgency in Washington to prevent the worst from happening by precipitating new negotiations. The opposite happened. Russia’s overtures calling for a summit were refused and Blinken’s planned meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was canceled.

      The West and indeed the world were legitimately shocked by Putin’s move. It violated a basic principle of international law and contradicted the terms of the Minsk agreement that looked forward to defining the future autonomy of Donetsk and Luhansk. On that score, Putin was not wrong when he noted that the definition and application of that autonomy should have taken place much earlier, indeed, “a long time ago.”

      What Blinken described corresponds to an imaginary negotiation with Putin, who may have adopted a strategy of beginning with an extreme position by demanding a return to a post-Yalta order in Eastern Europe. Negotiators typically exaggerate at the beginning, proposing what they never expect to achieve, to arrive at something that will be deemed acceptable. It’s called giving ground. Blinken’s first “short of that” anticipates what Putin might do once the extreme position is rejected. His second “short of that” tells us what Blinken imagines Putin’s next concession might be. That takes him to the neutrality hypothesis, which in fact, as everyone knows, was Putin’s red line. 

      If Blinken can imagine that kind of negotiating process, why didn’t he choose to engage in it? The answer lies in his implicit assessment of the idea of neutrality. Neutrality is not an option. It confirms what many suspect: the US adheres to a confrontational model of international relations. It is the George W. Bush doctrine: if you are not with us, you are against us. That applies even to neutral countries.

      The CBS article contains some other interesting curiosities. After explaining exactly what Putin is secretly thinking, at one point, Blinken objects: “I can’t begin to get into his head.” When queried about what the intelligence community has provided to Blinken to justify what he says he thinks is in Putin’s head, he replies, “You don’t need intelligence to tell you that that’s exactly what President Putin wants.” Blinken wants us to believe that he understands everything but knows nothing.

      Historical Note

      Could it be that in this age of social media, where everyone lives comfortably in their silo, we have heard the death knell of even the idea of negotiation, a practice that has been respected in international relations throughout human history? Or is it an effect of historically informed cynicism due to the fact that, in many cases, negotiations have failed to prevent the unthinkable? Everyone remembers Neville Chamberlain’s negotiation with Adolf Hitler in 1938 that seemed to succeed until it became clear that it had failed.

      Or is it just a US phenomenon? Emmanuel Macron of France and Olaf Scholz of Germany made last-minute attempts to negotiate with Vladimir Putin, but they lacked the authority of the US. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      In recent decades, US culture appears to have created a kind of reflex that consists of refusing to enter into dialogue whenever one has the feeling that the other party doesn’t share the same ideas or opinions. This aversion to sitting down and sorting out major problems may be an indirect consequence of the wokeness wars, which inevitably lead to the conclusion that the other side will always be unenlightened and incorrigible. Discussion serves no purpose, especially since those committed to a fixed position live in fear of hearing something that might modulate their enthusiasm.

      Today’s confrontational culture in the US reveals that Americans are now more interested in making a display of their moral indignation at people who look, think or act differently than they are in trying to understand, let alone iron out their differences. In the past, John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev solved major problems through dialogue. Ronald Reagan and Leonid Brezhnev talked constructively, as did Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. And then there was the extraordinary case of Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong.

      We are now in the age of Karens. Even our political leaders have identified with that culture.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      State of the Union: a moment of unity dissolves into partisan feuding

      by

      State of the Union: a moment of unity dissolves into partisan feuding Democrats and Republicans come together to condemn Putin – then it’s back to politics as usualVladimir Putin, the president of Russia, has managed to do what Joe Biden could not: bridge the partisan divide and bring, however fleetingly, the US Congress together.Many Democrats and Republicans who attended the US president’s first State of the Union address, on Tuesday night, wore yellow and blue in solidarity with Ukraine, with some holding miniature Ukrainian flags.And when Biden discussed the world-shaking events of the past week – this will inevitably be remembered as his Ukraine speech, irrespective of inflation and other domestic concerns – the chamber rose as one to applaud time and again.Putin “thought he could divide us at home in this chamber and this nation”, said Biden, wearing a dark suit, white shirt and blue tie. “He thought he could divide us in Europe as well. But Putin was wrong. We are ready, we are united and that’s what we did: we stayed united.”It was not a subject that Biden expected or wanted to be talking about even a few weeks ago. The man who gives a portrait of President Franklin D Roosevelt pride of place in the Oval Office now finds himself pivoting from New Deal FDR to wartime FDR, from sweeping economic reforms to facing down an unhinged European despot.Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine meant that Biden’s 62-minute speech was addressing not only the chamber on Capitol Hill and the nation but the world, even as bombs fell on Ukrainian cities. Some in Europe remain frustrated that the US has not done more to cow Putin. The president found himself cast in the role of what some still quaintly call “leader of the free world”.State of the Union takeaways: Biden talks tough on Putin and touts Covid progressRead more“We are inflicting pain on Russia and supporting the people of Ukraine,” Biden said of withering sanctions. “Putin is now isolated from the world more than ever.”He promised to defend “every inch” of Nato territory.But Biden being Biden, infamous for his gaffes, all did not go smoothly. In a slip of the tongue, he said Putin would never gain the hearts and souls of the “Iranian” people when he meant Ukrainian.Curiously and ominously, the 79-year-old deviated from his prepared remarks to ad lib: “He has no idea what’s coming,” and finished the speech with a clenched fist and: “Go get him!”With Russia’s nuclear deterrent forces on high alert, this was no time for a repeat of President Ronald Reagan’s “We begin bombing in five minutes” quip.But Uncle Joe is stronger when it comes to bedside manner. There was a grace note of reassurance for Americans who have genuinely been discussing the possibility of a third world war. “I know the news about what’s happening can seem alarming to all Americans,” he said.“But I want you to know, we’re going to be OK, we’re going to be OK. When the history of this era is written, Putin’s war on Ukraine will have left Russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger,” said Biden to a standing ovation.01:16Democrats and Republicans united in approval of Biden’s plan to close American airspace to all Russian flights and build a dedicated taskforce to go after the crimes of oligarchs. “We are joining with our European allies to find and seize your yachts, your luxury apartments, your private jets. We are coming for your ill-begotten gains.”They united again in a tide of emotion as Oksana Markarova, the Ukrainan ambassador to the US, stood in the public gallery, whispering “thank you” with tears in her eyes, right hand on heart, left hand clutching a mini flag. Markarova was a guest of the first lady, Jill Biden, and travelled in the presidential motorcade from the White House to Capitol Hill.For a moment it was the 20th century again, when partisan differences seemed small compared to the external, existential threat of the Soviet Union. There is nothing so unifying as a common foe.Then came a jarring gear shift. When Biden moved to the domestic area, and took a swipe at the Donald Trump administration’s tax cuts for the rich, Republicans erupted in booing. For a moment, it was almost a surprise, but then not really: the bloodsport of daily politics had resumed.So it was that later, when Biden talked about security at the US-Mexico border, two far-right Republican House members, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, shouted “Build the wall!” as if trying to conjure Trump’s ghost from the depths. A Democrat snapped: “Sit down.”And when Biden made reference to flag-draped coffins returning from Afghanistan, Boebert heckled: “You put them in, 13 of them!” – a reference to the 13 US personnel who died during the evacuation. Democrats booed loudly in response.But when Biden spoke of crime and declared: “The answer is not to defund the police,” both sides united in cheering again while Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez laughed rather than clapped and her fellow progressive Ilhan Omar sat stony-faced.The president’s Build Back Better agenda has stalled but he pushed some of its components. Likewise he warned that voting rights were “under assault”. His nemesis on both counts, the Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, sat between the Republicans Mitt Romney and Roger Wicker in an extravagant gesture of bipartisanship unlikely to charm liberals.It was another sign that the more things change, the more they stay the same in the theatre of the State of the Union. For the first time in its history, two women – Vice-President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – sat behind the president.As members of Congress from each side cheered or jeered each punchline, five supreme court justices and military men worked hard to remain still and expressionless.Senators and representatives were physically distanced on the floor and in the public gallery but face masks were gone – a hopeful sign of time healing all. “Let’s use this moment to reset,” Biden pleaded. “Let’s stop looking at Covid-19 as a partisan dividing line and see it for what it is: a God-awful disease. Let’s stop seeing each other as enemies, and start seeing each other for who we really are: fellow Americans.”Putin, not Biden, might achieve that end. The president’s approval rating is dismal and there is no guarantee this primetime address will do anything to arrest the decline.Was it a speech for the ages, with a ringing phrase that will define this moment of global peril? Perhaps not. But it will have made millions of people in America and around the world grateful that the man at the podium was not Donald Trump.TopicsState of the Union addressThe US politics sketchJoe BidenUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansUkraineRussiafeaturesReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden bans Russian aircraft in US airspace and vows to go after oligarchs

      by

      Biden bans Russian aircraft in US airspace and vows to go after oligarchsBiden says DoJ taskforce will stop ‘crimes of Russian oligarchs’Moves will further isolate Vladimir Putin, president says Joe Biden announced on Tuesday night that the US is banning Russian aircraft from its airspace and pledged to go after Russian oligarchs in retaliation for the invasion of Ukraine.Biden said the moves would further isolate Vladimir Putin. “The Ruble has lost 30% of its value,” he said. “The Russian stock market has lost 40% of its value and trading remains suspended. Russia’s economy is reeling and Putin alone is to blame.”State of the Union: Joe Biden pledges to make Putin pay for Ukraine invasionRead moreBiden said the US Department of Justice was assembling a dedicated taskforce to go after “the crimes of Russian oligarchs. We are joining with our European allies to find and seize their yachts, their luxury apartments, their private jets. We are coming for their ill-begotten gains,” he said.The announcements are the latest in a series of sanctions against Russia and follows similar actions by Canada and the European Union this week.Biden offered an ominous warning that without consequences, Putin’s aggression wouldn’t be contained to Ukraine.“Throughout our history we’ve learned this lesson: when dictators do not pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos,” Biden said. “They keep moving. And, the costs and threats to America and the world keep rising.”On Sunday, the EU and Canada announced they were closing their airspace to Russian airlines and private planes owned by wealthy Russians.Russia’s largest airline, Aeroflot, on Monday said that it had suspended flights to New York, Washington, Miami and Los Angeles through Wednesday because of Canada’s decision.No US airlines fly to Russia, though a few flights to India pass through Russian airspace. American Airlines routes its lone flight between Delhi and New York to avoid Russian airspace. FedEx and UPS both fly over Russia, although they announced this weekend that they were suspending deliveries to that country.European airlines fly over Russia far more often than their US counterparts. Before the war, about 600 flights to or from Europe passed through Russian airspace, according to aviation data firm Cirium.Aviation experts say Russia derives a sizable amount of money from fees that it levies to use its airspace or land at its airports.The ban would come on top of a wide range of sanctions the US, Europe and other countries have imposed on Russia that are expected to hammer its economy including cutting off Russian banks from the Swift international banking system, preventing the Russian central bank from deploying its international reserves, and freezing the assets of people close to Putin.Wires contributed to this reportTopicsJoe BidenRussiaUkraineUS politicsEuropeAirline industrynewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      As Biden Speaks, Ukraine Crisis Escalates and Midterm Elections Start

      by

      As President Biden delivers his first formal State of the Union address, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine escalates and the midterms begin in earnest in Texas.An entrance to a voting site in Laredo, Texas, today.Jason Garza for The New York TimesThe first votes of 2022 Russian missiles are terrorizing Ukraine. President Biden hopes to rally the nation in his first formal State of the Union address. And the first votes of the 2022 midterm elections will be counted tonight.This is an extraordinary political moment, both at home and abroad.Those first votes of the midterms are being cast and counted today in Texas, in Republican and Democratic primaries, providing the first morsels of data on what voters are prioritizing amid multiple national and international crises.Our colleagues have been tracking the turnout, major themes and top races as part of our live Texas election coverage tonight. Keep up with the results as they come in.Here are some of the highlights:How will new voting laws affect turnout?Republican legislators throughout the country responded to former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud by passing legislation restricting voting access. In Texas, voters have already seen higher rates of rejection for absentee ballot applications. Now, the ballots themselves have been rejected at a higher rate than usual. Nick Corasaniti reports.Most voters will need to vote in person, or have already done so, since Texas’ criteria for qualifying for mail-in voting are unusually narrow. Maggie Astor writes.Do Democrats need to keep to the political center?The highest-profile progressive challenger of the night, Jessica Cisneros, isn’t focusing her early messaging on progressive causes. Instead, she’s going after the new vulnerabilities of the incumbent Democrat, Henry Cuellar, who has become ensnared in an F.B.I. investigation, though its target isn’t totally clear. Jonathan Weisman reports from Laredo.Dozens of Hispanic voters and candidates in South Texas explained why the Republican Party has been making inroads in the region. Trump-style grievance politics has been resonating with Hispanic residents in the Rio Grande Valley. Jennifer Medina reports from Brownsville.Abortion specifically seems to be moving Hispanic voters in South Texas toward Republicans. Edgar Sandoval writes from Laredo.Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat, made headlines in 2019 in the crowded presidential primary when he declared, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.” Now, he’s running for governor in a state where Republicans have the advantage. J. David Goodman reports from Tyler.One candidate for the State Board of Education is taking a unique approach to rising above partisan politics — he’s running in both major party’s primaries. Maggie Astor writes.Will appeasing Trump’s base in the primary cost Republicans in November?Representative Dan Crenshaw, a Republican, is more likely to face a threat from a far-right challenger in his redrawn district in the Houston suburbs.Annie Mulligan for The New York TimesRedistricting has created fewer competitive districts, and therefore more races where winning the primary is the most important contest. For Democrats and Republicans, that elevates the importance of campaigning to the most ideologically focused voters. Still, Representative Dan Crenshaw, a Republican, says he refuses to “toe the line,” and has been feuding with Trump allies like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Shane Goldmacher reports from The Woodlands, Texas.Gov. Greg Abbott has been pushing Texas even farther to the right, and it helped him pick up Trump’s endorsement for re-election. Tonight’s results will reveal how those efforts have resonated with actual Republican voters. J. David Goodman reports from Austin.For the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, his allegiance to Trump may or may not be enough to win the Republican primary outright. J. David Goodman reports from Midland.What to read tonightOur colleagues are tracking developments in Ukraine as part of our live coverage. Thousands of civilians are fleeing Kyiv as Moscow intensifies its military attack and appears “to target civilian areas with increasingly powerful weapons.”The New York Times is also providing live updates and analysis on Biden’s State of the Union address tonight. Peter Baker writes that no president has delivered a State of the Union address “with such a large-scale and consequential land war underway in Europe since 1945.”Michael D. Shear reports that Biden will use the State of the Union address to “claim credit for a robust economy and a unified global response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, even as he acknowledges the pain of inflation.”A report commissioned by the Republican speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly “endorsed a host of debunked claims of fraud and false assertions about lawmakers’ power to decertify” Biden’s victory, Reid J. Epstein reports.Thanks for reading. We’ll see you tomorrow.— Blake & LeahWere you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      The Unthinkable: War Returns to Europe

      by

      War has returned to the European continent. President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is more than a Russian war on one nation. It is a war on the West and everything the West represents — its democracy, rule of law, liberty and the rules-based international world order it has established, largely as a result of America’s military power and the combined economic might of the United States, the European Union and various like-minded nations.

      Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Is a Wake-Up Call for Germany

      READ MORE

      Superficially, one might look at the start date of this war as February 24, when Russian forces invaded Ukraine. In fact, President Putin declared his war on the West 15 years ago, when he addressed the Munich Security Conference, lambasting the US and its allies for overstepping boundaries, unsettling global order and threatening Russia itself. He was especially sharp in his criticism of the US invasion of Iraq and NATO expansion to include the countries of the former Soviet bloc.

      Putin’s Long-Declared War Against the West

      One year later, in the summer of 2008, Putin launched his first military campaign. Russian forces invaded Georgia, another aspiring democracy, following its (and Ukraine’s) application to NATO. He had drawn his line and made clear he was prepared to resist. In 2014, following the ouster of the pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych during the Maidan Revolution (aka Euromaidan and Revolution of Dignity), Russian forces — disguised by the absence of uniform — invaded and captured the Crimea region in southern Ukraine, subsequently annexing it. 

      Shortly afterward, Putin threw his support behind Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Donbas in eastern Ukraine, on the border with Russia. That conflict continued to fester through last week’s invasion.

      As he rationalized in Munich, NATO was advancing east, encircling and threatening Russia. In fact, it was the nations of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus moving West, adopting the Western model of democracy and free economy, and electing to formally associate with them. Their rationale has been made ever clearer now: They feared Russian aggression and sought the security of NATO and the prosperity of the EU. Russia and Putin’s model of one-man rule, fear and intimidation, repression and stymied economic opportunity held no attraction, and even less under some misguided, fever-dream version of a resurrected Russian empire.

      Embed from Getty Images

      It may have been easy to compartmentalize Putin’s antagonism as directed solely at former eastern bloc states on Russia’s periphery. But Ukraine and Georgia have always been merely the staging grounds of Putin’s assault on the West. His calculation was that a seemingly enfeebled US, weakened abroad and divided at home, and a fractious and divisive NATO would not respond. They would acquiesce to his vision of a neo-Russian empire and the recently resurgent notion — also supported by China — of the spheres of influence of great powers. He also calculated that Ukraine, after its failure to defend Crimea or defeat the Russian-backed separatists in Donbas, would fold in the face of Russia’s superior military might.

      Putin doubtlessly also realized that Russia is a declining power. The base for its economy, oil and natural gas, while still much in demand, is facing a declining shelf life as advanced countries turn rapidly to renewable energy technologies. Enormously rich in natural resources and even richer in human ingenuity, it is a one-dimensional economy, making it dependent on the vagaries of commodity markets to keep its budget in balance. Its population has been declining over the last decades and is aging. Russia’s status in the global power alignment is fading, and Putin knows it. Now was the time to strike.

      Putin’s whining aside, the invasion of Ukraine was never about the West’s threat to Russia. Democracies go to war only when threatened. In fact, Putin was crystal clear in his purpose when he belittled Ukraine and dismissed its independence in a speech on February 21, a nakedly transparent declaration of Russian expansionism. Holding up NATO as the aggressive villain and Ukraine as an inherent and natural part of greater Russia was a red herring that earned no perch outside his most ardent apologists.

      Calculating Putin Miscalculates

      The reputedly calculating Putin underestimated his immediate enemy, the Ukrainian people, and his ultimate enemy, the West. Nor did he grasp the dimensions of the new kind of war that would result when great powers enter the fray in an overwhelmingly interdependent world. His war has all the signs not only of a hot war but also the Cold War, an economic war, an exponentially more expansive information war than he could have imagined, and a cyberwar.

      Embed from Getty Images

      All will claim causalities across the map, most especially in his own country and Ukraine. Importantly, Russia’s vaunted propaganda engine may prove no match for the millions of Ukrainians with cell phones and the hundreds of millions cell phone users around the world supporting them.

      But the economic disruption of the unprecedented sanctions imposed by the rest of the world’s economic powers, save China, suggests that people everywhere will suffer to some degree. Financial flows are massively displaced, most seriously for a Russia that has been effectively cut out of global financial markets. Note the massive falls in Russian financial markets and the Russian ruble, the clearest signs of an economy in freefall as investors and consumers rush to cash out and then run for the exits.

      Even the massive $630 billion in reserves Putin had thought he was so clever in amassing to blunt the anticipated sanctions have become a dead asset. No one will take his dollars, euros, yen or Swiss francs, not even his gold; they’re all toxic now.

      Oil and grain markets have been colossally disrupted. Import-dependent nations, both developed as well as poor, will pay much higher prices, leading to increased inflation and hardship. We should also expect other secondary effects from the war and sanctions.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      Ukraine has become the proving ground for democracy. Can the immense financial and economic powers amassed by the world’s democracies counter the brute force military power of one country? Nine of the 10 largest economies in the world are democracies, China the lone exception; Russia ranks 12th.

      Democracies run the world’s financial systems from SWIFT to the global financial institutions that fall under the UN, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. The US dollar dominates global financial transactions and national reserves. Money has often determined wars’ winners in the past, but never one on the scale of this one, especially when the antagonists wield nuclear weapons.

      It may all fall to the courage and resilience of the valiant Ukrainians. The longer they can hold out against Russia’s onslaught, already fraught with unanticipated planning, logistical and tactical problems and questionable troop morale, the more unbearable the economic costs will become for Russia. 

      Ukraine possesses some of the world’s largest areas of super-rich and fertile black earth. The world is hoping it may also prove to be the perfect soil for democracy to flourish.

      *[An earlier version of this article stated that for “the first time since 1945,” war had returned to Europe. Updated March 2, 2022, at 15:00 GMT.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Is a Wake-Up Call for Germany

      by

      Anyone who has ever studied international relations in the United States has been exposed to the so-called Melian dialogue. The Melian dialogue refers to an episode in the Peloponnesian War, pitting the representative of Melos, a small island, against the representatives of Athens. The Athenians, engaged in a war with Sparta, demanded that the Melians submit to their power, join their side and, in the process, get absorbed into the Athenian empire. 

      Learning Lessons in Ukraine and Beyond

      READ MORE

      In case the Melians refused, the Athenians threatened with complete destruction. The Melians did refuse, pointing out that justice was on their side. In response, the Athenians laid siege on the island, took its main city and, after its surrender, killed every surviving male and sold the women and children into slavery.

      Exigencies of Defense

      One of the central points of the Melian dialogue is the notion that might makes right, or, as the Athenians put it, “you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” It is a prime example of what in international relations theory is known as realism. Over the past few decades, realism has gone out of fashion, especially in Western Europe — and for good reason. Nobody is eager to live in a Hobbesian world where life is “nasty, brutish and short” — in Western Europe, nobody more so than the Germans.

      This, of course, has had a lot to do with Berlin’s position during the Cold War, when Germany was, as the prominent German-American political scientist Peter Katzenstein put it, a semi-sovereign state. During the Cold War period, the Federal Republic of Germany pursued a number of strategies that marked a fundamental break with realism: toward its neighbors to the west, a process of economic integration; toward its neighbors to the east (particularly Poland) a policy of détente and reconciliation, which came to be known as Ostpolitik.

      The idea behind Ostpolitik was that rapprochement would ultimately lead to change — Wandel durch Annäherung.  When, in 1989, the Berlin Wall came down, it appeared that the policy had worked. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      The fall of the Berlin Wall was soon followed by the crumbling of the Soviet Union and German unification, which meant that Germany had finally regained its sovereignty — somewhat of a troubling reality, and not only among Germany’s neighbors. In Germany, too, not a few people were worried. They shouldn’t have been. Germany was perfectly adapted to the new times where the “overwhelming exigencies of defence” appeared to have disappeared and where, as the then German minister of defense would put it in 1999, Germany, for the first time in its history, was “only surrounded by friends.” 

      The end of the Cold War appeared to have ushered in a fundamentally now global reality, informed by interdependence, globalization and the end of history. Here, Germany was poised to play a prominent role as the epitome of a “trading state” and a “civilian power.”  

      Civilian powers such as Germany rely on what the American international relations theorist Joseph Nye famously called soft power. Soft power comes from the appeal of consumer products (all those sleek BMWs and Mercedes Benzes) and popular culture (TV series like “Derrick” and Bundesliga clubs Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund with their millions of fans all over the world), rather than from the barrel of the gun. 

      Civilian powers scale down their military. After all, a country surrounded by friends has little use for a military that is up to the task of defending the country. Instead, they are tempted to follow the lead of the Danish Progress party whose late leader proposed in the early 1970s to replace the country’s ministry of defense with an answering machine with the recorded message of “We surrender” in Russian.

      Mugged by Reality

      On February 24, Germany got mugged by reality and was caught flat-footed. In the face of a Melian scenario, Germany is like the emperor with his new clothes. Over the recent days, a growing number of articles have appeared exposing the sorry state of the German military and lamenting its lack of preparedness. Some of the stories would make for great slapstick comedy were they not describing a pathetic reality. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      The German soldiers stationed in Lithuania, for instance, not only lack warm jackets but even underwear, or so Germany’s defense ombudsperson has charged. At the same time, the commander of Germany’s army went public, stating that the military “stands more or less naked.” His remarks led France’s center-left daily Liberation to claim that “the generals of the Bundeswehr were ready to lay down the arms at the first Russian attack.” Another French newspaper charged that the German military, because of “deficient gear and the lack of flexibility of its soldiers,” was not in a position to efficiently support its allies in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

      None of this is new. It has all been known for years. In late 2018, for instance, Germany’s weekly Die Zeit raised alarm noting that only a third of the new tanks, fighter jets and helicopters the military had received were ready to use. Four years later, one of Germany’s major dailies, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, reported that the military continued to suffer from massive problems. The German navy, for instance, could count on less than 30% of its ships to be completely ready for action. 

      A few days before the Russian invasion on February 24, the Ukrainian government asked the Germans for anti-tank missile systems. Berlin declined. The reason is simple: Even if it had wanted to, Germany would not be in a position to supply the weapons — they were not available.

      No matter the outcome of the war in Ukraine, Germany will be collateral damage. For too long, the Germans have believed that interdependence and constructive engagement would fundamentally change international relations. This view, however, is based on theoretical constructs that ignore some of the fundamentals informing international relations: the legacy of history and, closely linked to it, emotions. Europe’s history abounds with grievances and resentment, more often than not triggering intense passions. The Balkan wars of the 1990s should have served as a reminder. Instead, they were dismissed as a remnant of a bygone era. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      There is another lesson to be drawn from this disaster. A few years ago, two American political scientists coined the phrase “weaponizing interdependence.” The authors used network theory to explain how “coercing actors could exploit interdependence and why targeted actors would find it difficult to evade coercion attempts.” Germany is a textbook case. For decades now, it has increased its dependence on Russian inputs, particularly natural gas and oil.

      The controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline is only the latest example of this. Dependence on Russian commodities was once again informed by the same belief in the power of interdependence to engage the other side in a way beneficial to both. But, once again, the whole thing is in shambles, and Germany is caught in the trap largely of its own making.

      Time for a Change

      But the times there are changing, and rapidly so. Over the weekend, Germany agreed to cut Russian banks off from the SWIFT payment system, announced it would deliver anti-tank missiles to Ukraine (leaving some observers wondering how they suddenly materialized) and sent a military contingent to be stationed in Slovakia. 

      What is much more significant, however, is the fundamental change in tone with regard to Russia, its assault on Ukraine and Germany’s response. The two parties that in the past have been most indulgent toward Vladimir Putin’s regime, the Social Democrats and the Left, have made a complete volte-face, condemning Moscow’s aggression. 

      At the same time, there has been growing recognition on the side of Germany’s left-wing intellectuals that the “times of illusion” are over, that the notion of “wehrhafte Demokratie” — a democracy that can defend itself — only has meaning if it is backed by real forces, and that this will require not only resources but a fundamental change of mindset. The reality is that Germany’s allies will no longer allow Germans to evoke the horrors of the Nazi regime as an explanation for their neglecting its defensive capabilities. 

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      Given the new geostrategic realities, what Western Europe needs, and desperately so, is a strong German military. It must be relieved that on Sunday, Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced an allocation of €100 billion ($112 billion) toward the 2022 military budget, aiming to raise defense spending to over 2% of GDP set out in NATO guidelines going forward; last year, it stood at 1.53%.

      Finally, it seems to dawn in Germany that Putin’s aggression is driven as much by historical revisionism and revanchism as by the boundless drive to snuff out and eradicate Ukraine’s civil society and democratic spirit, turning it into a second Belarus, a Russia en miniature. It is hardly a coincidence that the invasion of Ukraine started almost to the day of the anniversary of the end of Viktor Yanukovych’s pro-Moscow regime in February 2014.

      The only one who has remained steadfast in his Putinophilism is former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who has always prided himself in his close relationship with the Russian autocrat. Whereas Austria’s ex-chancellor, Christian Kern, and the former French premier, François Fillon, resigned from lucrative posts on the boards of Russian enterprises, Schröder refused to follow suit, much to the embarrassment of the German Social Democrats. 

      But then, Schröder belongs to the same generation as the Putins, Trumps and Xis of this world, old men living in an alternative reality who would like nothing more than to turn back the clock. In Germany, at least, dreams and illusions have given way to a new realism, one that is likely to have profound repercussions not only for Germany but for Europe in general.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More