I agree with your basic premise except for the literally fatal oversight of Treaties caused the enormous military, not an enormous military created foreign policy. We the USA need to abrogate our military treaties before we abrogate our military, Sir.
You see it’s the foreign policy- not set by the military at all, nor does it decide to go to war - it is our Defense treaties and Foreign policy that led to the large overseas military presence.
Somehow this point gets lost.
Pardon my directness, when I say the glaring mistake is fatal... it is... mass fatalities.
You’re analysis is correct, save the order of things.
Good piece. I would argue that the consensus foreign policy the US has pursued in the post-WWI/II era has been singularly unified and singularly bad. It did "win" the Cold War but that was more due to the disastrous internal conditions of the USSR and its impossible task of maintaining its satellites than much the US did. Perhaps defeating them in Afghanistan was helpful. It is interesting that the Afghanis didn't need much external help to defeat the US.
There may have been some point to expending half our national treasury or more in keeping as many weaker nations under the US' thumb to the benefit of multinationals and banks -- but this provided little benefit to the citizenry.
And it also focused attention away from improving life at home and turned our leadership into sneering imperialists with hatred for the people they nominally serve. It also led to the assassination of two of our brightest leaders to maintain that imperialist stance.
I too think its long past time for the isolationist tendency to reassert and end the long nightmare. Empire does not suit the US.
Thanks. Mostly, I wanted your take on the end where I proposed a deal ending the Ukraine conflict with a win-win for UK and Rus. When I tried this with folks on the Left, I get shut down. When I tried it with BingAI it got testy and then refused to continue the conversation, and its a damn program. It seems radioactive.
When I was in graduate school I noticed this reflexive tendency to label Putin an ‘autocrat’ with little elaboration. There seems to be a widespread, and I believe fully erroneous, belief that the war is in some sense the personal project of Putin, who is just sort of taking Russia along on an unwilling ride. What follows from this is the assumption that were he removed or sidelined, some sort of liberal ascendency would follow, which would more clearly reflect the national interests of Russia. This too is incorrect. There is no evidence, beyond the copethink of political scientists, that the war is unpopular with Russians, that they do not overwhelmingly support Putin, and that there is any greater constituency for liberal democracy in Russia than there was in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. There is no reason for Putin to negotiate or accept a ceasefire now, nor barring some black swab event, will there be in the future. Russia can supply its army and we cannot continue to supply Ukraine’s. It is only a matter of time before Ukraine is ground down and the question will become whether America will accept defeat or double down into a greater catastrophe. If anything, this will be the event that precipitates the advent of the “reconstructive presidency” you mention, though I think the changes will be far more substantial than historical precedent would indicate.
It does NOT follow that if the war was personal project of Putin that if he were removed a liberal ascendancy would follow. Much more likely would be another autocrat. Example: Edward III pursued a war as a personal project (he had a decent claim to the French crown much as his great(x6) grandfather had to the English crown (which he acted on). The contest was continued by other autocrats after Ed was dead and has become known as the Hundred Years War.
You say the "war" is popular. I see zero evidence that Putin's motivation for starting this war was popularity. What do you suppose is Putin's goal here? Annexing Ukraine? What does that get him except more of the same stuff Russia already has in abundance? Bragging rights? I can think of easier ways to get that like conquering Georgia, or one of the stans. Why Ukraine when the US warned him off? What is his angle?
My thesis is this. NATO is a threat as long as it is led by a country that since the end of the Cold Wat had conquered two countries and replaced their regimes and has openly called for regime change in an allied nation. The presidential candidate if a major American party called Russia America's #1 foe (Romney in 2012) and now that war as broken out, members of the other party have called for regime change in Russia. As I see it, if I were Putin, I would see the American-led NATO (who I know to be way stronger that I) as a real threat. Eliminating that threat (by getting the US to withdraw from NATO) would be a feather in my cap bigger than conquering FOUR Ukraines.
Invading Ukraine accomplishes NOTHING strategically, Russia is still under huge threat, now magnified by showing aggression against the West. Even if he wins, he is not better off than if he had not make the attack in the first place. So winning is losing for Putin. As an autocrat he has to worry about those who would kill him and replace him (Barrack Emperors).
Success is protective. Compare these England leaders Edward I, Edward III, Henry V (all of whom never experienced an internal challenge with their successors Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI who were all deposed and killed. What's the difference? The military projects of the first were successful (and profitable for their subordinates). The latter were unsuccessful and unprofitable in the eyes of their subordinates, who eventually replaced them.
Putin needs success. Conquering Ukraine helps, but does this justify the loss of life and loss of wealth of the oligarchs who support him? So much better would be if Putin could get the US to leave NATO. He can easily give up Ukraine as the piece sacrificed that won him the game.
I don’t think liberalism would follow Putin’s removal. I think that’s an erroneous assumption of Western FP elites. I don’t think Putin started the war in order to gain popularity; I think the popularity is an indication that his government is largely stable, contra predictions from the west. I think the point of the war was to demonstrate to the West the lengths Putin was willing to go to to defend Russian national interests. His success thus far has revealed that NATO has no real prospect of challenging him in Eastern Europe without a full-scale mobilization, to include conscription and war economizing.
Librarian writes: I think the point of the war was to demonstrate to the West the lengths Putin was willing to go to to defend Russian national interests.
That's pretty weak sauce given the resources he has expended. The war has in no way indicated the outcome of a war with NATO. Russian forces have numerical superiority on the ground, vast numerical superiority in the air and an artillery advantage to boot, yet the war is a stalemate. Were he to engage with NATO he would be up against superior numbers in most categories with more modern weapons.
What I was interested in was people's takes on this part from the piece:
"It might be possible to achieve a peace in Ukraine on terms favorable to Ukraine (restoration of all territory and 5-year moratorium on Russian westward aggression) and Russia (US withdrawal from Europe over 5 years)."
I see it as giving Putin something he very much wants. And total withdrawal from Ukraine is very much a win for Ukraine.
There is no way politically for the US to withdraw from Europe out of of the blue (look how nobody was willing to leave Iraq or Afghanistan. Both Bush and Trump made deals where the actual withdrawal would happen on some else's watch). But if it were done to end the killing in Ukraine, and end the US spending that would soften the blowback I should think.
“Were he to engage with NATO he would be up against superior numbers in most categories with more modern weapons.”
NATO is the US, with a bit of Britain and France thrown in, maybe Poland. The numbers everyone assumes are there are just a lingering impression from the Cold War. As I noted in my piece, the US has fewer that 250,000 combat troops in the regular and reserve Army, perhaps half again as much in the other services, and the paper cited gives them a time frame of two month of operational life. Make the total number twice that and you’ve got a four month war before total collapse. All of this would also involve enormous logistics that I doubt,at this point, we could manage or sustain. We can’t produce the weapons now and I don’t see that changing in the near future.
The US government realizes this, which is why they hoped sanctions would break Russia. They were also relying on post Cold War illusions there. Russia is not going broke, it’s economy is growing, and with China in its corner, it’s difficult to see that changing. I stand by my original position that Russia has no reason to ask for a ceasefire and will pursue a victory that results in at least the full conquest of the existing territory as well as the Ukrainian littoral all the way to Odessa.
I agree with your basic premise except for the literally fatal oversight of Treaties caused the enormous military, not an enormous military created foreign policy. We the USA need to abrogate our military treaties before we abrogate our military, Sir.
You see it’s the foreign policy- not set by the military at all, nor does it decide to go to war - it is our Defense treaties and Foreign policy that led to the large overseas military presence.
Somehow this point gets lost.
Pardon my directness, when I say the glaring mistake is fatal... it is... mass fatalities.
You’re analysis is correct, save the order of things.
Good piece. I would argue that the consensus foreign policy the US has pursued in the post-WWI/II era has been singularly unified and singularly bad. It did "win" the Cold War but that was more due to the disastrous internal conditions of the USSR and its impossible task of maintaining its satellites than much the US did. Perhaps defeating them in Afghanistan was helpful. It is interesting that the Afghanis didn't need much external help to defeat the US.
There may have been some point to expending half our national treasury or more in keeping as many weaker nations under the US' thumb to the benefit of multinationals and banks -- but this provided little benefit to the citizenry.
And it also focused attention away from improving life at home and turned our leadership into sneering imperialists with hatred for the people they nominally serve. It also led to the assassination of two of our brightest leaders to maintain that imperialist stance.
I too think its long past time for the isolationist tendency to reassert and end the long nightmare. Empire does not suit the US.
Very thorough and well-thought out.
Thanks. Mostly, I wanted your take on the end where I proposed a deal ending the Ukraine conflict with a win-win for UK and Rus. When I tried this with folks on the Left, I get shut down. When I tried it with BingAI it got testy and then refused to continue the conversation, and its a damn program. It seems radioactive.
When I was in graduate school I noticed this reflexive tendency to label Putin an ‘autocrat’ with little elaboration. There seems to be a widespread, and I believe fully erroneous, belief that the war is in some sense the personal project of Putin, who is just sort of taking Russia along on an unwilling ride. What follows from this is the assumption that were he removed or sidelined, some sort of liberal ascendency would follow, which would more clearly reflect the national interests of Russia. This too is incorrect. There is no evidence, beyond the copethink of political scientists, that the war is unpopular with Russians, that they do not overwhelmingly support Putin, and that there is any greater constituency for liberal democracy in Russia than there was in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. There is no reason for Putin to negotiate or accept a ceasefire now, nor barring some black swab event, will there be in the future. Russia can supply its army and we cannot continue to supply Ukraine’s. It is only a matter of time before Ukraine is ground down and the question will become whether America will accept defeat or double down into a greater catastrophe. If anything, this will be the event that precipitates the advent of the “reconstructive presidency” you mention, though I think the changes will be far more substantial than historical precedent would indicate.
It does NOT follow that if the war was personal project of Putin that if he were removed a liberal ascendancy would follow. Much more likely would be another autocrat. Example: Edward III pursued a war as a personal project (he had a decent claim to the French crown much as his great(x6) grandfather had to the English crown (which he acted on). The contest was continued by other autocrats after Ed was dead and has become known as the Hundred Years War.
You say the "war" is popular. I see zero evidence that Putin's motivation for starting this war was popularity. What do you suppose is Putin's goal here? Annexing Ukraine? What does that get him except more of the same stuff Russia already has in abundance? Bragging rights? I can think of easier ways to get that like conquering Georgia, or one of the stans. Why Ukraine when the US warned him off? What is his angle?
My thesis is this. NATO is a threat as long as it is led by a country that since the end of the Cold Wat had conquered two countries and replaced their regimes and has openly called for regime change in an allied nation. The presidential candidate if a major American party called Russia America's #1 foe (Romney in 2012) and now that war as broken out, members of the other party have called for regime change in Russia. As I see it, if I were Putin, I would see the American-led NATO (who I know to be way stronger that I) as a real threat. Eliminating that threat (by getting the US to withdraw from NATO) would be a feather in my cap bigger than conquering FOUR Ukraines.
Invading Ukraine accomplishes NOTHING strategically, Russia is still under huge threat, now magnified by showing aggression against the West. Even if he wins, he is not better off than if he had not make the attack in the first place. So winning is losing for Putin. As an autocrat he has to worry about those who would kill him and replace him (Barrack Emperors).
Success is protective. Compare these England leaders Edward I, Edward III, Henry V (all of whom never experienced an internal challenge with their successors Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI who were all deposed and killed. What's the difference? The military projects of the first were successful (and profitable for their subordinates). The latter were unsuccessful and unprofitable in the eyes of their subordinates, who eventually replaced them.
Putin needs success. Conquering Ukraine helps, but does this justify the loss of life and loss of wealth of the oligarchs who support him? So much better would be if Putin could get the US to leave NATO. He can easily give up Ukraine as the piece sacrificed that won him the game.
I don’t think liberalism would follow Putin’s removal. I think that’s an erroneous assumption of Western FP elites. I don’t think Putin started the war in order to gain popularity; I think the popularity is an indication that his government is largely stable, contra predictions from the west. I think the point of the war was to demonstrate to the West the lengths Putin was willing to go to to defend Russian national interests. His success thus far has revealed that NATO has no real prospect of challenging him in Eastern Europe without a full-scale mobilization, to include conscription and war economizing.
Librarian writes: I think the point of the war was to demonstrate to the West the lengths Putin was willing to go to to defend Russian national interests.
That's pretty weak sauce given the resources he has expended. The war has in no way indicated the outcome of a war with NATO. Russian forces have numerical superiority on the ground, vast numerical superiority in the air and an artillery advantage to boot, yet the war is a stalemate. Were he to engage with NATO he would be up against superior numbers in most categories with more modern weapons.
What I was interested in was people's takes on this part from the piece:
"It might be possible to achieve a peace in Ukraine on terms favorable to Ukraine (restoration of all territory and 5-year moratorium on Russian westward aggression) and Russia (US withdrawal from Europe over 5 years)."
I see it as giving Putin something he very much wants. And total withdrawal from Ukraine is very much a win for Ukraine.
There is no way politically for the US to withdraw from Europe out of of the blue (look how nobody was willing to leave Iraq or Afghanistan. Both Bush and Trump made deals where the actual withdrawal would happen on some else's watch). But if it were done to end the killing in Ukraine, and end the US spending that would soften the blowback I should think.
“Were he to engage with NATO he would be up against superior numbers in most categories with more modern weapons.”
NATO is the US, with a bit of Britain and France thrown in, maybe Poland. The numbers everyone assumes are there are just a lingering impression from the Cold War. As I noted in my piece, the US has fewer that 250,000 combat troops in the regular and reserve Army, perhaps half again as much in the other services, and the paper cited gives them a time frame of two month of operational life. Make the total number twice that and you’ve got a four month war before total collapse. All of this would also involve enormous logistics that I doubt,at this point, we could manage or sustain. We can’t produce the weapons now and I don’t see that changing in the near future.
The US government realizes this, which is why they hoped sanctions would break Russia. They were also relying on post Cold War illusions there. Russia is not going broke, it’s economy is growing, and with China in its corner, it’s difficult to see that changing. I stand by my original position that Russia has no reason to ask for a ceasefire and will pursue a victory that results in at least the full conquest of the existing territory as well as the Ukrainian littoral all the way to Odessa.
Our strategic situation within the USA; 1911 China and the fall of the Qing Dynasty (Manchu).
Of course we even have an Old Buddha. Several.
1. DC cannot hold on to its overreaching over America , nor given 2020 and involving the military in 2021 turn around from its choices.
2. The current regime is literally dying of old age , this is their actual only move and they are executing it.
3. There’s no feasible succession either Dem, GOP or from the governors of states.
4. The actual successor will be the American Mao - the most fit warlord after the “sorting process.”
5. Trump missed his chance to govern but still plays wrecking ball. Fine. Not a successor, this part is ending.
6. In the end there are 2 eternal truths to America;
A. It will be ocean to ocean, geography doesn’t negotiate. Nor would any competent government settle for less.
They can’t.
B. Every wide scale American political arrangement from the Iroquois to the Internet* has been a Federation and all between.
* yes the Internet is a Federation.
7. Every previous attempt to centralize failed, so will the Emergency New Deal/WW2/Cold War government that is dying now of old age.
Previous failed attempts at centralization of the Eternal American Federation;
a. Mohawk Terror over the Iroquois Confederation.
b. The Crown. 🇬🇧
c. The Confederacy 1861-65 - the center holding all the threads then choking being Jefferson Davis.
This too will pass , with great Bloodshed. 🩸☠️