At 1945 Robert Kelly asks a question which should be familiar to you—why can’t the Europeans handle the Ukraine crisis themselves?
Ukraine is a serious, but limited, crisis. For the Ukrainians living near Russia’s potential invasion points, the possibility of serious violence looms. And for Ukraine’s fledgling, unsteady democracy, such an invasion would be a disaster. Even Russia’s grey zone warfare – a mixed attempt at subversion and bullying without opening invading the country – would be terrible. It would set Ukrainian democracy back a decade or more, corrupt the government, and likely split the country. Russia clearly has the ability to enforce its will on Ukraine in the short term, and there is little the West can do about it barring the risk of major escalation.
But this crisis is also limited, which too much of the breathless alarmist news coverage is missing. Its scope is mostly limited to Europe, specifically Eastern Europe. And it is a crisis mostly for the Europeans themselves, between Russia and the European NATO allies. Those allies should, thirty years after the end of the Cold War, finally take the lead on European security questions, because the consequences of Russian action mostly concern them. The US does not need to be heavily involved – even if it is doing so – because the fallout for the US and for the US position in Asia is likely quite minimal.
Beyond the obvious consequences for Ukraine itself, the big geopolitical takeaway is the continuing weakness of integrated European foreign policy and defense. That the US is doing so much of the heavy lifting in the crisis, even going so far as to organize alternate natural gas arrangements for Europe, is an embarrassment, demonstrating yet again that America’s European allies cannot organize around even basic needs of joint defense.
which is what I’ve been saying for some time. And, as Dr. Kelly goes on to point out, the relevance to Taiwan is serious but limited as well. The evidence that there is some “domino theory” linking the two is quite meager. If the withdrawal from Afghanistan didn’t embolden the Russians and Chinese to act on Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively, why would Ukraine? Both situations actually reflect long-standing bones of contention which have characteristics and challenges of their own.
A couple of observations. First, where he writes “Europe” read “Germany”. Infantilizing our allies, as has been U. S. policy for more than 60 years, has consequences. Beyond Germany there is no Europe other than squabbling competitors with little in common with one another. Germany is so focused on avoiding costs it has no interest in involving itself in the Ukraine situation other than rhetorically.
And I have questions. Who benefits from the U. S. doing the “heavy lifting”? Certainly not the American people. The general staff? A handful of American elites peddling influence in Ukraine? The Germans? Are the British acting as our proxies? Or is this a “wag the dog” situation both here in in the U. S. and the United Kingdom?
Biden’s policy, of “heavy lifting†with Europe, is following the affirmative action model progressives support over here dealing with minorities.
We’re also apparently taking in Ukrainian refugees.
Our Co-op recently hired and trained five young men who tell me they’re from the Ukraine.
Two of them quit as soon as they got their Commercial driver’s license to go join gangs in Chicago they said.
Think they’re into human trafficking.
I am a bit cautious is characterizing the issue as “limited”.
A very plausible yet sobering scenario is that any hot conflict or even prolonged tensions leaves Ukraine as a failed state — that even with no NATO involvement; the present Ukrainian government topples but no replacement can extend its writ throughout the whole country (not considering the parts Russia annexed). Think Syria. I wouldn’t be shocked that is part of subtext why the Ukrainian President is trying to keep things calm — the government could collapse into anarchy if tensions collapse the economy…
One lesson from Libya / Syria / Iraq is that nature abhors a vacuum, and a non-existent Ukrainian government could draw in actors throughout the region (Russia, Turkey, Eastern Europe, Baltics).
It’s a risk that’s maybe underestimated by someone whose specialty is East Asian geopolitics. East Asia hasn’t had a weak / failed state since 1976 (South Vietnam) and arguably since 1948 (Nationalist China).
In an ideal world, a stable Ukrainian government that’s not a threat to Russia (or anyone else) ought to be a shared goal between the US / NATO / Russia and Ukraine.
How much of a worry can that be CO? We know that the EU handles immigrants and refugees well. (Sarcasm alert.)
Steve
The Europeans judge, correctly, that there is no Russian threat. There is a US threat. The continual pushing against Russian interests has the potential to set off a major European war. In fact, the present Ukrainian crisis is our doing. We set in motion the coup that removed Ukraine’s legitimate, democratically elected government; we put the current junta in place; and we blocked implementation of the Minsk accords.
Actually, we may get a war with China, too. We are the ones pushing the Taipei government to declare independence. Last week, the Chinese ambassador to the US said in an interview that if Taiwan did move to independence, there would be a Chinese-American war. His words could not have been plainer.
As to, Who controls American foreign and military policy?, that’s a good question. I’m reading Docherty and Macgregor’s book “Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War.” If you like conspiracies, this is a doozy. The authors claim that WW I was set in motion by a cabal of senior British statesmen, financiers, and industrialists in order to destroy Germany’s rising power. Almost none of them were elected officials, but the cabal did include King Edward.
Conspiracies like that are fun, but one has to wonder. That war also served no one’s interests, certainly not the people of Europe, the Middle East, Africa, or Asia, all places where the fighting occurred. On the other hand, the current insanity of our policies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia does suggest a Deep State cabal. And we have just watched for four years the CIA, FBI, DOJ openly conspire to remove Trump.
So Kelly’s question is, ultimately, a diversion, a red herring. We should be trying to discover who actually runs this country. Is it so little old man sitting in a rocker on a porch in Missouri?