The video above was linked to in comments by a frequent commenter. It’s a lengthy talk by John Mearsheimer and I materially agree with a substantial part of what Dr. Mearsheimer has to say. It’s a lengthy talk, more than an hour long so listening to it requires a significant commitment of time.

I don’t agree with everything he says. For example, I don’t think that Germany considers the U. S. a “benign hegemon”. Either Dr. Mearsheimer hasn’t spent much time in Germany, he doesn’t speak German, or he does speak German and the Germans discreetly refrain from speaking frankly when he’s around. I believe the Germans think we’re dopes. When I was working in Germany I kept the extent of my knowledge of the German language secret, avoiding speaking German to the greatest degree possible. It’s amazing what people will say in front of you when they don’t know you can understand them.

Key quote:

The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and Ukraine is going to get wrecked.

He advocates our encouraging Ukraine to maintain neutrality while it builds itself up economically.

Is Dr. Mearsheimer still right that the Russians don’t intend to reconstitute a Greater Russia and that their strategy is to wreck Ukraine to prevent it from allying with the West? I have no idea.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Robert C. O’Brien and Alexander B. Gray present what they call a “Hardheaded Guide to Deterring Russia and China”. Their proposals are:

First, key European partners like Poland, Romania and the Baltic states have requested significant military hardware that remains unapproved or stuck in the U.S. bureaucracy. We have been calling for approval of the Abrams Main Battle Tank sale to Poland for more than a year and commend Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken for approving the deal last week. The administration should expedite all similar requests.

Second, Finland and Sweden are highly concerned about Russian adventurism. Both maintain capable militaries and defense industrial bases, along with impressive intelligence services. Washington should support the growing sentiment in Helsinki and Stockholm to seek NATO membership. They would strengthen the alliance’s northern flank, including in the critical Arctic area.

Third, the U.S. should reassess legacy basing in Germany. Berlin has shown itself unwilling to undertake a leadership role throughout the Ukraine crisis. This development shouldn’t come as a surprise given the German industrial elite’s dependence on Russian gas and the Chinese export market. With NATO having moved east, Germany is no longer a frontline state. U.S. forces there, other than those manning hospital facilities and airbases, should be repositioned to outposts in Poland and the Baltics and bases in the Indo-Pacific.

Fourth, the Biden administration energy policy requires urgent re-examination. Oil at $100 a barrel not only hurts U.S. consumers, it puts billions into Mr. Putin’s war machine and Iran’s nuclear program. Appeasing Russia and Germany by reversing the Trump administration’s policy on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline clearly failed. It is time to stop Nord Stream 2 once and for all. Further, the U.S. must restore its energy leadership. Finishing the Keystone XL pipeline would send Russia and the world a potent message that America is committed to energy independence.

Fifth, NATO must show its adversaries unwavering resolve. Allies that fail to increase defense spending to the required 2% of gross domestic product within three years shouldn’t play a leading role in NATO. During Donald Trump’s presidency, the alliance’s defense spending commitment grew by nearly $400 billion through 2029, but American taxpayers still carry a disproportionate burden for defending Europe. Under such circumstances it makes sense for only countries that pay 2% of their GDP for defense to enjoy full voting privileges in the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s main decision-making body.

Finally, Russia needs to face real consequences for deterrence to work. The West threatened sanctions but exacted no real penalties when Moscow annexed Crimea and set up a proxy government in Donbas. The Biden administration’s sanctions in response to the assertion that parts of Ukraine are “independent” were welcomed but proved insufficient to dissuade Mr. Putin from further action. The free world must make clear to Mr. Putin that Russia’s economy will be fully cut off if he doesn’t de-escalate forthwith. That means, at a minimum, removing Russia’s banks from the Swift system and seizing all oligarch assets world-wide.

Further, Russia should be made to understand that Ukraine’s current government would be recognized in exile by the U.S., NATO and most of the world. All diplomatic property and seats at the United Nations and multilateral organizations would be controlled by the legitimate government of Ukraine, not a Putin-installed puppet regime.

I see several major problems with their proposals. First, I do not believe that these measures if put in place severally or entirely, would change anything respecting Ukraine.

Second, can anyone thing of any example anywhere in the world in which economic sanctions have actually induced any major power to do things they saw as being contrary to their national interest? I can’t. Indeed, one of the few examples I can think of in which sanctions were effective was South Africa and I believe that was widely misunderstood. In particular how successful can sanctions be if the target’s major trading partner didn’t participate?

Third, would additional given or sold to Poland make Poland more secure or just put it in greater risk? I don’t honestly know.

While I think that some of their proposals have merit, I think they’re confusing what works with minor countries with what would be effective with major powers. Sadly, there’s no ready alternative to absolute military and economic superiority which would require a major course change by the United States.

Today’s award for comedy writing goes to Walter Russell Mead for this passage from his most recent Wall Street Journal column:

President Biden must use the shock and horror of Russian aggression in Ukraine to build an allied and domestic consensus for a reinvigorated foreign policy. Many of the strategies come from Ronald Reagan’s playbook. We can massively outspend Russia on defense and cyber capabilities. We can marginalize Russia diplomatically while attacking its oil income and limiting its access to technology. We must solidify our alliances while degrading Russian influence everywhere from Syria and Libya to Venezuela, Cuba and beyond.

Mr. Putin is a gifted leader, and we must expect more surprises. But even with the addition of Ukraine, Russia is weaker than the Soviet Union was. If the American response is purposeful, creative and wise, Mr. Putin’s campaign against the world order will ultimately fail.

While I sympathize with his first paragraph, the highlighted passage is the one to which I refer.

What is it about American foreign policy over the period of the last 60 years that convinces Dr. Mead that we are still capable of being “purposeful, creative and wise”?

Less argumentatively, other than the measures in the first paragraph quoted, what does Dr. Mead see as the purposeful, creative and wise course? And is it politically possible for President Biden?

I agree with the opening observation in David Ignatius’s most recent Washington Post column:

When Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his all-out invasion of Ukraine on Thursday, he effectively ended the post-Cold War era. A new architecture for global relations must be built, and its shape will depend on whether Putin’s brutal campaign succeeds or fails.

but not with a great deal else. The reason I can’t agree with most of his other observations is contained within another passage with which I agree:

Putin’s attack awakened the ghosts of war that had haunted Europe for a century. The world watched in horror as a massive assault force attacked Ukraine from three sides with missiles, bombs, tanks and the electronic wizardry of cyberwarfare. Scores of nations condemned the invasion. But the gut-wrenching fact is that Ukraine is fighting Putin by itself.

Can anyone imagine a circumstance under which Ukraine would not be “fighting Putin by itself”? Can anyone imagine the U. S. entering directly into the conflict with its own troops that did not metastasize into nuclear war? That leaves the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Poland, and, perhaps, a few others. Can you imagine any of them using their own troops in Ukraine? I can’t.

And that’s why I think his conclusion is a fantasy:

If Putin loses his battle to subjugate Ukraine, the new order will have a solid and promising foundation.

It’s not actually a new new world order. It’s the old world order in which might makes right. The liberal world order has fallen off its wall and you can’t put it back together again. That is what should have been expected when major powers, whether global superpowers or regional ones like Russia, “go rogue” and do whatever they want whenever they want to. We need to acknowledge reality, think fondly of the liberal world order, identify our desired role in that old world order, and do what we need to do to assume it.

Some time between 7:00am and 9:30am CST this morning the rumor that had been reported by multiple sources was confirmed by the White House:

Since Justice Stephen Breyer announced his retirement, President Biden has conducted a rigorous process to identify his replacement. President Biden sought a candidate with exceptional credentials, unimpeachable character, and unwavering dedication to the rule of law. And the President sought an individual who is committed to equal justice under the law and who understands the profound impact that the Supreme Court’s decisions have on the lives of the American people.

That is why the President nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as the next Justice on the Supreme Court. Judge Jackson is one of our nation’s brightest legal minds and has an unusual breadth of experience in our legal system, giving her the perspective to be an exceptional Justice.

I realize I’m whistling past a graveyard with my next remark but I think that, unless some seriously disqualifying flaw in her is discovered, Judge Jackson should be confirmed by the Senate with all due speed and with bipartisan support.

That’s a return to norms that we need. That used to be the way it was with appointments to the Supreme Court and should be again.

One last point. To believe in a liberal world order means to believe in the rule of law and that includes treaties to which we are a signatory. By their very nature treaties limit a country’s freedom of action.

We cannot coherently do whatever we care to whenever we care to do it in violation of our treaty obligations, condemn Russia for doing the same thing, and claim to believe in a liberal world order. IMO that is the belief that the United States has special privileges. That is not just American exceptionalism it is what’s called “Americanism” and I think it is ruining the liberal world order our fathers and grandfathers bled to establish.

Before I launch into commentaries on other people’s posts and articles I thought I should fill in some context from recent history that affect the situation in Ukraine.

Over the last 30 years there have been three watershed moments in the interpretation that both Russia and China take of the U. S. Those were

1. The bombing of Belgrade
2. The invasion of Iraq
3. The ousting of Moammar Qaddafi

There are a couple of things that we need to recognize about the NATO bombing of Belgrade. First, neither the Russians nor the Chinese think the bombing was legal because it was done without Security Council authorization, contrary to our treaty commitments and without imminent security concerns. Second, the Chinese still think that our bombing of their embassy there was deliberate.

Our invasion of Iraq is another case of acting without Security Council authorization and without imminent security concerns.

The Security Council Resolution 1973 was limited in scope to establishing a no-fly zone and protecting civilians. China and Russia both abstained from voting on it which allowed the resolution to be passed. We went beyond the literal scope of the resolution to attacking the Qaddafi regime’s command and control and, effectively, bringing the regime down.

In all three cases the Russians and Chinese thought we took those actions because we could.

Our actions in support of the rebels in Syria were not reacted to as strongly as those—it merely confirmed what they already believed about us. Fromm their points-of-view we acted illegally and without imminent security concerns.

I think the Russians are acting illegally now in Ukraine without legitimate imminent security concerns but I also understand how they might see it otherwise.

NBC News reports that President Biden has been given options for “massive cyberattacks against Russia”:

President Joe Biden has been presented with a menu of options for the U.S. to carry out massive cyberattacks designed to disrupt Russia’s ability to sustain its military operations in Ukraine, four people familiar with the deliberations tell NBC News.

Two U.S. intelligence officials, one Western intelligence official and another person briefed on the matter say no final decisions have been made, but they say U.S. intelligence and military cyber warriors are proposing the use of American cyberweapons on a scale never before contemplated. Among the options: disrupting internet connectivity across Russia, shutting off electric power, and tampering with railroad switches to hamper Russia’s ability to resupply its forces, three of the sources said.

“You could do everything from slow the trains down to have them fall off the tracks,” one person briefed on the matter said.

While I recognize that the Pentagon has plans for all sorts of things that will never be implemented, this strikes me as an incredibly foolhardy notion. Consider:

• We’re not at war with Russia.
• We are probably considerably more vulnerable than the Russians to such attacks.
• The Russians are undoubtedly well-prepared to counterattack in kind.
• Cyberattacks are precisely the sort of thing that can invite counterattack and escalation.
• It’s a lousy precedent to set.

File this post under “speculation”. This morning my wife asked me how the developments in Ukraine would affect us personally. I answered, truthfully, that I did not know but I had some suspicions. I think it depends largely on how stupid our political leadership is.

If our political leadership is very stupid, the worst case scenario is nuclear apocalypse—everybody dies.

If they’re not stupid at all, the U. S. will impose stricter economic sanctions on Russia but not a great deal else. The price of gas at the pump will rise between $.20/gallon to $1.00/gallon practically overnight. That will have its own economic consequences. An increasing price of gas will increase other prices, incorrectly referred to as “inflation”.

There is some chance that there will be an onslaught of cyberattacks against the United States. That could throw our banking systems, electrical distribution systems, first responders, healthcare, etc. into chaos. After all the Russians (along with the Israelis) are probably the world’s champion black hat hackers.

It could get messy. If people start panicking it will get even messier. How adept is Joe Biden at soothing nervous Americans?

I would welcome speculations from my readers. Informed speculations are, of course, the best.

Update

Peter Zeihan thinks Russia’s invasion of Ukraine portends a global famine. Our low wheat harvest this year could contribute to that.

Right now the best case scenario would seem to be the creation of a new country east of the Dnieper and including the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasti. If that country extended all the way to the Black Sea it would leave the rump Ukrainian state landlocked. Not much of a best case scenario either for us or the Ukrainians.