In a piece at The National Interest Anne Pierce argues that it is an urgent priority for NATO to “stop Russia”:
Why is swift, pathbreaking action imperative? For moral reasons. Will NATO really allow Russia’s genocidal campaign to continue on in the heart of Europe? Does “never again” mean anything? For existential reasons. Russia threatens not just Ukraine, but democracies across Europe and beyond. Are NATO countries willing to risk their security and way of life for a temporary reprieve? For peace and stability. Russia brings war, mayhem and trauma everywhere it goes. Would NATO gamble on an elusive compromise with Russia when Putin always uses purported “peace processes” to buy time and cover for more war and aggression? To save what is left of the post-World War II world order. The emboldened Russia-China-Iran axis seeks a new world order dominated by authoritarians. Will NATO miss the chance to send the axis an unambiguous signal and setback by acting decisively against Russia?
Most of the article is devoted to arguing why it should be an urgent necessity and in doing so she quotes the Latvian president, Estonian prime minister, and Lithuanian foreign minister.
I wish she had devoted more of her article to explaining how NATO would accomplish that. The Baltic countries spend between 2 and 3% of their GDPs on defense, a sharp increase since 2022. That’s less than we spend (as a proportion of GDP) and considerably less than the Russians spend. Furthermore, Germany’s, Poland’s, and even the U. S.’s imports from Kyrgyzstan have spiked since 2022. That looks tremendously like using Kyrgyzstan as a pass-through for Russian imports.
Adding insult to injury NATO is pretty tapped out on munitions—it’s sending as much as it can to Ukraine and is unable to keep up with Ukrainian demand. Short of a nuclear strike against Russia I see little way of NATO’s “stopping Russia”.
And of course, there is a clear lack of a goal – what exactly does “stop” Russia mean?
If “stopping Russia” means that its neighbors no longer fear it, IMO the only objective that might have that effect would be to break Russia up so that each individual oblast was a different country. Basically, NATO would have to conquer and occupy Russia.
Of course demurring from isolating Russia, something that NATO rejected almost 30 years ago, might have had that effect, too.
Another way of accomplishing the objective might be to recognize that Russia has national interests, too, and those include its neighbors with significant ethnic Russian populations not taking actions to become ethnic states. steve tells me that is intolerable.
So that leaves conquest.
Steve wants to remind people that Russia killed a lot of people and deported a lot of people in those countries and replaced them with ethnic Russians. The Russians now use that to make claims about territory in those countries. Steve also point out that the non-Russians in those countries arent thrilled about what Russia did and that they have lived under Russia rule and want to avoid that again. Steve notes that for Ukraine it means that they are willing to spend a lot fo lives to try to avoid that. For Americans it’s all just abstract talk but for those Baltic countries they actually know what it’s like to live next to Russia and to be ruled by Russia.
National interests involving citizens in another country? Seems like a bit of an oxymoron but regardless, if Russia thinks they are being mistreated they could always take them back. Of course that “mistreatment” mostly seems to be stuff like taking down statues glorifying Stalin and other Russians or insisting that people use the native language in official business or public interactions like education, while not prohibiting it in private interactions.
Steve
So, two wrongs make a right? And that did not happen five years ago. Mostly it happened 75 years ago. Or 300 years ago.
Yes. Other people’s lives. Since 2014 millions of draft age men have left Ukraine and that accelerated after the Russian invasion. The best unbiased polling information we have says that 35% of draft aged Ukrainian men are willing to serve.
Russia has seen itself as the protector of ethnic Russians for more than 200 years, practically as long as the U. S. has been a country. Maybe it’s irrational. I don’t judge what other countries see as their national interests and I’m surprised at your comfort in doing so.
There has never been an ethnic monolingual state within the pre-2014 borders of Ukraine. It has always been a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-confessional area. Like the United States. Try that here. I can already hear the cries of “fascism!”. Russia, too, is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-confessional empire. It is not a nation-state. BTW I am uncomfortable with cozying up too closely to nation-states. That includes Israel. I do not think it consistent with U. S. values. Think “categorical imperative”.
BTW an independence movement in Crimea began more than 30 years ago. The Crimean Tatars didn’t want to be part of Russia OR part of Ukraine.
75 years ago? How would you describe Russia’s treatment of the nations in its sphere for the last 75 years? By report this ethnic Russians had favored treatment when the countries were under the thumb of Russia, so its really much less than 75 years. If Russia had formed positive relationships were both parties benefited seems like so many of those countries wouldn’t be so eager to cut ties and beg to join EU/NATO. It’s pretty clear that Russia does not tolerate disobedience.
Two wrongs make a right? So because you need to speak the native tongue in the nation you live maybe 20% of the time (the horror but I guess you consider it a wrong) it’s OK for Russia to commit another wrong and invade? Again, if they are the protector why not bring them back to Russia, where they came from?
Steve
People seem to make a lot of Putin and Xi being past 70 years old.
Most commentators suggest that they may feel rushed to achieve strategic objectives or cement their legacies.
I tend to disagree.
Neither man has been to war in the way WWII leaders were. Age seems to make men cautious and patient.
Stalin was always a murderer, and Hitler fought in the trenches. Roosevelt was old and infirm and he was the last to enter the war.
Why Russia will wait and watch:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jameshowardkunstler/p/time-to-jettison-the-animals?r=1f0f6t&utm_medium=ios