While this country prepares for a “civil war” between extremists on the far-right and everyone else, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott needing to prepare an explanation for why his hysterical border rhetoric and activities didn’t help incite the next El Paso-type mass shooting (as it did the previous one), it might be time to consider that NATO should start taking seriously the possibility that the war in Ukraine will spill over into Poland and the Baltic States—or frankly any NATO country on the Russian/Belarusian border.
Shortly after the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg declared that the member countries would defend “every inch” of its territory if Russia dared attack a NATO nation. Today that may be wishful to still think that is the case, and one gets the impression the NATO chief needs reminding. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda criticized the most recent summit meeting for not issuing a statement declaring that Russia will not be permitted to absorb all of Ukraine as seems Putin’s original intention, and Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has been making a fuss over the need for the potential activation of Article 5 given the recent activities of Belarusian and Wagner forces near the Polish border.
It is reported that Wagner mercenaries are approaching the Suwalki Corridor, which leads to the isolated Russian outpost of Kaliningrad, which before WWII was part of East Prussia and was never part of Russia in all its history before then; Stalin insisted that it be ceded to Russia because it needed a year-round “ice-free” port in the Baltic. Looking at the map of Ukraine, we can also see that Putin desires at least a “land corridor” to the Crimean Peninsula if he can’t obtain all of Ukraine. Invading the Suwalki Corridor would be intended to open a similar Russian-controlled land corridor, would mean that either (or both) Polish and Lithuanian territory would be breached.
Of course, this might just be another attempt to instigate a “false flag” incident which the Russians have plenty of experience with, or to see how “serious” NATO countries are, as if that hasn’t been clear enough with aid to Ukraine. Wagner mercenaries have proven themselves to be a bunch of thuggish rogues, with Russian authorities having little or no control over their activities, although they have their “uses”—particularly in destabilizing African countries and installing pro-Russia regimes in return for control of natural resources, which they then can deny to the West. It’s the Cold War all over again.
People will say the Putin and his most victory-starved generals are not stupid enough to risk war with the West, as their military hardware is being drained away in Ukraine. However, as Statisca shows us in its most recent calculations, Russia continues to have this paranoid view of itself as being an adversary of the rest of Europe, which is not surprising since it has never really had what would be called a true belief in the democratic process, let alone a free press or judiciary.
Under Putin it is a de facto dictatorship, and like all dictators Putin has a megalomaniacal view of his “legacy.” Naturally this doesn’t include the advancement of “peace” on any terms but Putin’s own, and a few successful military adventures and territorial acquisitions will solidify his place in “history.” To that purpose, Russia has been far busier than NATO countries in building-up its conventional land hardware, and nuclear capabilities (treaties or not).
Here we see that NATO countries have considerably more active and reserve military personnel that Russia. Of course few if any of NATO’s European forces have combat experience; that would be made up for by the considerable advantage NATO has in aircraft (with the exception of ground attack aircraft):
Here we see that Russia surprisingly has more battle tanks, self-propelled artillery and rocket launchers than the combined NATO strength:
And here an equal number of nuclear warheads:
That means that Russia could actually engage in war on equal terms, at least temporarily; in the James Bond film Octopussy, the rogue Gen. Orlov hoped a "quick strike" would take advantage of a "decadent and divided" West, and that might be what Putin is counting on too. Still, it doesn't make sense that Russia's personnel strength is anywhere close to being prepared for a protracted war, let alone one right now, but that doesn't mean Russian militarists don't want to "try."
Of course the West doesn’t want WWIII—especially when China can take advantage of the West being occupied by engaging in its own nefarious regional conquests. Besides, there are those who believe that the war in Ukraine cannot be “won” unless NATO forces are drawn into it, and Putin thinks he can “win” by simply waiting out the West’s patience, regardless of the concerns of countries on the Eastern flank. According to USA Today
Steven Myers, an Air Force veteran who served on the State Department's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy under two secretaries of State, told USA TODAY that one of the West’s narratives is that Putin planned to conquer Ukraine and continue west if not stopped. But Myers argues that Russia's military tactics have been "completely inconsistent with conquest." The agenda was, is and will always be to keep Ukraine out of NATO at all costs, he said.
This is a good talking point, but it is not necessarily true, as pointed out before; the immediate “need” to take territory in Ukraine is due to establishing a land link to the Crimea, which of course was also illegally taken itself. However, Myers ignores this and goes on to say
"Strategically, this war was lost by both sides before it started. It will end in stalemate, which I now think was Putin’s intent from the get-go. President Biden, NATO and (Ukrainian President Volodymyr) Zelenskyy have trapped themselves in a Catch-22 of their own making, unable to deliver on unrealistic expectations they created."
Then it quotes Sean McFate, “a professor at Syracuse University and senior fellow at the nonpartisan Atlantic Council think tank.” He asserts that “Zelenskyy is in a box. He can’t win but can’t afford to lose either." His counter offensive is “floundering” and "NATO is experiencing donor fatigue and disappointment with Zelenskyy’s bluster. He’s losing credibility, Ukraine's main asset."
He goes on to insist on that continuing to arm Ukraine is "the definition of strategic insanity," because wars are not won that way anymore: "The U.S. has been winning battles and losing wars for 50 years now.”
Of course such defeatist attitudes are not share by everyone:
Jeff Levine, a former U.S. ambassador to anxious Russian neighbor Estonia, thinks Zelenskyy is doing fine and Ukrainians should feel good about what they are accomplishing. Levine says the Ukrainian leader's government has exceeded expectations on the battlefield while maintaining services and information flow to the civilian population amid a devastating war.
Obviously if NATO had not intervened, Ukraine would have been absorbed by Russia, since Putin considered Ukraine a wayward "brother" who had needed to be taken back into the "family." Belarus' "cockroach" president, Lukashenko...
...is currently "visiting" China to kowtow with fellow dictator Xi-Jinping about how to help him get out of the mess he's in. Lukashenko is tolerated by Putin so long as he doesn't point his nose in the wrong direction, but if the Belarusian opposition ever gains power, we can expect Russian occupation troops in Belarus soon afterward (with Wagner mercenaries already in the country to help out).
It is one big mess for everyone involved, but the question remains about that "what if." It isn't surprising that the far-right in this country seems to support Russia's activities and opposes aid to Ukraine, since the real "enemies" to this country are "liberals" and "aliens." In Europe, 75 years of relative peace (outside of the Serbian conflicts) has been ennui-inducing, and going off to war is the last thing people feel like doing to work it off.
But "negotiation," as McFate naively claims, is never the "starting point" when dealing with a crazed dictator bent on conquest and destruction. For a little historical perspective, the words that Neville Chamberlain was declaring signified "peace in our time"...
...were not worth the paper they were written on, given that for the other side this was just a way to buy more time to prepare to carry out its plans for world conquest. Putin claimed right up to the hour that he wasn't planning on invading Ukraine, and then of course he did.
The Russians have to be defeated first, whether on the battlefield or by weariness of war by a populace that has seen enough. The problem is that the Russian people are cowed by fear of arrest if they protest the war, and not enough are personally "moved" by the loss of life to form any kind of groundswell of opposition to the war.
Of course the West will have to decide what it is going to do if that bridge ever has to be crossed. It "probably" won't happen, but that kind of thinking isn't useful to put people's minds in the right place if NATO must live up to its creed.
No comments:
Post a Comment