Before the official start of World War II, there was a period of appeasement of Germany by the World’s democratic powers.
In March 1938, there was the Anschluss, the unification of Germany and Austria (which was against the Treaty of Versailles ending World War I). “On March 12 Germany invaded, and the enthusiasm that followed gave Hitler the cover to annex Austria outright on March 13. A controlled plebiscite of April 10 gave a 99.7 percent approval.”
Under the Versailles settlement, Czechoslovakia was created out of several states of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, including a majority-German state known as tbe Sudetenland. The Sudeten German Party agitated for autonomy from Czechoslovakia. Germany escalated the dispute, with the German propaganda press carrying stories of alleged Czech atrocities against Sudeten Germans and Hitler ordering 750,000 troops to the German-Czech border.
In September 1938, the World’s powers acceded to Hitler’s demands that the Sudeten lands be annexed into Germany with the Munich Agreement to avoid war, in which British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain infamously asserted he had achieved “peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.” “Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations. The Czechoslovak government chose to submit.” In effect, the British and French had, through the Munich negotiations, pressured their ally Czechoslovakia to cede part of its territory to a hostile neighbour in order to preserve peace.
In March 1939, Hitler annexed the remainder of Czechoslovakia and Lithuania’s Klaipėda Region.
By August 1939 Hitler was convinced that the democratic nations would never put up any effective opposition to him. He expressed his contempt for them in a speech he delivered to his Commanders in Chief: “Our enemies have leaders who are below the average. No personalities. No masters, no men of action… Our enemies are small fry. I saw them in Munich.”
In September 1939, World War II began with the German invasion of Poland. Julia Ioffe recounts the beginning of World War II in Will Putin Get His World War III?
Almost as soon as the false flags started, Russians who oppose Putin and the war started invoking two historical events. The first was the Gleiwitz incident. On August 31, 1939, operatives from Nazi intelligence put on the uniforms of Polish nationalists and briefly took over the radio tower in the town of Gleiwitz, on the Polish-German border. They broke in, transmitted an anti-German message, and left, leaving the corpse of a well-known Polish nationalist on the steps of the tower as they retreated. (They had arrested him for this very purpose, then drugged and shot him.) This, as well as other false flag events Nazi operatives staged in the region, was used as a pretext by Adolf Hitler to declare war on Poland the following day, on September 1, 1939. In his telling, the Polish government was unfairly targeting, discriminating and repressing Germans living in Poland, and Nazi German simply had to come to their aid militarily.
I know. It’s a high bar to bring in Hitler, but for Russians, the trauma and history of World War II are never far away, which is why Putin has made such a potent cult of the war. And, in this case, it is not an inapt analogy. One of Hitler’s stated motivations for conquering eastern and central Europe was to protect the volksdeutsche, people of German ethnicity or heritage who lived outside of Germany’s borders and were, in his mind, vulnerable to anti-German discrimination. The only way to defend them was to bring them under the sheltering umbrella of German occupation. The annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland was a way of restoring a larger, historical Germany, one which was defined not by arbitrarily imposed borders, but encompassed the entire population of ethnic Germans.
Everything that’s been happening in the last week—in the last year, really—has, to many Russians, felt eerily familiar. The false flag operations to create a pretext for going in to defend ethnic Russians in Donbas. The constant concern, from everyone from Putin to his foreign minister, parliament, and state-controlled TV, about the alleged discrimination of Russian speakers in Ukraine. The fiery presidential address in which Putin invoked Russian “blood ties” to the people of Ukraine. The way in which he spoke of the larger historical Russia, a once glorious country that had been unjustly divided and diminished by bad-faith actors. It was the kind of blood-and-soil nationalism that, for Russians with a historical memory, triggered all kinds of terrifying associations.
People are also remembering the 1999 bombings of residential apartment buildings that killed hundreds of people in Moscow and the southern city of Volgodonsk. At the time, Putin was the prime minister of Russia and he blamed the bombings on Chechen separatists. The separatists denied the claims and evidence began to surface that the attacks weren’t quite what they seemed. Journalists and politicians—Russia was still a democracy then—raised doubts that these were true terrorist attacks. There were suspicious events, like when witnesses saw people loading bags of sugar into the basement of an apartment building in another Russian city. The bags turned out to be full of explosives and the people turned out to be from the FSB. (For more on this, read Steven Lee Meyers’ The New Tsar or John Dunlop’s The Moscow Bombings of September 1999.)
At the time, these troubling signs were dismissed and buried, and Putin used the bombings as a pretext to invade Chechnya, which was by this point a de facto independent state, beginning a bloody and ruthless campaign that brought the republic back into the Russian fold. It also put Putin onto television screens and introduced him to the Russian population as an energetic and decisive leader, and made him a natural successor to the ailing Russian president Boris Yeltsin.
See the First Chechen War (December 1994 to August 1996) and the Second Chechen War (August 1999 to April 2000).
Russia also invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. See the Russo-Georgian War (August 2008).
Because these separatist movements were territories formerly under the control of the Soviet Union, the World’s democratic powers did nothing about it – the World’s democratic powers were not going to risk war with a nuclear power. These countries were under the “sphere of influence” of Russia.
Putin’s Russia also came to the aid of its puppet regime in Syria to save its puppet dictator, Bashar al-Assad, in the Syrian Civil War. See Russian involvement in the Syrian civil war (2015 – present). Donald Trump, Putin’s puppet in the White House, ordered U.S. troops out of Syria in 2019, leaving our Kurdish allies to an assault by Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, U.S. troops to withdraw from northern Syria as ISIS supporters escape amid alleged Turkish atrocities, and a reconstituted ISIS terrorist organization. Pentagon: President Trump’s order to withdraw troops from Syria allows ISIS to rebuild.
In February 2014, Russia invaded Crimea, then part of Ukraine, and subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine.This event took place in the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity that ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and is part of the wider Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Russia formally incorporated Crimea as two Russian federal subjects—the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol on 18 March 2014.
In April 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian groups in the Donbas area of Ukraine escalated into a war between the Ukrainian government and the Russian-backed separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. In August, Russian military vehicles crossed the border in several locations of Donetsk Oblast. The incursion by the Russian military was responsible for the defeat of Ukrainian forces in early September.
Today Vladimir Putin is waging a full-scale war against Ukraine, the largest in Europe since World war II, in an effort to reconstitute the former Soviet Union. Like Hitler in 1939, Putin was convinced that the World’s democratic nations would never put up any effective opposition to him.
Because Ukraine is not a NATO member and the World’s democratic powers are not going to risk war with a nuclear power, Putin’s calculation is correct. Ukraine will fall under his military control in short order. Once again, the World’s democratic powers are not going to risk war with a nuclear power, and Ukraine was previously under the “sphere of influence” of Russia.
The most the World’s democratic powers are willing and able to do to punish Russia is to impose crippling economic sanctions against Russia and possibly cyber attacks (Russia can retaliate). Soon enough, Putin will call this an act of provocation and justification for war.
The time for incrementally imposing sanctions is over. It is time for maximalist sanctions against Russia. We are already at war as of today.
What comes next? Robert Kagan explains, What we can expect after Putin’s conquest of Ukraine:
Let’s assume for a moment that Vladimir Putin succeeds in gaining full control of Ukraine, as he shows every intention of doing. What are the strategic and geopolitical consequences?
The first will be a new front line of conflict in Central Europe. Until now, Russian forces could deploy only as far as Ukraine’s eastern border, several hundred miles from Poland and other NATO countries to Ukraine’s west. When the Russians complete their operation, they will be able to station forces — land, air and missile — in bases in western Ukraine as well as Belarus, which has effectively become a Russian satrapy.
Russian forces will thus be arrayed along Poland’s entire 650-mile eastern border, as well as along the eastern borders of Slovakia and Hungary and the northern border of Romania. (Moldova will likely be brought under Russian control, too, when Russian troops are able to form a land bridge from Crimea to Moldova’s breakaway province of Transnistria.) Russia without Ukraine is, as former secretary of state Dean Acheson once said of the Soviet Union, “Upper Volta with rockets.” Russia with Ukraine is a different strategic animal entirely.
The most immediate threat will be to the Baltic states. Russia already borders Estonia and Latvia directly and touches Lithuania through Belarus and through its outpost in Kaliningrad. Even before the invasion, some questioned whether NATO could actually defend its Baltic members from a Russian attack. Once Russia has completed its conquest of Ukraine, that question will acquire new urgency.
The new situation could force a significant adjustment in the meaning and purpose of the alliance. Putin has been clear about his goals: He wants to reestablish Russia’s traditional sphere of influence in Eastern and Central Europe. . . it is worth recalling that when the Russian empire was at its height, Poland did not exist as a country; the Baltics were imperial holdings; and southeastern Europe was contested with Austria and Germany. During the Soviet period, the nations of the Warsaw Pact, despite the occasional rebellion, were effectively run from Moscow.
Today, Putin seeks at the very least a two-tier NATO, in which no allied forces are deployed on former Warsaw Pact territory. The inevitable negotiations over this and other elements of a new European security “architecture” would be conducted with Russian forces poised all along NATO’s eastern borders and therefore amid real uncertainty about NATO’s ability to resist Putin’s demands.
Kagan’s theory is that Russia wants to reconstitute its control over former Warsaw Pact Nations, and that the World’s democratic powers will somehow betray these countries and accede to Russia’s demands in appeasement, as the World’s democratic powers did before World War II.
But what if Putin plans to just take these newly admitted NATO Alliance countries after he is done with Ukraine, and risk World War III with the West? This confrontation is going to occur sooner or later.
Putin is already making nuclear threats to the West. Putin threatens West with ‘consequences greater than any you have faced in history’ if it intervenes in his invasion of Ukraine:
Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a dire threat to Western nations on Thursday morning, saying they would face “consequences greater than any you have faced in history” if they become involved with his invasion of Ukraine.
He made the remarks as part of his speech that aired Thursday at 6 a.m. Moscow time in which he announced the invasion. Immediately after the speech, the Ukrainian foreign ministry reported attacks in numerous cities.
Putin used familiar arguments to justify the attack. He framed it as an act of self-defense against the eastward expansion of NATO and as a means of protecting Ukrainians from “nazification” and a “genocide.”
Those lines have been roundly rejected by Western leaders. There is no evidence of a genocide taking place in Ukraine. [There are no “Nazis” in Ukraine’s government. President Zelensky is Jewish.]
In the speech he addressed the leaders who have aligned in opposition to the invasion.
“To anyone who would consider interfering from outside: If you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history,” he said, according to Politico’s translation of the speech.
“All the relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me.”
His speech also alluded to the substantial nuclear arsenal he commands, noting that Russia “is today one of the most powerful nuclear powers,” per Politico’s translation.
Both Russia and China have fielded hypersonic cruise missiles, in 2019 and 2020 respectively, but the U.S. is not expected to deploy a comparable offensive weapon until 2023. Putin may believe that this gives him “first strike” nuclear capability against Western governments.
Vladimir Putin has warned that his country’s hypersonic missiles are ready to launch.
In a video released on Wednesday, the Russian President said that “weapons without parallel in the world have been put on combat duty”, after he ordered troops into eastern Ukraine.
He continued: “We will continue to develop advanced weapons systems, including hypersonic, and based on new physical principles, and expand the use of advanced digital technologies and elements of artificial intelligence.
“Such complexes are really the weapons of the future, which greatly increases the combat potential of our armed forces.”
But what exactly are hypersonic missiles, and how much damage could they cause? Here is everything you need to know.
What are hypersonic missiles?
A hypersonic missile is a missile that travels faster than Mach 5, or 3,836mph.
This means they move at about one mile per second, or five times faster than the speed of sound. There is currently no way to stop or intercept them.
Some can travel even faster. Russia’s Kh-47M2 Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missile, for example, can allegedly reach Mach 10, equivalent to more than 7,600mph.
There are two main types of hypersonic missile; hypersonic cruise missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles.
Hypersonic cruise missiles are propelled by a high-speed jet engine rather than gravitational forces used by more traditional ballistic missiles.
Hypersonic glide vehicles are launched high and propelled back through Earth’s atmosphere. The glide vehicle surfs on the atmosphere at between 40km and 100km in altitude, and reaches its destination by leveraging aerodynamic forces.
Dr James Bosbotinis, a UK-based specialist in defence and international affairs, explains: “Hypersonic missiles offer a number of advantages over subsonic and supersonic weapons, particularly with regard to the prosecution of time-critical targets (for example, mobile ballistic missile launchers), where the additional speed of a hypersonic weapon is valuable.
“It can also overcome the defences of heavily defended targets, such as an aircraft carrier.
“The development and deployment of hypersonic weapon systems will provide states with significantly enhanced strike capabilities and, potentially, the means to coerce. This will be particularly the case where a major regional power, such as Russia, may seek to coerce a neighbour, leveraging the threat of hypersonic strikes against critical targets. As such, the proliferation of hypersonic capabilities to regional states could also be destabilising, upsetting local balances of power.”
Even though this new weapon capability gives Russia a tactical advantage, it does nothing to reduce the retaliatory capability of Western nuclear powers. the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine remains true, despite detractors. There are no winners in a nuclear war.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is an interesting perspective:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/world/europe/navalny-russia-ukraine.html
Aleksei A. Navalny, the jailed Russian opposition politician, used a court hearing on Thursday to condemn President Vladimir V. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
“The war with Ukraine has been unleashed to cover up the robbery of Russian citizens and divert their attention away from the country’s internal problems, from the degradation of its economy,” Mr. Navalny said.
Mr. Navalny, who is serving a prison sentence that could be extended by up to 15 years if he is convicted of embezzlement and other charges, went on to say: “This war will lead to a vast number of victims, destroyed lives and continued impoverishment of Russian people.”
Dr. Emma Ashford, senior fellow in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council, writes at the New York Times, “It’s Official: The Post-Cold War Era Is Over”, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/opinion/ukraine-russia-biden.html
The world has witnessed several potential turning points signaling the end of the post-Cold War period: the global financial crisis, the Arab Spring, the Covid-19 pandemic. Now, with competition between the great powers triggering a major war on the European continent, we have it.
The West is now far from the rosy outlook of the 1990s, when America forged a global coalition to wage the short and victorious Persian Gulf war, when it seemed that U.S. power and influence would help liberalism and democracy flourish around the world. Today, America is faced with the harsh reality of power politics: a conflict we could not prevent, and the very real risk of military escalation.
[T]he challenge is both immediate — preventing the war in Ukraine from spiraling into a broader European war — and longer term — responding to a new security environment.
[T]he Western response is also predictable. The threat of massive sanctions — including on major financial institutions, Russian trade and even Mr. Putin’s cronies — failed to deter aggression. They are now being imposed, but we should be under no illusions that they will alter Mr. Putin’s calculus.
To be fair, there are no other good policy options. Diplomacy has been exhausted. And the Biden administration has wisely ruled out sending U.S. troops into Ukraine. Yet the stakes are high, requiring a coordinated, coherent and robust response from the United States.
[T]here’s also the serious risk of economic contagion. Russia is a major commodities supplier; market watchers expect higher inflation and lower growth globally (with perhaps more severe disruptions in Europe).
To meet these challenges, the United States needs European unity. Otherwise it will be far more difficult to sustain sanctions on Russia and to achieve a coordinated NATO response against further Russian aggression.
More important from a security standpoint is preventing the fighting from expanding beyond Ukraine’s borders. A spillover would potentially call into question America’s Article 5 commitment to NATO — an attack on one is an attack on all — and likely result in a long, bloody conflict the likes of which we haven’t seen since World War II. Anything from a spiral of tit-for-tat cyberattacks to an accidental contact between Russian and NATO forces could trigger such a dangerous escalation.
A scenario like intensifying cyberattacks would require restraint and prudence in the use of U.S. economic statecraft to respond, threading the needle between punitive sanctions while not accidentally collapsing the entire Russian economy. The alternative — a potentially vicious and prolonged cycle of economic warfare — could send the global economy into a tailspin.
And averting a catastrophe arising from anything like an accidental skirmish will require close coordination with allies in Europe on the question of next steps in Ukraine itself. U.S. allies in the Baltics and Eastern Europe have been more keen on defense cooperation and providing weapons to Ukraine. They might be inclined to consider arming or training a Ukrainian guerrilla force to resist occupation, which could expand the fighting beyond its current borders and pull in NATO. The Biden administration should strenuously resist such moves and make clear that NATO’s Article 5 provisions would not necessarily apply in such cases.
Second, the administration must consider the broader implications of this conflict for European security. This war likely will end with a new militarized line that bisects Europe, separating Russia and its vassal states from NATO nations. It would be a visible reminder of the ever-present threat of military or nuclear conflict, increasing the likelihood of clashes or skirmishes that could descend into all-out war.
[Mr.] Putin’s attack on Ukraine represents, in many ways, a failure of the Western approach to European security of the past 30 years, which prioritized NATO expansion and the promotion of democracy over collective defense considerations. Now, the United States and its European partners must navigate this new reality without accidentally stumbling into a hot war with Russia.
Perhaps no one better summed up the zeitgeist of the heady, post-Cold War moment in Washington better than Madeleine Albright, who described America as the “indispensable nation.” That was shorthand for an expansionist, transformative U.S. foreign policy that aimed to solve every global problem.
The war now unfolding in Europe marks an end to that era, showing Americans — and the world — that U.S. power is not absolute. It must also mark a turning point for the United States, reflecting the understanding that we’re once again in a world where other great powers can thwart American ambitions and the threat of nuclear escalation is unrelenting.
Thank you Blue Meanie for the reminder that history does repeat itself and that despots exist to destroy democracy where ever they find it.
Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes “The West Must Show Putin How Wrong He Is to Choose War”, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/opinion/russia-ukraine-invasion-putin.html
(excerpt)
As well as an act of aggression, it’s a blatant violation of the basic legal principle that international borders are not to be changed by force and that sovereign countries are free to make their own decisions.
It is also unwarranted. There are two types of war: wars of necessity, to protect vital national interests and involving the use of military force as a last resort, such as World War II and the Persian Gulf war of 1991; and wars of choice — armed interventions taken either in the absence of vital national interests or despite the availability of options not involving military force. Into this category fall the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and, after a limited initial phase, Afghanistan.
Mr. Putin’s conflict is, decidedly, a war of choice. The Russian president’s justifications hold no water: There was and is no consensus about bringing Ukraine into NATO in the next decade or later. There was and is no threat to ethnic Russians in Ukraine. And the United States and NATO have voiced their openness to discussing European security arrangements that take legitimate Russian interests into account.
Instead, Mr. Putin is choosing the path of war. This calls for a determined, comprehensive reply from the West. Mr. Putin’s war of choice demands a response of necessity.
The West should aim to penalize Russia and to discourage it from further aggression. Germany’s suspension of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a strong start, as are the financial sanctions targeting two Russian banks and Russia’s sovereign debt announced by President Biden on Tuesday. Additional targeted measures ought to follow, and the military capacities of both Ukraine and NATO, particularly in countries close to Russia, should continue to be enhanced. Mr. Putin must be made to understand that the moves he’s already made will have meaningful consequences.
But if the Russian intervention is a prelude to an attempt to assert control over the entirety of Ukraine and oust its government, as it’s likely to be, the United States and its NATO allies must go much further. The aim then should be to expand support to Ukraine — military, intelligence, economic and diplomatic — to such an extent as to significantly raise the costs of any Russian occupation.
[T]hough far from a panacea, sanctions against a wider set of people and financial institutions close to Mr. Putin and critical for Russia’s economy can raise them higher still — as would increasing oil and gas production in the United States and the Middle East. Removing the Kremlin’s cushion of high energy prices, which have long been a windfall for the government, would be the best sanction.
The United States should also continue to make public its intelligence that sheds light on Russian intentions to spoil surprises. Traditional and social media with the potential to reach Russian journalists and civil society should counter the Kremlin’s narrative. And images of what is taking place inside Ukraine should reach the world, leaving no doubt about the toll in innocent lives caused by Mr. Putin’s adventurism.
[On] the international stage, governments everywhere ought to be discouraged from following Russia’s lead in recognizing the independence of the two Ukrainian regions. And Ukraine and its friends should make their case not just to the United Nations Security Council but also to the General Assembly, where Russia has no veto. What’s more, European governments need to prepare their publics for major increases in refugees fleeing Ukraine and make the case for why they must be supported. And citizens of both Europe and the United States need to be warned about the potential for cyberattacks and energy shortages. Facing down Russia will not be painless.
But the history of wars of choice offers some useful perspective. While many start well, most — particularly those that are ambitious — end badly. Intervening countries tend to underestimate the difficulty of prevailing or of translating battlefield successes into lasting gains. Gradually, those at home tend to grow weary of shouldering the mounting costs tied to the pursuit of elusive objectives. The Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, which began in 1979, dragged on for a decade and badly damaged the state’s authority, is a case in point.
Yet Mr. Putin is determined to upend European stability. Like others before him, he is initiating a war of choice in the belief that the benefits will outweigh the costs. It is up to the United States and its partners to prove he got his calculations badly wrong.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright writes “Putin Is Making a Historic Mistake”, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/opinion/putin-ukraine.html
(excerpt)
Mr. Putin’s revisionist and absurd assertion that Ukraine was “entirely created by Russia” and effectively robbed from the Russian empire is fully in keeping with his warped worldview. Most disturbing to me: It was his attempt to establish the pretext for a full-scale invasion.
Should he invade – he has – it will be a historic error.
In the 20-odd years since we met, Mr. Putin has charted his course by ditching democratic development for Stalin’s playbook. He has collected political and economic power for himself — co-opting or crushing potential competition — while pushing to re-establish a sphere of Russian dominance through parts of the former Soviet Union. Like other authoritarians, he equates his own well-being with that of the nation and opposition with treason. He is sure that Americans mirror both his cynicism and his lust for power and that in a world where everyone lies, he is under no obligation to tell the truth. Because he believes that the United States dominates its own region by force, he thinks Russia has the same right.
[I]nstead of paving Russia’s path to greatness, invading Ukraine would ensure Mr. Putin’s infamy by leaving his country diplomatically isolated, economically crippled and strategically vulnerable in the face of a stronger, more united Western alliance.
[Mr.] Putin’s actions have triggered massive sanctions, with more to come if he launches a full-scale assault and attempts to seize the entire country [he has]. These would devastate not just his country’s economy but also his tight circle of corrupt cronies — who in turn could challenge his leadership. What is sure to be a bloody and catastrophic war will drain Russian resources and cost Russian lives — while creating an urgent incentive for Europe to slash its dangerous reliance on Russian energy. (That has already begun with Germany’s move to halt certification of the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline.)
Such an act of aggression would almost certainly drive NATO to significantly reinforce its eastern flank and to consider permanently stationing forces in the Baltic States, Poland and Romania. (President Biden said Tuesday he was moving more troops to the Baltics.) And it would generate fierce Ukrainian armed resistance, with strong support from the West. A bipartisan effort is already underway to craft a legislative response that would include intensifying lethal aid to Ukraine. It would be far from a repeat of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014; it would be a scenario reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s ill-fated occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Mr. Biden and other Western leaders have made this much clear in round after round of furious diplomacy. But even if the West is somehow able to deter Mr. Putin from all-out war — which is far from assured right now — it’s important to remember that his competition of choice is not chess, as some assume, but rather judo. We can expect him to persist in looking for a chance to increase his leverage and strike in the future. It will be up to the United States and its friends to deny him that opportunity by sustaining forceful diplomatic pushback and increasing economic and military support for Ukraine.
[Mr.] Putin must know that a second Cold War would not necessarily go well for Russia — even with its nuclear weapons. Strong U.S. allies can be found on nearly every continent. Mr. Putin’s friends, meanwhile, include the likes of Bashar al-Assad, Alexander Lukashenko and Kim Jong-un.
If Mr. Putin feels backed into a corner, he has only himself to blame. As Mr. Biden has noted, the United States has no desire to destabilize or deprive Russia of its legitimate aspirations. That’s why the administration and its allies have offered to engage in talks with Moscow on an open-ended range of security issues. But America must insist that Russia act in accordance with international standards applicable to all nations.
Mr. Putin and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, like to claim that we now live in a multipolar world. While that is self-evident, it does not mean that the major powers have a right to chop the globe into spheres of influence as colonial empires did centuries ago.
Ukraine is entitled to its sovereignty, no matter who its neighbors happen to be. In the modern era, great countries accept that, and so must Mr. Putin. That is the message undergirding recent Western diplomacy. It defines the difference between a world governed by the rule of law and one answerable to no rules at all.
Excellent post, AZBlue.
Indeed, Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is a redux of Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland that launched WWII.
I wondered if Putin would be satisfied with a regime change, installing a Russia-friendly authoritarian leader and obliterating Ukraine’s democracy.
But it does appear that Putin has some vision of reconstructing the Soviet Union and reinstating their former glory and power in the global landscape.
Putin’s speeches sound increasingly unhinged.
It appears that a lot of people are concerned about Russia’s nuclear capability while this brutal, murderous dictator makes the decisions about what happens next.
Putin has become extremely dangerous. We really don’t know what he is capable of doing. But it’s apparent that he’s willing to kill tens of thousands and bring on immense suffering for his own people.