After the collapse of the USSR, foreign policy senior wise man George Kennan warned against expanding NATO east toward the borders of Russia, calling it a “fateful error.” Kennan, who coined the term “containment,” which became the shorthand name for U.S. policy toward the USSR for decades, said that the crumbling of Soviet ideology could have led the new country in a positive direction. But providing its leaders with a new external enemy, he said, would “erode the nascent democracy.”
Kennan’s writings and comments in the late 1990s criticizing the expansion of NATO—which occurred in eight stages over 70 years such that the military alliance now comprises 30 countries—are full of dire predictions. Let’s see how many have come true:
NATO expansion, said Kennan, will:
. . . “inflame nationalistic, anti-western, and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion.” Check.
. . . “restore the atmosphere of cold war to east-west relations.” Check.
“. . . have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy.” Check.
“. . . impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.” Check.
In summary, said Kennan, “We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way.” Check.
The last statement is the one looming large over the several meetings Biden and Putin have held in recent weeks, including a call just a couple of days ago. A look at the map above shows what a juicy prize Ukraine would be as a front-line NATO member given the long border it shares with the new Evil Empire. Which Brookings intern wrote the memo assuring his fellow neocons that Russia would be okay with this?
If one squints one’s eyes and peers through the cloud of State Department/Pentagon/White House stenography emanating from our main news outlets, one can glimpse that poor old Joe is playing from a very weak hand. While issuing daily alarms over the Russkies’ nasty intentions toward Ukraine and warning it against taking military action, the U.S. can’t do anything much about a Russian attack were it to occur and has said as much.
Experts largely agree that the Ukrainian military would collapse within hours of a Russian attack and that the Ukraine as a country might cease to exist. Impoverished refugees flooding toward the prosperous states of Europe is not a welcome scenario for the NATO allies, none of whom have a whit of influence over what the two big guys eventually decide to do in any case.
Biden and his spokespeople wave the threat of further sanctions against Russia were such an attack to take place, such as banning Russian banks from using the SWIFT messaging service to process financial transactions. To which the Russian response has been a version of “Oo, eek, we’re so skeered!”
German and Dutch leaders trying to keep their citizens from freezing this winter, on the other hand, might well be spooked by the prospect of losing easy access to Russian natural gas. Russia has plenty of customers in Asia for its products, and the Americans’ simultaneous campaigns against both it and China have thrown those two giants together in what is increasingly looking like a long-term partnership if not a downright alliance.
How did this come about? Are the Russians seeking to restore the czarist/Soviet empire and gobble up neighboring states? One would think so from the mainstream commentators showcased here.
Back to Kennan: “I think it is a tragic mistake,” he insisted in 1998. “There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves.”
On the Senate debate that occurred before that august body endorsed NATO expansion, Kennan said it was "superficial and ill-informed" and that he was "particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove it.”
Who were the authors of this colossal blunder? Bloodthirsty neocon warriors like those who gathered around Bush II? No, in fact it was Bill Clinton and William Cohen, Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, egged on by Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman. That is, the reliably right-wing nutcases of the Republican Party boosting the most reactionary tendencies among the most war-loving Democrats. And our nation’s arms manufacturers no doubt were standing by with the needed lobbying and think-tank millions to encourage this scheme, so profitable for themselves.
Our media elites are incapable of injecting any balance into their reporting of the Ukrainian situation, which would at minimum include some nod to the Russians’ fear of encirclement by hostile military forces aiming nuclear weapons at their major cities with arrival times measured in the minutes. I recall a major international crisis of apocalyptic brinksmanship occurring in 1962 when the shoe was on the other foot.
Putin has made it clear in his public statements that the Russians are out of patience with NATO, with the U.S., and most particularly with the Ukrainians and are not in a forgiving mood. They have demanded written, legal guarantees not only that NATO will not expand further into Ukraine or anywhere else but to roll back the current status quo.
What’s different about this set of demands at this time is that the Russians are in a position to impose them. After all the NATO-inspired talk of military threats against Ukraine, the western powers are faced with a prophecy about to be self-fulfilled. Putin laid out their conditions for not acting and is not interested in verbal assurances given that the U.S. has proven itself not agreement-capable repeatedly (the Iran nuclear deal, various arms control treaties, Libya). The Russians say they are willing to talk but not forever, and by all appearances they are deadly serious.
There is a lot of speculation in the specialty press and blogosphere about what will happen, ranging from nothing to all-our war in Europe. All the scenarios are plausible, and nobody knows.
What is not in doubt is that the whole sorry mess could have been avoided if our leaders had opted for a different course 30 years ago. But that was impossible. Our political system and economy are so enslaved to the war-making industrial complex that belligerence and fear-mongering had to continue to drive U.S. attitudes toward the world because without them, many trillions of dollars might not continue to flow into the right pockets.
Mr Kennan’s wise words never had a chance. Perhaps they will now that the chickens have come home to roost.
(If you would like alerts to future posts here, kindly email tfrasca@yahoo.com)
1 comment:
Awesome, thanks! Totally agree!
Post a Comment