Tag Archives: Ukraine

The state of it.

I imagine if you didn’t watch the president’s state of the union address and listened to NPR (aka Empire) news the next day, you might think they were talking about a speech made by a reactionary republican legislator or pundit. That’s all they had on their guest list for the two days following the address. You have to wonder why they feel these people need all this air time. Instead of wallowing in the predictable knee-jerk partisan reactions to the speech, why don’t they drill into some of the issues? Sure, they do a little “fact check” report, kind of like Politifact (and just about as superficial). But report on, say, oil and gas drilling and its implications for climate change and ultimately human survival? Not when one of their big sponsors is “think about it dot org”.

Doing too little? Seriously?Then there’s “Morning Joe” (or “Morning Blow”) on purportedly liberal/progressive MSNBC. Their foreign policy braintrust of, well, Joe Scarborough, Richard Haas, and various senior editors from Politico have been engaging in a narrative that goes something like this, in short – “W” Bush did too much, Obama does too little, and both put us in greater danger from the scourge of jihadist terrorism, which has killed nearly one person in the United States so far this year (call it none). Setting aside the obsessive focus on this rare and sensational threat, I agree with the assertion that both presidents’ foreign policies have put us in greater danger, breeding a new generation extremists, several of whom, for instance, attacked the offices of Charlie Ebdo in Paris. But the notion that Obama does too little is ludicrous. Bush and Obama basically have the same foreign policy. Obama is following Bush’s playbook from 2006-08. And yes, it is murderous and destabilizing and designed to radicalize people.

Of course, the pundit circle’s prescriptions for what we should be doing are drawn from the same volume. This week on Morning Blow they were latching onto co-host Mika Brzezinski’s father’s suggestion that we should deploy troops to the Baltic states to provide a “tripwire” against further action by Vladimir Putin. The braintrust was opining that NATO should be beefed up; more troops in Poland, etc. Again – Obama has been following the same policy as Bush, in essence. Aggressive eastward expansion of the U.S.-European trading zone and of NATO, right into Ukraine, which is as integral a part of Russian security planning as Canada and Mexico are for the U.S. Want to keep Putin from overreacting? Stop boxing the Russians in. Just saying.

The only new piece of foreign policy from Obama has been the Cuba opening, but like Boehner’s invite to Netanyahu as a way of scuttling the Iran talks, there are many ways for Congress to undermine the new policy.

Next week: Domestic policy. Stay tuned.

luv u,

jp

New cold war on tap.

The full-court press is on. The Obama team has been channeling Bush/Romney for the past couple of weeks, delivering on the promise of a more aggressive foreign policy on several fronts, most ominously (in my humble opinion) in far eastern Europe, on the indefensible frontiers of U.S./European capitalism and military hegemony. Obama has announce that we will be taking part in NATO exercises in western Ukraine; roughly the equivalent of Russia or China or Iran doing the same in western Cuba, except that Russia has been attacked ruinously by foreign alliances via their western frontier twice over the last century. (The same, of course, cannot be said of us and our southern frontier.)

This is the threat to world peace?At the close of the Cold War, it was understood that expansion of NATO would be seen as provocative by Russia, but because Russia was in a weak position, their economy destroyed by massive privatization, shock therapy structural adjustment, guided by some of our Chicago-school fanatics, we felt free to ignore their concerns. That worked so long as our drunken ally Yeltsin was in command. But now that the extremely powerful Russian presidency (which we supported under Yeltsin) has been inherited by a sober ex-KGB officer, and the Russian economy has been lifted somewhat by oil revenues, they have found the confidence to voice their objections. And, of course, we’re shocked, shocked!

I’ve never been a fan of Putin (even when our government was), but if this “Russian aggression” as I’ve heard on radio and television for several weeks now, it’s not very, well, aggressive. Sure, they’re helping their allies in eastern Ukraine, now under attack from Kiev, just as we massively intervene on the side of governments and movements all over the world. Putin, for all of his foibles, at least has a definable national interest to invoke in Ukraine. What’s our excuse in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, etc., etc.? Much more abstract, to say the least.

Why are we looking for this fight? And if we are, how can we accuse anyone else of being a threat to world peace?

Finding enemies.

Once again, the administration has its hair on fire about Ukraine and a supposed Russian incursion; this while their military operations in Iraq are expanding and their commitments deepening. Now I know how all those people felt after electing that peace candidate, Lyndon Johnson … or that other peace candidate, Woodrow Wilson. Both Democrats, I should point out.

Measuring up competing war plansThis Russia/Ukraine matter is remarkable in its stupidity. It’s as if our “National Security” state imperial institutions cannot justify their own existence anymore without resurrecting the Cold War, and in so doing, are attempting to make it seem like Putin is intent on resurrecting the Soviet Union. I have to say, that’s pretty weak sauce, as they say on the “coast”. (The sauce must be kind of weak there.) It’s the usual appeasement/slippery slope narrative – sure, it may seem like small potatoes to you, sliding a handful of armored personnel carriers across the border, but if we let him get away with THIS, ANYthing can happen.

We should examine our own alliances. For one thing, we are supporting some real unsavory characters in Kiev, who have some significant blood on their hands. Just as our nominal allies in Syria – or at least many of the beneficiaries of our covert military aid in the unfortunate nation – have been less than exemplary. We blew Iraq to pieces ten years ago; jihadist extremists came in to feed on the carcass … that’s who we’re fighting. It’s not that far from what happened in Afghanistan over thirty-five years. We create the post-apocalyptic space within which our own future adversaries can thrive.

Russia is not the Soviet Union, but then … neither was the Soviet Union, really. We have broken our Bush I-era pledge not to expand NATO to the east. We are deploying missile defense on their border. We are pushing for expansion of Washington/Brussels consensus trade to Ukraine and other post-Soviet republics, insisting that they choose between us and the Russians.

News flash: Ukraine lives next to a major power called Russia. They are like Mexico or Honduras …. they just have to learn how to live with the fact. Frankly, I think Mexico and Honduras have a lot more to worry about.

luv u,

jp