During the conflict between Serbia and Bosnia I read a great deal of hand-wringing, sobbing material about why the Bosnians and Serbs could not get along. After all, they're all Balkans, a term that vaguely connoted olive skinned, dark haired people who eat olive oil, smoke cigarettes and have little collective education. I told people then as now that no Orthodox Christian was going to be friends with a Muslim, who to them was a blood traitor who participated in the excesses and horrors of Ottoman rule in the area.
Now we have the same with Russia. The working idea in the Press, and apparently in our government, is that Russia is just like the US, only with funny letters in their alphabet and really bad winters. Their values are the same and therefore their choices should be the same. This is a remarkable piece of cultural blindness and hubris. So, a couple of words about Russia.
First, Russia's history is that of autocracy. Applying ideas of democracy is laughable. Serfdom ended in 1864, the first elected representational body in 1906. By Western standards there has never been a democratically elected leader in all of Russian history. Oh, there are elections, but not open and contested ones as we understand it. Second, the level of violence employed in Russian social, political and military life is stunning by Western standards. Stalin allowed millions of Ukranian farmers to starve to death in enforcing an arbitrary grain quota. The Russian military has succeeded through overwhelming numbers and a scorched earth policy, using their population and territorial mass to defeat more sophisticated invaders. Russian politics is filled with assassination, poison, and false imprisonment.
Russia's foreign policy has been driven since 1600 by two things- securing a western border and gaining an ice-free port. The heart of Russia, originally the Duchy of Muscovy, has no natural western border. The terrain from Berlin to Moscow is one large, relatively featureless plain 1800 kms long. It is narrowest in Germany and widest at Moscow. It is cut by slow, wide, shallow rivers that are no military obstacle. In that space Germany, Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania have competed for space. Viewed over the period from 1600 to 2014, the furthest east the German border got was in 1914 (omitting the land taken when Russia surrendered in WW 1), the furthest west the Russian border got was also in 1914, during which time Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania had all ceased to exist as countries. In the 1700s Poland was a large country. In the 1600s Lithuania had an 'empire', as did Ukraine at one point. This is an area of intense ethnic identification, old grudges and no boundaries.
Similarly, Russia has struggled to obtain and keep the port of Sevastopol, which gets no ice. This access has driven Russia's enmity, and courting, of Turkey, sparked a war and been a touchstone of Russian policy.
Russia's western border remained at its 1945 point until 1990, at which time 300 years of Russian effort and policy were destroyed in a year. Russia suddenly found its border city to be Smolensk instead on Brest. Looked at numerically, the distance from Berlin to Moscow is 1800 kms. Brest is 1100 kms from Moscow. 1100/1800 kms of the distance from Berlin to Moscow was Russian controlled. The distance from Smolensk to Moscow is- 400 kms! Suddenly Russia has a buffer about 1/3 of its previous size, and only 400/1800 kms is controlled by Russia. You can drive from Smolensk to Moscow in less than 5 hours!
The Russian border distance is not just a matter of trade or local dominance. Russia's land has been a primary national defense. Napoleon had to fight to get to Smolensk. By the time he reached Moscow, the only invader ever to do so, he had only 110,000 men left of the 350,000 in his central army. Germany never reached the Russian heartland, although it did reach Smolensk in WW 2 in only 24 days. And don't think for a second that Russia has forgotten these lessons. Russia feels very vulnerable right now.
The equivalent is to imagine St Louis protected from the Atlantic Ocean by 1000 miles of terrain. Suddenly, in one year, the Atlantic shore is in Lexington Kentucky. If I lived in St. Louis I would be deeply alarmed. Flood insurance would NOT be available. Simultaneously the state of Louisiana becomes a foreign nation. Oh, they say they will allow you to use the port freely, but one year prior the port was yours.
And as far as responses go, the Russian military has about 15,000 tanks and 1,000,000 men under arms. This exceeds by far the combined armed forces of Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.
Now, knowing all this, is it really a surprise that Putin engineered a forceful takeover of Crimea? Do you really think he is going to give it back? If you do, there is a unicorn waiting to take you over a rainbow. Russia has been humiliated and is threatened. The West wants Ukraine in NATO. Really? Russia's enemy coalition since 1945 wants to be 400 kms from me? When all my victories have come using distance? Uh, no.
Putin was bound to react strongly to a pro-western government in Ukraine, and to overtures to NATO. Our naïve pursuit of democracy and freedom has left us in a situation far worse than if we had just let Ukraine remain in a Russian sphere of influence.
We have no options available through our own spectacular stupidity. Russia supplies about 90% all of Ukraine's gas, and 30% of Europe's. Want to fight with that? Sanctions? Hahaha. Restricting travel? Double hahaha. The US dropped Poland, which has the largest military in Europe outside of Russia, like a hot potato, despite Poland's unwavering help in the Middle East. We dropped the missile shield for Poland and the Czech Republic. Wow. We look loyal and strong and involved. Other practical steps, like reducing US dependence on oil imports by increased drilling, nuclear energy and the Keystone pipeline, are all years away from implementation, if they ever happen. Europe has no other ready supplier of energy. We lost this one. Russia won.
My prediction? Our president is neither loved by our allies or feared by our enemies. Putin has already annexed Crimea. I believe he will occupy and annex Ukraine east of the Donets river, and might occupy everything up to the Dnieper. It would be better for him if Ukraine had a pro-Russian government which would quietly allow basing of Russian forces and cooperate with Russian foreign policy. But I believe he will take the land his country has historically had and on which it depends for safety. Putin is doing nothing different than 300 years of Russian autocrats have done to secure his nation. He is a product of his place and history.
And there is nothing we can do about it.
Ted
Now we have the same with Russia. The working idea in the Press, and apparently in our government, is that Russia is just like the US, only with funny letters in their alphabet and really bad winters. Their values are the same and therefore their choices should be the same. This is a remarkable piece of cultural blindness and hubris. So, a couple of words about Russia.
First, Russia's history is that of autocracy. Applying ideas of democracy is laughable. Serfdom ended in 1864, the first elected representational body in 1906. By Western standards there has never been a democratically elected leader in all of Russian history. Oh, there are elections, but not open and contested ones as we understand it. Second, the level of violence employed in Russian social, political and military life is stunning by Western standards. Stalin allowed millions of Ukranian farmers to starve to death in enforcing an arbitrary grain quota. The Russian military has succeeded through overwhelming numbers and a scorched earth policy, using their population and territorial mass to defeat more sophisticated invaders. Russian politics is filled with assassination, poison, and false imprisonment.
Russia's foreign policy has been driven since 1600 by two things- securing a western border and gaining an ice-free port. The heart of Russia, originally the Duchy of Muscovy, has no natural western border. The terrain from Berlin to Moscow is one large, relatively featureless plain 1800 kms long. It is narrowest in Germany and widest at Moscow. It is cut by slow, wide, shallow rivers that are no military obstacle. In that space Germany, Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania have competed for space. Viewed over the period from 1600 to 2014, the furthest east the German border got was in 1914 (omitting the land taken when Russia surrendered in WW 1), the furthest west the Russian border got was also in 1914, during which time Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania had all ceased to exist as countries. In the 1700s Poland was a large country. In the 1600s Lithuania had an 'empire', as did Ukraine at one point. This is an area of intense ethnic identification, old grudges and no boundaries.
Similarly, Russia has struggled to obtain and keep the port of Sevastopol, which gets no ice. This access has driven Russia's enmity, and courting, of Turkey, sparked a war and been a touchstone of Russian policy.
Russia's western border remained at its 1945 point until 1990, at which time 300 years of Russian effort and policy were destroyed in a year. Russia suddenly found its border city to be Smolensk instead on Brest. Looked at numerically, the distance from Berlin to Moscow is 1800 kms. Brest is 1100 kms from Moscow. 1100/1800 kms of the distance from Berlin to Moscow was Russian controlled. The distance from Smolensk to Moscow is- 400 kms! Suddenly Russia has a buffer about 1/3 of its previous size, and only 400/1800 kms is controlled by Russia. You can drive from Smolensk to Moscow in less than 5 hours!
The Russian border distance is not just a matter of trade or local dominance. Russia's land has been a primary national defense. Napoleon had to fight to get to Smolensk. By the time he reached Moscow, the only invader ever to do so, he had only 110,000 men left of the 350,000 in his central army. Germany never reached the Russian heartland, although it did reach Smolensk in WW 2 in only 24 days. And don't think for a second that Russia has forgotten these lessons. Russia feels very vulnerable right now.
The equivalent is to imagine St Louis protected from the Atlantic Ocean by 1000 miles of terrain. Suddenly, in one year, the Atlantic shore is in Lexington Kentucky. If I lived in St. Louis I would be deeply alarmed. Flood insurance would NOT be available. Simultaneously the state of Louisiana becomes a foreign nation. Oh, they say they will allow you to use the port freely, but one year prior the port was yours.
And as far as responses go, the Russian military has about 15,000 tanks and 1,000,000 men under arms. This exceeds by far the combined armed forces of Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.
Now, knowing all this, is it really a surprise that Putin engineered a forceful takeover of Crimea? Do you really think he is going to give it back? If you do, there is a unicorn waiting to take you over a rainbow. Russia has been humiliated and is threatened. The West wants Ukraine in NATO. Really? Russia's enemy coalition since 1945 wants to be 400 kms from me? When all my victories have come using distance? Uh, no.
Putin was bound to react strongly to a pro-western government in Ukraine, and to overtures to NATO. Our naïve pursuit of democracy and freedom has left us in a situation far worse than if we had just let Ukraine remain in a Russian sphere of influence.
We have no options available through our own spectacular stupidity. Russia supplies about 90% all of Ukraine's gas, and 30% of Europe's. Want to fight with that? Sanctions? Hahaha. Restricting travel? Double hahaha. The US dropped Poland, which has the largest military in Europe outside of Russia, like a hot potato, despite Poland's unwavering help in the Middle East. We dropped the missile shield for Poland and the Czech Republic. Wow. We look loyal and strong and involved. Other practical steps, like reducing US dependence on oil imports by increased drilling, nuclear energy and the Keystone pipeline, are all years away from implementation, if they ever happen. Europe has no other ready supplier of energy. We lost this one. Russia won.
My prediction? Our president is neither loved by our allies or feared by our enemies. Putin has already annexed Crimea. I believe he will occupy and annex Ukraine east of the Donets river, and might occupy everything up to the Dnieper. It would be better for him if Ukraine had a pro-Russian government which would quietly allow basing of Russian forces and cooperate with Russian foreign policy. But I believe he will take the land his country has historically had and on which it depends for safety. Putin is doing nothing different than 300 years of Russian autocrats have done to secure his nation. He is a product of his place and history.
And there is nothing we can do about it.
Ted
Putin IS Russian history.
ReplyDeleteWhat no one seems to be talking about is the Four Party Treaty whereby Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons [left behind when the USSR evaporated] in return for a guarantee of its territorial integrity by the US, the UK, and Russia. Now Ukraine knows what the Polish government of 1939 must have felt like.
You have touched on the keystone of American foreign policy and why it so often succeeded in macro and failed in micro: the notion that every other country is just like us, with essentially identical needs, wants, and desires. This, combined with our belief in Exceptionalism, has produced a world where the major part tolerates us and the minor part actively hates us. We are exceptional, different from all of you, but you are effectively just like us!
We embark on crusades to bring our blessings to a benighted world, and are then both puzzled and hurt when the recipients of our largesse end up in a worse situation than before. The League of Nations and the UN are really little more than the US Congress writ large. If everyone can just get together, hold hands, and talk about their problems, then peace and contentment will follow. We engage in “nation building” which is an almost invariably nugatory exercise, and then blame the recipients for their failure to benefit from our generosity. We give combs to bald people and are puzzled by the ensuing bankruptcy of the hair salons we set up on their behalf.
Much of this is a reflection of the poor quality [if not total absence] of the teaching of history. And I mean the actual teaching of history rather than the feel-good self-esteem/race/gender/LGBTQ version. I doubt that any of the leadership of either party in Congress or the White House could give the kind of cogent outline of history that either you or I could. You and I are the beneficiaries of a great deal of reading, but also of a quality of historical education that is rarely found these days [don’t I sound like a crotchety old man!].
I despair over the teaching of geography as well. It is tough to understand the importance of anything going on outside the US without even a passing knowledge of where things are with relation to each other. I do not think geography is taught at all anymore. Why are the Japanese more inclined to be concerned about North Korea rather than Syria? Why are Estonia et al concerned about the Russians? Your exposition on the North European Plain is very clear, but I seriously doubt that most high schoolers today could have done the same.
Machiavelli said that the state most willing to use force will always triumph over the weak, vacillating opponent. Most Western leaders disparage Machiavelli, but clearly Putin, Assad et al recognize that Niccolo was a truth-teller.
Reuters this morning quoted “Fiona Hill, a Russia expert at the Brookings Institution and a former National Intelligence Council official, said those who believed the collapse of the Soviet Union signified the triumph of Western democratic capitalism were deluding themselves. A large number of Russians remained deeply skeptical of Western norms.
"It was only a very small elite around Yeltsin who were buying this," she said. "Too many people (Westerners) saw what they wanted to see, rather than what was happening."
As I said; random thoughts.