California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

500,000 Killed in Ukraine War. Is It Worth It Just To Insure That Ukraine Can Join NATO?

by John Lawrence

Putin's bottom line is that Ukraine should not join NATO. Biden insisted that it should be able to. That was the impasse that led to the Ukraine war. All that Biden had to do was to negotiate a time period during which Ukraine would not be considered for NATO membership. He would not do that. He could have called Putin's bluff if indeed it was a bluff that Putin would not invade if Ukraine were not allowed to join NATO. If Putin had still invaded after prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO for a period of time, then the US and the EU could have gone ahead with their current strategy of supplying Ukraine with arms to defend itself. The New York Time reported:

The total number of Ukrainian and Russian troops killed or wounded since the war in Ukraine began 18 months ago is nearing 500,000, U.S. officials said, a staggering toll as Russia assaults its next-door neighbor and tries to seize more territory.

The officials cautioned that casualty figures remained difficult to estimate because Moscow is believed to routinely undercount its war dead and injured, and Kyiv does not disclose official figures. But they said the slaughter intensified this year in eastern Ukraine and has continued at a steady clip as a nearly three-month-old counteroffensive drags on.

Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injured troops. The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.

But Russians outnumber Ukrainians on the battlefield almost three to one, and Russia has a larger population from which to replenish its ranks.

Is it worth it? I repeat IS IT WORTH IT? For the principal that any country can join NATO? IMHO war is never worth it. Why is there not a peace movement? If it was so important that Russia keep its hands off Ukraine, why didn't Obama protest in 2014 as Russia seized territory in Eastern Ukraine? To be clear Obama did not want to commit the US to stopping Russian aggression in Ukraine according to Brookings:

As regards the two-year-old conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the president [Obama] said Ukraine is a core interest for Moscow, in a way that it is not for the United States. He noted that, since Ukraine does not belong to NATO, it is vulnerable to Russian military domination, and that “we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for.”" Obama was hesitant to get involved militarily in Ukraine. "But the president [Obama] has signaled privately that despite all the pressure, he remains reluctant to send arms. In part, he has told aides and visitors that arming the Ukrainians would encourage the notion that they could actually defeat the far more powerful Russians, and so it would potentially draw a more forceful response from Moscow. He also wants to give a shaky cease-fire a chance to take hold, despite a reported 1,000 violations so far, and seems determined to stay aligned with European allies that oppose arms for Ukraine.

“If you’re playing on the military terrain in Ukraine, you’re playing to Russia’s strength, because Russia is right next door,” Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, told an audience in Berlin last week. “It has a huge amount of military equipment and military force right on the border. Anything we did as countries in terms of military support for Ukraine is likely to be matched and then doubled and tripled and quadrupled by Russia.”

In February 2014 Obama even threatened Ukraine, not Russia, with sanctions, putting the onus on Ukraine. "TOLUCA, Mexico (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama called on Ukraine’s armed forces on Wednesday to stay out of the country’s political crisis and warned that there would be consequences for those who “step over the line.” Using his toughest language so far in response to a Ukrainian conflict that has drawn threats of U.S. and European Union sanctions, Obama denounced the violence and put the onus on Ukraine’s government to reach a peaceful resolution."

George W Bush, the perpetrator of lying us into the Iraq war, agreed with Obama: "There are good reasons why even George W. Bush backed off (or at least stopped short of pursuing) a pledge to consider Ukraine for NATO membership. First, calmer minds weighed the level of Western interests in Ukrainian independence against the cost of defending it in a pinch, and found the former coming up short." Calmer minds did not prevail, however, when Joe Biden became President. Despite all the good Biden has done domestically, his Ukraine policy has committed the US to what amounts to perpetual war.

Some advisors advocated for a moratorium on Ukraine's joining NATO as a way to stave off war. "Before the Russian invasion, Quincy Institute senior research fellow on Russia and Europe Anatol Lieven wrote that as part of a broader package to stave off war, the United States should propose “the declaration of a moratorium on Ukrainian membership of NATO for a period of 20 years, allowing time for negotiations on a new security architecture for Europe as a whole, including Russia.”"

Putin's primary concern was that Ukraine not join NATO, a concern that was effectively ignored in negotiations leading up to the February 2022 invasion.

"President Vladimir Putin accused Western nations of ignoring key Russian security concerns, following the U.S.′ refusal last week to concede to Moscow’s demands over Ukraine and NATO.

“It’s already clear now ... that fundamental Russian concerns were ignored,” Putin said at a press conference Tuesday, according to a Reuters translation.

Putin said that the U.S. wanted to “contain Russia” and that it was using Ukraine to do that, as he reiterated Russia’s position that any possible membership of Ukraine in NATO would “undermine Russia’s security.”

“Let’s imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member, it is fully packed of weapons, it gets advanced attack means like those in Poland and Romania and it starts an operation in Crimea,” Putin said, describing Crimea, a part of Ukraine annexed by Russia in 2014, as a “sovereign Russian territory.”

“Let’s imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member state and it initiates a military operation. What should we do then, [should we] fight against the NATO bloc? Did anyone think at least something about that? Apparently not.”

Nonetheless, Putin said he hoped dialog over Ukraine would continue and that a way needed to be found to, as he put it, “protect everyone’s security.”

Biden could have acknowledged Putin's concerns regarding Russia's security interests and argued for a moratorium on Ukraine's bid for NATO membership. This may or may not have forestalled Russia's 2022 invasion. If it had, the US and its allies had nothing to lose except the principal that any country should be free to join NATO. If it hadn't, Russia's invasion could be countered with the policy the US has pursued since Russia invaded which is to send weapons to arm Ukraine without putting "boots on the round." Subsequently, Russia secured Ukraine's non-membership in NATO by starting and pursuing what amounts to a perpetual war with the result of 500,000 people killed so far and billions of dollars in destroyed real estate. Has it been worth it to uphold the principal that Ukraine should be free to join NATO. I don't think so. A new security arrangement is needed for Europe including Russia sans NATO.

Off the Top of My Head

"Everyone's Crying Peace on Earth Just as Soon as We Win This War" - Mose Allison

by John Lawrence

Note from the future: One of the last humans evacuating planet earth, Elon Musk, writing the last chapter of the human race from his space hut on the moon: "Well, I guess it's up to me to write the last chapter of human history. I personally was able to escape planet earth as temperatures soared into the 150s. People had been forced into caves deep in earth to escape the heat. However, the war in Ukraine still raged on. Each side was intent on winning that war. More and more resources were poured into weapons. The US defense budget soared into the trillions of dollars. Some of us more enlightened ones said, 'Wait, wouldn't it be more important to take that money and put it toward fighting climate change, our common enemy. Climate change is the enemy of both NATO and Russia. No, the power structure said, it's more important to win this war. As the fighters in that war were dying of heat exhaustion rather than enemy bullets, they were some of the last humans to hold out on the surface of earth. Air temperatures were buckling roads and railroads. Even tanks and drones were melting in front of their eyes. It came down to hand to hand combat as guns were useless in the severe heat. Soldiers got second degree burns just from touching anything metal. But the war raged on. Ukraine was promised a path to NATO membership at the end of the war, but the brush along that path was burning furiously. It's doubtful if Ukraine would have made it all the way along that path to NATO without burning up first."

Musk continued: "You know the human saga reminds me of the fairy tale about the frogs in a pan of water. The water temperature was gradually increasing, but frog A insisted on staying in the water until his frog army was able to defeat Frog B's army. He reassured baby frog that as soon as his side won, they would all jump out of the water and be safe. But first they had to win this war. But baby frog said, 'Aren't you devoting all your time and energy to winning the war when, if both sides cooperated instead, you could devote your resources to lowering the temperature of the water.' No, said Frog A. Frog B is despicable We want all this land. We're not going to cede any of it to Frog B's tribe. But baby frog insisted, 'Who cares who owns what land if the whole pan of water which is our collective habitat burns up while you guys are still fighting? Your budget for cooling the water is miniscule compared to your defense (offense?) budget. If you just got along with other frogs you wouldn't need such a large defense budget. You could devote that money to global water cooling. This is the only pan of water we've got!.' I assure you, Frog A said, that as soon as we win this war, we will devote all our resources to cooling this pan of water."

Musk continued, "Well the moral of the story is that the human race was not able to get its act together even when they faced a common enemy. Each year even after global temperatures reached 140 degrees in some parts of the world for 100 days at a time, neither side in the Ukraine war would stop fighting. In fact that war would have gone on for the next hundred years, but, unfortunately, earth would not have been inhabitable by humans for another hundred years. It was not more than a decade later when temperatures reached 150 degrees for days at a time in most parts of the world. All the glaciers had melted in Antarctica so sea levels had risen more than 10 feet inundating Miami, London, New York City, Tokyo and New Orleans not to mention many other less noteworthy cities. No one could get property insurance any more; the insurance companies all went bankrupt. FEMA had run out of money. Flash floods left hundreds of thousands homeless. Those who had bought those old missile silos in Montana were lucky. They were safely ensconced underground where the temperatures were cooler. People crowded into Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico and Mammoth Cave in Kentucky. After these caves reached capacity a detachment of former marines stationed at the entrance shot anyone trying to gain entrance. Survivalist skills were highly in demand."

"As the last fighter on the battlefield in Ukraine died of heat stroke, NATO and Russia declared the war was over. It was undetermined who actually won. The path to membership in NATO for Ukraine was littered with dead bodies, many of whom had died from heat exhaustion. Ukraine itself was littered with tanks and other metallic weapons of war which seared the flesh of anyone foolish enough to touch them."

Off the Top of My Head

Was the War in Ukraine Worth Not Giving Putin Assurances That Ukraine Would Not Join NATO?

by John Lawrence

In an interview with Fareed Zakaria President Biden said this:

"I don't think [Ukraine] is ready for membership in NATO, but here's the deal. ... I don't think there's unanimity in NATO about whether or not to bring Ukraine into the NATO family now at this moment in the middle of a war. ... The very first time I met with Putin two years ago in Geneva, and he said I want commitments on no Ukraine in NATO, I said we're not going to do that because it's an open door policy. We're not going to shut anybody out. NATO is a process that takes some time to meet all of the qualifications and from democratization to a whole range of other issues so in the meantime though I've spoken with Zelensky at great length about, at length about this and uh one of the things I indicated is the United States would be ready to provide while the process is going on - and it's going to take a while - while that process is going on, to provide security ala the security we provide for Israel providing the weaponry they need, the capacity to defend themselves if there is an agreement, if there is a cease fire, if there is a peace agreement and so I think we can work it out but I think it's premature to say, to call for a vote you know in now because there's other qualifications that need to be met including democratization and some of those issues."

So since Ukraine was not ready for NATO membership when Biden met Putin two years ago, why wouldn't Biden give Putin assurances that Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO at least for some period of years? That in and of itself might have forestalled the war so that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Or Biden could have persuaded NATO to admit Ukraine to NATO two years ago and that in and of itself might have deterred Putin from invaded Ukraine. Clearly, Putin invaded Ukraine because it was not a member of NATO, and so his invasion would not have amounted to a full scale confrontation with all of NATO's forces. Also clearly, since Ukraine was not in Biden's mind ready to join NATO, Biden could have given Putin assurances that Ukraine would not become a member of NATO. Then at such time as Ukraine was deemed fit to become a member of NATO the US could have gone back on its assurances. It wouldn't have been the first time the US had made a commitment and then broken it. In fact when the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1989, Gorbachev was given assurances that NATO wouldn't move "one inch eastward," an assurance that was clearly broken during the Clinton and George W Bush administrations when NATO moved aggressively eastward.

So was the war in Ukraine in which there have been as of June 2023 25,170 civilian casualties, with 9,177 killed and 15,993 injured, really worth not givving Putin assurances? By the end of 2022, an estimated 5.9 million people were internally displaced by the war, while nearly 5.7 million refugees and asylum-seekers from Ukraine were recorded across Europe. The damage to housing facilities from the Russian invasion of Ukraine was estimated at 50 billion U.S. dollars between February 24, 2022, and February 24, 2023. Further 36 billion U.S. dollars were recorded in losses from damages to infrastructure. Was the war in Ukraine worth Biden's refusal to give Putin "assurances?" The United States has appropriated approximately $115 billion in emergency funding to support Ukraine since February 24, 2022. Could that money have been better spent? Since Russia’s invasion in February of that year, Ukraine has become far and away the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid. It’s the first time that a European country has held the top spot since the Harry S. Truman administration directed vast sums into rebuilding the continent through the Marshall Plan after World War II. All of this does not even count the inflation caused the world by the sanctions against Russian oil and the disruption of Ukraine's grain crops. And even now the war grinds on with the possibility of Russian tactical nuclear bombs being used in Ukraine or the largest nuclear power plant in Europe being destroyed.

Biden's opening the door for the war in Ukraine was based on the principle that he couldn't give Putin assurances that Ukraine would never join NATO. War based on principles, my friends, is never worth it. He should have given Putin assurances even if he was crossing his fingers behind his back.

Off the Top of My Head

The Biden Policy in Ukraine Is Unraveling

by John Lawrence

President Biden's original policy in the Ukraine war included the notion that the war would be confined to Ukraine's physical territory and not lead to a wider war. The west would supply Ukraine with weapons, and Ukraine would have a fighting chance of pushing Russia out of their territory. The whole strategy was predicated on the goal of preventing World War III. Now that policy is failing due to the fact that the west has gradually increased the firepower and sophistication of the weapons supplied to Ukraine, and also the fact that Ukraine is starting to attack inside Russia. The war is widening and intensifying. Ukraine, meanwhile, is in no mood to try and negotiate a settlement to the war, and NATO doesn't seem to be in any mood to force them to negotiate. So the war is escalating. Zelensky never misses a chance to demand more and more sophisticated weapons from the west. Biden and other western leaders continue to support his rhetoric that Ukraine can win the war. It's all about winning or losing, not about a negotiated peace.

So what went wrong, and how could this war get so out of hand? First, it is undisputed that Russia invaded Ukraine unprovokedly. However, there were negotiations and events leading up to the invasion which might have resolved issues which would have prevented the invasion in the first place. On Dec. 17 2021, Russia presented security demands including that NATO pull back troops and weapons from eastern Europe and bar Ukraine from ever joining. Russia had been upset for years due to the fact that, after the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO had marched resolutely eastward despite assurances to the contrary. I had written earlier:

"NATO expanded during the 1990s largely due to the imprecations of President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even though President Gorbachev had been promised that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" as part of a deal to reunify Germany after the Cold War.

Politifact reported:

After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

"I put the following question to (Gorbachev)," Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. "‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’"

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker’s European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

But Baker and other officials involved in the events have denied that the conversation ever turned on expanding NATO to other countries. 

So basically Gorbachev was sold a bill of goods that, if he consented to the reunification of Germany and with Germany as a NATO member, that NATO would not expand eastwards. However, "given assurances" is not the same as "legal and binding". Therefore, in July 1997, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (where Albright was born) were formally invited to join NATO."

Ever since Russian Czar Peter the Great attempted to "westernize" Russia, there has been a dicey relationship between Russia and Europe, each eyeing the other warily. Culturally, in terms of literature, dance, music and athletics, Russia is a western nation. Even Putin expressed interest in being part of the west. George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join NATO?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join NATO, they apply to join NATO.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining NATO “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

He told Frost it was hard for him to visualise NATO as an enemy. “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world.”

However, Putin was rebuffed. He was further slighted when his demands that Ukraine not be considered for NATO membership before the war were, probably in his mind, disrespected. The whole Ukraine war could have been prevented perhaps by massaging sufficiently Putin's bruised ego - in other words intelligent diplomacy. In his mind it seems he and Russia were not properly respected nor were their interests properly taken into account. With two individuals, one of whom looks down on the other, more often than not a fight can ensue. It's the same between two nations. Mutual respect is important in any negotiation. Clearly, Putin did not feel that that was the case in negotiations before the war.

So now there is cross border fighting between Ukraine and Russia. This is clearly an escalation of the war and diminishes Biden's attempts of containing the war to Ukraine and preventing a larger conflict including perhaps World War III. The introductin of more sophisticated western weapons into Ukraine including offensive capabilities and more bellicose rhetoric on the part of Ukraine, no matter how justified, does not presage a good outcome for this complex situation. Putin and Russia could have perhaps been assuaged before the war by placing Ukraine's NATO membership on hold for a period of years, but Biden's insistence that any nation can apply and get NATO membership clearly was a non-starter for Putin. At this point the only alternative to escalation of the war and possibly a nuclear Armageddon, is a negotiated peace, something that Zelensky is disinclined to do and something that Biden is disinclined from telling him to do.

Off the Top of My Head

The War in Ukraine is More About Winning Than About Creating a Peaceful Solution

by John Lawrence

Biden talks about winning. Zelensky talks about winning. Putin talks about winning. Both sides are more interested in winning than in creating a peaceful solution that both sides can live with. That's their mindsets and orientations, unfortunately. It doesn't help for either side to demonize the other or characterize them as war criminals. So far there have been a total of approximately 8000 civilian deaths since the February 2022 Russian invasion. In contrast are the Vietnam war results: "Around 2 million civilians were killed in the territories of North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. It is suspected that over 1.2 million of these deaths were murders." The war in Iraq, the invasion of which was based on a lie, resulted in the following: "No one knows with certainty how many people have been killed and wounded in Iraq since the 2003 United States invasion. However, we know that between 275,000 and 306,000 civilians have died from direct war related violence caused by the U.S., its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces from the time of the invasion through October 2019."

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was considered the architect of the Vietnam War, said in an interview: "[General Curtis} LeMay said, if we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals." McNamara characterized himself as a war criminal, but of course was never prosecuted as such. Only the losers of wars are prosecuted as war criminals. McNamara's son, Craig McNamara was a critic of his father's role in promoting the Vietnam war.

"[Craig} McNamara enrolled at Stanford University in 1969. McNamara took part in antiwar demonstrations at Stanford. Often joining him on the podium to denounce the war were two other students at Stanford, namely Susan Haldeman and Peter Ehrlichman, who were respectively the daughter of H.R Haldeman and son of John Ehrlichman. H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman were respectively the presidential chief of staff and domestic affairs adviser under Richard Nixon, being known as Nixon's "Berlin Wall", owing to their German surnames and ability to grant or deny access to the president. [Craig] McNamara recalled: "Pretty much all the time at Stanford was occupied with anti-Vietnam and Cambodia demonstrations...I remember the rage settling in on me, and the frustration that we all felt because we couldn't stop the war""

After the war, Robert McNamara was fired as Defense Secretary and became President of the World bank which resulted in another family clash with his son. "In 1971, [Craig McNamara] moved to Chile whose President, Salvador Allende, was a Marxist in order to see Marxism in action. In 1984, McNamara stated that he moved to Chile because: "I felt an enormous sense of frustration with my family, with my country. I felt there was nothing I could do to change my father, so I left the country"."

"In 1973, [Craig] McNamara visited the United States where over the course of a dinner, he became caught up in an argument with Katharine Graham, the owner of The Washington Post newspaper and his father over Chile. The younger McNamara insisted that the Nixon administration was trying to overthrow Allende because he was a Marxist while both the elder McNamara and Graham insisted that there was no such policy on the part of the United States. Later on in 1975, the "destabilization campaign" waged by the Nixon administration came to public light. [Craig] McNamara stated: "That's why I'm still cautious about my father to this very day-that's the flip side. If they [Graham and Robert McNamara] didn't know what was going on in Chile factually, they must have known it intuitively. But they wouldn't say so".

"Shortly before he was due to return to Chile, the Allende government was overthrown in a military coup d'etat led by General Augusto Pinochet on 11 September 1973. The Pinochet government vowed to "exterminate Marxism" in Chile, earning a reputation as one of the worst human rights abusers in Latin America."

Putting all this in perspective purported war criminal Putin's civilian death total in Ukraine pales in comparison with (self-characterized) war criminal Robert McNamara's civilian death total in Vietnam or even the civilian death total in the Iraq war perpetrated by President George W Bush. Not to mention the approximately 200,000 civilian deaths as a result of atomic bombs dropped on Japan or the 25,000 civilians killed in the fire bombing of Dresden.

The war in Ukraine is a tragedy regardless of the number of civilian deaths. One civilian death is one too many. However, the longer the war goes on with both sides determined to win rather than determined to find a just peace that both sides can live with, the longer will be the destruction of civilian lives and real estate.The concept of winning in and of itself is the problem.

Off the Top of My Head

Where's the Off Ramp for the War in Ukraine?

by John Lawrence

I repeat: where's the off ramp for peace in Ukraine. Each side seems more interested in winning than in finding a resolution to the conflict that both sides can live with. Meanwhile, Ukraine is having billions of dollars in real estate destroyed not to mention having thousands of its citizens killed. Russia is having no real estate destroyed and won't unless the war is escalated. What would a negotiated settlement look like? It would have to be acceptable to both sides obviously. Otherwise, Russia could attack again at will. Unless they made Ukraine a member of NATO in which case any Russian attack on NATO would result in World War III. However, there may be another way. That would involve recognizing that Russia has a legitimate interest in a negotiated settlement. Right now the West seems more interested in demonizing Russia than in finding a negotiated settlement. They even pooh pooh the very reasonable negotiated settlement proposal which China has put forward. This does not bode well for peace in Ukraine. A war of attrition in which one side, namely Ukraine, is the side attrited while the homeland of the other side, namely, Russia, remains relatively unscathed is a disaster for the people of Ukraine. When all is said and done, these two countries will still be neighbors. The only thing that remains is whether they will be hostile neighbors in perpetuity or can a solution be found for which they could possibly be friendly ones.

Let's go back to the root of the problem: the dissolution of the Warsaw pact in 1991. As one of the victorious countries in WW II, Russia had certain rights insofar as the divided Germany was concerned. If Germany was to be reunited and become a member of NATO, then President Gorbachev was given assurances that NATO would not try to incorporate other previous Warsaw pact countries into NATO. But Gorbachev should have taken Reagan's advice: "Trust but verify." There was no formal agreement about NATO expansion - only a trusted verbal agreement. I reported in a previous post:

"NATO expanded during the 1990s largely due to the imprecations of President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even though President Gorbachev had been promised that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" as part of a deal to reunify Germany after the Cold War.

Politifact reported:

After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

"I put the following question to (Gorbachev)," Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. "‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’"

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker’s European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

But Baker and other officials involved in the events have denied that the conversation ever turned on expanding NATO to other countries. 

So basically Gorbachev was sold a bill of goods that, if he consented to the reunification of Germany and with Germany as a NATO member, that NATO would not expand eastwards. However, "given assurances" is not the same as "legal and binding". Therefore, in July 1997, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (where Albright was born) were formally invited to join NATO."

Interestingly enough, Biden did not give any credence to Putin's concerns before the invasion of Ukraine regarding future membership of Ukraine in NATO. If he had, it might have been possible to work out a security arrangement prior to the war that would have addressed both Russia's and Ukraine's concerns. Instead the Biden administration has continued to heap imprecations on Putin. As I said in the previous post, "All along the road of NATO expansion Russia's security concerns were ignored or belittled or disrespected." Now instead of a settlement acceptable to both sides before the war, essentially the same thing must happen to end the war after much destruction of Ukraine and loss of lives on both sides. If Russia and Ukraine cannot find an agreement that is acceptable to both sides, there is really no way that Russia can be persuaded not to attack again some time in the future. In order to have reconciliation and peace both sides have to be satisfied with the solution and both sides, of course, have to compromise. However, Biden, NATO and the west have to face up to their mistake in not acknowledging that Russia has legitimate security concerns in the Black Sea region just as the US has legitimate security concerns in the Americas.

Off the Top of My Head

The Pope Suggests NATO Partially to Blame for Russian Invasion

by John Lawrence

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera, Pope Francis said that “NATO barking at Russia” caused the Kremlin “to react badly and unleash the conflict” with Ukraine. The Pope has requested a meeting with Russian President Putin but so far to no avail. What is clear is that the West did not take Russia's objections to NATO expansion seriously and acted unilaterally to march NATO up to Russia's door. Besides that the US abrogated or just dismissed arms control treaties with Russia without further consultation. President George W Bush and Putin both came to power in the year 2000. Bush announced America’s intent to withdraw from the 1974 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that had been central to the U.S.-USSR strategic relationship. Abrogating the treaty did not go down well in Moscow, especially given the the huge military technological lead the Kremlin believed Washington had after the 1991 Gulf War. Then in 2019 during the Trump administration the US abruptly abrogated the INF treaty which was the centerpiece of the post Cold War negotiations between Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. There was no attempt by the US or NATO to renegotiate these treaties which was a slap in the face to Russia.

The Hill reported:

When America intervened in Afghanistan in late 2001, Putin was irritated because the Bush team rejected Russian advice based on its decade-long failure in that country. In 2003, Putin strongly counseled Bush against invading Iraq, as the Russian leader feared the region would be thrown into turmoil. And the continuing expansion of NATO was neuralgic for Russia. A series of U.S. administrations downplayed or ignored how serious this issue was for Russia.

At the Munich Security Conference, Putin unleashed an angry broadside against the U.S. as a “uni-power” and against NATO expansion. Participants were shocked by the intensity of Putin’s attacks but otherwise largely dismissed them. That was a mistake. It was clear that Putin believed he was being disrespected and marginalized by the U.S. and NATO, adding to his growing resentment about the patronizing treatment he believed Russia was receiving.

NATO expanded during the 1990s largely due to the imprecations of President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even though President Gorbachev had been promised that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" as part of a deal to reunify Germany after the Cold War.

Politifact reported:

After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

"I put the following question to (Gorbachev)," Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. "‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’"

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker’s European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

But Baker and other officials involved in the events have denied that the conversation ever turned on expanding NATO to other countries. 

So basically Gorbachev was sold a bill of goods that, if he consented to the reunification of Germany and with Germany as a NATO member, that NATO would not expand eastwards. However, "given assurances" is not the same as "legal and binding". Therefore, in July 1997, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (where Albright was born) were formally invited to join NATO.

The Conversation reported

"In hindsight, Albright’s curt dismissal of Russia’s security concerns might seem to have been ill-judged. This is especially true in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which some analysts blame in part upon the speed and perceived recklessness of NATO expansion during the 1990s."

One of Albright’s most consequential acts – both as Ambassador to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997 and as Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton – was to support NATO expansion.

NATO had been a cornerstone of the Cold War security order in Europe, binding the United States to the defense of Western Europe. Albright’s approach was to cast NATO not just as a military alliance but as a pillar of international stability and an engine of democratic progress. She saw the alliance as a conduit through which the United States could impart peace, order and good governance upon a fragile European continent.

At the time, critics cautioned that NATO enlargement would antagonize a post-Soviet Russia and could end up worsening the European security order.

Albright’s answer was uncompromising.

“We do not need Russia to agree to enlargement,” she assured senators in 1997, stressing the word “need.”

The strategic and moral case for enlargement was overwhelming, explained Albright. If the newly democratized states of Central and Eastern Europe craved the protection of the United States, she concluded, then no other nation should be allowed to stand in the way.

In short there might have been no NATO expansion or at least Russia's security concerns might have bee addressed if it were not for Madeleine Albright and later for Bush era neocons who pressed for NATO admittance for Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia much to Russia's chagrin. All along the road of NATO expansion Russia's security concerns were ignored or belittled or disrespected. Russia was dismissed as a weak and powerless nation with no skin in the game, powerless to do anything or have any say as NATO was quick to identify Russia as a potential enemy which justified the arms buildup by the US. Notably the European nations did not commit anywhere as much of their financial resources to an arms buildup, a fact lamented by President Donald Trump who suggested that the European nations were letting the US carry the load.

During the Cold War, US forces had been deployed around the world for the explicit purpose of deterring Soviet aggression. When the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991, so did the primary justification for America’s enormous troop presence abroad and globe-spanning web of military alliances. However, defense spending was given a new justification by Madeleina Albright in order to increase the US militarized global role in the post-Cold War era. She supplied a new rationale for spending on the military industrial complex and the development of ever more destructive weapons systems. NATO expansion and the abrogation of important nuclear arms treaties with Russia were a thumb in the eye of the Russian bear.

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden's Policy: Speak Loudly but Carry a Small Stick

by John Lawrence

As opposed to Theodore Roosevelt's policy: speak softly but carry a big stick. I think Biden's policy is correct. By all means we don't want World War III. As Ellen Brown makes clear on Web of Debt blog, sanctions will not do much except hasten the day when the US dollar is not the only world's reserve currency. There are so many workarounds to sanctions, and billionaires can always replace their super yachts. Russia has a fiat currency just like the US dollar. Modern Monetary Theory has shown that a country with a fiat currency can have its central bank print as much of that currency as it wishes. The only constraining factor is inflation. Right now the US is more constrained by inflation than Russia is. There is no need for Russia's domestic economy to suffer because of inflation. Businesses can continue to receive investment loans from the central bank. International trade will continue with friendly countries like India, China, Venezuela and Turkey. Turkey is a member of NATO by the way, and India is the world's largest democracy.

Daily Sabah reported on March 11, 2022 in Turkish businesses expect progress on using rubles in trade with Russia :

"Since the currency dispute with shipping companies is causing problems in the delivery of goods passing through customs, Turkey should actively work to develop a mechanism to facilitate trade with Russia in rubles, Istanbul Chamber of Commerce (ITO) head Şekib Avdagiç said Friday. Avdagiç stated that the companies working with Russia see the withdrawal of Western countries from Moscow as a new opportunity and emphasized that it is important to enable the use of the national currency of Russia. The issue was also brought up during President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s phone call with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, he reiterated. Erdoğan told Putin that, apart from the euro and dollar, trade between the two countries can be carried out using the Russian ruble and Chinese yuan."

Aljazeera reported:

Mumbai, India–Indian authorities are actively considering dedicated payment mechanisms for trade with Russia to enable existing trade obligations in the wake of sanctions imposed on the Kremlin, a move that will also pave the way for cheaper oil imports to meet the country’s energy demands. In the past month, as sanctions have been imposed on Russia, the scope of a payment mechanism in local currencies has expanded from being a means to sustain ongoing trade to possibilities of deeper engagement, including increasing bilateral trade.

Of course, US authorities are managing the news here just as they are in Russia. They don't want you to know that our erstwhile ally, India, the world's largest democracy is doing workarounds to avoid US sanctions. As Ellen's article points out, we in the US may be better off once the US dollar is not the only world's reserve currency. At that point we may have to rely more on our domestic economy and infrastructure just as Russia is being forced to do now. So we won't have to be at the mercy of supply chains from other parts of the world. More stuff will be manufactured here in the good old USA, and that's a good thing.

Off the Top of My Head

Two Contradictions in the Narrative About the War

by John Lawrence

1) That Saudi Arabia is a good friend. Then why do they refuse to pump more oil to relieve the gas crisis? 2) That it's a war between democracy and autocracy. Then why is the world's largest democracy, India, on the side of Russia? Let's take #1 first. If Saudi Arabia is our great friend, they could end the gas crisis tomorrow simply by pumping more oil. This they refuse to do. So whose side are they on? For all the criticism of Putin as a butcher, we forget that Mohammed bin Salman, affectionately known as MBS, had Jamal Khasoggi butchered. Khashoggi, 59, was a Saudi citizen living in Northern Virginia and writing columns for The Washington Post that were often critical of the Saudi monarchy. He was killed during a visit to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2, 2018. His body was dismembered, and his remains have never been found. Then Donald Trump, defying Congress, proceeded to sell billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Saudis. Reuters reported:

"The Trump administration informed congressional committees that it will go ahead with 22 military sales to the Saudis, United Arab Emirates and Jordan, infuriating lawmakers by circumventing a long-standing precedent for congressional review of major weapons sales.

"Members of Congress had been blocking sales of offensive military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for months, angry about the huge civilian toll from their air campaign in Yemen, as well as human rights abuses such as the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at a Saudi consulate in Turkey."

I repeat whose side are they on, and what values do they and our vaunted "western values" have in common? But enough on the Saudis.

Let's take #2. India, I repeat, the world's largest democracy, is on the side of Russia. At least they have not sided with the US, NATO and the west even though they supposedly share our democratic values which are totally at odds with "autocratic values." The narrative that the war in Ukraine represents a war between democratic values and autocratic values is totally bogus. India has long been a purchaser of Russian military equipment and was an ally with Russian support in its war with Pakistan. India’s friendship with the then-Soviet Union became official in 1971, after the two countries signed a Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation. That year, the Soviets backed India in a war with Pakistan that ultimately led to the independence of Bangladesh. The US backed Pakistan. Now India is taking up the slack by buying more Russian oil, oil that isn't being sold to the western world which needs it badly to get gas prices back to normal. China is buying more Russian Ural crude oil as well.

As the world rallies to condemn Russia, India remains silent on the sideline. In addition to India some other countries siding with Russia or at least remaining neutral are China, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Algeria, South Africa, Angola, Morocco. Nearly half of all the countries that abstained from condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine at the U.N. General Assembly are in Africa, and many are reluctant to join sanctions against Russia. In fact, only 28 out of the 54 African countries (just over 51 percent) represented in the U.N. voted in favor of the resolution. So not all countries are willing to turn Putin into a pariah and Russia into a pariah state. Even South Africa, which has a parliamentary democracy and is a strategic partner of the United States, was not willing to condemn Putin.

However, the war ends, it is important for world peace and the fight against climate change, let alone globalized markets, that some sort of constructive alliance among all countries be enacted taking the security interests of all countries into account. The problem with NATO is that it didn't do that. In fact the expansion of NATO eastward rubbed Russia's nose in the fact that it had lost the Cold War. Some American leaders gloated over that fact. Instead Russia should have been accepted into the community of nations. If Finland right on Russia's border can remain nonaligned and neutral without threat of invasion, perhaps that would have been the best course for other nations on Russia's border as well.