Putin’s Misreading of History
With regard to American support for Ukraine, Brendan Cole of NewsWeek (22Dec22) notes that Lauren Boebert (CO), Matt Gaetz (FL), and Jim Jordan (OH) are among the Republicans who are disinclined to Congress pledging further funds to Ukraine in response to Zelensky’s recent speech to Congress. "In a video after the speech, Boebert said that she would not back sending more money to Ukraine until there is a full audit of already approved funds, which so far total around $48 billion in military, financial and humanitarian aid".
The American Civil War, Boer War, First World War, Vietnam war1 (undeclared) and Putin’s War have one thing in common. In each case they were anticipated to be short wars. The ultimate issue in the case of Putin’s war is not the Ukraine itself but Putin’s insistence that NATO not be expanded. The matter is not one of probity, much less morality, but of a country, in the case of Russia, presenting something which could well be interpreted as an ultimatum to the West. The USA had no UN approval to invade Iraq and neither did any of the de facto accomplices of the USA.
In an article "How Corrupt is Ukrainian President Volddymyr Zelensky"2 quotes Forbes magazine that places Zelensky’s net worth at between $20 and $30 million; a total he could not have earned simply as a TVperformer and comedian. Zelensky allegedly owns lavish properties in central London, Italy and Miami Beach—to which he could retire if he is forced to flee Ukraine. Descriptions of violations of human rights against Russian minorities and corruption in Ukraine are not difficult to search. The “victory over corruption”3 is a long way off. The resignations that have been reported ought to have been enforced five years ago when Zelensky’s promises to remove corruption in the Ukraine were given. The nature of the events would take us too far afield. Nevertheless, Putin has underestimated Ukrainian resolve and Western support for Ukraine. The dependence upon Russian petroleum, although important, is not a principal determining factor with respect of Western compliance of Russian demands. Similarly, the sanctions against Russia have had only limited effect; generally to make Russia more self-sufficient. Business with India (a QUAD member) has never been bigger or better.
Germany has undertaken to send 14 Leopard 2 A6 tanks4 when (and only when) the USA sends 31 Abrams tanks. These are sophisticated units and the operational training will require months5 yet it will be months before the pledges are met. It is not clear as to the pledge by the USA contradicts Biden's undertaking not to escalate the war and a good deal of military and diplomatic activity could occur within the forthcoming months.
The American and Western hypocrisy over Ukraine is impressive. The USA supported the Orange Revolution of 2004, the Kurds but not the Palestinians given near-identical circumstances. The so called Arab Spring revolutions (actually Arab Winter because they occurred during February) incurred a "wait and see" policy in contrast to a banner-rattling expression of freedom. The Monroe Doctrine notwithstanding, the USA has a history (dating to the Philippines) of interfering in the affairs of sovereign countries (whom it doesn't trust). Annexation is "bad" if conducted by Russia but ok if conducted by Israel.
No side can claim the moral ground. From the perspective of the USA its own perceived decline in space technology and international standing motivates the USA to become antagonistic towards powers who are deemed to undermine its hegemony. Ultimately it is this aspect that defines the conflict in the Ukraine.
The solution to the ‘Ukrainian problem’ is a simple declaration that there will be no expansion of NATO. As to annexation Russia may clam Russian-speaking locations or permit a UN-sponsored referendum on the matter but it seems, overall, that Putin is holding more picture cards than is Ukraine or the West. The longer the West supports Ukraine the more damage that the Ukraine will incur. Offering long-range missiles to the Ukraine may well justify (in terms of perceptions) a strike on London by Russia. There is no ‘reverse’ in respect to such scenarios should they be implemented.
Putin
is not going to resign the game. For him the objective is all or
nothing in terms of the (non) expansion of NATO. Despite Western
propaganda the support of Putin exceeds that of democratic leaders
which, in the latter case, is seldom above 45%. In Putin’s case his
approval is seldom below 60% 6.
The interested reader is referred to previous articles concerning the war in the Ukraine in the "VIP Resources" section.
-----------------
1 In 1962 Kennedy claimed a two year operation at most
2 MR On Line: https://mronline.org/2022/07/2... 22Jul22
3 https://time.com/6249941/ukraine-corruption-resignation-zelensky-russia/
4 https://edition.cnn.com/2023/0... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-tanks-will-ukraine-get-and-why-does-it-want-them/2023/01/25/49a59006-9cd5-11ed-93e0-38551e88239c_story.html
6 https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-rating-russia
Chart constructed from
the data. Undecided are units of a percent.
.svg){kind=logo}
By SiriusMatters