After Ukraine: Will Russia Downsize NATO?
Russia has made it clear that their goals in Ukraine are non-negotiable. Russia is in this conflict to win, because they see the US led war on Russia, ongoing since the Clinton years, as an existential threat. At this point it’s a given that Russia will achieve its goals in Ukraine, but what comes after that?
As it happens, Russia has been forthright at pretty much step of the process that has led to war—certainly since the Dubya years when, in response to Putin’s aid with regard to Afghanistan, morons like Dubya and McCain spit in his face, calling for NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine and stepping up an aggressive naval presence in the Black Sea. Any illusions Putin may have had about co-existence with NATO were smashed, as he made clear in his famous speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Putin had no choice but to prepare for eventual war, although he and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, worked the diplomatic circuits overtime in the ensuing years—to no avail, as Russia was methodically excluded from community with the West and treated as an outcast. Thus, events in the succeeding years did nothing but strengthen Putin’s resolve, especially when the US overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and installed a puppet regime.
That ultimately led to Putin’s draft treaties which he presented to the world in January of this year. Those draft treaties outlined Russia’s long term goals: A pullback of NATO to its 1997 borders, in accordance with the security guarantees that had been given to Gorbachev. Here’s a map that graphically illustrates what that means—most importantly, NATO out of the Baltics, Poland, former Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria:
Putin is notoriously cautious, so the logical question is: How realistic is this goal?
Moon of Alabama has a very interesting post today that goes into that question:
It should come as no surprise that Moon bases his opinion on the fact—which becomes more undeniable every day—that the US and the EU have conclusively lost the economic war and are in no position to escalate a military conflict. That’s the twenty five words or less version, but there’s more to be said, so I’ll excerpt a portion of Moon’s lengthy piece. There are portions that I disagree with, but my purpose isn’t to address those disagreements here. Therefore I’ve selected portions that I largely agree with:
Dozens of U.S. and European luminaries had promised to Russia that NATO would expand 'not one inch' towards Russia. Look where its borders are now. The U.S. and the EU have confiscated huge amounts of Russian state owned money. They have even taken, in contradiction to their own constitutions, the properties of private Russian citizens just because those persons happen to be Russian.
...
The U.S. has installed 'missile defense' systems in Poland and Romania which are in fact designed to lob Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM) onto Moscow. These are a serious danger to Russia.
There is an additional significance here, that cannot be lost on Russia. Poland is far and away the most important of the former Warsaw Pact countries—both in population and economic terms, as well as in geostrategic location. It is followed in those aspects by Romania. Both of those countries (disregarding the Baltics) are also the nations with by far the most complicated, troubled, and warlike relations with Russia. That is the historic context behind the positioning of missiles in those two countries. For example, leaving Poland out of consideration, two Romanian armies fought side by side with the Germans in the Odessa, Sevastopol, Stalingrad and Caucasus campaigns.
Even after Ukraine is finished, NATO and its EU proxies will continue to be a danger to Russia. Both have proven to be unable to keep promises. ...
... But there will be no march towards Riga, Warsaw, Berlin or Paris. …
Russia has announced its strategic aims. In December 2021 Russia set forth two agreements which the U.S. and NATO. They included demands for a future arrangement in Europe that would guarantee indivisible security for all. On January 21 2022 the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was to meet Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in Geneva to talk about Russia's proposals. Just minutes before that meeting the Foreign Ministry of Russia held a news conference to answer media questions:
Question: What will Russia’s demand that NATO return to the 1997 framework mean for Bulgaria and Romania? Will they have to leave NATO, remove US bases from their territory, or something else?
Answer: You mentioned one of the cornerstones of Russia’s initiatives. It was deliberately set forth with utmost clarity to avoid any ambiguity. We are talking about the withdrawal of foreign forces, equipment, and weapons, as well as taking other steps to return to the set-up we had in 1997 in non-NATO countries. This includes Bulgaria and Romania.
Boom. A cornerstone of Russia’s initiatives.
Reuters reported:
…
Moscow has demanded legally binding guarantees from NATO that the bloc will stop its expansion and return to its 1997 borders.
…
After more than 20 years of watching Lavrov and Putin everyone should know that they do not publicly set out aims if they have no way to achieve them. They always have well thought out plans before announcing their goals.
So how can Russia actually achieve a retreat of NATO back to its 1997 borders?
Sanctions. The U.S. has used its economic and military powers to sanction this or that country that did not do as it was told to do by Washington. Unless enacted by the UN Security Council such sanctions have no basis in international law. Despite that the U.S. even used secondary sanctions. It threatened sanctions against Europe, and everyone else, as it ordered them to not deal with Iran or Venezuela.
Note that well: “no basis in international law.” The basis is in the Rules-Based Order, i.e., the US’s say-so.
At this point Moon inserts a tweet that came to my attention this morning, and which brings home in startling terms the reality that the entire EU is composed of vassal states of the US and its Rules-Based Order—they are what we used to term “satellites” when referring to the USSR’s client states in Eastern and Central Europe, complete with a large US military presence:
Alan MacLeod @AlanRMacLeod - 22:45 UTC · Jun 5, 2022
The US is thinking about "allowing" Europe and Venezuela to trade together. Think about what this story tells us about global power relations and who is in charge.
Bloomberg @business - 12:13 UTC · Jun 5, 2022
The US could allow Eni and Repsol to ship Venezuelan oil to Europe as soon as July to make up for Russian crude, Reuters reported trib.al/fQ10QlX
Russia can do similar. But as it always follows international law, it will have to do it in a slightly different way.
Russia is a superpower in that it produces all kinds of raw materials the world, and especially the 'west', needs. Europe, and especially Germany, is depending on natural gas and oil from Russia. Energy prices in Germany will at least triple if it is completely cut off from Russian supplies.
German industry leader have loudly announced that they will have to close shop if the current European policies of restricting Russian energy supplies continues. The chemical giants BASF and Bayer will have to move to some other country. Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW will have to stop all production in Europe. Steel production would fall to zero. Lack of fertilizer would lead to dependency on foreign agriculture.
Mass unemployment would follow. Millions will be in the street to protest against rolling blackouts, freezing apartments and hyperinflation.
Russia can achieve this at any time. It simply has to stop supplying gas and oil to Europe.
Despite six European 'sanction packages' against Russia there has yet to be a reciprocal response from Russia. It may still hope that European leaders will recognized the deadly game the U.S. is playing with them.
This last bit is one area in which I disagree with Moon—the idea that Russia can simply flip a switch and make this happen. I do think Russia will move forward with this strategy, methodically. Russia needs friends for the future—it can’t count on either China or the US. Far better would be a cooperative relationship with Europe. This is why, just as Russia’s military operation in Ukraine has been scrupulous in attempting to avoid unnecessary death and destruction, so too it’s responses to the EU sanctions have been step by step and usually provide alternatives to countries that Russia knows are under enormous pressure from the US. Just as Russia knows that its war is not really with Ukraine, it also knows the sanctions are not really coming from the EU—they are driven by the globalist agenda but could not be happening without the US. Russia does not see military might as the solution simply because a closer and more cordial relationship with Europe is in its interest.
Another factor to consider is that, contrary to the cartoonish depiction of Putin as a dictator, politics in Russia are far more complicated than most in the West—certainly in the US—are willing to consider. Putin and Lavrov have been consistent in their efforts to establish closer relations with Europe on the basis of international law and mutually binding treaties—leaving behind the arbitrariness of the Rules-Based Order. As part of their diplomacy they have been remarkably conciliatory toward nations that have had troubled histories with Russia. What complicates their diplomacy, however, is the continued life of “Russian chauvinism” which traffics in bluster and threats. This isn’t helpful to Putin’s agenda and will need to be overcome. Indeed, Putin, has spoken about this type of nationalism as a hindrance:
Russian president Vladimir Putin, speaking on 18 June 2004 at the international conference "Eurasian Integration: Trends of Modern Development and Challenges of Globalization", said about the problems hindering integration: "I would say that these problems can be formulated very simply. This is great-power chauvinism, this is nationalism, this is the personal ambitions of those on whom political decisions depend, and, finally, this is just stupidity, ordinary cavemen's stupidity".
I have mentioned several times in the past the patience with which Putin has responded to severe and unwise provocations from the current Polish regime. Today on Twitter I came across a tweet by two “Russians With Attitude” that provides an insight into the type of “Russian Chauvinism” that continues to antagonize Poles and other neighbors of Russia—utterly unapologetic in its defiant Russian nationalism:
To explain.
Pushkin is considered the greatest Russian poet and even the founder of modern Russian literature. He was famously friends with his opposite number in Poland, Adam Mickiewicz. However the date of the poem To the Slanderers of Russia—1831—is highly significant. The poem is a defense of Russia’s suppression of the November Uprising in Poland against Russian rule—the Wikipedia account of which may prove interesting. I’ll quote the first verse of the poem, which enunciates two common themes of Russian nationalism: denunciation of “Polish pride”, especially of the Polish nobility, and of Polish refusal to accept being absorbed into the Russian nation as the main stream of Slavic culture. In that regard, the reference in the poem to “Liakh” refers to Western Slavs, but here to Poles (Lechites, Lechitic Languages). Pushkin exhorts Western critics, “slanderers”, of Russia’s war in Poland to basically butt out of a dispute among “Slavonic kin” and suggests that the “haughty” Poles (“Liakh”) shall yet “meet in a Russian ocean.”
TO THE SLANDERERS OF RUSSIA
Why rave ye, babblers, so — ye lords of popular wonder?
Why such anathemas ‘gainst Russia do you thunder?
What moves your idle rage? Is’t Poland’s fallen pride?
‘T is but Slavonic kin among themselves contending,
An ancient household strife, oft judged but still unending,
A question which, be sure, you never can decide.
For ages past still have contended,
These races, though so near allied:
And oft ‘neath Victory’s storm has bended
Now their, and now our side.
Which shall stand fast in such commotion
The haughty Liakh, or faithful Russ?
And shall Slavonic streams meet in a Russian ocean? –
Or il’t dry up? This is point for us.
The poem goes on to decry historic wrongs against Russia, prominently the relatively recent Napoleonic invasion (in which Polish contingents, 98,000 strong, played a prominent role) and those who “understand us not, but hate.” It ends by assuring Russia’s Western “slanderers” that Russia will stand and triumph against all.
At any rate, these are momentous issues facing the world. Will Putin’s vision of a multi-polar world subject to international law prevail? Will it result in a stable relationship with Europe, and perhaps beyond?
Good read Mark. Isn’t the US number one in funding the UN? Surprised Zhou hasn’t used this as leverage.
Also read today Rep. Rogers is looking to have US leave the UN and WHO.
As far as Russia, I for one feel they have a legitimate beef. Those predecessors incl. Clinton never kept their word.
I read Moon's post and the following sentence stuck in my mind:
Only with new and decent leaders will Europe come to its senses.
It seems that Great Britain has missed for the time being her opportunity to replace their goofy PM, the old and indecent Boris Johnson. He survived the no confidence vote today. God save 'em.
Rules vs. laws,
in my way of thinking the US government treats other nations the same way we the people are treated. Get crosswise with some administrative agency, violate an obscure rule and you are completely screwed. I have known several folks ruined by the deceptively named Texas Railroad Commission, which supposedly regulates the oil and gas industry, if you're a huge corporation, no problems ever. Small time operators who have a few old wells get shut down, bankrupted, then, the RRC plugs their leases with state funds, no more royalties, no more production tax, who cares! We, (the powerful RRC) prevailed, everyone else loses but hardly anyone knows so our offices are secure.
Hubris leads to humiliation. Hegemonic powers eventually become hollow shells.