Scott Ritter has an excellent article at Energy Intelligence today. Like other authors I’ve been quoting or linking, he goes into the history of our mismanagement of relations with Russia since, well, since the USSR dissolved and the Russian Federation came into existence. However, he also draws attention to Putin’s warnings about what the future could bring. Knuckleheads in the DC Establishment toss around “sanctions” as if there’s no possibility of “counter sanctions.” Putin has warned that this time is different. He will not take sanctions lying down. As David Goldman has pointed out, Russia doesn’t necessarily have to sell energy to the West. There’s always China. But that’s not all.
I’ll quote Ritter here at some length, then follow up with a pair of militarily focused videos:
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine in Perspective
After decades of ignoring Russia’s national security concerns, the West is confronted with a military invasion of Ukraine which serves as a precursor for a new Cold War that will define Russia’s relationship with the West for years to come.
Let there be no mistake, on Feb. 24, the world awoke to a new reality. Prior to this date, Russia was treated by the West as an annoyance, belittled by economic and even military elites as little more than a “giant gas station masquerading as a nation,” to quote John McCain, the now-deceased senator from Arizona.
Russian President Vladimir Putin had been subjected to a series of sophomoric psychological profiles that trivialized Russian national concerns ...
This blinded the West to the reality of what was transpiring. ...
How We Got Here
Ever since NATO had opened the door to membership for Ukraine and Georgia during the 2008 Bucharest summit, Russia has been making its vehement opposition known.
William Burns, the former US Ambassador to Russia and now director of the CIA, captured the Russian sentiment in a February 2009 memorandum: “Nyet means nyet: Russia’s NATO enlargement red lines.” Russia, Burns noted, viewed “farther eastward expansion as a potential military threat,” …
Now, in what follows, take note first of the pointed but eminently reasonable nature of Putin’s public observations. Note, also, that as far back as 2007 Putin was taking exception to the woke culture war that, even under GOP administrations, the US was waging around the world. We called it exporting democracy, but that’s not the way others may see it.
Burns, however, was ignored. So, too, was Putin, who had been lecturing the West ever since his landmark speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference, where he famously called out the US for having “overstepped its national borders in every way.” Putin declared, “This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?” He was greeted by silence.
“I am convinced,” Putin told the assembled leadership of the Western world, “that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue.”
The US attitude was that America would strike the balance of global security interests, and that no other country’s views were of interest or importance. Maybe that works if you can get away with it, but it’s now clear that even America can’t get away with that attitude indefinitely and in all circumstances. And that attitude has built up a reservoir of ill feelings toward America.
At Munich, the Russian president warned that Western polices “stimulate an arms race.” He repeatedly warned the US and Nato that President George W. Bush’s precipitous decision to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and then to deploy anti-missile defense systems in two Nato countries, Poland and Romania, posed a direct threat to Russian national security.
This wasn’t simple Russian paranoia, because those “defensive” systems can be rapidly converted into offensive threats. Putin took action. Russia currently has strategic nuclear capable weaponry that the US doesn’t have and probably can’t defeat. Yes, there is a very real reason why, despite Trump’s ill advised bravado in recent days, the US cannot force Russia to back down in Ukraine and almost certainly would have been unable to do so even with Trump still at the helm.
In 2018, Putin unveiled new types of Russian strategic nuclear weapons designed to defeat US missile defenses. “No one has listened to us,” Putin declared at the time. “You listen to us now.”
Putin’s 2018 nuclear announcement should have alerted the West to a critical aspect of the Russian president’s personality. “You will have to assess that new reality and become convinced that what I said today isn’t a bluff … trust me,” Putin said at the time.
Nyet means nyet. It was a simple message laid out in uncomplicated terms. Russia was not bluffing. ...
Which brings us to … today.
As Burns had predicted, Ukraine’s push for NATO membership pushed Russia into a corner, prompting a demand by Russia, submitted to the US and NATO in December 2021, calling for written security guarantees that Ukraine would never join NATO. This Russian demand was ignored. Russia warned that failure to provide the demanded security guarantees would result in “military-technical” responses — a euphemism for war, which Russia implemented in full on Feb. 24.
Where We Are Going
...
… the US and Europe are imposing a second tranche of hard-hitting sanctions designed to punish Russia.
...
... These sanctions exhaust the options the US, NATO and the EU have for responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They have no follow-on plan. Russia, on the other hand, has such a plan. It has been very clear about what the future holds. Again, however, the West has not been listening.
Russia will not take this second tranche of sanctions laying down. Putin has made clear that Russia will respond in kind, using symmetrical (i.e., countersanctions) and asymmetrical (i.e., cyberattacks) actions designed to disrupt the economies of targeted nations and entities. Russia has made no secret that this is its intended course of action, but as with its “military-technical” solution for Ukraine, the West shrugged off the Russian threat. Russia, however, does not bluff.
Russia has also made clear that its security guarantees go beyond preventing Ukraine from joining NATO and include the return of NATO’s military infrastructure to pre-1997 levels. In short, all NATO forces deployed into Eastern Europe must be returned to their home bases, and the two missile defense sites in Poland and Romania dismantled.
And make no mistake about it. When Russia says all NATO forces what it means is, all US forces that have deployed to Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe.
This is the demand that will drive future Russian relations with the West. Rather than acceding to Russia’s demands, NATO has been doubling down on the reinforcement of its eastern flank, dispatching additional forces to Poland, Romania and the Baltics.
...
The resulting standoff will closely resemble the Cold War, ...
So the big question becomes: Why? What do we gain from a new Cold War, in which Russia aligns with China? As David Goldman suggested this morning, that looks like giving Pyrrhic victory a bad name—the ultimate own goal, or shot to the foot.
So we finish with two videos, both of which feature Lt. Col. Daniel Davis talking eminent good sense. The first is an all too short clip with Tucker Carlson:
The second, somewhat longer, video features Davis with Maria Bartiromo. Maria three times makes the incredibly stupid claim—stated as a “fact”—that Putin wants to “grab territory.” Davis is very polite but finally has had enough. Toward the end he makes a point of correcting Maria and tries to educate her as to why that “land grab” idea is so foolish. However … I’ll be making a suggestion below that may appear similar to what Maria is saying. My suggestion will be based not on “territory” taken as land, but on cultural considerations that also play into Russia’s security concerns.
Now, Stephen McIntyre presents a situation map. He rightly draws attention to the fact that most of the real action in terms of geography in taking place in the South, in the region known as Novorossiya—New Russia. The advance on Kiev, while very important is a relative pin prick in terms of geographical extent:
What I can see happening is Russia basically incorporating Russian speaking areas in the South and East. Once again, consult these two maps—you should be able to discern an emerging pattern that correlates with Russian military activity:
The result could be a landlocked, neutral—and neutered—Ukraine shrunk back to historical dimensions that correspond to the core Ukrainian nation. We shall see.
Disappointing editorial by Walter Russell Mead. His lack of expertise on the Ukraine surprises me. I used to read him all the time. But I first soured on him when he had an editorial on Taiwan that was also disappointing. His Jacksonian, Hamilton, Wilson, Jefferson model is a great guide for us politics.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-reset-world-order-putin-ukraine-invasion-kyiv-military-spending-cyber-europe-biden-sanctions-arms-response-11645729800
Davis hits it. Also, I agree with your suggestion about the geography, Mark. Thanks for all of the info in support of that conclusion.
It seems obvious that the east and west of the Ukraine are culturally and politically different from one another. Which tells me that peace is dependent on them being separated from one another politically. The question remains as to the form of that. If the east is annexed by Russia, what will be the status of the west? It appears the Russians will not be happy until all anti-Russian foreign influences are expunged from it. That means it becomes a Russian client and buffer state controlled politically by Russia. I see no other possibility and now believe the Russians will force that.
And if the Poles and the U.S. keep sending NATO forces into the rump Ukraine? Bad, bad news for all of us. All that said I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people who have hoped in vain to forge common economic and cultural ties with the west and now suffer. They have been mislead for many years. And it wasn't by Putin.
Thanks for your analysis, Mark.