The Foolishness And Wickedness Of The Neocons

Today at Anti-War.com there were three items that, taken together, present a nice critique of the flawed geo-political thinking that has allowed the Neocons to perpetrate war after war around the world and has led America to the brink of nuclear war. All this has been accompanied by almost incalculable human suffering, which is clearly not something that has any influence over Neocon strategery. That’s the wickedness angle.

Let’s start with the redoubtable realist, John Mearshimer. If you follow the link, you’ll be led to a 50 minute podcast interview of Mearshimer by Freddie Gray of the Spectator. The first 30 minutes or so are mostly involved with why Russia went to war, what its goals and strategy have been and related topics of that sort. After that familiar territory Mearshimer gets into a succinct presentation of why America really has no business being involved in this Ukraine venture. His presentation isn’t comprehensive, but it is interesting.

He starts with a section on Poland. Mearshimer sees Poland as being the tail wagging the American dog. Two cautions. Mearshimer is addressing a question that raises the matter of Polish war mongering specifically, so Mearshimer isn’t really suggesting that Poland played the only or even the most important role in getting America into this geopolitical box. On the other hand, Poland has developed a key role by virtue of its geographical position. The other caution is that I’m quite sure Mearshimer understands that concern for Poland has just about zero to do with American involvement. It’s simply that, in this historical situation, Polish obsessions and fears dovetail with Neocon anti-Russian obsessions—to the detriment of US interests.

I should also point out something curious in Mearshimer’s presentation of his geopolitical views. You will notice that there is next to no mention made of economic considerations, even where you would expect such matters to take center stage. I’m sure Mearshimer has views in that regard, but he doesn’t discuss them here.

Here is my transcription of the relevant parts.

John Mearsheimer: What Is America Doing in Ukraine?

31:36

JM: I think there's no question that Poland has a deep seated interest in worrying about Russian aggression in the future. There's just no question about that. All you have to do is look at Polish history. I mean, Poland disappeared from the map between 1795 and 1918. And then we all know what happened between 1918 and 1989 to Poland, so it has had a tragic history. As have the Baltic states. I fully understand why they're worried about Russia.

It’s worth pointing out for the historical record that the Baltic states—including Finland—have, with the partial exception of Lithuania rarely if ever been independent states. They have always been dominated by powerful neighboring countries: Sweden, Poland, and Russia. Obviously, only Russia remains as a Great Power, while the Swedes and Poles stew in their resentments and historical grievances as the losers in the Great Power competition with Russia. Well, that’s the Russian view. The history is more complicated than that, but that will serve as a caution and a reminder.

The question you have to ask yourself is, Are they better off--given the situation now--that if the Russians had not been provoked and put in the situation where they felt they had to go into Ukraine to defend themselves? I think from a Polish point of view it would have been much better for Ukraine NOT to be in NATO--and for the Poles to just accept that. But I think what's going on here is the Poles--I believe--have a strategy that calls for getting the Americans deeply involved in Ukraine and getting the Americans to defeat the Russians and knock the Russians out of the ranks of the Great Powers and to have the Americans stay in Eastern Europe. And, in particular, in Poland.

And you have to ask yourself, How insane is it for the Poles to be putting all their eggs in that basket? Betting their future on Uncle Sam being their guarantor (as long as Poland does Uncle’s bidding) in perpetuity, always faithful to and mindful of Poland’s culture and interest? Seems crazy to me! On the other hand, it’s a rational strategy—in the sense that it can be presented in rational terms, no matter how misguided and wildly improbable it is.

But the Poles aren’t the only players here, even if they have elbowed their way to the forefront of the howling mob of minor vassal states demanding the humiliation and dismemberment of Russia. None of these countries seem to remember what has happened in the past when similar programs were pushed. Be careful what you hope for.

Now, in what follows, you see that Mearshimer is very much in favor of pivoting to Asia. He sees Ukraine as a dangerous distraction, and in some sense I believe he’s correct.

I think the Poles--and many Europeans--were worried that, with the rise of China and the whole concept of a pivot to Asia, the United States would not only pivot to Asia, it would pivot out of Europe. And the Ukraine war is certainly preventing us from pivoting to Asia. And we are getting deeper and deeper into the mud in Ukraine. And I believe, from a Polish point of view, this is a good thing, because the Americans are then committed to Eastern Europe and committed to defending Poland. And the reason that the Poles are SO hawkish on Ukraine and want to defeat the Russians in Ukraine so badly is, they want to knock the Russians out of the ranks of the Great Powers and greatly reduce any possible threat that Russia might present to Poland. I think that is their basic strategy.

34:07

FG: From the American point of view, there ARE geostrategic advantages to this war. The end of the Nordstream pipelines, the severing of the relationship between Germany and Russia, that would bring Europe more closely under America's sphere of influence.

34:24

JM: I disagree with that completely. I think we have one country on the planet that's a serious threat to us, and that's China. It's a peer competitor, and the United States should be focusing laser-like on dealing with China. Now, we live in a multi-polar world. There are three Great Powers on the planet: The United States, Russia, and China. If you're in a world where there are three Great Powers, and you're the United States and China is your principal rival, the question is: How do you think about the Russians? What you want is, you want the Russians to be on your side of the ledger. You want the Russians as allies. The Russians are no threat to conquer Europe. The Russians are a weak Great Power. Of those three Great Powers the Russians are the weakest. You want the Russians on your side, and you certainly don't want to be pinned down in a war in Eastern Europe which is preventing you from pivoting fully to East Asia. We have created a situation that works to China's advantage. China, in my opinion, has a deep seated interest in keeping this war going for as long as possible, because it pins the Americans down. The Americans, as you know, have limited bandwidth--any Great Power has limited bandwidth--so we don't have much time to spend thinking about what to do in East Asia with regard to the China threat because we spend most of our time thinking about what to do in Eastern Europe or in Ukraine. This is manna from heaven for the Chinese! So this is a remarkably foolish policy from a geostrategic point of view for the United States.

I can certainly agree that our policy with regard to Russia is “remarkably foolish.” On the other hand, I would caution that the Neocon obsession with humiliating Russia does not proceed from strictly rational geostrategic considerations. I know all about Mackinder and Brzezinski and the Eurasian landmass, but Mearshimer is obviously correct that shrinking that landmass, if possible, is the way to go. Separating Russia from China, rather than driving Russia into China’s arms in the interests of sheer self defense. And he’s right, too, that China has an interest in prolonging the war—as long as there’s no risk of American winning.

However, I tend to disagree with Mearshimer’s view of China as a “peer competitor”. China is simply not a wealthy country, and it faces a massive demographic problem because it’s getting old before getting rich. The Chinese threat has been largely a threat of America’s own making. It was the result of the rapacious greed of our financial interests who bought off our politicians who encourage our manufacturing sector to relocate. Some got rich in America. Most were put on a treadmill. But that’s a situation that can be remedied without global war.

36:08

FG: Well, I was gonna ask about China next, because certainly the Russians' understanding of it is that we have moved into this multi-polar universe, as you suggest, and they are on the side--not of the Western majority--but of what they care about most for the future, which is the world majority, which is China, possibly Brazil India--countries that are officially neutral but are probably sort of on their side--Turkey, perhaps. Is Russia right to think that it can come out well in terms of the world majority ...

Mearshimer’s response to this wrongheaded question gets to the heart of the geopolitical matter, the core irrationality of Neocon obsessions over Russia. The Neocons are forcing to adopt a defensive strategy by embracing China, whereas there has always been a win-win alternative for Russia and America. But that would involve the Neocons abandoning or, at a minimum, tempering their delusions of dominating the world. And this is where Mearshimer largely sidesteps economic considerations. And yet, if Russia is as weak as he claims, how is it that shock and awe sanctions have gained no traction against Russia? He defers to “lots of smart people.”

36:42

JM: Well, I think [Russia] will do quite well, despite ostracism from the West or despite Western sanctions--it'll do quite well. I think, from a Russian point of view, they would much rather have good relations with Western Europe, they'd love to have good relations with Germany and for Nordstream to be working, and to have good relations with the Americans. The present situation is NOT in Russia's interests. The question that's on the table is, How badly can the West hurt Russia? In other words, can Russia beat the sanctions by forming a closer relationship with countries like China, and India, and South Africa, and Brazil, and Argentina, and so forth and so on? And the truth is, up to this point, the Russians have done quite well. I think most people in the West are shocked at how well the Russians have withstood the sanctions. The pro-sanction people are reduced to making the argument, Well, just give this time and eventually it will work and the Russians will be brought to their knees. Maybe that will happen--who knows--but there are lots of smart people who say that's NOT gonna happen. That Russia's not the sort of country that you can hurt like that. That seems to be true, from my point of view, but it may be wishful thinking on my part.

38:22

Next up, David Stockman:

Biden Goes All in on Proxy War Against Russia

Stockman decries the Neocon descent into “stupidity and wickedness that knows no bounds.” Russia, he argues, is no threat to fortress America, surrounded by wide ocean moats and defended by a massive tripartite nuclear arsenal.

In the first place, there is not a scintilla of benefit to America’s homeland safety and security being served by this infinitely foolish proxy war against Russia. ...

But Russia isn’t a military threat to Europe either, and the proof of that is in how litte European countries—including the most stridently anti-Russian, like Poland and the UK—spend on defense. Instead, Stockman argues, most of the European war mongering serves domestic political purposes. Those purposes appear to revolve around keeping their own populations in subjugation as their socialist policies drive them into penury.

As usual with Stockman, it’s fairly lengthy. However it’s a fun read.

Lastly, there’s an article by a Code Pink activist, Melissa Garriga, that serves as counterpoint to Mearshimer’s views on China. She uses the balloon hysteria as a metaphor to launch her argument—that powerful interests in the US are beating the war drums to whip up a fever of hatred and fear to justify war with China. She compares the current campaign to the leadup to the war on Iraq.

While We’re Laughing About a Balloon; Biden Paves a Path to War

There is reason to be alarmed by the recent China balloon. However, that reason is not the alleged China aggression but the very calculated aggression towards China by the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. This hate and the manufactured reasons for it have been layering on for years. We’ve seen this playbook. It’s the same game plan that led us to the war on Iraq.

The U.S. is trying to contain and control China’s growth as a world power by using its military and economic powers. Just as it wanted to control the oil in the middle east.

...

In other words, the US wants to dominate the whole world even if that means burning it down to its core.

So how do you go to war with a country that is not an eminent [sic] threat to our nation’s safety and security? Enter the Chinese "spy" balloon. ...

...

It is clear that US aggression towards China is calculated and deliberate. The United States has been trying to contain China since the end of World War II, but its efforts have intensified over the past few years as China has become more powerful on the global stage. Our government’s reckless rhetoric towards Beijing shows that Washington will not hesitate to use military force against China if they can manufacture enough consent to make it seem necessary – even though such an action would cause catastrophic consequences for both nations’ economies as well as international stability in the Asia Pacific region. We’ve heard this same drum beat before. We cannot allow murder of millions of people to happen again under the name of American imperialism.

We cannot go to war over greed. We must push for cooperation over competition. It is up to us to stop this escalation now, for the safety and security of all people and the planet.

I shared my own skepticism regarding Mearshimer’s characterization of China as a “peer competitor.” My own view on policy would include elements of both Mearshimer’s ideas as well as those of Douglas Macgregor. Recognize the convergence of our own interests with those of Russia (Mearshimer). Recognize, in fairness, that China has legitimate security interests in its own space, and that it’s foolish to attempt to project our power across the Pacific, especially given the dramatic changes in warfare that we’re witnessing—but only a partial glimpse—with Russia. Seek a modus vivendi.

The beginning of geopolitical wisdom is the rejection of Neocon delusions of world empire without regard to human values. Putin, in his speech to the Russian Federal Assembly, pointed the way forward.