The anti-Trump action in the UK prior to, during and after the American president’s visit has been awe inspiring for many of us in America. The grotesque and nauseating Trump has managed to emotionally unify Britain for a time in shared revulsion. Someone said that Trump speaks English like a dog walks on his hind legs.
Trump’s attempt to offer “elder statesman” advice to members of the EU and the greater collection of attendees at the UN actually blew up in his face, though it isn’t likely that he realized it. That said, he is extremely sensitive to perceived slights and is quite thin skinned even by his own admission. At the UN, Trump’s clown car of staff sycophants and pale underlings immediately assumed the escalator and teleprompter incidents malevolent acts meant to humiliate him. If they were acts of protest, then good on them.
It looks like the majority of Americans can see through his charade as a benevolent billionaire, the all-knowing sage of capitalism. If a general election were held now, it is becoming more likely that MAGA would lose control of the House of Representatives. The outcome of the 2028 general election, if Trump doesn’t interfere with it, is in doubt for the MAGA party.
Prior to Trump’s election in 2016, I don’t think he has ever led a publicly owned company. This means that he has never had to be accountable to the public. His actions are always buried within the board of directors of whom he is either the chairman or in control of some relative or other lackey.
I’ve been noticing more examples on YouTube about what foreigners, especially Brits and Canadians, really think about America: And it ain’t pretty either. The negative feelings expressed have torn through the curtain of polite silence to a full venting of the spleen. The traditionally understated Brits are aghast at the boastful American Orange Jesus. This frustration with the USA didn’t suddenly surface from the Trump era. It has been growing quietly for decades. America presumed it’s hegemony and has acted accordingly. Once the sparkling city on the hill, on close inspection we have a darker side, a grubby and mean-spirited side that persists despite all of our self-aggrandizement.
Aren’t Americans themselves embarrassed at Trump’s behavior? Yes, dammit. But due to the election cycle, MAGA congressional support and an impotent judiciary, there seems to be no way around immediate remedy. We must wait for the 2026 midterm elections and hope that the Congressional MAGA monopoly is toppled.
Even if Trump voluntarily resigns, there is the matter of his vice-president, JD Vance. As president, he would be pressured to carry out Trump’s “policies”, which so far have amounted to vengeance and the Project 2025 plan to drown the federal government by holding its head under water in the bathtub to paraphrase a republican strategist. Vance is an unknown quantity to most Americans. He was very critical of Trump before being chosen as the VP candidate. Somehow, he “saw the light” and became Trump’s VP. How would he really behave as president? Connect his dots and project into the future with a linear extrapolation, to begin with.
Trump has already done irreparable damage to US credibility and leadership in the world. I don’t see how this can be reversed back to pre-2015 days. American hegemony has come and gone now that the barnyard gate is open. New alliances in trade, absent US participation, are being set as in the case of Canada. American military leadership will linger well passed the rejiggering trade situation. America has a true talent for the military arts and sciences. Not because of American exceptionalism, but because of the vast sums that we have spent in the past plus our natural resources.
It is good for Americans to see ourselves through the eyes of foreign nations, painful as it might be. Television has a large impact on how we view ourselves. Ever vigilant for new trends or ways of keeping eyeballs fixed on the tube, broadcasters produce content that satisfies by exaggerating our merits or strengths and by burying certain parts of history. Huge corporate news organizations profit by taking a populist political stance and setting inflammatory political content on repeat cycle. Corporations are like a penis- they have no brain and all they want is more.
What is the deal with Russia? Why do the Russian people tolerate the lack of basic freedoms we in the West are accustomed to? Dissatisfaction with their government has been there since the beginning. Hundreds of millions have been deprived of liberty and prosperity following Russian revolution.
The history of early 20th century reveals the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Later, after much blood and treasure was spilled after the revolution and then through the cold war, the Soviet Union collapsed after a brief attempt at openness. Many around the world saw the collapse as a positive thing and a sign of better times ahead, especially for the people of the former USSR. There was hope in the West for a transition to some variety of Russian-tinted democracy and for freedoms heretofore absent for the average citizens of the former USSR.
To Russians in power, the very idea of a democratic republic is alien and inconceivable. There is a baseline level of distrust and fear of the infectiousness of the democratic spirit among Russian/Soviet leadership. Even the population has been convinced that the moral collapse of the West would spread to their homeland without an iron-fisted leader.
For a part of the world that has been strangling under autocratic rule and economic stratification since before the time of the Tsars, there has not been a historical Russian-style power sharing agreement between the monarchy and the nobility or the serfs from which to build upon. After generations of polarization by Soviet propaganda focused on Western hegemony and the moral turpitude of the West, there was no likelihood of building upon a Western style democratic model. The Russian propaganda engine continues to this day as strong as ever but with the help of the internet, artificial intelligence and widespread political indifference or gullibility.
The decade of the 1990’s following the collapse of the former USSR was a time of redistribution of wealth for a lucky few. Large Soviet industrial sectors were absorbed by a few private interests, producing fabulously wealthy oligarchs. This did not go unnoticed by the populace, who simmered in anger over it because they expected a freedom and prosperity dividend from the collapse. Amidst the confusion and dissatisfaction with Russian President Yeltsin, there arose a growing sense that Russia needed a strongman leader. Many even spoke admiringly of Stalin.
The collapse of the USSR left an internal power vacuum that would soon be filled by former Soviet citizens. Boris Yeltsin was elected President of Russia in December 1991 and remained as President until 1999 when his selected successor Prime Minister and former FSB director Vlad Putin took over as acting president. Putin was elected president in May of 2000.
I’ve been trying to understand why present-day Russia seems so … belligerent. My focus to start with is Putin. Rather than being a one-of-a-kind freak of nature, Putin is rather ordinary as a dictator except that his regime has a nuclear triad. Until its invasion of Ukraine, Russia also had the benefit of whatever left-over respect it may have had from its Soviet military reputation. But that has changed dramatically.
Putin has long expressed the view that the collapse of the USSR was a tragedy. He wants to rebuild the stature of Russia into a global superpower. Soviet leaders held the view that in order for Moscow to be safe from attack by the West, the Slavic eastern European countries bordering Western Russia had to be under the wing of the Kremlin. It was this deep boundary in combination with the Russian winter that helped to wear down the invasions of Napolean and Hitler. Both armies were substantially weakened by traversing the extensive farmlands and steppes of Ukraine and Poland. It is difficult to believe that this thinking has changed since the collapse.
When the USSR collapsed it left much more than empty senior positions and titles to fill. The Soviet governing apparatus was abandoned when the Kremlin finally conceded that the USSR was economically unsustainable. Even a culture built upon bribery and corruption needs an all-encompassing structural skeleton to manifest its national identity and sustain an economy, security and a global presence. Even a corrupt government needs some sustainability.
Unfortunately for present day Russia, extensive government bribery and corruption in all sectors was already baked in from Soviet times. On a practical level, getting things done involved bribery. Bribes were expected and paid as a matter of routine in the military and all other areas of government. Today there have been show trials with certain high-level officials being tried, convicted and imprisoned on bribery charges. It gives the population bread and circuses to consume and hopefully optimism for a brighter future.
The USSR and later the Russian Federation did not have the benefit of English common law which evolved from the Magna Carta. Born of earlier conquest by the Rus, the Bolsheviks had nothing to build upon for a more democratic legal system like the American colonists had. Overall, Bolsheviks forcibly switched from monarchy to an autocratic socialist empire. Conquest of the tsarist Russian empire by the Bolsheviks was difficult because there were numerous groups vying for power, leading to the Russian civil war following the 1917 revolution.
Although Putin and the cranky Dimitry Medvedev have done a bit of nuclear saber rattling, the West has been concerned about Russian nukes since their very first test in the late 1940’s, so not much new here. Putin’s stern public warnings about nuclear retaliation were not necessary for the Western experts to be on alert. This apparent “virtue signaling” in the form of a public warning by Putin is just a part of Russia’s overall hybrid warfare approach. They’ll use every word and inflection uttered by Russian and Western media as well as the Kremlin to fortify their propaganda with doubt, suspicion and existential threats. They are also actively injecting propaganda into every media stream in the West they can manage. Putin’s dire public warnings about lowering the threshold for a tactical nuclear release were meant to cause a great clenching of public sphincters with the usual fear and loathing leading to internal political pressure for its enemies.
/*begin anecdote/*
Russia’s triad of Soviet-era nuclear weapons have been aging in storage. Are Russian nuclear bomb designs immune to shelf-life issues? By comparison, American-style nuclear weapons have a relatively short shelf-life because of their boosted triggers. According to one source, the entire US nuclear arsenal of nuclear triggers are boosted. American nuclear trigger designs have a short shelf-life stemming from tritium’s 4500 +/- 8 day half-life or 12.32 years (NIST, 2000). US fission triggers have a hollow core which contains a 1 to 1 deuterium-tritium mixture. This booster gas undergoes fusion during ignition in the center of the core and increases the fission yield by the release of abundant 14 MeV neutrons into the surrounding fissile material. With the use of a booster to breed neutrons, the critical mass of fissile explosive is reduced because more neutrons are dispersed to initiate a runaway fission while under intense compression. The reduced mass of fissile material in a bomb is also resistant to unintended ignition by a nearby source of neutrons, like a nearby nuclear explosion.
Tritium is 3H, with 1 proton and 2 neutrons. It undergoes a beta decay where a neutron decays to a proton and an ejected electron, forming 3Helium with 2 protons and a neutron. So, wouldn’t you know, 3Helium is a poison with a very high neutron capture cross section. An aging booster gas loses its tritium potency as well as gaining an effective neutron poison.
But for this application to work, an ongoing supply of tritium is required. Tritium must be produced in a breeder reactor or accelerator. In addition to its short half-life, tritium decay is problematic to monitor because of its low 5.7 keV average beta radiation energy. Tritium atoms or molecules can be detected and measured by mass spectroscopy, but its beta decay radiation requires special equipment to detect. Tritium emits very low energy, low penetrating beta particles which are limited to 6 mm of travel in air and are blocked by the dead layer of skin cells on the surface of the skin. Getting through the window of a Geiger-Muller tube is a problem. So, measurement of tritium activity requires a liquid scintillation detector or an ionization chamber. A sample of radioactive material is dissolved in a vial of scintillation cocktail and run through a scintillation detector which detects faint flashes of light corresponding particle emissions. Perhaps detectors using scintillation crystals like cesium iodide are available for tritium detection.
/*end anecdote/*
A History of Conflict
The lands of Eurasia have, over time, been overprinted with layers upon of layers of conflict over thousands of years. While it may seem reasonable to assume that the current national borders of Europe have finally overcome the urge for military conquest, this seems over-optimistic. The ease with which Putin dashed in to grab large tracts of Ukraine in 2014 show that land-grab invasions are not just left to the past.
The more you learn about the last 4000 years of history of the lands covering the British Isles to Portugal to Mongolia to north Africa and the Levant, the more apparent it is that battles of conquest and defense have overwhelmingly been the norm.
There have been so many armies who have fought bloody battles and died or prevailed on the Eurasian landscape since before Roman times, it is a wonder that there aren’t still great heaps of bones wrapped in rotted battle gear. As always, much remains below the surface in history.
Putin’s Botched War
The Putin-Ukraine war is a war of conquest begun by a dictator who somehow didn’t understand or foresee the accurate weapons made available to Ukraine by the USA and Europe. He misunderstood the willingness of the West to come to Ukraine’s aid, but also and maybe more importantly, the magnitude of the relative sophistication of Western armaments and war materiel. This was a major blunder. While Russian military intelligence should have kept the Kremlin updated on Western weaponry, Putin should have asked more penetating questions. But perhaps most importantly, he underestimated the combative spirit of the Ukrainians and their president.
How did Russia manage to fall so far behind the West in the art of war? A high reliance was placed on its giant fleet of tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery. Much of this equipment was left over from WWII and the cold war. In contrast to its ground operations, Russia’s use of airpower in the early days of the war was weak and ineffective. Western military strategy has a high reliance on air power.
Russia was completely unprepared for the evolving drone tactics used against them. Drones were able to provide intelligence and pinpoint delivery of relatively small bombs at critical locations on launchers, vehicles, individual soldiers and in trenches. While Russian tanks were covered with reactive armor, the Ukrainian drones could place bombs in weak spots on the vehicles or even drop them through crew hatches to the interior where propellant and warheads could be ignited.
Post-War
To the discredit of both Russia and Ukraine, extensive use of land mines as well as cluster munitions has been made. The immorality of these munitions lies in what happens to the left-over mines and cluster bomblets remaining after the conflict. After the war, the lands are going to be recovered and farmed or rebuilt. Land mines and cluster munitions are well known to remain extremely dangerous for decades. Other conflict zones that have been so mined have left a legacy of death and mutilation for civilians.
At some point, the victor of the Putin-Ukraine war will want to salvage the scrap metal of the many thousands of vehicle carcasses left on the battlefields. One question relates to the explosive reactive armor (ERA) on the exterior of the destroyed tanks. ERA consists of a sandwich of a metal “flyer plate” facing the incoming projectile, a layer of high brisance explosive, and another metal flyer plate facing the tank armor. In order to respond to a high velocity kinetic or shaped charged projectile, a high shock-velocity, highly energetic explosive is needed for fast response to impact by a projectile. The ERA must be insensitive to small arms fire.
A great many videos of the destruction of tanks show that a tank can be destroyed and its crew killed by artillery or drones, but a large fraction of the reactive armor remains. The reactive armor contains enough high explosive to diffuse some of the incoming projectile’s energy release, yet seems to be rather insensitive to the shock of a hit a few feet away. This unexploded reactive armor will need collection and disposal.
Ukrainian farmers will need to level out the thousands of bomb craters in their fields so their equipment can traverse the ground. Obviously, Sappers or bomb disposal crews will need to de-mine the roads and pathways. Extensive trench systems will need to be filled in to recover the croplands. The environmental insult to the bombed-out battlefields is already substantial. The environmental toxicity of explosive residues may need evaluation.
Finally, in victory the brave people of Ukraine face the daunting prospect of rebuilding their homeland. Generations of children have been exposed to serious trauma and violence that no one should have to face. Their childhoods have been stolen from them and their educational prospects badly damaged.
If Russia prevails, the citizens of Ukraine face loss of their national identity and progressive Russification. All of the post-war issues given above will still be present, but the economic and social upheaval resulting from a vengeful Russian takeover will be traumatic. Many Ukrainian fighters and political leaders will no doubt be jailed, sent to gulags or perhaps defenestration.
A Russian victory in Ukraine signals bad times ahead for the rest of eastern Europe and the Baltic states. These countries, Poland in particular, already understand this and are preparing for this eventuality. Putin has previously expressed a kinship with the Slavic peoples of Eurasia and this may be part of his motivation for establishing a Russian empire.
The Fall of the American Empire
As bad luck would have it, this aggressive act of Putin’s Russia coincided with a political catastrophe in the United States. The Republican Party (GOP) in America has adopted the old Tea Party platform including libertarians and ultraconservative evangelical Christians to morph into a party of fanatical fascists, sometimes called Christo-Fascists. This is a reprehensible development that has taken decades to pull off. These Make America Great Again (MAGA) people have decided that American democracy doesn’t work. They favor a weak, authoritarian flavored democracy, similar to what Orban in Hungary has led.
The combination of the election of Donald Trump along with allowance of dark money OK’d by the US Supreme Court, the fanatical support of MAGA voters and a detailed coup strategy penned by the Heritage Foundation and funded by numerous billionaires has turned America around the corner towards an ultra-nationalist dictatorship. Trump ignores the courts, the legal role of the congress, and has lately taken a fancy to sending troops into US cities.
Some knowledgeable scholars have offered that American hegemony, in place since the end of WWII, is all but over. Some estimate that the American empire reached its peak influence perhaps 15 years ago and has been in decline since then but Americans haven’t paid attention. Trump, with his claims on Panama, Canada and Greenland as well as his manic desire to impose tariffs on globally has sent American credibility into the waste bin. The global economic upset caused by Trump has forced former friends to forge new alliances, leaving America behind.
Even if the stars lined up right and Trump and Vance disappeared tomorrow, a return to the previous status quo is unlikely to happen. The rapid trade disengagement by Canada suggests that they have had serious doubts with the USA already and this Trump fiasco was the last straw. There has been grumbling by other nations in the past that the American 4-year presidential cycle leads to excessive and frequent foreign policy changes that cause difficulties for them.
Trump’s “America First” declaration and radical disengagement with previous foreign policy has left an apparent power vacuum in the world. This has not gone unnoticed by anyone. Of course, the BRICS nations (Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russian Federation, South Africa, and United Arab Emirates) are taking advantage of this sea change and are considering moving from the US dollar as the principal reserve currency. America is willingly abandoning its historical global stabilizing ability in exchange for a more libertarian internal structure.
Guess what? In response to the Biden’s administration’s efforts to restrict US companies from doing business with 140 Chinese companies, severe export license controls have been put in place. China has responded by banning export of materials critical to the production of semiconductors and other electronic-related articles. This includes gallium, germanium, graphite and antimony- materials required to practice much of our electronics technology. The ban includes diamonds and super-hard synthetic materials (abrasives?). Tungsten, magnesium and aluminum may be next.
The US has previously “restricted advanced semiconductor technology to companies in other countries, though it excluded companies in key allies like Japan, South Korea and the Netherlands that are thought to have adequate export controls of their own” according to Elaine Kurtenbach writing for Manufacturing.Net.
Not helping is Trump’s loud and repeated yammering about import duties. Is he unaware of China’s considerable ability to strike back? Or can’t he be bothered with details like this during his nationalistic diatribes?
Maybe the Biden/Trump Whitehouse is not aware or troubled by the extent to which China has been blessed with most of the world’s supply of many critical elements. The materials subject to Chinese export controls are included in the 50 critical minerals as identified by the US Geological Survey. Key among them are gallium and germanium. Neither of them have been exported to the US by China for a long time. Antimony shipments to the US have plunged as well.
Germanium comes from zinc refining and the US gov’t has a large stockpile. Gallium is a byproduct from bauxite in aluminum production. Antimony is often isolated as a side stream in silver, copper and lead production. Antimony is alloyed at 0.5 to 1.5 % with lead electrodes in lead-acid batteries to harden them. Antimony can be recovered from the lead.
And then there are the rare earth elements (REE). China has the largest deposits and has become unwilling to export unprocessed REEs, instead preferring to sell up the value chain. It is the business savvy way to do it, after all.
Having been born, educated and now nearing retirement from a scientific career in the USA, there are things about this country I am proud of and things that I’m ashamed of. I take ‘pride’ to mean that ‘I value my association with’. I take ‘shame’ to mean my negative reaction to and regret with certain instances of moral turpitude.
What shame I may have in my country’s actions and policies over time isn’t necessarily due to uniquely American traits. We’re humans after all with all of the pluses and minuses that go with it. However, the pluses and minuses in conjunction with our burgeoning economic power over time and the rich natural resources we hold allow us to impose our will with in-house treasure. Conveniently, we don’t have to invade another country for oil or iron ore to drive our industry. However, our lust for cheap oil & gas has led to considerable trouble.
American Pride
I’m proud of the founders who disconnected from Great Britain despite the sacrifices in blood and treasure during the late 18th century and founded this unique republic. While the founders wisely developed a founding document to avoid the problems of monarchy and establish a functioning republic, there were significant omissions such as banning slavery or establishing equal rights for women.
I’m proud of our steady progress in all of the various technologies that have removed the sharp edges from what nature has historically imposed on us: Disease, predation, high infant mortality, brief lifespans and primitive life. In many ways the march of technological advancement has been a benefit to all of us and the rest of the world as well.
I’m proud of the advancement of women, albeit too slow, in our civilization. The march forward is not nearly finished, but to have advanced women from chattel to some level of equality is a plus.
I’m proud of our country for the advancements made towards global peace and prosperity since WWII. The years of our liberal democracy since then are unmatched in history.
I’m proud of the positive global interventions for peace we’ve made since the start of WWI.
I’m proud that my country has been a prominent global influence for peace and justice.
I’m proud of my country’s positive moral actions toward feeding the hungry and spreading medical care.
I’m proud of our periods of military restraint and our caution with nuclear weapons after having once used them.
I’m proud of America’s role in restraining Chinese, Japanese, Russian and Soviet imperialism.
American Shame
I am ashamed of our part in the worldwide patriarchy and the lethargic progress towards equal rights for women.
I am ashamed of the horrors that befell the Native Americans throughout the American settlement of North America. The murderous expansion by fortune-seekers and land-grabbers across the continent and the penury and ten thousand privations forced on them is inexcusable and remains a bloody disfigurement on the American character.
I am ashamed of our part in the slavery industry in the Americas and the number of people who had to die in a bloody civil war to end it.
I am ashamed of my country’s covert meddling into the affairs of other nations as in Southeast Asia, South and Central America, Cuba and elsewhere.
I am ashamed of the many wars and conflicts we have participated in over absolutist ideologies and the deep senselessness of our political parties.
I am ashamed of our enthusiastic part in the development of nuclear weapons and our perverse cleverness in optimizing their design.
I am ashamed of the influence of capitalism on internal and foreign policy and the greedy idolatry it brings.
I am ashamed of the neoliberal right turn the country is presently taking and the acceptance of autocratic enthusiasm asserted therein.
I am ashamed of America’s reelection of a felonious man of low moral character and proven dishonesty and especially the large-scale support he enjoys among voters.
To friends in democratic states around the world. As you watch America’s clumsy slouch into an authoritarian/fascist state in real time, take heed. Level-headed Americans are astonished at the ease with which one insane populist has misled a venerable political party to mutate and turn against the foundational principles of our republic. The US has struggled to conduct a capitalistic democratic republic for 250 years. There have been many rough spots since our founding, some reprehensible. What is happening today is the decapitation of a powerful liberal democracy. The USA has been a prolonged experiment in mostly democratic governance where, in principle at least, today the leadership is elected fairly by all the people, not just property-owning white men.
The USA will be the only nation choosing fascism during a period of economic growth, abundant oil & gas and relative peace. Other nations in the world are battling but the US has no combat troops deployed to fight.
Lest anyone think that the MAGA movement was built from the urging of Trump alone, be aware that there has been a population of angry and disenfranchised white Americans for a very long time. Trump was just the seed crystal around which a concentrated population of teabaggers and other white Americans has crystallized. They have somehow been left behind on the road to a modern, prosperous future. If there was an actual trickle down of wealth that Ronald Reagan promised in the 1980’s, they were left high and dry.
We are witnessing a gradual overthrow by a party led by a man who is well understood to be a serial liar and a shameless, malignant narcissist who, in desperation for power and vengeance, will stop at nothing to take control of the USA. There is a word for what is happening- Lawfare, “the use of law as a means of accomplishing what might otherwise require the application of traditional military force“. This was popularized by Major General Charles Dunlap, USAF.
Trump’s immediate goal is getting even with his enemies. If that weren’t bad enough, he is firmly supported by loyal one third of the electorate. Many other Republicans cannot bring themselves to vote for a democrat for various reasons. The rabid supporters are known as MAGA- Make America Great Again– Republicans. These people see Trump as the key to America’s glorious future, but too intoxicated with revolutionary fervor to see Trump for what he really is- a grasping neofascist.
The 20th century was blighted with fascist dictatorships and even fascist organizations within liberal democracies, particularly in the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s. A partial list can be found here. For some reason, the USSR has been omitted from this list. Today, the latest Russian dictator stands out in his attempt to resurrect the power and reach of the Soviet Union, and he must be stopped.
The origins of conservative and libertarian outrage against American progressivism traces back more than a century, even before the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal in the mid 1930s. By the end of the 1800’s, political machines and business monopolies were firmly rooted in the landscape of America. The rising middle class eventually overcame much of this through politics.
Some put the American Progressive Era as between 1896 and 1917. Before this period the US was beset with urban poverty, child labor, Victorian era patriarchy, long working hours and unsafe working conditions. Note to MAGAs, was this when America was great??
The New Deal was a series of public work projects, financial reforms, and regulations enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States between 1933 and 1938, aimed at rescuing the U.S. from the Great Depression.
“Major federal programs and agencies, including the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA), provided support for farmers, the unemployed, youth, and the elderly. The New Deal included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt.” Source: Wikipedia.
The 20th century witnessed the United States grappling with a severe depression starting in 1929 which spread worldwide. Later, the US reluctantly engaged in World War II with other allied powers combating Nazi forces in Europe, Africa, and Japanese imperialism in the Pacific. Upon discovering Hitler’s nuclear ambitions, the US, with vital assistance from British and European scientists, developed nuclear weapons using isolated domestic uranium-235 and the synthetic element plutonium-239. Fortunately, the Allied forces managed to defeat the Nazis in Europe in 1945 before the necessity of releasing a nuclear weapon there. By August 9th of that year, Japan was defeated and the war ended. Sadly, it received two atomic blasts.
The US came away from the World War II period full of itself and bursting with optimism. Technologies that were spawned by the war like radar, jet engines, high performance aircraft, industrial production of every kind and a can-do spirit led to a boom in single family homes, babies, and consumerism. By the late 1940’s, television was well along the way and behind it, computers, and new designs in automobiles. Americans were puffed up and excited about modern life while much of Europe and Japan were still cleaning up after the massive devastation caused by the war. The remoteness of North America and its seemingly inexhaustible natural resources left it almost untouched by the war.
By the Reagan years in the early 1980s, religious conservative and libertarian groups were organizing and linking up to form what would become a powerful political machine. This conservative, evangelical Christian Zionist nationalism group has methodically wound itself up and this very day proposes to make the USA into a theocratic state. They have money and fanatical adherents willing to risk a civil war for their faith. They will support the state of Israel to the extent that it makes way for the second coming of Christ. This is the core of Protestant Evangelical Christian eschatology. Like all religious warriers, they believe they are fulfilling God’s very own plan. I think the 21st century is going to be difficult.
Many of us think this would be laughable bullshit if it weren’t so serious. To grease the skids of their feared ‘apocalypse’ involving a final battle in Israel, they see Trump as one who could aid the beginning of this nightmare. To their credit, many confess they will have to hold their noses while voting for him. An apocalypse of sorts may happen, but it is more likely to be of the usual unholy variety.
In eastern Europe, once Trump withdraws US assistance to Ukraine, Putin will do the predictable and step up his plans for the take-down of the Baltic states and Poland as well. Putin is already well underway with his hybrid warfare. His meddling in the US elections is one element of hybrid warfare. The goal is to shake the world’s confidence in liberal democracy.
Once his move has begun, NATO will be obligated to come to their defense. It is hard to predict whether or not the threat of NATO’s backing will fend off a Putin invasion if the US backs out or takes a neutral position to Putin. Putin’s military, already greatly weakened, would be even closer to claiming that the state is in danger of collapse. The collapse of the state is Putin’s criterion for the release of nuclear weapons. NATO will respond in kind to a nuclear threat, and it will likely get out of control.
The US and Russia each have a nuclear triad that requires presidential approval for a strike. Even if the command centers of both countries are in ashes, the ballistic missile submarines will still be mission ready. Imagine, if in a conflict, that the US and NATO will have to rely on Trump and his White House staff to be Commander and Chief of US forces. Trump is a man who, as President, has a long history of ignoring the advice of military specialists preferring to ‘winging’ on his own.
What in Trump’s past behavior and utterances makes anyone confident that he is qualified to make decisions in any other matter of warfare? Should he have access to the nuclear launch codes or to top secret plans?
Of course, there will be military general staff and advisors around him as would be the case if Harris is elected. But Trump was notorious for not reading his daily intelligence reports nor much of anything else. He spent a lot of time on Airforce 1 traveling to play golf at his resorts.
Harris has a disciplined and educated mind as well as the native intelligence and organizational savvy to listen to the experts and make decisions with the best and latest information. Being a district attorney and prosecutor, California Attorney General, California Senator and Vice President, she is well versed in the law at many levels and can be relied upon to follow it.
International friends, protect your liberal democracies from those who would degrade them into autocratic states under the guise of law and order. A democratic republic is messy, noisy and will test your patience. This is not a bug; it is a feature. Rejoice in it.
See that pale blue dot as a single pixel? It is a picture taken by Voyager 1 in 1990 at a distance of 3.7 billion miles from the sun. A band of idiots living there are about to do something very stupid and self-destructive tomorrow, 5 November 2024. Source: Nasa photograph.
After reading a biography of the Russian Marshal of the Soviet Union, Georgy Zhukov, it becomes apparent that there are parallels between Soviet tactics in WWII and those used in the Putin-Ukraine conflict. Beyond the deployment of similarly vintaged tanks and weaponry, General Zhukov was notorious for committing his forces to battle with little regard for casualties. Similarly, Putin’s military has been characterized by the use of inadequately trained and equipped conscripts. Additionally, it has been reported that Putin’s forces have positioned troops behind the front lines to prevent or even target any deserting or retreating frontline soldiers. Zhukov’s approach often involved rapidly advancing battalions and armor to the front with minimal planning, depending on the attrition of Nazi forces. This tactic was typically executed under Stalin’s direct orders, though sometimes initiated by Zhukov independently.
The conflict between Putin and Ukraine has evolved into a war of attrition. Initially, Putin thought he could swiftly deploy tanks and troops as he did in southern Ukraine in 2014, seizing territory through sheer intimidation. However, he miscalculated the armaments, determination and tenacity of the Ukrainian forces. Since 2014, tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have received training from Western nations. By February 2022, they were significantly better prepared and less intimidated by Putin’s military. In conventional warfare, the Russian military turned out to be a paper tiger, at least with its conventional non-nuclear forces, that is. The Putin-Ukraine war is still unfolding but Russia will come out of it severely stunted win or lose and possibly with new leadership. Whatever the outcome, the winner will have a great deal of de-mining to do. The conflict continues to unfold, but regardless of the outcome, Russia is likely to emerge greatly weakened, potentially with a change in leadership.
Putin is a smart guy. Certainly he knows the consequences of releasing as much as a single low yield tactical nuclear weapon, even if it’s limited to a demonstration. Pandora’s box would swing wide open and out would slink an ever-expanding series of repeats of above ground nuclear blasts until a city would be hit. Then all out nuclear war could happen in the old eye-for-an-eye fashion. Dark days would follow indeed.
Putin surely realizes the dangerous situation his county is in with mounting military losses, the brain-drain of skilled workers leaving the country and a crumbling oil and minerals-based economy. Yet he wears the neutral expression of the Sphinx in public because he must. He has painted himself and his nation into a corner. He even resorted to making nice with the plump North Korean dictator which must have been a nauseating demotion for him.
A bit of history
The Magna Carta was an agreement signed in England on June 10th, 1215, at Runnymede along the River Thames. This agreement had the unique provision of the enforcement of limitations on the sovereign. Rather than a simple recitation of grievances by the barons, the Magna Carta contained ‘security clause 61’ which provided for the barons the authority to seize the castles and lands of King John and hold them until such time as he held to his responsibilities as agreed upon in the signed document.
The Magna Carta was not just a contract between wealthy barons and King John, rather it was a step change towards political reform that provided for enforcement on the King. From Wikipedia–
“First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Stephen Langton, to make peace between the unpopular king and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift and impartial justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.”
Unfortunately, the distrust between the barons and the Crown, compounded by the annulment from Pope Innocent III, led to its swift failure. Just a few months after the agreement fell apart, the First Baron’s War erupted. However, this was not the final chapter. The document was reissued in successive versions, with the more radical language removed, in 1217, 1225, and finally in 1297, when its remaining elements were incorporated into England’s statute law. It was not unique in its attempt to limit the power of the Crown; similar efforts were seen elsewhere. Over time, the Parliament of England enacted laws that overshadowed the original document, diminishing its significance.
Back to Russia
The point of highlighting the Magna Carta, despite its failure, is that nothing of this type of significance happened in the history of Russia, at least until the Bolshevik Revolution. Perhaps this comparison is too facile, causing real historians to choke on their Starbuck’s latte. But allow me to finish. The Magna Carta was not entirely unique for its era. However, it was notable for including a provision that enforced the good faith by the King. It represented a collective bargaining effort by the 25 barons with King John to alleviate some of the monarchy’s oppression and, in doing so, progress the political atmosphere for a short time with fits and starts. As kings often do, King John protested to the Pope, who then exerted his authority in a manner only a Pope could. The Pope excommunicated the Barons and nullified the agreement, having been persuaded by King John that it undermined the Church’s authority.
Russia seems not to have a tradition of producing successful popular uprisings to the power of the Tsar. of course, the Bolshevik revolution is the shining counterexample. Not in the sense of overthrow so much, but as an enforceable agreement to relieve a measure of oppression by the monarchy at all levels. In contradiction to this sweeping generalization is the case of Tsars Alexander I and II. Alexander I introduced minor social reforms but he was a strict Russian nationalist and Slavophile. Many of the reforms he instituted early in his career were retracted later.
Tsar Alexander II , however, instituted many liberal reforms but is possibly most revered for his Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861. In the US, he is remembered as the Tsar who sold us Alaska. He was a supporter of the Union in the American Civil War and even sent ships to New York Harbor and San Francisco Bay to deter Confederate warships. Eventually he was assassinated in Saint Petersburg on March 13, 1881. The first assassin’s bomb thrown under his armored carriage left him dazed but uninjured. The second assassin’s bomb thrown shortly thereafter delivered the fatal injuries as he stepped out to investigate. The third assassin’s bomb was unused.
Zooming forward to the present, what actions can the Russian populace take regarding Tsar Putin? After centuries of political oppression aided by new thinking, modern technology, and nuclear weapons the current Tsar has built a deep and wide moat around himself and his allies within the Kremlin establishment. Beyond this moat stands a population conditioned to obedience by fear, a legacy of decades of Soviet rule. I believe that national pride will deter them from emulating Western forms of civil society and governance. And why can’t they develop an authentically Russian something-something ‘democracy’, or whatever? Russia has deep foundation of cultural, artistic and scientific achievements to take pride in, despite its history of authoritarian governance. Whatever Russia eventually does, it will be heavily Slavic and Eastern Orthodox.
Russians are just as pleasant and smart as everyone else in the world, obviously. Russian hospitality is first rate as I have personally experienced. They just have the heavy blanket of oppressive leadership over them that continues to drag through the generations. Even if Putin falls out of power, there is a line of replacements cut from the same cloth. Perhaps a leader of a reform movement could rebuild Russia? It could happen but just as likely it could revert into a system that is better at prosecuting a war of aggression and suppression of the population. The replacement of Putin could be good for the world, or it could go sour. The world has to wait it out and see. In the meantime, it is critical to keep Putin out of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states.
The Putin government is like a toxic gas- it will expand into all of the space available. After the decades-long stand down in tension since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the problem of an aggressive Russia arises again. The West must remain the sturdy counter example to the authoritarian culture of Putin’s Russia. We in the USA, especially, need to do a better job as the shining city on the hill. Lately the shine is wearing off.
Note: Not residing in Russia, I cannot grasp the full extent of the events and mood unfolding there. All that remains is to perch on a power pole across the polar cap and try to discern fact from fiction.
>>> Let’s ask a very basic question about today’s Russia. Why can’t Russia Putin play nice? <<<
Like most, I have anxiously watched Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The prevailing Russian narrative is trying to say that the sovereign nation known as Ukraine has historically been a part of Russia or some earlier Russian empire, a view promoted by Putin. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin directed the Bolsheviks to seize the territory now recognized as Ukraine. The goal was to claim territory for the Soviet Union, but also territory that was extremely fertile. Stalin ordered that Ukrainian industry and agriculture were to be collectivized. An independent Ukrainian government was briefly established but just as quickly collapsed. After several years of intense Ukrainian resistance and significant suffering, Lenin conceded and established Soviet Ukraine, enabling its incorporation into the Soviet Union as a constituent republic.
In the current action, with the support of an extensive security apparatus, Vladimir Putin has resolved that what is now Ukraine will be assimilated into a growing Russian empire. The process will methodically transform its Ukrainian identity through Russification, transforming it into southwestern Russia. Ukraine is expected to become an agricultural hub and potentially a strategic forward base for further military operations into Poland the Baltic states, and likely Moldova.
Why does Putin desire Ukraine when there is considerable open land to the east and north? Well, it’s the geography. The land beyond to the north and east of Moscow consists of vast stretches of challenging subarctic taiga and arctic permafrost, much of which is now thawing, making it unsuitable for roads, urban development, agriculture, and industry. In contrast, Ukraine boasts rich, productive farmland with significant annual grain exports. Additionally, along its southern coast, including Crimea, Ukraine possesses the only warm water ports available in the region, other than possibly the Neva River to the north which are vital for commerce and the military.
Historically, western European colonization was driven by the prospect of trade opportunity including raw materials, cheap labor as well as power projection. Like all countries, Russia would like room for its prosperity to grow. It is desirable that agricultural and industrial capacity also rise. However, Russia has learned the hard way the value of having a buffer zone between Moscow and Western Europe. The relative ease with which both Napolean and Hitler crossed the Eastern European territory enroute to Moscow, Leningrad and other cities through greater Russia did not go unnoticed by Stalin. By absorbing the Eastern European territories after WWII, Stalin built a picket fence protecting the Soviet state.
As the Nazi’s Operation Barbarossa was failing and Stalin’s Red Army began pushing the Germans into a westward retreat, the Soviets took advantage of the opportunity to install Soviet political structure in captured Nazi territory like the Baltic states, Eastern Europe and the eastern half of Germany. While Stalin did not share Hitler’s enthusiasm for exterminating Jews, he did act to eliminate preexisting local political structures which included substantial Jewish presence. This meant executions and large-scale banishment of politically unreliable people to the Russian gulag system. Poland was hit particularly hard by both Hitler and Stalin because it was directly between Russia and Germany and had a large Jewish population.
The above map shows the population density of Russia. A substantial fraction of Russians live in the southern and western regions of the country. If you assume that people are living there because it is at least somewhat livable, then the map shows the extent of land poorly suited for habitation.
Map of Russia showing areas that are 90 % populated by ethnic Russians.
Russia has a great deal of acreage but the livable turf is much smaller.
Putin views the world partially from the old cold war perspective. It’s Russia against the aggressive, corrupt and immoral west, but without the fever dream of a Soviet-style socialist world. Putin’s state-controlled media endlessly repeats that the west wants what the Russians have and stokes the fires of fear. For the Soviets, “aggressive, corrupt and immoral” included resistance to Soviet influence.
In my many years of trying to be as informed as possible in many areas in a free and open society, not once have I heard anyone suggest “Gosh, I wish the USA could occupy Russia (or the USSR) as an American territory and take all of their stuff.” Imagine the scope of the folly in stupidity of such an attempt. It is mindbogglingly absurd to believe that one could or would want to do such a thing. Russia is for the Russians. Maybe one day they will hit upon a way to craft a free and open society.
The Soviets were ardent promoters of global socialism. Although not overtly socialist, Putin appears more focused on preserving Russian culture and dominance from across a substantial territorial buffer with the West. He asserts his aim to shield Russia from Western cultural influences and what he perceives as a “belligerent” military stance.
The “belligerent military stance” of the West amounts to NATO responding to Soviet adventurism and their habit of hybrid warfare. They would say the same thing from their perspective, but which side was the more authoritarian?
Historically, Russia has endured invasions by King Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and later Hitler. The history of the Kievan Rus from 830 to 1241 is jammed with bloody feuds, wars and invasions. From the Principality of Moscow in 1281 to the end of the Tsardom in 1917, and even beyond into the era of the Soviet Union and into Putin’s time, near continuous conflict has plagued the Russian people. Fortunately, Russia’s northern geography and harsh winters have often played to its advantage, compelling invaders into prolonged conflicts and misery with eventual withdrawal. But not always.
Most nations would like to have global hegemony. Putin is fond of saying that Russia has suffered greatly from American and Western hegemony since WWII and hopes to put an end to it. He has reestablished a Soviet-like security state apparatus with strict media control when he assumed power after the 8 years of Yeltsin’s chaos following the collapse of the Soviet Union. He is trying to resume for present day Russia the former Soviet Union’s international status but largely without the manpower and resources of the former adjacent Soviet states.
Source: The Fuller Project. Unexploded cluster bomb in Ukrainian wheatfield.
Like his Soviet predecessors, Putin both envies and worries about overreach of western hegemony and is moving to unseat the West. For that matter, so is China. This is only natural. I believe they resent western influence generally. The English language as the global lingua franca and the US dollar as the standard international currency are seen as an annoying affront to their own cultures, sovereignty and political significance. Again, this is only natural. And so is the temptation to use power projection or coercive propaganda to achieve their own hegemony. Casualties would be considered the West’s fault for being in the way.
Both Russia and China have long been critical of the West for internal propaganda purposes but to be fair there has been some valid criticism as well. In truth, the US has done some bone-headed things that we should not be proud of and that hardly serve to highlight our presumed “special” nature. But in fairness, most all cultures can look back at regrettable conduct in their history. Neither Chairman Mao’s China or Stalin’s USSR have sparkling clean histories either. Often the benefit of hindsight doesn’t come into focus until far down the timeline.
The Soviet Union in the person of Joseph Stalin, had brutalized Ukraine previously in an attempt to halt its independence. The Holodomor, meaning death by starvation, of 1932-33 is estimated by scholars to have killed 3.5 to 5 million people. This period of time is marked by forced collectivization of agriculture and industry in the USSR and Ukraine. Collectivization meant taking control of farmland owned by the peasants (especially the Kulaks), many times banishing them to the gulags never to be seen again. Already by 1931, Moscow had taken 42 % of the Ukrainian grain harvest, forcing some locations even to turn over seed for the following harvest. By early 1932 some districts in Ukraine were already experiencing famine. The governing committees in Ukraine in 1932 believed that the 6 million tons of grain demanded by Moscow was unachievable, yet they ratified the plan anyway.
The current brutal murder and devastation of Ukrainian citizens and their infrastructure and agriculture will take a generation or more to repair even if Russia prevails. Russia has done great damage to the Ukrainian environment in addition to the many casualties. Much of the country is cratered, littered with destroyed vehicles and war debris, denuded of vegetation, and rendered deadly by the landmines.
The great equalizer among the leading nations is Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD, by virtue of the threat of the use of nuclear weapons for mutual annihilation. Sometimes just called “the bomb”, it was indeed invented by an international cast of scientists and engineers using American uranium and Plutonium and first used in successive releases by the US on Japan near the end of WWII in the Pacific theater. This will darken a stretch of American history indefinitely. Some continue to argue that the bombing was not necessary because Japan was soon to surrender, but it happened, and nothing can change that. However, to our credit, the US has never used it since and has actively sought with other nations to suppress the proliferation of nuclear weapons and remove the hair triggers for their use. That said, the US remains a no-first-use country but will participate in the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction as needed.
A Nuclear Sidebar
Very soon after the discovery of nuclear fission in December, 1938, in Nazi Germany by German-born chemists Hahn and Strassmann, and Austrian-born physicists Meitner and Frisch, the theoretical potential of using the vast energy output of nuclear fission for a bomb was quickly realized. On May 4, 1939, Frédéric Joliot-Curie, H. Von Halban and L. Kowarski in Paris filed for three patents using a fission chain reaction. Two involved power generation and the third was for an atomic bomb, patent No. 445686. Fission was experimentally discovered in Dec. 1938, theoretically explained in January 1939, and a patent for the atomic bomb was filed on May 4, 1939.
The point of this atomic interlude is to highlight the short time interval between the discovery of nuclear fission, conceiving the idea of the atomic bomb and filing for a patent by scientists. On August 2, 1939, a letter written by Leo Szilard and signed by Albert Einstein was sent to President Franklin D. Roosevelt warning that Germany may be developing an atomic bomb. This led to the Manhattan Project and America’s entry into nuclear weaponry.
During and after the Manhattan Project, Stalin’s spies detected and infiltrated the American bomb project and presumably used important stolen information for their own nuclear program. This was an important shortcut benefitting the Soviets greatly. The first Soviet atomic bomb burst so soon after the war shocked the world.
Humans have a gift for the invention and use of weapons. I’m sure it has always been that way for humans. The inclination for war and conquest is also an ancient instinct. It is hard to see how aggression will ever change. In view of this distressing thought, how are we to proceed?
Looking forward
In the short term we in the west must continue to discourage Putin’s expansionist push. A win for Ukraine will set a precedent that might even unseat Putin. It is up to the many good people in Russia to be rid of him. However, Russian citizens will have to struggle against the vast authoritarian political machine in place just like the Poles, East Germans and the other Soviet states had to do in the late 1980’s. The intimidation and resources of the Putin authoritarian state are a huge obstacle.
My guess is that in general, doing the “right thing” in a culture of normalized authoritarianism, bribery and corruption is more difficult to accomplish than doing the “right thing” in a free and open culture where doing the right thing is occasionally practiced and always admired.
To a westerner like me, Russian withdrawal from Ukraine seems like the optimal solution to Russia’s present economic and military race to the bottom. Even in winning, Russia will inherit a devastated region that will require vast resources and a decade to repair, as well as a population of angry and vengeful citizens looking to kill a Russian or two. Then there are all of the land mines to contend with. There is amputation or death by landmines in the future for many unsuspecting people regardless of who wins.
A cessation of hostilities led by Putin is likely to end his career. Thus far, Putin’s invasion has led to over 500,000 Russian casualties, of which there have been over 80,000 Russian fatalities. In a way, this pales in comparison to Stalin’s murderous handiwork, but the comparison is really more like “terrible versus really, really terrible.”
Whether or not Putin is a reanimated Soviet leader or “just” another Tsar isn’t a question to dwell on. He is a creature of his time who happens to be a former Soviet KGB officer but has rejected Marxist/Leninism and rules by a roughly mafia-style kleptocracy behind closed doors in the Moscow Kremlin. For Russian citizens, the rule of thumb is if you stay out of political business, the government will stay out of your business.
Numerous YouTube videos depict the widespread destruction of Russian tanks in the invasion of Ukraine, giving the impression that these tanks are more lethal to Russian soldiers than their opponents. Despite being equipped with Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA), their ability to withstand artillery, mines, and drone attacks seems minimal. Moreover, when the armor is breached, the cannon gun propellant tends to ignite violently, causing the warheads to explode and instantly killing the crew. Occasionally, the force of ammunition blasts is so strong that it hurls the turret with gun barrel into the air, a stark illustration of the power of such explosions. Consequently, videos frequently capture Russian tank crews abandoning their crippled vehicles and fleeing for safety. Instead of offering protection, tanks have become conspicuous and cumbersome targets, prone to devastating attacks.
One might question the practical value of reactive armor. The landscapes of eastern Ukraine are strewn with thousands of destroyed Russian tanks, their ERA blocks still intact. Perhaps its practical value lies in bolstering the confidence of tank crews to engage in battle, trusting in the ERA’s protective capabilities. However, it is now challenging to believe that ERA instills a sense of safety in tank crew members. The effectiveness of reactive armor seems negated by potent penetrator warhead countermeasures capable of breaching the ERA. The pertinent question remains: does the ERA diminish the impact of an incoming shell sufficiently to be considered effective?
The conflict between Putin and Ukraine will eventually conclude, and the victors will promptly seek to repurpose the battlefields for peacetime activities. However, they must first contend with numerous challenges, including the presence of unexploded ordnance. Thousands of mines may remain hidden, posing a threat for decades unless they are securely disposed of or neutralized.
The landscape of the battle zones is marred by bomb craters, charred vehicles—many with unexploded ammunition—minefields, unexploded ordnance scattered about, live explosive reactive armor on destroyed armored vehicles, and soil polluted with shrapnel and residues from countless detonated artillery shells.
Numerous cities and villages, particularly those near the Russian border, have been completely obliterated by Putin’s military, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian casualties and leaving most without homes. The remnants of homes, businesses, and infrastructure stand as a testament to the survivors. For them, social and economic frameworks are now just distant memories. Civilization has been set back by at least a generation due to Putin’s distorted ambitions for an imperial legacy. The man is not insane or unintelligent; he is quite astute and fully aware of his actions—he is simply a terrible person. Currently, the US is facing its own challenge with a figure of ill repute seeking control of the government, backed by a significant number of misguided followers.
In the conflict in Ukraine, it’s conceivable that one precisely aimed bullet could have altered the course of events, a notion that has been a sad reality in many wars. This was a concern even during Stalin’s time. Since 2000, Putin and his associates have been systematically constructing the framework for an authoritarian state and military power, positioning him at the apex of power. His ambition is to supplant the hegemony of the US and NATO with the hegemony of Russia.
The conflict has been a catastrophic event for the region’s flora and fauna, significantly hindering the biosphere in numerous areas. Ukraine, until recently, was a significant grain producer and exporter, essential for the sustenance of millions. In the early stages of the conflict, Russia targeted and destroyed much of Ukraine’s grain distribution infrastructure, aiming to debilitate the economy and hasten a surrender. The bombings of civilian residences, hospitals, and other infrastructures will tarnish Putin’s reputation, marking him as a tyrant and a fundamentally flawed individual. Additionally, the reported abduction of thousands of Ukrainian children by Russia for forced assimilation and adoption raises serious legal and humanitarian questions. These actions are meticulously recorded for potential future war crimes proceedings and historical record.
Note: Recently I posted an early revision of this essay by accident and had to pull it down. Trembling with embarrassment, I wiped the egg from my face and am now posting the intended version. A thousand pardons.
Imagine the frustration of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, as he discovers the shortcomings of what was presumed to be a premier conventional military force. Decades of corruption and neglect have eroded the military from within. Meanwhile, their nuclear submarines continue to lurk in the depths of the Atlantic, assessing NATO’s day-to-day preparedness and gathering intelligence. Strategic nuclear forces are best used as a deterrent, or so the thinking has been. Coincidentally, their naval procession to Cuba, intended as a demonstration of power, was no doubt monitored by our network of acoustic sensors.
Runup to the invasion
Why did Putin begin his invasion of eastern and southern Ukraine in February 2014? Publicly he claimed to “de-Nazify” Ukraine. At the time, Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was facing the Euromaidan uprising beginning in November 2013, over his rejection of closer integration with the EU. This large-scale protest was in response to Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement rather than strengthening ties to Russia.
Putin’s essay
Just prior to the 2022 invasion the Kremlin published an article online by Putin going into great detail on his rationale for a “triune” state consisting of Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine. It was a “come to Jesus” appeal intended to show doubters that a common ethnic brotherhood existed that far exceed the differences between Ukrainians and Russians. He describes the current Ukrainian state as an anti-Russian project also serving the interests of other entities rather than ethnic unity with Russia.
“But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us.” -V. Putin, 2022. [Italics mine]
It’s worth noting that in Russian occupied parts of Ukraine, Russification has been underway in order to make Ukrainians forget their culture and to assimilate into Russian culture. Children were kidnapped early in the 2022 invasion and taken to Russia for assimilation.
Referring to the Ukrainian ruling circles, “They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people.” V. Putin [Italics mine]
Here Putin combines the Ukrainian famine, the Holodomor of 1932-33, with the wider Soviet famine of 1930-33 as a unifying experience that should in his view bring people together in shared tragedy. Whether or not Stalin had intended to cause a genocide of Ukrainians during the Holodomor is still being debated. However, Ukrainians were forcibly prevented from leaving the territory and their agricultural produce was taken from them. The Soviets even took their seed for the next year’s crop (see: Timothy Snyder, “Bloodlands“, 2016, ISBN-13 : 978-0465031474). Whatever the case, the singular focus of Stalin’s first 5-year plan beginning in 1928, was to industrialize the Soviet Union. In Marxist-Leninist political theory, the more prosperous kulaks were class enemies of the poorer peasants. Kulaks were either arrested, executed, sent to the gulag, or to labor camps.
Russian military in the 2022 Putin/Ukrainian war
Within the many layers of rank in the Russian military, there is a notable absence. There is no non-commissioned officer (NCO) level like that found in the US military. Yes, they do have NCOs, but they are technical specialists, or enlisted professionals taken from conscripted or contracted soldiers, uninvolved with small unit leadership and training. That is left for the officer corps. The result has been poor and inconsistent training of recruits. Hazing has long been a problem for the new recruits. Many view the Russian system of military leadership structure as inherently weak and a stubborn vestige of the past.
Perhaps fortified by a misjudgment of their military posture, Putin launched a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, into what has been a sovereign country under the pretense of neutralizing a non-existent threat from supposed Nazi troublemakers as a way to protect Russia. Russian forces quickly began to suffer significant losses in personnel and equipment. Moreover, these defeats have unfolded before an astonished global audience. Fortunately for Putin, his dictatorial foresight had led him to seize control of all media outlets within his borders in the years prior. He watched as his senior military commanders depleted his standing army. Under the pretense of “patriotism,” he drafted civilians and prisoners with the promise of attractive contracts to participate in his ill-conceived “special military operation.” Unfortunately, these soldiers became cannon fodder against the NATO fortified Ukrainian forces. Despite the overall drubbing the Russian military is taking and the half million casualties suffered, they retain the eastern and southern territories annexed prior to the Feb. 2022 invasion.
Putin pays a visit to Kim
Putin’s recent trip to North Korea, reminiscent of Soviet-era diplomacy, and his signing of a mutual assistance agreement with Kim Jong-un, prompted South Korea to reconsider its stance and contemplate supplying arms to Ukraine.South Korea, a manufacturing giant, currently has minimal incentive to engage with Russia as a neutral entity. Russia’s economy, struggling and cash-strapped, requires goods and services. It has been excluded from the international banking system and has seen a decline in amicable trade relations.
Now the word is that DPRK will be sending military engineers to the Putin/Ukraine war. While DPRK’s construction and engineering forces are not referred to as a fighting force, you have to believe that they will fight to defend themselves if they claim to be threatened. What the threshold for “threat” is will eventually be revealed.
Another threat made by Putin is that Russia will send arms to DPRK if the west continues to supply arms to Ukraine. The transfer of technology and materials in aid of the DPRK’s nuclear ICBM ambitions is sure to be the big prize Kim is after. Launching a payload is one thing, but accurate targeting is quite another. I suppose he can use GPS like everyone else does.
We’re hearing that wounded Russian soldiers are being sent back to the front, many with shrapnel from previous combat. I guess they figure that since they are wounded anyway, they might as well get the last bit of mileage left in them. This is certainly no less moral than leaving their dead behind or sending “meat curtains” of poorly trained troops to the front lines. Or, shooting their own soldiers if they retreat from the fighting.
Putin could stop the fighting and carnage in a day if he declared “mission complete” and withdrew his forces from Ukraine and returned claimed territory back to where it was the day of February 24, 2022, invasion. Well, this was the theory of Henry Kissinger. It seems likely, though, that the Ukrainians want back the territory lost in 2014 including Crimea.
Unfortunately for everyone, a withdrawal from Ukraine would be seen in Russia as Putin’s confession of gross incompetence and surely would result in a takeover and death or imprisonment for him.
The Kremlin has used “weaponized migration” elsewhere and is now trafficking immigrants across its western borders through Belorussia, into Finland, the lower Baltic states and Poland in order to overwhelm western border protection and to distract them as he transfers military forces east to the front. At the borders they have been creating a commotion causing western security resources to focus there. This is Russian hybrid warfare and is likely led by Russian intelligence services. Immigrants from various nations like Syria, Iraq and Somalia are given visas in an attempt to make it look like legitimate immigration. One of the goals of these roving throngs of civilians is to travel to western Europe to strain their economies and raise bureaucratic headaches for western governments like Germany. Naturally, saboteurs, spies and terrorists are likely planted in with the immigrants.
Russia has allegedly been jamming or spoofing GPS signals in the Nordic and Baltic Sea region causing interference with commercial air traffic. More Russian hybrid warfare. This affects not only air traffic but ground and sea navigation as well. Commercial air traffic can still fly under inertial navigation or by ground radar between airports and by terminal radar on approach and departure. Terminal radar guides aircraft into the airport instrument landing system (ILS) which is ground based and not affected by GPS. Airlines do monitor their aircraft with the help of GPS, however.
Fighting the last war
There is a saying, attributed to French Prime Minister George Clemenceau, warning generals not to enter conflict by fighting the last war. Putin began with fighting “the last war” with artillery and WWII-era tanks while keeping the Russian population calm with well-crafted fake news continuously delivered to the public. Unexpectedly, he did not seek air superiority starting the first day of the invasion before bringing in ground forces.
The propaganda in Russia today is that they are actually at war with NATO itself with extra blame on the US and UK. Russian war bloggers are even claiming that Ukraine’s drones and missiles can and are being controlled directly by NATO from remote locations. There are many voices on Russian television and in the blogosphere calling for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Putin and Medvedev have also waved this big stick around as well.
In response to Putin’s unwarranted invasion, most of the free world made the decision to withdraw its financial and trade connections, especially with the purchase of oil and gas (O&G). O&G is a huge money maker for Putin’s dictatorship and funds much of Russia’s government. Interestingly, while initially very concerned, the Oligarchs have learned to stop worrying.
Economic effects
An urgent problem presently in the Russian oil industry is the matter of upkeep on imported technology like oil refineries. Russia previously hired foreigners to build and maintain most of its oil refineries and licensed proprietary unit operations. Many of the foreign businesses that supplied these services have left Russia. As the clock tick-tocks along, equipment breaks down or misses scheduled maintenance. Replacement parts have become very difficult to obtain. This has a huge influence on the country’s refinery output in particular and on other industry in general.
Russia’s loss of trading partners is having a deleterious effect. Tax revenues are down into the deficit range across the board and the Russian government is working to introduce new taxes on the people. There is even word that laws are being drafted to increase the range and cost of fines against citizens who fail to put in the required extra effort. According to Forbes, the State Duma is tightening laws relating to labor and business operations are forcing employees to work weekends and holidays, especially if the business is military related.
Nukes behind the curtains
Of course, Putin has his nuclear armaments to fall back on. Much was made previously of the Soviet’s continuum theory of nuclear weapons, whereby they didn’t recognize a firebreak separating conventional and nuclear warfare as the west does. Putin and former president Medvedev both have been rattling their swords, threatening to use their nuclear weapons if the west does not back down in supplying Ukraine with arms. Most think that they threaten to use tactical nukes only. Both sides are quite aware what a nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia would look like. That said, only the first use will be a difficult decision.
Nuclear response in kind by NATO to Russia’s first use in the Russia/Ukraine battle space could possibly be limited to tactical use, but it will have let the nuclear genie out of the bottle nonetheless. Both NATO and Soviet/Russian military institutions have certainly war-gamed a similar scenario to many possible outcomes. People safely distant from the fighting will have to decide the intensity of a nuclear exchange and at what point to release strategic weapons, if needed.
One thing seems clear- a strategic exchange will be WWIII and Russia’s seething hatred of the US will not allow North America to survive untouched by war. Given the geographic and military limitations of Russia and the broad stretches of open ocean around most of the US, shallow trajectory ballistic or cruise missiles launched from Russian submarines are likely to be at play. Maybe an EMP weapon will be used. (Hell, a nuke hidden in a bale of weed could get into the country.) It seems likely that Russian hybrid tactics will first begin to soften the defensive, electric power, transportation and communication structures of the US by interfering with software-controlled everything. Naturally, the fragile stock market will collapse promptly, and unemployment will skyrocket. Toilet paper will vanish as if by magic from the store shelves.
Both NATO and Russia have enough nuclear weapons to go back and bounce the rubble a few times at leisure with their ICBMs and SLBMs. The total warhead count in the world’s nuclear powers is shown below as tallied by the Arms Control Association. The total warhead count for each country includes both tactical and strategic weapons as well as retired warheads. Nuclear weapons have a shelf-life and require some refurbishment over time. For instance, the tritium booster gas in the pit is subject to decay with tritium’s short half-life.
New START data on Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons inventory is shown below. As you can see, Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons inventory is poised to make quite a mess of their target areas from a great distance. On the strategic side (below), nuclear weapons can be delivered to a target across the world via strategic bomber, or a ballistic missile. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), and a collection of shorter range arial platforms could be used in combination.
Will Russia be tempted to try using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, even if NATO is sure to reply? At what point will a tactical exchange between Russia and NATO runaway to a strategic exchange? It seems unlikely given the terrible strategic downside of NATO retaliation. Certainly, if allowed to act unobstructed, Russia could make quite a nuclear mess in Europe and North America. However, NATO commanders will not allow their nuclear arsenal to be destroyed in storage.
“political power is not intrinsic to the power-holder,” but flows from outside sources that include perceptions of authority, available human resources; skills and knowledge; material resources; and intangible psychological and ideological factors. These sources all depend upon obedience, which arises for “various and multiple” reasons that include habit, fear of sanctions, perceived moral obligation, psychological identification with the ruler, zones of indifference, and absence of self-confidence among subjects. Obedience is essentially voluntary, and consent can be withdrawn. [Wikipedia]
Dictators do not often yield their power without violence, but now and then one will see the futility of fighting to the death against overwhelming resistance and abdicate after a face-saving attempt to stifle the uprising. This happened in the late 1980’s in eastern Europe leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev in 1991.
Russia will not change its ways until there is a decapitation at the upper few levels of its authoritarian police state. The population has been too passive for too long to expect a popular uprising like the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989. Russian opposition leaders are either poisoned, defenestrated or sent to prison as a security threat. Only a military coup could pull off a major change in leadership, but then you have a military authoritarian state.
A time-honored way to generate and maintain unity in a nation is to direct blame and struggle towards a foreign power. Both sides in the post-WWII cold war, NATO and the USSR, used this to focus resources and political angst in their respective favor. Putin has managed to revive this “good vs evil” duality not only to secure his power, but also to drive ethnic Russians toward his goal of a Greater Russian Empire.
Here is a truly naïve question: What is wrong with Russia? Why can’t Russian leaders focus on their own damned affairs rather than conquest or their clandestine efforts to destabilize other governments? From the western side of the globe this seems like a fair question. Are their lessons from history so scrambled that they have not learned some basic axioms of humane civilization? What happened to them? Why the perpetual paranoia, brutishness and authoritarianism?
It is important to separate “Kremlin” from “Russian people”. The Kremlin is a Moscow-based institution presided over by Russia’s national leadership. The Russian people are those working citizens distant from the Kremlin. Naturally, the Kremlin purports to represent the interests of the Russian people. Many say that the Kremlin represents an oligarchy inside and outside of the government. Most would say that Russia’s tradition of bribery and graft is rampant and even a built-in feature and not a bug. Whatever the case, it seems clear from the news that Russia’s military/industrial complex is riddled to the core with corruption.
The USSR and later Russia claim that they are threatened by Western adventurism and interference in their sovereign affairs. The lengthy Cold War between NATO and the Kremlin was largely about the spread of Soviet socialism and undesired political alignments between factions. Western countries were busy in the post-WWII years waging proxy battles and clandestine buggery with client states of the USSR and China. For our part, America didn’t do so well. In contrast with the Allied victory in Europe and Japan in WWII, the US had to sign an armistice with North Kores, a peace accord with North Viet Nam with the lightning-fast collapse of South Viet Nam, followed by the clumsy hijinks leading to the Iran-Contra scandal in the 80’s.
Kremlin policy would seem to be that “interfering in Russian Affairs” includes materiel support for emerging democracies around the world. This “interference” is justification for the incessant brinksmanship and covert meddling issuing from the Kremlin.
The US and coalition forces successfully routed the Iraqis in Kuwait in 1990 with the start of what became Gulf War I. After liberating Kuwait, US President George H.W. Bush invaded the Republic of Iraq destroying a good bit of their military but left Saddam Hussein in power. By 2003 George H.W.’s son, President George W. Bush, oversaw a clearly bogus campaign to take down Saddam right after the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. The smoke and mirrors show put on by the Bush administration conflating al Queda in Afghanistan with imaginary Iraqi weapons of mass destruction led to Saddam being quickly toppled and captured while hidden is a hole in the ground, tried and finally hung by his own people.
What the US-led coalition failed to appreciate was that Saddam held together Iraq by brute force and murder. Coalition forces swooped in and shut down his government without any thought as to the pragmatics of who will run the country the next day. There was the intent of giving birth to democracy with elections, but the power vacuum created by the toppling of Saddam and the dissolution of his government gave opportunity to numerous factions who jumped at it. This was the Iraqi insurgency which lasted until the US withdrawal in 2011.
US interventionism aimed at regime change by force or by covert efforts to remove certain leaders has a spotty record. Chili, Cuba and Nicaragua for example. The point is that US leaders have badly botched many schemes to cultivate governments friendly to US ambitions.
The first thing to remember is that we Americans view Russia through the smudged lens of our own popular culture and history. Over the decades since the end of WWII our self-appraisal of our many merits has swollen and become distended. The MAGA crowd seems to think there was a period of time when America was “Great”. I’d like to know when this happened. I’ve never heard MAGA people cite a particular time when this greatness occurred. Maybe they are thinking of the outcome of WWII and the succeeding few years. Perhaps it was their senior year of high school or during the summer break after third grade. When people?
As I survey American history as an amateur historian I have yet to find a halcyon period in America when peace and calm enveloped the land and all was well. With magnification, history is very granular and every year is a braided stream of tragedies, scoundrels and bad luck with the occasional patches of wonder and joy somewhere for a few. Well, perhaps this is all we can expect. Maybe the world really is a grubby place occupied mostly by people who are often nice, and with more than a few crackpots and psychopaths sprinkled here and there to round out the bell curve.
To be sure, we Americans have done a great deal to advance civilization overall in many ways. This has largely come through the allocation of funds in a resource-rich continent through capitalism, taxes and primed with incentivizing programs from the government after the New Deal. While necessity is the mother of invention, who can actually organize and monetize this necessity by asking for competitive bids on a moon project? A government can. Rather than “trickle-down” economics, this is pumped-down economics, and it works.What do the wealthy do with their tax savings? Trickle it down? Hardly, though some may allocate a bit of trickle-down money in venture capital firms, but that’s risky. Better to invest in solid assets like beachfront property in Florida.
The land that we call Russia, apart from the Siberian reaches of eastern Russia, has been home to many diverse peoples. One Wikipedia reference cites the beginning of Russia in the north with the Eastern Slavs in 862 CE and ruled by Viking conquerors. On this timeline, it is clear that people in the region have been in war, civil conflict or crushing poverty and authoritarianism almost continuously since then. The baseline condition of a great many people of Russia and nearby lands was the grinding poverty of serfdom and were only emancipated in 1861 by Tsar Alexander II. There have been invasions by the Mongols, Ottomans, Swedes, Napolean, Hitler, uprisings and fratricidal infighting for power. It is hard to know what occupants of the Moscow Kremlin are thinking. Russia seems destined to be ruled by an iron fist.
Unlike the English-speaking peoples, Russia never had a Magna Carta in their past outlining agreed upon limits to the power of the monarch. The very notion of wider participation in the conduct of government affairs was unknown. Democratic virtues taken for granted by western states never took hold in Russia. There was initially some hope for democracy after the fall of the Soviet Union by some, but there were no institutional and legal structures in place from which to operate a democratic republic. Worse yet, people were unemployed en masse and became frustrated by the lack of a “freedom dividend” and eventually there was support for a strongman leader. The collapse of the USSR left a power vacuum waiting to be filled. Yeltsin proved to be the wrong guy to inherit the reigns of power from the collapsed Soviet Politburo. He was widely seen as a drunken fool.
Russia had no history of conducting private business within the umbrella of international business law and capitalistic norms. What business law and intellectual property protection there may have been was from the Soviet era. Instead, there was a scramble to acquire the big industrial and financial pieces left over from the old USSR.
I’ve not found anything in the history of Russia that may have been a home-grown template for constructing a workable version of democracy. Russia’s long geographic and cultural isolation from the West doesn’t seem to have helped with the migration of what we might call the norms of democratic society. To be sure, Tsar Peter I (Peter the Great) had spent time in England and learned a great deal about shipbuilding and navigation, eventually leading to the formation of the Russian Baltic Fleet. King William III of England welcomed Peter because of the potential for trade with Russia.
The Soviets were successful in adopting some Western technologies and just enough consumerism to placate their population … partly. Unlike Western Europe, the USA, Canada and even Mexico who continue to be inundated by migrants wanting to get in, the USSR, on the other hand, had to contend with its citizens trying to escape. This is still a problem today in Russia. People vote with their feet.
Back to the initial question. Why can’t Vlad play nice? We can only guess. He is not burdened with a national history of a capitalistic democratic republic or with utopian visions of a liberal democratic society bursting with opportunities for everyone. Vlad is a product of his upbringing as a KGB officer in a closed and isolated security state with a population long accustomed to going along with what the central authoritarian leadership forcibly requires. As a former KGB operative in East Germany, he understands authoritarian rule at the ground level. While bubbling up the chain of command he mastered the complex internal Kremlin politics and managed to get selected by Yeltsin to succeed him. Lucky guy. But when will he decide enough is enough? Today, his poorly conceived plan to expand Russian influence by overtaking Ukraine has backfired, leading to over 500,000 Russian military casualties. Along with the loss of a large fraction of his conventional military armaments like tanks, cannon, radar, air defense systems, aircraft, naval vessels and so on, he has singlehandedly exposed the Russian military for what it is- a paper tiger, but only in conventional arms. He still has a potent nuclear triad to serve as his final stinger.
