The Path to War
By Alan
Caruba
Having
lived through the long Cold War with the former Soviet Union, including the
Cuban Missile crisis, my thoughts over those years were that their leaders
would not risk war because the outcome would be disastrous for Russia. When it
collapsed in 1991, its Eastern Europe satellite states broke free to establish
their independence.
Now
Vladimir Putin wants them back. The West can be forgiven for abandoning Crimea
to the Russians because it was a part of their nation for hundreds of years and
they have good reason to want to retain its only warm water ports there. That
does not, however, give them a claim on the rest of the Ukraine. It is massing
troops along its borders.
Historically,
the path to war is often strewn with a failure to respond to aggression or with
an over-response.
In the
last century, the U.S. resisted involvement in European wars until it was under
attack in some fashion. We entered World War Two that had been occurring since
1939 when Germany attacked Poland when we were attacked by the Japanese Empire in 1941
and we resisted getting into World War One for most of it until the very end.
Begun in 1914, the U.S. did not enter until 1917 in response to submarine
attacks and diplomatic efforts to encourage Mexico to reclaim its former
territories. It was concluded in 1918, mostly because Germany had exhausted its
resources by then. Barely twenty years later Hitler began World War Two.
Obama
keeps talking about the 19th century and international laws, but
Russia and other enemies only understand the use of power to secure their
expansionist ambitions. Vladimir Putin, now enjoying a renewed popularity at
home may conclude he can seize the Ukraine with minimum effort and resistance.
He has
reason to believe this given the feeble response of the U.S. and Europe to
date. Some relatively minor sanctions have been announced and others are being
considered. At this writing those sanctions involve seven Russians and four
Ukrainians. There has been no U.S. military aid to Ukraine and only some minor
transfers to military assets to Poland.
For Putin,
the judgment rests on Obama’s weakness and whether he and Congress would
respond more forcefully. He has little reason to believe this given Obama’s
withdrawal from Iraq and the U.S. withdrawal occurring in Afghanistan. Add
Obama’s continued reduction of the U.S. military budget and its level of power
and you have the kind of calculations that can lead to more aggressive action
by Russia.
World War
One saw the end of several empires such as the Austrian-Hungary and the Ottoman
Empire. It launched modern warfare with the introduction of new, more lethal
weapons and innovations such as aerial warfare. It began on June 28, 1914 with
the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Serbia. By August, Germany
declared war on Russia, France, and Belgium, and on August 19th
the U.S. announced its neutrality.
Neither
the U.S., nor Europe wants to engage Russia militarily, but neither has either
to date demonstrated any intention to protect the Ukraine or other nations that
border Russia. That failure has enormous implications and must be reversed with
action that includes the transfer of NATO troops and other actions
demonstrating the will to resist.
Obama
keeps referring to the “international community” but in the real world all
nations act to protect themselves despite organizations such as the United
Nations, NATO and treaties that promise mutual aid and protection.
Putin
knows this even if Obama and his advisors do not. Obama’s actions at home have
weakened the U.S. by virtue of our enormous, historic debt and, as noted, his
constant reductions to our military strength.
Strong
financial sanctions against Russia may give Putin cause to reconsider, but we
cannot wait much longer for their implementation. This is complicated by
Europe’s and our own financial investments in what was seen as a new Russia.
Europe’s
dependence on energy provided by Russia adds to its reluctance. Craig Rucker,
the executive director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
notes that “The radical eco-left has gained such powerful sway across Europe
that they have cut their nations off from their most reliable domestic sources
of energy.”
“The
feel-good cover story is laden with pictures of windmills and solar panels, but
the hard facts remain that these expensive and inefficient sources of energy
are not up to the task of powering a continent. That leaves much of Europe
dependent on Gasprom, Russia’s natural gas export company and pipelines through
the Ukraine.”
Overall,
however, Russia is regarded to have a weak economy and a reliance on Western
capital markets. That might be sufficient to forestall any action regarding the
Ukraine.
With Putin
in charge, we are looking at a former Russia, the Soviet model.
So the
world watches as the U.S., its European allies, and Russia close in on a repeat
of the last century’s history with the added threat of nuclear arms capable of
destroying entire nations.
© Alan
Caruba, 2014
******************************
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" and shared on dozens
of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than 3.2 million page
views. If
you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. For information on his professional
skills, Caruba Editorial Services is the place to go!
You can find Alan Caruba on both Facebook and Twitter as well.
***********************
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on
Freedom" Face Book Page!!:
(Just click on the link for more conservative
commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)
No comments:
Post a Comment