At their recent meeting of Xi Jinping and Joe Biden agreed that the United States and China must manage the competition responsibly and keep lines of communication open to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict. In reality both countries are in involved in complicated but spiralling arms race including U.S. rearmament to deter the Chinese, while China is modernising and enhancing its military capabilities to such an extent that the U.S. fears to be outpaced in the arms race. In this essay we discuss the U.S. fears and U.S. strategies to alleviate these fears and stay ahead, not the least in relation to a conflict a China-U.S. over Taiwan. Due to the length of the essay, it has been divided into three parts published separately: Part 1 Declining power of the U.S. The U.S. not prepared for the big one Playing war games and losing A U.S. military in decline Part 2 Preparing for the big one Vague “National Strategy” of deterrence Renewing nuclear armament Building a stronger missile defence Part 3 Questioning U.S. Strategy Peace rhetoric while preparing for war? War over Taiwan? Should allies question U.S. strategy? War over Taiwan neither in the best interest of Europe nor the U.S Part 2 Preparing for the big one Vague “National Strategy” of deterrence When The Department of Defense published their most recent National Defense Strategy including Missile Defense and Nuclear Posture Reviews on October 27, 2022, it placed its primary focus on the need to sustain and strengthen U.S. deterrence against China in collaboration with allies and partners. One wonder if allies and partners have had anything say to the strategy of the U.S, but perhaps collaboration just means they have to accept the U.S. strategic view. In the words of Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin this means "We're seamlessly integrating our deterrence efforts to make a basic truth crystal clear to any potential foe … That truth is that the cost of aggression against the United States or our allies and partners far outweigh any conceivable gains." The absolute focus of U.S. is China. Here as described in a lengthy excerpt from the National Defense Strategy: “Strategic Competition with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The most comprehensive and serious challenge to U.S. national security is the PRC’s coercive and increasingly aggressive endeavor to refashion the Indo-Pacific region and the international system to suit its interests and authoritarian preferences. The PRC seeks to undermine U.S. alliances and security partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region, and leverage its growing capabilities, including its economic influence and the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) growing strength and military footprint, to coerce its neighbors and threaten their interests. The PRC’s increasingly provocative rhetoric and coercive activity towards Taiwan are destabilizing, risk miscalculation, and threaten the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait. This is part of a broader pattern of destabilizing and coercive PRC behavior that stretches across the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and along the Line of Actual Control. The PRC has expanded and modernized nearly every aspect of the PLA, with a focus on offsetting U.S. military advantages. The PRC is therefore the pacing challenge for the Department. In addition to expanding its conventional forces, the PLA is rapidly advancing and integrating its space, counterspace, cyber, electronic, and informational warfare capabilities to support its holistic approach to joint warfare. The PLA seeks to target the ability of the Joint Force to project power to defend vital U.S. interests and aid our Allies in a crisis or conflict. The PRC is also expanding the PLA’s global footprint and working to establish a more robust overseas and basing infrastructure to allow it to project military power at greater distances. In parallel, the PRC is accelerating the modernization and expansion of its nuclear capabilities. The United States and its Allies and partners will increasingly face the challenge of deterring two major powers with modern and diverse nuclear capabilities – the PRC and Russia – creating new stresses on strategic stability “ How the U.S. aim to deter China The National Defence Strategy is surprisingly vague on the substance of deterrence, and on precisely how the U.S. might deter China, but there is lots of rhetoric. The U.S. will reduce a competitor’s perception of the benefits of aggression relative to restraint. Meaning that the U.S. will try to persuade China that aggression against the U.S. and its allies will not pay. The U.S. will use deterrence by denial. “To deter aggression, especially where potential adversaries could act to rapidly seize territory, the Department will develop asymmetric approaches and optimize our posture for denial… Over the mid- to long-term, we will develop new capabilities, including in long-range strike, undersea, hypersonic, and autonomous systems, and improve information sharing and the integration of non-kinetic tools.” The strategy also refers to deterrence by resilience. “The ability to withstand, fight through, and recover quickly from disruption… Cyber resilience will be enhanced by, for example, modern encryption and a zero-trust architecture. In the space domain, the Department will reduce adversary incentives for early attack by fielding diverse, resilient, and redundant satellite constellations.” This was actually one of the important weaknesses shown in the aforementioned war games. The strategy also includes escalation management, as if escalation might not mean a self-reinforcing vicious spiral. In the rhetoric presented here they talk of “tailored approaches to assess and manage escalation risk in both crises and conflicts, including conducting analysis of escalation pathways and thresholds, and planning for situations with decreased domain awareness and impaired communications.” Under the heading “Force Planning” the strategy talks of infrastructure investments in the Indo-Pacific and expansion across the region. Perhaps this is related to the apparent problems related to maintenance and repair facilities for instance in Hawaii, and the planned use of bases in Northern Australia. “In Europe, our posture will focus on command and control, fires, and key enablers that complement our NATO Allies’ capabilities and strengthen deterrence by increasing combat credibility.” To strengthen and sustain deterrence, and to prevail in conflict “The Department will prioritize a future force that is:
Rhetoric and more rhetoric. Llike a vague wish for and hope we will achieve these aims. There is nothing more specific on how this is to be achieved, and what it will demand of the U.S. and its allies. The Strategy says it: This NDS (National Dense Strategy) has outlined the courses of action the Department of Defense will take to help meet this challenge. We are confident in success. Our country has faced and prevailed in multi-year competitions with major powers threatening or using force to subjugate others on more than one occasion in the past. Working in service of the American people, and in collaboration with our partners around the world, the men and women of our superbly capable Joint Force stand ready to do so again.” Perhaps in relying on the ultimate deterrence, in the shape of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Renewing nuclear armament “In 2022 the leaders of the five declared Nuclear Weapon States (France, People’s Republic of China, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States (P5)) affirmed that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and that nuclear weapons should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war.” Instead of concrete steps to make sure that a nuclear war will not happen by initiating mutual steps to prevent a nuclear armament race and a stronger commitment to nuclear disarmament, there are signs of a renewal of the nuclear armament race in relation to both Russia and China. While not ignoring he formidable Russian nuclear arsenal the main focus in this essay is on China. “The PRC likely intends to possess at least 1,000 deliverable warheads by the end of the decade. While the end state resulting from the PRC’s specific choices with respect to its nuclear forces and strategy is uncertain, the trajectory of these efforts points to a large, diverse nuclear arsenal with a high degree of survivability, reliability, and effectiveness. This could provide the PRC with new options before and during a crisis or conflict to leverage nuclear weapons for coercive purposes, including military provocations against U.S. Allies and partners in the region.” (Nuclear Posture Review 2022). In relation to China the Review argues that “it may be necessary to consider nuclear strategy and force adjustments to assure our ability to achieve deterrence and other objectives for the PRC – even as we continue to do so for Russia. Our plans and capabilities must also account for the fact that the PRC increasingly will be able to execute a range of nuclear strategies to advance its goals” The declarative policy of the U.S. is to maintain a very high bar for nuclear deployment, but as long as nuclear weapons exist “the fundamental role of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our Allies, and partners. The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its Allies and partners.” The Nuclear Posture Review declares: “We will maintain a flexible deterrence strategy and force posture that continues to clearly convey to the PRC that the United States will not be deterred from defending our Allies and partners, or coerced into terminating a conflict on unacceptable terms. Forces that provide this flexibility include the W76-2 low yield submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead, globally-deployable bombers, dual-capable fighter aircraft, and air-launched cruise missiles. Our intent is to prevent the PRC from mistakenly concluding that it could gain advantage through any employment of nuclear weapons, however limited.” The W76-2 reportedly has the explosive power of around 6,5 kilotons, and replaces existing W76 warheads with a yield of 100 kilotons. The deployment on U.S. nuclear Trident submarines apparently began in 2002. The idea behind the replacement of a high yield weapon with a low yield weapon is that the U.S. would then be able to have nuclear answer to Russian or Chinese use of tactical nuclear weapons in a regional war. The problem with this thinking is of course that it potentially gives rise to the spectre of a limited nuclear war, which in itself may be a very dangerous prospect. The U.S. is also modernizing its nuclear arsenal in other areas. “This includes modernizing U.S. nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and, with participating NATO Allies, transitioning to a new generation of fighter aircraft, including the U.S. F-35A Joint Strike Fighter. The United States will work with Allies concerned to ensure that the transition to modern DCA [Dual Aircraft Capable] and the B61-12 bomb [An updated air dropped gravity nuclear bomb] is executed efficiently and with minimal disruption to readiness.” The updated bombs would replace existing bombs bunkered at bases in Germany and Belgium. In the Indo-Pacific region the Posture Review states “We will work with Allies and partners to identify opportunities to increase the visibility of U.S. strategic assets to the region as a demonstration of U.S. resolve and commitment, including ballistic missile submarine port visits and strategic bomber missions. Greater capability integration is an important goal, as well – to better synchronize the nuclear and non-nuclear elements of deterrence and to leverage Ally and partner non-nuclear capabilities that can support the nuclear deterrence mission.” Recently it there has been plans for the deployment of strategic bombers to a Northern Australian base. ABC reported that the plans would include deployment up to six of the nuclear capable aging B52 bombers to Tindal Air airbase south of Darwin. There also plans for uprated the U.S. nuclear command, control and Communications (NC3) architecture. In contrast to the National Strategy the Nuclear Posture Review reveal very specific plans for modernizing the nuclear forces of the U.S. Including what might seem to some observers a dangerous possibility of fighting a regional nuclear war. This certainly does not represent concrete steps to make sure that a nuclear war will not happen, on the contrary. While the rhetorically signalling arms control and nuclear disarmament, the reality today points a multifaceted nuclear race involving Russia, China and the U.S. with additional dangers lurking in the wings from North Korea and Iran. The US program is certainly comprehensive, with the Review listing these findings (National Posture Review 2022):. S
Building a stronger missile defence In addition to what might be seen as deterrence based upon superior offensive capabilities U.S. strategy also relies on defensive capabilities to deter China, Russia North Korea and to a certain degree also Iran from launching strikes against the U.S. and its allies. Until recently the main threat may have been Russia, but Chinese offensive capabilities are increasingly important. “Over the past two decades, the PRC has dramatically advanced its development of conventional and nuclear-armed ballistic and hypersonic missile technologies and capabilities, through intense and focused investment, development, testing, and deployments. … Increasingly sophisticated and proliferated space-based Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) networks, and improved Command and Control (C2) systems, have greatly improved the precision and accuracy of missile systems the PRC would employ to deter and counter U.S. forward presence and operations, especially in the Western Pacific region.” (Missile Defense Review 2022). This means the U.S. will have strengthen its missile defence against China, not the least in the Indo-pacific region, in order for to make sure that its missile defence capabilities, represent a credible defence against missile attacks. The defence against missile attacks “Missile defense systems such as the GMD [Gound Based Midcourse Defence System] offer a visible measure of protection for the U.S. population while reassuring Allies and partners that the United States will not be coerced by threats to the homeland from states like North Korea and potentially Iran. In the event of crisis, globally integrated domain awareness capabilities increase warning and allow for flexible decision-making to respond, as necessary and appropriate, with escalatory options such as kinetic strike. Should deterrence fail, missile defenses can help mitigate damage to the homeland and help protect the U.S. population.” With the present missile defence is no longer sufficient it will be necessary to develop new capabilities. This includes the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI), new “active and passive defenses against regional hypersonic missile threats, and … a persistent and resilient sensor network to characterize and track all hypersonic threats, improve attribution, and enable engagement.” The U.S. will also continue to strengthen defences for U.S. allies and partners against all regional missile threats from any source. It is important to emphasize that U.S. neither intend nor is capable of, is defending and defeating “large and sophisticated ICBM, air-, or sea- launched ballistic missile threats from Russia and the PRC.” Against these threats the U.S. relies on solely on its strategic nuclear deterrence. For instance the SSBNs (The Sub-Surface Ballistic Nuclear) submarines like the Ohio class and the new Columbia class submarines carrying up to 16 Trident D-5 SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles). See also: U.S. talking peace but preparing to take on China, Part 1 and U.S. talking peace but preparing to take on China, Part3 (Forthcoming). Click here to edit. At their recent meeting of Xi Jinping and Joe Biden agreed that the United States and China must manage the competition responsibly and keep lines of communication open to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict. In reality both countries are in involved in complicated but spiralling arms race including U.S. rearmament to deter the Chinese, while China is modernising and enhancing its military capabilities to such an extent that the U.S. fears to be outpaced in the arms race. In this essay we discuss the U.S. fears and U.S. strategies to alleviate these fears and stay ahead, not the least in relation to a China-U.S. conflict over Taiwan. Due to the length of the essay, it has been divided into three parts to be published separately: Part 1 Declining power of the U.S. The U.S. not prepared for the big one Playing war games and losing A U.S. military in decline Part 2 Preparing for the big one Vague “National Strategy” of deterrence Renewing nuclear armament Building a stronger missile defence Part 3 Questioning U.S. Strategy Peace rhetoric while preparing for war? War over Taiwan? Should allies question U.S. strategy? War over Taiwan neither in the best interest of Europe nor the U.S Part 1 Declining power of the U.S. The U.S. not prepared for the big one "This Ukraine crisis that we're in right now, this is just the warmup … The big one is coming. And it isn't going to be very long before we're going to get tested in ways that we haven't been tested a long time.” Navy Adm. Charles A. Richard, commander of Stratcom (The U.S. Strategic Command) prophesied recently. Of cause the admiral was taking about the ability to take on China in the future. In his view the outlook was dire, with China was outcompeting the U.S. in a dramatic fashion. "As I assess our level of deterrence against China, the ship is slowly sinking, … It is sinking slowly, but it is sinking, as fundamentally they are putting capability in the field faster than we are. As those curves keep going, it isn't going to matter how good our [operating plan] is or how good our commanders are, or how good our forces are — we're not going to have enough of them. And that is a very near-term problem." As Commander of Stratcom he was especially concerned that the U.S. nuclear forces might not be able to demonstrate a convincing strategic deterrence in relation to China. Referring also to the threats from Russia and North Korea “vividly illuminating what nuclear coercion looks like and how you, or how you don’t, stand up to that. In his view the U.S. has to regain the advantage fast. What he envisioned was the ability to act fast and confident, “That’s how we got to the Moon by 1969 … Otherwise China is simply going to outcompete U.S. and Russia isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.” A year earlier the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chíefs of Staff, General Hyten, gave a similar warning, after China had tested its secretive hypersonic missile that “went around the world, dropped of a hypersonic glide vehicle that glided all the way back to China and impacted a target in China.” This Chinese demonstration was certainly a wake-up call for the U.S. military. Prompting General Hyten to warn “The pace they’re moving and the trajectory they’re on will surpass Russia and the United States if we don’t do something to change it. It will happen. So, I think we have to do something.” Playing war games and losing In a secret wargame in October 2020 simulating a battle between Chinese and U.S. forces over Taiwan the Chinese mauled the U.S. forces. ““Without overstating the issue, it failed miserably. An aggressive red team that had been studying the United States for the last 20 years just ran rings around us. They knew exactly what we're going to do before we did it” (Gen. Hyten). Apparently, the wargame showed that the U.S. forces lost the battle because of these decisive factors: U.S. forces were too aggregated and in “today’s world, with hypersonic missiles, with significant long-range fires coming at us from all domains, if you're aggregated and everybody knows where you are, you're vulnerable” (Gen. Hyten). In earlier wars like in the Gulf war U.S. were used to have information dominance. “We basically attempted an information-dominance structure, where information was ubiquitous to our forces. Just like it was in the first Gulf War, just like it has been for the last 20 years, just like everybody in the world, including China and Russia, have watched us do for the last 30 years.” In this wargame the U.S. forces lost their information dominance with the Chinese able to take their cloud-based information system. Turning the table on the U.S. forces knowing where American were, while the Americans lost the ability to know the whereabouts of the Chinese. Apparently even the advanced F-35 joint Strike fighter proved useless in the tabletop wargames having to be based too close to the enemy. As a consequence of seeing U.S. forces failing miserably in this and earlier wargames “the military is updating its Joint Warfighting Concept with the new “Expanded Maneuver” strategy that seeks to transform how it fights over the next decade.” (Stars and Stripes). The military is not alone in playing games. The worsening relations between the U.S. and China, especially in relation to Taiwan have renewed the interest in the question of what might happen in a U.S.-China war over Taiwan. Think tanks have designed their own wargames. In May 2022 the NBC even sponsored a wargame at the gaming lab at the Center for New American Security (CNAS.) Afterwards airing a short version in their “Meet the Press” program. The wargame was based upon the assumption that China invaded Taiwan in 2027 as a reaction to a new government in Taiwan declaring permanent independence from China. In the game the red team representing China initially attempted a quick invasion in the Northern part of Taiwan “to force Taipei to capitulate before the Blue forces [The U.S.] could recover from Red’s opening blow. Red aimed to decapitate Taiwan’s leadership, launch punitive strikes to erode Taiwan’s will to resist, and cut off communications to the island to reduce Taipei’s strategic messaging aimed at rallying international support.” (CNAS). In the game it proved impossible for China to achieve a quick win due to Taiwan resistance and U.S. involvement. “…neither side was able to decisively win in the initial week of fighting. Both Red and Blue had expended large portions of their inventories of precision long-range missiles, lost many fighter aircraft, and needed to resupply and rearm forces under attack.” (CNAS). Unexpected and really was scary, both red and blue rapidly became involved in mutual escalation, with the red team attempting to break the American ability to bring reinforcements into battle by bombarding American bases in the first island chain, bases in Japan and even bases in northern Australia, while the blue U.S. team retaliated by bombing points in mainland China (amazonaws.com). Taking a leaf out of the war in Ukraine the red team then threatened to go nuclear. The blue U.S. team dismissed the threat relying on the U.S. nuclear deterrence. The red team then decided to up the ante by detonating a nuclear weapon off Hawaii. Well, it was game wasn’t it, although perhaps somewhat over the top. Perhaps for showing off and getting a TV audience’s attention. More serious was the realisation that the U.S. would have a hard time fighting off a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Observers like a former Airforce Lt. General Deptula said the game demonstrated the need to re-arm and supply Taiwan before any confrontation with China, as “The U.S. military lacks enough systems and equipment “to execute and sustain its own contribution to a successful defense of Taiwan, much less adequately supply Taiwan” (Lt. Gen. Deptula). Similar observations were made by other observers. The Center for Strategic & and International Studies (CSIS) is carrying out a several iterations of a similar wargame involving a simulated U.S.-China battle over Taiwan in 2026. The game is ongoing but planned to finish in December 2022. Insights from most of previous iterations apparently demonstrate that U.S. and Taiwanese forces could prevent the Chinese from taking over Taiwan or at least reach a stalemate, but ultimately the cost would be terrible. It has been reported that the U.S. in 18 of the existing 22 iterations lost 500 aircraft, 20 surface ships including two aircraft carriers in every round. But at least this game hasn’t involved the use of nuclear weapons. The existing iterations have shown that if the U.S. decides to get involved in battle to prevent a Chinese takeover of Taiwan it must enhance the deterrence provided by conventional means. According to CSIS this include supplying Taiwan with weapons now, as it would be almost impossible to provide Taiwan with arms and supplies when a battle has begun. The games have shown that U.S. bombers armed with long range anti-ship missiles was the most important weapon. Meaning that U.S. should enhance its capabilities in this field. Another lesson from that game was that the U.S. would lose most aircraft on the ground as they would have to be stationed on forward bases vulnerable to Chines attacks. Meaning that bases had to be hardened. The amounts of missiles used early in the battle would be prodigious and leading to rapid depletion of the available stockpiles. Thus, there is a need for much larger stockpiles. Like General Hyten previously mentioned, it is also important to avoid large concentrations of U.S. forces as it might represent an easy target for the multitude of Chinese missiles. But it is just games is it not? Or is there is more to it? Perhaps such games can set in motion actions by the U.S. that would strengthen U.S. military capabilities and enhance deterrence against a Chinese takeover of Taiwan. Which in itself might actually strengthen the conviction that a battle over Taiwan could be won, and indirectly also strengthen Taiwanese rejection of Chinese unification approaches. Actually, making war over Taiwan more probable. A similar view is found in an article published by U.S. China Perception Monitor. The article argues that war games “can dangerously mislead American policymakers and public to misunderstand the risk and current state across the Taiwan Strait. Both the CNAS and the CSIS wargame projects relied on assumptions about strategy and military doctrine that are unwarranted, impractical, or outdated. Meanwhile, the methods used to conduct these wargames were likely more entertaining than they were accurate and constructive.” (Zhang Yilun, uscnpm.org). A U.S. military in decline War games and military commanders are not alone in warning against a waning U.S. ability to take on China, and the existing and potential challenges it has to take into account, like Russia, North Korea, Iran terrorist groups and the complex consequences of climate change, and dare one mention internal strife in the U.S. itself. In October 2022 the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, published a “2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength.” In this it argued that “As currently postured, the U.S. military is at growing risk of not being able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests. It is rated as weak relative to the force needed to defend national interests on a global stage against actual challenges in the world as it is rather than as we wish it were. This is the logical consequence of years of sustained use, underfunding, poorly defined priorities, wildly shifting security policies, exceedingly poor discipline in program execution, and a profound lack of seriousness across the national security establishment even as threats to U.S. interests have surged.” With the index the think tank attempts to assess “the ease or difficulty of operating in key regions based on existing alliances, regional political stability, the presence of U.S. military forces, and the condition of key infrastructure.” All this in order to view the ability to defend the vital interests of the U.S.
Here first a visual summary of the threats to the vital interest as judged by the think tank. (Heritage Foundation): No surprises in this summary. But at least it shows that U.S. military hegemony is being challenged from several directions at the same time. The question then is, is the U.S. military might ready to take on all these threats almost simultaneously? Or in other words is the U.S. ready to go to war with a large part of the World? Or are there alternatives to war, realizing that taking on all these threats might be too much even for the U.S. Another question to what degree would the rest of the Western World, especially of cause Europe, be ready to support U.S. might and hegemony? The index being discussed here concentrates mostly on the status of U.S. military might. In the think tank’s summary of the military capabilities of the U.S. they reach the following aggregate conclusion ((Heritage Foundation): The conclusion points to an overall weakness in conventional forces, apart for the Marine Corps, but they certainly will not be able to fight major conflicts on their own. Nuclear capabilities are seen as strong, but it might not matter much given the enormous Russian arsenal and the hasty growth of Chinese nuclear capability, as a nuclear war might result in mutual destruction. Detailed comparisons with the capabilities of major competitors in a more detailed exposé demonstrate the growing U.S. weakness in conventional forces. Here a couple of examples. An army comparison shows the U.S. lagging its competitors in land-based missile capabilities. Some of missiles are capable of delivering non-strategic nuclear weapons. (Heritage Foundation): This shows that at least in the number of ships the U.S navy is really getting behind. In addition, it seems certain that the U.S. is lagging behind China in shipbuilding capacity, which would be important in a drawn-out conflict. China may not have the enormous U.S. nuclear powered carriers, but these carriers on the other hand represent inviting goals for China’s missile capabilities. Where the U.S. has real advantage for a foreseeable time is in the number of nuclear submarines. With regard to Air Force the index points to a growing U.S. weakness related to number and age of combat-coded fighters (Heritage Foundation): Not exactly the impressive view that one might have expected. Although they apparently do not include navy and marine corps fighters. It is worth remembering that the wargames related to a war with China over Taiwan showed that the U.S. might lose around 500 aircraft. A simple comparison of total numbers still shows U.S. superiority (armed forces.eu): Recently General Mark Kelly U.S. Air Combat Commander warned China’s PLAA (People’s Liberation Army Airforce) might become the first to field sixth generation aircraft, and thus overtake the U.S. in the latest generation fighters. While the general may be right, it is important to keep in mind, that he is using the possible threat to argue for a speedy introduction of such 6th generation fighters in the U.S. The U.S. must do more to stay ahead. Overall, the Heritage Foundation Index concludes “that the current U.S. military force is at significant risk of not being able to meet the demands of a single major regional conflict while also attending to various presence and engagement activities. The force would probably not be able to do more and is certainly ill-equipped to handle two nearly simultaneous MRCs [Major regional Conflicts]—a situation that is made more difficult by the generally weak condition of key military allies.” While this leads the military sources and Heritage Foundation to recommend hasty rejuvenation and expansion of U.S. military capabilities to stay ahead of its competitors, one might perhaps draw another preliminary conclusion. That the U.S. perhaps should not get into a war with China over Taiwan as it might be too costly, and likewise that the U.S. perhaps should look to alternatives. Instead of believing that it ought to be capable of talking on militarily all the threats it sees in the next decade. In this light it might look outright stupid to drive Russia into a kind of forced rapprochement with China, as the ongoing U.S. proxy war with Russia in the Ukraine is sure to do. Essay to be continued in Part 2 "Preparing for the big one"
Making sure that the U.S. stays ahead
In September National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan emphasised that the U.S. had to protect the U.S.’s technology advantage. Apparently not only by outcompeting anyone else, but also by attempts to throttle key technological development in China. Sullivan argued that maintaining “relative” advantages over competitors in certain key technologies was no longer enough … Given the foundational nature of certain technologies, such as advanced logic and memory chips, we must maintain as large of a lead as possible.” In order to maintain the lead over competitors (read China) the U.S. must restrict outbound investments in sensitive technologies, “particularly investments that would not be captured by export controls and could enhance the technological capabilities of our competitors in the most sensitive areas.” (Sullivan). The two goals then for U.S.: Stay ahead in technology and prevent China from ever getting too close to overtaking the U.S. With the CHIPS ACT from august 2022 Congress and the Biden administration were trying primarily to support the first goal. The $52.7 billion CHIPS Act seeks to alleviate chips shortage and re-establish the production of advanced microchips in the U.S. In effect an attempt to bring home at least part of the fabrication of advanced semiconductor chips, presently mostly located in Taiwan. In a previous essay “The US-China war on chips” we also looked at the U.S. attempt to support the second gaol with U.S. attempts to throw a spanner into the works for China by introducing new export controls. On August 12 the U.S. established export controls on technologies that enable semiconductors, engines and power systems “to operate faster, more efficiently, longer, and in more severe conditions in both the commercial and military context” (BIS, Bureau of Industry and Security). Now the U.S. is following up with further attempts to make sure that China stays behind in the war on chips. Preventing China from ever catching up A key priority is to establish an export control system capable of throttling the Chinese military’s access to advanced AI chips. On October 7 the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a new set of export controls on advanced computing and semiconductor items to China. The new BIS export controls contain two rules. The first one is meant to make sure that China cannot get access to the most advanced U.S. chips and tools used to develop and construct supercomputers, artificial intelligence applications, and manufacture advanced semiconductors. Taking the example of supercomputers the race is already on today China is competing at eyelevel with U.S. in the super computer race. Both having built supercomputers with peak performances in the ExaFLOP range. While the U.S. Frontier supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is said to be capable of 1.5 ExaFLOPS, the Chinese Sunway Oceanlite computer is reported to have a peak performance of 1.3 exaFLOPS in 2022. (ExaFLOPS, a measure of performance for a supercomputer that can calculate at least one quintillion floating point operations per second). The Oceanlite supercomputer “is already in use and plays a starring role in a recent project designed to approach brain-scale AI where the number of parameters is similar to the number of synapses in the human brain. In fact, the project is the first to target training brain-scale models on an entire exascale supercomputer, revealing the full potential of the machine.” (asianscientist.com). There is fear such capabilities might be used by China “to produce advanced military systems including weapons of mass destruction; improve the speed and accuracy of its military decision making, planning, and logistics, as well as of its autonomous military systems; and commit human rights abuses.” Here we see a new argument creeping in, that preventing China from getting access to advanced chips and tools is also meant to prevent human rights abuses. Like surveillance capabilities to monitor own citizens. In other words: “Our actions will protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests while also sending a clear message that U.S. technological leadership is about values as well as innovation.” (Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration). An argument to somehow elevate the U.S. attempt to keep China behind in the supercomputer race from just being concerned with technology to the noble goal of preserving and strengthening Western values. The new restrictions announced in the BIS statement adds new license requirements for items destined to be used in semiconductor fabrication. “The new rules are comprehensive, and cover a range of advanced semiconductor technology, from chips produced by the likes of AMD and Nvidia to the expensive, complex equipment needed to make those chips. Much of highest-quality chip manufacturing equipment is made by three U.S. companies: KLA, Applied Materials, and Lam Research, and cutting off China’s access to their tools has the potential to damage the country’s ambitions to become a chipmaking powerhouse.” (protocol.com). The stringent new restrictions The new restrictions for export to China announced by BIS October 7 include: Logic chips with non-planar transistor architectures (I.e., FinFET or GAAFET) of 16nm or 14nm, or below; DRAM memory chips of 18nm half-pitch or less; NAND flash memory chips with 128 layers or more. (These restrictions are meant to make sure that China will not have access to the most advanced chips, forcing China to use older designs and technologies, but it may prove impossible as SMIC, the largest chipmaker in China, is already able to produce chips with a 7nm process). Restricts the ability of U.S. persons to support the development, or production, of ICs at certain China-located semiconductor fabrication “facilities” without a license (Meaning that U.S. citizens supporting or servicing development and production of ICs in China will have to cease their work); Adds new license requirements to export items to develop or produce semiconductor manufacturing equipment and related items (restricting the export of tools that would allow China to make advanced semiconductors); and Establishes a Temporary General License (TGL) to minimize the short-term impact on the semiconductor supply chain by allowing specific, limited manufacturing activities related to items destined for use outside the PRC. (Presumable in order make sure that the new rules will not harm the U.S. itself). The second rule in in the BIS announcement is meant to make sure that Chinese and other foreign countries and companies will be added to an export black list, known as the “Entity List,” if they do not comply with the U.S. export controls. “The rule provides an example that stipulates that sustained lack of cooperation by a foreign government that prevents BIS from verifying the bona fides of companies on the Unverified List (UVL) can result in those parties being moved to the Entity List, if an end-use check is not timely scheduled and completed.” (BIS). On October 7 a total of 31 new entities were added to the list. Among those were China's top memory chipmaker YMTC (Yangtze Memory Technologies) and 30 other Chinese entities. Hurting Apple’s plans to use YMTC’s NAND flash memory chips, with Nikkei reporting that Apple has now put plans on hold. According to a BIS document 600 Chinese companies had already been added to the list. More than 110 of these since the start of the Biden presidency. Chinese reactions to US’s export ban “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” The quote from Shakespeare’s Macbeth may characterize the public reactions from China. And what else can they do publicly? When the CHIPS act was signed Wang Wenbin, Chinese Foreign ministry spokesperson, slammed the Act: “How the US grow its industry is its own business, but it should not set obstacles for normal economic, trade, scientific and technological exchanges and cooperation between China and the US, let alone undermine China's legitimate development rights and interests.” (Global Times). The new October restrictions were met with renewed fury. The U.S. restrictions on exports to China were seen as attempt to create a U.S. technological hegemony: “Mao Ning, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry, said on Saturday that the US' new restrictions will hinder international tech exchanges and economic cooperation, and undermine the stability of global industrial and supply chains and the recovery of the world economy. The US' politicization and weaponization of technology, economic and trade issues will not stop China's development, and will only hurt the US itself, Mao added.” (People’s Daily). Global Times warns that the U.S. chips export ban “could risk as much as 30% of some global chips giants’ revenue” and harm the U.S. itself. “As it costs vast financial and human resources investment in the R&D of cutting-edge chips, US companies will unlikely see much returns without chip exports to China and could barely re-invest in future R&D,” (Gao Lingyun quoted in Global Times). Erecting barriers to trade shift production away from the countries with most efficient production, and lead to a decrease in economic growth. A recent WTO working paper that tries to model the impact of ongoing geopolitical conflicts on trade growth and innovation indicate that “welfare losses for the global economy of a decoupling scenario can be drastic, as large as 12% in some regions and larges in the lower income regions” (wto-library.org). What the U.S. may also have forgotten in their eagerness to prevent China from ever getting too close to overtaking the U.S. is that export controls may not nearly be enough. In an earlier essay “The US-China war on chips” we refer to the historical example of America colonies (later the U.S.) overtaking Britain in industrial textile manufacturing as an example showing that it might be impossible to throttle a competitor with enough human and material resources, and China certainly has the manpower and the financial resources to achieve something similar.. Mathieu Duchatel at the Institute Montaigne argues in a similar vein, when saying: The most difficult challenge for an effective chokepoint policy is intangible technology transfers through education and research cooperation, and talent recruitment. Frontal breakthroughs that would suddenly remove chokepoints seem unlikely in the medium term, but Chinese breakthroughs may happen in other innovative segments of the semiconductor industry, such as new materials and heterogeneous integration.” The fallout hitting South Korea and Taiwan October 10 South Korea published an assessment of possible consequences of the U.S. chip export ban. While it concluded that the effects should be limited it also acknowledged that the South Korean giants in the production of memory chips Samsung and Hynix and important activities in China would certainly have to take account of the new U.S. export controls. Restricting their ability to introduce more advanced technology in their memory chip fabrication in China. Earlier in the year the Taiwan chip giant TSMC stopped supplying the Chinese company Tianjin Phytium Information Technology Company with advanced chips after Phytium had been placed on the U.S. entity list, presumably as a consequence of Phytium having designed a supercomputer, which according to Datacenter Dynamics is used to simulate the performance of the new Chinese hypersonic DF-17 missile. A missile that certainly poses a new big challenge to the U.S. The possible self-harm for U.S. companies In the Chinese reaction to the U.S. export ban they warned that it would harm U.S. companies in the semiconductor sector as their involvement in China and their large export to China would be harmed. This certainly seem to be the case when noting what has happened to the share price of the companies in this sector. Asia Times on October 17 showed the decline from 52 weeks highs to 52 weeks lows: Intel (INTC) was down 56%; Micron (MU) was down 50%; Nvidia (NVDA) was down 69% (its products having been directly targeted by the Biden administration); and AMD (AMD) (also directly targeted) was down 67%. Among the companies making equipment critical for chips design and fabrication: "Applied Materials (AMAT) was down 57%; "Lam Research (LRCX) was down 59%; and "KLA (KLAC) was down 45%. Yes, there might be other factors involved in the decline, but on October 10 Applied Materials has said that the U.S. ban would reduce fourth quarter net sales by about $400 million, thus lowering profit expectations. Retaliatory measures from China might further reduce sales from these and other companies having a substantial export to China. This would mean that the Biden administration’s ban would harm not only Chinese but also American companies. The warning from history Here it may be relevant to refer back the conclusion in the earlier essay “The US-China war on chips” China may not yet a champion in the production of advanced semiconductors, but then we have to remember that Taiwan is, and China insists that there is only one China and Taiwan is part of it. And if that also became the reality, China would jump to the front in the production of advanced semiconductors. Production that is, not yet design. But China might be on the verge of overtaking the U.S. in areas related to Artificial Intelligence or AI. A final report on AI from the U.S. National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) published in 2021 concludes: “The leading indexes that measure progress in AI development generally place the United States ahead of China. However, the gap is closing quickly. China stands a reasonable chance of overtaking the United States as the leading center of AI innovation in the coming decade. In recent years, technology firms in China have produced pathfinding advances in natural language processing, facial recognition technology, and other AI-enabled domains.” Does history repeat itself? Not one to one of course. We are no longer talking textile machinery, but advanced semiconductors and AI. Looking at the data we have shown that it certainly seems probable that in the war on chips China might overtake the U.S. and thus the West. The present U.S. sanctions restrictions may hamper Chinese development in these areas, but also encourage Chinese to search for ways to leapfrog the U.S. based on their own efforts. Like the British attempts to prevent the growth of textile manufacturing in the colonial US and later in India, it may prove impossible to stop the colossal Chinese momentum, in research, investment and production. The U.S. realization that China might soon overtake the U.S. in AI may represent the writing on the great wall. A kind of mene mene tekel upharsin for the West. The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. W.B. Yeats Eying defeat in a proxy war Given the apparent success of the West’s proxy war in Ukraine and Russia’s evident difficulties the important question is: What might/will Russia do now that its mighty military has been humiliated and its goals looks increasingly difficult or even impossible to achieve? Surely Russia must now realise that it is fighting all the might of West in a proxy war, carried out on Ukrainian soil. Russia finds itself in an impossible quandary similar to the Norse God, Thor, when he was trying to lift the Midgard Serpent or Jörmungandr in the shape of a cat. An impossible task even for Thor as the Midgard Serpent stretched around the whole World. Putin may have thought it was easy to “lift” a puny Ukraine, but must now realise that he is fighting the Midgard Serpent of the whole of Western might. What will Putin do? The Kremlin, September 21, 2022, 09:00. In an address that Wednesday morning President Putin had three important announcements: Referendums in Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye “The parliaments of the Donbass people’s republics and the military-civilian administrations of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions have adopted decisions to hold referendums on the future of their territories and have appealed to Russia to support this.” Partial mobilisation “I find it necessary to support the proposal of the Defence Ministry and the General Staff on partial mobilisation in the Russian Federation to defend our Motherland and its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to ensure the safety of our people and people in the liberated territories.” Nuclear threat “Washington, London and Brussels are openly encouraging Kiev to move the hostilities to our territory. They openly say that Russia must be defeated on the battlefield by any means, and subsequently deprived of political, economic, cultural and any other sovereignty and ransacked… I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff. The citizens of Russia can rest assured that the territorial integrity of our Motherland, our independence and freedom will be defended – I repeat – by all the systems available to us. Those who are using nuclear blackmail against us should know that the wind rose can turn around.” Biden’s hasty riposte United Nations Headquarters, New York, September 21, 2022 at10:35 a.m. EDT. In his speech at the 77th session of the United Nations President Biden had these replies to President Putin’s announcements: On nuclear threats “Again, just today, President Putin has made overt nuclear threats against Europe and a reckless disregard for the responsibilities of the non- proliferation regime. Let me also urge every nation to recommit to strengthening the nuclear non- proliferation regime through diplomacy. No matter what else is happening in the world, the United States is ready to pursue critical arms control measures. A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought … Let me also urge every nation to recommit to strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime through diplomacy. No matter what else is happening in the world, the United States is ready to pursue critical arms control measures. A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought … And again, today, as I said, they’re making irresponsible nuclear threats to use nuclear weapons. China is conducting an unprecedented, concerning nuclear buildup without any transparency.” On Putin’s mobilization “Now Russia is calling — calling up more soldiers to join the fight. And the Kremlin is organizing a sham referenda to try to annex parts of Ukraine, an extremely significant violation of the U.N. Charter. This world should see these outrageous acts for what they are. Putin claims he had to act because Russia was threatened. But no one threatened Russia, and no one other than Russia sought conflict. In fact, we warned it was coming. And with many of you, we worked to try to avert it.” A passionate and dangerous game of chicken* What the U.S. intelligence believes Putin might do: President Putin may turn to more drastic means …including imposing martial law, reorienting industrial production, or potentially escalatory military actions to free up the resources needed to achieve his objectives as the conflict drags on, or if he perceives Russia is losing in Ukraine. “The most likely flashpoints for escalation in the coming weeks are around increasing Russian attempts to interdict Western security assistance, retaliation for Western economic sanctions, or threats to the regime at home. We believe that Moscow continues to use nuclear rhetoric to deter the United States and the West from increasing lethal aid to Ukraine and to respond to public comments from the U.S. and NATO Allies that suggest expanded western goals in the conflict. If Putin perceives that the United States is ignoring his threats, he may try to signal to Washington the heightened danger of its support to Ukraine by authorizing another large nuclear exercise involving a major dispersal of mobile intercontinental missiles, heavy bombers, strategic submarines. We otherwise continue to believe that President Putin would probably only authorize the use of nuclear weapons if he perceived an existential threat to the Russian state or regime, but we will remain vigilant in monitoring every aspect of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces. With tensions this high, there is always an enhanced potential for miscalculation, unintended escalation, which we hope our intelligence can help to mitigate.” (Emphasis added). (Avril Haines Director of National Intelligence at Congressional Testimony, May10). In the speech announcing the invasion of Ukraine Putin warned the West: “No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.... All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken. I hope that my words will be heard.” Three day later he ordered military command to put Russia's nuclear deterrent forces on high alert. The White House press secretary Jen Psaki, who often seems to act independently in lieu of Biden, dismissed Putin’s threat on Twitter the same day: “that Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to put his nation's nuclear deterrent forces on a state of heightened alert was part of a "pattern" of manufacturing threats that don't exist.” (Jen Psaki, February 27). In April, when it had become evident that Russian troops were in dire straits in Ukraine “Sergei Lavrov warned the West on Monday not to underestimate the elevated risks of nuclear conflict over Ukraine and said he viewed NATO as being "in essence" engaged in a proxy war with Russia by supplying Kyiv with weaponry.” (Reuters April 26). The threats were later dismissed by President Biden, when answering a question from journalist. Sounding somewhat hesitantly he said: “So, it’s — number one, it’s an excuse for their failure. But number two, it’s also, if they really mean it, it’s — it’s — no — no one should be making idle comments about the use of nuclear weapons or the possibility that they’d use that. It’s irresponsible.” Prime Minister Johnson was even more casually dismissing the threat. When asked he if shared the concern over threat of a nuclear war he simply said: “No. I don’t.” Analysts asked to judge the likelihood that Putin might use nuclear weapons when facing defeat in Ukraine have argued that there is a non-zero risk. A former undersecretary for defence put the risk a around 1 or 2 percent, while a former US ambassador to Russia judged the risk to be less than 5 percent. How they arrived at the percentage is not known, but that they judged the risk to be higher than zero is significant, and ought to give cause for concern among those Western leaders who rather arrogantly dismissed the Russian threat as merely empty words. Perhaps it would be wise to have a look at the Russian nuclear doctrine. Escalate to de-escalate when things fall apart On April 21, 2022 the U.S. congressional Service Published a report on Russians Nuclear doctrine. In 2020 Russia published the latest version of the doctrine entitled ““On Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence.” The document outlines the circumstances that might lead Russia to use nuclear weapons. “This document specifically notes that Russia “considers nuclear weapons exclusively as a means of deterrence.” It states that Russia’s nuclear deterrence policy “is defensive by nature, it is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence, and guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, and deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.” It also emphasizes that Russia maintains forces that could “inflict guaranteed unacceptable damage on a potential adversary ... in any circumstances.” Defensive it says, but it also states that Russia could respond with nuclear weapons following an “attack by adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions,” but also in an “aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.” (Emphasis added). Thus, Russia might respond to a conventional attack with nuclear weapons if it judges the very existence of the state to be in jeopardy. While this might seem to exclude the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian war, the document also opens the possibility of nuclear first use as it states: “… in the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.” Analysts have assessed that this means Russia might threaten to escalate to use nuclear weapons as a way to deter a conflict that would threaten the existence of the state, with Russia pursuing an “escalate to de-escalate” nuclear doctrine under certain circumstances. If a conventional conflict might threaten Russia, it might decide to use nuclear weapons to create such a catastrophic threat to a continuation of the conflict that its adversary would be forced to de-escalate. The Congressional report in fact mentions that this might happen if Russia looks to be defeated in a conventional conflict with NATO. At least that is how some analysts interpret the Russian doctrine. But it is worth noting that Russia itself does not use the term “escalate to de-escalate.” Now what does this mean in relation to Ukraine? We are seeing a more and more cocksure attitude in the West, manifesting itself in almost no holds barred support of Ukraine. The reality being that the West is using its potent military arsenal to fight the Russians using their Ukraine proxies. Could an eminent defeat of all Russians troops in Ukraine, the re-conquering the Russian held areas, and the weakening of Russia military might to a stage, where it would unable to wage war be seen as a defeat of Russia itself? Would an eminent risk of this happening provoke Russia to nuclear escalation in order to force the West to de-escalate? Russian certainly has the enough tactical nuclear weapons to make that a possibility. Russia’s nuclear arsenal. IT is estimated that Russia has 1,912 non-strategic nuclear weapons. “These nuclear warheads include theater- and tactical-range systems that Russia relies on to deter and defeat NATO or China in a conflict. Russia’s stockpile of non-strategic nuclear weapons [is] already large and diverse and is being modernized with an eye towards greater accuracy, longer ranges, and lower yields to suit their potential warfighting role. We assess Russia to have dozens of these systems already deployed or in development. They include, but are not limited to: short- and close-range ballistic missiles, ground-launched cruise missiles, including the 9M729 missile [The 9M729 SSC-X-8 is a long-range ground-based cruise missile system], which the U.S. Government determined violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces or INF Treaty, as well as antiship and antisubmarine missiles, torpedoes, and depth charges.” Among the advanced missiles that may be armed with a nuclear tactical warhead is the Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal.” A nuclear-capable, air-launched, hypersonic ballistic missile, one of six new “next generation” weapons unveiled by Vladimir Putin in March 2018. It can carry a payload up to 480 kilos, and be armed with a thermonuclear warhead in the 10 to 50Kt range, and it may be air-launched from a Mig-31. Innocence is drowned … How might Russia use a non-strategic nuclear weapon, if it is pushed into corner facing defeat in the proxy war with the West? “Russian military-analytical writings envision a series of steps in which nuclear weapons are first deployed and utilized for signalling, and are then potentially employed in a progressive fashion at the regional level of conflict and finally are used in a large-scale war until the conflict reaches the “retaliation” of all-out nuclear war. At that level of war, in addition to the mass use of conventional precision strike, military writings suggest the employment of “single and/or grouped use of nonstrategic nuclear weapons on adversary forces” as well as the “demonstration use of nuclear weapons by strategic nuclear forces or nonstrategic nuclear weapons.” There are strong indications that not all of Russia’s nuclear employment appears to be under the rubric of SONF [Strategic Operation of Nuclear Forces].” This means that a tactical nuclear strike with aim of forcing the West to de-escalate could be launched as single initial strike by limited means in a selected region (zone) “intended to destroy political, industrial, and military targets.” (cna.org). A recent article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists argues that Russian use of “non-strategic nuclear weapons in Ukraine could take several forms. They could be used for demonstration purposes—not targeting anything and not creating casualties—to coerce Ukraine and/or the West to agree to a settlement acceptable to Putin. Tactical nukes could also be used to target military units to change the operational situation on the ground.” (thebulletin.org). “Russian thinking here is keen to avert inadvertent escalation, or the strengthening of political resolve that comes from civilian casualties. The possibility of secondary or synergistic effects, which could result in unacceptable levels of damage, weighs heavily as a consideration. Here, target selection and warhead selection are relevant factors. The operation is premised on inflicting deterrent damage through the application of limited force. The psychological impact is meant to exceed the level of material damage, affecting the political leadership’s will to fight.” (cna.org). A warning shot Euphemistically calling it a warning shot this could mean a nuclear explosion in a sparsely populated area Ukraine, using an unstoppable Kinzhal hypersonic missile with a 10 kiloton warhead, or a 9M729 missile similarly configured. Desperate and vindictive and Russians could perhaps even choose the small community “Ukrainske” for its symbolic value. Using Nukemap one may calculate the probable destructive effects giving the explosion of a 10 Kt warhead, with wind coming from an easterly direction. According to a Nukemap calculation this would result in 140 fatalities and 90 heavily injured. Terrible consequences for a small community and its vicinity in Ukraine, but not catastrophic in the wider sense. A map showing the areas to suffer the consequences of such nuclear demonstration, according to NUKemap calculations. De-escalate or risk anarchy loosed upon the World What would be the Western reaction if the Russians dared attempt to escalate to de-escalate with such a nuclear demonstration, calculated to impress and force the West to de-escalate? “The emotional noise following the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine would be deafening, both in terms of calls for restraint and of demands for retaliation. In many ways, the policy community is divided between those wanting an aggressive approach to the war that seeks to force a strategic defeat on Russia and those who want a more constrained approach to avoid a possible escalation.” (thebulletin.org). Here a list of possible reactions to a Russian nuclear demonstration in Ukraine: De-escalate, scaling down the assistance to Ukraine Respond using conventional weapons React in kind with some kind of nuclear demonstration De-escalate, scaling down the assistance to Ukraine It would mean giving in to a Russian “escalate to de-escalate” attempt. It would mean Western powers signalling that they would limit their assistance to Ukraine to level that would not threaten the Russia with defeat, and it would also mean forcing Ukraine to cut down its military and political ambitions. In effect force Ukraine, and the West, to accept some kind of settlement with Russia. “Given the consequences of a nuclear war between the United States, NATO, and Russia and the risk of escalation beyond Ukraine should the conflict continue, this option argues for ending the conflict in some way that gives the Russian leadership an “out” from the conflict. While seemingly reasonable given the level of destruction and costs of escalation.” Still, giving in to Russia would be humiliating to decision makers in the West hoping to bring Russia to its knees in their surprisingly successful proxy war against the Russia. It would also mean that nuclear blackmail would be effective, setting dangerous precedence, given the outstanding conflicts with say North Korea and Iran. On the other hand, there might be much less reluctance to respond in kind in the case of North Korea and Iran, meaning that the precedence setting effect of giving in to the Russian escalate to de-escalate may be negligible. An aspect that most US analysts seem to forget is that the Europeans would regard a giving in to Russia option as the only option. Fearing that alternatives like responding in kind would raise the spectre a nuclear war on the European continent. Respond using conventional weapons Fearing the consequences of responding in kind to a Russian nuclear demonstration, the U.S. and especially the Europeans might consider a response using conventional weapons. This would mean direct Western involvement in a war with Russia. Something the West has tried to avoid, although the cocksure attitude resulting from the success of the proxy war has meant that the restraint is disappearing. On overwhelming conventional response could be caried out in different ways. The limited version would consist of an all-out attack on Russian troops or installations in Ukraine. A more dangerous version would be an attack on Russian soil, say on the area, units or installations involved in the Russian nuclear demonstration. In this case the Russian escalate to de-escalate strategy would not have succeeded, and the result might be either that the Russia would realise that they were now involved in a direct war with West and that it would have to find some kind of settlement with the West… Or they might choose further escalation, including more forceful Russian nuclear demonstrations. Perhaps against to bases from where the conventional response was carried out. This would force the West to either seek settlement or escalate further carrying the risk of all out nuclear war. React in kind with some kind of tactical nuclear demonstration “To truly be “in-kind” in this scenario, the US and NATO would need to strike Russian targets in Ukraine—or otherwise significantly change the nature of the conflict by striking a target in Russia. There may be Russian military targets in Ukraine for which a low-yield nuclear strike would produce limited casualties. But to have a significant military impact, NATO would likely have to use multiple strikes.” (thebulletin.org). No one can say what the result of such scenario might be. But responsible European decision-makers would see this response in kind option as being far too dangerous. Fearing that it might lead to exchange of tactical nuclear weapon strikes on European soil. The problem is that Europeans may very little say in the decision to respond in kind. The U.S. being in charge and perhaps having less qualms. “Using a nuclear weapon against Russia immediately turns the conflict into a Russia versus the United States and NATO war that has skipped all the conventional options for escalation management. Given the potential global consequences of a nuclear war between Russia and the United States and NATO, striking targets inside Russia with nuclear weapons is unlikely to be viewed by the US president as a viable option.” (thebulletin.org). Thus, no one their right mind would therefore regard a response in kind as realistic option in the proxy war against Russia, meaning that we are back with the other two response scenarios. The 2022 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review states “As long as nuclear weapons exist, the fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners. The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.” It would certainly be difficult see a Russian tactical nuclear demonstration in Ukraine with limited local consequences as “extreme circumstances” threatening the “vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners”? Cool the passionate intensity While the West seems united in their “intense passion” to punish the Russians with help of Ukraine, there are voices calling for a cooling of the passion. Daniel Immerwahr (with a name signallling “Allwaystrue”) warns that Western politicians have forgotten the trauma left by the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Quoting the Russian ambassador to the U.S. complaining that “the current generation of NATO politicians does not take the nuclear threat seriously.” Immerwahr argues that “we can’t drive nuclear war to extinction by ignoring it. … And we’re doing it just at the time when those who have most effectively testified to nuclear war’s horrors – the survivors – are entering their 90s. Our nuclear consciousness is badly atrophied. We’re left with a world full of nuclear weapons but emptying of people who understand their consequences.” (The Guardian). In an essay published by “Responsible Statecraft” Anatol Lieven warns of the horrible dangers of pushing a US proxy war in Ukraine. Arguing that former U.S. presidents like Truman and Eisenhower adopted a strategy of containing, but never fighting the Soviet Union in Europe and not trying to “roll back Soviet power through armed support for anti-Soviet insurgencies in eastern Europe.” He argues that leaders today should remember this and not try to push back Russia in military proxy war in Europe. The consequences would be disastrous for themselves “and still more disastrous for the wretched people on the ground who became the pawns of these great power agendas. Have we really learned nothing from history?” New York Times’ influential Thomas L. Friedman is warning that the war in Ukraine is getting more dangerous for America. He even postulates that Biden knows it, although that seems doubtful giving his rhetoric and the amount of resources, he is allocating to fight the proxy war in Ukraine. Friedman argues “We need to stick as tightly as possible to our original limited and clearly defined aim of helping Ukraine expel Russian forces as much as possible or negotiate for their withdrawal whenever Ukraine’s leaders feel the time is right.” The last condition seems very dangerous, giving the views expressed by president Zelensky. Who now sems convinced that the might of Western military assistance will allow Ukraine to aim for goals that would never have been in reach before the latest Russian invasion. Zelensky insists that he must be given everything he needs to defeat the Russians and push them back from every corner of Ukraine, even the areas occupied in 2014. “The ultimate goal of Ukraine is to restore territorial integrity, including Crimea, President Volodymyr Zelensky said Tuesday, as Russia pursued its offensive to seize territory in eastern Ukraine. (WSJ). In order to do this Zelensky wants to make sure that everything is done “to maintain the world's maximum attention to us, to Ukraine. Information about our needs should be in the news of all countries that are important to us constantly and every day.” This means of cause means further escalation, more heavy weapons and more direct involvement of the West in order to achieve Zelensky’s goal, and the passionate intensity in the West is encouraging Zelensky to demand more all the time, scolding those who show less passion. President Macron has tried to cool the passionate conviction, arguing: “Nous ne sommes pas en guerre contre la Russie. Nous œuvrons en Européens pour la préservation de la souveraineté et de l'intégrité territoriale de l'Ukraine. Pour le retour de la paix sur notre continent. Nous serons là pour reconstruire l’Ukraine, en Européens, toujours. (Emmanuel Macron May 9, 2022). Macron insists that Europe must learn from its past mistakes, and make sure no side is humiliated like the Germans were in the Versailles Treaty after the First World War. Macron has apparently even to tried to convince Zelensky that Ukraine must pay for peace by accepting to give up some Ukrainian territory. Not something an increasingly cocksure Zelensky would agree too, with the passionate West bolstering his confidence that everything is possible. He scolded Macron in an Italian interview “To propose to us to give up something as far as our sovereignty is concerned to save (Russian) President (Vladimir) Putin’s face does not seem like a fair thing on the part of some leaders. (aa.com.tr) Perhaps Europe should cool its passion for Zelensky and for the mainly U.S. driven proxy war, and instead heed Macron’s advice. Europe must look to Europe’s interest Restating the argument from an earlier blog post. We wonder why Europe is not making a much more independent diplomatic effort, instead of giving in to moral outrage and Zelensky’s and Biden’s totally overstated warnings about the threat to all of Europe. Europe is supporting the Ukraine with financial assistance, weapons, welcoming Ukrainian refugees, and seems inclined to engage in self-harming sanctions to reduce Russia’s ability for fighting a war. Why does it not demand something in return from Zelensky’s Ukraine, instead of just playing whipping boy to Zelensky’s critique? Why do decisionmakers not leave moralistic outbursts aside and take a more realistic position that actually turn out to be more in line with their own self-proclaimed European values. This would mean efforts to promote a peace that might spare lives and avoid further destruction in Ukraine and perhaps help solve or at least alleviate some of the problems used by Russia as reasons for the invasion. Realistically this would mean that Europe would have to put pressure on Zelensky to accept the Russian annexation of Crimea, and insist that the future of the Luhansk and Donetsk would have to be settled by mechanism involving staged referendums from Russian border to the borders of Luhansk and Donetsk. Either accept this or accept that help would be reduced to humanitarian help. Likewise, Europe would have to initiate sincere and realistic diplomatic efforts in relation Russia, taking demands from the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine seriously, accepting the Russian possession of Crimea and proposing realistic solutions for Luhansk and Donetsk that would comply with what Europe ought to demand of Ukraine. * From the the previous essay “A cocksure West risking catastrophe” on the blog openthoughts.eu, discussing what might happen in the dangerous game of chicken between Russia and the US, represented by two intensely passionate and elderly presidents. Zero production of advanced chips in America At a ground breaking ceremony for Intel’s new mega plant for leading edge chips fabrication in New Albany, Ohio, President Biden talked of the need to restart microchips production in the U.S. “… over 30 years ago, America had more than 30 percent of the global chip production. Then something happened. America ba- — America production, the backbone — the backbone of our economy — got hollowed out. Companies moved jobs overseas, especially from the industrial Midwest. And as a result, today we’re down to producing barely 10 percent of the world’s chips, despite leading in chip research and design.” The situation is even worse in relation to the production of the most advanced leading-edge microchips. President Biden: “Unfortunately, we produce zero — zero — of these advanced chips in America. Zero. And China is trying to move way ahead of us in producing them.” The U.S. versus the Rest A Kearney report from 2021 show the sorry state of microchips or semiconductor production in the U.S. According to CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) 75 percent of the world’s chips production is concentrated in North East Asia. Taiwan is in fact the centre of fabs (factories or foundries for fabricating chips) for advanced chips production, with the leading company TSMC earning a 56 percent market share of chips production worldwide. A table from Counterpoint show the market shares of the main foundries: UMC’s (United microelectronics Corporation) is also located in Taiwan, while GlobalFoundries could be said to represent the West with fabs in US, Singapore and Europe. Chinese SMIC is a state-owned Chinese company. While advanced chips production in so-called called fabs or foundries is indeed in a sorry state in the U.S., at least for now, the situation is very different with regard to a different segment of the semiconductor value chain related to: Knowledge intensive semiconductor R&D, EDA (Electronic Design Automation, DAO (Discrete, Analog, and Other), Memory, SME (Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment). In these areas the US is still leading with no close competitor. A CSIS table demonstrate geographical split in the main segments of the chips value chain (making up about 78 percent of whole value chain): A bar chart from SIA (The Semiconductor Industry Association) show a more detailed picture for the three main segments: Knowledge intensive R&D, Capital intensive production, and Capital-intensive and Labour-intensive production. While it is evident that the U.S. and to lesser degree Europe is leading in the knowledge intensive R&D segment, it is also clear that that fabs for fabricating semiconductor chips is concentrated in North East Asia, with Taiwan in the dominating position. The more labour-intensive assembly into finished products is shared between China and Taiwan. Especially notable is Taiwan’s leading position in the fabrication of the most advanced leading edge semiconductor chips. In the fabrication the of sub 10 nm (nanometre) semiconductor chips Taiwan has a share of 92 percent while South Korea is sitting on the rest. Just an example, the new iPhone 14 pro is built with chips using a 4 nm process made in Taiwan. Biden was certainly right when stating that there is no fabrication of leading-edge semiconductors in the U.S. at the moment. “There is currently no cutting-edge logic capacity below 10 nanometre being done in the United States.” (SIA). Why did this happen? How come that the U.S. and the rest of the World has become so dependent on advanced semiconductor chips fabricated in Taiwanese fabs and assembled into finished products in China? In a way the explanation is quite simple, labour costs are lower compared to the U.S. and Asia has a skilled workforce. That is why labour-intensive semiconductor production over the years became located in Taiwan, South Korea and China. Like so much else in manufacturing. It is not only labour cost that explains the movement to North East Asia. It is also government support and the characteristics of the labour force. “With decades of industrial policy support, robust infrastructures, and highly skilled workforces, Taiwan and South Korea are particularly strong in advanced manufacturing and possess a combined 100 percent of the global fabrication capacity in 7- and 5- nanometres processing nodes.” Chips for America That the present global regional division in the different segments is posing a growing problem for the U.S. and the West in general has become evident due to the simmering U.S. trade war with China. The situation is exacerbated by U.S.-China tensions related to Taiwan. No wonder the U.S. is eager to bolster U.S. competitiveness in relation to China. With Taiwan in a precarious position in relation to China, and with the dependence on both Taiwan and China for capital- and labour-intensive production and assembly of advanced semiconductor chips the U.S. and the West in general has a growing problem. Just think of the consequences of a possible Chinese blockade of Taiwan by air and sea. Or even worse China’s annexation of Taiwan. Cutting off the rest of a World and causing turmoil in the West with its insatiable appetite for chips from Taiwanese fabrication and Chinese assembly. “If China were to invade Taiwan, the most-advanced chip factory in the world would be rendered “not operable,” TSMC’s executive chairman Mark Liu has warned. No wonder then that the U.S. is very eager to re-nationalise the most import parts of those segments of the semiconductor chips production that is concentrated in Taiwan and China, or at the very least moving production to other countries, like Vietnam and India. We see the consequences of the outsourcing of production and supply of something that is absolutely vital for Western economies and their security. It has created a dependence on what is more or less a single source located far from home in a region where the potential for conflicts is growing steadily. No wonder that the U.S. and the West in general suddenly realised the precarious situation they are in with present shortage of semiconductor chips. In addition to a growing realisation that the extreme dependence on an Asian source of semiconductor chips might endanger Western economies and Western security. The energy shortage in Europe today shows the consequences of becoming on a single source of supply. Relaying on cheap natural gas the supply from Russia has suddenly become a major problem for Europe due its active engagement in a proxy war against Russia. The need for Action A letter to congressional leaders sent on December 1, 2021, by a broad coalition of 59 U.S. CEOs and senior executives, calls for action to ensure the supply of semiconductors vital to virtually all sectors of the economy – including aerospace, automobiles, communications, clean energy, information technology, and medical devices. They refer to the present global chip shortage resulting in lost growth and jobs in the economy. “The shortage has exposed vulnerabilities in the semiconductor supply chain and highlighted the need for increased domestic manufacturing capacity.” To alleviate the shortage, they urge “Congress to take prompt action to fund the “Creating Helpful Incentives for the Production of Semiconductors” (CHIPS) for America Act and enact a strengthened version of the “Facilitating American Built Semiconductors” (FABS) Act to include an investment tax credit for both design and manufacturing.” (semiconductors.org). And Congress listened and acted. The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 In an effort to alleviate the chips shortage and re-establish the production of advanced microchips in the U.S. Congress recently introduced “The CHIPS and Science Act.” Also known as “Chips Act of 2022” it was signed on by Biden on August 9, 2022. It will allocate $52.7 billion for a “CHIPS for America Fund.” This includes: $39 billion to be used for manufacturing incentives, including $2 billion to focus solely on legacy chip production to advance economic and national security interests. For instance legacy chips used in cars and defense systems. $ 13.2 billion to be used for R&D and workforce development, including for Department of Defense-unique applications—and for semiconductor workforce training. $500 million for a “CHIPS for America International Technology Security and Innovation Fund” … for the purposes of coordinating with foreign government partners to support international information and communications technology security and semiconductor supply chain activities. . In a speech Biden emphasised that the “CHIPS and Science Act” was not just handling out blanks checks to companies: “I’ve directed my administration to be laser-focused on the guardrails that will protect taxpayers’ dollars. And we’ll make sure that companies partner with unions, community colleges, technical schools to offer training and apprenticeships and to work with small and minority- owned businesses as well.” Guardrails are also meant to ensure that recipients do not use the funds to build facilities in China and other countries of concern, and to prevent companies from using the funds for stock buybacks or shareholder dividends. To get support from the fund the recipients must also demonstrate significant worker- and community investment, in order to ensure that semiconductor incentives support equitable economic growth and development. Amongst others the act requires companies building new chip facilities to offer the prevailing wage. “The funds will also support good-paying, union construction jobs by requiring Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates for facilities built with CHIPS funding.” (Fact sheet, CHIPS Act). SIA (The Semiconductor Industry Association) of course applauded the “CHIPS Act”: “The bill’s investments in chip production and innovation will strengthen America’s economy and national security – both of which rely heavily on chips – and reinforce our country’s semiconductor supply chains … The CHIPS Act will help usher in a better, brighter American future built on semiconductors.” https://www.semiconductors.org/sia-applauds-house-passage-of-chips-act-urges-president-to-sign-bill-into-law/ A European CHIPS Act On February 8, 2022, The European Commission proposed a “European Chips Act” to confront semiconductor shortages and strengthen Europe’s technological leadership.mEurope being in a worse bind than the U.S. with regard to chips shortage and lack of a European production of advanced semiconductor chips. (See the previous SIA bar chart). What does the Commission propose: “With the European Chips Act, the EU will address semiconductor shortages and strengthen Europe’s technological leadership. It will mobilise more than €43 bn of public and private investments and set measures to prepare, anticipate and swiftly respond to any future supply chain disruptions, together with Member States and our international partners.” What the Commission aims to do sounds like little more than a wish list at the moment, as can be seen from these vague aims. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-chips-act_en The race is on. Other countries are planning to invest more in semiconductor manufacturing. Japan has approved a 774 bn yen (around 5.4 bn dollars), for semiconductor investments, and South Korea likewise is planning large semiconductor investments. Signs of change The early signs of government support for building new fabs for manufacturing semiconductor chips in U.S. has already led to a small wave of big announcements for new fabs. Here just a selection: As early as May 2020 TSMC (The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company) announced it was going to build a $12.2 bn chip fab in Arizona. The first of its kind to mass produce 5nm chips in the U.S. In July 2022 TSMC placed the last beam in their Fab21 building in Phoenix Arizona. Expecting mass production of leading edge chips to begin in 2024. In November 2021 Samsung announced its commitment to build a $17 bn fab in Texas, also to begin production in 2024. With the promise of receiving funding from the “CHIPS Act” Intel in January 2022 announced plan for a $20 bn fab in Columbus Ohio. In may 2022 Texas Instruments “broke ground” for a 30 bn 300mm wafer fab in Texas (A semiconductor wafer is a thin slice of semiconductor substance, like crystalline silicon, used for the making of integrated circuits.). Meanwhile Samsung in 2022 apparently announced plans for investing up to 192 bn over the next decades in 11 fabs in Texas. While these plans for fabs may lead to rejuvenation of advanced semiconductor fabrication in the US, spurred along by the CHIPS Act’s $52 bn and the realisation that further investments in North East Asia may carry a growing risk, all is not well for the U.S. The U.S. may not yet possess a sufficiently skilled workforce for the fabrication of advanced semiconductors, because the focus hitherto has been on creating expertise in chip design. The amounts to be invested in fabs and the creation of a skilled workforce may turn out to be insufficient in relation to the investments in Taiwan, South Korea and most of all China. And what if China came in possession of Taiwan’s fabulous fabs. CHIP 4 Realising perhaps that even for the US it will next to impossible to achieve chips self-sufficiency, the US has proposed a semiconductor alliance to include the U.S. and the three Non-Chinese Asian partners including Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Such an alliance would, as we can see from previous discussion, include all segments of semiconductor production from design, fabrication of chips, to assembly and packing. Of course, it could also be seen as a way to limit and contain Chinese influence. For the time being a rather diffuse attempt, with built in contradictions. “The Diplomat” reports that South Korea might be wary of such an alliance due to the its relations with China. With China accounting for 60 Percent of South Korea’s semiconductor export, and South Korean chip giants Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix having invested billions of dollars in key manufacturing facilities in China. South Korea must of course fear Chinese retaliation if South Korea became active member of Chip 4. It must be assumed that Taiwan would be just as wary, looking to its own already strained relations with mainland China. Even Japan would have look to its own relations with China, its exports and investment, and may not won’t to get too close to an alliance with Taiwan for these reasons. While Chip 4 may represent a further step in the Biden administration’s efforts to contain China in the global competition for hegemony, it will have wary and reluctant partners, and may escalate the war on chips. Leading to unknown retaliation from China and thus further escalation. A spanner in the works for China The U.S. is not only investing in leading edge chips production at home, it is also trying to trying to throw a spanner into Chinese plans for winning the future semiconductor race, by attempts to make sure that China cannot have access to leading edge semiconductor design and technology. A start had already been made by the Trump administration. In May 2019 it issued an executive order banning the Huawei Technologies Co. from buying vital U.S. technology without special approval and effectively barring its equipment from U.S. telecom networks on national security grounds. Later even Huawei’s non-America suppliers of products had to stop the exporting to Huawei if their products contained U.S. technology. The ban has been upheld by the Biden administration and has been a big blow to Huawei and its technologies, its products and of course its share price. In effect hampering Huawei’s technological development and worldwide sales. Today U.S. is going much further in its efforts to hamper Chinese semiconductor fabrication and development. Since 2019 the U.S. has put pressure on The Netherland’s government in order make sure that the ASML company (Advanced Semiconductor Materials Lithography?) cannot export its more advanced systems to China. In July 2022, it was reported that Washington has pressured the Netherlands government to take the campaign against China to a new level, with attempts to further limit ASML’s engagement in China. What is means? ASML has near monopoly on the design and manufacture of the EUV (extreme ultra violet) lithography machines that are used to print the ultrasmall, complex designs on microchip wafers, part of the process to produce leading edge sub 10 nanometre chips. (Todays striving is for 3 and 2 nm). “ASML has sold a total of about 140 EUV systems in the past decade, each one now costing up to $200 million, ... The price tag for its next machine, called High NA will be more than $300 million.” Of course, the U.S. wants to make sure that China’s chip fabs cannot get access to this technology, instead having to do with less advanced UV machines that make it impossible to produce leading edge sub 10 mm chips. “Any additional restrictions would deal a bigger blow to China’s efforts to become more self-sufficient in chips. An embargo could also cripple its ambitions to make chips that are close to today’s state-of-the-art.” (electronicdesign.com). On August 12 the U.S. established new export controls on technologies that enable semiconductors, engines and power systems “to operate faster, more efficiently, longer, and in more severe conditions in both the commercial and military context” (BIS, Bureau of Industry and Security) “The four technologies covered by today’s rule include two substrates of ultra-wide bandgap semiconductors: Gallium Oxide (Ga2O3), and diamond; Electronic Computer-Aided Design (ECAD) software specially designed for the development of integrated circuits with Gate-All- Around Field-Effect Transistor (GAAFET) structure; and Pressure Gain Combustion (PGC) technology (BIS). Cryptic to most of us, but BIS has provided some explanation. Gallium Oxide allow semiconductors to work under severe conditions, important for miliary and space use. ECAD is used in designing, analysing, optimizing, and validating the performance of integrated circuits or printed circuit boards. GAAFET is the key to enable 3 nm and below technologies, allowing for faster and more energy efficient semiconductors. While PGC represents “a novel approach for significantly increasing the efficiency of aerospace propulsion systems and ground-based power systems.” (Paxton). These restrictions “will potentially have the greatest impact on the trade between China and the US compared to all other actions taken to date,” (IBS consulting). Not enough for the U.S. in their war on chips with China. Now they are trying to hinder Chinese development in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI). An area in which China is trying to push ahead of the U.S. On August 26 Nvidia, a multinational company making chips used for deep learning and AI, announced: “the U.S. government, or USG, informed NVIDIA Corporation, or the Company, that the USG has imposed a new license requirement, effective immediately, for any future export to China (including Hong Kong) and Russia of the Company’s A100 and forthcoming H100 integrated circuits. Later the Company has been allowed to continue development of one of its less advanced AI chips in China. Another company, AMD, has likewise had its export of MI250 artificial intelligence chips to China restricted. It certainly looks as if the U.S. is doing all it can to hamper Chinese semiconductor development and their use, not the least in AI applications. Really throwing a spanner in the China’s chips and AI development. Perhaps hoping to delay China ambitious plans to overtake the U.S. in AI. Alas, the U.S. war on China’s ambitious plans may have a negative impact on the U.S. itself. A recent study has found that a full decoupling or even a modest decoupling from China may have serious implications for the U.S. semiconductor industry and its workforce, as can be seen from this table (Understanding U.S.-China Decoupling, U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2021) China’s riposte in the war on chips While China really cannot do much to avoid the U.S. attempts to hamper China’s semiconductor ambitions. It has reacted with angry words, and lobbying attempts in the U.S. Somewhat amazingly, given China’s own actions, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce is arguing that the CHIPS Act “comes with discriminatory clauses and seriously violates market laws and international economic and trade rules” (Global Times). The Chinese equivalent to SIA, the Chinese Semiconductor Industry Association, complained that “these provisions clearly deviate from the shared principle of being fair, open and non-discriminatory that the global semiconductor industry forged through practice over the past decades.” (Global Times). Wordy protests not really achieving anything. The real question is. What can and will China do fulfil its own ambitious plan to leapfrog the U.S? In the immediate future probably not much. Looking a bit further there seems to be two possibilities. A dangerous one and long term one. The dangerous one: China blockading or invading Taiwan might force the U.S. and the West into a quid pro quo with China. Opening export to China in return for access to Taiwanese fabs. Or it might result in a tit for tat escalation and war. Less dangerous in the short term is the Chinese goal to become the leader in selected aspects of AI in 2025 and the World leader in AI by 2030. China may outspend the U.S. in R&D, in STEM education (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), in creating an enormous and highly skilled workforce, and in investing in leapfrogging startup companies. According the “Made in China Plan” China aims to achieve 70 percent self-sufficiency by 2025. To achieve that goal a national fund for investment in integrated circuits (The Big Fund) and 15 local government funds for IC development has been established with a combined amount of $73 bn according to a report from SIA: “This does not account for government grants, equity investments, and low-interest loans which exceeds $50 billion alone” (Taking stock of China semiconductor industry, SIA). According to the SIA Report China is also rapidly closing the gap in AI chip design, “due partly to fast growing demand from China’s hyperscale cloud and consumer smart device market and lower barriers to entry in chip design. Chinese fabless firms are now taping out 7/5nm chip designs for everything from AI to 5G communications.” China certainly has the ambition, and we are seeing their advances in the number of patents, for instance in relation 5G communication and quantum computing. On September 8, 2022 Asia Times reported that China’s government says it will use the advantages of its “new-type whole-nation system” to catapult technological progress. Apparently meaning in translation: “That in order to improve the new nationwide system for tackling key and core technologies, it is necessary to organically combine the government, the market, and society, to scientifically plan, concentrate, optimize the mechanism, and coordinate tackling problems.” (From meeting of the Chinese Communist Party September 6, 2022). Whatever that means. The warning from history The South Korean giant Samsung’s remarkable example of leapfrogging the Japanese in the technological development and production of Memory chips (DRAMs), demonstrates that leapfrogging is possible. But it is certainly a very specific example of leapfrogging under rather favourable circumstances, where there is no serious attempt to contain the Korean leapfrogging. Perhaps a historical example of leapfrogging under more difficult circumstances may show that it is impossible to contain and restrict new technologies to a single geographical region by export restrictions and other means when there is growing demands for these products. (like in China today). Take the historical example of America colonies (later the U.S.) overtaking Britain in industrial textile manufacturing as an example. The rapid industrialisation of Britain the eighteenth and nineteenth century was fuelled by British advances in textile manufacturing, steam power and iron-making.Up to mid nineteenth century it was also a period where ideas of mercantilism were prevalent. A system of political economy that sought to enrich the country by restraining imports and encouraging exports of finished goods. Taking the example of the all-important textile industry it meant that Britain wanted to export all it could of the finished products, while trying its best to make sure that production knowledge, machines and artisans used to manufacture the products stayed in Britain. “Once British entrepreneurs had demonstrated the superiority of machinery in the manufacture of textiles, in the decades following the inventions of Hargreaves, Arkwright, Crompton and Cartwright, traditional efforts to contain British technology withing the kingdom was intensified. Checks against the outflow of Britain’s early industry were applied both by private businessmen and the government.” (Damming the Flood. David I. Jeremy). For a time, it became illegal to export industrial textile, metalworking, clock making, paper making and glass manufacturing equipment. Not only the export of machinery for textile production was banned. No skilled artisans and manufacturers in the textile industry were legally free to leave Britain or Ireland to carry out their trade in other countries. “Textile printing workers were even forbidden to leave the British Isles.” While some of these restrictions may remind one of the U.S. efforts to prevent the export of advanced semiconductors to China, at least similar restrictions do not (yet?) apply to people in the industry. Did Britain succeed in its attempts to make sure that the American colonies, from where the raw cotton for the textile production came, could not establish their own textile industry? No of course it didn’t. “During the revolution, American envoys in Europe accelerated efforts to steal technology and attract artisans. These initiatives continued during the Confederation period when both voluntary and official bodies attempted to speed technology transfer. The Pennsylvania Society for the Encouragement of Manufactures and the Useful Arts, for example, underwrote the establishment of a textile factory near Philadelphia and its leading official Tench Coxe helped smuggle over the technology. Coxe urged the Continental Congress to provide long-term monopolies to persons who introduced foreign technology, and he favored land grants as a lure to potential immigrants.” (Doron Ben Natar). And the lures seemed to work. In 1789 one Samuel Slater, working as a supervisor at one of the advanced English water-powered cotton mills, embarked on a ship bound for America, lured by the bounties offered for workers who knew how to manufacture cotton textile. Slater carried no written plans for cotton mills with him, as he risked being searched when leaving Britain, but he had apparently memorized everything he knew about Arkwright’s inventions in water-powered cotton mills and the first industrial examples of the division of labour to make cotton textiles. Slater built the first American cotton mill, paving the way for an American cotton textile industry. There were others like him and with that Ben Natar concludes “the United States emerged as the world's industrial leader by illicitly appropriating mechanical and scientific innovations from Europe" Sound familiar doesn’t it. Remember the Trump administrations accusation that China was illegally appropriating knowledge and technologies from the U.S. “The theft of intellectual property by international actors represents a massive threat to the American economy. In 2017, the Commission on the Theft of Intellectual Property estimated that intellectual property theft inflicted a cost of somewhere between $225 billion and $600 billion annually on the American economy, with China the primary culprit. The scale of some individual instances of theft can be downright staggering—in one notable case, a Chinese company stole as much as $8.75 billion in microchip technology from Idaho-based Micron.” Britain could neither keep Industrial knowledge, machinery or people at home, and it even became an important investor in the industrialisation in America, not the last in the rapid growth of railroads. And soon investments and inventions in the U.S. leapfrogged British industry. “A golden torrent of British capital flowed abroad from 1870 to 1914, annually averaging about a third of the nation’s investment. In 1913, 32 percent of Britain’s wealth (a total of £4 billion at the time) was vested in overseas assets, primarily the bonds of railroads and utilities in the United States, Argentina, and other settler regions.” (The decline and fall of the British economy, D. Kedrosky). Somewhere around the 1870’s the U.S. overtook Britain in manufacturing. To compare with the present. Something similar seems to be happening in relation to China and the U.S. today. Similar to the flow of investments from Britain to the U.S. manufacturing in China is accompanied by an influx of foreign investments. According to the “Peterson Institute for International Economics” foreign direct investment in China grew to $334 in 2021, an all-time high. In recent years China has thus become the manufacturing hub of the World. China accounts for around 29 percent of global manufacturing output, while the U.S. has slipped to 17 per cent and followed by Japan and Germany.(Statista). “China ranks first in terms of share of global output in 16 categories of 22 manufacturing categories tracked by the U.N., while second in six others. The data is from 2019, the most recent year available. China continues to dominate in light industries such as apparel and textiles, general sectors like basic metals and electrical equipment, and higher-end activities like computers and transport equipment. There’s hardly a sector in which China does not have at least a 20% global market share, while commanding 40%+ shares in electrical equipment, basic metals and computers. In textiles, apparel and leather, China’s share is more than half.”(Barrons). As we seen China is not yet a champion in the production of advanced semiconductors, but then we have to remember that Taiwan is, and China insists that there is only one China and Taiwan is part of it. And if that also became the reality, China would jump to the front in the production of advanced semiconductors. Production that is, not yet design. But China might be on the verge of overtaking the U.S. in areas related to Artificial Intelligence or AI. A final report on AI from the U.S. National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) published in 2021 concludes: “The leading indexes that measure progress in AI development generally place the United States ahead of China. However, the gap is closing quickly. China stands a reasonable chance of overtaking the United States as the leading center of AI innovation in the coming decade. In recent years, technology firms in China have produced pathfinding advances in natural language processing, facial recognition technology, and other AI-enabled domains.” Does history repeat itself? Not one to one of course. We are no longer talking textile machinery, but advanced semiconductors and AI. Looking at the data we have shown that it certainly seems probable that in the war on chips China might overtake the U.S. and thus the West. The present U.S. sanctions restrictions may hamper Chinese development in these areas, but also encourage Chinese to search for ways to leapfrog the U.S. based on their own efforts. Like the British attempts to prevent the growth of textile manufacturing in the colonial US and later in India, it may prove impossible to stop the colossal Chinese momentum, in research, investment and production. The U.S. realization that China might soon overtake the U.S. in AI may represent the writing on the great wall. A kind of mene mene tekel upharsin for the West. Deliberate ratcheting up On July 20th Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Army General Mark A. Milley held a press conference providing a Ukraine battlefield update, and informing about the military assistance being rushed to Ukraine. In the update Lloyd Austin mentioned that “Ukrainian forces are now using long-range rocket systems to great effect, including HIMARS provided by the United States, and other systems from our allies and partners. Ukraine's defenders are pushing hard to halt Russia's advances in the Donbas.” With Russians relentless shelling Ukraine, Austin argued that “Ukraine needs the firepower and the ammunition to withstand its barrage and to strike back at the Russia -- Russian weapons launching these attacks from inside Ukraine's own territory … And so we understand the urgency and we're pushing hard to maintain and intensify the momentum of donations.” He mentioned that the deliveries of the advanced NASAMS air defence systems in cooperation with Norway, and the commitment of four more HIMARS in addition to the 12 systems that had already been provided. Milley mentioned that in its current phase the war continues to be a battle of attrition, executed through sustainment and really long-range fires. The limited gains of the Russians come at an incredible cost in terms of Russian casualties and equipment. Austin and Milley only talked about the ongoing deliveries of military assistance, but neither touched upon the serious issue of what to expect in the future. Further drip drip escalation? A continued battle of attrition? Russian answers to the use of long ranging HIMARS and MLRS? Continued escalation until what…?” It is almost as if they just expect the West, led by the U.S. to have an implicit strategy of reacting to Russian advances with a deliberate drip drip escalation. Just enabling Ukraine to keep up the fight without being strong enough to somehow overwhelm the Russians. Continuing a proxy war of attrition, albeit with a constant but deliberate escalation of the military aid to Ukraine, calculated not to provoke the Russians to retaliate in way that would result in out-of-control escalation. This must also have struck the journalists present at the press conference, with one journalist asking “Can you give us a picture of how much, if any, gains Ukraine may be making or not making? Is the Donbas lost at this point to Russia? Milley’s response: “…to answer your question about is the Donbas lost, no, it's not lost yet. The Ukrainians are making the Russians pay for every inch of territory that they gain.” Essentially, he just said that a war of attrition would continue. No wonder another journalist asked “Do you see that continuing just forever or do you still have fundamental concerns that Russia could stage some kind of break-out or a sudden escalation and just throw everything at Ukraine even back towards Kyiv at some point, back towards the rest of the country?” Austin only had a vague answer arguing “there's a lot more to be done. The HIMARS alone will not change or win or lose a fight, but it's the integration of a number of capabilities that we have provided and are looking at providing down the road. But most importantly, our allies are providing as well. So, we're looking at a lot of things, everything.” Milley in his answer at least touched upon the risk of a dangerous escalation in the war: “…in terms of what you asked about could it go in directions of, I think, escalation. Those kinds of terms that you were referring to, we look at it as most likely most dangerous courses of action that an opponent may -- an enemy may take … think of those. In terms of the most dangerous, of course, there's -- you can -- it doesn't take me at a podium to talk about what they might be, you can figure that out on your own.” Apparently eyeing the possibility of a dangerous escalation that he really did not want to talk about. Instead, he seemed to prefer to return to the vague idea that the war of attrition might somehow lead of some kind of solution. “In terms of most likely, though, at this point -- and -- and this is always subject to -- to debate -- but at this point, we have a very serious ground -- grind -- grinding war of attrition going on in the Donbas, and -- and unless there's a breakthrough on either side, which right now the analysts don't think is particularly likely in the near term, but unless there's a breakthrough, it'll probably continue as a grinding war of attrition for a period of time until both sides see an alternative way out of this, perhaps through negotiation or something like that.” (Emphasis added). Austin and Miley are evidently aware of the dangers of escalation, but do not want to talk about the inherent dangers of further escalation, as we can infer from Milley’s hesitant and stumbling answer. The press conference shows that there are no explicit ideas for how to end the war, except for an extremely vague hope of negotiation or something like that in the future. To avoid the unmentionable dangers Milley alluded to, the overall strategy just seems to consist of a deliberate escalation to keep the Russians at bay, by letting them pay dearly for every attempt to advance. Almost like the war in Vietnam, but in this case relying fully on the Ukrainian proxies to bear the brunt of the war. The U.S. just giving them sufficient support to stand up to the Russian forces. A war of attrition indeed! The dangers of escalatory reaction? While two generals aim to give the impression of deliberate escalation, prodding the Russian bear with bigger and bigger sticks, without actually provoking Russia to retaliate with a drastic escalation, that would involve NATO forces or even some form of non-strategic nuclear demonstration in Ukraine designed to force the U.S. to de-escalate. The generals seem to prefer to react to Russian advances by giving the Ukrainians just enough military support to keep a war of attrition going. That is certainly not enough for President Zelensky, who argues: “The ultimate goal of Ukraine is to restore territorial integrity, including Crimea.” (WSJ). This of cause means further escalation, more heavy weapons and more direct involvement of the West in order to achieve Zelensky’s goal, and the passionate intensity of some politicians in the West is encouraging Zelensky to demand more all the time, and scolding those who show less passion. Just listen to NATO’s Declaration of support for Ukraine: “We stand in full solidarity with the government and the people of Ukraine in the heroic defence of their country. We reiterate our unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders extending to its territorial waters. We fully support Ukraine’s inherent right to self-defence and to choose its own security arrangements. “ Restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity must mean defeating the Russian assault. How will the Russia react if it was eyeing such a defeat. Somehow accept the defeat or react with drastic attempt to escalate meant to force the West to de-escalate if they do not want all-out war…? If a conventional conflict might threaten Russia, it might decide to use nuclear weapons to create such a catastrophic threat to a continuation of the conflict that its adversary would be forced to de-escalate. A Congressional report in fact mentions that this might happen if Russia looks to be defeated in a conventional conflict with NATO. Now what does this mean in relation to Ukraine? Could an eminent defeat of all Russians troops in Ukraine, the re-conquering the Russian held areas, and the weakening of Russia military might to a stage, where it would unable to wage war be seen as a defeat threatening Russia itself? Would an eminent risk of this happening provoke Russia to nuclear escalation in order to force the West to de-escalate? Russian certainly has the enough tactical nuclear weapons to make that a possibility. See also these previous blog entries: A cocksure West risking catastrophe Russia might pursue an “escalate to de-escalate” nuclear doctrine, when facing defeat, the possibility of losing everything in Ukraine, and ability to wage war. https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/a-cocksure-west-risking-catastrophe #berlingske #borsen #jyllandsposten #dkpol WHY is passion drowning out realism in Ukraine war? This essay contrasts two views of the proxy war in Ukraine. https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/why-is-passion-drowning-out-realism-in-ukraine-war? A Ukrainian weapons wish list The U.S. generals may follow a strategy of deliberate ratcheting up weapon deliveries when absolutely necessary to counter Russian advances, keeping the proxy war simmering so to speak, until an alternative way out of this war is found through negotiation or something like that. Ukrainians want much more than that. In order to be able to force back the Russians, they want an enormous escalation of weapon deliveries that would out-escalate Russian non-nuclear capabilities. Just before the meeting of NATO i the middle of June, Mikhail Podolyak, adviser to President Zelensky, published an outrageous Ukrainian wish list for heavy weapons on twitter: Weapons delivered or promised A comparison of the wish list with what has been delivered or promised show that Ukraine in July has actually got quite a lot of the heavy weapons, armoured vehicles, and drones they wished for. Multiple Rocket Launchers (MRLS) delivered or promised At least 60+ of 300 on the wish list, although only 20+ are modern MLRS from the West, the rest being older Russian material with less capabilities: Western types: 16 227mm HIMARS from U.S. [Delivered from June 2022 onwards] 3 227mm M270B1 MLRS from UK [July 2022] Plus 3 refurbished M270MLRS from Norway? 3 227mm M270 ''MARS'' MLRS from Germany [To be delivered in late 2022] Russian types: 20+ 122mm RM-70 [April 2022] 122mm BM-21 Grad [May or June 2022] (Purchased by Czechia from Bulgaria and delivered to Ukraine) 122mm RM-70 Vampir [July 2022] 20+ 122mm BM-21 Grad from Poland [April 2022] 155 mm Howitzers towed and self-propelled delivered or promised At the very least more than 250+ promised or delivered. In addition, Ukraine has got or been promised a substantial number of 122mm and 105mm howitzers. Towed Artillery 126 155mm M777 [Delivered from April 2022 onwards] from the U.S. (Towed by 126 FMTV armoured trucks. Including 1000 M982 Excalibur GPS-guided shells) 6 155mm M777 from Australia [April 2022] 4 155mm M777 from Canada [April 2022] (Including an undisclosed amount of M982 Excalibur GPS-guided shells) 155mm FH-70 from Estonia [May 2022] 155mm FH-70 from Italy [May 2022] Self-Propelled Artillery 18 155mm Caesar from France [Delivered from May 2022 onwards] 22 155mm M109A3GN from Norway [May 2022] 8 155mm PzH 2000 from the Netherlands [April 2022. Training completed in May 2022. Arrived to Ukraine from June 2022 onwards]. In coordination with German deliberies ? 10 155mm PzH 2000 from Germany [April 2022. Training completed in May 2022. Arrived to Ukraine from June 2022 onwards] 72 155mm AHS Krab from Poland (18 donated, 54 purchased) [June 2022] (Delivered along with LPG command vehicles) 8 155mm ShKH Zuzana 2 from Slovakia (Purchased) [To be delivered] 20 155 mm M109 US made, acquired from Belgium and refurbished from the UK [to be delivered]. Tanks delivered or promised At the very least 270+ tanks mostly of the old Russian T-72 type, with an unknown number of newer Polish PT-91 tanks, a development of the T-72. Russian materiel 40~ T-72M1 [April 2022] T-72M1 [May or June 2022] (Purchased by Czechia from Bulgaria and delivered to Ukraine) 230+ T-72M(R) and T-72M1(R) from Poland [Delivered from April 2022 onwards] Polish material PT-91 from Poland [July 2022]. A Polish development of the T-72M1 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs). A compilation made by ORYX (Oryxspioenkop, a Dutch defence analysis website) shows that Ukraine must have got or been promised around 400 APC’s of various types. Not known if this includes the 120 APCs from the UK. Drones or Unmanned Aerial Combat Vehicles (UCAVs) Apart from a number of Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones, Ukraine has got or been promised at the very least 1000 + USA Switchblades (type 300 and 600) and a large number U.S. made Phoenix Ghost drones. More detailed lists of equipment delivered and promised have been compiled and published by some countries and by ORYX and Wikipedia. U.S. Department of Defence published “Fact Sheet on U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine” on July 8. The UK Forces.net have published a list of UK military equipment support for Ukraine (delivered and promised) on July 21. The German “Bundesregierung” has published a list showing the military equipment support for Ukraine (“Militärische Unterstützungsleistungen für die Ukraine”) on July 27. A further very comprehensive “List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine” may be found in Wikipedia Our compilation and the various lists only show what is known at the moment. While it shows that Ukraine has got quite a lot of heavy weapons, there is still some way to go if the West were to fulfil the Ukrainian wish list and all the other demands that they have. What’s next? It would seem that there is a steady drip drip drip of HIMARS rocket launchers and precision ammunition from the U.S. Originally Ukraine got 4 HIMARS, later it got 8 more and on July 20 the Secretary of Defense announced that the U.S. would deliver 4 more, thus Ukraine would have 16 HIMARS as noted in our listing. More to come? Especially given the apparent success the Ukrainians have had. HIMARS precision guided missiles “have helped diminish the Russian Army's firepower by blowing up munition depots, command centres, and other key targets. Ukrainian soldiers in eastern Ukraine say this has made a palpable difference on the battlefield” (Radio Free Europe). Recently HIMARS missiles have apparently been used to seriously damage the Antonivsky bridge in Kherson, hampering Russian logistics. And the U.S. Department of Defense has just announced additional ammunition for the HIMARS. Ukraine also needs ammunition for all the 155 mm howitzers they have got, and on August 1 the U.S. Department of Defense announced the delivery of 75.000 extra rounds of 155 mm ammunition., while the UK defence minister promised 50.000 rounds. Tanks and especially modern Western tanks have been a constant Ukrainian demand, while Western countries until now have tried to avoid giving in to the demand. Worried how the Russians would react. Instead, Ukraine have been provided with Russian type tanks, mostly T-72s. Sometimes involving what the Germans have called “Ringtausch.” Meaning that for instance Poland would deliver T-72s from its own stockpile and be provided with German Leopard tanks instead. Although there have been Polish complaints that the Germans are not living up to their promise by delivering tanks that have not been upgraded. Previously Spain had wanted to deliver 40 German made Leopard tanks to Ukraine, but they did not get the necessary permission from Germany. With Germany fearing Russia could see this deliberate escalation of the conflict and accuse NATO of being a co-belligerent to Kyiv. Thus, Germany and the West in general are still reluctant to deliver modern tanks to Ukraine. Ukraine has called for much more Deliveries of heavier missiles to be used in the HIMARS and MRLS. For instance, the longer ranging and more destructive ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System). The MGM-140 ATACMS has a range of 165 km (block1) or 300km (block 1A) and a 500kg+ warhead. More self-propelled Howitzers, and in a surprise move late in July Germany has allowed Ukraine to buy 100 Panzerhaubitze 2000, the modern self-propelled howitzer from the German armament firms Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetal: “Die Bundesregierung hat offenbar den Verkauf von 100 Panzerhaubitzen an die Ukraine genehmigt und somit den Weg für einen 1,7 Milliarden Euro schweren Deal zwischen der Ukraine und den deutschen Rüstungsfirmen Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) und Rheinmetall freigemacht.” But they cannot be delivered before 2024. Air defence systems. Ukraine has now been promised delivery of two National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS). Also known as Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, as they are developed by Kongsberg defence in Norway and Raytheon in the US. They represent very advanced Surface-to-Air missile systems, able to protect large cities thus upping the ante in the fight against Russian missiles and aerial bombardments. In an interview in late July the German Foreign Minister announced: "…we also are delivering the IRIS-T air defense system. Well, I hope that by the end of summer, or in early September… And it is in the final stage of production, it was to go to another country. So, we had to agree with this country, that they would give in, and the system would go to Ukraine, and I really hope that we would be able to do the same with more of these systems" (defense-ua.com). Iris-T SL is an advanced anti-aircraft missile system able to intercept all types of air targets, aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise and ballistic missiles, at a distance up to 40 km and a height of 20 km. Lately there also been talk of allowing Ukraine to buy more of these systems. Ukraine would like to have heavier strike drones like the MQ-1C Gray Eagle. An advanced strike drone with a range up to 400 km, and able to carry 4 × AGM-114 Hellfire or 8 × AIM-92 Stinger missiles or × GBU-44/B Viper Strike bombs. In June the Biden administration apparently had planned to deliver 4 MQ-1C Gray Eagles to Ukraine but this was blocked by congress. Present status unknown. Modern combat aircraft like U.S. F16s. A U.S. general talked of the possibility of using non-US fighter jets like the Swedish built JAS 39 Gripen or the French Rafale), and US Air Force Secretary, Frank Kendal, mentioned the possibility of giving Ukraine A-10 Thunderbolts (also called Warthogs) specially designed for close air support of ground forces. A pie in the sky list of demands you might say. Giving in to the Ukrainian wishes and demands would certainly represent a large escalatory move, which in turn might lead to an unknown but presumably drastic Russian retaliation. And suddenly the proxy war may reach the dangerous uncontrollable escalation the generals did not want to talk about. In an interview on July 20 Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that the delivery of Western long-range weapons like HIMARS would pose a direct threat to the territory of the republics that-have declared their independence. Lavrov “… cannot allow the part of Ukraine that Zelensky will control or whoever replaces him to have weapons that will pose a direct threat to our territory and the territory of those republics that have declared their independence, those who want their future decide for yourself.” (RIA Novosti). Russia would therefore have to move further into Ukraine to secure its own and the Donbas Republics borders. Western support for Ukraine quantified in monetary terms What is the cost of the material support in form of weapons and other equipment, of humanitarian and financial assistance? The Kiel Institute for the World Economy is running a database quantifying the military, humanitarian and financial support that Ukraine is receiving. Government support to Ukraine from major contributors in billions (in some countries called milliards) of Euros. Commitments made from January 24 to July 1 2022. (Data from The Kiel Institute for the World Economy.) This may seem a lot, but should perhaps be seen in relation to the other important cost related to war in Ukraine.
The costs of war Ukrainian Prime Minister, Denys Shmyhal, gave a recent estimate of the size of damages resulting from the war and the cost of recovery: “Direct infrastructural losses are worth over $100 billion, and full-fledged Ukraine recovery plan is estimated at $750 billion.” (Denys Shmyhal at Twitter). According to KSE (Kyiv School of Economics) compilation “the volume of direct losses to the Ukrainian economy from damage and destruction of residential and non-residential buildings and infrastructure (in monetary terms) increased to $108.3 billion” as of August 1, 2022. For instance KSE has calculated that at least 129,900 residential buildings have been destroyed or damaged up until now. Taking account total amount of reconstruction, recovery and modernization according to “Build Back Principles” KSE reach Denys Shmyhal’s estimate of $750 billion. The Ukrainian government intends to finance their costly recovery plan with international grants, loans, and donations. In other words, with money from the West, with Zelensky arguing): “This is Russia’s attack on everything that is of value to you and me,” he added. “Therefore, the reconstruction of Ukraine is not a local project, not a project of one nation, but a joint task of the entire democratic world.” (NYT) The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, has suggested that the frozen Russian foreign exchange reserves should be used to fund at least part of the reconstruction effort in Ukraine. The frozen Russian reserves amounts to around 300 billion dollars. But Russia has already reacted to the freezing of a major part of its reserves by announcing: “… this is an unprecedented freeze, so we will be preparing lawsuits, and we are preparing to apply them, as this is unprecedented on a global scale. (Elvira Nabiullina, head of Russia’s central bank, as quoted in FT). One may also wonder how China with enormous foreign exchange reserves would react to such a move by the West. Then there are the costs borne by Russia as a result of Western sanctions, although in certain areas like energy Russia is actually earning more from exports than in previous years. This at least goes for exports to Germany in the first half-year of 2022: “Im gesamten ersten Halbjahr betrugen Russlands Erlöse aus dem Deutschland-Geschäft in Summe 22,6 Milliarden Euro. Mehr als im bisherigen Rekordjahr 2012. Und nicht weniger als 52 Prozent mehr als 2021.” (Die Welt). Meaning that West is actually financing a part of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Perhaps one might even argue that the West is financing part of the war for both the Russians and the Ukrainians. For the West there is the cost borne as a result of rising energy and food prices. With the attempts to combat the resulting inflation perhaps resulting in a recession, and political instability. On the other hand, the Western military support for Ukraine and the sudden rush by NATO countries to arm themselves against Russia has “precipitated the current explosive boom for U.S.-and-allied armaments firms and their investors. Those investors are being well served by their governments.” (Zuesse in Modern Diplomacy). The rush to buy armament will presumable mostly benefit the U.S. armament firms, as for instance Germany now looks to buy U.S. made Lockheed Martin F-35 combat aircraft and Boeing Chinook heavy lift helicopters, not wanting to have to wait for the previous planned European developments. One may even wonder if the gains to U.S. armaments firms and their investors surpasses the outlay for government assistance to Ukraine. Perhaps it is worth remembering World War 2 military leader and later President, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s, farewell address in which he warned: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” (Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961). Loud cries of outrage and passionate support for war At the recent G7 Summit at Schloss Elmau in Germany seven Western leaders expressed their moral outrage over the Russian war of aggression and promised their unwavering support for Ukraine. There seems to be no end to the spiralling self-confidence and self-righteousness of Western leaders out to humiliate Putin and Russia. Just take a look at these belligerent statements from the G7 Summit and NATO’s Madrid Summit. The loud and passionate intensity of the G7 group of countries G7 Condemnation of Russia “We remain appalled by and continue to condemn the brutal, unprovoked, unjustifiable and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine by Russia and aided by Belarus. We condemn and will not recognise Russia’s continued attempts to re-draw borders by force. This devastating war has produced dramatic consequences far beyond Europe. It constitutes a blatant violation of international law, in particular a grave breach of the United Nations Charter.” (G7 Statement on Support for Ukraine). An annex to the G7 Statement promises a united effort to hold Russia to account: “The G7 has been united in holding Russia to account for its unprovoked war against Ukraine. Our coordinated sanctions impose severe and enduring costs on Russia to help bring an end to this war. Russia cannot remain a member in good standing of the global economic and political system as long as it flagrantly violates the international norms at the cost of others.” (Annex to G7 Summit Statement). Russia must lose “We reiterate our demand that Russia put an end to this war of choice, and immediately, unconditionally cease all hostilities and withdraw its troops and military equipment from the entire territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders.” In an interview the French Foreign Minister, Le Drian, argues that it means “that Russia pulls out of the Donbas, pull out its forces from the Ukrainian territory it is occupying. There’s an invader; the invader must withdraw. If you want to call that a victory, let’s call it a victory, but the invader must withdraw and no longer be present in Ukraine.” (BFM TV). To have any hope of achieving this goal the West appears to willing to continuously escalate their passionate proxy war against Russia, by providing Ukraine with a growing stream of more and more potent and advanced weapons. As long as it takes “We are committed to helping Ukraine to uphold its sovereignty and territorial integrity, to defend itself, and to choose its own future. It is up to Ukraine to decide on a future peace settlement, free from external pressure or influence … We will continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support and stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.” (Emphasis added). The G7 is acting without thoughts about the future relations with a humiliated Russia. A Russia armed to the teeth with extremely powerful nuclear weapons. A Russia that won’t just go away. What is the chance that it will give up in Ukraine? What the risk that it will escalate? Does Europe really want that to happen, or will they realise that Russia may be so important for Europe, that some form of accommodation must reached even at the cost that Ukraine will have to limit its ambitions in the war. Sanctions “We remain steadfast in our commitment to our unprecedented coordinated sanctions measures in response to Russia’s war of aggression, the impacts of which will compound over time. We are committed to sustaining and intensifying international economic and political pressure on President Putin’s regime and its enablers in Belarus, depriving Russia of the economic means to persist in its war of aggression against Ukraine.” Steadfast G7 leaders may sound in their passionate war of words, but what happens when the cost of sanctions hit back on the West with a vengeance as we are beginning to see, with worldwide repercussions. NATO’s passionate follow up on G7 promises Condemnation of Russia “We condemn Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine in the strongest possible terms. It “gravely undermines international security and stability. It is a blatant violation of international law. Russia’s appalling cruelty has caused immense human suffering and massive displacements, disproportionately affecting women and children. Russia bears full responsibility for this humanitarian catastrophe.” (NATO’s Madrid Summit Declaration). No thought for the suffering that is caused in Ukraine as a result of the West’s escalating proxy war. Solidarity with Ukraine “We stand in full solidarity with the government and the people of Ukraine in the heroic defence of their country. We reiterate our unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders extending to its territorial waters. We fully support Ukraine’s inherent right to self-defence and to choose its own security arrangements. We welcome efforts of all Allies engaged in providing support to Ukraine. We will assist them adequately, recognising their specific situation.” (Emphasis added). Full solidarity with Zelensky and those calling the shots in Ukraine that is, but is this really in the interests of suffering people of Ukraine and its Russian speaking minorities? Perhaps we get an indirect indication of a split in the Ukrainian population from poll carried out by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in May 2022. Asked whether it would be acceptable not to join NATO if Ukraine instead got security guarantees from NATO countries, 35 per cent in Western Ukraine found this acceptable in, while 50 percent found it acceptable in Eastern Ukraine, which is directly affected by the war. President Biden’s expressions of moral outrage On March 26 2022 President Biden tweeted: “We are engaged anew in a great battle for freedom. A battle between democracy and autocracy. Between liberty and repression. This battle will not be won in days or months either.” In essence he is talking about a battle between good and evil, between light and darkness, an almost hyper ideologic argument for the proxy war in Ukraine. Biden even expressed his moral outrage at President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine by blurting out: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” Later arguing: “I was expressing the moral outrage that I feel, and I make no apologies for it.” In an unusual guest essay in the New York Times he later wrote “Standing by Ukraine in its hour of need is not just the right thing to do. It is in our vital national interests to ensure a peaceful and stable Europe and to make it clear that might does not make right.” One is reminded of President Clinton’s argument for the bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999. “My fellow Americans, today our armed forces joined our NATO allies in airstrikes against Serbian forces responsible for the brutality in Kosovo. We have acted with resolve for several reasons… We act to stand united with our allies for peace. By acting now, we are upholding our values, protecting our interests, and advancing the cause of peace… Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative. It is also important to America's national interests.” (President Clinton addressing the nation on March 24, 1999). To understand President Biden’s moral outrage and belligerence towards Putin and Russia it may also be worthwhile to cast a glance at Biden’s attitude back in 2014 when Russia made what Obama called an incursion into Crimea, and Russia supported pro-Russian separatists in Luhansk and Donetsk. “When Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2014, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. pressed President Barack Obama to take decisive action, and fast, to make Moscow “pay in blood and money” for its aggression. The president, a Biden aide recalled, was having none of it.” (NYT). With Biden now being president, he may finally be able to act on a grudge he may have carried with him since 2014. Drowned out voices of dissent While Western leaders seems united in their “intense passion” to punish the Russians with the help of Ukraine, there are isolated voices calling for a cooling of the passion. In the media we don’t hear these voices, they are drowned out by Western medias own enthusiastic support and encouragement for Ukraine and for the leaders who want to punish and humiliate Russia and Putin. The picture painted is black and white with no thought for long term consequences for the West or indeed for the World. Realism is out and passionate enthusiasm is in, at least for the time being. The warning voices of realism “Realists of various stripes repeatedly warned that Western policy toward Russia and Ukraine would lead to serious trouble, warnings that were blithely ignored by those who claimed that NATO’s open-door policy would lead to lasting peace in Europe. Now that war has broken out, lives are being lost, and Ukraine is being destroyed, you would think proponents of open-ended NATO enlargement would have set aside their idealistic illusions and think about these issues in a hard-nosed, realist fashion. Yet the opposite has occurred: The people who got it right are singled out for attack, while those who believed that enlarging NATO would create a vast zone of peace in Europe are insisting that the war continue until Russia is totally defeated and greatly weakened.” (Stephen M. Walt in Foreign Policy). Among the realists we find John Mearsheimer, professor of Political science at the University of Chicago. In a recent speech on the cause and consequences of the Ukraine Crisis he argued: “The war in Ukraine is a multi-dimensional disaster, which is likely to get much worse in the foreseeable future. When a war is successful, little attention is paid to its causes, but when the outcome is disastrous, understanding how it happened becomes paramount. People want to know: how did we get into this terrible situation?” (John J. Mearsheimer) Mearsheimer has two main arguments. “First, the United States is principally responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis. This is not to deny that Putin started the war and that he is responsible for Russia’s conduct of the war. Nor is it to deny that America’s allies bear some responsibility, but they largely follow Washington’s lead on Ukraine. My central claim is that the United States has pushed forward policies toward Ukraine that Putin and other Russian leaders see as an existential threat, a point they have made repeatedly for many years.” “Second, the Biden administration has reacted to the outbreak of war by doubling down against Russia. Washington and its Western allies are committed to decisively defeating Russia in Ukraine and employing comprehensive sanctions to greatly weaken Russian power. The United States is not seriously interested in finding a diplomatic solution to the war, which means the war is likely to drag on for months if not years … Furthermore, there is a danger that the war will escalate, as NATO might get dragged into the fighting and nuclear weapons might be used. We are living in perilous times.” (emphasis added). Mearsheimer regards the war as on unmitigated disaster for Ukraine: “Russian forces have conquered 20 percent of Ukrainian territory and destroyed or badly damaged many Ukrainian cities and towns. More than 6.5 million Ukrainians have fled the country, while more than 8 million have been internally displaced. Many thousands of Ukrainians—including innocent civilians—are dead or badly wounded and the Ukrainian economy is in shambles The World Bank estimates that Ukraine’s economy will shrink by almost 50 percent over the course of 2022.” Ukrainian Prime Minister, Denys Shmyhal, indirectly confirms the disaster for Ukraine in a recent estimate of the size of damages resulting from the war and the cost of recovery: “Direct infrastructural losses are worth over $100 billion, and full-fledged Ukraine recovery plan is estimated at $750 billion.” (Denys Shmyhal at Twitter). Like others Mearsheimer sees a real risk of a drawn-out war with continued escalation on both sides. “There is a danger that the United States and its NATO allies will get dragged into the fighting, which they have been able to avoid up to this point, even though they are already waging a proxy war against Russia. There is also the possibility that nuclear weapons might be used in Ukraine and that might even lead to a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States. The underlying reason these outcomes might be realized is that the stakes are so high for both sides, and thus neither can afford to lose.” Mearsheimer is not alone in warning of the dangers of an escalating war in Ukraine: In an essay published by “Responsible Statecraft” Anatol Lieven warns of the horrible dangers of pushing a U.S. proxy war in Ukraine. Arguing that former U.S. presidents like Truman and Eisenhower adopted a strategy of containing, but never fighting the Soviet Union in Europe and never tryed to “roll back Soviet power through armed support for anti-Soviet insurgencies in eastern Europe,” he argues that leaders today should remember this and not try to push back Russia in military proxy war in Europe. The consequences would be disastrous for themselves “and still more disastrous for the wretched people on the ground who became the pawns of these great power agendas. Have we really learned nothing from history?” At this year’s Davos meeting, 99 years old former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, argued: "Parties should be brought to peace talks within the next two months. Ukraine should've been a bridge between Europe and Russia, but now, as the relationships are reshaped, we may enter a space where the dividing line is redrawn and Russia is entirely isolated. We are facing a situation now where Russia could alienate itself completely from Europe and seek a permanent alliance elsewhere. This may lead to Cold War-like diplomatic distances, which will set us back decades. We should strive for long- term peace." Even the New York Times’ influential Thomas L. Friedman is warning that the war in Ukraine is getting more dangerous for America. He even postulates that Biden knows it, although that seems doubtful giving his rhetoric and the amount of resources, he is allocating to fight the proxy war in Ukraine. Friedman argues “We need to stick as tightly as possible to our original limited and clearly defined aim of helping Ukraine expel Russian forces as much as possible or negotiate for their withdrawal whenever Ukraine’s leaders feel the time is right.” The last condition seems very dangerous, giving the views expressed by president Zelensky. Who now sems convinced that the might of Western military assistance will allow Ukraine to aim for goals that would never have been possible before the Russian invasion. Zelensky insists that he must be given everything he needs to defeat the Russians and push them back from every corner of Ukraine, even the areas occupied in 2014. “The ultimate goal of Ukraine is to restore territorial integrity, including Crimea, President Volodymyr Zelensky said Tuesday, as Russia pursued its offensive to seize territory in eastern Ukraine. (WSJ). This of cause means further escalation, more heavy weapons and more direct involvement of the West in order to achieve Zelensky’s goal, and the passionate intensity in the West is encouraging Zelensky to demand more all the time, and scolding those who show less passion. Even President Macron have tried to cool the passionate conviction, arguing that the West is not at war with Russia: “Nous ne sommes pas en guerre contre la Russie. Nous œuvrons en Européens pour la préservation de la souveraineté et de l'intégrité territoriale de l'Ukraine. Pour le retour de la paix sur notre continent. Nous serons là pour reconstruire l’Ukraine, en Européens, toujours. (Emmanuel Macron May 9, 2022). Macron insists that Europe must learn from its past mistakes, and make sure no side is humiliated like the Germans were in the Versailles Treaty after the First World War. Macron has apparently even to tried to convince Zelensky that Ukraine must pay for peace by accepting to give up some Ukrainian territory. Not something an increasingly cocksure Zelensky would agree too, with the passionate West bolstering his confidence that everything is possible. He scolded Macron in an Italian interview: “To propose to us to give up something as far as our sovereignty is concerned to save President Putin’s face does not seem like a fair thing on the part of some leaders. (aa.com.tr) Perhaps Europe should cool its passion for Zelensky and for the mainly U.S. driven proxy war, and instead heed Macron’s advice. Less passion for war in the population A public opinion poll for The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) in 10 European Countries carried out in April/May indicate that the passionate support for the Ukraine war is not shared by the European population. Instead, we find marked split between those support the proxy war in Ukraine to punish Russia even if it means more “human suffering,” and those who looks for ways to end the war as soon as possible “even if it means Ukraine must make concessions.” The Peace camp consists of the 35 per cent of the respondents who agreed with statement: “The most important thing is to stop the war as soon as possible, even if it means Ukraine giving control of areas to Russia.” The Justice camp consists of the 22 per cent who agreed with statement: “The most important thing is to punish Russia for its aggression, even if it means that more Ukrainians are killed and displaced.” Swing Voters made up 20 per cent. “Members of this Swing group share the anti-Russian feelings of the Justice camp, but also worry about escalation – like the Peace camp.” The Rest 23 per cent are those who answered “Neither of these” and “Don’t know” to the statements. There are large differences between the respondents in the 10 countries as seen here: Perhaps indicating at the very least that European leaders are out of tune with their population in the majority of the 10 countries. Only in Poland is the support for the Justice Camp larger than the support for the Peace Camp. Europe must look to Europe’s interest Restating the argument from an earlier blog post. We wonder why Europe is not making a much more independent diplomatic effort, instead of giving in to moral outrage and Zelensky’s and Biden’s totally overstated warnings about the threat to all of Europe. Europe is supporting the Ukraine with financial assistance, weapons, welcoming Ukrainian refugees, and seems inclined to engage in self-harming sanctions to reduce Russia’s ability for fighting a war. In all seriousness, will Europe really leave to Zelensky and a vengeful Biden to decide to escalate the proxy war against Russia and decide the conditions for making peace with Russia? Why do decisionmakers not leave moralistic outbursts aside and take a more realistic position that actually turn out to be more in line with their own self-proclaimed European values. This would mean efforts to promote a peace that might spare lives and avoid further destruction in Ukraine and perhaps help solve or at least alleviate some of the problems brought up by Russia as reasons for the invasion. Why does European leaders not demand something in return from Zelensky’s Ukraine, instead of just playing whipping boy to Zelensky’s critique? Realistically this would mean that Europe would have to put pressure on Zelensky to accept the Russian annexation of Crimea, and insist that the future of the Luhansk and Donetsk would have to be settled by mechanism involving for instance staged referendums from Russian border to the borders of Luhansk and Donetsk. Either accept this or accept that help would be reduced to humanitarian help. Likewise, Europe would have to initiate sincere and realistic diplomatic efforts in relation Russia, taking demands from the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine seriously, accepting the Russian possession of Crimea and proposing realistic solutions for Luhansk and Donetsk that would comply with what Europe ought to demand of Ukraine. Reading list: Blog essays on the Ukraine War
Biden, the most dangerous man for peace in Europe https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/biden-the-most-dangerous-man-for-peace-in-europe A cocksure West risking catastrophe https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/a-cocksure-west-risking-catastrophe US and UK goals in proxy war risk nuclear confrontation https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/us-and-uk-goals-in-proxy-war-risk-nuclear-confrontation Spellbound by The Pied Piper of Kyiv’s magic Newspeak? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/april-17th-2022 Sucked into a war for peace https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/sucked-into-a-war-for-peace Do sanctions deter? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/do-sanctions-deter? U.S. diplomacy failing in relation to Russia and China https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/us-diplomacy-failing-in-relation-to-russia-and-china Proxy war in Ukraine because Biden and Blinken bear a grudge? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/proxy-war-in-ukraine-because-biden-and-blinken-bear-a-grudge? Letting Ukraine bleed in a proxy war with Russia? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/letting-ukraine-bleed-in-a-proxy-war-with-russia? NATO eastward expansion a serious mistake? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/nato-eastward-expansion-a-serious-mistake? Foolish reactions to Russian demands and threats? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/foolish-reactions-to-russian-demands-and-threats Who defines US policy? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/biden-giving-in-to-putin The impatient desire to simplify too soon, to find explanations at an insufficient depth, leads to enormous errors … In their eagerness to find a simple explanation for what occurs, men are tempted to select only one of these forces and say: “this is the only force at work” (Aldous Huxley “Causes of War”) Biden’s unusual defence for further escalation in New York Times On May 31 President Biden had an unusual Guest Essay in the New York Times. One wonders if the essay is meant to explain why he dared promise to give the Ukrainians what they craved for. In this instance Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) to outrange the Russians. Here some excerpts followed by critical comments attempting to show why this latest escalatory move by the Biden administration may lead Russia to a reciprocal escalation, that may endanger not just peace in Ukraine, but in Europe and the rest of World. Biden’s arguments for daring to escalate President Biden: “America’s goal is straightforward: We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression.” Comment: How will this ever be possible without some sort of accommodation with Russia? And how is this going to happen when escalating the proxy war? Biden argues like Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who once said the United States wanted “to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” This certainly does not bode well for future peaceful relations with Russia? What has the Biden actually done to promote an accommodation with Russia? Apparently, nothing. Instead, Biden recklessly acts without thoughts about the future relation with a humiliated Russia. A Russia armed to the teeth with extremely powerful nuclear weapons, that won’t go away. What is the chance that it will give up in Ukraine? What the risk that it will escalate? One thing is for sure, the U.S. is at moment driving Russia into the arms of a China striving after World hegemony. Does Europe really want that to happen, or do they realise that Russia may be so important for Europe, that some form of accommodation must reached even at the cost that Ukraine will have to limit its ambitions in the war. President Biden: “My principle throughout this crisis has been “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” I will not pressure the Ukrainian government — in private or public — to make any territorial concessions. It would be wrong and contrary to well-settled principles to do so … Standing by Ukraine in its hour of need is not just the right thing to do. It is in our vital national interests to ensure a peaceful and stable Europe and to make it clear that might does not make right.” Comment: To support Ukraine in making “No territorial concession” seems certain to crush any hope of an accommodation with Russia. Together with the ongoing escalation of U.S. deliveries of weapons to Ukraine it will instead support President Zelensky and FM Kuleba in making new outrageous demands. Looking at Zelensky’s many outpourings it sems that he becomes more willing to negotiate, when Russia has the overhand, but uncompromising when Ukraine looks be winning the proxy on behalf of the U.S. To be sure, it is in our all interest to ensure a peaceful Europe, but what Biden is doing is instead sure to escalate the present war. In fact Biden seems prefer to follow a bizarre ”1984” logic: “War is Peace.” President Biden: “We have moved quickly to send Ukraine a significant amount of weaponry and ammunition so it can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table. That’s why I’ve decided that we will provide the Ukrainians with more advanced rocket systems and munitions that will enable them to more precisely strike key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine.” He then bizarrely argues. “We do not seek a war between NATO and Russia … We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders. We do not want to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia.” Comment: What Biden is talking about is his decision, after some hesitation, to dare to provide Ukraine with HIMARS M142 (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System), a lighter and more mobile version of MLRS M270 (Multiple Launch Rocket System). These systems carry launch pods for precision guided long range rockets. It seems that the decision means that Ukraine will only get rockets with a limited range (perhaps up to70 kilometres. Not extended range rockets that could reach 300-499+ kilometres and thus reach Russian territory). In any case Ukraine would get rockets able to outrange Russian howitzers, that is the whole point, given the present Russia artillery onslaught in Eastern Ukraine. This means a further escalation of the war in Ukraine, perhaps enabling the Ukraine to once more force the Russians backwards, this time in Eastern Ukraine. How will the Russians react, be more inclined to seek peace or be more inclined to escalate? If Biden’s escalation of the proxy war means that Russia will be eyeing a new setback or even outright defeat, there is certainly a risk of reciprocal attempts to escalate. A grim spectre may even emerge. Russia may choose to “escalate to de-escalate,” meaning use a tactical nuclear demonstration in the kiloton range in some part of Ukraine to tell the West: If you don’t to de-escalate after this, you will risk the prospect of a nuclear war. (See my essay “A cocksure West risking catastrophe” at https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/a-cocksure-west-risking-catastrophe ). Biden apparently brushes the possibility aside. President Biden: “I know many people around the world are concerned about the use of nuclear weapons. We currently see no indication that Russia has intent to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine … Let me be clear: Any use of nuclear weapons in this conflict on any scale would be completely unacceptable to us as well as the rest of the world and would entail severe consequences.” Comment: “severe consequences.” Yes, certainly, but before that happens one would hope that the hitherto docile Europeans still clinging with some enthusiasm to the Biden proxy war bandwagon, would finally realise the catastrophic outlook and choose de-escalation. Distancing themselves from both Ukraine and Biden to avoid a nuclear war in Europe. Like Macron and to some degree Scholz, they should cool the European enthusiasm for war, and distance themselves from a Biden escalation that would threaten to humiliate Russia. It pays to remember what the former, well-respected German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt once said about Russia: “Russland ist eine Weltmacht und wird es bleiben.” Arguing with Russia’s enormous geographical size and its enormous natural resource potential. Well, this essay may also be impatient in its desire to simplify too soon, but at least it does not risk a catastrophic outcome. Addendum June2 New German weapon deliveries in the wake of Biden’s promises Just after Biden announced that Ukraine would get HIMARS It was annouced that Ukraine would get four Bundeswehr MARS-II (Mittleres Artillerieraketensystem), similar to the U.S. MLRS’s, and armed with two launch pods each containing 6 rockets. In the Bundestag Chancellor also Scholz also announced that Ukraine is getting IRIS-T Germany’s most up to date SLS/SLM short to medium-range surface-to-air defence systems. A single system he said would be able to defend a whole city. Germany is also supposed to deliver Counter Battery Radar systems, which will allow Ukrainian forces to pinpoint the location of say Russian Howitzers (perhaps in order to hit them with guided rockets launched from the MARS-II and HIMARS). The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. W.B. Yeats When the best still lacked conviction and the passionate were reined in The sad history of NATO and the Ukraine. At the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest on 3 April 2008 passionate members encouraged Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. “We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO …Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP [Membership Action Plan]. Therefore, we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications.” (NATO Bucharest Summit Declaration 2008). Encouragement came from the Bush administration eager to expand NATO, ignoring warnings from Russia that Ukrainian member ship would force Russia to treat Ukraine as an enemy. The best still lacked conviction with Germany and France blocking Ukrainian membership of NATO, arguing that Ukraine was not ready and perhaps also heeding the Russian warning, with French Prime Minister Fillon arguing: “We are opposed to the entry of Georgia and Ukraine because we think that it is not a good answer to the balance of power within Europe and between Europe and Russia.” The issue of NATO membership then lay more or less dormant until the Russian annexation of the Crimea and the continued fighting in the Donbas. Previous lukewarm and Ukrainian public support for NATO membership slowly changed to public support for membership. Leading to Ukraine’s passionate press for NATO membership. In 2019 “The Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, … approved in its final reading a constitutional amendment that reflects the country's strategic goal of becoming a member of NATO and the European Union.” (Radio Free Europe). When President Zelensky visited President Biden in September 2021, he pressed Biden on the issue NATO membership saying “I would like to discuss with President Biden here his vision, his government’s vision of Ukraine’s chances to join NATO and the timeframe for this accession, if it is possible; and the role the United States can play being involved in a peaceful settlement in Donbas that we would like to reach.” (The White House). Biden at the time seemed to lack conviction and remained noncommittal. Later becoming more passionate he voiced support for the Ukraine’s wish. In December 2021 Zelensky’s chief of staff told Reuters: "President Biden said very clearly that the decision on Ukraine's accession to NATO is the decision of the Ukrainian people only, this is a sovereign and independent Ukrainian state." An attitude certain to encourage Ukraine and anger Russia. A passionate Putin rushing into war In a long speech on Russian on February 21, 2022 Putin explained his grievances with the NATO expansion towards the East and especially the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO: These grievances and the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO may explain why Russia handed the U.S. and NATO a draft for a treaty on security guarantees, containing three key demands: First, to prevent further NATO expansion. Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders. And finally, rolling back the bloc's military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed. (en.kremlin.ru) The written answers to his demands from the U.S. and NATO gave no indication that Russia’s demands would be taken seriously. Causing a visibly angry Putin to state: “I would like to be clear and straightforward: in the current circumstances, when our proposals for an equal dialogue on fundamental issues have actually remained unanswered by the United States and NATO, when the level of threats to our country has increased significantly, Russia has every right to respond in order to ensure its security. That is exactly what we will do.” (en.kremlin.ru). The blood-dimmed tide loosed … A few days after Putin’s statement Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24,2022. While especially the U.S. and UK rushed light antitank weapons like Javelins and Nlaw’s to Ukraine, the main efforts to discourage Russia would seem to have been a succession of Western sanctions meant deter and punish Russia’s economy and weaken its ability to wage war. While Biden promised to support Ukraine, he also ruled out sending U.S. forces into Ukraine, and pulled out U.S. troops serving as military advisers. Then after days of fighting, the big surprise, Russian capabilities had been severely overrated. Seeing that Ukrainian troops armed with sophisticated Western anti-armour missiles had severely blunted Russian military capabilities. The feared Russian bear with its mighty steel paws was hurt and withdrew. Not to its lair, but to try again in the Donbas. A West full of passionate intensity Smelling the growing weakness of the Russian military aggression in Ukraine there is no end to the spiralling self-confidence and self-righteousness of Western leaders out to humiliate Putin and Russia. No holding back now with the US pouring both smart and traditional heavy weapons and equipment into Ukraine. The U.S. Senate having just voted 86-11 to approve a $40 billion [milliard] aid Ukraine aid package, and President Biden announcing “The resources that I requested will allow is to send even more weapons and ammunition to Ukraine, replenish our own stockpile, and support U.S. troops stationed on NATO territory.” The rest of the passionate West joining the U.S. bandwagon with diverse offerings of weapons, even Germany is now willing provide Ukraine with the heavy tools, in the shape of seven advanced Panzerhaubitze 2000, to help push back the Russians and in a “Ringtausch” they will supply the Czechs with 15 Leopard 2 tanks, allowing the Czechs to send T-72 tanks to Ukraine. A recent list of all known weapon deliveries to Ukraine ca be found at the Forum on the Arms Trade (https://www.forumarmstrade.org/ukrainearms.html). There are again foreign instructors in Ukraine and Ukrainian soldiers are trained in the West to use the weapons provided. Suspected for some time, it has now been revealed that the U.S. is providing Ukraine with real time intelligence to help them target the Russians. The Washington Post revealed that “Information about the location and movements of Russian forces is flowing to Ukraine in real-time, and it includes satellite imagery and reporting gleaned from sensitive U.S. sources.” According to a Ukrainian official “The intelligence is very good. It tells us where the Russians are so that we can hit them.” Somewhat surprisingly it is argued that the intelligence sharing is designed to prevent a wider war. The intention being to calibrate the intelligence sharing precisely so that will not lead to a further heightening of tension between the U.S. and Russia. Wonder if that is prevented, when seeing that U.S. intelligence helped sink the “Moskva” in the Black see and the apparent targeting of individual Russian generals. A Biden administration seemingly led by a conviction that Russia is losing, may now dare to provide intelligence that would allow the Ukraine forces to attack objects outside Ukrainian borders, say in the Russian Belgorod area. Cocky Western leaders are even starting to make mockery of the Russian assault, of their preparations, their logistics, the poor showing of their air force, their special forces, their operational planning, and the low quality of their technical equipment. “GPS receivers have been found taped to the dashboards of downed Russian SU-34s so the pilots knew where they were, due to the poor quality of their own systems.” (Defence Secretary Ben Wallace). Before May 9 there may have been a certain weariness, as many expected that Putin would use the opportunity to announce some drastic escalation, declare all-out war on Ukraine or put Russia on was footing. Nothing like that was announced. Putin’s talk was strangely subdued. The outlook for the Russian invasion does indeed look rather bleak at the moment. Pushed/ withdrawn from the Kyiv area and now also pushed/withdrawn from the Kharkiv area, the land battle is now taking place mostly the Eastern Ukraine, as seen in this map published by the Institute for the Study of War on May 18 In for the kill in the proxy war The U.S. is now so cocksure that Russians forces are on their heels that Ukrainian forces are really let loose with U.S. help. According to Secretary Blinken Ukraine should “do whatever is necessary to defend against Russian aggression,” adding that “the tactics of this are their decisions.” Perhaps, not wholly on their own given the passionate intensity in the West. U.S. Charge d'Affaires in Ukraine Kristina Kvien recently expressed the view that Ukraine would win the war: “So far it seems to me that Ukraine has been very successful in pushing back Russia. They pushed back Russia in North of Kyiv, they have now pushed back Russia around Kharkiv. And it is not illogical to think that Ukraine might be able to push back Russia in other areas which Russia has been able to occupy. We specifically haven't discussed Crimea and Donbas in terms of our military support.” Similar views have been expressed at recent NATO meetings. At the joint press conference after the informal Berlin meeting Stoltenberg said: “Ukraine can win this war. Ukrainians are bravely defending their homeland. To help them do so, Allies have committed and delivered security assistance to Ukraine worth billions of dollars, and over the years, NATO and Allies have trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian forces.” In connection with a G7 meeting at Weissenhaus in Germany on May 12 to 14, the French Foreign Minister Le Drian expressed his conviction that the G7 "very strongly united" in their will to "continue in the long term to support Ukraine's fight for its sovereignty until Ukraine's victory". (AFP). Western Leaders are still maintaining that this a Russian Ukraine war, not a war between the West (NATO) and Russia. But their arguments rather convoluted, perhaps to convince themselves that what we see is not what we see. In an interview Le Drian is asked: “Is France’s aim, your aim for Ukraine to win the war? Le Drian: “No, that’s not what I said. We must be very clear about things: there’s a war between Russia and Ukraine; there isn’t a war between Russia and the Atlantic Alliance, between Russia and other partners; there’s a single war between an invading country, Russia, and an invaded country which is Ukraine. Ukraine must regain its borders, its autonomy, its sovereignty. That’s the aim...” (Emphasis added). Questioned if this means ensuring that Ukraine will win without humiliating Russia, Le Drian argues: “It means that Russia pulls out of the Donbas, pulls out its forces from the Ukrainian territory it is occupying. There’s an invader; the invader must withdraw. If you want to call that a victory, let’s call it a victory, but the invader must withdraw and no longer be present in Ukraine.” (BFM TV). Spain’s Foreign Minister Albares Bueno argues in a way that even closer to Newspeak: “Alles, was wir tun, zielt darauf ab, den Frieden in der Ukraine wiederherzustellen und die russischen Soldaten in die Grenzen der Russischen Föderation zurückzudrängen, die sie nie hätten verlassen dürfen. Darauf sind alle Maßnahmen, auch die Lieferung militärischer Ausrüstung ausgerichtet … Nichts von dem, was die Europäische Union oder die Nato tun, zielt auf eine Eskalation ab.” (Die Welt). Nothing what the European Union or NATO is are doing, including the weapon deliveries is aimed at escalation. These are the words, the reality in Ukraine looks different, and the outlook may become even bleaker. A grim spectre re-emerges In a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, gave her assessment of what Russia might do after the “failure to rapidly seize Kyiv and overwhelm Ukrainian forces has deprived Moscow of the quick military victory that it had originally expected would prevent the United States and NATO from being able to provide meaningful military aid to Ukraine.” While Russia strategic goals may not have changed it is evident that it will find difficult in the near future reach even the limited goals of capturing Luhansk and Donetsk and establishing a kind of buffer zone protecting them. Haines “it is increasingly unlikely that they will be able to establish control over both oblasts and the buffer zone they desire in the coming weeks, but Putin most likely also judges that Russia has a greater ability and willingness to endure challenges than his adversaries, and he is probably counting on U.S. and EU resolve to weaken as food shortages, inflation, and energy prices get worse.” Given the apparent success of the West’s proxy war in Ukraine and Russia’s evident difficulties the important question is: What might/will Russia do now that its mighty military has been humiliated and its goals looks increasingly difficult or even impossible to achieve? Surely Russia must now realise that it is fighting all the might of West in a proxy war, carried out on Ukrainian soil. Russia finds itself in an impossible quandary similar to the Norse God, Thor, when he was trying to lift the Midgard Serpent or Jörmungandr in the shape of a cat. An impossible task even for Thor as the Midgard Serpent stretched around the whole World. Putin may have thought it was easy to “lift” a puny Ukraine, but must now realise that he is fighting the Midgard Serpent of the whole of Western might. What will he do? Here is what the U.S. intelligence believes he might do: President Putin may turn to more drastic means …including imposing martial law, reorienting industrial production, or potentially escalatory military actions to free up the resources needed to achieve his objectives as the conflict drags on, or if he perceives Russia is losing in Ukraine. “The most likely flashpoints for escalation in the coming weeks are around increasing Russian attempts to interdict Western security assistance, retaliation for Western economic sanctions, or threats to the regime at home. We believe that Moscow continues to use nuclear rhetoric to deter the United States and the West from increasing lethal aid to Ukraine and to respond to public comments from the U.S. and NATO Allies that suggest expanded western goals in the conflict. If Putin perceives that the United States is ignoring his threats, he may try to signal to Washington the heightened danger of its support to Ukraine by authorizing another large nuclear exercise involving a major dispersal of mobile intercontinental missiles, heavy bombers, strategic submarines. We otherwise continue to believe that President Putin would probably only authorize the use of nuclear weapons if he perceived an existential threat to the Russian state or regime, but we will remain vigilant in monitoring every aspect of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces. With tensions this high, there is always an enhanced potential for miscalculation, unintended escalation, which we hope our intelligence can help to mitigate.” (Emphasis added). (Avril Haines Director of National Intelligence at Congressional Testimony, May10). In the speech announcing the invasion of Ukraine Putin warned the West: “No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.... All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken. I hope that my words will be heard.” Three day later he ordered military command to put Russia's nuclear deterrent forces on high alert. The White House press secretary Jen Psaki, who often seems to act independently in lieu of Biden, dismissed Putin’s threat on Twitter the same day: “that Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to put his nation's nuclear deterrent forces on a state of heightened alert was part of a "pattern" of manufacturing threats that don't exist.” (Jen Psaki, February 27). In April, when it had become evident that Russian troops were in dire straits in Ukraine “Sergei Lavrov warned the West on Monday not to underestimate the elevated risks of nuclear conflict over Ukraine and said he viewed NATO as being "in essence" engaged in a proxy war with Russia by supplying Kyiv with weaponry.” (Reuters April 26). The threats were later dismissed by President Biden, when answering a question from journalist. Sounding somewhat hesitantly he said: “So, it’s — number one, it’s an excuse for their failure. But number two, it’s also, if they really mean it, it’s — it’s — no — no one should be making idle comments about the use of nuclear weapons or the possibility that they’d use that. It’s irresponsible.” Prime Minister Johnson was even more casually dismissing the threat. When asked he if shared the concern over threat of a nuclear war he simply said: “No. I don’t.” Analysts asked to judge the likelihood that Putin might use nuclear weapons when facing defeat in Ukraine have argued that there is a non-zero risk. A former undersecretary for defence put the risk a around 1 or 2 percent, while a former US ambassador to Russia judged the risk to be less than 5 percent. How they arrived at the percentage is not known, but that they judged the risk to be higher than zero is significant, and ought to give cause for concern among those Western leaders who rather arrogantly dismissed the Russian threat as merely empty words. Perhaps it would be wise to have a look at the Russian nuclear doctrine. Escalate to de-escalate when things fall apart On April 21, 2022 the U.S. congressional Service Published a report on Russians Nuclear doctrine. In 2020 Russia published the latest version of the doctrine entitled ““On Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence.” The document outlines the circumstances that might lead Russia to use nuclear weapons. “This document specifically notes that Russia “considers nuclear weapons exclusively as a means of deterrence.” It states that Russia’s nuclear deterrence policy “is defensive by nature, it is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence, and guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, and deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.” It also emphasizes that Russia maintains forces that could “inflict guaranteed unacceptable damage on a potential adversary ... in any circumstances.” Defensive it says, but it also states that Russia could respond with nuclear weapons following an “attack by adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions,” but also in an “aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.” (Emphasis added). Thus, Russia might respond to a conventional attack with nuclear weapons if it judges the very existence of the state to be in jeopardy. While this might seem to exclude the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian war, the document also opens the possibility of nuclear first use as it states: “… in the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.” Analysts have assessed that this means Russia might threaten to escalate to use nuclear weapons as a way to deter a conflict that would threaten the existence of the state, with Russia pursuing an “escalate to de-escalate” nuclear doctrine under certain circumstances. If a conventional conflict might threaten Russia, it might decide to use nuclear weapons to create such a catastrophic threat to a continuation of the conflict that its adversary would be forced to de-escalate. The Congressional report in fact mentions that this might happen if Russia looks to be defeated in a conventional conflict with NATO. At least that is how some analysts interpret the Russian doctrine. But it is worth noting that Russia itself does not use the term “escalate to de-escalate.” Now what does this mean in relation to Ukraine? We are seeing a more and more cocksure attitude in the West, manifesting itself in almost no holds barred support of Ukraine. The reality being that the West is using its potent military arsenal to fight the Russians using their Ukraine proxies. Could an eminent defeat of all Russians troops in Ukraine, the re-conquering the Russian held areas, and the weakening of Russia military might to a stage, where it would unable to wage war be seen as a defeat of Russia itself? Would an eminent risk of this happening provoke Russia to nuclear escalation in order to force the West to de-escalate? Russian certainly has the enough tactical nuclear weapons to make that a possibility. Russia’s nuclear arsenal IT is estimated that Russia has 1,912 non-strategic nuclear weapons. “These nuclear warheads include theater- and tactical-range systems that Russia relies on to deter and defeat NATO or China in a conflict. Russia’s stockpile of non-strategic nuclear weapons [is] already large and diverse and is being modernized with an eye towards greater accuracy, longer ranges, and lower yields to suit their potential warfighting role. We assess Russia to have dozens of these systems already deployed or in development. They include, but are not limited to: short- and close-range ballistic missiles, ground-launched cruise missiles, including the 9M729 missile [The 9M729 SSC-X-8 is a long-range ground-based cruise missile system], which the U.S. Government determined violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces or INF Treaty, as well as antiship and antisubmarine missiles, torpedoes, and depth charges.” Among the advanced missiles that may be armed with a nuclear tactical warhead is the Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal.” A nuclear-capable, air-launched, hypersonic ballistic missile, one of six new “next generation” weapons unveiled by Vladimir Putin in March 2018. It can carry a payload up to 480 kilos, and be armed with a thermonuclear warhead in the 10 to 50Kt range, and it may be air-launched from a Mig-31. Innocence is drowned … How might Russia use a non-strategic nuclear weapon, if it is pushed into corner facing defeat in the proxy war with the West? “Russian military-analytical writings envision a series of steps in which nuclear weapons are first deployed and utilized for signalling, and are then potentially employed in a progressive fashion at the regional level of conflict and finally are used in a large-scale war until the conflict reaches the “retaliation” of all-out nuclear war. At that level of war, in addition to the mass use of conventional precision strike, military writings suggest the employment of “single and/or grouped use of nonstrategic nuclear weapons on adversary forces” as well as the “demonstration use of nuclear weapons by strategic nuclear forces or nonstrategic nuclear weapons.” There are strong indications that not all of Russia’s nuclear employment appears to be under the rubric of SONF [Strategic Operation of Nuclear Forces].” This means that a tactical nuclear strike with aim of forcing the West to de-escalate could be launched as single initial strike by limited means in a selected region (zone) “intended to destroy political, industrial, and military targets.” (cna.org). A recent article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists argues that Russian use of “non-strategic nuclear weapons in Ukraine could take several forms. They could be used for demonstration purposes—not targeting anything and not creating casualties—to coerce Ukraine and/or the West to agree to a settlement acceptable to Putin. Tactical nukes could also be used to target military units to change the operational situation on the ground.” (thebulletin.org). “Russian thinking here is keen to avert inadvertent escalation, or the strengthening of political resolve that comes from civilian casualties. The possibility of secondary or synergistic effects, which could result in unacceptable levels of damage, weighs heavily as a consideration. Here, target selection and warhead selection are relevant factors. The operation is premised on inflicting deterrent damage through the application of limited force. The psychological impact is meant to exceed the level of material damage, affecting the political leadership’s will to fight.” (cna.org). A warning shot Euphemistically calling it a warning shot this could mean a nuclear explosion in a sparsely populated area Ukraine, using an unstoppable Kinzhal hypersonic missile with a 10 kiloton warhead, or a 9M729 missile similarly configured. Desperate and vindictive and Russians could perhaps even choose the small community “Ukrainske” for its symbolic value. Using Nukemap one may calculate the probable destructive effects giving the explosion of a 10 Kt warhead, with wind coming from an easterly direction. According to a Nukemap calculation this would result in 140 fatalities and 90 heavily injured. Terrible consequences for a small community and its vicinity in Ukraine, but not catastrophic in the wider sense. A map showing the areas to suffer the consequences of such nuclear demonstration, according to NUKemap calculations. De-escalate or risk anarchy loosed upon the World What would be the Western reaction if the Russians dared attempt to escalate to de-escalate with such a nuclear demonstration, calculated to impress and force the West to de-escalate? “The emotional noise following the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine would be deafening, both in terms of calls for restraint and of demands for retaliation. In many ways, the policy community is divided between those wanting an aggressive approach to the war that seeks to force a strategic defeat on Russia and those who want a more constrained approach to avoid a possible escalation.” (thebulletin.org). Here a list of possible reactions to a Russian nuclear demonstration in Ukraine: De-escalate, scaling down the assistance to Ukraine Respond using conventional weapons React in kind with some kind of nuclear demonstration De-escalate, scaling down the assistance to Ukraine It would mean giving in to a Russian “escalate to de-escalate” attempt. It would mean Western powers signalling that they would limit their assistance to Ukraine to level that would not threaten the Russia with defeat, and it would also mean forcing Ukraine to cut down its military and political ambitions. In effect force Ukraine, and the West, to accept some kind of settlement with Russia. “Given the consequences of a nuclear war between the United States, NATO, and Russia and the risk of escalation beyond Ukraine should the conflict continue, this option argues for ending the conflict in some way that gives the Russian leadership an “out” from the conflict. While seemingly reasonable given the level of destruction and costs of escalation.” Still, giving in to Russia would be humiliating to decision makers in the West hoping to bring Russia to its knees in their surprisingly successful proxy war against the Russia. It would also mean that nuclear blackmail would be effective, setting dangerous precedence, given the outstanding conflicts with say North Korea and Iran. On the other hand, there might be much less reluctance to respond in kind in the case of North Korea and Iran, meaning that the precedence setting effect of giving in to the Russian escalate to de-escalate may be negligible. An aspect that most US analysts seem to forget is that the Europeans would regard a giving in to Russia option as the only option. Fearing that alternatives like responding in kind would raise the spectre a nuclear war on the European continent. Respond using conventional weapons Fearing the consequences of responding in kind to a Russian nuclear demonstration, the U.S. and especially the Europeans might consider a response using conventional weapons. This would mean direct Western involvement in a war with Russia. Something the West has tried to avoid, although the cocksure attitude resulting from the success of the proxy war has meant that the restraint is disappearing. On overwhelming conventional response could be caried out in different ways. The limited version would consist of an all-out attack on Russian troops or installations in Ukraine. A more dangerous version would be an attack on Russian soil, say on the area, units or installations involved in the Russian nuclear demonstration. In this case the Russian escalate to de-escalate strategy would not have succeeded, and the result might be either that the Russia would realise that they were now involved in a direct war with West and that it would have to find some kind of settlement with the West… Or they might choose further escalation, including more forceful Russian nuclear demonstrations. Perhaps against to bases from where the conventional response was carried out. This would force the West to either seek settlement or escalate further carrying the risk of all out nuclear war. React in kind with some kind of tactical nuclear demonstration “To truly be “in-kind” in this scenario, the US and NATO would need to strike Russian targets in Ukraine—or otherwise significantly change the nature of the conflict by striking a target in Russia. There may be Russian military targets in Ukraine for which a low-yield nuclear strike would produce limited casualties. But to have a significant military impact, NATO would likely have to use multiple strikes.” (thebulletin.org). No one can say what the result of such scenario might be. But responsible European decision-makers would see this response in kind option as being far too dangerous. Fearing that it might lead to exchange of tactical nuclear weapon strikes on European soil. The problem is that Europeans may very little say in the decision to respond in kind. The U.S. being in charge and perhaps having less qualms. “Using a nuclear weapon against Russia immediately turns the conflict into a Russia versus the United States and NATO war that has skipped all the conventional options for escalation management. Given the potential global consequences of a nuclear war between Russia and the United States and NATO, striking targets inside Russia with nuclear weapons is unlikely to be viewed by the US president as a viable option.” (thebulletin.org). Thus, no one their right mind would therefore regard a response in kind as realistic option in the proxy war against Russia, meaning that we are back with the other two response scenarios. The 2022 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review states “As long as nuclear weapons exist, the fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners. The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.” It would certainly be difficult see a Russian tactical nuclear demonstration in Ukraine with limited local consequences as “extreme circumstances” threatening the “vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners”? Cool the passionate intensity While the West seems united in their “intense passion” to punish the Russians with help of Ukraine, there are voices calling for a cooling of the passion. Daniel Immerwahr (with a name signallling “Aalwaystrue”) warns that Western politicians have forgotten the trauma left by the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Quoting the Russian ambassador to the U.S. complaining that “the current generation of NATO politicians does not take the nuclear threat seriously.” Immerwahr argues that “we can’t drive nuclear war to extinction by ignoring it. … And we’re doing it just at the time when those who have most effectively testified to nuclear war’s horrors – the survivors – are entering their 90s. Our nuclear consciousness is badly atrophied. We’re left with a world full of nuclear weapons but emptying of people who understand their consequences.” (The Guardian). In an essay published by “Responsible Statecraft” Anatol Lieven warns of the horrible dangers of pushing a US proxy war in Ukraine. Arguing that former U.S. presidents like Truman and Eisenhower adopted a strategy of containing, but never fighting the Soviet Union in Europe and not trying to “roll back Soviet power through armed support for anti-Soviet insurgencies in eastern Europe.” He argues that leaders today should remember this and not try to push back Russia in military proxy war in Europe. The consequences would be disastrous for themselves “and still more disastrous for the wretched people on the ground who became the pawns of these great power agendas. Have we really learned nothing from history?” New York Times’ influential Thomas L. Friedman is warning that the war in Ukraine is getting more dangerous for America. He even postulates that Biden knows it, although that seems doubtful giving his rhetoric and the amount of resources, he is allocating to fight the proxy war in Ukraine. Friedman argues “We need to stick as tightly as possible to our original limited and clearly defined aim of helping Ukraine expel Russian forces as much as possible or negotiate for their withdrawal whenever Ukraine’s leaders feel the time is right.” The last condition seems very dangerous, giving the views expressed by president Zelensky. Who now sems convinced that the might of Western military assistance will allow Ukraine to aim for goals that would never have been in reach before the latest Russian invasion. Zelensky insists that he must be given everything he needs to defeat the Russians and push them back from every corner of Ukraine, even the areas occupied in 2014. “The ultimate goal of Ukraine is to restore territorial integrity, including Crimea, President Volodymyr Zelensky said Tuesday, as Russia pursued its offensive to seize territory in eastern Ukraine. (WSJ). In order to do this Zelensky wants to make sure that everything is done “to maintain the world's maximum attention to us, to Ukraine. Information about our needs should be in the news of all countries that are important to us constantly and every day.” This means of cause means further escalation, more heavy weapons and more direct involvement of the West in order to achieve Zelensky’s goal, and the passionate intensity in the West is encouraging Zelensky to demand more all the time, scolding those who show less passion. President Macron has tried to cool the passionate conviction, arguing: “Nous ne sommes pas en guerre contre la Russie. Nous œuvrons en Européens pour la préservation de la souveraineté et de l'intégrité territoriale de l'Ukraine. Pour le retour de la paix sur notre continent. Nous serons là pour reconstruire l’Ukraine, en Européens, toujours. (Emmanuel Macron May 9, 2022). Macron insists that Europe must learn from its past mistakes, and make sure no side is humiliated like the Germans were in the Versailles Treaty after the First World War. Macron has apparently even to tried to convince Zelensky that Ukraine must pay for peace by accepting to give up some Ukrainian territory. Not something an increasingly cocksure Zelensky would agree too, with the passionate West bolstering his confidence that everything is possible. He scolded Macron in an Italian interview “To propose to us to give up something as far as our sovereignty is concerned to save (Russian) President (Vladimir) Putin’s face does not seem like a fair thing on the part of some leaders. (aa.com.tr) Perhaps Europe should cool its passion for Zelensky and for the mainly U.S. driven proxy war, and instead heed Macron’s advice. Europe must look to Europe’s interest Restating the argument from an earlier blog post. We wonder why Europe is not making a much more independent diplomatic effort, instead of giving in to moral outrage and Zelensky’s and Biden’s totally overstated warnings about the threat to all of Europe. Europe is supporting the Ukraine with financial assistance, weapons, welcoming Ukrainian refugees, and seems inclined to engage in self-harming sanctions to reduce Russia’s ability for fighting a war. Why does it not demand something in return from Zelensky’s Ukraine, instead of just playing whipping boy to Zelensky’s critique? Why do decisionmakers not leave moralistic outbursts aside and take a more realistic position that actually turn out to be more in line with their own self-proclaimed European values. This would mean efforts to promote a peace that might spare lives and avoid further destruction in Ukraine and perhaps help solve or at least alleviate some of the problems used by Russia as reasons for the invasion. Realistically this would mean that Europe would have to put pressure on Zelensky to accept the Russian annexation of Crimea, and insist that the future of the Luhansk and Donetsk would have to be settled by mechanism involving staged referendums from Russian border to the borders of Luhansk and Donetsk. Either accept this or accept that help would be reduced to humanitarian help. Likewise, Europe would have to initiate sincere and realistic diplomatic efforts in relation Russia, taking demands from the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine seriously, accepting the Russian possession of Crimea and proposing realistic solutions for Luhansk and Donetsk that would comply with what Europe ought to demand of Ukraine. Here a first few quotes and references pointing a Biden administrations’ goal of defeating Russia in the Ukrainian proxy war, and some quotes pointing the heightened risk for direct confrontation with Russia that may involve non-strategic nuclear weapons. Perhaps this may dampen the enthusiastic support for the Pied Piper of Kyiv and his cry of “more weapons for peace” Remarks by President Biden on the Request to Congress for Additional Funding to Support Ukraine. April 28, 2022 Biden: “Bottom line: All these actions we’ve been taking are about the truth — this truth: Investing in Ukraine’s freedom and security is a small price to pay to punish Russian aggression, to lessen the risk of future conflicts … Our unity at home, our unity with our Allies and partners, and our unity with the Ukrainian people is sending an unmistakable message to Putin: You will never succeed in dominating Ukraine.” Question from reporter: ”Mr. President, thank you. How worried are you by a growing number of Russian comments in the media and amongst some of their officials painting this conflict as actually already a conflict between NATO, the U.S., and Russia? And they’re painting in very alarmist terms, talking of nuclear weapons, saying it’s a life-or-death struggle, et cetera.” Part of Biden’s answer: ”So, it’s — number one, it’s an excuse for their failure. But number two, it’s also, if they really mean it, it’s — it’s — no — no one should be making idle comments about the use of nuclear weapons or the possibility that they’d use that. It’s irresponsible.” On Monday, April 25, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on the Biden administrations goal. Lloyd Austin said it was “to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine” https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-return-embassy-to-ukraine-boost-military-aid-blinken-and-austin-tell-zelensky-in-visit-to-kyiv-11650859391 UK Defence Secretary. Statement to the House of Commons on Ukraine: 25 April 2022 Mr Speaker, some of us in this House knew that, behind the mask, the Kremlin was not the international statesman it pretended to be. With this invasion of Ukraine, all of Europe can now see the true face of President Putin and his inner circle. His intention is only to destroy, to crush, to rub out the free peoples of Ukraine. He does not want to preserve. He must not be allowed to prevail. Ukrainians are fighting for their very lives and they are fighting for our freedoms. The President of Ukraine himself said as much: if Russia stops fighting, there will be peace. If Ukraine stops fighting, there will be no more Ukraine. (Ben Wallace MP, Ministry of Defence). https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/defence-secretary-statement-to-the-house-of-commons-on-ukraine-25-april-2022 The horrible dangers of pushing a US proxy war in Ukraine Article by Anatoly Lieven on the” Responsible Statecraft” site. To judge by its latest statements, the Biden administration is increasingly committed to using the conflict in Ukraine to wage a proxy war against Russia, with as its goal the weakening or even destruction of the Russian state. During the Cold War, no U.S. president ever forgot that Washington and Moscow between them have the ability to destroy human civilization and even put an end to the human race. For this reason, first the Truman and then the Eisenhower administration adopted the strategy of “containing” the Soviet Union in Europe, and not trying to “roll back” Soviet power through armed support for anti-Soviet insurgencies in eastern Europe. (Anatoly Lieven). https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/27/the-horrible-dangers-in-pushing-a-us-proxy-war-in-ukraine/ Bundeskanzler Scholz on dangers of nuclear war, April 22 “I said very early on that we must do everything possible to avoid a direct military confrontation between NATO and a highly armed superpower like Russia, a nuclear power, … “to prevent an escalation that would lead to a third world war… “There must be no nuclear war,” (Scholz quoted in Politico). https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-chancellor-olaf-scholz-nuclear-war-tanks-heavy-weapons-ukraine-russia-invasion/ Finally: Russia’s Nuclear Weapons: Doctrine, Forces, and Modernization Congressional Research Service, April 21,2022 “Russia has a number of nuclear weapons available for use by its “naval, tactical air, air- and missile defense forces, as well as on short-range ballistic missiles.” It is reportedly engaged in a modernization effort focused on “phasing out Soviet-era weapons and replacing them with newer versions.” Unclassified estimates place the number of warheads assigned to nonstrategic nuclear weapons at 1,912. Recent analyses indicate that Russia is both modernizing existing types of short-range delivery systems that can carry nuclear warheads and introducing new versions of weapons that have not been a part of the Soviet/Russian arsenal since the latter years of the Cold War. In May 2019, Lt. Gen. Robert P. Ashley of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) raised this point in a public speech. He stated that Russia has 2,000 nonstrategic nuclear warheads and that its stockpile “is likely to grow significantly over the next decade.” https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf See also these blog entries: Sucked into a war for peace https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/sucked-into-a-war-for-peace Getting bolder – in for the “kill” https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/april-17th-2022 Getting modern heavy offensive weapons to Ukraine Reuters has reported that Slovakia is discussing the sale of Slovakian made Zuzana advanced self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine. In television debate the Slovak Defence Minister Jaroslav Nad said: "I can confirm that we are in talks (about the sale)," (Reuters). Germany also seems to see the idea of selling heavy weapons as a way out of the German predicament. Instead of just giving Ukraine what they are asking for, which might further provoke Russia, giving Ukraine the money to buy heavy weapons might be seen as a kind non-involvement solution. According to the German public service broadcaster ARD, Chancellor Scholz has announced that Germany will provide a total of two billion euros in further military aid - significantly more than one billion euros of which will go directly to Ukraine. The Ukrainians can use the money to buy the weapons they want - in consultation with the US and other partners. The money is to be paid as part of the federal government's empowerment initiative (Ertüchtigungsinitiative der Bundesregierung). An initiative originally intended to help bring about security and peace. Another 400 million euros from the overall package are intended for the European Peace Facility, which would then buy weapons for Ukraine. The remaining 400 million euros are for other countries. If Ukraine then wants to buy weapons from Germany, it would have to be approved by Bundeswirtschaftsminister (Federal Economics Minister) Robert Habeck, and Germany has a very restrictive policy on sale of weapons to sensitive areas, which might pose a new problem. ”All exports of military equipment are subject to a licence, which is only issued following detailed scrutiny of each case. The German government pays particular attention to ensuring that the goods will not be misused to commit human rights violations or to exacerbate a crisis.” (Emphasis added). (bmwi.de). How to train Ukrainian troops in their use According to The Times British Special Forces are now again in Ukraine, training local troops in Obolon on the outskirts of Kyiv in the use of British supplied NLAW anti-tank missiles. According to CBS News “A small number of Ukrainians who have been in the U.S. since the fall in professional military education programs have received rudimentary training on weapons systems that are new to the Ukrainian military … The U.S. has taken advantage of having a small number of Ukrainians in the country and pulled them aside for a couple of days to receive training on how to operate switchblade drones… The small number of individuals are expected to go back to Ukraine relatively soon, as was initially planned and can train additional Ukrainian soldiers on the weapons.” (CBS). More training will certainly be needed for advanced heavy weapons and the use of smart ammunition. More western special forces in Ukraine or letting Ukrainians train in the West? The UK is not only delivering armoured vehicles to Ukraine. The Armed Forces Minister, James Heappey, has told Forces News Ukrainian troops will be trained in Britain on how to use the armoured vehicles being provided. Getting bolder – in for the “kill” One wonders if the West is now seeing Russia as being so weak and beaten, that further involvement does not risk direct war with Russia. The West perhaps even eyeing the possible defeat of Russian troops, if Ukraine is given everything they want in order to conduct the war of behalf of not the least the U.S. This would mean that present verbal and written threats from Russia are being disregarded. One wonders if the Biden’s administration hawks are now so self-assured that they see no need for some kind of diplomatic solution that would mean that Ukraine would also have to be reined in. One wonders if that isn’t a very risky policy, as no one in the West knows what Russia might do in order to avoid defeat. Would they amass even more troops in Eastern Ukraine, escalate the severe bombing and missile attacks, attack western weapons supply columns in countries bordering Ukraine, get help with smart weapons and equipment from China, or in fact use tactical nuclear weapons in order to avoid defeat. If Russia really used tactical nuclear weapons the game would be up, as Europe presumably would not accept to let the U.S. retaliate in kind. What would Europe do? Don’t someone in Europe see the need for a serious and independent European diplomatic effort to enhance a chance for peace, instead of just finding strange arrangements for providing Ukraine with the heavy weapons that Zelensky and Kuleba assert are necessary for peace? See also the essay: Sucked into a war for peace https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/sucked-into-a-war-for-peace “War is peace”
One is reminded of Orwell’s 1984 when listening to Ukraine’s FM Kuleba when he arrived at a NATO meeting recently: “My agenda is very simple, there is only three items for me It’s weapons, weapons and weapons … As weird as it may sound, but today weapons serve the purpose of peace.” On March 26 Zelensky reiterated the need for get soviet made fighter aircrafts from the West in order to prevent the Russians from bombing Ukrainian cities from the air, arguing "The price of procrastination with planes is thousands of lives of Ukrainians, which we are losing from missile and air strikes on peaceful Ukrainian cities," The message from Ukraine: More weapons serve the peace and save the lives of thousands of Ukrainians. But Zelensky and Kuleba may be wrong. More weapons may instead lead to escalation, more death and destruction and carry enormous risks, not the least for Europe. This essay is an attempt to show how the West might get sucked into an escalating “war for peace” with Europe losing sight of its own interests. It takes a look at these topics: The West is listening The escalating list of Ukrainian demands Fanning the flames with more offensive weapons … It's not only weapons – escalating sanctions What does the West hope to achieve? Ukraine’s Orwellian “war for peace” A clueless Europe caught in jingoistic excitement Why doesn’t Europe look to Europe’s interest? The West is listening In the beginning it sent weapons and materials that would help Ukraine defend itself with evidently strict limitations on offensive weapons that might involve the risk of getting into war with Russia. Ukraine instead got smart weapons like Javelin missiles and NLAW’s (nicknamed Inlove by Ukrainians?) and other sorts of weapons that would help Ukraine defenders to combat armoured columns of Russian tanks and personal carriers. On April 6 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley “testified that the U.S. and allies have provided 60,000 anti-tank weapons and 25,000 anti-aircraft weapons.” Weapons that may have had a devastating effect on Russians columns, judging by the number of pictures and videos of burned-out Russian equipment. The escalating list of Ukrainian demands Zelensky and Kuleba are constantly demanding more from the West, and woe to those who do not at least give the impression that they listening. Like Hungary’s Orban or a foot-dragging Germany. At the April 7 meeting with thirty NATO members, plus the European Union, Finland, Sweden, Japan, New Zealand and Australia, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba was asking for ”planes, land-based anti-ship missiles, armoured vehicles and air defence systems.” He said: “I think the deal that Ukraine is offering is fair. You give us weapons, we sacrifice our lives, and the war is contained in Ukraine.” If effect saying that Ukraine would carry out a proxy war on behalf of the West. Just give us the means to do so. After NATO meeting with Ukraine’s FM Kuleba, Secretary General Stoltenberg was asked; “You speak about more weapons right? Does it mean in quantity? Or are you talking about a different kind of weapon, more as we call it in a more offensive weapon and how do you think Russia was is going to respond to that?” In his answer it was evident Stoltenberg did not want to become too specific as to what kind of weapons and assistance would be forthcoming, but said: ”I think it's important to understand that Allies believe it is better often to not be specific exactly about what kinds of systems, but rest assured Allies are providing a wide range of different weapons systems, both Soviet era systems but also modern equipment and I think that this distinction between offensive and defensive is a bit strange, because we speak about providing weapons to a country which is defending itself and self-defence is a right which is enshrined in the UN Charter.” So, everything Ukraine does with the support from NATO allies is per definition defensive because Ukraine is defending itself. His answer indicates that the dividing line between what might considered might be defensive weapons and what might be seen as heavy offensive weapons has become blurred. Leading again to questions about whether Ukraine might get fighter aircraft after all. Stoltenberg furthermore highlighted the urgency of giving assistance to Ukraine, as the Russians seemed to prepare a new offensive in the Donbas: “So that's also the reason why we need to, of course, work for a quick end to this war. And that's the reason why also Allies are imposing heavy costs on President Putin and Russia. But at the same time, be prepared for the long haul. This war may last for weeks, but also months and possibly also for years, and therefore we need to prepare for a lot more.” Possibly for years, and all the while getting sucked more and more into the proxy war with Russia that might become a real war with Russia. It is apparent that NATO does not want to be seen to be delivering the weapons to Ukraine, instead it will be done by each country who wants to participate based upon their own decisions. It seems somewhat risky to assume that this primitive “sleight of hand” will deceive anyone, least of all Russia. On April 13 Zelensky reiterated the demand for heavy offensive weapons to give battle to the Russian forces assembling in Eastern Ukraine. "To continue heroically defending the world from Russian aggression, Ukraine needs a specific list of weapons. I appeal to citizens of the whole world to help convey to your governments, presidential administrations, and leaders of your countries the real needs of Ukraine, which will help stop the war." The list includes: - Artillery pieces (caliber 155 mm) and ammo; - Artillery shells (152 mm caliber). As much as possible; - Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: "Grad", "Uragan", or American M142 HIMARS; - APCs (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, etc.); - Tanks (T-72, either American or German analogs); - Air defense systems (S-300, BUK, or similar modern western air defense systems); - Combat aircraft. Fanning the flames with more offensive weapons … On April 5 “Prague Morning” reported that the Czech’s will send old Soviet-designed T-72 tanks to Ukraine, “providing badly needed heavy weapons to outgunned Ukrainian troops that are battling a much better-equipped Russian invasion force.” There has also been talk about Poland, who be able would deliver up to 100 old T-72 tanks, and possible be “rewarded” with U.S. made Abrams main battle tanks, but nothing has apparently been decided, On April 8 “The Slovak Spectator” revealed that Slovakia is donating its S-300 air defence system to Ukraine.” S-300 is a Russian air defence system already used by Ukraine. It is not the newest type of Russian air defence, but still a very formidable weapon to use against fighter planes, drones and missiles. This was followed by an announcement by U.S. Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, that the U.S. would station a Patriot missile battery in Slovakia: “It my direction, and at the invitation of Slovakia, U.S. European Command will reposition one Patriot missile system, manned by U.S. service members, to Slovakia.” Apparently by moving a battery stationed in Poland to Slovakia instead. Early April the Ukrainian ambassador to Australia announced an Australian contribution on Facebook: "Australia sends 20 Bushmaster vehicles worth AUD 50 million (USD 38 million). A historic moment.” (Ukrinform). The Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle is a personal carrier with a V-shaped armoured hull to protect its passengers from landmines and other explosive devices. Also, in early April the UK government announced that it would send a new package of weapons worth 100 million pounds, including according to gov.uk: More than 800 more NLAW anti-tank missiles Additional Javelin anti-tank systems Additional loitering munitions Additional Starstreak air defence systems Additional non-lethal aid including ballistic helmets, body armour and night vision goggles After Boris Johnson’s surprise visit to Kyiv Downing Street it was confirmed that it would also send 120 armoured Mastiff vehicles and anti-ship missiles to Ukraine. Judging from media reports there is talk of “obsolete US-made Harpoons which were due to leave service in 2018 (although extended until 2023).” (Navy Lookout). Weapons that might be used against Russian warships blockading and threatening Ukrainian ports and cities, from the Black Sea. In interview with Deutsche Welle on April 6, Secretary Blinken was asked about further arms deliveries to Ukraine. Blinken’s answer: “What we’re focused on is making sure that we get to Ukraine the systems that they can use now and use effectively. At the same time, we’re looking at other systems – some of them larger, more sophisticated – that may be useful and important going forward, but where, for example, Ukrainians need to be trained, because some of these systems you can’t just turn them over and have them be used immediately. Training is required; maintenance is required. So, what we focused on is what can Ukrainians use immediately and use effectively, but we’re also looking at over the longer term what could they use with the right training, with the right support, with the right maintenance. All of that we’re working on right now.” (Emphasis added). Later National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan announced that he had “spent two hours on the phone with the chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy's top aide. And we went through every weapon system that Ukraine is seeking, in priority order. … Our policy is unequivocal that we will do whatever we can to help Ukraine succeed.” (Emphasis added). What that means he did not say, but evidently Ukraine was going to get more sophisticated weapons. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby revealed that Ukrainian soldiers had been trained to used Switchblade drones and that 100 of these had already been sent to Ukraine. What model of the weapon he did not reveal, but media reported that Ukraine would get 10 of the large Switchblade 600 armed with multi-purpose anti-armour ammunition, able to loiter for 40 minutes and having a range of around 40 km. The rest may perhaps be Switchblade 300, a lighter version. Then on Thursday April 13 the U.S. Department of Defence announced the authorization of a Presidential drawdown of security assistance valued at up to an additional $800 million tailored to meet urgent Ukrainian needs for today’s fight. Euphemistically called capabilities this includes delivery of: 18 155mm Howitzers and 40,000 artillery rounds; Ten AN/TPQ-36 counter-artillery radars; Two AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel air surveillance radars; 300 Switchblade Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems; 500 Javelin missiles and thousands of other anti-armor systems; 200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers; 100 Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles; 11 Mi-17 helicopters; Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels; Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment; Medical equipment; 30,000 sets of body armor and helmets; Over 2,000 optics and laser rangefinders; C-4 explosives and demolition equipment for obstacle clearing; and M18A1 Claymore anti-personnel munitions [anti-personal mines] configured to be consistent with the Ottawa Convention. In the armed Services Committee General Mark Miley had previous ly revealed that “We are looking around along with other countries in NATO to help them out in terms of building them up in terms of armor and artillery,” … The fight in the southeast is different from the north, it is much more open and lends itself to armor, mechanized operations, offensive operations on both sides.” In other words, lending itself better to the use of tanks than the terrain around Kyiv. Still, Ukrainian video clips indicate that their troops are also preparing for old style trench warfare. Germany still seems to be reluctant to send up to 100 old Bundeswehr Marder infantry fighting vehicles (Schützenpanzer) that Ukraine would like to have (although they might need to refurbished). The Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany has argued receiving such weapons would not prolong the war, but shorten the war and the suffering of people.” "Wenn wir sagen, wir wollen mehr Waffen, heißt das, dass wir diesen Krieg nicht verlängern, sondern den Krieg und das Leid der Menschen verkürzen wollen." (NTV). The Rheinmetal arms manufacturer has indicated it would also be able to deliver German built Leopard 1 main battle tanks (from storage at FFG in Flensburg?), if the German government so decided. Although the Leopards would also need refurbishment and thus only be available after a few months. France will not reveal what kind of military support they are providing, with general Thierry Burkhard arguing "The Russians can accept a certain number of things, but they cannot accept that we overplay our support for Ukraine." (Quoted in WSJ). Ukraine has even asked for anti-aircraft missile systems from South Korea. A South Korean official has said that they will reject the demand: “Minister Suh politely repeated the South Korean government’s principled stance that its aid is confined to non-lethal materials.” Finally, there is the outstanding question about old soviet fighter planes for the Ukraine, but there still seems to be some reluctance, as this might mean that West would cross a Russian red line and thus lead to a more direct involvement of the West in a war with Russia. Training, After President Biden in a speech in Poland had created some confusion about the possible involvement of US troops in Ukraine, he now argues: “We were talking about helping train the troops in — that are — the Ukrainian troops that are in Poland. That’s what the context.” With this Biden revealed publicly that U.S. forces might still be training Ukrainian troops for battle while the war is going on in Ukraine. Later Pentagon spokesman John Kirby argued that “It’s not training in the classic sense that many people think of training. I would just say it’s liaising.” Perhaps trying to convince the public that U.S. instructors are just showing Ukrainian troops the instruction manual for the Javelins: US intelligence Answering a question from senator Tom Cotton, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin revealed that US was providing Ukraine with real time intelligence: "We are providing them intelligence to conduct operations in the Donbas, that's correct," (CNN). Seeing that NATO countries now seem to dare to deliver more offensive and sophisticated weapons, U.S. troops “liaising” with Ukrainian troops and Ukraine receiving real time intelligence, it seems evident that the U.S. and NATO countries are getting sucked into what might turn out to be an escalating and possible long drawn-out proxy war in the Ukraine, while betting that their involvement will not lead to direct war with Russia. It's not only weapons – escalating sanctions On Thursday April 7 Zelensky demanded that the West intensify the sanctions on Russia. Arguing for a speedy embargo on Russian oil and a complete exclusion of Russia from the international financial system. “According to Volodymyr Zelensky, Moscow makes so much money from crude exports that it does not consider it necessary to seriously negotiate the restoration of peace. He called on the “democratic world” to immediately impose an embargo.” On April 7 Foreign Minister Kuleba also “reiterated a demand that the EU impose a full oil and gas embargo on Russia and called for weapons deliveries to be speeded up.” Friday April 7 the EU announced the fifth package of sanctions. Accompanied by this statement from Josep Borell: “These latest sanctions were adopted following the atrocities committed by Russian armed forces in Bucha and other places under Russian occupation. The aim of our sanctions is to stop the reckless, inhuman and aggressive behaviour of the Russian troops and make clear to the decision makers in the Kremlin that their illegal aggression comes at a heavy cost.” The new EU package comprises: a prohibition to purchase, import or transfer coal and other solid fossil fuels into the EU. a prohibition to provide access to EU ports to vessels registered under the flag of Russia. a ban on any Russian and Belarusian road transport. export bans, targeting jet fuel and other goods such as quantum computers and advanced semiconductors, high-end electronics, software, sensitive machinery and transportation equipment. import bans on products such as: wood, cement, fertilisers, seafood and liquor. a series of targeted economic measures intended to strengthen existing measures and close loopholes, such as: a general EU ban on participation of Russian companies in public procurement in member states, the exclusion of all financial support to Russian public bodies. an extended prohibition on deposits to crypto-wallets, and on the sale of banknotes and transferrable securities denominated in any official currencies of the EU member states to Russia and Belarus, sanctions on companies whose products or technology have played a role in the invasion, key oligarchs and businesspeople, high-ranking Kremlin officials, proponents of disinformation and information manipulation, More over a full transaction ban is imposed on four key Russian banks representing 23% of market share in the Russian banking sector. The European Council also made the rather unrealistic demand that “Russia immediately stop its military aggression in the territory of Ukraine, immediately and unconditionally withdraw all forces and military equipment from the entire territory of Ukraine, and fully respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence within its internationally recognised borders.” This package does not satisfy Ukraine’s Zelensky. He is still scolding those who are reluctant to support Ukraine in every way possible: “Some politicians still cannot decide to restrict the flow of petrodollars and petro-euros to Russia so as not to jeopardize their economies,” … The only question is how many more Ukrainians, men and women, the Russian army will have to kill in order for you, some politicians – we know who you are – to find some determination within you,” (newsbulletin 247.com) On April 13 in one of his video pep talks to European parliaments, this time Lithuania, he wanted Europe to initiate a complete abandonment of Russia's energy resources: “I stressed that the sixth package of EU sanctions against Russia must include oil. Stop multiplying insufficiently strong sanctions packages. In any case, you will have to acknowledge that only Europe's abandonment of Russia's energy resources and the complete restriction of Russia's banking system can be an argument for Russia's leadership to seek peace. Without this, Moscow is looking for a military solution.” (tsn.ua). What does the West hope to achieve? On NBC’s “Meet the Press” it has recently been revealed what the U.S. wants to achieve in the proxy war in Ukraine: “Our policy is unequivocal that we will do whatever we can to help Ukraine succeed. And it will be … President Zelensky and the democratically elected government of Ukraine that determines what that success constitutes,”… “But at the end of the day, what we want to see is a free and independent Ukraine, a weakened and isolated Russia, and a stronger, more unified, more determined West,” … “We believe that all three of those objectives are in sight, can be accomplished.” (Emphasis added). And some Republicans seem just as belligerent. Apparently seeing the Russian retreat from the Kyiv area as a sign of weakness that has to be exploited, by dramatically ramping up the delivery of weapons like tanks and fighter planes. The goal being not a negotiated settlement but Russian defeat on the battlefield. “We want the Ukrainians to win, to win, to defeat the Russians, for the Russians to withdraw from the country. And that ought to be our goal,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has told “Fox News Sunday. Listening to the words of Jake Sullivan, McConnell and Biden’s outrage one gets the impression that the US is letting Ukraine fight Russia with sophisticated Western weapons to fulfil the American purpose of achieving a weakened and humiliated Russia, and remembering Bidens “For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power,” presumably also Putin’s removal. To a belligerent Biden and his henchmen this might actually be the ulterior goal, much more important than the ideological loaded “crusade” for a “free and independent Ukraine.” The U.S. policy might actually lead to a Ukraine ravaged by war with more human misery and destruction. The U.S. seems to be acting accordance the kind of approach once defended by Madeleine Albright: ““If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.” (Secretary of State Albright, 1998) While the U.S. seems eager to carry out the proxy war in Ukraine with nearly all possible means to weaken Russia, it certainly does not seem to be very eager to engage in diplomatic activities to help bring about a peaceful end to the Ukraine war. Instead, diplomatic efforts to seems directed to further the overall purpose of punishing and weakening Russia by threatening every country that that might help Russia succeed. Exerting diplomatic pressure on China to make sure that it does not help Russia, which led to an angry riposte from China. In a similar fashion the U.S. is attempting to persuade India’s Nahendra Modi to help by not buying cheap oil from Russia. This approach has once been characterised by an American scholar as a kind of anti-diplomacy: “A … distinguishing feature of modern American diplomacy is that US administration as a whole tend to privilege hard power policies over soft power policies. A further distinguishing characteristic of American diplomacy is that “the United States has chosen to isolate diplomatically for long periods states that it deemed adversarial, and has required those states to meet preconditions before it will formally engage them.” (Wiseman In the Hague Journal of Diplomacy.) While the immediate goal of seriously weakening Russia seems clear, one wonders whether the U.S. has any ulterior goal in relation to Russia. It seems evident that the belligerent U.S. policy and lack of diplomatic efforts in relation to Russia in the long run will drive Russia and China closer together, ultimately resulting in the U.S. having to deal with an adversary with a combined strength surpassing the U.S. and confronting it in both Europe and Asia. Meaning of course that the present very dangerous attempt to really humiliate Russia might turn out to be a rather stupid short-term strategy, coming back to hunt a future U.S. administration. Ukraine’s Orwellian “war for peace” In an interview Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said: “No one wants to negotiate with a person or people who tortured this nation. It’s all understandable. And as a man, as a father, I understand this very well, … But “we don’t want to lose opportunities, if we have them, for a diplomatic solution … We have to fight, but fight for life. You can’t fight for dust when there is nothing and no people. That’s why it is important to stop this war.” (Emphasis added). In another connection Zelensky has also argued that victory for his country is “being able to save as many lives as possible.” But what has Zelensky actually done to stop the war from leading to more casualties and destruction? Some will argue that his team is negotiating with the Russians, but that the Russians don’t seem sincere in these negotiations. But what has Zelensky himself to offer: While he may be looking for peace "without delay" he has also stated that "Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are beyond doubt. (Axios). But if Ukraine must get back Crimea and the occupied areas of Luhansk and Donetsk, there is little hope for peace. We are back where we began, with Ukrainian’s almost 1984 “Ministry of Truth” logic, claiming that they are fighting for peace, and to fight for peace they need more weapons. Arguing as we have seen that they are fighting for the security for all of Europe. “What is the price of this security? This is very specific. These are planes for Ukraine. These are tanks for our state. This is anti-missile defense. This is anti-ship weaponry. This is what our partners have. This is what is covered with dust at their storage facilities. After all, this is all for freedom not only in Ukraine - this is for freedom in Europe…. Because it cannot be acceptable for everyone on the continent if the Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia and the wholof Eastern Europe are at risk of a clash with the Russian invaders. At risk only because they left only one percent of all NATO aircraft and one percent of all NATO tanks somewhere in their hangars. One percent! We did not ask for more. And we do not ask for more” (Zelensky quoted in Ukrinform). Zelensky seems to have ideas similar to the those found in the Biden administration and some Republicans. Demanding weapons to serve the purpose of peace. This is a pie in sky approach to peace, and this approach to peace seems to carry some very big risks not only for Ukraine but for Europe and perhaps even the U.S. More weapons mean more fighting, more casualties and more destruction. It means escalation which carries new risks of a prolonged war or even a war spreading to other parts of Europe. In bizarre sense this may make Zelensky’s warning about Russia being a threat to all of Europe come true, but now as a result of seeking peace in Ukraine by escalating the war with growing involvement from Europe and the U.S. Not because Russia had any previous intention to do so. A clueless Europe caught in jingoistic excitement Europe understood as the EU and the European members of NATO do not seem to be able to think and act on their own. They tumble along headlessly in the U.S. and Zelensky slipstream, prodded frequently by Zelensky’s and Kuleba’s sharp demands for more action, more weapons to serve the purpose of peace. It almost as if Zelensky is dictating EU foreign policy together with Biden and his administration of un-diplomats. Where European countries are reluctant, they submitted to the wrath of Zelensky and his representatives. The previously highly praised efforts of Chancellor Merkel to search for peaceful solutions in the Ukraine conflict, her friendly relations with Putin and the German “Wandel durch Handel” approach to relations with Russia, now are seen as having failed miserably. Thus, President Steinmeier was recently declared unwanted, when he wanted to visit Kyiv in a show of solidarity, because of his previous good relation with Putin. In a speech to the Danish Parliament Zelensky scolded all those who do not slavishly, or should it be sheepishly, follow the path set by Biden and Zelensky himself: “There can be no Russian branches in Europe that divide the EU from within, that are trying to help Russia make as much money as possible even now. Everyone knows very well who in the European Union opposes humanity and common sense, and who does nothing at all to help establish peace in Ukraine. This must stop, and Europe must stop listening to the excuses of Budapest.” Zelensky of course talking about Viktor Orban who does not join the rush almost jingoistic enthusiasm for helping Ukraine with weapons and sanction and ostracising Russia. EU’s Borrell is lamenting that the EU is left out. Asked if Europe is not dissatisfied with being left out in talks between Russia and the U.S. Borrell said: “I have not expressed this dissatisfaction in respect to these talks. If Russia wants to talk. Certainly, it has to be. Organise a dialogue. But on this dialogue, there are not two actors alone. It is not just the U.S. and Russia. If we want to talk about security in Europe, Europeans have to be part of the table. And the agenda of the meetings is not just the issue that Russia has put on the table. There are other issues on the agenda, many of them affecting Ukraine. So, I am not expressing dissatisfaction about the fact that they have started these bilateral talks. It would not be a good idea to refuse the dialogue that Russia is asking for.” (eeas.europa.eu). Jubilant Europeans greeting President Biden’s “America is back” apparently also jumped with alacrity into what is essentially an American proxy war against Russia, fought out in Ukraine. Why does Europe accept to be caught in the U.S. slipstream with no apparent independent strategy and ideas of its own? What are they going to do in relation to a Russia that won’t just disappear as a result of the war, but might get even more belligerent? Most European countries are eagerly competing in their attempts to fulfil Ukrainian and U.S. wishes). Delivering weapons and assistance to Ukraine (But still not daring to provoke Russia directly by sending fighter planes). Giving Ukrainian refugees preferential treatment. Allowing Ursula von der Leyen to present Zelensky with the paperwork to be used as a first step for his country to join the European Union. Promising a fast-track procedure for Ukrainian membership of the EU (Although Ukraine is very far from being able to fulfil the criteria for entering the EU). “The EU and member states have thrown several longstanding policies overboard and taken steps that under normal circumstances would have met with strong opposition from various corners. These include decisions for the EU to finance for the first time the delivery of lethal weapons to a third country; to boost its defence cooperation in the face of new threat perceptions; to send (somewhat mixed) signals of openness to EU membership for the bloc’s eastern neighbors after years of enlargement fatigue; and to trigger, also for the first time, its 2001 Temporary Protection Directive, granting temporary residency to Ukrainian refugees. (reliefweb.int). Europe politicians and decision makers are acting as if they believe Zelensky’s often repeated warnings to Europe that Russia has much more than Ukraine in its sight. Volodymyr Zelenskiyi is arguing that Russia is targeting all of Europe and that stopping the invasion of Ukraine is essential for the security of all democracies. “That is why it is not just the moral duty of all democracies, all the forces of Europe, to support Ukraine’s desire for peace, .. This is, in fact, a strategy of defence for every civilised state. … Freedom does not have time to wait.” ... “When tyranny begins its aggression against everything that keeps the peace in Europe, action must be taken immediately.” (The Guardian, April 10). Evidently enough European politicians seem to believe in this postulated Russian threat to the rest of Europe, or else it is impossible to explain the hurried political decisions made to prepare themselves against Russian aggression. A NATO almost seeming to have lost its purpose, has sprung in to action with eager prodding from the Biden’s administration. More American troops are being stationed along the borders of the countries sharing a border with Russia. European countries suddenly find it important to fulfil their promises to NATO, something Trump could not get them to do. Now, new expansive defence plans and budgets are seen as more important than almost anything else. One may perhaps wonder whether the hasty expansion of troops, the sudden increases in defence expenditure and Finland’s and Sweden’s possible membership may not in fact seem rather provocative to Russia, and thus contribute to a more belligerent stance. Be that as it may be. The war in Ukraine seem to show the opposite, that the Russian capabilities have been severely overrated. Seeing that Ukrainian troops armed with sophisticated anti-armour weapons have severely blunted Russian military capabilities. Therefore, the rash reaction to the postulated threat to rest of Europe is therefore an overreaction. Russia’s conventional military capabilities truly does not pose a threat to the rest of Europe. The real dangers may lie somewhere else. The West’s escalating weapons deliveries could presumably lead to an outcome, where “Ukraine” (or rather the U.S. in its proxy war) might actually be seen to actually defeat the Russians. This seems to be the goal of the U.S., if we believe Jake Sullivan. What would be the consequences if this was happening? Would the prospect of a humiliating Russian defeat lead to the fall of Putin, with unknown consequences, to a Russian escalation of the war, involving the threat of tactical nuclear weapons, or to a dangerous long term belligerent stand-off between Russia and the West? No one really knows. Still, one wonders if Europe really wants to contribute to an escalation in a U.S. proxy war to defeat the Russians, given the dangers of a Russian escalation. Fanning the flames of the proxy war in Ukraine with more and more weapons and engaging in sanctions that in the end may hurt the Europeans more than Russia? Why doesn’t Europe look to Europe’s interest? Making a much more independent diplomatic effort, instead of giving in to moral outrage and Zelensky’s and Biden’s totally overstated warnings about the threat to all of Europe. Europe is supporting the Ukraine with financial assistance, weapons, welcoming Ukrainian refugees, and seems inclined to engage in self-harming sanctions to reduce Russia’s ability for fighting a war. Why does it not demand something in return from Zelensky’s Ukraine, instead of just playing whipping boy to Zelensky’s critique? Why do decisionmakers not leave moralistic outbursts aside and take a more realistic position that actually turn out to be more in line with their own self-proclaimed European values. This would mean efforts to promote a peace that might spare lives and avoid further destruction in Ukraine and perhaps help solve or at least alleviate some of the problems used by Russia as reasons for the invasion. Realistically this would mean that Europe would have to put pressure on Zelensky to accept the Russian annexation of Crimea, and insist that the future of the Luhansk and Donetsk would have to be settled by mechanism involving staged referendums from Russian border to the borders of Luhansk and Donetsk. Either accept this or accept that help would be reduced to humanitarian help. Likewise, Europe would have to initiate sincere and realistic diplomatic efforts in relation Russia, taking demands from the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine seriously, accepting the Russian possession of Crimea and proposing realistic solutions for Luhansk and Donetsk that would comply with what Europe ought to demand of Ukraine. Will they make Putin flounder? Or are they only part of an already ongoing war effort. Biden and his administration do seem rather confused. One might have thought that announcing the serious sanctions we see now, before the invasion, would have deterred Putin and prevented the ongoing war in Ukraine. A war that now has become a U.S. and Europe proxy war carried out in Ukraine against Russia. Resulting in terrible sufferings in Ukraine. Sanctions do deter President Joe Biden warned Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday that the West would impose "strong economic and other measures" on Russia if it invades Ukraine (Reuters, December 7, 2021) In an interview aired on CNN Secretary Blinken argued that sanctions were to deter: “The purpose of the sanctions in the first instance is to try to deter Russia from going to war. As soon as you trigger them, that deterrent is gone. And until the last minute, as long as we can try to bring a deterrent effect to this, we're going to try to do that.” (CNN February 20). Sanctions never meant to deter During a press briefing on March 22 at NATO headquarters a journalist asked Biden: “Sir, deterrence didn’t work. What makes you think Vladimir Putin will alter course based on the action you’ve taken today?” President Biden visibly irritated: “Let’s get something straight: You remember, if you’ve covered me from the beginning, I did not say that in fact the sanctions would deter him. Sanctions never deter. You keep talking about that. Sanctions never deter. The maintenance of sanctions — the maintenance of sanctions, the increasing the pain, and the demonstration — why I asked for this NATO meeting today — is to be sure that after a month, we will sustain what we’re doing not just next month, the following month, but for the remainder of this entire year. That’s what will stop him. The journalist then asked: Do you believe the actions today will have an impact on making Russia change course in Ukraine? President Biden now visibly irritated: That’s not what I said. You — you — you’re playing a game with me. Sanctions came too late to prevent war Evidently Zelensky does have a different view about the deterring effect of sanctions The weekend before the Russian invasion Zelensky told CNN’s Amanpour “that the West is not doing enough right now to deter Putin. He called for a list of possible sanctions on Moscow to be made public immediately.” (CNN transcript February 20). In a video message on March 24 Zelensky thanked the EU for uniting countries around Ukraine, although he seemed to have certain reservations in Hungary’s case. He then said: "I want to say that it was done, one way or another, in different ways, but again the main thing is that you have united, and we certainly appreciate that. You applied sanctions - these are powerful steps, but it was a little late. Because if it was preventive, Russia would not go to war. No one knows for sure, but at least there was a chance. You blocked Nord Stream 2 - we thank you for that, and that was the right thing, but it was also a little late. Because if it had been done on time, Russia would not have created a gas crisis. At least there was such a chance," Zelensky said. (ukrinform.net) Emphasis added. No one knows for sure, but neither is it wild speculation. Did the West make a serious miscalculation, even though they apparently knew that Putin would go to war (at least that is Biden seemed convinced), or – sinister thought – President Biden, Secretary Blinken and Security Advisor Sullivan may have thought that they would never get the Europeans aboard, before Russia actually had invaded Ukraine. Consequences – war or peace? Biden now argues that severe sanctions will only stop Putin and Russia after the fact, at some point in the future. When perhaps irreparable damage has been done, not only in Ukraine, but to the relations between the West and Russia. Even a successor to Putin might then want to rely on China, and then the West would be confronted with a mighty Eurasian constellation. It is almost as if the Biden, Blinken and Sullivan constellation have not thought about the endgame and the consequences in the long term. At least not publicly. One may wonder if they have no long term plan or strategy, but are driven just by their moral outrage and old grudges. It is really strange that Europe is eagerly tagging along with the U.S., without apparently having any idea of their own about what is going to happen. Even though they must realise that they will have to get along with Russia in the future, they seem bent upon making Russia an enemy, while making sure that carnage in Ukraine can go on with the help of sophisticated Western weaponry – and one might fear being persuaded by Zelensky and their own outbursts of jingoism to contribute to a further escalation. They seem eager to please Zelensky in his often very unrealistic and outright dangerous demands, but perhaps they ought to dampen his ambitions in order to make peace possible. Where do we see serious European attempt to create peace? See also (added March 29): U.S. diplomacy failing in relation to Russia and China https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/us-diplomacy-failing-in-relation-to-russia-and-china Proxy war in Ukraine because Biden and Blinken bear a grudge? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/proxy-war-in-ukraine-because-biden-and-blinken-bear-a-grudge? Letting Ukraine bleed in a proxy war with Russia? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/letting-ukraine-bleed-in-a-proxy-war-with-russia? NATO eastward expansion a serious mistake? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/nato-eastward-expansion-a-serious-mistake? Foolish reactions to Russian demands and threats? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/foolish-reactions-to-russian-demands-and-threats Who defines US policy? https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/biden-giving-in-to-putin Views of U.S. diplomacy “If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.” (Secretary of State Albright, 1998). A … distinguishing feature of modern American diplomacy is that US admin- istrations as a whole tend to privilege hard power policies over soft power policies. A further distinguishing characteristic of American diplomacy is that “the United States has chosen to isolate diplomatically for long periods states that it deemed adversarial, and has required those states to meet preconditions before it will formally engage them. (Wiseman, Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2011) Blinken’s and Sullivan's diplomacy or the lack of it? When NPR interviewed Secretary Antony Blinken on March 16 he was asked “Do you have any channel that is open to Vladimir Putin right now to communicate about any way to end this war?” Blinken’s vague answer: “Well, various leaders, countries have sought to communicate with him, may even remain in communication with him. Of course, the Ukrainians are talking to the Russians.” Following up, the interviewer then asked if the United itself had any channel open to Putin. Blinken’s answer was noncommittal: “there are always ways of communicating. Let me leave it at that.” One would have thought U.S. diplomacy would be heavily involved in trying to persuade Russia and force Ukraine to find a compromise that would end the war in Ukraine. Instead, it seems that the U.S. is quite willing to fight a proxy with Russia in Ukraine. Letting Ukraine bleed for failed diplomacy. One wonders if Biden and Blinken think they are carrying out the reverse of the Soviet Union’s and China’s proxy war with the U.S. in Vietnam. Somewhat like the U.S. proxy war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s in Afghanistan. Ukraine now playing the role of Afghanistan in the 1980s. An observer in the Washington Post wondered how much the “U.S. seem to be collectively stuck in the past. Just as we did during the Cold War, we see ourselves as the good-guy victims of an immoral opponent. This time, the Russian state, personified by Vladimir Putin, is the one-dimensional enemy.” (Weissberg, December Washington Post 2021). With relation to China’s support of Russia, Secretary Antony Blinken was asked what the U.S. might be able to do: “Are the United States and its European allies capable of isolating China in the way that you’ve isolated Russia if China were to aid Russia beyond some certain point?” Biden’s answer: “Well, China is already on the wrong side of history when it comes to Ukraine and the aggression being committed by Russia. The fact that it has not stood strongly against it, that it has not pronounced itself against this aggression, flies in the face of China’s commitments as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council responsible for maintaining peace and security… Second, of course, if China actually provides material support in one way or another to Russia in this effort, that would be even worse. (state.gov). National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan seem to work on diplomatic, or is non-diplomatic, principles similar to Blinken’s. In a meeting with China's top diplomat Yang Jiechi in Rome March 14, he “raised directly and very clearly” concern over possible Chinese support for Russia. When a State Department spokesperson was asked about the meeting he said: “Backing Russia in the wake of Moscow's invasion of Ukraine would have implications for China's relationships around the world, including with U.S. allies and partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific region. … We have communicated very clearly to Beijing that we won’t stand by if – we will not allow any country to compensate Russia for its losses.” Meaning that the U.S. is apparently already threatening China with sanctions too. China later criticised the U.S. warning as arrogant, and according to Asia Times the Chinese Foreign Office spokesperson “strongly urged the US not to undermine its legitimate rights and interests when handling relations with Russia.” Meanwhile the Chinese Defense Times talked of strengthened Russia-Chinese cooperation to counter the U.S. hegemony: “Under the mutual commitment that "China-Russia cooperation has no upper limit", the two countries are creating greater development space for each other based on the principle of mutual benefit and win-win results. The construction of the Eurasian Economic Union-China's new financial settlement system is a larger-scale embodiment of this principle of mutual benefit and win-win results.“ (Translation, Defense Times’ social media). US diplomacy making threats and creating mighty adversaries Wondering if this means that Blinken and Sullivan represent the current U.S. administration’s view of how diplomacy works – or perhaps does not work. As if U.S. hegemonic power and ideological belief of being on the right side of history means diplomacy threatening the use of hard power and isolation. Both in relation to Russia and more or less also in relation to China. As if it is forgotten that hard power and isolation diplomacy against China would have to be an order of magnitude larger than in case of Russia. Perhaps plain and simple rather stupid. One might even get the idea that U.S. is acting even more like Russia, than Russia itself dares. Think of the Balkan wars in the nineties. An essay from the CATO institute tells this story of how the U.S. acted against Yugoslavia: “At the 1999 Rambouillet conference Albright made demands of Yugoslavia that no independent, sovereign state could accept: that, for instance, it act like defeated and occupied territory by allowing the free transit of NATO forces. Washington expected the inevitable refusal, which was calculated to provide justification for launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against the Serb‐ dominated remnant of Yugoslavia.” Sounds uncanny similar to Russia’s argument for invading Ukraine. Once Nixon and Kissinger cosied up to China in order to contain Russia. Now it seems that Blinken and Sullivan represent a version of American diplomacy doing what it can to make both of them adversaries. A recent article in Foreign Policy carried the ominous title “Washington Must Prepare for War With Both Russia and China.” Not a very smart move might think. Let’s see how this may play out over time. Much has been said in recent days about Putin’s reasons for invading Ukraine and about his state of mind.
Putin is seeing the collapse of the Soviet Union as “a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.” Condoleezza Rice is seeing “a different Putin” who “seems erratic” and has “an ever-deepening delusional rendering of history.” A former U.S. ambassador to Russia about Putin: "He has changed. He sounds completely disconnected from reality. He sounds unhinged." Boris Johnson on Putin: “He is clearly in an illogical and irrational frame of mind.” Prompting speculation that Putin might be crazy. Not much has been said about Biden’s and Blinken’s policies and reactions in relation to Putin and the invasion of Ukraine and only Biden’s antagonists have questioned his mental capacities and health. What is evident though is that Biden and Blinken has shown a very belligerent stance against Putin and Russia. Only a result of Putin’s surprisingly drastic invasion or may there be other explanations? Here an attempt to explain President Biden’s and Secretary Blinken’s belligerent stance using reasoning similar to the reasoning about Putin’s motives. Alas, with just as little factual evidence of course. Let us see how this might play out. Biden’s and Blinken’s frustrated stance in 2014 To understand their belligerence towards Putin and Russia it is worthwhile to cast a glance at Biden’s and Blinken’s views and attitudes back in 2014 when Russia made what Obama called an incursion into Crimea, and Russia supported pro-Russian separatist in Luhansk and Donetsk. With a “Don’t do stupid s—" approach to foreign policy President Obama recognised that Ukraine was a core interest for Russia, but certainly not in the same way for the U.S. Resulting in a careful and measured approach to Russia. A Russia that Obama apparently saw as a regional power in decline. Vice-president Biden evidently stood for a more belligerent approach. “When Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2014, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. pressed President Barack Obama to take decisive action, and fast, to make Moscow “pay in blood and money” for its aggression. The president, a Biden aide recalled, was having none of it.” (NYT). According to the article in the New York Times Biden tried to persuade President Obama to send lethal weapons to Ukraine in the shape of Javelin anti-tank missiles, but apparently Obama would have none of it. Instead, Biden was made emissary to the region and send off with Obama’s warning “about not overpromising to the Ukrainian government.” (NYT). Something the U.S. and the EU have done for years since 2014, and now causing President Zelensky to plea more and more desperate and incoherent for interventions that would led war in all Europe. Biden’s frustration in 2014 clouding his view today? In April 2014 Biden vowed that the U.S. would never recognize Russia’s “illegal occupation” of Crimea and said “no nation has the right to simply grab land from another” and called on Russia to stop supporting masked gunmen who have seized government buildings across the east of the country.” (NYT). In November 2014 after a meeting with Ukrainian leaders Biden criticised Russia for not lessening its aggressive stand towards Ukraine. “Instead we’ve seen more provocative action, more blatant disregard for the agreement signed not long ago by Russia. As long as that continues Russia will face rising cost, greater isolation.”(Los Angeles Times). Now with Biden being President he sems finally to be able to act on a grudge he may have carried with him since 2014. Sending the infamous Javelin missiles in large numbers to Ukraine, creating rising costs for Russia and making every attempt to isolate Russia. Perhaps Biden is not so different in his reactions from Putin in this regard. Perhaps like him acting on personal a grudge, he has had carried with him for a long time. What about Blinken then? First it is worth noting that Blinken’s relationship with Biden goes back a long time. His presentation at the U.S. Department of State homepage states: “Mr. Blinken was national security advisor to then-Vice President Joe Biden. This was the continuation of a long professional relationship that stretched back to 2002, when Mr. Blinken began his six-year stint as Democratic staff director for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Then Senator Biden was the chair of that committee from 2001 to 2003 and 2007 to 2009” In 2014 “Blinken was nominated and confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State under former Secretary of State John Kerry. Secretary Blinken played a key role in guiding President Obama’s foreign policy, particularly his strategy in the Middle East and response to the Russian annexation of Ukraine.” (InfluenceWatch). Blinken certainly seems to have had a negative view of Russia and President Putin for quite some time, just like Biden. In 2014 at an event at the Brookings Institute he argued: “One way President Putin and Russia define power is by the geopolitical influence that Russia is able to obtain. And undermining Russia politically in the international community and isolating it politically diminishes that power." (Newsweek) At a confirmation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in November 2014 Blinken argued like Biden for providing Ukraine with lethal weapons. Speaking about Russian aggression he said: “One element that could hopefully get them to think twice and deter them from further action is strengthening the capacity of the Ukrainian forces, including with defensive lethal equipment. So that’s why I think that’s something that we should be looking at.” Blinken in 2014 also argued that the sanctions put in place in 2014 would mean that Russia would really be hit. In an interview as deputy national security advisor, he argued (please note this is quote from March 2014, not from 2022 when Blinken is almost repeating himself). “Actually, the compact that President Putin has with his people is if you remain politically compliant, I’ll deliver growth for you. That growth has stagnated even before this crisis. And everything that’s happened since, as a result of the efforts we’ve made, to isolate Russia for its actions in Ukraine has only made that worse. And what we’re seeing every single day is Russia getting more and more isolated and its economy taking a bigger and bigger hit. We had the finance minister of Russia worrying out loud in public about the hit that the economy was taking. We have the leader of the Association of Entrepreneurs, basically the oligarchs’ club, saying I’m really worried about investment drying up. This is having an impact on Russia. This has to get Putin to think twice.” (CNN). Apparently not enough of hit to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, after none of Putin’s three essential demands had been seriously considered by Blinken and Biden. Is Biden and Blinken having their revenge for 2014? As we have seen one might perhaps argue that both Biden and Blinken have born a deepfelt grudge against Putin and Russia since the Crimea invasion in 2014 and felt regret that what was done in 2014 wasn’t enough to persuade Putin to give up his aggression against Ukraine. He did not leave Crimea and did not stop his support for the rebels in Luhansk and Donetsk. The difference between 2022 and 2014 is that Biden and Blinken now have it in their power to carry out what they wanted to do in 2014. Apparently in the belief that Russia will act differently this time. Free to do what they wanted to in 2014 and convinced that this time they both save Ukrainian sovereignty and cause Putin and Russia to fail, they are willing to support and wage a very risky proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. With Ukraine now bearing the disastrous consequences. This might explain why they had no thought for any seriously meant diplomatic solution that would answer Russia’s concerns. Just listen Blinken at a recent press briefing with UK’s Liz Truss on March 9: ”So our response continues to be to do everything we possibly can to make sure that the Ukrainians have the means to defend themselves; to make sure we do everything we possibly can to exert pressure on Russia and on Putin to change course; to do everything we possibly can, of course, to support those who are suffering as a result of Russia’s actions. Ultimately, I am absolutely convinced that Putin will fail and Russia will suffer a strategic defeat no matter what short-term tactical gains it may make in Ukraine. As we’ve said before, you can win a battle but that doesn’t mean you win the war – on the contrary. You can take a city but you can’t take the hearts and minds of its people, and Ukrainians are demonstrating that every single day.” All the while Ukraine is doomed to bear the terrible consequences of what may after all be less a result of insurmountable differences between Russia and the U.S. over the Ukrainian independence and security, than of long held grudges borne by the decisionmakers in the conflict.” You may argue that the idea that U.S. is willing to wage a proxy with Russia for reasons related to lack of success in 2014 is highly speculative. Perhaps so, as the reasoning cannot be substantiated by facts, but big policy decisions in peace and war are certainly not only a result of some facts, but of fateful decisions made by those believing in power, highflying ideals, or low motives, or as we perhaps seen here, long term grudges, hidden behind a modern version of the emperor’s new clothes. Europe should think twice If there is any truth in what is surmised here, then Europe should be very hesitant of doing what the two B’s are now persuading and pressuring Europe to do. What is needed is an independent European stance, even realising how weak it is, in as much as Europe do not carry a Rooseveltian big stick, but is only able to talk very loudly. But then talk might actually help bring about a diplomatic compromise over Ukraine with Russia. After all Europe will have to live with Russia also in future, whatever the outcome of the present conflict, while the U.S. in reality will be forced to be less concerned with Russia and Ukraine and more with a Chinese hegemon. Although judging from the belligerence and yellow-blue jingoism shown in Europe at the moment it does not look as if European decisionmakers are realising that. Now one may seriously ask if Blinken has given up working for peace in Ukraine, and instead is actively working to escalate an U.S. and NATO proxy war with Russia. Just take a look at the diverging views on “no-fly zone Ukraine” or “fighter planes for Ukraine”. Secretary General Stoltenberg Tuesday last week when the question of fighter planes for Ukraine arose, Stoltenberg said that European Union members would not lend fighter jets to the war in Ukraine. Thus, in effect warning Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria not to send their old Russian MiG 29’s to Ukraine. At a press conference after an “Extraordinary meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs” on Friday 04 March 2022, Stoltenberg also argued against “no flight zones” and other proposals that might involve NATO in a possible war with Russia. ”…we have a responsibility as NATO Allies to prevent this war from escalating beyond Ukraine. Because that will be even more dangerous, more devastating, and will cause even more human suffering. So we have made it clear that we are not going to move into Ukraine, neither on the ground, or in Ukrainian airspace. And of course, the only way to implement a no-fly zone is to send NATO planes, fighter planes into Ukrainian airspace, and then impose that no-fly zone by shooting down Russian planes. And our assessment is that we understand the desperation. But we also believe that if we did that, we'll end up with something that could end in a full-fledged war in Europe, involving many more countries, and causing much more human suffering. So that's the reason why we make this painful decision to impose heavy sanctions, provide significant support, stepping up support. But at the same time not involving NATO forces directly in the conflict in Ukraine, neither on the ground, or in their airspace.” (Stoltenberg, NATO). President Zelensky In an angry comment after NATO’s Friday meeting Zelensky called it a "weak summit, a confused summit," and argued: "All the people who die starting today will also die because of you. Because of your weakness, because of your disconnection." "Today the leadership of the alliance gave the green light for further bombing of Ukrainian cities and villages, refusing to make a no-fly zone. A day later Zelensky then made a passionate plea in a zoom call to 300 members of the U.S: Congress. Zelensky again asked for a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, or at least provide fighter planes in order to allow Ukraine to defend itself. One might get the idea that Zelensky is actually working less for some kind of compromise peace than for involving the West in the war. Secretary of State Blinken Zelensky’s pleas did not fall on deaf ears. In an interview on CBS News on Sunday, Secretary of State Blinken said that if a NATO member would send their old MiG 29 fighter planes to Ukraine it would get a green light from the U.S. He added: “In fact, we're talking with our Polish friends right now about what we might be able to backfill their needs if in fact they choose to provide these fighter jets to the Ukrainians. What can we do? How can we help to make sure that they get something to backfill the planes that they're handing over to the Ukrainians?" The idea being that Poland would get U.S. F16 fighter planes instead of the planes sent to Ukraine, although that would take some time as they might be earmarked for Taiwan. Poland’s response – for the time being Poland’s response to ideas of providing Ukraine with MiG 29 fighter planes had already been shot down as it were by President Duda tweeting no to “sending any jets to Ukraine because that would open military interference in the Ukrainian conflict.” Later the Prime Minister added this tweet: 6:38 AM · Mar 6, 2022·Twitter for Android A Polish official quoted in Financial Times this Monday also said: “Poland is not in a state of war with Russia, but it is not an impartial country, because it supports Ukraine as the victim of aggression. It considers, however, that all military matters must be a decision of NATO as a whole.” What in the world do Biden, Blinken and Zelensky hope to achieve? First, they shot down Russia’s three essential demands, and not even the warning from their own intelligence service that Russia might invade Ukraine made Biden and Blinken reconsider. Biden and Blinken act as if a Ukraine invasion followed by ex post sanctions were preferred to a compromise with Russia based on a kind of “Finlandisation” of Ukraine? Perhaps Biden bears some kind of grudge from 2014 when Crimea was invaded. As Vice-President he implored President Obama to let Russia “pay in blood and money.” Obama rejected Biden’s idea and according to New York Times instead sent him as emissary to Ukraine warning him “about not overpromising to the Ukrainian government.” Perhaps this is what he has done now, with dreadful consequences. See also essays written just before the invasion: Does Putin have a point? And are Western reactions foolish? An alternative view of the Ukraine crisis at https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/foolish-reactions-to-russian-demands-and-threats NATO eastward expansion a serious mistake? Still a relevant question to look at in order to understand Putin’s reason for invading Ukraine. https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/nato-eastward-expansion-a-serious-mistake? Let the U.S. take the consequences
Addendum March 9, 2022 Statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland In connection with the statement by the US Secretary of State on providing airplanes to Ukraine the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland published this statement on March 8, 2022: “The authorities of the Republic of Poland, after consultations between the President and the Government, are ready to deploy – immediately and free of charge – all their MIG-29 jets to the Ramstein Air Base and place them at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America. At the same time, Poland requests the United States to provide us with used aircraft with corresponding operational capabilities. Poland is ready to immediately establish the conditions of purchase of the planes. The Polish Government also requests other NATO Allies – owners of MIG-29 jets – to act in the same vein.” (2018.08.03, gov.pl) Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby On the same day Pentagon rejected to Polish offer. Here the statement from the Pentagon the Pentagon Press Secretary “We are now in contact with the Polish government following the statement issued today. As we have said, the decision about whether to transfer Polish-owned planes to Ukraine is ultimately one for the Polish government. We will continue consulting with our Allies and partners about our ongoing security assistance to Ukraine, because, in fact, Poland's proposal shows just some of the complexities this issue presents. The prospect of fighter jets "at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America" departing from a U.S./NATO base in Germany to fly into airspace that is contested with Russia over Ukraine raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance. It is simply not clear to us that there is a substantive rationale for it. We will continue to consult with Poland and our other NATO allies about this issue and the difficult logistical challenges it presents, but we do not believe Poland's proposal is a tenable one.” (March 8,2022, defense.gov) Blinken – Pentagon disagreement? This exchange of statements would seem to indicate that Secretary of State Blinken and the Pentagon have conflicting views on the proposal to provide Ukraine with old MiG 29’s. The diplomat Blinken seemingly trying to escalate conflict with Russia, while the Pentagon is holding back and showing more sense, at least for now. Perhaps a too late to ask this question today, when Putin have decided to invade at least part of Ukraine, but it may still be relevant to look at the question in order to understand his reason for doing so.
Reactions to Putin’s long speech Monday night Putin’s speech was met with reactions that can only be characterised as demeaning. “It was a messy, incoherent, angry rant that is difficult to make sense of but that put forward a dark vision of renewed national glory. Putin’s mix of half-truths, fantasies, and lies of omission rightly has neighboring states, once victims of Russian imperialism themselves, highly worried.” (foreignpolicy.com) A French official described the address to the nation by Mr Putin on Ukraine as "paranoid", accusing him of breaking promises made to his French counterpart Mr Macron (Quoted in The Telegraph). Vladimir Putin’s address to the nation on Monday was condemned as “delusional”, “insane” and “unhinged” (The Independent) Es ist eine düstere Ansprache… Es wirkt wie eine Kriegserklärung - auch an den Westen (Der Tagesspiegel). “Putin wirkt paranoid.” (Handelsblatt) Instead of doubting the mental health of Putin, one should take a closer look at what he said. Especially the words and the arguments brought up in relation to NATO’s eastward expansion. Then taking a closer look at what decisionmakers in the West hoped to achieve with the “Open Door” invitation to NATO membership for countries bordering Russia. And finally remembering that there were serious voices warning against such a policy and its consequences. Warnings that seem almost prophetical, when looking at Putin’s present attitude towards NATO. Putin’s grievances with respect to NATO “Why? What is all this about, what is the purpose? All right, you do not want to see us as friends or allies, but why make us an enemy?” (Putin, speech). In his speech on Russian on February 21 Putin explained his grievances with the NATO expansion towards the East and especially the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO: “Let me remind you that at the Bucharest NATO summit held in April 2008, the United States pushed through a decision to the effect that Ukraine and, by the way, Georgia would become NATO members. Many European allies of the United States were well aware of the risks associated with this prospect already then, but were forced to put up with the will of their senior partner. The Americans simply used them to carry out a clearly anti-Russian policy … All the while, they are trying to convince us over and over again that NATO is a peace-loving and purely defensive alliance that poses no threat to Russia. Again, they want us to take their word for it. But we are well aware of the real value of these words. In 1990, when German unification was discussed, the United States promised the Soviet leadership that NATO jurisdiction or military presence will not expand one inch to the east and that the unification of Germany will not lead to the spread of NATO's military organisation to the east. This is a quote. They issued lots of verbal assurances, all of which turned out to be empty phrases. Later, they began to assure us that the accession to NATO by Central and Eastern European countries would only improve relations with Moscow, relieve these countries of the fears steeped in their bitter historical legacy, and even create a belt of countries that are friendly towards Russia. However, the exact opposite happened. The governments of certain Eastern European countries, speculating on Russophobia, brought their complexes and stereotypes about the Russian threat to the Alliance and insisted on building up the collective defence potentials and deploying them primarily against Russia. Worse still, that happened in the 1990s and the early 2000s when, thanks to our openness and goodwill, relations between Russia and the West had reached a high level.” (en.kremlin.ru) http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828 “Today, one glance at the map is enough to see to what extent Western countries have kept their promise to refrain from NATO’s eastward expansion. They just cheated. We have seen five waves of NATO expansion, one after another – Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were admitted in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020. As a result, the Alliance, its military infrastructure has reached Russia’s borders. This is one of the key causes of the European security crisis; it has had the most negative impact on the entire system of international relations and led to the loss of mutual trust. He talked at length about the threat to Russia and provided a detailed listing of Western weapons systems and their possibilities in relation to Russia.” (en.kremlin.ru) In the speech Putin also revealed that he had asked the outgoing President Clinton how he would feel about admitting Russia to NATO. “The reaction to my question was, let us say, quite restrained, and the Americans’ true attitude to that possibility can actually be seen from their subsequent steps with regard to our country.” (en.kremlin.ru) Putin argued that Russia had even proposed New European Security Treaty, which might have help solve the Russian grievances, but was rejected by the West. “We are well aware of our enormous responsibility when it comes to regional and global stability. Back in 2008, Russia put forth an initiative to conclude a European Security Treaty under which not a single Euro-Atlantic state or international organisation could strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. However, our proposal was rejected right off the bat on the pretext that Russia should not be allowed to put limits on NATO activities.” (en.kremlin.ru) The recent demands on the U.S. and NATO These grievances and the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO may explain why Russia handed the U.S. and NATO a draft for treaty on security guarantees, containing three key demands: “First, to prevent further NATO expansion. Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders. And finally, rolling back the bloc's military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.” (en.kremlin.ru) The written answers from the U.S. and NATO in gave no indications that Russia’s demands would be taken seriously, causing a visibly angry Putin to state: “I would like to be clear and straightforward: in the current circumstances, when our proposals for an equal dialogue on fundamental issues have actually remained unanswered by the United States and NATO, when the level of threats to our country has increased significantly, Russia has every right to respond in order to ensure its security. That is exactly what we will do.” (en.kremlin.ru) That Monday evening February 21 he concluded his speech by announcing: “I consider it necessary to take a long overdue decision and to immediately recognise the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic. I would like to ask the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to support this decision and then ratify the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with both republics. These two documents will be prepared and signed shortly.” (en.kremlin.ru). The once optimistic American view of NATO’s expansion eastwards When President Clinton in 1997 gave a commencement address at the United States Military Academy at West Point, he presented an optimistic view of a new NATO and invited new countries in Central Europe to join the alliance: “To build and secure a new Europe, peaceful, democratic, and undivided at last, there must be a new NATO, with new missions, new members, and new partners. We have been building that kind of NATO for the last 3 years with new partners in the Partnership for Peace and NATO's first out-of-area mission in Bosnia. In Paris last week, we took another giant stride forward when Russia entered a new partnership with NATO, choosing cooperation over confrontation, as both sides affirmed that the world is different now. European security is no longer a zero-sum contest between Russia and NATO but a cherished common goal. In a little more than a month, I will join with other NATO leaders in Madrid to invite the first of Europe's new democracies in Central Europe to join our alliance, with the consent of the Senate, by 1999, the 50th anniversary of NATO's founding.” (presidency.ucsb.edu). https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/commencement-address-the-united-states-military-academy-west-point-new-york-0 “Some say we no longer need NATO because there is no powerful threat to our security now. I say there is no powerful threat in part because NATO is there. And enlargement will help make it stronger. I believe we should take in new members to NATO for four reasons. First, it will strengthen our alliance in meeting the security challenges of the 21st century, addressing conflicts that threaten the common peace of all. Consider Bosnia. Second, NATO enlargement will help to secure the historic gains of democracy in Europe … the opening of NATO's doors has led the Central European nations already—already—to deepen democratic reform, to strengthen civilian control of their military, to open their economies. Membership and its future prospect will give them the confidence to stay the course. Third, enlarging NATO will encourage prospective members to resolve their differences peacefully. Fourth, enlarging NATO, along with its Partnership For Peace with many other nations and its special agreement with Russia and its soon to-be-signed partnership with Ukraine, will erase the artificial line in Europe that Stalin drew and bring Europe together in security, not keep it apart in instability.” (Clinton Address 1997). Biden: “50 years of peace” When the U.S. Senate in 1998 overwhelmingly approved the eastward expansion of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech, the Republic Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. said: “…this, in fact, is the beginning of another 50 years of peace, … "In a larger sense," he added, "we'll be righting an historical injustice forced upon the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians by Joseph Stalin." (washingtonpost.com) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/05/01/senate-approves-expansion-of-nato/38dded71-978c-475a-8852-58f5e285e572/ Joe Biden was at that time a key advocate for The NATO expansion in the Foreign Relations Committee. Well, today it seems that peace may not last that long, but it may perhaps explain why Biden is so stubborn in his present rejection of the Russian view. Hallelujah Clinton’s optimistic vision was also shared by Secretary of State, Albright. When the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined NATO on March 12, 1999 she exclaimed “Hallelujah.” She added: “To them I say that President Clinton's pledge is now fulfilled. Never again will your ates be tossed around like poker chips on a bargaining table. Whether you are helping to revise the Alliance's strategic concept or engaging in NATO's partnership with Russia, the promise of "nothing about you without you," is now formalized. You are truly allies; you are truly home … For NATO's purpose is not to build new walls, but rather to tear old walls down.” https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/statements/1999/990312.html Was NATO’s eager expansion a serious mistake? Before the 1998 Senate vote on NATO’s expansion, there had a discussion where dissenting voices were heard. Democratic senator Patrick Moynihan, warned that NATO expansion into the former Soviet bloc would exacerbate tensions with a weakened but still nuclear-armed Russia and risk a revival of Cold War tensions. "Back to the hair trigger," (Washingtonpost.com) Republican senator Robert Smith followed up by saying that it would stoke fires of anti-Western nationalism and undermine democratic forces in Russia. “A fateful error” This is what George F. Kennan, the influential American diplomat and historian, called the idea that it had somehow and somewhere been decided to expand NATO up to Russia's borders. George Kennan certainly knew something about Russia and its relations with West. He was the author of the famous “Long Telegram” sent from Moscow to the State Department in 1946, while he was charge d’affaires in Moscow. This telegram is said to have initiated the containment strategy that characterised America’s relation to USSR for a long time. The lengthy memorandum began with the assertion that the Soviet Union could not foresee “permanent peaceful coexistence” with the West. This “neurotic view of world affairs” was a manifestation of the “instinctive Russian sense of insecurity.” After the fall of communist Russia, he apparently had his eye on very different strategy in relation to new Russia. A new strategy aiming for some form of cooperation with Russia. Something that he feared would impossible with NATO’s expansion to Russia’s border. “…perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.” (NYT 1996). https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html Wise words in 1996, before the actual decision to expand NATO, and in some sense prescient with regard to the Russia’s reactions, once it had got some kind of hold upon itself in the wake of the dissolution of the USSR. Perhaps we may even use the phrases from the long telegram. How a Russian reaction to NATO’s expansion might provoke “an instinctive Russian sense of insecurity.” At a debate on NATO enlargement before the Committee on Foreign Relations in November 1997, Admiral Shanahan USN (ret,) Director of the Center for Defense Information presented a similar view: “I oppose NATO expansion on the grounds that we are sacrificing our long-term relations with Russia on the altar of an ill-conceived plan to haphazardly expand an outmoded military alliance, ill conceived for domestic political purposes, ill conceived as a legacy for one man, and ill conceived since we are not clear on why, how, when, and where to expand… It is haphazard because we don't know how many countries will eventually join. There is no clear definition of NATO's new mission and there is no clear idea of the real costs… That concern has to do with the need to maintain our bilateral relations with Russia, which are more important to the long-term security and economic interests of the United States and the American people and which far outweigh the fuzzy goals of NATO expansion out there on which Russian cooperation is essential. (govinfo.gov).” https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/CHRG-105shrg46832.htm NATO 2030 – Report from reflection group On 25 November 2020 NATO published “NATO 2030: United for New Era,” containing the analysis and recommendations of the reflection group appointed by Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. The reflection group behind NATO-2030 finds a long list existing and foreseeable future challenges and threats, here especially Russia “In the Euro-Atlantic area, the most profound geopolitical challenge is posed by Russia. While Russia is by economic and social measures a declining power, it has proven itself capable of territorial aggression and is likely to remain a chief threat facing NATO over the coming decade. Russia maintains a powerful conventional military and robust nuclear arsenal that poses a threat across NATO territory, but is particularly acute on the eastern flank. ...Russia also threatens NATO in non-kinetic domains in ways that blur the lines between war and peace.” (NATO-2030). In the somewhat Eurocentric view of the reflection group, is apparently still seen as the dominant threat to the West. The group continue to see Russia as a main adversary, so nothing really new here. The reflection group really doesn’t have any new ideas of how to cope with the potential Russian threats. They in fact recommend the continuation of the age-old dual-track approach of deterrence and dialogue. Neither of which really seems to have worked very well in relation to Russian activities in the recent years. “The Alliance should consider a dynamic template under which it takes steps to raise the costs for Russian aggression (e.g., coordinating to tighten rather than merely renew sanctions, according to Russian behaviour, exposing the facts of Russian covert activities in Ukraine, etc.) while at the same time supporting increased political outreach to negotiate arms control and risk reduction measures.” (NATO-2030). Nothing really new and nothing that seems to have worked very well in the recent years. The carrot and stick approach further weakened by the bickering among the NATO Allies. The analyses and recommendations in “NATO-2030” presents neither a complete overview of the challenges, nor do they present new answers to Russian challenges. Instead, we find wishful thinking and unfounded hopes based to upon an approach that hasn’t worked. What could be done instead? Macron and Trump have both spoken in favour of a better relationship with Russia. Perhaps Trump’s negative view of NATO (up to a point) and his idea of working for better relations with Russia would even have prevented the present mess of threats, counter threats and a Ukraine invasion. The EU ought to have even greater interest in a good relationship with Russia. In the medium and long term, the threat to NATO and the West will not come from Russia, but from a very self-conscious and very strong China, a troubled Middle East, and a perhaps completely ungovernable Africa with a huge population surplus. Sooner or later the West may find that Russia will have to become an essential partner for the West in what may very soon become a hegemonic struggle in the bi-polar world of Chinese hegemony against Western hegemony. What the West could offer Finally accepting that Crimea belongs to Russia, giving up all pretence of persuading or forcing Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine. With regard to the Donbas, Luhansk People’s Republic and Donetsk People’s republic the West should of course allow the people of these two regions to choose where they want to belong after a referendum. What is the point of continuing the eight-year long smouldering conflict at the border under the guise of a Minsk ceasefire agreement? All the lofty talk about no border revisions in Europe, seem to forget European history. Ending existing Russian sanction and threats of new foolish sanctions harming the West as much as they may harm Russia as sanction may not really harm those in power but everyone else. Opening up Russia to Western investment and collaboration on science and technology. Of course, subject to the condition specified above. Stop contributing to an escalation by sending more troops to countries at the border with Russia. It would be more important to finally have Western Europe contribute more to create its own credible defence, and not only relying whims of US presidents. Accepting for the moment Finlandisation of Ukraine, meaning acceptance of Russia’s demand that Ukraine would not join NATO. Accepting negotiations on those parts of the Russian demands that actually would benefit both Russia and the West. For instance, the “questions of ground-launched missiles bases” and a “New Start treaty on nuclear intercontinental-range delivery vehicles.” To avoid what would be appeasement on the Western side, all these concessions must only be made in return for equivalent concessions from Russia, which must be seen to be fulfilled within a set period. What the West might demand: Border guaranties from Russia Permanent withdrawal of combat troops to given distance from Russia borders with Eastern European Countries, demilitarisation of border areas. Transparency with inspections of mutual agreement, say on ground-launched missiles and troop withdrawal. New agreements on nuclear force reductions, with Russia and the U.S. with joint pressure on China to participate. Collaboration agreements to solve conflicts in other areas if the world, first and foremost of course North Korea, The Middle East, and Africa. Closer military collaboration. Perhaps with new organisation to substitute NATO and include Russia in order to create a mutual defence against existing and future threats in other parts of the World. While these ideas may sound naïve and farfetched in today’s climate of growing confrontation, they at least make an attempt to provide answers to the pertinent questions Henry Kissinger asked in relation to the West and Russia in 2017, in essence following up on Margaret Thatcher’s Fulton questions. Kissinger: “How should the West develop relations with Russia, a country that is a vital element of European security but which, for reasons of history and geography, has a fundamentally different view of what constitutes a mutually satisfactory arrangement in areas adjacent to Russia. Is the wisest course to pressure Russia, and if necessary to punish it, until it accepts Western views of its internal and global order? Or is scope left for a political process that overcomes, or at least mitigates, the mutual alienation in pursuit of an agreed concept of world order? Is the Russian border to be treated as a permanent zone of confrontation, or can it be shaped into a zone of potential cooperation, and what are the criteria for such a process? These are the questions of European order that need systematic consideration. “ https://www.henryakissinger.com/speeches/remarks-to-the-margaret-thatcher-conference-on-security/ Like Kissinger we must also realise that a realisation of our suggestions and ideas for some time “requires a defense capability which removes temptation for Russian military pressure.” Der Staat als maßgebende politische Einheit hat eine ungeheure Befugnis bei sich konzentriert: die Möglichkeit, Krieg zu führen und damit offen über das Leben von Menschen zu verfügen.“ (Carl Schmitt) European Peace is threatened “We face the risk of a major military conflict on our continent. Russia has amassed more than 100.000 troops and heavy equipment at the Ukrainian border. It is making open threats to use force unless its demands are met. At stake are the fate of Ukraine but also the wider principles of European security.” Josep Borell, High Representative of the EU. To see why peace is threatened and why Russia may threaten European security and peace we take a look at these topics: Russian demands and threats Western replies to Russian demands and Russian threats How Russians’ view a threat of war and sanctions The double-edged sword of sanctions Putin may have a point The foolish threat of sanctions A wiser reaction? Russian demands The Russian demands related to what is seen as essential to the security of The Russian Federation may be found in two Russian draft proposals for future agreements published on December 17, 2021. NATO agreement draft The first concern measures to ensure the security of The Russian Federation by keeping NATO at bay. The most important Russian demands are found in articles 4 to 7. Article 4 The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.). Article 5 The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties. Article 6 All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States. Article 7 The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia. The essential Russian demands are quite clear: Withdraw NATO forces to where they were in 1997, and refrain from any further enlargement of NATO. Ukraine would therefore not be able to join NATO, and neither would Finland and Sweden. Other demands may seem to constrain Russia just as much as NATO. US-Russia treaty draft The second set of demands is found in the shape of a proposal for a treaty between the U.S. and The Russian Federation. In the treaty proposal the main Russian demand is that neither the U.S. nor Russia shall use the territories of other States to prepare or carry out an armed attack against the other Party. In other word Russia demands that the U.S. shall refrain from establishing a military presence in states formerly members of the USSR. Here the important articles of the treaty proposal. Article 4 The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them. Article 5 The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties … Article 6 The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party. Article 7 The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories. Russian threats While the demands in Russia’s two draft proposals could be seen to represent a clear starting point for a serious dialogue with NATO and the U.S. Russia has found it necessary to accompany the proposals with a military posture that can only be seen as a threat of military intervention into the Ukraine. For some time now there has been a build-up of Russian troops all along Russia’s border with Ukraine. Now apparently followed by movement of Russian troops into Belarus. There are even some Russian forces in Transnistria (the breakaway state from Moldova), and Russian units in the Mediterranean are entering the Black Sea. In effect Russian Troops encircle and threaten all of Ukraine’s northern, eastern and southern borders. Various media put the number of Russian troops at around 100,000, armed with tanks, armoured, vehicles, artillery and missiles. Numbers that may be increasing at the moment with troops moving into in Belarus, although ostensibly just for joint manoeuvres. Thus, Russian troops would, when the ground and rivers are frozen, be able to enter Ukraine either from the north to Kyiv, from the south east into or through Luhansk and Donetsk, the self-proclaimed people’s republics, from the south via Crimea or any combination of these approaches. Keeping everyone guessing what Russia might do. In effect forcing Ukraine defence to spread its defence thin. https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2022/01/26/ucrania-rusia-claves-tension-frontera-trax/ The military threats against Ukraine have awakened a rather lethargic West to almost frenetic rabbit-like activity. Mostly in the form hectic diplomatic activity and the continuous announcement of various unspecified counter threats. Rejection of Russian demands and offer of dialogue On January 26 the U.S. and NATO delivered their written response to the Russian demands, without at the time publishing the content of their response. From a speech by Secretary of State, Blinken, on the same day we get the first indication of the U.S. response. The Russian demand for guarantees that Ukraine would be kept out of NATO is rejected. Blinken: We make clear that there are core principles that we are committed to uphold and defend – including Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances.” Later the written answers to the Russian demands were leaked to the Spanish newspaper El Pais. With respect to Russia’s demand that NATO refrains from further enlargement, the U.S. states: “The United Sates continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy” With regard to some of the other Russian demands for Russian security Blinken indicated that it might be possible to find areas where agreements could be reached. Blinken: “We’ve addressed the possibility of reciprocal transparency measures regarding force posture in Ukraine, as well as measures to increase confidence regarding military exercises and maneuvers in Europe. And we address other areas where we see potential for progress, including arms control related to missiles in Europe, our interest in a follow-on agreement to the New START treaty that covers all nuclear weapons, and ways to increase transparency and stability.” In essence the U.S. has flatly rejected Russia’s most important demands, while offering to have a dialogue about other subjects related to a mutual interest in security and transparency. Blinken; “we’re prepared to move forward where there is the possibility of communication and cooperation if Russia de-escalates its aggression toward Ukraine, stops the inflammatory rhetoric, and approaches discussions about the future of security in Europe in a spirit of reciprocity.” The leak to El Pais reveals that the U.S. is “prepared for a discussion of the indivisibility of security – and out respective interpretations of that concept – as raised in Article 1 of Russia’s draft bilateral treaty.” Furthermore “The United States is willing to discuss conditions-based reciprocal transparency measures and reciprocal commitments by both the United States and Russia to refrain from deploying offensive ground-launched missile systems and permanent forces with a combat mission in the territory of Ukraine.” The U.S. is prepared to discuss the question of ground-launched missiles bases in Romania and Poland provided Russia is prepared to discuss the same for Russian bases of the U.S. choosing. The U.S. is also willing to discuss follow up to the New Start Treaty on nuclear intercontinental-range “delivery vehicles.” Blinken said that NATO would deliver their own response, indicating that the U.S. and NATO responses would be reinforce each other, with “no daylight “between the U.S. and its allies. This is confirmed by the leak to El Pais in which NATO “reaffirm our commitment to NATO’s Open Door policy under Article 10 of the Washington Treaty.” Thus, rejecting Russia’s main demand. NATO also expresses regret that “Russia has broken the trust at the core of our cooperation and challenged the fundamental principles of the global and Euro-Atlantic security architecture.” A written Russian reply is awaited, but Lavrov and Putin have already indicated their dissatisfaction with the answer received from the U.S. and NATO. Lavrov: "As for the key issue that generally prompted us to turn to the United States and the North Atlantic alliance with the initiative, the reaction was negative … "the Americans prefer to focus on discussing still important but secondary issues” (Tass). At a meeting with Hungary’s Prime Minister Orban, Putin also vented his dissatisfaction. According to Tass “He explained that Moscow had seen no adequate response to three key demands - preventing NATO’s expansion, non-deployment of strike weapons systems near Russian borders and returning the military infrastructure of NATO in Europe to the positions existing in 1997 when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed.” Countering the Russian threats The threatening Russian military posture against Ukraine has been met with a chorus of condemnation in the West, accompanied by various diffuse and nebulous counter threats if Russia should invade Ukraine. No troops, but material for Ukraine While the West has made it abundantly clear that Western troops would not enter Ukraine in case of a Russian invasion, Western countries have contributed materially to Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against an invasion. This has included much publicised deliveries of anti-tank missiles from the U.S. (Javelin missiles) and the UK (NLAW’s or Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapons). Not all allies have been willing to contribute though. Germany will not deliver weapons to Ukraine, variously arguing that they do not deliver weapons in areas of conflict (although this is the only place they are needed) or mentioned reasons related to their own history. A request for helmets from Ukraine, has been met with the laughable offer of delivering 5.000 helmets. Germany has not even answered a request from Estonia to allow the export of guns to Ukraine. Guns that Estonia hat got from old GDR (The German Democratic Republic) stocks. The U.S. is sending extra troops to frontline NATO countries, with up to 2,000 troops from the elite 82nd airborne division being send to Poland from the U.S. and almost 1.000 troops to Romania from German bases. The Germans have promised to send 375 additional troops to Lithuania, while UK is talking about sending 350 Royal Navy marines to bolster Poland’s defence. How that helps the Ukraine is difficult to see, instead it might actually reinforce Russia’s claim that NATO is threatening Russia, and thus bring about reciprocal moves by Russia. Making the whole situation even more unstable. Very diffuse threats of crippling sanctions At a press conference in January President Biden was asked if the West hadn’t lost all its leverage over Vladimir Putin, as it wouldn’t “put troops on the line” and sanctions hadn’t worked in the past. Biden gave a somewhat rambling answer arguing “Well, because he’s never seen sanctions like the ones I promised will be imposed if he moves, number one … I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades.” Then adding “And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.” As we argued in a previous blog entry Biden’s answer actually indicates that if Russia made a limited invasion the Western allies might squabble and disagree among themselves, and therefore not be able to agree on crippling sanctions. Just a few hours later Press Secretary Jen Psaki corrected Biden, stating “If any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that's a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our Allies”. This was followed by similar corrections from Blinken and even President Biden himself. But the damage had been done. Might Putin actually get away with a small incursion? On sanctions there also seems to be a lot of confusion. The only thing the allies seem to agree upon publicly is that if Russia invades it will be met with very severe sanctions. What sanctions and how severe is still not clear. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Foreign relations Committee, bombastically announced the U.S. is preparing “the mother of all sanctions.” Arguing that the package of sanctions being prepared would make the financial cost of Russian aggression extremely high. It would involve “massive sanctions against the most significant Russian banks, crippling to their economy, meaningful in terms of consequences to the average Russian in their accounts and pensions.” (voanews.com) There has been talk denying Russian banks access to SWIFT (The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial telecommunication) which is used to communicate money transfers between banks. But Russian bank transfers apparently only make up 1.5 % of the up to 42 million daily transfer messages, and denying access to SWIFT might lead Russia and China to look for alternatives. The U.S. has aired the possibility of cutting Russia off from the supply of critical goods such as computer chips. Not only supplies from the U.S., but from all supplies using U.S. made chips. Liz Truss, The UK Foreign Secretary, has warned that Russian oligarchs’ who are supporting Putin, will be met with sanctions in the UK, and oligarch’s have significant investments in London’s property market, meaning that it may not be an entirely empty gesture. Then there is German problem. What about Nordstream 2? Would Germany be willing to use Nordstream 2 as part of program to sanction Russia in case of Russian invasion? Listening to Chancellor Scholz it seems doubtful, as he argued in December 2021 that the gas pipeline was a private project to be kept out Ukraine crisis. Later he and his Green party Foreign Minister have said that all is on the table when talking about sanctions, thus perhaps indicating a change of mind. But Germany has certainly not been eager to open up about what it might contribute to “a mother of all sanctions” package. No doubts because Germany is in a precarious position given that it is relying heavily on the import of Russian gas and has a substantial trade with Russia Would sanctions even work? At the beginning of February, it is still difficult to see what sanctions the U.S. and its allies can agree upon. And does a threat of diffuse and not yet agreed upon sanctions really hold Russia back. It is very difficult to know if threats of “mother of all sanctions” will scare Putin and “Mother Russia” and prevent Russian invasion of Ukraine or even a withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine’s border. The double-edged sword of sanctions While the U.S. may be preparing “the mother of all sanctions” without too high a cost to themselves, the European allies have a problem when planning for serious sanctions on Russia. The EU is dependent on Russian gas import for a foreseeable future. One just need to take a look at the market shares of most important suppliers of natural gas to Europe to see the problem. While sanctions closing off the supply from Russia would certainly hurt the Russian economy, it might hurt Europe even more. And whatever sanctions the EU may decide upon, Russia could always use the threat of stopping the Russian energy supply to hurt Europe. Here a diagram of main suppliers of natural gas to Europe. (The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies): https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Russian-gas-amid-market-tightness.pdf The import of gas from Russia through already existing pipelines make up between 30% and 35%, of the EU’s supply, while the second most important supplier Norway delivers less than 25% of the EU’s natural gas supply. Natural gas is used for winter heating, electricity generation and industrial production. According to S&P Global Platts Russia is set to remain the dominant gas supplier to Europe up to 2040, according to the latest long-term European gas outlook. The outlook even predicts that the import from Russia and thus the dependence on Russia, may rise to 40% in the years ahead. While import from Norway may decline in the same period to almost half of the present volume, as the supply from Norwegian gas fields are diminishing. This winter Russia has already given Europe a foretaste of the problem facing Europe due to dependence on Russian gas. At the time when demands spiked in Europe Russia reduced the supply of gas, ostensibly due to technical problems, although Putin has said that the Europeans could just asked for more gas. The reduced supply from Russia and low winter storage level for gas in the West let prices spike. According to The Council of Foreign Relations the EU is also dependent on Russia for more than a quarter of its imports of oil. All in all, Russia is the EU’s largest single source of energy. Germany is always wary of discussing sanctions on Russia as it is especially dependent on Russian gas supplies. Data from Statista show that in 2020 Russia supplied 55.2% of the German demand for natural gas. Norway stood for 30.6% and the Netherlands for 12.7%. Underlining the German dependence on Russia is the Russian share of its import of oil. According to data from Statista Russia supplies around 33% of Germany’s import of oil. Furthermore, the coal import from Russia makes up around 45% of the total supply. We may conclude that Europe and Germany especially are in a bind. How can they introduce crippling sanctions on Russia in case of an invasion of the Ukraine? Which by the way houses one of gas transit pipelines to the rest of Europe (making evident why Germany sees a need for Nordstream 2). And it gets worse. Europe has important trade relations with Russia. The EU is Russia’s largest trading partner, 36.5% of Russia’s imports came from the EU and 37.9% of its exports went to the EU. Russia is the EU’s fifth largest trading partner representing 4.8% of the EU’s trade. The EU first and foremost exporting machinery and transport equipment, followed by chemicals and manufactured goods. Whole Russia’s export to the EU is dominated by energy export and raw materials. Again, a degree of interdependence that would make it hard for the EU to initiate crippling sanctions on Russia without fearing costly retaliation from Russia. Getting out of the gas bind? How may Europe become less dependent on Russian energy supplies in the short run? If we are to believe Secretary of State Blinken, the U.S. and Europe has done “a tremendous amount of work to mitigate any effects of sanctions on those...imposing them, as well as any retaliatory action that Russia might take.” Words words,... Blinken always seems to engaged in a kind of nervous staccato word feud, but what about actions? The Biden administration has announced that is “working with gas and crude oil suppliers from the Middle East, North Africa and Asia to bolster supplies to Europe in the coming weeks, in an effort to blunt the threat that Russia could cut off fuel shipments in the escalating conflict over Ukraine.” (NYT) The effort involves attempts to step up deliveries of LNG (liquefied natural gas) from the especially from U.S., but also from Qatar and elsewhere. No wonder Biden is awarding Qatar a special status as “None NATO ally.” As Qatar has 12.5% of the World’s proven gas reserves, while the U.S. only has 5.3%. Russia by the way has 24.3%. But would it actually be possible to substitute even a small part of the Russian gas supplies to Europe with LNG transported in a fleet of LNG ships? It will be difficult to raise production to cope with extra demand. There is also a serious problem of not enough LNG terminals in Europe. Germany apparently has none. Then there is problem with distribution. Meaning that European gas supplies will take a major hit if Russian deliveries were cut off. While it could be argued that this would certainly hurt Russia’s economy. Russia seems be busy trying to alleviate this problem, by planning for larger gas deliveries to China, having initiated the building of a new pipeline from major gas fields to China. “Known as Power of Siberia 2, the mega-pipeline traversing Mongolia will be able to deliver 50 billion cubic meters of Russian gas to China annually. It was given the go- ahead in March by Russian President Vladimir Putin, and when finished it will complement another massive pipeline, Power of Siberia 1, that transports gas from Russia’s Chayandinskoye field to northern China” (voanews.com) Putin may have a point What seems to irk Putin is NATO’s Eastern expansion and here of course the possibility that Ukraine would join NATO. We have already seen that Russia’s main demand is an ironclad assurance that Ukraine will not be able to join NATO. In the West we may wonder why this demand so important, as NATO certainly does not threaten Russia in any way. Looking back to the time the USSR disintegrated and the DDR was reunited with Western Germany, we may actually find that Putin has a point, when criticizing NATO expansion. Here an excerpt from a written note indicating that Secretary of State James Baker gave the Russian Foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze a promise during a conference in 1990. "And if U[nited] G[ermany] stays in NATO, we should take care about non-expansion of its jurisdiction to the east." “Not an inch eastward” James Baker is reported to have assured Mikhail Gorbachev in relation to NATO, during the complicated negotiations relating to the German re-unification. Baker assured Gorbachev “neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and the Americans understood the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1, Opis 1. (nsarchive.gwu.edu) Later the West has argued that Baker’s promises were just part of the initial discussions. The final treaty on the German re-unification, the so-called Two plus Four Treaty does not contain such guaranties. It only mentions that German NATO troops, but no foreign armed forces, would be allowed to be stationed on former East German territory. Nothing about further NATO expansion towards the east. Here one has to remember that no one could foresee what happened after 1990, when former members of the USSR broke free and became members of NATO. Russia may also refer to an agreement found in “The Istanbul Document” from an OSCE Summit in 1999. It states that “Each participating State has an equal right to security. We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve. Each State also has the right to neutrality. Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” Somewhat contradictory, the agreement states that “every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance.” But it also states that “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States” In a letter to the West Lavrov refers to this document and argues that the West is breaking the agreement by strengthening their security at the expense of the security of Russia. In a rambling answer to a question at a press conference even Biden seems to express understanding for Putin’s and Russia’s predicament: “I think that he is dealing with what I believe he thinks is the most tragic thing that's happened to Mother Russia in that the Berlin Wall came down, the empire has been lost, the near abroad is gone.” Of course, Putin may only be using the postulate of broken promises by the West to hide his real reasons for wanting to prevent NATO expansion towards the east. Putin has said that he sees the collapse of the Soviet Union as “a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.” Russia may have a point in relations to the West’s self-proclaimed values and rule based political stance. In Foreign Minister Lavrov’s view: “Serious, self-respecting countries will never tolerate attempts to talk to them through ultimatums and will discuss any issues only on an equal footing. As for Russia, it is high time that everyone understands that we have drawn a definitive line under any attempts to play a one-way game with us. All the mantras we hear from the Western capitals on their readiness to put their relations with Moscow back on track, as long as it repents and changes its tack, are meaningless. Still, many persist, as if by inertia, in presenting us with unilateral demands, which does little, if any, credit to how realistic they are.” (Sergey Lavrov, June 2021). What bothers Russian leaders may be the view that the West thinks it is can issue dictates to Russia, seeing it as a state in decline. Illustrated by President Obama’s rather derogatory remark when Russia invaded the Crimea: “Russia a “regional power” that had seized part of Ukraine out of weakness rather than strength.” Today a self-assured and perhaps somewhat arrogant U.S. and its allies joined in NATO, argues that former members of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, now independent states, have every right to join NATO, and that this will contribute to security and stability. “When NATO invites other European countries to become Allies, as foreseen in Article 10 of the Washington Treaty and reaffirmed at the January 1994 Brussels Summit, this will be a further step towards the Alliance's basic goal of enhancing security and stability throughout the Euro-Atlantic area, within the context of a broad European security architecture.” Well, in the present situation insisting on the right of Ukraine to join NATO certainly does not contribute to stability and overall security. In fact, NATO itself mention “States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles.” One would think that that in itself would preclude that Ukraine could join NATO, as it certainly has outstanding territorial disputes. Perhaps the West and NATO should therefore be somewhat more accommodating in relation to Putin’s demands, and focus instead on initiatives that would enhance better relations with Russia in the long run. How Russians´ view a threat of war and sanctions How does the Russian population view the present crisis compared to compared to other problems and previous crises? The Russian Levada Center recently presented a diagram showing how the Russian population see the present crises potential compared to earlier views: NB: The Levada Center is apparently included in the registry of non-commercial organizations acting as foreign agents.
Only about 25% of respondents see a present potential for armed conflict with USA and NATO, but this percentage is on a growing path, and significantly it is now even higher than in the years before the Crimea invasion. The potential for an armed conflict with a neighbouring country is seen by around 35%, but also here percentages are on a rapidly rising path. Even so the Russian population seem more preoccupied with potential mass epidemics, an economic crisis and protests and industrial disasters. An earlier study by the Carnegie Moscov Center, using focus groups, indicate that “The Kremlin has been able to foster a mythological sense of heroism when it comes to war. It has helped war to acquire an aura of justice. After all, a besieged fortress needs to be protected. That helps convince the public that external aggression is actually part and parcel of a defensive war—or just part of a series of simple, low-cost military operations.” Significantly it was also found that 61% of elderly Russians, aged 55 or above, believed that USA and NATO were responsible for the conflict escalation in Ukraine. While only around 24% of those aged 18 to 24 supported this opinion. What about sanctions then? In January 2022 the Levada Center found that “The perception of sanctions has not changed significantly compared to February 2020: 35% of respondents are not worried about sanctions at all. The proportion of Russians who believe that Western sanctions affect only a narrow circle of people responsible for Russian policy towards Ukraine has doubled to 41%.” So, the Russians in general do not seem scared by the threat of sanctions, meaning perhaps that sanctions represent a rather blunt instrument. Thus, sanctions do not seem to really deter Russia The foolish threat of sanctions The discussions of the Western threat of using sanctions to somehow force Russia and Putin to stand down indicate that the threat of sanctions may be foolish. Sanctions until now are so diffuse that that in itself may not really scare Russia and prevent some kind of incursion into Ukraine or attempts to install a more Russian friendly government. To be believable sanctions ought to be concrete and stated in advance, not hidden in a nebulous cloud of word streams and expressions like “the mother of all sanctions”. It Russia does not believe in the diffuse threat of sanction and wordy declarations of unity among the allies, it might certainly dare in some engage form of aggression, either outright invasion or something else. What then? There is a nagging doubt with respect to the postulated unity of the Western allies with regard to sanctions. Perhaps clearly indicated by the difference in President Biden’s and Chancellor Scholz’s reactions to a question about whether Nordstream 2 would be included in sanctions. Biden saying: “If Germany — if Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the — the border of Ukraine again — then there will be — we — there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” While Scholz gave a non-answer: I want to be absolutely clear: We have intensively prepared everything to be ready with the necessary sanctions if there is a military aggression against Ukraine … We will act together jointly.” Sanctions after an invasion would of course hurt Russia, but would hardly cripple Russia and make them withdraw. Let us say Ukraine is invaded, perhaps with Russian troops entering Luhansk and Donetsk and further parts of south eastern Ukraine. If the West then finally agreed to engage in “the mother of all sanctions, what would be achieved? Would it make Russia pull back? Hardly, once they had entered Ukraine. In that case sanctions would no longer help Ukraine, nor anyone else. In essence one might say the most efficient use of sanction is when they create a believable threat in advance of any invasion, but how is that possible with the present very diffuse threat of sanctions. We have seen sanctions that would hurt Russia would also hurt the West, especially of course those dependent on the import of Russian energy supplies and reciprocal trade. Meaning that the West may shoot itself in the foot to hurt Russia. Not very smart, especially if sanctions were to run for some time. It would certainly result in energy supply problems in the West, and price rises. If Russia made a major incursion we would expect a high number dead on both sides, but also a large number of refugees streaming from a Ukraine at war to the West. How would the West cope with say a million or even several millions of Ukrainian refugees? Russian invasion and Western counter actions would certainly open a new, very cold war, accompanied by threatening military postures on both sides. There is a risk that the dispute between Russia, on the one hand, and the United States and the European Union on the other, will lead to a foolish mutual loss-loss situation with diminished opportunities for both sides. At the same time as there is a rapidly growing Chinese elephant in the room and dangerous developments in both the Middle East/Iran and Africa posing a serious threat to a weak Europe. Crippling sanctions, a cold war between East and West, and a military build-up along the borders would be certain to drive Russia into the arms of China. Do we want that? To be confronted with two military super powers in many areas, resources, trade, influence in the rest of the world and in space? No, we certainly would not, then what? A wiser reaction? While on an official visit to India in January 2022 the chief of the German navy created furore when he was caught on video talking about relations with Russia. “The Crimean Peninsula is gone, it will not come back, that is a fact… what Putin really wants is respect on an equal footing. And - my God - showing respect to someone costs next to nothing, costs nothing. So you would ask me - but you don't ask me -: It's easy to give him the respect he demands - and which he probably deserves." (Vice-admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach). He also waded into the present conflict arguing that Ukraine did not meet the conditions for membership of NATO, because part of the country was occupied by another country. “By the Russian army, or, as Russia claims, by militias". Making the faux pas complete he argued China represented a greater threat than Russia, and that we therefore “need Russia against China” The Admiral certainly put his foot in it, and when his views became public, he had to resign from the German navy. But perhaps what the German admiral said really cut to the chase, presenting a much more realistic view of what the West must realise, and indicating a wiser path to tone down the conflict with Russa and Putin. Before the German Admiral punctured the baloney of the present Western views, more illustrious persons had asked questions that would seem to pay similar respect to Russia. First and foremost, Margaret Thatcher. In 1996 in Fulton Missouri, fifty years after Churchill’s famous speech on the iron curtain in Europe, Thatcher asked four questions facing NATO with regard to Russia: “Should Russia be regarded as a potential threat or a partner? (Russia may be about to answer that in clearer fashion than we would like.) Should NATO turn its attention to "out of area" where most of the PostCold War threats, such as nuclear proliferation, now lie? Should NATO admit the new democracies of Central Europe as full members with full responsibilities as quickly as prudently possible? Should Europe develop its own "defence identity" in NATO, even though this is a concept driven entirely by politics and has damaging military implications?” Today these questions seem more pertinent than ever and like the Admiral they cut right through to the essence. Now, do we think that the response from West to the present conflict represent adequate answers to these questions? Or do they rather indicate narrowminded and confused views, an unholy mishmash of Western values, unfounded trust in Western unity, disregard for the Russian views, rejection of power politics and realism, disregard for the risk that the U.S. may be a World Power in decline and the EU a military dwarf. In other words, totally unrealistic and ignoring how much the West will have a need for at least quiet cooperation with Russia in face of the Chinese striving for World hegemony. Trump may have been the first U.S. President to realise that the U.S. has a need for good relations with Russia. That President Trump’s views on foreign policy and here, especially in relation to Russia, may have been prescient is acknowledged in a special report published by The Council on Foreign Relations in 2019. “Whereas the president’s default attitude toward virtually every other major country in the world is highly critical and he insists that the United States has been getting a “bad deal,” he has consistently shown sympathy and understanding for Russian perspectives and suggested it would be “nice if we actually could get along.” In November 2017, Trump said he hoped to find a way to lift sanctions on Russia to promote cooperation.” (cfr.org) On Twitter Trump wrote “When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing,” and added, “I want to solve North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, terrorism, and Russia can greatly help!” Instead of sanction on Russia Trump argued “our country must move on to bigger and better things.” During his first year as president, he even suggested that the U.S. and Russia should create a joint cybersecurity unit. Perhaps a somewhat naïve idea at the time, it showed that he viewed Russia more as a potential partner than an adversary. Trumps views were apparently shared in Russia demonstrating that Russia had high hopes for better relations with the US when Trump became President. An article published in 2019 from Carnegie Moscow Center describe the Russian hopes: “Despite his colorful personality, in the words of President Putin, Trump appealed to Russian expectations of an American president who would put ideology to one side and adopt a realistic view on international relations and conduct a foreign policy squarely based on national interests. Such an American leader, it was hoped, would be amenable to a series of trade-offs with Russia, a sort of a “grand bargain.” Once the deal was done, the hope in the Kremlin was, the unfortunate page in the US-Russian relations created by the Ukraine crisis, would be turned. The Ukraine issue would be settled on terms that would be acceptable to Russia; the US sanctions imposed in the wake of events in Crimea and Donbass would be lifted; and Moscow and Washington would resume collaboration on an equal basis in places such as Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea.” These hopes were squashed on both sides of the Atlantic when accusations of Russian interference in the presidential election popped up (See the Muller Report) and Trump was accused of collusion with Russia. His meetings with President Putin were regarded with distrust in the West. As result Trump was forced to put the relation between the U.S. and Russia into a deep freezer. When Congress in 2017 voted for the sanctions bill “Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” Trump gave this critical comment: ”By limiting the Executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together." An important possibility for creating better relations and even partnerships in World affairs based upon cleareyed power politics with less focus on idealistic Western views of values crumbled and laid the ground for the present animosity and conflict between Russia and the West. No wonder that Russia turned to China. In the view of a Chinese professor on international relations: “China, Russia had ‘no choice’ but to strengthen strategic and military ties in the face of G7 and NATO.” (scmp.com) In February 2022 President Putin confirmed the growing orientation towards China in an article in Xinhua. Apart from his emphasis on the growth in trade and cooperation on energy supplies he wrote: “The coordination of the foreign policy of Russia and China is based on close and coinciding approaches to solving global and regional issues. Our countries play an important stabilizing role in today's challenging international environment, promoting the democratization of the system of interstate relations to make it more equitable and inclusive. We are working together to strengthen the central coordinating role of the United Nations in global affairs and to prevent the international legal system, with the UN Charter at its centre, from being eroded.” (en.kremlin.ru) A few days later Xi Jinping mirrored Putin’s view. He said the two countries are firmly supported each other in upholding their respective core interests, and have enhanced their political and strategic mutual trust, adding that bilateral trade between the two countries has hit a record high. “Xi noted the two sides have actively taken part in the reform and development of the global governance system, practiced true multilateralism, and safeguarded true democratic spirit. He added that these efforts have galvanized the solidarity of the international society to tide over this difficult time and upheld international equity and justice.” Of course, China also supported the Russian view in the present conflict with Ukraine and on Russian security. China might even help Russia overcome problems caused by Western sanctions. While the cooperation between China and Russia certainly is to China’s advantage, not the least in relation to its problems with the West, it may actually be less advantageous to Russia in the long run. Russia will over time become a very minor partner more dependent on China that it may wish for. Even more problematic China may represent further trouble for Russia, as China sooner or later may be eyeing the vast reserves of energy and other resources in the sparsely populated Siberia. Thus, Russia in the long run may be just as much need in of cooperation with the West as the West may have for cooperation with Russia to the counter the Chinese hegemon. That is why the present conflict with Russia is handled very foolishly by West, actually meaning that the West may harm itself much more than it may harm Russia. Not surprisingly there is an urgent need to revise Western policy and strategy along the lines preferred by Trump. Today’s Western leaders with their ballooning and airy word streams about values, democracy, will have great difficulty in accepting that. Perhaps with the exception of Macron (who may have his own reasons) and leaders in South East Europe like Viktor Orban. What then would be necessary in a realistic power exchange with Russia? Some ideas for what the West could offer and what it might demand in return. Ofcourse only if and when Russia within a set period could demonstrate adherence to what the West wants in turn. (See also the essay “Reacting to imagined russian threat, overlooking giant chinese elephant”) What the West could offer: Finally accepting that Crimea now belongs to Russia, giving up all pretence of persuading or forcing Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine. With regard to the Donbas, Luhansk People’s Republic and Donetsk People’s republic the West should of course allow the people of these two regions to choose where they want to belong after a referendum. What is the point of continuing the eight year long smouldering conflict at the border under the guise of a Minsk ceasefire agreement? All the lofty talk about no border revisions in Europe, seem to forget European history. Ending existing Russian sanction and threats of new foolish sanctions harming the West as much as they may harm Russia as sanction may not really harm those in power but everyone else. Opening up Russia to Western investment and collaboration on science and technology. Ofcourse subject to the condition specified above. Stop contributing to an escalation by sending more troops to countries at the border with Russia. It would be more important to finally have Western Europe contribute more to create its own credible defence, and not only relying whims of US presidents. Accepting for the moment Finlandisation of Ukraine, meaning acceptance of Russia’s demand that Ukraine would not join NATO. Accepting negotiations on those parts of the Russian demands that actually would benefit both Russia and the West. For instance, the “questions of ground-launched missiles bases” and a “New Start treaty on nuclear intercontinental-range delivery vehicles.” To avoid what would be appeasement on the Western side, all these concessions must only be made in return for equivalent concessions from Russia, which must be seen to be fulfilled within a set period. What the West might demand: Border guaranties from Russia Permanent withdrawal of combat troops to given distance from Russia borders with Eastern European Countries, demilitarisation of border areas. Transparency with inspections of mutual agreement, say on ground-launched missiles and troop withdrawal. New agreements on nuclear force reductions, with Russia and the U.S. with joint pressure on China to participate. Collaboration agreements to solve conflicts in other areas if the world, first and foremost of course North Korea, The Middle East, and Africa. Closer military collaboration. Perhaps with new organisation to substitute NATO and include Russia in order to create a mutual defence against existing and future threats in other parts of the World. While these ideas may sound naïve and farfetched in today’s climate of growing confrontation, they at least make an attempt to provide answers to the pertinent questions Henry Kissinger asked in relation to the West and Russia in 2017, in essence following up on Margaret Thatcher’s Fulton questions. Kissinger: “How should the West develop relations with Russia, a country that is a vital element of European security but which, for reasons of history and geography, has a fundamentally different view of what constitutes a mutually satisfactory arrangement in areas adjacent to Russia. Is the wisest course to pressure Russia, and if necessary to punish it, until it accepts Western views of its internal and global order? Or is scope left for a political process that overcomes, or at least mitigates, the mutual alienation in pursuit of an agreed concept of world order? Is the Russian border to be treated as a permanent zone of confrontation, or can it be shaped into a zone of potential cooperation, and what are the criteria for such a process? These are the questions of European order that need systematic consideration.“ (henryakissinger.com). Like Kissinger we must also realise that a realisation of our suggestions and ideas for some time “requires a defense capability which removes temptation for Russian military pressure.” Minor incursions might not be punished? At a press conference yesterday marking Biden's one year presidency, he was asked if the threat of new sanctions would hold Putin back. Biden’s argument: “Well, because he's never seen sanctions like the ones I promised will be imposed if he moves.” After talking somewhat incoherently about NATO and OSCE meetings he then said: "I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades, and it depends on what it does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.” Thus, conveying the impression that if Putin’s troops only made minor incursions, he might end up not being held to account, as the US and its allies would be infighting, instead of “fighting” Putin. Then again arguing that if Putin and his forces did what were capable of doing, it would be a disaster for Russia in terms of the loss of lives, and because of “our allies and partners are ready to impose severe cost and significant harm on Russia and the Russian economy.” Biden did not mention precisely what the cost and harm would be, except saying … “if they invade, they're going to pay … They're not going -- their banks will not be able to deal in dollars.” He also argues that Russia might not really be able to threaten the energy supplies to Europe, because doing so would hurt Russia itself, as income from energy export to Europe make up such a significant part of the Russian economy. Biden understanding Putin’s predicament? Biden seemed to express understanding for Putin’s and Russia’s predicament: “I think that he is dealing with what I believe he thinks is the most tragic thing that's happened to Mother Russia in that the Berlin Wall came down, the empire has been lost, the near abroad is gone.” A promise that Ukraine will not join NATO? Biden: “My guess is he will move in. He has to do something.” Why Putin has to move in is not quite clear. Especially, as Biden next seems ready to give Putin what he has craved for. A guarantee that Ukraine will never be part of NATO. Biden: “…the likelihood that Ukraine is going to join NATO in the near term is not very likely, based on much more work they have to do in terms of democracy and a few other things going on in there.” Followed by what might be interpreted as resignation: “So, there's room to work if he wants to do that. But I think, as usual, he's going to -- I probably shouldn't go any further, but I think it will hurt him badly.” Biden’s answers causing consternation CNN quotes a Ukrainian official who had been shocked to learn “that President Biden would give a green light to Vladimir Putin in this way.” The Kyiv Post wrote that Biden had set off alarm bells in Ukraine as his mumbled answers seemed be “suggesting that a Russian military invasion was perhaps a fait accompli.” Psaki’s alternate reading of President Biden’s statements Observing that it is not the first time Biden’s surprising statement are being corrected shortly afterwards by Press Secretary Psaki, one might be forgiven for asking: "Who defines US policy – Biden or Psaki" This time the alternate reading of Biden’s statements followed swiftly: “President Biden has been clear with the Russian President: If any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that’s a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our Allies. President Biden also knows from long experience that the Russians have an extensive playbook of aggression short of military action, including cyberattacks and paramilitary tactics. And he affirmed today that those acts of Russian aggression will be met with a decisive, reciprocal, and united response.” (Statement by Press Secretary Jen Psaki). Corrections today While in Berlin today for talks, Secretary of State Blinken, also sought to clarify what President Biden had meant. “We have been very clear throughout if any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border and commit new acts of aggression against Ukraine that will be met with a swift severe united response from the United States and our allies and partners.” Surprise! Since his press conference President Biden has also been given the alternate text to read aloud. “I’ve been absolutely clear with President Putin. He has no misunderstanding. If any -- any -- assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion.” Who is actually defining US policy? Perhaps Biden himself once gave a hint, when he said he had been given a text to read. Statue toppling In the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement a manic wave of pulling down symbols of slavery and a colonial past has swapped over from the US to Europe, first and foremost of course to UK, with smaller splashes in other countries. Manic because the wave seems to represent a strong obsession or zealousness for doing something to rectify the past to somehow clean up the present. A much-publicized example being the pulling down of the Colston statue in Bristol by a mob on June 7 in 2020. The nearly 9 feet high statue was pulled down by a group of people enthusiastically supported by an unruly mob with police standing by. The toppled statue was then rolled down the street and dumped into Bristol Harbour. The Colston Four “rectifying of history” In December 2020 four young people, to be known as the Colston Four, were charged with causing criminal damage when toppling of the Colston statue. They later appeared at the Bristol Magistrates court where they pleaded “not guilty.” In January 2022 a jury sensationally found the Colston Four not guilty in causing criminal damage. After the verdict, members of the Colston Four defended their actions in front of a cheering crowd: "They were whitewashing history by calling him [Colston] a f***ing virtuous man, sorry to swear, we didn't change history, we rectified history." "This is a victory for Bristol, this is a victory for racial equality and it's a victory for anybody who wants to be on the right side of history." "They lied, we illuminated history." The Guardian wrote: “That feelings among a section of the public finally boiled over was because of the passionate objections to racial injustice aroused by the Black Lives Matter demonstrations following the murder, less than two weeks earlier, of George Floyd.” Still, the toppling of Colston, the not guilty verdict and the strange excuse of rectifying and being on right side of history raises some questions: Who was Colston and why should his statue be dumped in the harbour? What were the arguments of Colston Four and their lawyers in the Crown Court trial? What may be the consequences of verdict and the Colston Four’s attempt to “rectify” history. Colston, slave trader and philanthropist Edward Colston (1636-1721) had established a successful trading business. In 1680 he became a shareholder in the Royal African Company (RAC), which held a monopoly in trading with Africa, not at least the slave trade. Colston became a leading figure in the company, which is estimated to have brought 84,500 slaves to the Americas with thousands dying during the Atlantic crossing. Colston later became a Tory member of Parliament and became known for philanthropy in Bristol. He endowed schools like the Colston Girl’s School, founded the two Colston almshouses for sailors, and supported christian Anglican causes. “At his death, a number of societies sprang up to carry on giving in his tradition, including the Colston Society, Grateful Society, Anchor Society and Dolphin Society. Beginning in the 18th century, Colston came to be memorialised across Bristol in statues, stained-glass windows, portraits and ceremonies which honour his contributions to the city’s schools and religious institutions. In Bristol Cathedral, a small stained-glass window depicted Colston figuratively.” (Ibanet.org) In 1895 a nearly 9 feet high bronze statue was erected on a high plinth to commemorate the philanthropist Colston. A plaque bears the inscription: Erected by citizens of Bristol as a memorial of one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city AD 1895." In 1977 English Heritage listed the statue as a grade II structure of special interest, “justifying every effort to preserve it.” But critical voices began to question why the city was honouring a man which had been so deeply involved in the slave trade. Since 2010 activists were questioning the legacy of Colston and there was a growing demand for renaming the institutions and places bearing Colston’s name. Several times the statue was vandalised with graffiti. Still, according to a 2014 survey by a local newspaper, a narrow majority wanted to keep the Colston statue. In 2018 there were plans for putting up a new plaque to remember Colston as both a philanthropist and a slave trader. That was the situation when a manic mob on June 7 in 2020 took matters into their own hands. Pulled Colston down with ropes they had brought, rolled him down the street and dumped him in the harbour. Police was present but decided not to intervene. Later arguing that it was a tactical decision taken to prevent further disorder. The statue was later recovered by the city and placed in lying down position in the Bristol City Museum to await a decision as to what should be done with the statue. Strange legal arguments in defence of the accused Four people, later known as the Colston Four, were charged with criminal damage after a review carried out by the Avon and Somerset Police. As it was assumed that the statue was worth more than £50,000, it meant trial by a jury in the Bristol Crown Court. While the four defendants admitted their part in pulling down the statue, they did not admit to criminal damage, arguing that the statue wasn’t physically harmed and that its value had increased as a result of their action. There was little doubt about the facts of the case. The four had pulled Colston down, and rolled him down the street to dump him in the harbour, but their defence barristers put forward three legal arguments to give lawful excuse for their actions. 1.The lawyers, somewhat strangely perhaps, argued that the four had prevented a serious crime. In this case a violation of section 5 of Public Order Act. Referring to the offence of displaying “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive].” Thus, arguing that the display of the Colston statue was causing harassment, alarm or distress, an offence according to the Public Order Act. One of barristers argued that “It was a criminal offence to keep that statue up because it was so offensive.” A defendant argued “That its presence felt, to him, ‘like a hate crime’ and that ‘at that moment, it felt like the right thing to do. To take the statue down’.” By toppling and removing the statue of Colston the four defendants would thus have prevented further offence. 2. Referring to the Indecent Displays (Control) Act, a defending barrister also argued that the defendants by their action prevented an indecent display, as the Colston statue “was in fact indecent and threatening, particularly to members of the black community in Bristol.” Presumable on account of Colston’s historical actions as a slave trader. Similar arguments were used in a U.S. petition to remove a statue of General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia. In March 2016 a young black student, Zyahna Bryant, wrote “When I think of Robert E. Lee I instantly think of someone fighting in favor of slavery. Thoughts of physical harm, cruelty, and disenfranchisement flood my mind. As a teenager in Charlottesville that identifies as black, I am offended every time I pass it. 3. Finally the defending barristers argued, again perhaps somewhat surprisingly, that a conviction of the defendants would be an infringement of their right to freedom of belief, public expression and protest, as defined by article 9,10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act. The prosecution argued the trial was "not a public inquiry, nor about politics … "It's not about emotion but cold hard facts and, fundamentally, the rule of law … "However strongly you may feel about something you can't simply pull it down. That way is chaos.” The judge also told the jury to leave out politics and emotions and concentrate on the facts. We do not know the jury’s deliberations, whether members of the jury were swayed by the somewhat novel arguments by the defending barristers or even public emotions or political considerations. A jury is free to make their own decisions without giving any reasons for their decision. After about 3 hours deliberation on January 5, 11 out of the 12 jurors found the defendants not guilty. Elation and dismay The four defendants, a crowd outside the Crown Court, and left leaning media were jubilant when the jury found the Colston Four not guilty. On the jubilant side we find the Guardian: “Statues are symbols, and tackling racism requires more than moving them. But acknowledging historic injustices is part of building a more equal society today. Rather than complaining about the way in which the law has been applied, as some ministers have done, the government as a whole should think again. Britain is better off without Bristol’s monument to Colston.” Dismay was expressed by the former Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, who saw the verdict as perverse and argued: “This should have been a straightforward matter for the jury, who were certainly devoid of understanding of the definition of criminal damage – If you damage, destroy of deface property without permission, you are guilty by definition.” Other Conservatives voiced similar dismay and saw the verdict as a carte blanche for woke mobs to topple historical symbols that they may find objectionable. Legal scholars were divided with some arguing that a jury verdict did not set a precedent, although admitting that similar argument might be used in future court cases. As a layman one might find that the arguments used to defend the actions of the Colston Four were rather farfetched. Wondering how the statue in itself constituted a hate crime and an indecent display causing offence, as if Colston was a living slave trader, seen flashing in the street. Somehow making the court case a case against Colston, and not the Colston Four. Would the reference to feelings and giving offence as excuses not mean that feeling offended could excuse almost any kind of vandalism? Finally, the reference to freedom of expression in the Human Rights Act, would mean that one might be excused in expressing oneself by vandalising things and symbols seen as disturbing one’s beliefs. Wonder if that would open a floodgate of possibilities for religious zealots. Offical reactions Suella Braverman the Attorney General said that Colston Four verdict cause confusion and that she is considering whether to seek a review allowing more senior judges to look at this case and its implications. Elsewhere the Government is trying prevent that this verdict could set a precedent by introducing new amendments to the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill making its way through Parliament at the moment. The proposals would raise the maximum sentence for damage to memorials regardless of their values to 10 years, and would let courts take into account emotional and wider distress caused by damage to a memorial. Thus, turning the distress and feelings argument against those vandalising memorials. This would even extend to damaging flowers and wreaths place at memorials. Damnatio memoriae or “sanitizing the present” “In ancient Rome, the Senate could vote the memory of a personage, usually a former emperor, into oblivion in a practice that has come to be known as damnatio memoriae, or damnation of memory. The name would be chiselled out of inscriptions, histories would be rewritten, the heads of statues would be replaced, bronze effigies would be melted down and recast, and coins defaced” (ibanet.org) Statues are may highly visible symbols of the past, but if the protesters really want to pull down symbols of the past because they are offended every time they pass them or “consider it a personal violence,” they would have to pull down much more than statues, not only the White House and Capitol in the US and scores of buildings in the UK and elsewhere. They would actually have to reject and pull down the societies build upon this past. Perhaps this illustrates the idiocy of decrying an imperialistic and colonial past by pulling down statues, while living in a Western society that would never have come about were it not for its imperialistic, colonial and warring past. Observing how small minorities, allied with self-proclaimed progressives, are forcing their views upon society, and woe betide those who dare to question their views, one may s come to see it as the religious zealousness of a new religion. This represents mob rule, not progressive democratic action. “We live in a democratic country. If you want to see things changed you can get them changed, you do that through the ballot box, or petitioning your local council, etc. You don’t do it by going out and causing criminal damage.” (Grant Shapps, Transport Secretary). When a small minority takes it upon themselves to topple statues, they believe are offending they are not taking part in democratic process in which they try to persuade the majority to see their view. In fact, they seem to see themselves as a progressive minority elite forcing their ideology upon a boorish, backward looking, lukewarm and disorganised majority. The Colston Four and their White compatriots elsewhere also seem take it upon themselves to act for what they believe is the BLM cause. Rectifying history as they argue. But does it not carry a faint whiff what is usually decried as white supremacy. Young Whites acting instead of Black themselves. Damning a past foundation for the present The damnable past of the British slave trade and the triangular trade have undoubtedly contributed to the Britain’s rapid rise. The triangular trade had three legs or components that supplemented each other. Enslaved people bought in West Africa were shipped on slave ships to the Americas. There to be sold as slaves in the cotton, sugar and tobacco plantations. The next leg consists in cotton, sugar and tobacco being brought to Britain. The raw material of cotton bales used in cotton mills to produce textiles. Together with industrial produce of finished goods, textiles were then exported and sold abroad, not the least in Britain’s colonial territories. In West Africa the products might be exchanged for new slaves to be shipped to the Americas and so forth and so on, creating a positive feedback loop feeding growth and development in Britain as it can be gleaned from this diagram from the Financial Times (See also Klas Rönnbäck” On the economic importance of the slave plantation complex to the British Economy during the eighteenth century,” Journal of Global History): There is something bizarre about attempts to wipe out or excuse this part of Western history. For it is the very same history that has laid the foundations for the Western societies we live in today.
It is also worth remembering that slavery was abolished in England in 1772, which actually meant that should a slave from the colonies enter England he or she would become free. In 1807 Britain outlawed the slave trade from Africa and even established a Royal Navy preventive squadron to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the West Africa coast. Between 1808 and 1860 they stopped 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans (saylor.org). With The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 Britain abolished slavery in the colonies, except that is, for India. Slaveowners in the colonies were compensated. “Under the terms of the Act the British government raised £20 million to pay out in compensation for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves.” The sum representing “approximately 40% of the Government’s total annual expenditure at the time.” (dokumen.tips) For although Western history is a story of repression, exploitation, and brutal wars, it is also a story of the development in the "fits and starts" of a modern society, individual freedom, democracy, enlightenment, economic, scientific and technological development, liberalism and free trade and, last, but not least, the values we consider so self-evident today that we only see them when we come across someone who does not seem to possess them. From a British point of view, it reads as follows: "Much (perhaps most) of what we consider best practice in government and society today is a product of British ideas, aspirations and systems. Liberalism, freedom of association, freedom of trade, freedom of conscience and religion, private property, restrictions on the powers of the executive, limited corruption, clear laws and pure judges, political and moral equality between race and gender, democracy." Could all this have been achieved without the brutal part of history? Was the aggressive development of the British Empire, among other things, a prerequisite for all these institutions and values? By attempting to cancel or rectify the history of the West, the invisible but vitally important and mutually supportive values and norms that hold up our culture, democracy and society are being eroded. When BLM activist and their supporters, or protesters of imperialist and colonial past won’t acknowledge that, they may in all their zealousness open up deep divisions in Western societies, weaken their foundations, and may ultimately contribute to self-destruction of Western societies, their democracies and values. Perhaps this is what is happening at the moment. On December 20 the Court of Appeal in London ruled that Police Guidance on non-crime hate incidents might have a chilling effect on free expression and that it violated Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: The Freedom of Expression. A growing number of facial expressions, words, phrases, opinions, and even scientific facts have become blasphemous to a loud and aggressive woke religion, and led to numerous instances in which people have been accused of having committed a non-crime hate incidents (NCHI). NCHIs are recorded by police, meaning that they will show up in background checks on the person, even though they are not crimes. Don’t mention … In many cases the accusations may remind one of what was at the time a very funny scene in the Monty Python’s Life of Brian: The stoning of the old man called Matthias, who is accused of blasphemy for uttering the holy name of “Jehovah.” “OFFICIAL: ...you have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,... CROWD: Ooooh! OFFICIAL: ...you are to be stoned to death. CROWD: Ahh! MATTHIAS: Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.' CROWD: Oooooh! OFFICIAL: Blasphemy! He's said it again!” … See the rest Life of Brian. Hate speech with a shade of “1984” Once we may have laughed at Monty Python’s magnificent, but unbelievable silliness. But the equally unbelievable, but real silliness of UK Police is no laughing matter Harry Miller, a shareholder in a machinery company and former police officer had written a series of what he later termed gender-critical tweets In a tweet he argues: “I believe that trans women are men who have chosen to identify as women. I believe such persons have the right to present and perform in any way they choose, provided that such choices do not infringe upon the rights of women. I do not believe that presentation and performance equate to literally changing sex; I believe that conflating sex (a biological classification) with self-identified gender (a social construct) poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights; I believe such concerns warrant vigorous discussion which is why I actively engage in the debate.” Harry Miller’s tweets came to the attention of Mrs B. who describes herself as a ‘post-operative transgender lady.’ Alarmed, Mrs. B reported the tweets to the police as a hate crime. “I was so alarmed and appalled by his brazen transphobic comments that I felt it necessary to pass it (sic) on to Humberside Police as he is the chairman of a company based in that force’s area.” The local Humberside Police decided to record it as a hate incident pursuant to HCOG. That is to say they found that it fell under the Hate Crime Operational Guidance (HCOG) as published by the College of Policing (CoP). A hate crime is defined as an incident where the offending party is “motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility” towards a person’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity.” To record or prosecute a hate crime there must be evidence of hate or hostility. The HCOG defines Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs) as “any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice.” “Perceived to be” is central here. It appears that it is sufficient that Mrs. B felt so alarmed by the tweets, none of which were directed at her, that she saw the tweets as NCHI’s. The Police officer responsible later argued: “Having reviewed the nature of the tweets, the impact on the victim and the risk of matters escalating to criminal offences being committed, I took the decision to speak with Mr Miller.” The police officer went to talk to Harry Miller at the machinery company. Not finding him at work he left a message asking Harry Miller to contact him. Harry Miller later called the police officer. He wasn’t happy and asked if he had committed a crime. The police officer explained to him that although the tweets were not criminal, they were upsetting many members of the transgender community who were upset enough to report them to the police. In the phone call Harry Miller and the police officer had this exchange: Police officer: “You have to understand, sometimes in the womb, a female brain gets confused and pushes out the wrong body parts, and that is what transgender is.” Harry Miller: ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. Wrong body parts? You have to know that is absolute bullshit. Is this really the official police line?’ Police officer: ‘Yes, I have been on a course.’ “A chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression” Harry Miller describes how he “Felt a deep sense of both personal humiliation, shame for my family and embarrassment for my Company, its customers, suppliers and employees. I also felt anxious as to what this might mean for me, the family and the business.” NCHI are recorded by police and will show in background checks on the person, even though it is not a crime. In a way it looks as if Harry Miller may have been even more alarmed and upset that Mrs. B had been. No wonder that he wasn’t satisfied, the case became public, and Harry Miller complained. In 2020 the case ended up in “The High Court of Justice, Administrative Court.” From which the case description here has been taken. The high judge concluded: “There was not a shred of evidence that the Claimant was at risk of committing a criminal offence. The effect of the police turning up at his place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society… Warning the Claimant that in unspecified circumstances he might find himself being prosecuted for exercising his right to freedom of expression on Twitter had the capacity to impede and deter him from expressing himself on transgender issues. In other words, the police action, taken as a whole, had a chilling effect on his right to freedom of expression.” Court of Appeal rules police ‘hate incidents’ guidance unlawful In 2021 Harry Miller’s case went to Court of Appeal. Harry Miller challenged police guidance used to place him on record in a national database for having committed a Non-Crime Hate Incident. The President of the Queen’s Bench Division of the Appeal Court, Dame Victoria Sharp noted: “At the root of the challenge is what is called perception-based recording. Specifically, the policy that non-crime hate incidents must be recorded by the police … if the incident is subjectively perceived by the “victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender” and irrespective of any evidence of the “hate” element.” The judge then concluded: ”… there is nothing in the Guidance about excluding irrational complaints, including those where there is no evidence of hostility, and little, if anything to address the chilling effect which this may have on the legitimate exercise of freedom to expression. Even so, where the perception of the complainant is that speech is motivated by hostility towards one of the protected strands, the Guidance says it must be categorised as a non-crime hate incident; and the language used (of a non-crime hate incident and a victim) is capable of unfairly stigmatising those against whom such a complaint is made.” “The question in this case can therefore be framed as follows. Does the Guidance sanction or positively approve or encourage unlawful conduct viz, conduct which violates Article 10? In my judgment it does.” (Emphasis added). The judge thus found that police guidance on recording what she termed none-crime none-hate incidents violated Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of Expression: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” The ruling of the Court of Appeal would seem to be especially important at a time when gender questions are debated so fiercely. While Government is debating a reform of the existing Gender Recognition Act (GRA). On December 21 “The Women and Equalities Committee” actually published their latest report on the reform proposals. A statement from The College of Policing note that the Court of Appeal has found that Police Guidance in some cases is unlawful and then writes: “The court has found we need to make safeguards in our guidance more explicit to help police officers proportionately enforce the law. We will listen to, reflect on, and review this judgement carefully and make any changes that are necessary.” During the past 5 years Police in the UK had recorded 120,000 non-crime hate incidents with possible serious consequences for those being recorded. Perhaps the Court of Appeal ruling may now lead to less frequent virtual “stoning” of people who exercise their right to freedom of expression to say or write things that may annoy and disturb woke opinions, but neither constitute a crime or is motivated by hate. Addendum: Quoted in the Court of Appeal Judgement is expert evidence from Professor Dr Kathleen Stock on what might constitute legitimately held views in mainstream academic discourse. “Professor Stock gave an example of three utterances: “Trans women are men”; “Trans women aren’t women” and the use of the pronouns “he/him” rather than “she/her” in referring to a trans woman in the third person. Professor Stock describes these as utterances which are intended in the mouths of many people as simple observable facts, and non-evaluative utterances, along the lines of “water boils at 100 degrees” or pillar boxes in the UK are red.” So here, she says, the failure or refusal to use of a preferred pronoun of a trans woman is not an expression of hostility but an indication of a descriptive, non-evaluative belief, that the trans woman is biologically male; and the fact that such readings tend to be heard as transphobic is not therefore a reliable guide to the true nature of the utterances.” New rules and proposed changes to the handling of refugee and migrant pressure have seen the light in Poland, the EU, UK and the US, perhaps signalling that it has become evident that the Refugee Convention from 1951 is no longer fit for purpose. None of these countries or the EU have yet proposed to abolish the convention, but at the very least they have in praxis sought to bring in rules and political solutions that would seem to point to a pressing need for a major revision of the convention and the rules for handling the refugee and migration pressure on the borders. In this essay we will discuss: Attempts to circumvent the Refugee Convention Why the Refugee Convention today is unfit for purpose Why Europe and the U.S. may soon be overwhelmed by refugees and migrants Attempts to circumvent the Refugee Convention Are found in Poland, the EU, UK and the U.S. Poland´s actions to contain migrant pressure on border with Belarus “A as of 21 November, 7,831 third country nationals have entered the territories of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland from Belarus in an unauthorised manner, compared to 257 in the entire 2020 … 42,741 attempts to cross have been prevented by the three Member States.” (EU commission 1.12.2021). In addition, thousands of refugees/migrants are holding out at the Belarus’ side of the border. Poland has tried to stem the flow with thousands of border guards and hastily constructed border fences of barbed wire. Attempts to cross the border has been met with pushbacks, with border guards arguing that they are acting in accordance with government regulation amended in August. In October the Polish Parliament, the Sejm, passed legislation aimed at legalising pushbacks at border. People caught crossing the border illegally can be ordered to leave Polish territory (be pushed back) by the local border guard chief. The legislation will also mean that an application for international protection in accordance with the Refugee convention, can disregarded for people caught crossing the border illegally. The Sejm also passed a law allowing the construction of a wall or fence along the border with Belarus. Jarosław Kaczyński, the country’s vice-prime minister and security coordinator, said: “the experience of Greece shows that it is the only effective method” The Polish reaction to pressure at the border has of cause been met with protests from diverse organisations seeking to protect refugees and migrants. EU relaxing refugee and migrant rights Criticism of the Poland’s actions have also come from the EU Commission, accompanied by demands that Poland tweak their legislation to bring it in accordance with the fundamental human right to seek international protection. Since then, the EU commission has sought to provide Poland, Latvia and Lithuania with more latitude to deal with the migrant pressure from Belarus. Just listen to the announcement from Ylva Johansson, Commissioner for Home Affairs on 1 December: “Today, to protect our borders, and to protect people, we are giving flexibility and support to Member States to manage this emergency situation, without compromising on human rights. This should allow the Member States in question to fully uphold the right to asylum and align legislation with EU acquis. It's also time limited and targeted.” The EU commission’s explanation for the introduction of the provisional measures refers to the still volatile situation with many migrants stranded at Latvia’s, Lithuania’s and Poland’s borders with Belarus. “To ensure a coherent approach with the border control measures in the current emergency situation and allow Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to manage the current flows but also the people already present in their territories, this proposal sets up an emergency migration and asylum and management procedure in relation to third-country nationals apprehended or found in the vicinity of the border with Belarus after an unlawful entry or after having presented themselves at border crossing points.” The main elements of the proposal a would allow the countries in question to “…register an asylum application and offer the possibility for its effective lodging only at specific registration points located at the vicinity of the border including the border crossing points designated for that purpose” Presumably meaning that it would only be possible to seek asylum at such border points. Extend deadline for registration of applications for international protection. To cope with the pressure of many migrants. Under the specific asylum procedure, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland could apply accelerated border procedures to decide on the admissibility and substance of all applications. Meaning that decisions on the merit of the application can be decided at the border, except in cases that would endanger the health of the applicants. It may also be possible derogate (pay less attention to?) the rules relating to removal of “third country nationals and stateless persons whose application for international protection has been rejected.” (Would that mean pushbacks under another name?). Due to the sudden pressure of asylum seekers the countries in question may only need to ensure that basic needs for the applicants are met. Thus, no luxury accommodation. Interestingly some of the EU proposals seem fit the arguments used by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2020, when it held that “Spain’s summary expulsion of two would-be migrants from Africa did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights because they were part of a large group that scaled the Melilla border fence between Morocco and Spanish territory.” The Court accepted Spain’s assertion that the applicants could have sought asylum at a consulate or regular border crossing. (ijrcenter.org). The proposals would at least seem to go some way to create an EU conform version of the Poland’s own rules. They also underline the necessity of thinking about a whole new set of rules for dealing with the flows of refugees and migrants attempting to gain unlawful entry into the EU. Perhaps the EU is finally beginning see the need for new instruments to contain future tsunamis of refuges and migrants. UK attempts to curb illegal migration According to Financial Times at least 26,611 people have crossed the Channel in small dinghies and large inflatable crafts in 2021 to seek asylum in the UK. Three times more than the whole of last year. In the attempts to put a stop to these dangerous journeys and the illegal entry into the UK various means have been tried with little apparent success. Formally working with French authorities. Paying them to step up patrols to stop the dangerous journeys across the Channel and catch the people smugglers behind the journeys. Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, has even proposed the use of pushbacks in the Channel to stop the flow of migrants. Such proposals have of cause been met with the expected criticism from diverse organisations and lawyers. More important though is the opposition from the Border Force Guards, the very people who would be responsible for pushback actions in the Channel. Their organisation has threatened that they are prepared to launch a high court challenge against such pushback plans. On 25 November Johnson published at letter he had sent President Macron with a series of proposals aimed at stepping up efforts to stop the stream of asylum seekers crossing the Channel. Among the proposals are: “Joint or reciprocal maritime patrol operations in each other’s territorial waters; deploying more advanced technology including ground sensors and radar; reciprocal airborne surveillance by manned and unmanned aircraft, perhaps flying under joint insignia; and deepening the work of our Joint Intelligence Cell with better real time intelligence sharing to deliver arrests and prosecutions on both sides of the Channel.” The letter suggests joint patrols wherever this can be most effective. This could include French gendarmes and UK Border Force patrolling together at French beaches. Boris Johnson also proposes a readmissions agreement with France, that would allow the UK to return illegal migrants to France. Boris Johnson’s proposals were apparently seen as an affront to France and Macron reacted angrily. Although perhaps mostly due to Johnson’s publication of the letter on Twitter. French Prime Minister Castex later argued that it was up to UK to stop the stream of migrants. “Only you can weaken criminal people-smuggling networks by opening paths to legal immigration to those who have legitimate reasons for going to your country. Only you can ensure that your labour market is sufficiently regulated to discourage those who try to work illegally.” This is more or less where things stand at the moment, although France and the EU have apparently been willing to take new initiatives to curb cross Channel crossings after the 27 migrants drowned when their dinghy capsized. New UK “Nationality and Borders Bill” “Those who enter the UK illegally will find it harder to stay under fundamental reforms in the Nationality and Borders Bill” (publications.parliament.uk) Among the wide range of proposals that would certainly indicate fundamental changes to the treatment of refugees and migrants are these: “Making every effort to remove those who enter the UK illegally having travelled through a safe country in which they could and should have claimed asylum (emphasis added); only where this is not possible, those who have successful claims, having entered illegally, will receive a new temporary protection status rather than an automatic right to settle and will be regularly reassessed for removal from the UK - people entering illegally will also have limited family reunion rights and limited access to benefits making it easier to remove someone to a safe country while their asylum claim is processed increasing the punishment for people smugglers who facilitate illegal entry to the UK, who will face up to life imprisonment giving the Home Secretary power to control visa availability for countries refusing to take back their own citizens overhauling the immigration and legal system to make it fairer with faster access to justice to help prevent the need for last-minute legal claims a new and expanded one-stop process to ensure that asylum, human rights claims and any other protection matters are made and considered together changing how someone’s age is assessed to protect children from being wrongly moved into the adult asylum system and stop illegal entrants falsely claiming to be children.” Taken literally these proposals would certainly seem to represent major changes to the treatment of asylum claims compared to 1951 Refugee Convention. Changes that seen as necessary in the light of the present pressure of refugees and migrants attempting to cross borders unlawfully. US reaction to migrant pressure on their southern border Statistics from the U.S. Customs and Border Control show that the U.S. and the Biden are having a large and growing problem at the southern border. Source: cbp.gov Until now there have been 1,734,686 cases of what is euphemistically called border encounters in 2021. Up from 458,088 for the whole of 2020. It is presumed the Biden’s promises to restore and expand programs for refuges and asylum seekers, after Trump’s stringent measures to control the flow of migrants, may have caused the growth in the number of attempted border crossings. More than 200,000 people were trying to cross the border in July, representing a 21-years high. The Biden administration promised a new and more lenient refugee and immigration policy but have been forced to retain some of the measures used by the Trump to curb the flow. One of the measures is known as Title 42 “Under this order, CBP (Customs and Border Protection) is prohibiting the entry of certain persons who potentially pose a health risk, either by virtue of being subject to previously announced travel restrictions or because they unlawfully entered the country to bypass health screening measures.” A scheme certainly having relevance in times of Covid-19. Upholding the Title 42 and the so-called Title 8 schemes has allowed the Biden administration to expel tens of thousands of people seeking asylum in the U.S. (Title 42 and Title 8 expulsions, CBP) In 2019 the Trump administration initiated the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), popularly known as the “Remain in Mexico” program. This scheme made it possible to return asylum seekers to Mexico, where they had to stay, while their claims were adjudicated in US Courts. The Biden administration wanted to end the scheme as it was seen as inhumane and dangerous due the situation in the areas of Mexico close to the US border. But in August the Supreme Court upheld lower court ruling that ordered the Biden Administration to reintroduce the “Remain in Mexico” scheme. On December 2, 2021 The New York Times could report that Mexico had ”agreed to allow the United States to restart a contentious Trump-era asylum program that requires certain migrants to wait in Mexico while their cases are pending, complicating the Biden administration’s efforts to roll back the former president’s restrictive immigration policies.” (NYT). While the Biden administration may voice regret at the Supreme Court’s decision, it may in fact contribute to alleviate Biden’s problems with the growing flow of migrants. And at least The Biden administration has succeeded in changing the tone. Instead of referring to migrants as aliens. “Memos issued by Customs and Border Protection, as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, tells employees to use the words “non-citizen” or “migrant.”… Instead of “illegal aliens,” which was still being used by some government officials in press releases and elsewhere, the employees of CBP and ICE should instead use “undocumented noncitizen” or “undocumented individual,” (federaltimes.com). Paying protection money to keep migrants at bay In October 2015 Turkey and the EU initiated a Joint Action Plan to address the problem brought about by the flow of people fleeing from Syria. A plan whereby Turkey would be paid to act as gatekeeper to prevent irregular migration to the EU. “The Action Plan was designed to address crisis situation in three ways: (a) by addressing the root causes leading to the massive influx of Syrians, (b) by supporting Syrians under temporary protection and their host communities in Turkey (Part I) and (c) by strengthening cooperation to prevent irregular migration flows to the EU (Part II). The EU and Turkey will address this crisis together in a spirit of burden sharing.” No wonder that President Putin teased the EU recently by suggesting that the EU make a similar agreement with Belarus’s Lukashenko. Paying him to be gatekeeper. In 2017 Italy’s very active Interior Minister, Marco Minniti, prepared a somewhat similar agreement between Libya and Italy to prevent irregular migration from Libya to Italy ”On 2 February 2017 a Memorandum of Understanding on development cooperation, illegal immigration, human trafficking, fuel smuggling and reinforcement of border security (hereafter ‘memorandum’ or ‘MoU’), was signed between the Italian Prime Minister Gentiloni and Fayez al-Serraj, Head of the UN-backed Libyan Government of National Accord.” (eumigrationlawblog.eu) Other countries like Austria, Denmark and the UK have aired plans to establish camp facilities in third countries, where asylum seekers would have to remain while their applications would checked, somewhat like the U.S. “Remain in Mexico” scheme. Outsourcing the management of irregular migration flows to authoritarian gatekeepers or establishing camps in third countries may be seen as a rather devious way to avoid problems with Human right conventions and especially of course the 1951 Refugee Convention. In a way these measures represent an out of sight, out of mind, let us forget about the problem solution. But again, this demonstrates that the system for handling the pressure of refugee and migrants is broken. It points to the urgent need for substituting the 1951 Refugee Convention with a fundamentally new way of handling present and future refugee and migration flows directed towards to Europe and the U.S. The present ad hoc schemes, and out of sight solution are neither fair nor sustainable. Why the Refugee Convention today is unfit for purpose The articles of the 1951 Convention may seem reasonable and comprehensible at the time and problem context in which it was made. Today the Convention is an anachronism that is totally inadequate, perhaps even harmful or even disastrous in relation to the new refugees and migration problems facing Europe and the U.S. Huge flows of people who want not only security but also better living conditions. Selective flows of mainly young men from a completely different cultural and religious background. Flows from afar, from Afghanistan and Pakistan across many borders. Flows of people from an Africa unable to support a huge population growth. These are not situations comparable to the post-war situation in Europe. However, there are other problems with the Convention. Here a look at some of them. The definition of refugees is no longer sufficient The Convention refers to people persecuted on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. There is no talk of people fleeing because of wars, warlike conditions, barrel bombs or modern weapons of mass destruction, such as poison gas or radioactive contamination. UNHCR's Handbook states: "Persons who leave their country of origin as a result of international or national conflicts are not normally considered refugees under the 1951 Convention or Protocol." (quoted in Holzer). However, it is believed that an alien invasion and occupation could result in persons falling within the definitions of the Convention. People fleeing natural disasters or climate change do not fall under the convention's rulings at all. Some of these problems were already discussed during work on the original Convention. It was noted that the refugee definition "did not refer to refugees from natural disasters, because it was difficult to imagine that fires, floods, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, for instance, differentiated between their victims on the grounds of race, religion, or political opinion." (Holzer). The definitions of the Convention talk of people persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, but they do not cover a situation in which everyone is exposed to the same dangers, such as natural disasters or civil war. The concept of persecution has changed since the convention was created. OAU's 1969 expanded refugee definition has taken this into account: “The term “refugee” shall also apply to every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality " (OAU Convention). In the so-called Cartagena Declaration In 1984, countries from Central America, Mexico and Panama also agreed on a more comprehensive declaration that took into account Central American conditions in a series of conclusions dealing, for example, with internally displaced persons: "To express its concern at the situation of displaced persons within their own countries. In this connection, the Colloquium calls on national authorities and the competent international organizations to offer protection and assistance to those people and to help relieve the hardship which many of them face." (Cartagena Declaration). In other ways, too, the problems of the current Convention have been dealt with by granting people humanitarian protection. For example, as in the UK's "Exceptional leave to remain." or in a recent version 'Humanitarian Protection', awarded to those "who, though not refugees, would, if removed, face in the country of return a serious risk to life or person arising from the death penalty, unlawful killing or torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (Migration Watch). Yet there are major problems in distinguishing between refugees and migrants. Should people fleeing general distress and misery in Africa be classified as refugees? Should people from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh? Before the 1951 Convention, concrete lists were even drawn up of who could be considered refugees, for example from the Spanish Civil War. Would it be better to have such concrete lists than the vague general terms we find in the 1951 Convention? Naturalization as a solution? Naturalization as the only solution to the refugee problem today seems inadequate. Today, it would be strange to imagine that refugees would always be expected to have permanent residence in the recipient country. There will be an expectation that refugees would return to the country they fled to if conditions allow it again. But that was not the situation after the Second World War. "In recent years the 1951 Convention has been criticised for being linked to the single solution of asylum only. The experience and practice of the West in the '50's and '60's was that nobody gave a thought to the idea that someone fleeing from Eastern Europe might return to their country of origin. If they were recognised as a refugee, that was enough for them to be granted permanent residence and eventually accorded citizenship. Return was not in the discourse or practice of the '50's and '60's." (Chatham House). Eurocentrism By virtue of its origin, the Convention can be said to be Eurocentric. First and foremost, it was designed to help to solve a European refugee problem after the Second World War. It is also in this light that Articles on rights, education and work must be seen. “There is a European flavour in the commissions of the 1951 Convention, especially Articles 2-34 and the concentration on social and welfare rights, on education, on access to employment and on access to the liberal professions." (Chatham House). Refugees are first seen at the border The convention does not see refugees, as it were, until they appear at the border of a recipient country. This may not have been a problem after the Second World War, but seems totally inadequate in relation to the current refugee problems. Nor does the Convention see internally displaced persons as they do not show up at the borders. Incidentally, for refugees today, it is not a question of simply reaching safety. They seem happy to cross several borders to reach the preferred place of residence, regardless of the fact that security can be achieved in the countries they have crossed through. It is a problem that a border in Schengen Europe is, after all, basically just a border on paper and therefore not a border that can stop refugees seeking not only security but also better living conditions. The Dublin Regulation cannot be said to have had much effect in the current situation. The convention does not seem to cover the kind of refugees we see today, coming from Africa, Syria, Afghanistan via Turkey, across the Mediterranean or recently Belarus to arrive in Europe or coming from far away in Latin America to the U.S. By its very nature, the Convention has focused on the immediate area. It would therefore be relevant today to discuss whether the Convention should apply at all to persons, who have crossed safe countries to reach a particular sought-after country. "A study in the 1980's showed that the primary reasons for moving from the first country of refuge were protection-related either by being at risk from the agents of their country of origin or simply not being able to survive and earn a living. Although this was recognised twenty years ago nothing much has been done about it" (Chatham House). Today negative push factors seem less important. Pull factors seem more important to understand attractivity of say countries in North Western Europe or the U.S. The skewed focus The focus is only on those who present themselves at the border with the EU, or in overcrowded inflatable dinghies. There is enormous discrimination in favour of refugees who have the opportunity (health, resources and connections) to reach the border of a sought-after recipient country. We do not see those left behind as internally displaced persons, or in refugee camps, unable to improve their own situation. “Priority is given to those present, on the basis of their mobility, rather than to those with the greatest need." (Research Paper, Parliament of Australia). In many of today's refugee flows, we see that about 70 percent may be young men, whom many TV journalists refer to as traumatized and exhausted, despite the fact that their ability to arrive at or cross borders do not indicate that they have problems. If nothing else, it marks a huge difference from the situation after the Second World War, when young men were often missing in the refugee influx from the east. Distribution of refugees The Convention does not deal with issues concerning the distribution of refugees, for example, in local areas, or by country in Europe. There is no question of fair burden-sharing. Probably because it was not relevant in 1951, when refugees belonged to very specific countries. Germans from the Baltics were, of course, going to Germany. Nothing about demands on the countries people are fleeing from The convention does not mention demands on the country refugees are trying to leave. Perhaps not so relevant in the 1950s either, but very relevant today. Not first and foremost for those countries, where war reigns, but certainly for those countries where people are fleeing for other reasons. No focus on causes The Convention cannot be used by the international community to address the basic problems that may be the reason for the formation of refugee flows. Problems in recipient countries ignored The Convention does not look at all at the enormous problems that may arise in the recipient countries in the event of large flows of refugees. Be it cultural, religious, social, political or financial problems. Again, one could afford to ignore these aspects in the 1950s, but one cannot do that today. One only has to look at Lebanon to see what problems can arise when many refugees with divergent political and ideological ideas make up a significant proportion of the population. Closer to that, one can recall the formation of ghettos, banlieues, and "No Go" zones in European countries. Or the indirect effect of major shifts in the political spectrum, with the rise of new parties that have a less optimistic view of immigration than those who stand for "Willkommenskultur" or simply act as naïve "friendly citizens.” One simply cannot afford to ignore the effect of large flows of refugees into the recipient countries. At worst, there is a risk that the problems they have fled from are reproduced in the recipient country in the form of conflicts between different groups of refugees, or between refugees and the rest of population, for example as a result of religious fanaticism. The problem of criminals and war criminals In some cases, the Convention is blamed for being the reason why countries are not able to send criminals back to their countries of origin, but that may not be the case.. The Convention does not apply to those people who have: (a) has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; (b) has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; (c) has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.(1951 Convention). Legal complications The drafters of the 1951 Convention did not consider that decision-making would be anything but discretionary by an enlightened administration but without their being hampered by the requirements of the due process as we understand them."(Chatham House). This is no longer the case. Now it is no longer just a question of an enlightened administration, but of rules and legal subtleties. Which means that even people who are unlikely to be able to obtain refugee status can hope that the process of returning them can be dragged out for so long that they can eventually stay. Why Europe and the U.S. may soon be overwhelmed by refugees and migrants The existing problems we have discussed will be dwarfed by future problems. Europe and the U.S. risk being flooded with a tsunami of desperate people, especially from Africa. Fleeing due a combination of: Population growth Economic factors Conflicts and wars Climate change Population growth First, take a look at population growth in different regions of the world, as the UN has sought to quantify it. The following table should make it evident to decision makers that the present mix of idealistic, but un-manageable conventions and ad hoc schemes will be totally inadequate in the future. (population.un.org)
Economic factors The huge gap in GDP between countries in Africa and the EU indicate the magnitude of the economic tension potential between Africa and Europe. Not because we think potential migrants look at GDP when assessing where they can expect to improve their own opportunities. For prospective migrants, it is probably accounts of and images of living conditions in Europe that matter, but we assume that the notions thus formed will correlate with the differences in GDP. Conflicts and wars Due to population growth and climate changes there hastily growing potential for larger conflicts. “The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, which monitors incidents of conflict around the world, found that there had been 21,600 incidents of armed conflict in Africa in 2019 (up to 30 November). For the same period in 2018, that number was just 15,874. That represents a 36% increase.” (reliefweb.int) Climate change Again, Africa will be the main focus. Less rain for the arid areas and growing populations is the recipe for potential disasters. Disasters that may be avoided for a short time by providing the areas with outside help, but feeding people in enormous refugee camps cannot be a lasting solution. The alternative is that we must expect a renewed migration pressure. Not necessarily to Europe at first, because it is hardly the most disadvantaged who can flee or migrate to Europe. It requires resources that the weakest and poorest do not possess. They may be able to flee to areas of the neighboring countries and find accommodation in huge camps, which in turn require supplies from outside. Nevertheless, over time we must assume that climate change will trigger big waves of migration towards Europe. A drastic change of policy is necessary Maintaining an overinterpreted convention not fit for purpose is naïve in a world, where there are millions of displaced refugees and hundreds of millions of potential migrants. Large-scale migration towards Europe from poor, unstable countries in Africa and Asia with rapidly growing populations can be foreseen. As the flow of refugees and migrants is not expected to slow down, something drastic will have to be done. In a very near future Europe and the United States will be forced to make external borders impermeable to irregular migration. Unless this happens, this century will see "The last days of a white world" to use a headline from the Guardian. Do politicians dare to acknowledge this at all, or do they ignore the problem, seeing it as a problem that cannot be discussed at all in the name of political correctness. One quote shows it is an attitude that affects the very attempt to create knowledge about the problem: "One demographer, who didn't want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: 'It's a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Europeans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an Indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland.'" (Guardian) Europe and The U.S. still have a choice. We can choose tacitly and helplessly to accept dramatic, irreversible shifts in the ethnic composition. Or we can choose to actively prevent the white European and U.S. majority from becoming a minority in their own countries within a relatively short period of time. If we choose to act, something must be done very soon to stop immigration from non-Western countries or at least reduce it to a fraction of what it has been. Whether it's refugees or migrants. Otherwise, Europe and the U.S. risk a very uncertain future, marked by growing ethnic conflicts. Conflicts that may result in simmering frictions or open civil war, as in the former Yugoslavia or in Northern Ireland. "History is not sanguine about the capacity of ethnic groups or religions to forget their differences. The ethnic transformation implicit in current trends would be a major, unlooked-for, and irreversible change in British society, unprecedented for at least a millennium. It would, perhaps, be the biggest ever unintended consequence of government activity. In a democracy it would be appropriate, at the very least, for the matter now to enter public debate."(spi.ox.ac.uk). Is this a mark of solidarity with Poland? Not EU Merkel and not recognised president Lukashenko “agreed that the problem will be addressed at the level of Belarus and the EU, and that the two sides will designate officials who will immediately enter into negotiations in order to resolve the existing problems. The desire of refugees to get to Germany will be addressed in the same context.” (belta.by) Poland and the Baltic countries are angered by Merkel’s attempt to bypass them. Marko Mihkelson, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Riigikogu in Estonia asks: “I and many [others] do not know under whose mandate Angela Merkel is holding these talks. She is the outgoing chancellor and, in that sense, there are many questions about the process.” (err.ee). President Duda of Poland has stated that Poland will not accept decisions on the migrant problem without the involvement of Poland: “… we are simply carrying out our European responsibility and I hope that the whole European Union, all member countries, European institutions, will have solidarity with Poland and our actions. Because, I repeat one more time, we are carrying out our responsibilities stemming from our membership in the EU. We take our membership seriously, as we treat seriously all responsibilities that we undertook, and we are counting on the fact that we will be taken seriously.” (tvn24.pl) Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki: “We, Poles, are determined to protect our border, which is also the eastern border of Europe and NATO, by all means.” Referring to Merkel’s refugee policy in 2015 he said that the policy “threatened the sovereignty of many European countries and created artificial multiculturalism. It was dangerous for Europe and the world.” (polishnews.co.uk) According to Reuters Putin has said that “he hoped Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and German Chancellor Angela Merkel would discuss the crisis, saying the migrants mainly wanted to go to Germany and that Moscow had nothing to do with the standoff.” He seems to have got what he wanted, with Merkel obligingly phoning Mr. Lukashenko (“Mr.” as Lukashenko is not recognised as President by the EU). Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is teasing the EU, asking if they cannot do what they did in relation to Turkey (i.e. giving in to blackmail): “Why cannot they help Belarus like this? Belarus also needs money to ensure normal conditions for the refugees Lithuania and Poland are reluctant to let in. These people don’t want to stay in Belarus or Turkey, they want to go to Europe, which has been advertising its lifestyles for years. One should be accountable for one’s actions, … "It is inadmissible to use different standards to Poland and Italy when Brussels considers the issue how Warsaw and Rome are behaving in relation to migrant influxes." (tass.com). See also essay on Merkel’s deal to pay Erdogan to keep the stream of refuges and migrants in Turkey. “Knæfald for Erdogan.” https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/-knaefald-for-erdogan Do you voice support for tolerance, diversity and inclusion? Then you demonstrate the right progressive woke attitude in today’s ideological battle and if you are flying the rainbow flag even more so … although you have to take care to choose the right version of the rainbow. Or do you belong you belong to those who feel that tolerance, diversity and inclusion and rainbow-coloured versions of ideology is being forced down your throat, by the media, by forced participation in diversity and inclusion training at your place of work and by loud demonstrations in the streets. The difference of views leads us to ask if the force-feeding of certain versions of tolerance, diversity and inclusion have gone too far. Perhaps contributing to less intolerance, more division and reciprocal exclusion in society? Let us have a look at tolerance. As some form of tolerance is fundamental for avoiding conflict when practising diversity and inclusion. What is tolerance? The Oxford dictionary tells us that tolerance of or for somebody or something is the “the quality of being willing to accept or tolerate somebody/something, especially opinions or behaviour that you may not agree with, or people who are not like you.” In a stricter sense to tolerate mean to bear or endure people and opinions that one finds objectionable, wrong or bad, not just different. As in bearing with for example strange obnoxious religious practices or people with opinions one finds objectionable, as in case of the two imagined positions in the introduction. Intolerance would then mean not willing to accept ideas or ways of behaving that one considers not only different but wrong or bad. But there is more to tolerance. It may also mean bodily tolerance to something: “the ability to suffer something, especially pain, difficult conditions, etc. without being harmed. Perhaps even tolerance to compulsive training sessions forced upon you. An example of intolerance in this sense might be unpleasant physical reaction to certain foods. Tolerance may also be an engineering concept. Representing “the amount by which the measurement of a value can vary without causing problems.” For instance, when assembling complicated things like a car or a computer. Without regard to precise tolerances the whole would not function. From a German definition “In a narrower sense, tolerance is the deviation of a variable from the standard condition or standard dimension that just does not endanger the function of a system. " These are all general dictionary definitions. What we want to see is the shifting views and concepts of societal tolerance and what that means for its use today in relation to the diversity connected to identity politics. The focus is on tolerance in society not individual person-to-person tolerance or intolerance, although of course there is a connection. Tolerance – from a position of power This is about a dominant and powerful social position allowing deviant beliefs, attitudes and behaviour to exist alongside the dominant position without actually regarding them something one has to respect or recognise – as long as the dominant power is not questioned. Historically this would seem to be the position we find in John Locke’s “Letter concerning Toleration.” Locke’s concern is religious toleration and relation between religion and the magistrate (government.) According to Locke “the magistrate ought not to forbid the preaching or professing of any speculative opinions in any Church because they have no manner of relation to the civil rights of the subjects. If a Roman Catholic believe that to be really the body of Christ which another man calls bread, he does no injury thereby to his neighbour.” …The power of the magistrate and the estates of the people may be equally secure whether any man believe these things or no. I readily grant that these opinions are false and absurd. But the business of laws is not to provide for the truth of opinions, but for the safety and security of the commonwealth and of every particular man's goods and person.” The magistrate or government possesses the power to uphold “safety and security of the commonwealth” or what we may call the social peace. Power may tolerate religious views and practices as long they do not threaten social peace. On the other hand: “no opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society, are to be tolerated by the magistrate.” Neither is the magistrate to tolerate religions “which deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government.” Thus, the magistrate, representing the power should not tolerate religious groups looking to a foreign power for protection and service. Locke also argues that even atheists should not be tolerated by the magistrate as the taking away of God would dissolve the bonds of human society. Sounds strange today, but Locke may regard religion as a necessary condition for a moral foundation of society, part what we shall later see as the necessary social grammar. “As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.” Tolerance as embracing equality in diversity Meaning a view arguing that a society must recognise and accept diversity, not just tolerate it from a position of power, but accepting diverse opinions, behaviours and persons as being equal, i.e. having the same status. The view of tolerance from a position of dominance, bearing with views, behaviours and persons that the dominant views find are wrong, obnoxious or bad, could be seen as insulting to those who are just tolerated. Goethe: “Tolerance should really only be a temporary attitude; it must lead to recognition. To tolerate means to insult.” Instead, he argues “Die wahre Liberalität ist Anerkennung.” John Stuart Mill provides better arguments for recognising and accepting diversity. He argues “that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Toleration of different opinions and of free speech is important to Mill for these reasons: “Toleration towards opinions is justified by the utilitarian consideration that not just true, but also false opinions lead to productive social learning. In arguments for "free speech" i "On Liberty of Thought and Discussion": "First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. Fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience." (“On Liberty of Thought and Discussion”) Mill’s understanding of toleration marks a view of toleration fitting liberalism, but he still talks of different views having to be tolerated in an almost Lockean sense. This does not seem to be enough for some of the modern views on toleration. UNESCO on meaning of toleration The Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (UNESCO 1995) declare the meaning of tolerance to be “respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. [Emphasis added]. It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.” Tolerance is here no longer seen from the viewpoint of a dominant power bearing with the limited amount of diversity in a society. It no longer represents concession, condescension or indulgence. It is active attitude appreciating “the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human.” Toleration no longer means to bear or endure people and opinions that one finds objectionable, wrong or bad. Now, one actively has to see and embrace different people and views as equal to oneself and to one’s views. There something strange about this all-encompassing tolerance. Does it really represent tolerance, when instead of enduring something different one actively embraces the difference? Surely this no longer represents tolerance. It is no longer the idea of bearing with something you may not like. Now one has to disregard own’s existing community, ignore one’s own invisible social, ethical and cultural foundations in order to actively embrace “the rich diversity of our worlds cultures”? How would one make judgements of good or bad, right or wrong, when embracing the rich diversity in which “'all individuals and groups have the right to be different.”? Or is there after all a limit to this view of tolerance as mutual acceptance of diversity. A similar critique is found in Frank Furedi. He argues: “The reinterpretation of tolerance as non-judgmentalism is often seen as a positive thing. In truth, the gesture of affirmation and acceptance can be seen as a way of avoiding making difficult moral choices, and a way of disengaging from the challenge of explaining which values are worth upholding. That is probably why the indulgent indifference of multiculturalism has gained so much traction in recent decades: in Britain and many other European societies, multiculturalism has spared governments the hassle of having to spell out the principles underpinning their way of life.” (Frank Furedi). Well, perhaps the UNESCO declaration after all also realises that there is problem, when it states that tolerance is a responsibility. “The responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.” Two problems here. Tolerance as a responsibility, how can one define tolerance as responsibility? Responsibility represents a duty “to deal with something or of having control over someone.” This, surely is not toleration. And what about upholding say cultural pluralism, insisting upon what is after all a Western conception of democracy and human rights. Could it be that an unspoken Western view of tolerance as a dominant view bearing with diversity within certain limits imperceptibly sneaks in through the back door? The rise of intolerant diversity With rise of identity politics, Locke’s idea of toleration as representing dominant power enduring minority views that it may find objectionable, wrong or bad, is increasingly being turned its head by identity politics. Identity politics representing “Political positions and activism based on an aspect of identity (e.g. ethnicity, religion, sex, or sexual orientation) shared by a group which feels that its concerns are not adequately represented.” (oxfordreference.com). Very diverse minorities or identities intolerant of majority views are demanding or forcing the majority to tolerate, or at least show a kind of fake tolerance or indifference, towards the views, behaviours, demands, activities and people belonging to these minorities. BLM crusade against “white supremacy” Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Critical Race Theory (CRT) seem to be engaged in a crusade against what they see as systemic racism perpetuated by a white supremacist majority. There have been protests over much of the Western World under banners like “Black lives matter” with cardboard signs saying “I can’t breathe”, “No justice, No peace”, “Silence is violence,” “Don’t shoot,” “Stop killing us,” “Defund police” etc. While some protests were peaceful, others were marked by violence, vandalism, looting and even death and injury, and the violence of course made it to breaking news media, taking up much of the news and becoming an inspiration for even more violence and general mayhem. BLM protests spread all over the Western World and led to maniacal attempts, not the least among enthusiastic young white people, to find and fight against what they saw as evidence of racism and white supremacy everywhere in society. The fight against racism taking many often rather bizarre forms. Not just in the shape ever so popular, but rather meaningless and inconsequential actions of “taking a knee,” but in the tumultuous tumbling of historical symbols seen as connected to racism. Certainly, disturbing the social peace in society, but how does majority and the power representing the majority react to the disturbance. In general, intolerant reactions have been rather timid and limited except in instances like the serious clashes in Charlottesville in the US. Instead, we are generally seeing a White majority acting overly tolerant and understanding. As if acknowledging the existence of hitherto hidden systemic and intolerant racism and a shameful White supremacy. Recognising that White Western societies harbour an inherent intolerant systemic racism and a sense of White supremacy. Promoting symbols and actions to demonstrate tolerance, diversity and equality. From the ridiculous attempt to fight racism with coloured stamps, Coca Cola’s “try to be less white” hints, to an expanding stream of diversity, inclusiveness and equality programs in businesses and organisations, like the UK Parliament’s “Value everyone” training of its members, to CRT curriculums making children feeling bad about being White, to critical university studies in “whiteness,” to the demands for preferential treatment, read less stringent demand on Blacks, not the least in university programs, and all the way to some cases of giving in “Defund police!” demands. An example. A townhall at Harvard University’s Department of Mathematics brought up this demand for non-racist mathematics: “Identify and push back against ways in which a discriminatory evaluation of mathematical ability is created and reinforced. Work toward building a community predicated on the recognition that mathematics harbors a diverse ecosystem of experiences and interests, all of which ae valuable.” One wonders if this actually means that students from certain minorities should be assessed and graded according different standards than the rest. A demand already found at Georgetown University’s Law School. See “Forced to resign for voicing an inconvenient truth” In a sense we see that a forceful and intolerant ethnic minority supported by White followers are persuading and forcing a White majority to become more tolerant towards a Black ethnic minority and at the same time overly intolerant towards their own history. What does all this mean for society? Will it promote a sense of community or led to separatism, promote equal opportunity for all, force a kind a kind of equity, result in less racism or lead to reverse racism and animosity among people? Seeing racism everywhere may be counterproductive The old, rather peripheral legal movement around Critical Race Theory (CRT) has suddenly gained interest in the fight against racism. Being used to support ever more bizarre ideas of a harmful inherent systemic racism and of white supremacy. CRT sees racism as ‘embedded in the structure of society’ and having a material foundation. It purports to build a scientific foundation for understanding and combatting racism. White supremacy being understood as “a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily re-enacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.” Such postulatory, but forcefully propagated ideas are beginning to affect the whole of society as the above examples indicate, but one wonders about consequences for the minorities seen as subject to racism, for so-called white supremacy and for society as a whole. The ideas have resulted in a bizarre outgrowth of demands to teach CRT in schools, not the least in the U.S. and to plethora of whiteness- and white supremacist studies. To attempts by organizations and businesses to conform in strange ways to such ideas, enlisting the help of an anti-racism consulting industry. The 2SLGBTQQIA+ crusade for gender diversity “Human Rights Watch works for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender peoples' rights, and with activists representing a multiplicity of identities and issues. We document and expose abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity worldwide, including torture, killing and executions, arrests under unjust laws, unequal treatment, censorship, medical abuses, discrimination in health and jobs and housing, domestic violence, abuses against children, and denial of family rights and recognition. We advocate for laws and policies that will protect everyone’s dignity. We work for a world where all people can enjoy their rights fully.” At first the fight was against intolerance and suppression of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender or so-called LGBT rights, but this is now too limited. Now, more letters have to added to the fight. Today it is a fight for LGBTQIA+ (Q for queer, I for intersex, A for Asexual, and the + for further diversity like gender nonconforming, nonbinary genderfluid etc). Not enough for Prime Minister Trudeau. When posting he talked about “Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.” Adding 2S for two spirited indigenous people and an extra Q for questioning people. Thus, adding more diversity. Paraphrasing the UNESCO definition of tolerance, the fight for 2SLGBTQQIA+ people may be seen as a fight for respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's genders, their forms of expression and ways of being human against the historical intolerance and suppression shown by the majority. A progressive fight for more tolerance of human diversity according to the UNESCO definition. The fight has led to growing tolerance towards the “rich diversity of our world's genders” in many Western countries, but met with intolerance and opposition elsewhere. In the US “The House” passed the Equality Act in February 2021, but it has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. “This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system.” Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation. “The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services. The bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.” A rainbow regime going too far? Has the success of the fight for the rich diversity of the world's genders under the colours of rainbow flag gone too far? Persuading or forcing society to embrace the idea that gender self-identification trumps biological sex identity may endanger the rights of women and the well-being of children. Women have argued that new proposals to allow "self-identification" of one's gender "threatens the legal status of the category "sex, which provides the legal basis for the exclusion of males from female-only spaces for the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls. Sex, which refers to the category each person belongs to on the basis of their reproductive organs, is a protected characteristic because sexism is directed at women because of their reproductive sex, not because of their "gender identity." The protesting women therefore argue that watering down the definition of a woman in the sense of "the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes " will in practice mean that women are exposed to new risks from men who self-identify as women, thereby gaining access to places that have been reserved for women. Not without reason. Evidently in both the UK and Canada there are examples of rapists self-identifying as women being incarcerated in women's prisons where they have continued the assaults. ""A rapist and pedophile who was transferred to a women's prison after claiming to be female and assaulted four inmates there made no more effort to be a woman than wearing wigs and dresses." (The Times). Allowing self-declared gender identification to trump biological sex identity is also seen to endanger women’s sports. The International Olympic Committee transgender guidelines state: “Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under a set of conditions, among which is found the following: The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female.” These guidelines allowed the transgender weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard, to compete in the women’s weightlifting contest at the Tokyo Olympics. LGBTQIA+ supported by self-proclaimed progressives see these rules as proving the power of inclusion. Some biological women and men argue that this may at the very least confer a very unfair advantage on transwomen, thus being unfair towards biological women in women’s sports. A view supported by science “The British Journal of Sports Medicine found that even after a year of hormone therapy, transwomen on average had an advantage over cisgender, or non-transgender, women.” The movement to accept transgender girls in sports, has led to conflicts in the US. When President Biden came into office, he wasted no time in catering to the progressives. Rescinding Trump’s efforts to the contrary. In an executive order to combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity he states: “Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. “ An order giving rise to protests, with states hurrying to forbid transwomen and girls to participate in girl’s and women’s sports. Idaho was first to ban transwomen and girls from women’s sports leagues in schools and colleges, although the law is now suspended as a result of a court challenge the trend continues. At least 30 other state legislatures have proposed similar bans. Indicating an ongoing conflict between LGBTQIA+ activist groups and their supporters and Women’s organisations, who are supported by conservative parties and religious groups. Conflict is also found in relation to “Bathroom” bills, which allow transgender people to use bathrooms according to their self-identified gender. Another conflict may be brewing. Recently there has been a wave of proposals and rules to allow children to self-define their gender. Radical gender views may endanger children. In Norway it has for instance since 2016 been possible for the 16-year-olds to self-define their gender and apply for legal recognition, while children between the age of 6 and 16 can do so with parental consent. In Denmark the organisation “Sex og Samfund” has argued “that children quite early in life - and here we are also talking all the way down to the age of 4-6 - can express a desire that they are transgender or do not want to live as the gender they have had assigned at birth.” A consultant clinical psychologist at the GIDS clinic in London warns ““If a school just gets a whisper of a child who may be querying their gender and within minutes they are doing everything to make sure that child is regarded as a member of the opposite sex right from the word go — that may not be the best for that child.” In Germany “Doctors and psychologists are registering more cases of children and adolescents who feel strange in their bodies and want to change the gender of their birth. The number of treatments in the Munich University Clinic for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry alone has quintupled since 2013; The special outpatient clinics in Hamburg, Berlin and Frankfurt recorded similar rates of increase.” (Die Zeit). Apparently the current Hungarian government thinks promoting gender self-identification has gone too far. The Fidesz party this summer submitted a additions to an Anti-Pedophilia bill. Among these were: “No content featuring portrayals of homosexuality or sex reassignment can be made available to minors” and “School sex educators can no longer “promote” homosexuality or sex reassignment.” Cries of homophobia protest greeted the proposals. Perhaps society has become too tolerant in its respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's genders or maybe and the majority has become too indifferent, while the diverse LGBTQIA+ genders united under some version of the rainbow flag and goaded on by supporters on the left of the political spectrum are becoming more and more intolerant of other opinions, intimidating opposing opinions with accusations of transphobism. While rules against hate speech threaten vocal opponents of accepting the more bizarre consequences of accepting “the rich diversity …” Small minorities, allied with self-proclaimed progressives, are forcing their views upon society, and woe betide those who dare to question their views. The identity movement act with the religious zealousness of a new religion. “A religion is first preached by a single person or a small body of persons. A certain number of disciples adopt it enthusiastically, and proceed to force their views upon the world by preaching, by persuasion, by the force of sympathy, until the new creed has become sufficiently influential and sufficiently well organised to exercise power both over its own members and beyond its own sphere. This power, in the case of a vigorous creed, assumes many forms” (James Fitzjames Stephen, 1873). In the present case we just have to refer back to our illustrations and discussions to see how minorities seeing themselves as the progressive elite force their ideology upon what they see as a boorish backward looking, lukewarm and disorganised majority. Shining example of democracy in action or a sign that existing societies are disintegrating? Split in all sorts of special interests and identity groups in a hastily expanding periphery, with a clueless and powerless middle left behind? Radical Islamism challenging Western tolerance “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” declares: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” The European Declaration of Human Rights on the freedom thought, conscience, and religion also adds: “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Sounds a lot like a modern version of Lockean toleration. “The magistrate ought not to forbid the preaching or professing of any speculative opinions in any Church because they have no manner of relation to the civil rights of the subjects.” Unless it threatens “safety and security of the commonwealth” or what we may the call social peace. The problem with a radical Islam is that it encroaches upon the “civil rights” and it certainly threatens “the safety and security of the commonwealth.” Thus, the question is: Is it possible for devout Muslims to wholeheartedly support the political and ideals and values of a Western society, when these ideals and values are in stark contradiction to their faith? The answer seems to be that there is no wholehearted support. On the contrary, there seems to be a reinforced tendency to assert one's own religiously based values, ideologies and its outward manifestations. "For many of them [Muslim] the confrontation with Western norms and life styles and the ensuing experience of the contingency of one’s own beliefs and ways of life is deeply disturbing. In addition, many Islamic societies not only remain unaffected by Western modernization, but rather reject it explicitly, and draw the justification for this attitude from their religious beliefs." (Grimm) Even the liberal type of Western toleration will not be able to accommodate a radical Islamism without either up giving up substantial and perhaps fundamental parts of the existing social and cultural baggage – or accepting the possibility of more or less violent clashes disturbing the social peace. Toleration in this sense cannot preserve the peace, without destroying its own foundation, as we shall see. Mocking Islam on pain of death On Friday 16 October, 2020 the French teacher, Samuel Paty, was attacked and beheaded by a knife wielding 18-yearold Chechen, Abdullakh Anzorov, who apparently posted a photo of the severed head on Twitter with message saying that the execution was the punishment for belittling the Prophet, before being shot and killed by police. Samuel Paty had been receiving complaints and threats since he had showed some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in a class about the freedom of speech. According to some sources, Paty had showed two cartoons to his students, one of which purporting to portray Muhammad naked with genitals exposed, although accounts differ on precisely what was presented. The attacker did not know Samuel Paty, but was apparently goaded into doing something to avenge the Prophet by a Muslim parent of one of Paty’s students and by a video published by a local mosque complaining loudly about the teacher. After Macron later had paid tribute to Samuel Paty, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan took to Twitter accusing Macron of encouraging blasphemous cartoons. “Sadly, President Macron has chosen to deliberately provoke Muslims, including his own citizens, through encouraging the display of blasphemous cartoons targeting Islam & our Prophet PBUH,” (reuters.com). Muslim voices: Western secularism is the problem Macron’s attempt in the to strengthen secularism and consolidate republican principle, has been criticised by Muslim as stigmatizing French Muslims. A very strict concept of laïcité will drive a wedge between France and its large Muslim population and lead to an Us against Them view of Muslims in France. One hundred prominent Muslims also published a letter criticising Macron:” “Stop stigmatising Muslim women, whether they wear a headscarf or not, whose clothing choices have become a subject of national debate,” they said. “Stop the escalation of empty political and media debates. Stop the indictment of any speaker, Muslim or not, who does not subscribe to the racist speeches that have become omnipresent on our screens.” (Al Jazeera). Even Western media have published similar views. An article in the New Times argues after the terror attacks that Muslims wonder about their place in France: “Central to France’s convoluted relationship with its Muslim citizens is the authorities’ vow to defend those who publish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, as part of its strict laws on secularism that allow blasphemy. But many Muslims, from shoppers at the open-air market of Ivry-sur-Seine to the president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, have stated their unease with the cartoons, arguing that there should be limits to offense when it comes to religious beliefs.” No, a complacent and indifferent tolerance is at fault To Macron France has created its own breeding ground for radicalization by the allowing people to concentrate according to their origins and social background. France’s retreat from these neighbourhoods and the inadequacies of the integration policy, has allowed bearers of radical Islam to gain influence in the ghettos. “Let us approach it and name it, this radical Islamism, since it is the heart of the subject, … a methodical organization to contravene the laws of the Republic and create a parallel order, to erect other values, develop another organization of society, separatist at first, but whose final goal is to take control, complete it. And this is what makes us gradually come to reject freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, the right to blasphemy.” Macron insists “What we need to tackle is Islamist separatism. It is a conscious, theorized, politico-religious project, which materializes through repeated deviations from the values of the Republic, which often results in the constitution of a counter-society.” There is certainly evidence of self-segregation of Muslims. A survey by Institut Montaigne indicates that the French Muslim population can divided into three groups according to their views: The silent majority of Muslims is making up 46% of respondents. “Their belief system allow them to adapt to French society. The conservatives. They make up 25% of the sample and are at the heart of the political and ideological struggle. The authoritarians make up the last group, 28% of the total sample. They are mostly young, low-skilled and facing high unemployment. They live in the working-class suburbs of large cities. This group is no longer defined by conservatism, but by its appropriation of Islam as a mode of rebellion against the rest of French society. Social disintegration can also be observed in the UK: "British society is increasingly dividing along ethnic lines – with segregation in schools, neighbourhoods and workplaces – that risks fuelling prejudice." There is segregation in residential areas, segregation in the workplace, and there is segregation in schools. It promotes "prejudice, intolerance, mistrust in communities." Although these are ethnic divides, it must be assumed that the dividing line is very much a dividing line between Muslims and non-Muslims. What we see is Muslim self-segregation, with Muslim communities turning away from the society in which they live, referring to their religion’s " comprehensive doctrines " which, of course, are often contrary to Western values. According to a 2015 poll by Survation for the BBC, they hold what one respected Muslim commentator called 'disconcerting' attitudes. A third of UK Muslims would like their children educated separately from non-Muslims. A quarter disagreed with the statement that 'acts of violence against anyone publishing images of the Prophet could never be justified'; and a quarter were sympathetic to the 'motives' of the Charlie Hebdo killers." A report titled "Social inclusion: A wake up call" from "The Integration Commission" in the UK warns against the consequences of segregation or "a fractured society." But the seeds of such a development have already been laid. When tolerance endangers itself Have tolerance in the majority of Western societies gone too far? Contributing instead to the opposite: Intolerance, division and exclusion? In his “The Open Society and Its Enemies” Karl Popper warns that “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right even to suppress them, for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to anything as deceptive as rational argument, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists. (K.R. Popper). In three cases discussed in this essay it necessary to ask: Where is the limit to tolerance in Western society in relation to the BLM crusade against White supremacy, the 2SLGBTQQIA+ crusade for gender diversity and a Radical Islamism challenging Western tolerance? Do these groups meet the rest of society on the level of rational argument or do they denounce rational argument? Adhering instead to un-substantiated claims, pure expressions of ideology or appeals to the radical commands of religion? From our discussion we see a whole array of challenges to Western societies. Rational arguments are missing The crusade against White supremacy may have roots in historical racism, but where are the rational arguments in the claims of CRT seeing Western society as “a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily re-enacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.” We even find plain silliness as in the demands to defund the police. The 2SLGBTQQIA+ crusade claims that feelings trump biology, that sexual identity of human beings is not determined by nature and biological fact, that gender can be chosen and changed freely according instincts and feelings. Rational arguments? Hardly. In the view of Radical Islam, religious commands must also dominate the political sphere of Locke’s magistrate. As the commands are God given, there is absolutely no basis for rational deliberation. Violent protest and intimidation The BLM movement has been accompanied by violent protest, especially of course in the US. The Rainbow movement has also been accompanied by protests, albeit less violent often taking the form of colourful in your face provocations. While the Islamists to large degree would seem to get implicit support for their claims from singular instances of terrorism in the name of Islamism Forcing their views upon rest of society All three identity groupings show a glowing intolerance to any other views found in the rest of society, instead they demand almost unlimited tolerance for their demands from the rest of society. Neither of the identity groupings seems to want to integrate into society. Instead, they want the rest of society to accommodate to their demands. For instance, by cancelling existing versions of history. Insisting as a Black university professor recently did: “… critical race theory is just the proper teaching of American history.” Black movements also demand to be judged according to other criteria than the rest. For instance, with demands for different grading criteria and for non-racial science (like non-racist mathematics. Whatever that is? The LGBT+++ demands include as we have seen that even very young children should be able to choose their gender freely based upon personal whims, and transwomen be seen and treated as if they were real women. The rainbow flag in its various designs is supposed to signify tolerance: “It symbolises tolerance, respect and acceptance in many cultures and is an expression of hope everywhere.” (FC Bayern). But certainly not for those who express a different opinion. While radical Islam is seeking to force society to adapt to their religious whims and religious traditions, like Sharia law, or recent demands for acceptance of muezzin calls to prayer in Western cities. Probably from the best of intentions we have been complacent and tacitly accepted that basic Western notions and values, large and small have been worn down and become frayed and fuzzy at the edges Toleration as submission tolerance as suffering or indifference What we are seeing is the diffuse and un-organised majority of people in Western societies no longer seem to show toleration from a position of power, but either submit to the intolerant claims of identity politics, meaning that tolerance become the “ability to suffer.” Or react with indifference to the views and demands of forceful minorities like BLM, CRT, 2SLGBTQQIA+ and radical versions of Islam. Helped by left leaning main media castigating those won’t submit to the demands of identity politics. If you feel that your opinion does not count or people don’t like you no longer count, powerless indifference instead of tolerance certainly may be a possibility. Separation and division Identity politics see a value in in multicultural diversity, but the multicultural diversity results self-segregation that threatens social coherence. From what we have seen the fight against racism may lead a heightened intolerance between ethnic minorities and the rest of society. Increasingly it looks as if the Blacks are demanding a position aside from the rest of society. The demand for equality for Blacks in majority White society no longer seems enough. Now, the demand is for a Black culture separate from a White culture, as indicated perhaps by the criticism of Whites appropriating symbols of Black culture. Not exactly something that would preserve the social peace. In fact, it might lead to more divisiveness and conflict in society. The LBGT+++ gender movement may have begun as a movement to give voice and rights to a minority forced to live in the shadows, is now succeeding in impressing theirs views on the whole of society. The success of garish rainbow warriors and self-proclaimed progressives supported by left leaning media may be threatening the lives of youngsters, erasing the category of biological women, making mockery of women’s sports, and change language into a kind of Newspeak, ignoring the legitimate concerns of a majority. A large section of Muslims seems to strive to create self-segregating “nations within nations” in the West with their demands for: Anti-blasphemy laws. maintenance of a patriarchal order, acceptance of Sharia, ritual slaughter and circumcision, maintenance of gender inequality, right to discriminate, for example by not shaking hands with women, and for religious dress codes to be accepted. Diversity threatening social coherence Tolerance as an engineering concept represent “the deviation of a variable from the standard condition or standard dimension that just does not endanger the function of a system.” This may not only be true for engineering, it may also true for the society. Perhaps we may state it like this: Tolerance represents the amount of diversity that may exist without causing the destruction of coherence in a society. What does this mean for our understanding of tolerance? It means that tolerance in reality must be limited to views, behaviours and actions that are not incompatible with this tacit social and cultural grammar as it exists at a given time in a given society. In our view it also means that tolerance can only be tolerance showed by the power of a majority resting upon and limited by this grammar. This would mean that tolerance as defined by the UNESCO Declaration as “respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human” and as “harmony in difference,” would be nonsense. The UNESCO declaration also speak of “Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.” No, it does not. Tolerance is not harmony in difference, and tolerance it not about replacement of culture. Tolerance as seeing diverse views and behaviours, “the rich diversity” as being equal and able to be housed in the same society, will prove to impossible. Resulting in submission of an existing social grammar or outright conflict, which certainly does not represent tolerance. A British report on citizenship has argued that efforts must be made to find or restore "a sense of common citizenship, including a national identity that is secure enough to find a place for the plurality of nations, cultures, ethnicities and religions long found in the United Kingdom.” (Crick Report). Today an attempt to create to coherence through acceptance of diversity might be seen as an attempt to square the circle. It may prove impossible to squeeze the diversity we have seen into a shared coherent social form. But what is this form be and how malleable is it? Locke talked of “those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society” but what are they and how do they come about? Our answer is that it must represent a kind social and cultural grammar necessary for the preservation of civil society. We call it a grammar, arguing that it has meaning to talk about an analogy between a linguistic and a social grammar. “We learn and teach words in certain contexts, and then we are expected, and expect others, to be able to project them into further contexts” and in an extended sense this would also be what we are doing using a social and cultural grammar. The origin of the social and cultural grammar? Is to be found in the evolution of man and community. Large parts of our grammar may consist of remnants of values that has evolved during the evolution of communities that we have either no evidence of or only very circumstantial evidence of. The deepest and most durable elements of our grammar may very well be a result of this evolution, all of it. Some of our fundamental notions and feelings about morality and culture will have origins hidden so deep in our evolution that we can only transmit them from generation to generation as habits and inclinations we are not even aware of, and if we are, then we cannot give any explanation for them. We may of course guess as to their possible purpose and function, but in fact it is difficult to explain why we should have certain moral and cultural dispositions. Might we not be fairly confident in assuming that, although many other configurations might have been possible, the configuration found in a given community is consistent and important for upholding this community to a degree that we may only begin to comprehend. It is not arbitrary, there is a “reason” but we may never be able to comprehend it wholly. The “reason” has been produced and reproduced during man’s evolution, transmitted from generation to generation, leaving an echo in somatic markers, deeply held convictions and in cultural habits. Maybe this was the role Locke found in religion But this reason is not transcendental, is not given a priori, it does not represent a decree from God. It is located on the Earth, in man. Like God and the transcendental this reason has been produced by man, but we can have no recollection of the process, we may only carry the faint imprint in our feelings and reactions. This does mean that this reason is innate, it may be imprinted in other ways, and if it is hardwired in any sense, it might be in the neural network of our brain. This reason acts as like the field of an invisible magnet orientating us into patterns or grooves that we cannot comprehend, but have to follow. These patterns, grooves or imprints are ineffable and tacit, in same way that a part of our knowledge is. We only experience the feelings, not the reasons, not the explanations. These imprints may be so much part of what it means to belong to a community or Gesellschaft, that we cannot really think about them or question them, they make themselves felt in the way they influence our thoughts. The elements of the grammar we become aware of may likewise be regarded as almost “natural” intuitions. Natural in the sense that we expect them to be shared by other human beings in a community. We assume that we may be able to learn an infinite number of social and cultural grammars, but the one we learn is the one characterising our community. In this way the grammar come to be shared among the members of a community. Like the linguistic grammar it is neither freely chosen nor arbitrary, but the result is that “human thoughts … running along pre-ordained grooves.” It is in these “natural” imprints we locate the roots of those intuitions when attempting to anchor “those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society.” The “natural imprints are not absolutely rigid. They evolve and change over time imperceptibly or manifestly as a result of conflicts. “Coronavirus: lessons learned to date” The new report “Coronavirus: lessons learned to date” from the House of Commons takes a critical look at the handling of the pandemic in the UK. A pandemic which according to the latest figures has resulted in 137,944 deaths. Especially interesting is the report’s attempt to explain the reasons for the delayed full lockdown in the UK, compared to other countries. A lockdown was not ordered until 23 March 2020. The report argues that especially in the beginning scientific advice based upon past experience led to faulty advice and misguided trust in this advice by politicians having to make the decisions. The Government relied on scientific advice from SAGE (The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) and subgroups. With representatives from the Government participating in SAGE meetings (not the least Dominic Cummings, the former assistant to the Prime Minister). Expert advice based on the past experience and faulty assumptions Reliance on existing flu models The Report finds: “The UK’s pandemic planning was too narrowly and inflexibly based on a flu model which failed to learn the lessons from SARS, MERS and Ebola. The result was that whilst our pandemic planning had been globally acclaimed, it performed less well than other countries when it was needed most … much of our preparation was for an influenza-like pandemic—notably one that was not characterised by asymptomatic transmission (and for which testing was therefore not so important).” In the report the former cabinet secretary, Lord Sedwill is quoted as saying: ”Essentially, we took the pandemic flu plan and tried to adapt it for Covid-19. Obviously, the adaptation of that plan continued as we learnt more about the disease. [...] for several months the scientists did not know about asymptomatic transmission, and therefore the focus in the early stages was on measures—social controls, social interventions—to try to impede transmission between people who were symptomatic and to identify early those who were symptomatic.” What was happening in Northern Italy at the time doesn’t seem to have made scientific advisors and politicians realise that they were dealing with something far worse than a flu. Unavoidable herd immunity The views of SAGE may be represented by the advice of Sir Patrick Vallance, The Government Chief Scientific Adviser. As late as the 12 March he argued that it was not possible to stop everyone being infected, and nor was that a desirable objective. The aim of the policy was: “To try and reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not to suppress it completely. Also, because most people, the vast majority of people, get a mild illness, to build up some degree of herd immunity as well so that more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable from it. Those are the key things we need to do.” To some outside observers this policy was regarded as madness, in light what was happening day by day. Groupthink In the report the former Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Dame Sally Davies is quoted saying: “Quite simply, we were in groupthink. Our infectious disease experts really did not believe that SARS, or another SARS, would get from Asia to us. It is a form of British exceptionalism.” Lack of data for modelling In the report Professor Neil Ferguson states: “Models can only be as reliable as the data that is feeding into them. However, we know that—especially in the early stages of the pandemic—there was an acute shortage of good data. There was also a limited understanding of the virus early in the pandemic. Key questions, such as the length of immunity conferred by infection, were unknown and hampered accurate modelling. Lockdown seen as ineffective SAGE did not believe that people would be able to follow strict lockdown rules for any length of time. People would get fatigued, protest, and not follow the rules. ”One of the critical things that was completely wrong in the whole official thinking of SAGE and the Department of Health in February/March was, first of all, the British public would not accept a lockdown and, secondly, the British public would not accept what was thought of as an east Asian-style track and trace-type system and the infringements of liberty around that.” On 9 March one of the government’s chief advisors Professor Chris Whitty argued: “It is not just a matter of what you do but when you do it. Anything we do, we have got to be able to sustain. Once we have started these things we have to continue them through the peak and that is for a period of time, and there is a risk that, if we go too early, people will understandably get fatigued and it will be difficult to sustain this over time.” Listen to the science is not be enough in a novel crisis During the many early Covid-19 live briefings on TV Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock, Secretary for Health and Social Care, often claimed that their decisions were based upon the latest scientific evidence, and they certainly met no opposition from the advisors flanking them during the briefings. Matt Hancock later defended this dependence on SAGE’s scientific advice in spite of external criticism, by arguing "Critically, the clear advice at the time was that there's only a limited period that people would put up with it, would put up with lockdown. Now that proved actually to be wrong," …."These are huge decisions; to take those decisions against the scientific advice is an even bigger decision to take." The House of Commons report accepts that it may be difficult to go against scientific consensus among members of SAGE, who was set up precisely to provide scientific advice during a national emergency. “But the early weeks of the pandemic expose deficiencies in both scientific advice and government action. In the early days of an emergency, formulating the best scientific advice is challenging: there are, for example, inevitable lags in acquiring and analysing data. Other countries took early decisions that were more seen as those of Government leaders rather than from established scientific evidence and it is possible that this provided a greater licence to take decisions more quickly, and on a more precautionary basis than happened in the UK—contributing to better overall outcomes” Self-confirming group think The report concludes: “The fact that the UK approach reflected a consensus between official scientific advisers and the Government indicates a degree of groupthink that was present at the time which meant we were not as open to approaches being taken elsewhere—such as earlier lockdowns, border controls and effective test and trace—as we should have been.” (Emphasis added). Scientific advice must be challenged “Accountability in a democracy depends on elected decision-makers taking advice, but examining, questioning and challenging it before making their own decisions. We find it surprising that the fatalistic assumptions behind the initial scientific advice were not challenged until it became clear the NHS [National Health Service] could be overwhelmed, particularly given alternative strategies were being pursued visibly and successfully in East Asian countries. By the way, on 12 March the Danish Prime Minister declared a full lockdown in Denmark, marking a political decision that went directly against local scientific advice. Instead looking to the alarming situation in Italy and the quick rise in infections in Denmark. In a war against a novel but deadly virus it perhaps worth remembering that decisions cannot be based on clear scientific insight, when future facts are shrouded in a fog of uncertainties. Almost as in war itself, as realised by the famous military thinker Carl von Clausewitz in his “Vom Kriege”: Der Krieg ist das Gebiet der Ungewißheit; drei Vierteile derjenigen Dinge, worauf das Handeln im Kriege gebaut wird, liegen im Nebel einer mehr oder weniger großen Ungewißheit. Her ist es also zuerst, wo ein feiner, durchdringender Verstand in Anspruch genommen wird, um mit dem Takte seines Urteils die Wahrheit herauszufühlen. Vom Kriege, Carl von Clausewitz Perhaps we may conclude that when faced with a novel crisis decisionmakers should never fully rely on scientific advice — or a Swedish schoolchild? NB: Criticisms of the UK approach similar to the those raised in the House of Commons’ report can be found in the essay “Corona scenarios – East versus West” published on this blog as early as 21 March, 2020. Showing that the failings of the scientific advice and UK government’s decisions were evident even to someone far removed from SAGE. |
Author
Verner C. Petersen Archives
May 2024
|