I have been very hesitant to express the following view; I did not want to risk alienating conservatives, with whom I gladly agree on almost all issues. I'm not a doctrinaire conservative; I usually don't embrace a view on any specific subject simply because I see it as conservative consensus. With the Trump-Putin summit approaching I think its a good time to express this now in all frankness:
A very recent column by Martin Schram expressed the opinion that President Trump is being bested by Vladimir Putin in the conduct of the American relationship with Russia. In reaction, my main premise is this: let's ever keep in mind Putin's prime concern always, a conviction which, I think, guides Russia's conduct toward us; he does not want war with the U.S. (why would anyone want war with us?) and he will be forced into it if we rashly push Russia too far on Ukraine. If we do, we could present him with a casus belli directly analogous to that with which Khrushchev unwisely presented President Kennedy in 1962 when he put nuclear tipped missiles within 5 minutes of the U.S. mainland in a country tyrannized by a man who eventually urged the Russian Premier to launch them. Kennedy obviously didn't want to risk incineration of major American cities but he had no choice but go to war had not Khrushchev backed down.
A lecturer on U.S. policy in Europe, who I viewed last night, recalled how George F. Kennan, the immensely influential author of the containment policy toward Soviet aggression in 1947, urged President (sic) Clinton in the '90's to be careful, oh so very careful, about incorporating the newly delivered former Soviet satellite states into NATO, lest still terribly powerful Russia feel unendurably threatened. This from the father of the containment doctrine. That matters and though Kennan is gone, assuredly still does! Stalin was a Marxist believer but he successfully harnessed the intense pride and love Russians have for their country in defeating the Nazi monster. They affirmed this by winning the hardest existential fight any nation ever faced. Putin is, essentially, a Russian nationalist . In his KGB days was he a convinced Marxist?Probably not , he may well have been an opportunistic 33 year old factotum.
Mr. Schram maintains that a remarkable incident in Putin's life , his being trapped by a mob in the KGB office in Dresden after the Berlin Wall came down, symbolizing the Soviet Union's downfall for him, is his motivation for taking action against Ukraine for "spurning Mother Russia". I doubt that. 1300 years of history, including Kievan Rus, the historically seminal Russian entity, and the gargantuan WWII battles fought in the Ukraine, link Russia and Ukraine in historical, military , geographical and economic bonds which we slight at our peril. Vladimir Putin's ostensible personal resentments pale before these considerations. What Russian leader could ignore historical verities like those? We cannot wish Great Russian dominance on any country but this goes beyond wishes and hopes; it has to do with essentials of the shared history of Russia and Ukraine and the necessity of our full attention to them.
Mr.Schram portrays a President Trump flim flammed by President Putin and offers as proof Trump's "strange attraction to Russia." I think our President is being pragmatic. Here are some verities which the President must consider: 1. Since the end of WWII we have dealt with the Soviets and Russia, against the background of a wide range of events, from Stalin's attempt to strangle West Berlin in 1948, to a very near miss in 1962 which nonetheless brought sound thinking on both sides to the fore eventually, to President Nixon's heightened alert of our nuclear forces during the Yom Kippur War. War was avoided.2 Russia has never attacked a NATO country; it doesn't want the maelstrom which would certainly follow. Say what you will about them, the Russians know war in all its incalculable horror. 3. They have tolerated an approach to their borders by NATO in Poland and the Baltic Republics which they could never have been expected to countenance; but surely they have limits, to which we MUST not drive them.
Plausible argument may be advanced that Putin wishes to reestablish Russia's sway over Eastern Europe. We may help resist that in many ways short of backing the rugged Russian nation into a corner. The lecturer on Kennan displayed a map he said shows the Russian view of nearby Europe. In it, North was at the bottom and the Russian view South was of a vast, readily driven plain, extending from Eastern Germany through Poland and Ukraine; its great tank country and an invasion route used repeatedly in the 19th and 20th centuries. A united Germany, the country which did Russia wrongs exceeding those ever done one country by another, within living memory, is now a key member of NATO, has a powerful military and is closely allied with us. Is it fair or plausible to expect Russia to disregard this?
Its possible that President Putin could outnegotiate President Trump but I do not think that our President goes into this meeting like Bleeding Chuck Wepner facing Muhammad Ali. He may well take a realistic view of our relationship with the Bear As long as the President gives Russia what it can consider a reasonable assurance that we will not promote Ukrainian membership in NATO (if ever Russia perceives that Ukraine is bound for NATO it will issue an ultimatim with great dispatch) then we can continue the modus vivendi we have had with them for 73 years now, with varying degrees of advantage or disadvantage to us but without war. Ukrainian membership in NATO is a vital national security concern for Russia; it need not be for us; NATO is more than strong enough already. Jack
2 comments:
Jack, I agree with 99% of this -- all except the part about Germany's "powerful military" (I would say it's more of a constabulary/marching band these days). Those who expect Trump to give away the store to Putin are engaging in the same Trump-hating hysterics we have seen so often of late. In all likelihood, nothing of substance will come from a Trump-Putin meeting, except perhaps a closer bond between them. I trust we will continue to keep our distance from the government of Ukraine, as you advise here. I would be shocked if Trump would countenance the further expansion of NATO. He's more likely to seek its shrinkage or dissolution...and neither would trouble me greatly. My view is that the Europeans have more than enough military potential to deter the Russians on their own, if only they were to expend a little effort.
Dr. Waddy: I'm very encouraged that a professional historian shares this view. I think it likely that our President understands the Russian concern over this issue, no matter what he or John Bolton (who I am elated to see as National Security Advisor after his many years out in the cold) may say in public. My opinion of German military prowess is formed by their performance in both World Wars. They were exceptionally dangerous, as they demonstrated in their buildup in the '30's, their technical brilliance,their all unlooked for onslaught at the Battle of the Bulge and in their indefatigable resistance to the superlative Red Army. How unspeakably tragic that the German soldier's devotion was wasted on such an execrable cause. I'm guessing that Russia, which has never forgotten for a moment the price it paid to defeat them,is still ever mindful of how formidable they were. Its such a credit to our military that we fought them and the Japanese straight up, even when the odds were equal. I think Germany would be a mainstay against an unlikely Russian onslaught. Respectfully, Jack.
Post a Comment