Home

  • It’s Russia’s Putin, not Putin’s Russia, or, In Defense, once again, of Area Studies

    The original absurd Time magazine headline, “How Ukraine’s [Kakhovka] dam collapse could become the country’s ‘Chernobyl,’” while quickly mocked with responses such as “When will America face its own Pearl Harbor,” or “Will Napoleon ever meet his Waterloo?,” reinforces a serious issue in discussing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: 16 months after Russia’s full-scale war, 9 years after Russia’s seizing of Crimea, and centuries after an imperial expansion that first brought Ukraine under its thrall – there is still a lack of knowing and understanding basic facts when it comes to Russia, Ukraine, and their histories, separate and intertwined, and there is a continued failure to understand the current situation in the full context of Russian imperial history. Likewise, there is a continued failure in certain circles to explain Russian President Vladimir Putin beyond the Soviet system in which he was raised or his actions beyond IR realist theory.

    Amongst a certain ilk of political scientists in particular, Putin’s actions in Ukraine are not only explained but, it seems, justified by NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, in contradiction to an alleged promise that it would not happen. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s final General Secretary, confirming on Russian TV that there was no such promise ever made should put this argument to rest forever, but, alas, it has not. In similar fashion, their realist IR theory justifies Russia keeping the lands they have illegally seized, for they are – in their words – “traditional Russian lands,” while trying to compel Ukraine to negotiate these lands away in the name of a “peace” that Russia cannot be trusted to keep. Equally absurd is their notion that Russia should have received any type of “security guarantees” from the defensive NATO alliance, when it is Russia – and Russia alone – that has been the belligerent in the region, attacking only nations that have not been admitted into NATO.

    Likewise, Putin’s psychology is explained away by, well, take your choice: he is a former KGB official; he was serving in East Germany when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, and no one in Moscow would answer the phone and tell him what to do; something about once cornering a rat; the disintegration of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century,” any or all of which have led him to want to create a strong state at home, impervious to collapse. Those who can work a little further back link him to the Stalinist state, while a few more manage to tie him to Lenin’s Red Terror and other brutalities. While the tacit acknowledgement that Stalin – the only Soviet-era leader Putin praises – was a continuation of Lenin, rather than an aberration from him, as some in the West sympathetic to the Soviet Union long argued, is welcome, they fail to understand one important fact: Lenin himself was a continuation of Tsarist terrors that preceded him. However, this type of analysis requires a more in-depth knowledge of Russian history (as well as of broader Russian culture) than is held by a typical political pundit, academics who work on Russia within a larger field, rather than actual Russianists/Slavists who work in any given field, or the average writer of a Time magazine headline.

    The Russian security state, from which Putin descends, is far more than a century old. It extends from at least 1565, when Ivan the Terrible – one of two Russian imperial leaders whom Putin praises – created the oprichniki, a secret police force established to oppress Ivan’s opponents through various forms of torment and torture, while also more generally terrorizing the entire Russian population. Boris Godunov, himself an oprichnik, later became tsar and is thus the first serving member of the security state, and one of only three in history, to lead Russia – the other two being Yuri Andropov and Putin himself. The security apparatus evolved to become the Okhrana under the later tsars and then morphed through a number of incarnations to become the KGB, in which Putin served, and then the FSB, which Putin briefly headed.

    Putin’s actions against intellectuals who have stood up against his rule long precedes the oppression of writers in Soviet times, including those in the 1970s who revealed Soviet atrocities. Under Nicholas I, writers were censored and exiled, and it is here when began the long cycle of talented artists dying young, dying violently, and dying at the hands of the Russian state, whether directly or indirectly. The Golden Age of Russian Literature and Culture, which many cite as a reason not to blame all of Russia and Russian history for Russia’s full-scale war on Ukraine, was not a Golden Age of Russian governance. Indeed, it set a precedent for how the Russian state – including its Soviet incarnation – would treat intellectuals through to and including during Putin’s reign.

    While Putin’s shuttering of Memorial does not have such a precedent, this is because the existence of Memorial itself does not have a historical precedent. It is the result of a unique period of Russian history, when such an organization was allowed to exist. What Putin did, once its existence became inconvenient for him, was in line with what would have happened had it existed earlier in history. If Putin’s abuses seem more or crueler than in Russia’s past, it’s because social media has made it much easier to track and follow and for those who are being oppressed – or their representatives – to speak out. In reality, though, there is nothing new in how Putin has acted, and, it goes without saying that if there is another period of liberalization in which an organization such as Memorial can exist, it will almost certainly face a similar end under a new Putin. Even the liberalization period of Alexander II, who followed the oppressive Nicholas I, was not long-lived, while his son, Alexander III – the second Russian imperial leader Putin lauds – proved to be even more oppressive.

    The simple fact is that Putin is not an aberration in Russian political history nor is he simply a product of his Soviet past. He is a continuation of centuries of Russian imperial history, complete with a brutal security apparatus likewise supported and lauded. Just as Putin is a product of historical Russia, his actions in Ukraine are a continuation of Russia’s historical actions in Ukraine, extending from Russian imperial times, through the Soviet Union, up until the present day. A thorough grounding in Russian and Ukrainian history makes both of these facts clear.

    Add to those who misunderstand the situation US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, himself holding degrees in Social Studies and Law, but having no known Russian area studies knowledge, who recently stated: “We have no quarrel with the Russian people, who had no say in starting this tragic war. … The United States is not your enemy… For more than 30 years, we worked to pursue stable and cooperative relations with Moscow, because we believed that a peaceful, secure, and prosperous Russia is in America’s interests … We still believe that today.” This, of course, is standard milquetoast boilerplate when trying to separate a leader the US wishes gone from his people. The problem here, though, is that Blinken misunderstands the support that Putin has from Russian people and the support that the full-scale war on Ukraine has amongst the Russian populace. Thus, our quarrel is, indeed, with the Russian people, particularly those who continue to express racist attitudes toward the Ukrainian people and who do not consider Ukraine to be a legitimate nation and, amongst Russians, there is a substantial number of such people.

    Thus, it’s not that it’s become “Russia’s war,” as recently argued by Eugene Rumer and as accurately termed by Jade McGlynn in her eponymously titled book; it’s always been Russia’s war, from the first time they invaded Ukrainian lands centuries ago.

    For those who argue that the domestic situation is too fraught for ordinary Russians to take to the streets in protest of Putin, tell that to young people in Hong Kong who still today, in the face of Xi Jinping’s continuing brutality that includes genocide against the Uyghur population of East Turkestan, stand up for basic human rights and democracy despite threats of long jail terms – or worse. What this means is that those optimistic about the next generation of Russian leadership, coming from today’s Russian youth, should have little reason to be so, for, even if this next generation were to consider a more liberal path, in order to do so, they would first have to successfully overcome the obstacle of being descendants of Russian imperial history and all that entails, and no one has yet been able to do so, especially with any permanence.

    , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Ukraine 2023: From Hope to Victory

    In his 1998 novel The Turkish Gambit, which is now banned in Russia, Boris Akunin has his Turkish spy state what many currently feel about an aggressively imperialist Russia:

    “Today, your immensely powerful state constitutes the main danger to civilization. With its vast expanses, it multitudinous, ignorant population, its cumbersome and aggressive state apparatus […] It is not pleasant for you to hear this, … but lurking within Russia is a terrible threat to civilization. There are savage, destructive forces fermenting within her, forces that will break out sooner or later, and then the world will be in a bad way. […] Russia has to be put back in its place; its reach has to be shortened.”

    As many mark what they believe to be the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, it is important to note that this is a war that was actually launched in 2014, when Russia seized Crimea, held a fake referendum to claim their right to annex it, and propped up fraudulent governments in the eastern regions of the nation. Russia’s aggressively imperialist actions are, in this particular instance, at least nine years old.

    Despite the near-complete abandonment of Ukraine by the West both in 2014, when it would have been easier to stop Russia, and, at least initially, in 2022, Ukraine has not fallen. Indeed, at the outset of 2023, there are legitimate hopes of full Ukrainian victory, with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky talking openly of such an event. At a video appearance at the Golden Globes awards ceremony in January 2023, he stated that although “World War I claimed millions of lives. The Second World War claimed tens of millions of them. There will be no Third World War. It is not a trilogy: Ukraine will stop the Russian aggression on our land.”

    Yet in February 2023, there remain obstacles to victory for Ukraine.

    The first is Russia itself. Despite Putin’s calls for a holiday cease fire at the beginning of 2023 and negotiations soon to follow, he was not serious about either. He bombed Ukraine throughout the Christmas season, including on New Year’s Eve/Day, and any offer of negotiations, then or now, would simply be a duplicitous stalling ploy to give Russia time to regroup, reposition its weaponry, and move the recently-called-up 500,000 troops to occupied territories within Ukraine. The simple truth is that Putin cannot afford a settlement, even one favorable to Russia, which Ukraine would never be able to abide, for the war has become essential to his survival and the survival of his regime. Outside of unconditional surrender, he has no choice but to fight to the last available Russian, even if it means the destruction of his own country from within, or until he is removed and replaced by a leader who sees Russia’s barbaric actions for what they are. The latter seems increasingly unlikely as many Russians, particularly those in the leadership, see Ukraine as a lesser entity and its population as a lesser people.

    The second obstacle is what many once would have called “useful idiots,” those who parrot Kremlin talking points, either through willful ignorance, a dislike of their own nations, or, in some cases, because they are actually on the Kremlin payroll. Some of these favor appeasement, under the guise of “negotiations,” rather than supporting the continued existence of the same type of democracy that gives them the right to express their own thoughts. There are also those who continue to blame the West and its institutions for this war. However, even a cursory examination of the facts clearly shows that this invasion is not connected to NATO expansion. Consider Putin’s own words. When he announced his initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, his expressed goals were to claim lost Russian territory and protect Russian speakers. In 2022, Putin stated that Finland and Sweden were free to join NATO if they wished to do so; he did not threaten to invade either of them to prevent this from happening. Moreover, Putin has withdrawn nearly all his troops from the Finnish border and redeployed them to fight in Ukraine. Even Putin knows that NATO is not a military threat to Russia, as long as he does not attack the territory of NATO member nations, and was not a cause of his invasions of Ukraine.

    The third obstacle, budget-controlling politicians labeling themselves isolationists or pro-Russian, are a boisterous group that includes a number of Republicans who now serve in the majority in the House of Representatives. This continues a sea-change in foreign policy between the two parties, for during the 1970s and 1980s, it was politicians in the Democratic Party who wanted to appease the Soviet Union, both through unilateral disarmament and by refusing to fund groups that opposed them in the then-termed Third World. The 1990s saw a leveling off as a younger generation of Democrats recognized the political cost of being on the wrong side of history in the struggle against the USSR, while the years after 9/11 saw a race between the parties as to which could be the most aggressive in foreign policy and in support for the military. Only with the election of Donald Trump did a serious change start to develop in the Republican Party, a change that continues through the most recent election for Speaker of the House, where several Republicans demanded a reduction in foreign aid, including some to Ukraine, in exchange for their votes for Kevin McCarthy.

    This is particularly troublesome for a political party that still claims to be the “Party of Reagan.” As Reagan himself noted on 6 June 1984 at Pointe du Hoc:

    “We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We’ve learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.”

    and later in one of his last public addresses given to the Oxford Union, on 4 December 1992:

    “Ironically, the end of communist tyranny has robbed much of the west of its uplifting, common purpose. In the aftermath of victory, we search, not for new enemies but for a renewed sense of mission. With the Soviet empire defeated, will we fall into petty, self-absorbed economic rivalries? Will we squander the moral capital of half a century? Will we turn inward, lulled by a dangerous complacency and the short-sighted view that the end of one Evil Empire means the permanent banishment of evil in all its forms?”

    Reagan understood then, as he would understand now, the threat that Russia once again poses to the world and for world peace. He was not an isolationist then, and he would not be an isolationist now, something the “Party of Reagan” should well understand.

    The Democrats too are playing political games with Ukraine. When they held complete control of Congress, they did not criticize the Biden Administration for its slow response to Ukraine’s requests for weapons. Only now, with Republicans in control of the House, are they suddenly arguing that the US must give enough to ensure that Ukraine wins. This, of course, is the correct argument to make, but it should have been made during the last year, when the Biden Administration was doing just enough to keep Ukraine from losing, while not doing anything to help them actually win. Their positive reaction to the January 2023 Rice-Gates op-ed in the Washington Post is welcome, but several months too late to be fully credible.

    It has been heartening to hear statements from various European nations at the Munich Security Conference stating that “Ukraine must win the war.” It would be even more heartening to hear the same from the Biden Administration, and it would be most heartening for the Biden Administration, which continues to spend more time saying what it will not do to help Ukraine, rather than finding more ways to help Ukraine, to send all the tools necessary to ensure that Ukraine wins the war. This includes making it possible for Ukraine to retake Crimea.

    In “Z’ha’dum,” one of the darkest episodes of the 1990s science fiction series Babylon 5, G’kar, a Narn, the entire species of which is facing genocide at the hands of the imperialist Centauri, who have invaded their planet, introduces the episode with these words:

    G’Quan wrote, “There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.”

    The last eleven months have been quite painful for Ukraine, as Russia has continued its brutal war of attrition, doing its utmost to destroy the viability of the Ukrainian state as an alternative to conquering it in full. So have been the last nine years, along with centuries of history, passing through Stalin’s Holodomor and back into imperial times, all times when Russia tried to exterminate Ukraine. The appearance of an independent Ukraine, with fully recognized national borders – including by Russia – gave hope to a bright future after centuries of pain, pain that returned in 2014 and became more acute in 2022. Yet after these last nine years, Ukraine and those who support her again have reason to be hopeful.

    Endemic corruption and incompetence in amounts thought unimaginable have destroyed the Russian military from within, while Ukraine destroys it from without. The Russian military is decimated, losing hundreds, if not thousands of soldiers every day. Eventually Russia will run out of viable troops available to continue the fight, if they actually retain any who are anything more than future cannon fodder. And by now, it should be clear to even the most fretful, hand-wringing individuals that the threat of nuclear war is simply a bluff Putin has been using to coerce the anxiety-ridden to compel the decision-adverse Biden White House away from making the brave choice to support Ukraine to actual victory.

    An opportunity to create a no-fly zone was lost a year ago; that no-fly zone would have shortened the war. Many opportunities to give Ukraine the weapons they have now been provided were lost over the last year; given earlier, those weapons would have shortened the war. Ukraine has been asking for tanks and planes; those will shorten the war. Rumors are that the UK will give Ukraine long-range missiles, which will allow Ukraine to hit targets inside Russia that are destroying Ukrainian infrastructure and killing Ukrainian citizens; those too will shorten the war.

    President Zelensky has made it clear that, if the West gives him the tools to end this war, defeat Russia, and liberate his entire nation, his Ukrainians will do so.

    In his February 2023 speech to the UK Parliament, President Zelensky recalled sitting in Churchill’s chair in the War Rooms during an Autumn 2020 visit. When asked how he felt sitting there, Zelensky noted that only now does he recognize what he sensed then – the knowledge that “bravery takes you through the most unimaginable hardships to finally reward you with victory.”

    It is long past time for the US, NATO, and other democratic nations to be brave, as the Ukrainians have been brave, and it is long past time to give Ukraine everything it needs to win, not just enough so it does not lose. In doing so, it will shorten the war, begin to end pain and despair, and reward Ukraine with victory.

    ________________________________________________

    Jonathan Z. Ludwig is a Teaching Associate Professor of Russian at Oklahoma State University

    , , , , , , ,

  • What is Justice for Ukraine?

    Russian President Vladimir Putin’s three-day war against Ukraine has now surpassed 150 days with no victory for Russia in sight. Russian military desperation has reached the point of begging Iran for drone support. The US Department of Defense estimates that Russia has committed at least 85% of its military might in their losing fight against Ukraine, and the intelligence community adds that, at its current rate, Russian forces may not be able to last the year.

    While the West continues to find ways to support Ukraine, albeit painfully slowly at times, so that they can outlast Russia, it is imperative to think about what a post-war region and world should look like. In doing so, we must ask: What is justice for Ukraine?

    In short, and at the most basic level, justice should be what Ukraine requires it to be. No desire of a Russian-hugging Germany to end the war by forcing Ukraine to cede territory to Russia for an “honorable peace” should be entertained. Among many reasons, Russia simply cannot be trusted to keep its word. Most recently, on 22 July 2022, Russia signed an agreement to allow the export of Ukrainian grain; on 23 July 2022 they bombed the port of Odesa from which the grain would travel. In response, Anthony Blinken, the milquetoast US Secretary of State, stated that the bombings cast “serious doubt” on Russia’s commitment to the deal, as if this were the first time Russia behaved in such a manner.

    Russia cannot be trusted to honor any terms of any such peace because they have already openly stated their desire for the complete extermination of Ukraine and her people. Thus, it is only fitting that we, in response, contemplate the deconstruction of Russia as it exists today.

    At the outset, it is important to understand that it is highly unlikely that Putin will ever see the inside of a courtroom, even if it is a condition of sanctions relief, for it is likely that the Russians themselves will kill Putin rather than risk the embarrassment of the world witnessing the resulting spectacle. However, this does not negate the necessity that other Russian officials be surrendered to The Hague in exchange for the slow easing of sanctions. These individuals could include Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Patrushev, FSB Director Alexander Bortnikov, GRU Director Admiral Igor Kostyukov, and any general or other high ranking officer who fought in or directed military action against Ukraine, should any manage to survive the days and weeks ahead. Lower-ranking and enlisted military personnel who commit war crimes must also face justice, but this could be done in Ukraine, following recent precedent.

    Russia must rebuild Ukraine through significant war reparations. Of course, it will not be able to fund the immediate full reconstruction of Ukraine, so it is likewise imperative that a Marshall-style Plan be put together through which the West, with other like-minded nations around the world, can rebuild Ukraine quickly. Russian reparations will come from the full and complete seizure of all ill-gotten assets of the oligarchs, of Putin himself, as well as those of his inner circle, both in Russia and abroad, and from a set percentage of oil, natural resources, and agricultural sales and exports. Part of the Russian reparations should go directly to Ukraine, while another part should be directed toward reimbursing, at least in part, the nations contributing to the New Marshall Plan.

    Western post-war reconstruction can also come in the form of educational support. Many Ukrainian academics and students have come to the West to further their research and studies, making valuable connections at institutions all over the world. In returning home, it is important that universities maintain these contacts, ensuring the Ukrainian scholars that they will not lose out by returning home and that they will have the necessary support to rebuild their institutions, thus continuing their work at home with help from abroad.

    Just as was done with post-war imperial Japan, Russia must be demilitarized. At a minimum, no military forces should be allowed west of the Ural Mountains, i.e., in European Russia. They are unnecessary because NATO represents no offensive military threat, and, as Russia themselves must realize, its true existential threat comes from China in the east. Discussions around the full state of demilitarization should also include a discussion of the denuclearization of Russia. Their constant threat to respond to perceived aggression and, indeed, any emotional slight with nuclear strikes, as well as their clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum by which they kept their nuclear weapons, while others nations, including Ukraine, willingly gave theirs up, demonstrate that they are not responsible enough to hold nuclear weapons.

    Russia must be required to withdraw from all occupied lands and territories. While this logically means they will be compelled to leave the parts of Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine that they have invaded and occupied in recent years, this could also include a partial or full breakup of contemporary Russia into up to 28 new, independent nations. Such an action would involve freeing a number of the non-Russian parts of the Russian Federation, conquered and colonized during imperial times, that were not given the option of independence upon the disintegration of the Soviet Union. This would result in a full and complete decolonization of Russia, which would then return it to its Muscovite core.

    The Russian educational system should be reformed and reconstructed so that its current and future students are compelled to face up to and fully understand its colonial/imperial past and present and, in so doing, begin to remake their national psyche. The West is constantly criticized for colonial actions undertaken generations ago, and a presentation of these actions are a part of their basic curriculum. After World War II, such re-education was forced on a defeated Germany, albeit with only mixed results, given the rise of the AfD and Germany’s continuing penchant for prioritizing deals with disreputable states, including Russia and China. Thus, it is only fitting that the same be attempted with a defeated Russia.

    In short, Russia as it exists today, a colonial power with a colonialist tradition and history that stretches directly from imperial times, through Soviet times, and into the present, must cease to exist. The world needs to be in a position to ensure that it never returns to such a state.

    NATO should be further enlarged to keep Russia in permanent check. The addition of Finland and Sweden, a direct result of recent Russian aggression, is a good start, but there are further nations, including in the Indo-Pacific, which also border Russia, that could be integrated. In fact, an Indo-Pacific version of NATO, stretching from Canada, the US, and Japan in the north, through Taiwan, and down to Australia, could be created. Such a grouping would extend beyond containing just Russia, of course. It can also be a counter to an increasingly aggressive and abusive China, which has its own continuing history of brutal colonialism.

    The sad reality, though, is that it is unlikely that the West will push to require most, if any, of these actions, for some nations are already trying to extract themselves from supporting Ukraine. Germany continues to find loopholes to work with Russia, just as they continue to invent excuses to keep from sending the already minimal amount of support they have promised. Hungary, which in the years leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union was at the forefront of fighting for freedom and democracy, has taken a dark, authoritarian, pro-Russian turn under Victor Orban. Neither nation can be fully trusted to help Ukraine or support NATO actions.

    Meanwhile, in the United States, the Biden administration continues to do things in a half-measured way. Biden himself, along with his national security mouthpiece, Jake Sullivan, keep announcing what they will not do rather than keeping Putin guessing what will happen to him if he continues to push ahead. They do just enough to keep Ukraine going, thus prolonging the war and the suffering, while not doing enough to allow Ukraine to win. This continues a life-long aversion to foreign policy success on the part of both Biden and Sullivan, who were also jointly responsible for the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle. They lack the courage, the vision, and the wisdom to do what needs to be done anywhere in the world.

    Given the courage and abilities of Ukraine, it is now clear that if the level and type of military aid being given now had been given at the outset of hostilities, and if the Biden Administration had had the courage to establish a no-fly zone immediately, the war likely would already be over, and countless lives, both Ukrainian and Russian, would have been saved. While the war is solely Putin’s fault, the Biden administration has a lot to answer for both now and in the judgement of history. It will not be judged favorably.

    Equally concerning are the recent actions of Representative Victoria Spartz (R/IN–05), herself a Ukrainian immigrant, who, after being a vocal supporter of Ukraine, has suddenly turned against further funding. While there are legitimate concerns about corruption, as there are whenever it comes to doling out foreign and military aid, it is equally important to note that Ukraine, under President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, made pre-war strides to improve, an improvement that was interrupted by Putin’s war. Ukraine cannot de-corrupt itself if Russia, which is a significantly more corrupt nation, continues to destroy it.

    Therefore, it is imperative that the West continue to take a strong stand, not only to defend Ukraine and defeat Russia, but to give a warning to China about what fate awaits if and when they decide to attack Taiwan. If we arrest, try, and imprison Russian war criminals and break up Russia into parts, then we can send the message that we will arrest, try, and imprison Chinese war criminals and break up China into parts, liberating East Turkestan and Tibet, among other future nations, and freeing a once-vibrant Hong Kong from tyranny. This will allow Taiwan to continue to serve as an example for democracy in the Chinese-speaking world, while imperial/colonial China, like imperial/colonial Russia, ends up on the ash-heap of history.

    _________________________________________________

    Jonathan Z. Ludwig is a Teaching Associate Professor of Russian at Oklahoma State University.

    , , , , , , , ,

  • In Defense of a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine

    When Putin announced his war against Ukraine in an angry, rambling address to Russia and the world in February 2022, he used very specific language to justify it, claiming that Ukraine needed to be “de-Nazified” and freed from “nationalists.” This language has particular resonance with large segments of Russia, for Putin has spent much of the last 20 years creating a cult of World War II around himself.

    In 1945, the Soviet Union emerged from World War II on the winning side. Since then it has claimed the leading role in ending the Nazi regime. However, what is rarely admitted inside Russia, is that they did not start out on that side. In 1939, the USSR signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. During that time, among other atrocities, they committed the Katyn Forest Massacre, where they executed over 22000 Polish citizens simply because they were Polish. The USSR willingly sided with a fellow homicidal and genocidal regime just seven years after Stalin himself had tried to eliminate Ukrainians through the Holodomor famine (1932–1933), justifying it “because they were nationalists.” They were deemed “nationalists” because they wanted an independent Ukraine, such as had existed before the creation of the Soviet Union. Neither the Soviet Union nor Russia – its successor state and center of power in the Russian Empire – has ever been required to face up to its colonial past and its genocidal past, and it has tried to stop internal examinations of its homicidal past. Germany was forced to undergo a national reckoning into its crimes through the Nuremberg Trials and after. The world has never forced the Soviet Union, or Russia, to do the same, and they did not face a Nuremberg-like tribunal for their actions in World War II. Thus, they continue to feel entitled to use words such as Putin uses.

    In speaking about Ukrainians, Putin often professes a Russian chauvinistic colonial attitude, claiming that they are a lesser people, along the lines of “Russian white trash” or Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables.” On 3 March 2022, when Putin was giving a litany of “I am X,” where X is various Russian Federation ethnicities, he did not say he was Ukrainian. However, Putin is somewhat contradictory in his speech: he cannot make up his mind if Ukrainians are the same as Russians, but inferior, different from Russians and inferior, or the same, but they are ruled by Nazis and nationalists and must be liberated from them. There are heavy doses of all three in his statements. What is clear is that, at a minimum in Putin’s mind, the “bad” Ukrainians have to be eliminated to make way for “good” Russified Ukrainians. This is exactly what Stalin was thinking at the time of the Holodomor.

    Putin’s language in describing his end game is especially haunting: the phraseology he uses, namely “the resolution of the Ukrainian question / решениe украинского вопроса,” is identical to the Russian translation of Hitler’s “the resolution of the Jewish question / решениe еврейского вопроса.” Putin is openly admitting that he is prepared to commit genocide against Ukrainians and to destroy the Ukrainian state, just as Stalin tried to do. Putin has told us who he is, and Putin has told us what he intends to do.

    Russian history also tells us what he will do. Every Russian imperial project, including the Soviet one, started with Ukraine. None of them stopped with Ukraine. If not stopped here, now, and permanently, Putin’s war of conquest will continue to Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and on from there. Indeed, in 2014, Putin made the same type of “fake state” remarks about Kazakhstan that he has used against Ukraine.

    These Russian actions require a strong and robust response, but, on the US side, such a response has been greatly hindered by two critical mistakes made knowingly and willingly by President Joe Biden. First, in the days leading up to Russia’s war on Ukraine, he ordered the US embassy in Kyiv abandoned and its personnel relocated first to Lviv and then outside of Ukraine. Maintaining a presence in Kyiv, reinforced by US Marine Corps guards and which could have been supplemented by US special forces troops, would have projected strength. Biden’s cut-and-run strategy, as previously seen in 2021 in Afghanistan, demonstrated weakness. Meanwhile, the French still maintain their embassy in Kyiv, complete with extra special forces troops to guard it. The more critical mistake, however, is in the words that Biden continues to utter – his promise that American forces will not take part in military action against Russia in Ukraine. A strong leader – and Biden, it should be noted, is a life-long late-to-arrive follower, never a leader – would have stated strongly and clearly that “all options remain on the table until Russia completely withdraws from Ukraine.” By refusing to do that, Biden has, essentially, given Putin a green light to continue his barbarism in Ukraine and beyond. This is a far cry from how Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, and even Bill Clinton would have responded in similar situations.

    On a wider scale, a strong and robust response has been hindered by false concerns of Western “escalation” and irrational fears of nuclear conflict.

    Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, escalated by launching a full-scale war in February 2022, escalated further by bombing civilian targets, such as hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings, escalated yet more by attacking the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and promises further escalation by using chemical weapons and shooting down civilian airliners in false-flag operations. It is already estimated that Russia has murdered more civilians than it has killed members of the Ukrainian military. It has been rumored that the Russians have bombed Belarus in an attempt to draw them into the war, thus potentially escalating on that front, and they have escalated again by bombing a training base near the Polish border, a location where volunteers have been assembling to help Ukraine. Bringing in mercenaries from Syria and using Wagner group forces also represent escalation. In the early days of the war, a very brave Ukrainian woman addressed Russian occupiers, correctly asserting, while offering them sunflower seeds: “How can it be further escalated? You fucking came here uninvited.”

    While there will be the inevitable claim that direct US/NATO involvement would give Putin a propaganda victory at home, recall that Putin has always and continues to blame the West for everything bad that happens in and to Russia. His is a rule centered on grievance and victimhood – nothing will ever change that. Thus, US/NATO involvement will change nothing on the Russian home propaganda front.

    While it is rational to have concerns about nuclear war, it is irrational to have such overriding fears that it paralyses into complete inaction. Putin is counting on this. That is why he constantly makes nuclear threats whenever the US/NATO provide any aid to Ukraine or discuss doing anything for Ukraine. He is clearly terrified of the US/NATO engaging Russia directly, for he knows that he will lose even more quickly than he is losing now.

    The United States has confronted the Soviet Union many times over the last 70 years. US pilots shot down Soviet-manned aircraft during the Korean and Vietnam eras. The United States faced off against a nuclear-armed Soviet Union in staging the Berlin Airlift and during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President John F. Kennedy had earlier failed to stand up to the Soviet Union during the construction of the Berlin Wall, fearing it could lead to direct military confrontation. However, documents from the Khrushchev era clearly state that Khrushchev had ordered that construction be immediately stopped if the US protested or tried to take down the wall. Failing to stand up to Soviet aggression in Berlin condemned its inhabitants to decades locked behind the Wall. In more recent times, Turkey, a member of NATO, shot down a Russian Su-24 attack aircraft that had strayed over its airspace from Syria in November 2015, and in 2018, the United States eliminated a 200-man Russian mercenary force in Syria. In none of these incidents, spanning 70 years, did the Soviet Union or Russia respond with a nuclear exchange, or, in fact, respond at all. If history has been a correct guide to Russian imperial actions, it can also be a guide to Russian nuclear actions. They will not use them.

    It is important to note that, if the US/NATO do not stand up to Russia because of fears of a nuclear response, they are not only handing Putin whatever he wants, whenever he wants it, they are handing anything any illiberal nuclear regime wants whenever they want it. This will guarantee that more and more nations will try to obtain nuclear weapons, and it will make the world an even more dangerous place. Appeasement of Russia for the last 14 years, a time covering administrations of both political parties, but particularly bad during the Obama/Biden administration, has brought the world to this moment. Further appeasement will ensure that what follows is even worse. There is a price to be paid for inaction, and there is a price to be paid for the US withdrawing from the world. Neither is a price we should want to pay.

    There is, however, yet one more compelling reason why a stronger and more robust response is required to Russia’s brutality in Ukraine.

    After the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed, the world swore “never again.” Then it happened again in Cambodia in the 1970s and again in Rwanda in 1994. To his credit, Bill Clinton said that one of his greatest regrets was in not intervening to stop it. In 1999, when the Russian-backed Orthodox Serbs were committing genocide against the Muslim Kosovar Albanians, who were not a member of NATO, NATO intervened to stop it. “Never again,” apparently, meant “never again” in Europe. In 2008, after Putin invaded Georgia, George W. Bush sent transport planes, full of humanitarian supplies, to Tbilisi. The planes did not leave, the message being that Putin would have to go through them to finish his conquest of Georgia. Georgia was not a member of NATO. Putin retreated.

    Putin has openly stated that he is prepared to commit genocide against Ukraine and the Ukrainian state. Intervention is therefore a moral question, and we must be strong and brave, as the Ukrainians are being strong and brave.

    Close the skies.

    _________________________________________________

    Jonathan Z. Ludwig is a Teaching Associate Professor of Russian at Oklahoma State University.

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Chaadaev’s Russia and the Madness of Tsar Putin

    In 1829, Petr Chaadaev penned the First Philosophical Letter in which he wrote concerning Russia: “We are one of those nations, which do not seem to be an integral part of the human race, but exist only in order to teach some great lesson to the world.” For his trouble, he was declared a madman. In recent days, Russian President Vladimir Putin has demonstrated that this moniker should instead belong to him, while it has already been known for some time that, under his leadership, Russia has been serving as a great lesson to the world as how not to be.

    Chaadaev is, of course, exaggerating in some respects. Unbeknownst to him at the time, Russian literature and music are now considered at the very pinnacle of world culture, stemming in large part from the European tradition, and Russia and the Soviet Union made incredible scientific discoveries and advancements, only some of which were stolen from the West. However, as a system of governance, as a ruler of people, and as an economic system, Russia has been destructive to itself, to its colonies, and to its neighbors for centuries.

    Putin has always been an anxious leader. He built a political career based on grievance and victimhood. He constantly bemoans the loss of the Soviet Union – his “greatest tragedy of the 20th Century” – and seems determined to bring it back, no matter the cost to contemporary Russia, which he has turned into a mafia state. His anger has grown as countries that were once part of the Soviet Union have integrated with the West, and he has watched with great fear as Color Revolutions swept away Russian-leaning apparatchiks in former Soviet Republics, forcing them to move to Moscow. If such an event were to occur at home, Putin would have nowhere to go.

    Putin has, thus far, been fortunate in the reactions of his adversaries abroad in not responding convincingly to his opportunistic actions. The George W. Bush administration left any punishment of Russia for its 2008 invasion of Georgia to the incoming Obama administration. Its foreign policy, which reads like a failed creative writing project, full of fluffy words, but having little substance and an unsatisfying ending, emphasized a “reset” and invited Russia back into Syria. It only took strong action after the 2016 election, on the misconceived notion that Russian interference brought Donald Trump to the Presidency. Russia did interfere, as they had many times before, but to think that they were that influential and that strong is to build up Putin too much. Trump, who to this day continues to admire Putin, did nothing to counter Russia except when Congress forced his hand. As a result of their actions, even stronger sanctions than the Obama administration had levied were imposed. Neither Trump nor the incoming Biden administration did anything to support democracy in Belarus against Alexander Lukashenka, with the result today that Belarus has returned to Russian colonial status, complete with hosting Russian military divisions. As of today, the Biden administration has still not nominated an Ambassador to Ukraine, demonstrating that they were not paying attention to this key part of the world for much of the last year.

    In the US and the UK, the progressive left has shown itself to be a Putin ally, just as the left included a significant number of Soviet apologists during the Cold War. Statements claiming that the imposition of sanctions on Russia will hurt Ukraine show their lack of understanding the situation. Their insistence on doubling down indicates that they, as with the Corbynites in the UK, are wedded to the claim that the West is to blame for everything. On the other extreme, a number of right-wing politicians have also become Putin apologists, while they would have been ardent anti-Soviets during the Cold War. The left is, admittedly, consistent in their idiocy, while the right is new to this way of thinking, such is their fear of Trump and their hatred of Biden. It is possible to assert that Biden has been a foreign policy failure throughout his career, while also wanting to stand strong against Putin and hoping that Biden will get it right this time. That is how the Republican Party of just a generation or two ago would have operated.

    At the same time, Putin himself admits, as he did in 2014, that his actions have left Russia without any friends. The idea that China is a friend to Russia, pushed by some and based on a lengthy document signed by both Putin and Xi Jinping, is simply wrong. We need only look at the statement to see that, while it mentions Taiwan specifically, there is no mention of Ukraine at all. Russia needs China far more than China needs Russia, and both leaders know this. Putin is thus forced to swallow his pride and sign such unequal documents just to try to show the world that he remains relevant.

    In the same First Philosophical Letter, Chaadaev also notes: “It is one of the most deplorable traits of our strange civilization that we are still discovering truths that are commonplace even among peoples much less advanced than we. This is because we have never moved in concert with the other peoples. We are not a part of any of the great families of the human race; we are neither of the West nor of the East, and we have not the traditions of either. We stand, as it were, outside of time, the universal education of mankind has not touched us.” Clearly universal historical knowledge has not reached the halls of today’s Kremlin. On the one hand, we should pity Putin’s lack of historical knowledge, for he is a product of the Soviet educational system, where history was what the Party determined it to be, no matter the actual facts. On the other hand, even the laziest of students could do a half-assed cut-and-paste job after a cursory Wikipedia search that would have placed more facts in Putin’s speech than he came up with on his own.

    The notion that Ukraine is not a real country or is rightfully Russian territory because Russia ruled it previously is insulting. Many other empires likewise controlled the territory upon which sits today’s Ukraine, and they are not making claim to the territory. In fact, some of them are Ukraine’s greatest supporters. Ukrainian nationalist movements stem from the 1800s, and the Bolsheviks that Putin inaccurately cites were themselves uncertain of what to do with Ukraine. Showing then, as now, agency in its own affairs, Ukraine made a bid to keep its brief independence. While Putin is still bitter about the 2014 Maidan Revolution that chased Victor Yanukovich from the country after he turned away from Europe and toward Russia, Putin also remembers the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought Western-leaning Victor Yushchenko, a man Putin tried to assassinate, to power. In fact, these two uprisings against Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs, and the Russian reaction to both, demonstrate that NATO has nothing to do with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

    The security dangers Putin claims to face and uses as his justification for past and future invasions are nothing but paranoid delusions. None of the European, Caucasian, or Central Asian nations that border Russia pose any threat to him. Neither NATO, the EU, nor any of their or other countries alone or in combination have any designs on Russia. If they pose any threat at all, it is either because they prevent Putin from bullying smaller nations (NATO) or force him to be less corrupt internationally (EU). If he is looking for a border threat, he should look eastward; otherwise, the only threats he faces are from within. Claiming outside threats may be convenient for domestic politics at a time when the Russian economy is growing worse and worse and Covid–19 has taken a far greater toll than Putin is willing to admit, but they are, as with everything else, a lie. To engage Putin on any notion of security threats to Russia is to give credence to this lie. Putin’s actions are nothing but an attempt to recover and reconstruct a lost colonial empire, which has still not been fully dissolved within Russia itself. We must treat them as nothing more than that.

    Russia has historically made bad choices. In retrospect, choosing the Cyrillic alphabet and Eastern Orthodoxy separated it from much of Central and all of Western Europe, although they were logical choices at the time. Likewise, signing a peace treaty with Nazi Germany, a fact the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs conveniently fails to mention every Victory Day, shows that they were willingly joining another destructive, brutal, and genocidal regime, while Stalin killed tens of millions of his own people at home. Russia’s rulers, as the poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko wrote, are often “worse than foreign enemies.” Putin is no exception to this. In fact, the greatest mistake of the post-Soviet age may well have been choosing Putin over Boris Nemtsov to succeed Boris Yeltsin. A Nemtsov-led nation would have had the chance of becoming a moderately successful country, which could have integrated peacefully with Europe and the West.

    Instead Russia is stuck with an increasingly irrational Putin. In a press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, he claimed that one question indicated that the reporter wanted a war between Russia and France, while another brought forth an angry veiled threat that Russia possesses nuclear weapons. Putin held a Security Council meeting designed to force everyone in his inner circle, including those who might not favor his actions, to support him publicly. With a vicious smile on his face, he took particular delight in tormenting his spy chief, Sergei Naryshkin, who has either been unable to uncover the informants in Putin’s ranks or is covering for them. Putin’s speech to the nation, an oral presentation of his written report on Ukraine and Russia from last year, was an unhinged, rambling attempt to justify his upcoming actions. It is unclear how much support these actions actually have at home. There have been small protests against war with Ukraine throughout the nation, while graffiti with the same message appear. However, in such a police state as Putin has returned Russia to, it is dangerous to speak out too loudly, unless everyone does it at once.

    Putin is obsessed with history and his own place within it. What Putin does not understand is that, once it is written, he will be one of its greatest losers, not a “Great Man” as he sees himself, for he is a man who, because of his ego and narcissism, destroyed his own country just to make himself be remembered. Indeed, he will be remembered, just as Ivan the Terrible and Joseph Stalin, the two Russian leaders he most admires, are remembered. Unlike them, however, he has created nothing, and he has no great military victories behind him. Rather, he will be remembered, like them, for the deaths he has caused at home, as well as the extra-judicial killings he has ordered abroad, the meddling in and invasion of smaller, independent nations he feared because of their systems of governance, the racism that underlies much of his attitude toward Ukraine and other current and former Russian colonies, and the condition in which he left Russia, a condition that will cause it to remain “some great lesson to the world.”

    _________________________________________________

    Jonathan Z. Ludwig is a Teaching Associate Professor of Russian at Oklahoma State University.

    , ,

  • And Eastern Europe Shall Lead Them: Small Power Support for Taiwan and Ukraine

    As China has increased pressure on Taiwan, the independent nation they continue to claim falsely as part of their own, more and more countries in the democratic world have rallied to support the island nation. From late 2020 to today, these nations have sent delegations to visit, and there are growing cries from politicians and citizens alike within them to support Taiwan if it is attacked. Among the most visible were three congressional delegations from the United States: one bipartisan team of US Senators and two groups from the US House of Representatives.

    China knows that there is little that they can do in response to US visits, so they simply make their protests known, and the United States duly ignores them. The same is true for visits from other larger nations, such as Japan and France. What has made them apoplectic, though, is the increasing number of visits from Eastern European nations, and the fact that these nations refuse to be bullied into submission by China’s “wolf warrior” vociferousness and economic threats.

    The Czech Republic made the first move. In January 2020, Prague signed a sister-city agreement with Taipei, whereupon Shanghai, in a fit of pique, cancelled their own agreement with Prague. This was followed by the visit to Taiwan of Miloš Vystrčil, President of the Senate of the Czech Republic, after the death of his predecessor, who had been threatened by China for promising to make the very same visit. Since then, the Czech Republic has increased its ties, and a branch of the Prague-based non-governmental European Values Center for Security Policy has recently opened in Taipei. On 5 December 2021, a delegation of 43 Slovak government officials, business representatives, and academics arrived in Taipei for a multi-day visit, and in January 2022, Taiwan and Slovenia announced plans to open missions in each other’s nations. This happened after Prime Minister Janez Janša condemned China’s one-party dictatorship for lecturing the world on democracy and peace. China responded by imposing economic sanctions.

    Lithuania, though, has made the strongest and most costly stand thus far. It permitted Taiwan to open a de facto embassy in Vilnius, using the name Taiwan, in November 2021, after having already left Chinese-led 17 + 1 framework over the issue of China’s genocide of the Uyghurs. China responded to the August announcement of the embassy opening by withdrawing its ambassador, expelling Lithuanian diplomats, and demanding that the European Union (EU) punish Lithuania. In response, a delegation of MPs from all three Baltic states visited Taiwan at the end of November. Since then, Lithuania has been threatened by China economically. However, after facing down German demands that Lithuania apologize to China and mend its ways, the EU has taken China to the WTO in an action now also joined by Australia, which has faced its own economic bullying by China. The Czech Republic’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Security passed a resolution in support of Lithuania on 21 January 2022, an action that was applauded by Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, thus demonstrating the strength of Small Powers standing together.

    This is not the first time that Eastern European nations have challenged the desires of Great Powers or risen up against them, for it happened during the height of Soviet-era domination. Yugoslavia broke away from the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1948 and became a member of the Non-Aligned Movement. In 1956 there were revolts in East Germany, Poland, and Hungary. Czechoslovakia rose up in 1968. Poland was rarely trusted and generally feared over the years, in part because of the power of the Polish Catholic Church, which grew after the election of Cardinal Karol Wojtyła as Pope John Paul II in 1978. Romania refused to join the Soviet boycott of the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984. Hungary and Czechoslovakia paid a heavy price for their bravery when the USSR sent tanks to crush them. However, they were two of the first countries to pull away from the USSR during the years of perestroika and glasnost, forcing Gorbachev’s hand in opening borders to the West, while the Baltic nations fought for independence from within.

    Why these nations have stood strong is a matter of their own recent history: they remember what it was like to be invaded, conquered, dominated, and controlled by a brutal Communist power, just as they remember hoping that outside powers would come to their aid, only to realize that it was not going to happen. Thus, it is particularly telling that they are the ones to be on the front lines of standing with Taiwan, while others make excuses to keep from getting too deeply involved. They know what it is like to be ignored or abandoned during their time of need.

    Therefore, it is not surprising that these very same nations are likewise standing up for Ukraine as it continues to be threatened with yet another Russian invasion. One of the leaders in this has been Lithuanian MP Matas Maldeikis, who is also the Head of the Parliamentary Group for Relations with Taiwan. In addition to ensuring that Lithuania, alongside other regional nations, have all made concrete, meaningful commitments to Ukraine, he has taken the most original soft-power stand by firing off two grade-A-level historically-accurate trolling tweets that demonstrate just how ridiculous Putin’s territorial demands are. The Czech Republic and the Baltic States have sent military aid. Outside of Eastern Europe, Denmark confirmed on 30 January 2022 that they are also prepared to send military aid, after initially sending only non-lethal aid. Turkey, which has edged more closely toward Russia in recent years, sent drones, which Ukraine used over Donbas. They have also promised to fulfill their NATO commitments, and non-NATO member Ireland can be proud their victory over the Russian Navy by a village of fishermen.

    Meanwhile, the so-called “Great Powers” of Europe waffle with their support, standing strong in statements that are not matched with policy. France is largely lost in these debates, as it remains unclear where President Emmanuel Macron stands. He seems to hope that France can play a grand diplomatic role in the world, while doing little to ease immediate tensions. One would hope that Germany, which itself invaded neighboring countries and committed genocide in the 20th Century, would be convinced to stand against two nations now doing the same. However, this seems a bridge too far for them, even though Latvian Foreign Minister Artis Pabriks called them out for their “immoral and hypocritical” relationship with both China and Russia. In recent days, the Baltic nations and Poland have demanded that Germany openly state what they will do in support of Ukraine, while reminding them that the Germans themselves have relied on America support against Russia for the last seven decades.

    The US foreign policy triumvirate of President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan through a combination of apathy and incompetence, have also been largely absent regarding both nations until very recently. The Biden Administration missed a key opportunity when rejoining the World Health Organization (WHO), for they could have demanded full membership for Taiwan as a precondition for the return of the US. Inviting Taiwan to the Summit for Democracy was a good step. Cutting off Audrey Tang, Taiwan’s Digital Minister – and not being able to get their stories straight as to why it happened – was an embarrassment. Fortunately, while Biden has not led on this issue, others have been willing to step up and do so. Congress bucked the administration, passing the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act almost unanimously on 16 December 2021. This was over the strong objections of many in the Biden Administration, who did not want to risk their business and personal ties with China.

    This failure extends to the situation in Ukraine. Biden immediately ruled out the use of US troops, signaling to Putin that he would not have to face or risk killing American forces. Only after having been openly ridiculed for using hashtag-support policy did Biden agree to move troops further east under NATO auspices, but the actual movement is dragging out very slowly. In addition, he seems incapable of making the simplest decisions necessary to break Putin: cut Russia off from SWIFT; seize and freeze the assets of oligarchs in the US; and withdraw visas of those oligarchs and their families living here, thus forcing them to contemplate life once again in Putin’s Russia. Even more important, over a year into the administration, Biden has still not nominated an ambassador to Ukraine.

    Fortunately, the UK has stepped up where the US has thus far failed to do so. Just this weekend, they have promised to send over a thousand new troops, including special forces, to Estonia, to provide jets, boats, and specialists to NATO, and to put an aircraft carrier on increased readiness. In addition, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson will visit Ukraine, while Foreign Secretary Liz Truss will go to Russia to talk to Putin directly. Her strong anti-Russian and anti-Chinese stances will make her presence an uncomfortable visit for Putin to negotiate, should he choose to meet with her, rather than hide in his bunker. Meanwhile Defense Secretary Ben Wallace will visit Slovakia, Hungary, and Croatia, while the government prepares to take up an anti-oligarch bill that could end the negative reputation of “Londongrad.” This final action has finally spurred the United States to contemplate similar actions.

    Putin has become trapped in a problem entirely of his own making because Small Power nations in Eastern Europe have shamed larger ones into supporting Ukraine more forcefully. He now finds himself in a position not only in which it will be difficult to win, but in which he might very well lose, both very badly and very bloodily. The larger powers of the West must likewise stand with Taiwan to show China that it faces the same reality. To stand up for and alongside both Taiwan and Ukraine guarantees being judged on the right side of history; to fail to do so means winding up on its ash heap.

    _________________________________________________

    Jonathan Z. Ludwig is a Teaching Associate Professor of Russian at Oklahoma State University.

    , , , , , ,

  • Views from the Heartland: An Introduction

    What is often missing from policy debates are voices from the Heartland. Thoughts and advice from people who were raised here, stayed or returned here, and understand the world from a perspective different than those whose sole goal in writing is to position themselves for their next government job is often not part of the discourse when formulating policy.

    Likewise, there is a dearth of individuals from public universities and small, regional liberal arts colleges who are able to find their way into influencing policy without having to cycle through DC or a select group of schools.

    With this site, I hope to begin to change this.

    I will be publishing some of my own thoughts on foreign and national security policy here as well as giving my students the opportunity to publish their own pieces on those topics. I also want to offer this chance to other students, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, who are interested in sharing their ideas, as well as to others who would like to contribute.

    If you would like to write for this site or have students who wish to do so, please get in touch with me at drjonathanzludwig (at) yahoo (dot) com. I will gladly consider for publication short, focused pieces, between roughly 750–1500 words, relating to foreign policy or national security policy.

    Welcome to Views from the Heartland.

    _________________________________________________

    Jonathan Z. Ludwig is a Teaching Associate Professor of Russian at Oklahoma State University.

    , , , ,