Russia can flex its muscles and demand concessions from Super Power America. But what are those concessions? Well the big one is – the US will not come to Ukraine’s aid with troops, missiles or drones if Russia attacks Ukraine. That does not mean, however that President Joe Biden is giving Putin the green light to attack.
By Tom Arms
Ukraine is now firmly on the East-West, US-Russian agenda. This is a victory for Vladimir Putin. He has proven that even though Russia’s GDP is $400 billion less than chaotic Italy it is still a Great Power who can flex its muscles and demand concessions from Super Power America.
But what are those concessions? Well the big one is – the US will not come to Ukraine’s aid with troops, missiles or drones if Russia attacks Ukraine.
That does not mean, however that President Joe Biden is giving Putin the green light to attack. No, he is threatening sanctions. And this time they appear to be more than the usual slap on the wrist.
The main threat is banning Russia from the Belgian-based SWIFT banking system which manages payments across international borders. This same sanction against Iran has resulted in a drop of 50 percent in their oil exports and 30 percent in their foreign trade.
Next on the list is scrapping—or at least postponing—the opening of the Nordstream2 gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. A ban on investment in Russian companies is on the list along with additional troop deployments in Poland, Romania and the Baltic States.
But will these threats work? For a start, Biden needs the support of his European allies. Before talking with Biden he spoke with the British, French, German and Italian leaders to secure their backing. When he spoke with Putin he had it. But will he still have it when the energy crisis hits a cold Euro winter?
Russia supplies Europe with 30-50 percent of its natural gas. Nordstream2 was set to substantially increase that dependency. Poland and Ukraine rely on transit repayments for Russian pipelines through their territory. Moscow has repeatedly shown that it is prepared to weaponize its energy resources and divert them to China and elsewhere. Can the NATO wall stand up to Russian energy blackmail?
Then there is the question of when is an attack an attack? Would a cyber-attack on Ukraine’s industries be enough to trigger the NATO response outlined by Biden? What if ten thousand more “green men” were infiltrated into eastern Ukraine? Is that enough to warrant a response? How about turning off the gas taps—again? Putin does not necessarily have to trigger a full-scale invasion. He might think he can achieve his aims by chipping away in such a way that the West thinks he might invade. The problem is that so far, Biden has not laid down any clear red lines.
But what does Putin want? Respect, a seat at the top table and a return to the Soviet Cold War boundaries, or at least as close as possible to the lines drawn at Yalta. He can’t come right out and say this and so Putin talks about preventing the “Eastward expansion of NATO” and demands a “legal treaty” which prevents it.
This is clearly unacceptable to Biden and he told Putin just that. Such a deal would almost certainly mean Western guarantors of the acceptance of the status quo and then some. The US would be expected to recognize the 2014 annexation of Crimea (something Trump wanted to do) and that of eastern Ukraine. Georgia and Moldova would also be expected to fall completely into the Russian sphere of influence. Finnish neutrality would probably be on the table. Possibly even that of the, Baltic States and Poland as Putin has said he is opposed to NATO forces deployed in any countries bordering Russian territory. Belarus has become a Russian satellite, but Moscow would want assurances that West European countries would stop undermining his friend Alexander Lukashenko. Putin would also want some sort of agreement on naval deployments in the Black Sea which would turn it into a Russian lake.
None of this was specifically mentioned by the Russian leader. But he has never kept his aims a secret and so it was clearly implied and so he was able to put them firmly on the table even if they were just as implicitly rejected by Biden.
In the meantime, Putin is maintaining the military and diplomatic pressure. Since speaking with Biden he has moved more forces to the Ukrainian border including medical personnel and military hospitals. He has also closed the Kerch Strait which links the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea and engineered the collapse of the latest ceasefire talks with Ukraine.
World Review
- It is called the Begin Doctrine. The main tenets are that Israel is the only country in the Middle East region allowed to have nuclear weapons and that it reserves the right to prevent by any means the possession of nuclear weapons by any other country in the region. The Begin Doctrine (named after Menahem Begin who introduced it) was used to justify its attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981. It is now being pulled out of the diplomatic cupboard and dusted off in preparation for a possible assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities. At the same time another final effort is being made In Vienna to revive the Iran Nuclear Accord that was torpedoed by Donald Trump. If it succeeds the Israelis may enforce the Begin Doctrine because they simply don’t trust the Iranians. If it fails the Israelis may enforce the Begin Doctrine because they don’t trust the Iranians. But there is a problem. Iran is not Iraq in 1981. It has a string of enrichment facilities spread throughout the country. If Israel wanted to destroy Iran’s nuclear program it would have to effective launch a bomber-based war. On top of that Iran has forward bases in Iraq and on the Syrian-Israeli border and links with Hezbollah in Lebanon. On Israel’s side is the US veto in the UN Security Council and the likelihood that Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States would stand aside in any conflict and probably allow overflight rights. Even so, there is real doubt within Israeli circles about Israel’s ability to contain the consequences of any attack—ie a Middle East War. If they fail then they have another nuclear policy. It is called the Samson Option and it closely follows the story of the Biblical strongman who pulled down the temple on himself and enemies. If Israel is losing a Middle East War, says the policy, it will loose its nuclear arsenal on the region bringing about the destruction of itself and its Persian and Arab enemies.
- Angela Merkel, the Queen of German government and the EU is gone after 16 years. Long Live Olaf Scholz, the new German Chancellor and leader of the three-party “traffic lights” coalition of Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and Greens. But what will be the differences, if any. To be honest, not too many. The Germans are good at identifying national interests and sticking to them from government to government. On top of that, the inevitable main thrust of the new German government will continue to trying to cope with the effects of the Covid pandemic and its aftermath (whenever that finally arrives). But other than that there are expected to some changes of emphasis. With the Greens in the government there will be more of a focus on climate change issues. Chancellor is also expected to take a harder line on both Russia and China. Ms Merkel adopted more of a consensus approach with Moscow and developed strong economic links with Beijing. The tough line with Russia could block the Nordstream2 pipeline which is just waiting to for the champagne and speeches to start pumping Russian natural gas to Germany. The Scholz government is also expected to allow more immigrants into Germany and push for a more tolerant EU-wide immigration scheme. This may not seem so different from Ms Merkel who famously admitted a million immigrants in 2015, but since then pressure from the German right has led to tougher immigration rules. The traffic light coalition argues that not only is immigration a moral imperative, but that immigrants are needed to fuel German productivity levels and economic growth in a country with a low birth rate and high employment levels. Meanwhile, Ms Merkel is keeping a small flat and office in the Bundestag just in case the new chancellor needs her advice.
- This Wednesday Joe Biden held an online meeting of 80 “democratic governments” in an attempt to reverse what he called a 15 year global retreat in democratic values around the world, including, the US. Conspicuous by their absence were the European countries of Hungary and Bosnia Herzegovina. Less Surprising were Russia, China and Iran. Pakistan pulled out at the last minute, probably because of its links with the Taliban. Conspicuous by its presence was Taiwan, which prompted the totally expected diplomatic broadside from Beijing. China, said Vice Foreign Minister Yu Cheng, not the US, was the world’s greatest democracy. If you measure democracy in terms of dollars and cents (or renmimbis) than Yu Cheng is right. Over the past 20 years China has enjoyed remarkable growth. Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in China and billions have been invested in major infrastructure projects in the developing world. The US in comparison has fought and lost a war in Afghanistan, is retreating from the Middle East, cutting investments in Africa, elected Donald Trump, and is suffering some of the worst internal divisions in its history. Certainly China does a better job of living up to the tenets of the Social Contract introduced by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau who suggested a deal whereby the general population relinquish some of their rights in exchange for protection of their remaining rights and maintenance of the social order. None of the Age of Enlightenment trio spelled out what sort of government—democratic or authoritarian—should manage the relationship, just that if rulers failed to abide by this “Social Contract” then they had the ruled had the right to replace them. In a democratic system there is a mechanism for such a replacement. It is called elections. There is no replacement procedure in China. If the Social Contract is broken then the break-up of society is not far beyond.
- Brussels has handed French President Emmanuel Macro juicy pre-election prize—presidency of the EU’s council of ministers—the bloc’s ultimate decision-making body. To be fair to the Eurocrats, the move is more serendipitous then Machiavellian. It is simply France’s turn to assume the rotating presidency for six months from 1 January. But it does mean that Macron will be able to strut the world stage and flaunt his pro- European credentials in the run-up to the French presidential elections in April. A staunch pro-European stand is one of the major issues that differentiates Macron from his most serious challengers. As he said this week: “We must act like Europeans. We must think like Europeans.” But Macron also thinks there is room for improvement. He is floating the idea of reform of the Schengen Area which allows passport and visa free travel throughout the EU—a possible nod to the growing French anti-immigrant lobby. He also wants to amend EU budget rules that demand national budget deficits remain below three percent of GDP. Here he is likely to conflict with the new German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whom he met with in cyberspace almost as soon as Scholz was elected Chancellor by the Bundestag. Macron singled out Britain for attack in the press conference called to announce his presidency plans. He clearly wants wider EU support for French disputes with Boris Johnson over fishing licenses and refugees as well as Northern Ireland. “The problem with the British government,” he said, “is that it does not do what it says.” At the same time, Macron wasted no time in moving to the wider world stage with zoom meetings on Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian leader Volodomyr Zelensky. On China, he is breaking ranks with Western allies to send a government delegation to the Beijing Winter Olympics. Finally, Macron will host an extraordinary meeting of EU heads of government in Paris a month before the presidential elections. What a gift.
- Attention British political news junkies—mark 16 December 2021 in your diary. That is the date that the voters of North Shropshire go to the polls to elect a new MP to replace disgraced Conservative Owen Paterson. He won re-election in 2019 with a whopping record majority of 23,468 votes. North Shropshire was the safest of safe Tory seats. But now British bookies are betting that the seat will be run by the centrist Liberal Democrats. If that happens, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s is likely to start looking through the jobs wanted ads. The past month has been one long period of gaffes, sleaze allegations and accusations of lies which have called into question Johnson’s moral integrity and competence. It started with the proposed suspension of Paterson for breaking parliamentary rules on MPs lobbying. The Prime Minister made the mistake of trying to change the rules to save his friend. He failed and emerged badly burned. The Paterson case was followed by numerous press reports about how mainly conservative MPs padded their parliamentary paycheques with outside consultancy work. At about the same time there was the Afghan debacle and it is has emerged that Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab failed to answer more than 100 emails during the evacuation. Finally, there is Christmasgate. Last holiday season there was a total lockdown in the UK. Relatives were banned from visiting each other. Parents and grandparents died in hospital without their loved ones by their bedside. Christmas parties were verboten—except, it appears in 10 Downing Street. According to the Daily Mirror 40 Downing Street staff members partied the night away at the height of the lockdown. No, no, no, there was no such party, said Boris at first. Then he amended it to say that “rules were observed”. Then after a video emerged of staff laughing about the party, he apologized and promised an investigation. Too little, too late, Opposition MPs are screaming for his resignation. The chorus is likely to extend to the Conservative backbenches if North Shropshire is lost.
[author title=”Tom Arms ” image=”https://sindhcourier.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Tom-Arms-Journalist-Sindh-Courier.jpg”] Tom Arms is Foreign Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “America Made in Britain.”[/author]
