In a recent post for the Daily Sceptic, Toby claims the received wisdom on the Ukraine crisis is basically right, noting that he’s “experienced the unusual sensation of feeling more in step with the mainstream media than I have with my sceptical friends”. While he makes some good points, I don’t think he really steelmans the sceptical position.
Toby concludes by saying that “when a strongman leader uses his country’s superior military force to subjugate an independent sovereign state to his will my natural inclination is to side with the underdog”. But this isn’t the right way to frame the issue. I’m certainly not on Putin’s “side”.
Incidentally, Toby says he supported the war in Iraq, even though that involved a leader (whom some people consider a kind of strongman) using “his country’s superior military force” to invade and occupy “an independent sovereign state”.
The fundamental issue is how to resolve this crisis. The mainstream position – so far as I can tell – is that the West should pour arms into Ukraine while simultaneously crushing the Russian economy with sanctions (or that it should even go to war by declaring a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine).
The hope is that, by adopting this confrontational strategy, either one of three things will happen: the Russians will be defeated or forced to withdraw; Putin will be overthrown in a palace coup or popular uprising; or he’ll be brought to the negotiating table and made to accept terms highly unfavourable to Russia.
While this strategy may work, it seems to me highly risky and potentially counter-productive.
Rather than being forced to withdraw, the Russians may simply fight more aggressively, taking even less care to avoid civilian casualties. This could result in a prolonged insurgency where large numbers of Ukrainians die. And if Putin is overthrown, there could be chaos in Russia – something we don’t want in a state armed with thousands of nukes.
A better strategy, arguably, would be something along these lines: agree to recognise Crimea and the two breakaway regions in the East; and rule out NATO membership for Ukraine. In exchange, Russia must immediately withdraw its forces, and help pay to rebuild the country.
But why shouldn’t Ukraine get to join NATO, if that’s what it wants? The reason is that Russia is a major power, and major powers get to make demands of their neighbours when it comes to matters of national security.
Can Cuba host Russian missile sites if it wants? After all, Cuba is an independent sovereign state. Basically everyone recognises that, no, Cuba cannot do this. In fact, the US would probably threaten nuclear war before the first brick had been laid. (This is more or less what it did during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.)
Can Venezuela host Chinese air bases, within striking distance of the US? Again, the US would simply not allow this to happen. It has long followed the Monroe Doctrine, which holds that foreign powers must not intervene in the political affairs of countries in the Western hemisphere.
Ukraine is a core strategic interest for Russia, as that country’s leaders have explained repeatedly over the last three decades. There are already US missile sites and air bases throughout Europe. But for Russia, Ukraine is an absolute red line. Attempting to bring it into the Western sphere of influence was always likely to have disastrous consequences.
This point has been made by numerous well-informed commentators on both the left and the right, including: Robert McNamara, Bill Bradley, Gary Hart, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer, Jack Matlock, William Perry, Noam Chomsky, Stephen Cohen, Vladimir Pozner, Jeffrey Sachs, and many others.
But wasn’t Ukrainian membership of NATO “purely theoretical”, in the words of Francis Fukuyama? Not at all. Its intention to join NATO was enshrined in the constitution in 2019. And NATO members consistently refused to rule it out, having agreed in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO”.
What’s more, Ukraine’s government is considered illegitimate by Russia. In 2014, the country had a democratically elected pro-Russian president, but he was toppled in a Western-backed coup. Since then, the country has taken a distinctly anti-Russian course, banning pro-Russian media and abolishing minority language rights.
Again, none of this is to say I support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. It’s about acknowledging geopolitical realities, and minimising the risk of catastrophic outcomes like nuclear war.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Those proclaiming to save the planet are the ones destroying nature the most. Always the way with socialists and their divine faith in authority.
I agree. I’ve commented for a while that often what is trumpeted as ‘environmentally friendly’ is often environmentally harmful. Say that to a climate zealot though and you can see them mentally sticking their fingers in their ears.
It’s worse their entire brain explodes and they just accuse the bird munching critic of being Hitler.
They destroy ecology on land. The Bird Choppers mangle some 500 birds p.a. per turbine it is estimated. Oceanic impact will the same. Ecology being destroyed, fauna disturbed and killed. All to save Gaia from the fictictious plant food-causes climate-theology. We as a society, are both stupid and corrupt.
Not to mention what the very large blocks of concrete that anchors them are doing to the land in terms of water drainage. As I’ve mentioned here before, part of a Lancashire village flooded a few years ago (it never had before). It was initially blamed on “global warming” until they discovered that the wind farm on the hill above had changed the water course, diverting it from channeling into the river on one side of the hill to channeling down a straight road and into the village on the other side.
I actually think most people are confused, distracted and highly trusting rather than stupid and corrupt.
No, they are simply stupid. Look how many took Death Jabs, it takes a heck of a level of stupidity to do that.
Perhaps someone should ask His Hypocritical Majesty of Windsor about the destruction of marine mammals by the windmills he is making a fortune out of, courtesy of British taxpayers.
Yet another outstanding article. Thank you.
‘Fifty years ago, environmentalists would have raised hell about a thousand dead whales and dolphins. Now they are part of the cover-up.’
Why?
Follow the money.
China pours money into lobbying via organisations like The Peoples Forum, a source of funding for many left of centre, including environmental, organisations.
That is why China’s fishing fleet plunders the world’s oceans without any of the protests once seen against, for example, Japanese whaling ships.
“[China] says its distant-water fishing fleet numbers roughly 2,600,” Ian Urbina, an investigative reporter and member of the High Seas Initiative Leadership Council at The Aspen Institute, pointed out in a Yale School of the Environment report.
“But other research, such as this study by the Overseas Development Institute, puts this number closer to 17,000,” he said in 2020.
Why this matters: In 2022, the East Asia Forum reported that “Chinese fishing fleets have trespassed into the waters of over 90 countries and depleted fish stocks.”
Two tier policing of the world’s oceans…..
In 100 years time, if there are still humans around? will they look back and say what a good idea it was to cover the surface of the planet with windmills and solar panels, or will they look back and rue the madness that lead to this ludicrous folly that very nearly wrecked the planet and killed many of it’s plants and animals?
As they negotiate their way round the huge junkyards of scrapped EVs, Windmills and Solar Panels that we failed to re-cycle will they say oh well never mind it had to be done to save the planet or will they wonder if there was something funny in the water that sent us all mad enough to engage in this planet wrecking folly?
The planet wrecking folly option.
Wall-E?
Ruling the planet, eh sorry I mean saving it, means Dolphins Whales Fish Birds Bats and any other creature that gets in the way may become casualties of war——The war on YOU?
You go back a few decades and it was all about the whales. They would give Norway and Japan a hard time. And you could understand it given their intelligence and the remarkable nature and complexity of their communication. Satan doesn’t care for whales and dolphins at all. He dislikes their frankness and carefree nature and he wants the seas depopulated except for monsters just like the land.
I wonder if the first peak has something to do with the exploration and seismic testing prior to the first windmills being put up?
Thanks Chris for keeping on the case and us informed.