“The Germans, Scandinavians, Poles and Hungarians, energetic as they were, had never held their own against the heterogeneous mass of inertia called Russia and trembled with terror whenever Russia moved.” ¹

These were the words of the historian Henry Adams after his 1901 visit with European heads of state. As a close confidant of the McKinley administration, he had accompanied his close friend, John Hay, then Secretary of State, on this diplomatic mission. He was the great grandson and grandson of two Presidents and a friend of President McKinley. Thereby, he was an historian especially blessed with unusual connections to government officials and creditable sources. This quote was not only his historical assessment of Russia’s role in Europe at the time but became his predictive assessment of Russia’s role in the new century. He equated Russia with an archaic glacier that was “more likely to advance” and inclined to bury Europe under its inert mass. He also stereotyped (possibly coined) the pseudonym of the Russian “bear” that the “monkey,” his characterization of Europe and America, would always fear or mistrust. For the “monkey,” spurred by technology and hyper capitalism, was active and fundamentally opposed to inertia. He wrote these words at the turn of the century (though not published until 1907). He died in 1918, just a year after the start of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, marking the end of the Czar’s reign. But he likely would not have been surprised at the unchanging role of Russia on the borders of Europe. In fact, he foresaw it. Throughout the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and the dictatorship of Putin, the threat of the Russian bear in Europe has never diminished. It still simulates a glacier-like inertia weighing heavily on the free, fast-developing countries of Europe. And it now justifies America’s diplomatic and material support of Ukrainian resistance from half-a-world away.

Unsurprisingly, the Russian bear myth persists. It represents a carnivore that has no remorse in devouring its prey as Russia now attempts to devour Ukraine and, literally, Ukrainians. Characteristically, Putin has accused Ukrainians of his crimes, vilifying them as Nazis monsters, guilty of genocide. Given this pretense, his army has the license to kill, rape, rob, and brutalize civilians while demolishing their homes, markets, hospitals, and schools. Euphemistically, Putin declares his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine as a “special operation” and his soldiers as “liberators.” But Ukrainians are only being “liberated” from their lives and homes. Putin, in czar-like fashion, cannot and will never accept criticism for being inhuman. The Russian bear is simply being itself by devouring these Ukrainian-Nazis monsters. From a different but related perspective, the European and American “monkeys” have had difficulty fending off criticism for their respective roles in subjugating African and Middle Eastern nations to their economic hegemony after the World Wars. Perhaps Adams can be forgiven for characterizing the West’s “monkeys” in a solely positive light. America’s western expansion and the vast lucrative trade with Europe painted a rose-colored future at the turn of the century. Adam’s “monkey” analogy can be forgiven for capturing only the positive aspect of the West’s energy at the dawn of the machine age. Nevertheless, he was right about the West’s unavoidable prod of the Russian bear.

President Putin understands these “monkey/bear” analogies too well, for he repeatedly references them with his “what about-isms.” For example, did not America invade Iraq under the false pretense of an alleged nuclear arsenal and then forcibly attempt to liberate the country from a dictator? Did not European nations justify their colonial conquests and occupations as liberators of backward civilizations? History does remind us that nations can use self-serving, but false, rationales to justify their actions. What Putin is unable to grasp is the ability of a free and democratic society to admit its mistakes and rejoin its efforts to live its ideals of liberty and justice for all. Why cannot international relations redeploy this democratic ability to world affairs and diffuse the tension between democracies and dictatorships? Both sides should—and must—discover a new diplomacy and perhaps a necessary reconstruction of the role the United Nations plays in supporting it. Eliminating each other cannot be the only option.

Today, the United Nations’ charter clearly supports the sovereignty of independent states, the security of their borders, and the peaceful resolution of disputes in lieu of wars. Moreover, through its associated agencies, it attempts to protect human rights, deliver humanitarian aid, promote sustainable development, and uphold international law. But its ability to assure these various missions is subject to its Security Council whose members include those very states captured in Henry Adam’s analogies. They are not only the liberators/conquerors who ridded the world of the Axis powers but are also the economic hegemons of the new world order. And the Russian bear is not the only voracious animal on the Security Council. Maybe it’s time for the United Nations to reconstruct itself and create a new balance of power within its ranks, where each member state has an equal vote and the Security Council’s only role is to provide military support to enforce the actions of a majority. The Security Council’s composition could be only those member nations willing and able to contribute military arms and personnel to the UN’s enforcement of its basic mission—that is, to secure the sovereignty of member states. Its membership might be self-elective among member states, but contingent upon each candidate’s adherence to the UN charter and upon acceptance by a majority of the UN member states. And each candidate should meet a pre-determined threshold of its military investment and capability. Although members of the Security Council would have an equal vote in any military plan, its enforcement would be proportioned to the pre-determined capability of each state. Finally, any enforcement action proposed by the UN member states would also require a majority vote of the Security Council. There must be a “check and balance” mechanism here to assure any military action was justified, appropriate to meet the need, and not conducive to a wider confrontation, including a world war.

If the above suggestion sounds too simplistic, that’s because it is. But it could become the starting point of serious discussions within the community of nations to create a more effective world agency to protect the sovereignty of nations and avoid the next world war. Today, one nuclear armed nation can violate the sovereignty of another nation while intimidating any intervening nation or nations with the threat of nuclear war. The Russian bear has introduced this new hazard to world peace. And that hazard demands a world response. For the world has finally arrived at the state defined in science fiction chronicles like “Dune” where “world-states” contend for power and threaten to depopulate one another’s planets. Today, Russia’s leaders threaten all of Europe with annihilation—in just “30 minutes”—from a space-directed nuclear bombardment (reference a recent quote from the head of Russia’s nuclear arsenal). Its President even claims America is threatening Russia, though it is only Russia that has invaded Ukraine, a nation that presented no threat to Russia. Remember, it was an unprovoked invasion that started World War II. Perhaps history does not exactly repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes, even with a more dramatic ending. The twentieth century was a self-inflicted holocaust, unparalleled in all human history. Any such replication in the twenty first century would be apocalyptic by comparison. Specifically, picture radioactive clouds circling the planet and slowly killing all habitants of planet earth. Could homo sapiens attain such a pinnacle of suicidal stupidity? (Reference “It’s a MAD World.”)

Yesterday, I had dinner with a Russian American who had voted for Donald Trump because he was a life-long Republican. We did not discuss Trump’s friendly relations with Putin or his comments about how “brilliant” he termed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Instead, we shared anecdotes about our pasts, our likes and dislikes, our hopes for the future, our health concerns, and those important relationships in our lives. In other words, though two individuals with different life experiences, we related as two human beings capable of understanding and appreciating each other. Why cannot nations reach this level of human rapprochement? Are we doomed to the forecasts of many Sci-Fi authors who predict “war of the worlds,” based on human fear of the other, even within the same species?

The quest for power—personal, political, national, imperial—is at the root of human failing throughout history. But also prevalent in our nature is the relationships we build amongst each other, within families and communities, and between individuals and national cultures. The current war in Ukraine brings these two aspects of our humanity in vivid contrast, as we witness both the impact of Putin’s unprovoked war and the world’s humanitarian response. Putin has engaged the world in a battle for the very soul of humanity. His war is not just against Ukrainian soldiers, but against their families, homes, and the infrastructure needed for their survival, such as food, water, shelter, and energy sources. His war is exceedingly punitive for it not only takes lives but degrades the human experience of living. It is more akin to torture. It is the World War II holocaust redux, extended not just to a people, but to a whole nation, and potentially to all of Europe. Putin’s bear requires a continent in which to spread its smothering body politic. We might have dismissed Mein Kampf as the work of a madman. But Putin’s actions and threats could even exceed the ambitions of Hitler for world domination. For his threats prefigure a world in ashes if it does not bow to his dominion. For his dominion might well be annihilation. What can we do as powerless individuals to stall and reverse Putin’s intent to destroy Ukraine, rile international relations and the world’s financial stability, and—worse—threaten a nuclear Armageddon?

Well, our President has done what he can to unify nations against Putin’s atrocities. But frankly, America has stumbled as the “leader of the free world,” despite its elected President. The forces of popularism/nationalism have been seeded here by Donald Trump. And paramilitary groups, white supremacist, wild conspiracy groups like QNON, and grievance antagonists of all stripes have come together to question and even to overthrow America’s democratic institutions and heritage. Many of our politicians have joined the rabblerousers to gain their support and hold onto office rather than to uphold and protect our Constitution. The quest for power, as stated above, is at the root of this undemocratic rot, as demonstrated in the build-up and execution of the January 6 insurrection in 2021. Many of our politicians have betrayed the trust of the American people and their oath to support our Constitution. The question raised above—”what can we do”—has an obvious answer. We can vote for liberty and justice for all and hold those accountable who do not uphold our democratic values.

The roadblocks to liberty and justice must be taken down, as Americans have done in the past. Over 750,000 people died to preserve our Union and to free the slaves. Many women suffered abuse and even torture to win full citizenship and the right to vote. And many more Americans marched through barricades and suffered violent attacks to gain civil and voting rights. Even today, many of us have sought redress through the courts for equal justice or marched for women’s rights and under the banner of the Black Lives Matter movement. We are a liberal, democratic country that supports both states’ rights and a strong central government. How else can we preserve liberty and justice in every state of our Union? We are not like the European Union of diverse countries where laws and administrations can differ and even conflict with each other. Our differences of this type must be settled in the light of our general welfare—which demands compromise within the scope of our Constitution. Too many of our politicians claim adherence to the Constitution and yet oppose any compromise, even violently so. These politicians too often would rather exchange government largesse for large campaign donations so they can hold onto elected office. I remember reading how Andrew Jackson abhorred these office seekers: “It appeared that instead of love of principle it was love of office that had induced them to support the good cause as they pleased to term it . . . (and) that self-exertion was about to be abandoned and dependence for a livelihood placed upon the government.”² Today, we have legislators who have deep roots in office, sometimes over decades, with no interest in legislating. Instead of addressing campaign reforms, a broken immigration system, public education or communal health needs, wealth and income inequality, police-community relations, the many threats of climate change, systemic racism, the safe and lawful use of guns, and so on, they are consumed with suppressing the vote of non-supporters and regaling so-called “right to life” shibboleths that risk women’s lives and weaken appropriate pre-natal care. But America’s diverse population demands a government of, by and for the people—meaning our general welfare must include all of us, else be meaningless.

Currently, Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party seeks control of Congress without even a Party platform. Their only campaign promise then is to control Congress, but apparently to just one end—to stop any democratic agenda. The GOP has well deserved the designation of “the Party of no.” But, if both Parties were aligned on the fundamental principles outlined in our Constitution, then they could and should come together for the common good. They would seek compromise, the primary principle that makes a democratic legislature functional. But, as Jackson demurred, “instead of love of principle it was love of office . . . “that consumed some office holders. Today, it has consumed an entire political Party. Is a seat in Congress sought only to advance a career, amass a fortune, or simply to exercise the power of office? We already have many millionaires and lawyers in Congress. Perhaps they perceive themselves as a new elite or aristocracy, like many of our founding fathers. But the men who signed our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were signing death warrants if England had won the Revolutionary war or even the subsequent war of 1812. Do these same ideals and bravery still reside in our elected officials . . . or even in our body politic?

In conclusion, the Russian bear can only be stopped if Ukraine wins its war against its Russian invaders. But that victory will require the continued support of the “free” world. America and its NATO allies are providing that support today. Will that support continue as refugees overflow into the allied countries, as gas prices rise, as grain supplies dwindle, and as a world recession looms on the horizon? The answer unearths an underlying assumption about America’s resolve. For it assumes America is still its promise of liberty and justice for all. Today, we can no longer presume we are that America. Our previous President was more aligned with Putin than with NATO. His supporters are planning a second coup at this very moment. Conspiracy theories, rancor, and divisiveness rule in our politics in place of truth, comity, and compromise. George Washington’s fear of a certain “fatal tendency” has become our reality where factions would “become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” ³ Truth can still prevail if facts and our Constitutional values are demonstrably supported. America is the oldest democracy—surviving for over 246 years—but it cannot subsist as a viable democracy unless it ceaselessly renews itself in alignment with its core values. Democracy is not assured by any document, but by the people who live by its principles. As the Ukrainians are demonstrating, no adversary can stand against a people dedicated to democracy, not even Putin, The Putrefier. ⁴

____________________________________________
¹ Henry Adams, “The Education of Henry Adams,” p. 383.
² Marquis James, “Andrew Jackson: Portrait of a President,” p. 182.
³ This excerpt is from Washington’s “Farewell Address,” as quoted in my blog, “Of . . . By . . . and For.”
⁴ I could not refrain from coining a new word, “putrefier,” as I did with “pejority” in my blog “Majority Pejority.” That coinage placed the majority in a “state of being made worse.” This new coinage is the convolution of two Latin words, namely putrere, to be rotten, and facere, to make. The intimation is obvious.

“This sickness is not unto death” (Jesus Christ, John 11:4)

The world is just now becoming aware of the horror in which Ukrainians have been forced to live during Russia’s unprovoked invasion of their country. Assassinations, rapes, torture, and the bombardment of hospitals, schools, churches/assembly halls and residential communities have been the preferred strategy of an undisciplined and unprincipled Russian army. I am reminded of a phrase coined by Evan Osnos defining the “brokenness of humanity” in terms of what the mystics might call the dark night of the soul. ¹ How can Ukrainians resist “this sickness” forced upon them by the Russian army and Putin’s directives? As I pondered this question, I recalled a story Viktor Frankl related about an incident he experienced in the Auschwitz death camp. A fellow inmate, his senior floor warden, related a “strange” dream wherein he was told that they would be liberated on March 30th. “On March thirtieth . . . he became delirious and lost consciousness. On March thirty-first, he was dead.” ² His hope for liberation had died and so did he. He was felled by the “sickness” Jesus Christ strived to cure and that Soren Kierkegaard so clearly identified as despair. ³ Its cure is hope . . . hope for a future that can be visualized and that can be attained by honest effort. What hope can Ukrainians have in their future? That future must be a world in which those unalienable rights Jefferson identified as a human birthright are recognized by all peoples and nations. Russia, under Putin, obliterates such rights. No community of people, nations, or any global union of nations will ever exist in a lasting peace without reverence for our common humanity. “Love they neighbor as thyself,” is not just a Christian belief, but the basis for all human interactions, most especially, in a time when inhumanity and armed conflict can result in extraordinary levels of death and destruction—even in nuclear annihilation. In our age, a despot’s thirst for power can toll the death knell for human progress . . . and that toll leads to despair.

On February 26, at the beginning of this series of blogs, I characterized Russia’s war against Ukraine as a reincarnation of Hitler’s hatred for non-Aryans whom Putin would replace with Ukrainians (ref. “Eat Crumbs and Bask in the Glory of Empire”). Ironically, he claimed there were Ukrainian Nazis who were responsible for a non-existent genocide that he then began to make a reality. As always with Putin, he blames others for the dastard reality he intends to create. Even his “mini-me,” America’s pretend dictator, Donald Trump, mirrored this blaming technique by his pre-election forewarning of a rigged election. After losing the election, he attempted to prove a rigged election by falsifying electoral records, instigating bogus challenges to vote counts, and inciting an insurrection against the capital of the United States. This dictator playbook of accusing others of what you intend to do is shared by both Putin and Trump, though the scale of violence differs greatly in magnitude. In 2014, the Ukrainians, like Americans in 2020, voted to free themselves from an anti-democratic tendency in their government. But whereas Putin could only use targeted propaganda, campaign conspirators, and idiot sources to derail the American electorate in 2020, he could order an invasion in 2022 and lethal force to overthrow the Ukrainian democracy. When such men can dupe citizens to support their will to power, they can amass the resources required to realize their dream of dominion over others. Trump claimed he was the “the greatest American President in history,” while Putin sought to reestablish Russia’s nineteenth century empire under his czar-like command. But Nietzsche, the philosopher often noted for elucidating humankind’s will to power, was not particularly impressed by Nero, Cesare Borgia, Napoleon, or even the unchallenged military achievements of Julius Caesar. In fact, amongst these legendary figures, only Caesar’s strength of character and self-mastery impressed him. And these are the very virtues neither Donald Trump nor Vladimir Putin exhibit in any measurable degree. Both surround themselves with sycophants and excessive luxuries that serve their recklessness and self-indulgence. They show no restraints in amassing wealth, power, and personal comfort/pleasure, especially at the expense of others. In other words, they present as persistent adolescents who revel in gaining power over their betters. But their real power is the sickness of despair they leave in their wake.

It has been 12 years and three months since Putin rose to power in Russia. Curiously, Hitler’s reign of terror lasted 12 years and three months. He committed suicide on April 30th, 1945, rather than face the ignominy of defeat and, most likely, the condemnation of a world court. Dictators, like Putin and Hitler, write their own rules and can never submit to the moral judgment of others. Oddly, they shamelessly justify their licentiousness and lawlessness to followers, who feel impowered to replicate their “dear leader’s” actions without self-reflection. Putin’s army, for example, can rape, plunder, and kill indiscriminately non-combatants without remorse because their leader claims they are freeing Ukrainians from Nazis (a political group that represents less than 2% of Ukrainians). The Jews in Hitler’s Germany, by comparison, were exterminated as part of the “final solution,” even though they carried no weapons and presented no more physical threat to Hitler than Ukrainian citizens present to Putin. But dictators bask in their power over the helpless, especially when their cruelty can discourage, even prevent, opposition. Fear is their weapon of choice. And Putin’s arsenal of weapons includes a nuclear stockpile that far exceeds the dread inspired by Hitler’s blitzkrieg. Unfortunately, it was only after defeat that the German people became aware of the extent of Hitler’s inhumanity. As the world community approaches this April 30th, let us all hope that the Russian people will break through the iron curtain of misinformation and propaganda to bear honest witness to what Putin has done in their name.

Ukraine signed a security agreement in 1991 with Russia, America, and Great Britain to secure their independence as a free, self-governing state in Europe. Putin has violated that agreement and has initiated unprovoked assaults on Ukrainian territory since 2014. And now he has attempted to overthrow Ukraine’s government by force without any provocation other than Ukraine’s existence as a free, democratic state on Russia’s border. Putin’s assault on Ukraine not only violates the United Nation’s charter of which Russia is a signatory, but his vicious and unrestrained attack on civilians and the leveling of whole cities and villages exemplify a “brokenness of humanity” unwitnessed since World War II.

As mentioned in a previous blog, an overwhelming majority of the United Nations has condemned Putin’s invasion of a sovereign nation. Except for China, and perhaps India, the nations of the world are also united against the inhumanity exemplified by Russia’s conduct in its unprovoked attack on Ukraine. This violation of the territorial integrity of another nation is an assault on the world order established after World War II. Its potential to embroil Europe and the United States in a broader war threatens the security of all nations potentially exposed to a global economic recession and even the radioactive fallout of a potential nuclear conflagration. Putin has already played this nuclear card as his most threatening deterrent to NATO and the US, while he, undeterred, hopes to devastate Ukraine and demoralize its citizens into submission. Given his propensity to wage wars of conquest and his vision of a greater Russia, does any world leader believe Putin will cease his aggression against other nations in Europe—especially those formerly under Russia’s control and now on NATO’s eastern border?

What have we learned after the two world wars of the 20th century—that is, the worst self-immolation of humankind in all its history? World War II, for example, could have been stopped at Czechoslovakia’s border. And, maybe, we can stop Russia at Ukraine’s border. Every nation in the world has a very persuasive reason to support that result. Let’s face facts: Ukraine needs offensive weapons NOW. Unless the Ukrainian army can defend against artillery, cruise missiles, and arial bombardment, they will be defeated in a war of attrition and suffer the worst civilian casualties of any nation since the world wars of the last century.

Also, it is now time for the West to begin setting the terms of this conflict, rather than allowing Putin to do so. NATO must dictate the terms for secure humanitarian corridors that would allow civilian escape routes to safety. Those terms would limit NATO military response to the defense of those safe corridors against any active military engagement, to include aerial and artillery response in kind. NATO must prepare to enforce any cease fire agreement. As a result of such preparation, NATO must amass an attack force on its Eastern borders with a promise to act only if attacked. That force would then be in position to enforce any mutually agreed armistice or peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia. If such an agreement was reached, NATO would then be in position to assist Ukraine in the security of its borders while friendly nations assist Ukrainians’ efforts to rebuild their nation after this devastating unprovoked war.

Of course, my recommendations have no authority. But I can at least remind my readers that less action invites more risks. Putin is a bully and will continue to be the aggressor until forced to stop. Unless deposed from within, only the free world stands as an obstacle to his assault on humanity. We must put out the fire he has started before it metastasizes and envelopes Europe. He has introduced a sickness into the world’s psyche.

This sickness is what most viewers, I suspect, feel when they see and hear interviews with the citizens of Bucha—like the interview of a woman who saw her husband executed by Russian soldiers. She pleaded with the soldiers to kill her too, for she screamed “I have just the one husband!” She reminded me of a line from Kierkegaard: “When death is the greatest danger, we hope for life; but when we learn to know the even greater danger, we hope for death.” ³ The citizens of Ukraine must hope for life and the restitution of their sovereignty. Otherwise, they will lose their war with an evil empire and their hope for a free and just society where every citizen can conduct his/her personal pursuit of happiness. The world, not just NATO, must feed that hope. We feed it not just with moral support, but with care for Ukraine’s refugees, with both defensive AND offensive weapons, with the creation of safe havens within Ukraine and safe corridors for escapees from violence, and with personal use tightening of increasingly scares resources such as grain and fuel. All of us can live with less: substitute vegetables for bread, turn down the heater or air conditioner, and drive less. These are small sacrifices compared to what the people of Ukraine face daily: possibly as many as ten million homeless, tens of thousands dead or injured, millions separated from their families, whose children, mothers, sisters, and grandmothers are the preferred targets in Putin’s insane attack on humanity. The sickness Putin has unleashed on Ukraine will metastasize and increasingly affect the world—much as the World Wars of the 20th century did. Only we citizens of the world can save Ukraine AND ourselves from this sickness, which needs not be “unto death.”

____________________________________________
¹ Evan Osnos, “Wildland: The Making of America’s Fury,” p. 166.
² Viktor E. Frankl, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” pp. 82-83.
³ Soren Kierkegaard, “The Sickness unto Death,” pp. 13-22. The quote is from p. 18. As Kierkegaard explains, there are many forms of this sickness he terms despair. But, in my interpretation, there is only one ultimate despair: not living or being in relation to oneself, for that relationship encompasses all the relationships one experiences in life. At least, that definition captures what Joseph Campbell believed was the purpose of human life: the experience of living. Losing that experience—or the fear of losing it—is the greatest despair any human will ever face. Now consider the fate of many Ukrainians during this conflict.

“. . . this man cannot remain in power.”

When a President talks in any public forum, his/her words are always political, sometimes strategic, and—hopefully—honest. In each case, these words must reflect the reality as he sees it. Yesterday, President Biden spoke near a conflict border reminiscent of former President Reagan’s speech at the Berlin wall (“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”). Without doubt, the timing and place for this speech made it historic. But what was its political implications? Did it have a strategic impact? And did it reflect the President’s honest assessment of reality?

In 2016, I wrote a blog entitled “Truthful Hyperbole.” It outlined how Donald Trump applied his adman approach to political communication. As quoted from his book, “The Art of the Deal,” he felt that “people want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole.” Political statements, in his estimate, need no basis on reality. They just require an artful presentation or “pitch” to garner belief. For this reason, they are often deployed by dictators. President Putin, for example, can claim the Russian invasion of Ukraine is merely an effort to free Ukrainians from genocide at the hands of Nazis overlords. This statement is no more preposterous than Donald Trump’s campaign pitch to “drain the swamp” of self-serving politicians and criminals—the very element he so assiduously endeavored to promote during his administration. But “politics” invokes its root meaning from Athens and Rome wherein it refers to authority figures’ communications with citizens and, more specifically, citizens of a republic. These communications are unique in the sense that they involve more than the transfer of information. Their primary purpose is to convince followers/voters to support and believe in the communicator. Therefore, political speech is more about persuading citizens by whatever means, with or without any adherence to truth or fact. When the governed hear the statements of their political leaders, they should be just as skeptical as they would be of the salesman at their door, that is, “buyer beware.” Given the nature of politics, was the President Biden’s speech in Warsaw persuasive? Did it gain the support of its listeners, the American public, NATO leaders, and its larger world audience?

The answer to this question would seem to be affirmative, except for the American press. Since it is the role of journalists in a democratic state to question authority, the quote that prefaces this blog has raised an issue with American journalists. Specifically, did the President make a strategic statement, specifically, that America’s foreign policy advocates for regime change in Russia. Does “cannot remain in office” mean “should not” or “not competent” to hold the power of his office because of blatant malfeasance. Well, his words can be construed to mean either interpretation. Given the context of the President’s speech, where he deliberately exonerates the Russian people of the atrocities committed under Putin’s command, there is little doubt that he was invoking the conscience of the Russian people. But in what context can the President’s words imply America has or seeks the ability to remove Putin from his office? His statement is “strategic” in the sense that it may be construed to influence Russian citizens. But there is no actual strategy to insert American propaganda into Russian media or invoke the services of Russian dissidents to undermine Putin’s government. In other words, President Biden was not invoking the same kind of strategic interference in Russian politics that Putin initiated and continues to support against the American government. America is not duplicating Russia’s regime change efforts against America. A closed society like Russia does not have a free press or a bevy of politicians vying for Putin’s office. No American foreign policy can affect regime change in Russia. Nor is there any evidence as such, other than an appeal to Russian citizens to withdraw support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. And that appeal has the same message as the free world’s financial sanctions on Russia, specifically, “stop this unprovoked war!” If the Russian people join the rest of the world, then Putin may be swayed to relinquish his unilateral/absolute power to wage an unprovoked war and recognize Ukrainian sovereignty over its own people and within its universally recognized borders.

America, like the rest of the free world, supports Ukraine’s fight to defend its borders and its people. But, even if regime change in Russia were the only means to accomplish this end, then no country would have the strategic means to remove Putin from his position of power. Instead, 141 countries have voted against Putin’s war in the United Nations. NATO with America’s support is actively arming Ukrainian fighters to defend their homeland, its people, and infrastructure. President Biden’s words, then, are aligned with the vast majority of nations, but have no tangible effect on Putin’s hold on the Russian Presidency. But his words do have a strategic impact by unifying the global community of nations in their support for Ukrainian resistance and for economic sanctions against Russia.

Clearly, President Biden’s quote here was intended to be and is strategic, though not in the sense of effecting a regime change. His words reflect his honest assessment of the tragic consequences of Putin’s war. Prior to his speech, he had met with a few of the approximately four million Ukrainian refugees, as many as half of whom are children. He heard stories of mass graves, of whole cities reduced to rubble, of Russian efforts to destroy infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and food delivery and storage facilities. While Putin’s army denies power, food, and water to civilians in besieged towns and cities, it also attacks refugees attempting to escape in mutually agreed safe corridors. It is difficult to assess responsibility for these atrocities because the Russian army seems to act without structure and discipline. While Ukrainians are forced to bury their dead in mass graves, the Russian soldiers do not even collect the bodies of their dead comrades. Instead, these bodies are left to decompose in the streets and fields where they were felled. As a former soldier and war veteran, I cannot fathom leaving fellow soldiers behind on the field of battle. Given the magnitude of this inhumanly conducted war, no man responsible for such carnage can have such power. No human being should have such unjustified power over the life and death of a whole population or a free nation. President Biden’s remarks reflect his honest assessment of President Putin’s immorality and unjustified use of war powers.

But did President Biden’s words so infuriate Putin as to reinforce his attack on Ukraine? Perhaps they made Putin angry, but his intent to have the Russian bear swallow Ukraine whole was hatched many years ago. He has written and spoken about his intent to restore the 19th century Russian empire for many years now. And he has often stated his deep resentment for the West’s incursion and absorption of former Soviet states. In other words, Putin has long sought—and fought—to regain Russian control over former Soviet states and to dominate all of Europe. President Biden’s words have no or little impact on Putin’s long held and burning grudge against the West for its infringement on his perceived Russian destiny to control and extend its borders/influence over all of Europe. Again, some American journalists have concocted an inference in Biden’s remarks without regard to history or established facts. Putin’s war is unjustified, is conducted in the most brutal and inhumane way imaginable, and is the act of a megalomaniac—a man possessed of a hegemonic world view that only he can heroically impose on unwitting philistines.

As President Biden stated so simply: “this man cannot remain in power.” In fact, no man can claim or hold such power, at least not in a moral universe.

Recently, 141 nations condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at the United Nations. Only five nations rejected this condemnation. And those nations reflect the anti-democratic comrades of Russia’s dictator. Most of the world, then, has expressed its displeasure with President Putin. As the world’s press reports on the atrocities committed by his army, we all feel the anguish of Ukrainians as their homes are destroyed and their families are ravaged by indiscriminate bombing and artillery barrages. The human tragedy inflicted by Putin’s unprovoked war must touch all who witness it—which is every human being with a cell phone or TV monitor. As fellow humans, we cringe at the site of women and children escaping from bombed-out communities while their husbands/fathers/brothers enlist in a besieged army to expel invaders from their country. We are all sickened by the carnage and by the unspeakable arrogance of this dictator who initiated this murderous onslaught. And we feel connected with the Ukrainians’ cause as they fight to protect their homes and families and preserve their freedom as an independent democracy. Like them, we are mad!

But MAD is also an acronym for “mutually assured destruction.” And MAD should not be treated lightly or as a bargaining chip in a high stakes game of conquest. Putin has drawn the world into his game of nuclear poker. While he threatens Europe with short range nuclear missiles, he hopes to keep America out of his game plan because of MAD. His war strategy then is based on what he learned as a KGB operative: begin a war you intend to win at all costs; and up the ante if falling behind planned objectives or losing. He premised his Ukrainian game plan early: first, he staged nuclear war exercises with his short-range weapons to remind Europe of its vulnerability; second, he showed the nuclear MAD card to neutralize any American threat. His was and is a very high stakes game with MAD as his ace in the hole. If he can neutralize Europe/NATO with his short-range missiles and America with MAD, he hoped to assure the success of his Ukrainian invasion without engaging either NATO or an American intervention.  He then could overwhelm Ukrainians’ will to fight with an indiscriminate assault of bombs, artillery, and cruise missiles aimed at civilians, their homes, and their supportive infrastructure. His brutal game plan, then, includes war crimes against non-combatants while a far superior antagonists such as NATO and the US remain neutralized by a very high stakes game of nuclear brinkmanship. We are all captive in his MAD world!

The problem with Putin’s game plan is the same with any high stakes’ gambler. He must belief he cannot lose. So how do we convince Putin that he can and will lose? Must we play his game? So far, President Biden has refused to do so. He has changed the nature of the game. While Putin threatens with his nuclear arsenal, our President has countered by engineering a Russian financial meltdown. Unlike JFK, President Biden has not readied America’s nuclear warheads. Nor has he changed NATO’s readiness to deploy its short-range nuclear weapons. (I suspect they are always ready, but in a defensive posture.) Instead, the American President has raised the stakes for Putin by putting Russia’s economy in jeopardy. And Putin has responded by engaging in a massive public relations campaign to convince Russians that Ukraine is being liberated by Putin’s peacekeeping force from a Nazis genocide campaign and that America is the Great Satan that is waging a criminal financial war against the Russian people. Since he has squashed all fair and honest journalistic outlets within Russia, he may hope to limit the flow of honest reporting. But that hope is not very realistic given the 21^st century plethora of information outlets. There have been protests throughout Russia, suggesting the success of Putin’s propaganda campaign may be at risk. But, while Russia suffers a slow financial meltdown, Ukraine is being burnt to the ground, and the rest of the world remains frozen in a state of persistent indecision and unrelenting remorse. While Ukrainians fight and die, we are stuck in this MAD world, frozen by a nuclear standoff, and mad as hell about our dithering.

It seems likely that Putin will resort to more violent or despicable methods. Putin will turn to his cyber war weapons. Instead of a nuclear war, the world may find itself reeling from cyber-attacks on financial institutions and infrastructure. Ironically, he may pretend to sanction world leaders arrayed against him—though he lacks the power to do so. Putin will huff and puff and blow the house down before acceding to defeat. He is that cagey wolf at the door. But on the other side of that door is the inspiring leadership of Ukraine’s President Zelensky and the wily experience of President Biden on the world stage. Ukraine may yet outlast its invading army and win a Pyrrhic victory. And the West may indeed succeed in reducing Russia to a third world economy, incapable of supporting any future war effort. That history is yet to be written and subject to the whims of fate. But how can the free world secure that fate, rather than merely witness what could become the beginning of its demise?

What if NATO declared a humanitarian safe zone within Ukraine for escaping refugees? So far, all “safe corridors” for refugees have not proven safe from Russian artillery. But what if NATO guaranteed the safety of such an escape route with the full force of its military? Well, if Russia attacked refugees within this safe zone, NATO could, with justification, proceed to demolish Russian weapons depots and artillery positions located in Russia—effectively cutting its military off from all support required not only to attack safe corridors but also to continue its brutal bombardment of Ukrainian cities. Russian soldiers would then be at the mercy of enraged Ukrainian fighters defending their country of invaders. The war could end within a few weeks or, at worse, months. And the Putin military foundation he has built over several decades could end with a severe diminution of its capability. The dilemma for Putin would then be to cease all offensive operations or escalate his attack. In other words, he could seek a diplomatic armistice to save his remaining force from an angry Ukrainian army without the cover of artillery or provision of resupply. Or he could release his tactical nuclear weapons against Europe while attempting to hold America at bay with MAD. He could either resign himself to an armistice as would any sane leader or commit to a full scorched-earth path as would a maniacal fanatic. So, who has Putin proved himself to be over the past two decades—a thoughtful Russian patriot or a KGB fanatic? What assurance, if any, can there be in any answer to this question? And what might be the consequences of that answer? The acronym MAD seems to imply a certain level of insanity or fanaticism. Do we then have to be resigned to World War III, perhaps even a nuclear holocaust?

I must confess my limitations here. Though a war veteran who worked in the Signal Corp’s operations and intelligence (S2/S3), I have no expertise here in weighing the alternatives before our generals and military advisors. They might find it tempting to defeat a frequent antagonist and to decimate its military for a decade or more. But who would or could risk a nuclear war—limited or not? In our system of government, this type of decision is not before the military, but before the people’s representatives. Congress declares war, not the generals and not even the President. Clearly, President Biden understands his limitations here and is representing our Constitution and our treaty obligations, as approved by a duly elected Congress. ¹ The real danger here is that Putin might take an offensive action that our President would be required to respond in kind as our Commander-in-Chief who takes an oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (ref. Article II, Section 1).

This is a moment in history unlike any other. Not even the Cuban missile crisis (referenced in my previous blog), is analogous to this confrontation. President Khrushchev did propose a reasonable compromise that addressed each sides’ nuclear intimidation in both Cuba and Turkey. But does President Putin seem reasonable? Has he ever backed out of a military confrontation he initiated? Has he ever weighed the costs on the Russian people for the military invasions he orchestrated in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, the eastern provinces of Ukraine, or his current assault on Ukraine? Though Khrushchev was no less committed to Russian sovereignty and the exercise of its power, he was as much a realist as a Russian patriot. Unlike Putin, he was not a fanatic. He, like many Russian Presidents who followed him, signed various nuclear limitation pacts and various force coordination agreements designed to prevent any miscalculation in armed conflicts. Khrushchev threatened America because nuclear missiles in Turkey presented a threat to Russia. Putin recently signed a short range missile deployment pact with NATO, a military defensive organization. It exists because of its fear of the “Russian Bear.” Putin, however, knows no fear of a first strike attack from NATO’s member states. Instead, only Ukraine’s democracy threatens him. And, obviously, that threat is not against Russia. No, Putin feels personally threatened by the European Union’s democratic states and, most especially, by a democratic border state so closely related to Russia and its history. For democracy threatens his hold onto absolute power—that is, power over all laws, courts, his military, and all government administrative functions. Therefore, he feels at liberty to invade Ukraine because he can do so without fear of reprisal from a nuclear armed–but defensive—organization of free states.

The hubris in Putin’s unprovoked invasion of a free democratic state is his defanging of America with MAD. He is a dictator who forces his will on other free states, including both Europe and America, by threatening nuclear Armageddon. When has the quest for absolute power ever been enforced by nuclear annihilation? Again, this is a moment in history unlike any other. And it is truly maddening!

In recent blogs, I’ve suggested that Putin is not bluffing, for he is convinced he has a winning hand. The western democracies, he assumes, could never convince their citizens that risking a nuclear holocaust was for their benefit. Conversely, the example of freedom loving Ukrainians has reminded the world’s democracies of the stakes. Remember, the 20^th century world wars were not started by freedom-loving dictator/tyrants. Their bluster and demagoguery were not born out of a love for freedom, but out of a lust for power. Also, they, like all bullies, did not expect their bluff to be called. But the Allies’ fist in the face of their aggression was not equivalent to a nuclear war. What if, in our current crisis, NATO declared and vowed to enforce a humanitarian armistice to render aid to the victims of war crimes? Since all of Ukraine has suffered from these crimes, NATO calls for a halt to all offensive military actions. Further, it demands a complete and total withdrawal of the Russian military aggressors to positions beyond the pre-invasion borders of the two countries within a mutually agreed period. The conditions for this withdrawal will include mutual recognition of Ukraine’s status as a provisional member of NATO and the elimination of all sanctions against the Russian Federation over a negotiated timeframe. Further, NATO agrees to assure the safety of all Russian military personnel during their withdrawal. In other words, all parties must agree to end all hostilities and return to peaceful relations, a pax priusquam. Otherwise, NATO will enforce this pax priusquam with all powers available to it.

Why, you might ask, would Putin accept this complete capitulation of his imperialistic agenda? Well, I can think of at least two arguments that might sway him from his murderous intent. First, unless he accepts the terms of this pax priusquam, he risks losing his military to a far superior force and his Russian economy, to a devastating depression without any reprieve from international organizations. Second, unless he accepts these terms, he would risk losing whatever support his propaganda can muster/maintain from the Russian people. He must know that he cannot suppress the truth about his unprovoked war forever. The thousands of Russians already jailed for their protests of Putin’s unprovoked war are only going to be multiplied over time. And his plan for a quick war has been demolished by the fierce resistance of the Ukrainians.

Would Putin accept these terms? As a fanatic, he probably would not. But, as a survivor, he might. And, as a realist, he would have to recognize the possibility of retaining some measure of his pre-war status. The terms of this pax priusquam allow him to retain a large part of his military power, to regain world markets and restoration of the Russian economy, to restart his Don Quixote mission to wage unremitting opposition against the US, NATO and democracies everywhere, and to resume his czar-like control over the Russian Federation, at least until the next Russian election.

Just 20 minutes ago, I listened to President Zelensky’s address to the American Congress. It was a Cassandra-like forewarning of the free world’s impending failure to secure its future. Ukraine could be the first stone removed from the foundation of the European edifice of free democratic states. The EU itself should shudder at the prospect of Russian soldiers and mercenaries on its eastern border. Does anyone doubt that Putin would amass a large army at that border—on the graveyard of a free Ukraine—to bolster his alleged “defense” against the EU. He did no less when he surrounded Ukraine before initiating an unprovoked assault. He would and will do so again. President Zelensky is reminding America as the leader of the free world that it alone stands on the precipice where World Peace must stand or fall. America or, more specifically, Americans are once again being called to defend democracy and the union of free European states. I believe our President has risen to the task at hand. But we Americans must do more, not only to secure our democracy at home, but to defend it abroad as well. What is at stake, as President Zelensky reminds us, is world peace.

______________________________________________

¹ It is true that most of our international commitments are Presidential agreements that sometimes are not honored by subsequent Presidents—as happened in the Trump presidency. But America always acts in accordance with its treaty obligations, as required by our Constitution and the lawful action of a freely elected Congress.

Although Hitler made a fortune on the publication of Mein Kampf, few people have read his diatribe wherein he declared his hatred of democracy, Marxism and the Jews, and his belief that the Aryan race—in particular, the Germanic—was divinely decreed as the master race. Well, if you missed your chance to learn about his part in history and his advocacy for preordained nationalism, you now are witnessing its reincarnation. President Putin believes that Providence guides Mother Russia to rule all of Europe, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans—what he terms Eurasia. He detests democracies, LGBTQ people, and anybody, including Slavs, even Russians, who dare to oppose his right to re-establish—and extend—the former Russian empire under his rule. Yesterday, he warned that any country opposing him would face the full force of Russian power. (Is this a reference to his nuclear arsenal?) His Eurasia myth promises to replace chaotic democracies anywhere with nationalist rulers who bow to his dictates. Of course, the beneficiary of this proposed nationalist empire can only be Putin and the coterie of his chosen sycophants, who are his Russian oligarchs. Those governed are destined to a limited or even meagre subsistence while told to bask in the glory of a powerful state and in gratitude to its supreme leader.  

What the world is witnessing in Ukraine today is not merely Putin’s fear of Western hegemony, but his attempt to advance Russian dominance in Europe on his way to Eurasia. Ukraine is just another hurdle to overcome. Georgia, Crimea, and Syria are behind him. Belorussia and Moldovia may be next. He is acting on a long-held belief that it is his destiny to restore and extend the Russian empire to its full glory as ordained by Providence. As a result, he will concoct any imagined pretense—whether it is to rid Ukraine of neo-Nazis and protect its Russian inhabitants, to counter NATO’s infringement on Russia’s hereditary lands, or to establish Russia as a legitimate counterweight to American power. Rather than a free democratic Ukraine, he will make Ukraine a vassal of Mother Russia like its former colonial status under Soviet rule. But the war he has initiated clearly has a purpose beyond Ukraine. Caesar recognized Gaul was divided into three parts and that he had to conquer all its parts before establishing the Roman Empire. Napoleon crossed every border with his massive army on his way to Moscow. And Hitler too was looking beyond Czechoslovakia on October 1, 1938, to extend his reign even beyond the point of Napoleon’s failure. These world conquerors must unleash the hell fires of war and extend their dominion to match their inflated egos.  

The twentieth Century has taught us of both modern warfare’s enormous devastation and its unpredictability. I certainly cannot offer any bromide here. But we can better cope with this current crisis if we understand how it came to be. Putin’s wars have a prelude where all the discordant notes were played in advance of the main theme. 

That prelude began with Putin’s sudden rise to power in 2000. From an unknown former KGB operative, he rose to prominence in St. Petersburg where he used his government position to enrich himself and his assembled gang of thieves. Meanwhile, he rose through the ranks of the KGB—now the FSB—to become its leader. Three months before President Yeltsin’s unexpected retirement, he was appointed Vice President. Then, in January 2000, he inherited the presidency when the former President was forced into retirement at the end of 1999. (He was eventually elected in March of 2000 under a very dubious “free” election.) The Soviet era and his KGB training had been the major influences in his life and on his mindset. ¹ And, shortly after Putin became the head of state, he consolidated his power by protecting and enriching the men—mostly his St. Petersburg gang—who would become his oligarchs. For Americans, his approach was not dissimilar to Trump’s appointments of self-interested millionaires, lobbyists, and criminally prone individuals to government positions or to his “kitchen cabinet.” Trump’s mindset was not dissimilar to Putin’s. 

It should not be surprising that Putin’s intelligence network had noted Trump’s potential as an “idiot source” long before he won the presidency. He had been weaned on laundered money from Russian oligarchs. And Putin tested this source, like any good KGB handler, by inviting him to Russia and offering him free publicity and a Moscow venue for his beauty pageant. Subsequently, he took advantage of the opportunity to support this source’s campaign for the Presidency. He had his intelligence operatives engineer a massive online effort to support that candidacy. If he did not personally suggest, he most certainly approved of the man who volunteered to lead the candidate’s campaign for free. That man was Paul Manafort, a Putin operative who had served/guided Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President who also served at Putin’s pleasure.  

When Putin’s plan succeeded in duping American voters to elect his candidate, he must have been delighted to witness him –  

(1) reduce America’s short range nuclear missiles deployed in Europe,  

(2) decommission the spy plane that had previously participated in mutually agreed overflights of American and Russian terrain, 

(3) destroy the plane’s state of the art surveillance equipment, thereby prohibiting its reuse, 

(4) and reduce American support for NATO, even to the extent of pulling troops back from Eastern Europe.  

Meanwhile, Putin was busy – 

 (1) amassing a 600 billion government surplus in a strained Russian economy, perhaps as a future war fund established at the expense of the Russian people,  

(2) establishing a favorable bilateral relation with the President of Belorussia who later would allow the placement of the Russian military on Ukraine’s shared border just north of Ukraine’s capitol,  

(3) and planning the elaborate movement of 70-75% of Russia’s military resources from all sectors of the country to strategic locations surrounding Ukraine.  

Over a period of years, Putin had been able to concoct this elaborate plan to attack and subjugate a democratically free state. In his mind, he was on a divinely ordained mission to restore the Russian empire that had fallen victim to the hegemony of European democracies and to the United States. Does his elaborate plan not remind us of another obstinately determined deranged visionary of more recent vintage? 

Yes, I refer to Adolph Hitler. Of course, Hitler revealed his megalomania much earlier than Putin. In 1924, he had been arrested, trialed, and convicted of treason. But he denounced the verdict in his rebuttal: “You may pronounce us guilty a thousand times over, but the goddess of the eternal court of history will smile and tear to tatters the brief of the state prosecutor and the sentence of this court. For she acquits us.” After his 24 days (about 3 and a half weeks) in court, he spent another 9 months in the Old Fortress at Landsberg where he dictated Mein Kampf to his forever loyal Rudolf Hess. ² His self-proclaimed bible fortified his quest for power and subjugation. Putin, likewise, has written lengthy treatises justifying his tactics, much of its philosophy torn from the pages of Ivan Ilyin’s writings. Note that Ilyin “began his article on ‘Russian Nationalism’ with the simple claim that ‘National Russia has enemies.’” ³ How frequently have we heard this refrain repeated by Putin? The world is Russia’s enemy until subjugated by Russia under its nuclear umbrella. And Putin has no need to call upon some goddess to justify his actions, for Divine Providence already guides him. But, as warned in the Bible, “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Mathew, 7:15). And further, “They speak visions of their own mind, not from the mouth of the Lord.” (Jeremiah, 23:16). One such ravenous wolf has concocted a scheme out of his bewitched mind to swallow up the nation of Ukraine. He has become our 21st Century Hitler. And the sword he wields is not the “sword of the spirit” (Ephesians 6:17), nor Hitler’s blitzkrieg, but a nuclear bomb. Putin threatens an apocalypse unless granted unbridled power over the lives of innocents. 

The lesson of history here is plain: as Lord Acton stated, “all power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The quest for power is not an uncommon human trait. But so is the urge to form communities and social justice. For the past 234 years, the United States has struggled with both traits. How have we survived? The answer: we revive the power of our union and its guarantees of liberty and justice for all. And we do so at the polls. For example, we just voted out of office a pretend dictator. Throughout our history, we have used our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to correct any waywardness from their provisions and to right the course of our democracy. No human society is or remains innocent of wrongdoing. The virtue of democracy is its ability to right its course. When America loses this ability, it loses its place in history as perhaps the best hope for humankind. All who support democracy must stand together, otherwise we will face the same recourse that the Russian people face today, that is, subjugation to a maniacal tyrant or—in America’s case—to a rogue political party fallen under the spell of a Putinesque fanatic. Of course, our “fanatic” is less likely to speak in religious terms, but in terms of wealth. But history has shown us that men who seek absolute power (yes, they are always men) surround themselves with sycophants who feed off the trough of that power. 

Americans must support Ukrainians, for their struggle is the same as ours. They were developing a democracy just as we have been struggling to preserve ours. Our futures are intertwined. And the world depends upon our success in this struggle. May God help the Ukrainian people and guide us to form societies and governments that guarantee liberty and justice for all.  

The alternative is a return to feudal conditions, aristocratic rule, and sworn loyalty to a monarchized system under a soulless dictator. 

  ______________________________________________________________________

 ¹ If you really want to understand this man and his objectives, read “Mr. Putin,” authored by Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gadddy. And, if you want to know how he rose to such power, read Karen Dawisha’s “Putin’s Kleptocracy,” where his brutal rise is extensively documented. 

² William L. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” pp. 75-79 (quote taken from P.78). 

³ Timothy Snyder, “The Road to Unfreedom, p.28.