“Ancient Athenians used a kleroterion, a stone slab with a grid of slots, to select jurors from among volunteers in such a way that all of the population’s 10 tribes were equally represented. A lottery system enabled the jurors to be randomly chosen on the morning of the trial, minimizing chances of bribery.” ¹

The earliest democracy consulted by our founding fathers was that of Athens in ancient Greece. Of course, they also referenced the social philosophies of the Enlightenment. But they made no reference to the Athenian kleroterion and the problem it tried to resolve—a problem that still haunts our democracy today. How can a democracy assure descriptive representation of its citizens, inclusive of all classes, age groups, gender, race, and individual differences—like the average folk we encounter every day? In Ms. Procaccia’s article quoted above, for example, she explains that a descriptive representation in any assembly would necessarily include an equal number of men and women. But, as she illustrates, “the average proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments worldwide was 26 percent in 2021—a marked increase from 12 percent in 1997 but still far from gender balance.” And she was just referencing one descriptive distinction that can unfortunately disassociate democratic governance from its plebiscite. Of course, there are many other discrepancies in democratic representation that may include race, national origin, class, fame, and wealth besides gender. Although everybody can vote, only a few govern. But those few too often favor interests other than their diverse electorate’s. Why is that fact demonstrably true, while being equally unfair to voters in any democracy so defined? Well, this distortion of democracy can be explained.

In just a few days, the vote count in America’s mid-term elections will be determined and reported. And we will know how well the results will reflect the voting public. Although a large majority of Americans are registered as Democrats, the Republican Party far exceeds their rival in campaign funding—that is, by billions of dollars. Obviously, Republicans have a wealthier donor base. While both Parties have and will emphasize voter turnout, the Party that can afford more advertisements and fund more campaign workers has an advantage. So, money is a significant advantage in tilting the scale in turnout and, as a result, in election outcomes. Since July of 2015, this blog has repeatedly raised the issue of replacing private campaign funding with public funding. The problem is not just with wealthy donors having more influence on government policy—which is unfair in any democracy—but with the quasi-criminal influence of “dark” money. The latter includes campaign donations from foreign countries that seek profits from American investments and/or influence over our foreign policies. How can a true democracy of the people survive where elections are tilted in favor of those privileged by wealth or influence? The answer is obvious and partly explains this distortion of democracy.

Another anomaly in America’s electoral system is the Electoral College’s reflection of the majority vote. Since voting majorities are calculated by State defined Districts, rather than the overall vote count by State, it is possible to form Districts that favor one Party over another—a process termed gerrymandering. For example, in Wisconsin 44% of the voters can elect a Federal Senator of the Republican Party even though 56% of the electorate voted for a Democrat. This anomaly is the result of years of Republican maneuvering and redistricting at the State level (reference “Majority Pejoraty”). In the past, both Parties have been guilty of gerrymandering. But the Republicans have honed this devious advantage—even to the point of manipulating the ten-year census to minimize the vote count in Democratic precincts. And this gerrymandering has been extended to many mid-western and southern States and explains how Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote in 2016 while losing the popular vote by more than three million votes. How is it possible that an immensely unpopular President—who lost his incumbency by more than seven million votes, the largest vote differential in American history—could have been initially elected by a minority of voters? Given the success of gerrymandering, the answer is obvious and further explains this distortion of our democracy.

When Europeans discovered and eventually colonized the American continent, the initial settlers where organized into colonies. But these colonies gradually became quasi-independent city-states and demanded the same individual freedoms guaranteed to British citizens. But, in order to attain those freedoms, our founding fathers recognized the need to unify under one banner and, if necessary, fight for those freedoms. John Adams was the chief organizer of the American rebellion; George Washington became the leader of our revolutionary army; James Madison helped define the structure of this newly proposed democratic republic; Benjamin Franklin was the consensus builder at America’s Constitutional Convention; Alexander Hamilton became its chief interpreter/defender; and Thomas Jefferson had already defined the very basis for American independence when he proclaimed, “all men are created equal” and later demanded the first ten Amendments be added to the newly ratified Constitution. Those ten Amendments captured the same Bill of Rights that every Brit had by virtue of birth, that Jefferson thereby demanded, and that he justified in his Declaration of Independence. Those were the same rights and individual freedoms that Washington recognized could only be preserved by our unity. And they inspired what I have called Washington’s prime principle, “if we love our freedom then we must preserve our unity.” And those words are also evocative of our current President’s oft-repeated phrase, “there is nothing we cannot do if we do it together, (for) we are the United States of America.”

Given these American birthrights bequeathed us by our founding fathers and extended over a  235-year period to include women, Blacks, immigrants, and LGBTQ, how is it possible that we now seem poised to deny the very principles that founded our nation? Gangs of white supremacists, anti-abortionists, and various hate groups now dictate policies adverse to our founding principles. Our legislators include deniers of a fair and democratically constituted election. Our Supreme Court Justices boldly invalidate a personal freedom their predecessors defined as Constitutionally guaranteed while threatening to amend other Court precedents affecting individual rights and freedom. And, it would seem, these threats to our democracy all emanate from one man whom most Americans rejected as their President twice. But he has gained tribal authority over one political Party that has manipulated its minority into an electoral, if not a voting, majority and has packed the Supreme Court with subversive ideologs. Yes, I know, the terms “subversive ideologs” is outrageous and offensive. But how does one characterize Justices who reverse legal guarantees of fair State elections and the individual freedom every woman should have over her own body as a personal birthright guaranteed by the 9^th and 14^th Amendments? Of course, the man referenced here is the criminally discredited, twice impeached former President Trump. And the Party he now controls is the current version of the Republican Party which bears no resemblance to Ronald Reagan, its most memorable President of more than three decades ago. Taken together, Trump and his Party have pulled together the forces of money and corruption to distort and destroy American democracy. The only remaining question is whether they will be successful?

Election politics can be confusing. The issue of democracy, for instance, is buried under many mis-directions. The Republicans divert our attention from their Supreme Court appointments, specifically, judges who testify in support of the Roe v. Wade decision, then defy their own testimony by ruling against it (reference “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty”). They blame the current President for inflation, while ignoring Trump’s failures to contain COVID and to support Ukraine’s defense against a Russian invasion. The results of these failures were not only extensive loss of lives in America and Ukraine, but supply-line failures and an escalation of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The latter resulted in a curtailment of Russia’s gas and oil supply to the world economy which, together with the impact of COVID, has resulted in a global inflation. The current Administration has fixed the supply-line issue and has done what the Trump Administration refused to do, which is to fund and administer a nationwide program to reduce the impact of the pandemic, return people to work, reopen schools, and save lives. And, of course, America now leads the world in support of Ukraine. The Republicans also fault the Democrats for the increase of crime in America. But they refuse to ban military style weapons that terrorize and greatly increase the death toll resulting from criminal violence. Moreover, the nine worst States in crimes per capita are all governed by Republicans. These campaign gambits are examples of that age-old political game of misdirection, that is, the attempt to divert the electorate from reality. And that ill-intended attempt is a further distortion of our democracy.

In Ariel Procaccia’s referenced article, she describes how a 1983 abortion ban in the Irish Constitution was overturned in 2016. The Irish Parliament “convened a citizens’ assembly, whose 99 members were chosen at random.” ¹ The process of selection assured representation across a wide spectrum of age, gender, and geography—much like the Athenian lottery used in conjunction with their kleroterion. The resultant assembly “heard expert opinions and held extensive discussions regarding the legalization of abortion.” ¹ Its final recommendation would overturn the abortion ban “in all circumstances, subject to limits on the length of pregnancy.” ¹ As a result of this recommendation, the abortion ban was repealed by 66 percent of Ireland’s voters. The citizen assembly was successful because it represented “average” people who represented a cross-section of the Irish population AND because they were provided the expert opinion of doctors and scientists and the opportunity to discuss and analyze the data and circumstances affecting abortions. In other words, the Irish abortion ban was lifted as a result of an informed electorate that represented a broad cross-section of the voting community.

How do we Americans overcome the misinformation heralded by well-funded special interests, electoral brinkmanship, and self-invested politicians who value their hold on office over public service? We can begin by learning the lesson the Irish represented. America began in the colonies where the rights of citizens and the purpose of government was discussed at the kitchen table, in lecture halls, the workplace, and pubs. Although we live in the “information age,” the sources of political information are polluted by self-serving protagonists, ridiculous conspiracy theories, bold lies, and inflamed rhetoric designed to influence behavior rather than reasoned judgment. The task of becoming self-informed has become a selective task of choosing sources. What can help penetrate this cacophony is grounding in America’s formative culture—that is, our history, social studies, art, music, and foundational ideals. The latter is well represented not only in our founding documents but in the words and actions of our founding fathers, as summarily reverenced above. How is it possible for the most formative democracy in human history to limit, or even eliminate, civics classes in its public school system? How can our democracy survive where political campaigns are based on winning rather than the general welfare of the voting public?

Generally, I would never recommend voting along party-lines. But the current Republican Party has become a granite block of resistance to any public serving policies. We only know what it is against, namely, Democratic politicians at any level, all policies that serve civic health, education, world peace, climate change mitigation, and any honest debate based on facts. What the Party does support is  election of its candidates and its hold on all civic power. Their public platform no longer serves the general welfare, for it does not even exist, neither in writing nor in practice. They have become the Party of Power and Bluster. Yes, I do believe there are Republicans I would normally support, but their funding and support within the Party today is conditional upon their adherence to “talking points” and a political strategy of winning at all costs. The problem on this campaign cycle is that those costs include the demise of our democracy.

_______________________________________________________________

¹ Ariel Procaccia, “A More Perfect Algorithm,” in Scientific American, November 2022 Issue, pp.53-59.

A Footnote:

Putin, in a recent speech he gave on 10-27-2022 stated that “the West is no longer able to dictate its will to humankind but still tries to do it, and the majority of nations no longer want to tolerate it.” In fact, President Biden has done a very effective job of leading a “majority of nations” to not tolerate Putin’s dictates, his unprovoked war on Ukraine or the genocide of its citizens. But America’s ability to influence the world order it largely created after World War II depends upon it remaining a beacon of hope and a model democracy. But the distortion of our democracy outlined in this blog has an unfortunate impact on a peaceful world order. Unless Republicans can wean themselves from Trump’s embrace, his proposals to demolish NATO, to align American foreign policy with Putin, to limit support for Ukraine, and to develop “friendships” with dictators like Kim Jong-un, Erdogan, and Orban will remove America from its status as a beacon of hope for democracies around the world. What prognosis for world peace would then be plausible?

This blog is about the parallelism between very disparate entities, like the confluence between hyper-capitalism and hyper-personalization. Yes, this comparison is between America and Russia, however unlikely it may seem. Although America is still believed to be the “land of opportunity,” where an individual can follow his/her dreams in pursuit of happiness, it still struggles to provide equal opportunity for specific racial minorities and certain classes of immigrants. In Russia, by comparison, the disparity between rich and poor—between privileged and unprivileged—is the fully intended feature of government policy. Both countries, it should be noted, house some of the wealthiest individuals in the world, like multi-billionaires whose fortunes exceed the annual income of most nations. While “conservative” politicians in America continue to propose cuts or even elimination of the wealth tax, Russia has no inheritance tax. So, those American politicians who euphemistically call themselves “conservative” have more in common with Russian kleptocracy than American democracy. In different degrees, both countries favor the wealthy.

Although America does have a progressive tax system, every time a Republican majority seizes control of Congress, the Party attempts to lower taxes for wealthy corporations and individuals. The last Republican majority lowered the highest corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Moreover, property investors/developers can take advantage of significant expense and depreciation tax breaks. And many multi-billion dollar corporations have evaded taxation completely (at least until a minimum tax law recently passed by Democrats is implemented). Meanwhile, Russia has maintained a flat tax rate of 13% since 2001, effectively abandoning any pretense of wealth redistribution. But, more significantly, individual Russian oligarchs can hide their accumulated wealth and pilfered “income” from state owned industries and operations—that is, their grift—in government approved “cooperatives” and in undeclared foreign holdings that include both real estate and bank accounts. Between 1993 and 2018, for example, Russian gas/oil production has resulted in a massive 250% trade surplus. But the official reserve estimate is only 25%. The oligarchs hold the difference in offshore assets “which exceed one year of the national GDP, or the equivalent of the entirety of the official financial assets held by Russian households.” ¹ Some still control their foreign investments from Russia. Others prefer to live abroad almost exclusively, in cities like London, Monaco, or New York. One of the ironies of this wealth-privileged parallelism between Russia and America is that Russian money laundering in Western enterprises has also enriched some Western billionaires as well. Therefore, both Western and Russian parasites are feeding off the income and wealth created by average Russians. Can you see the surprising, if unlikely, paradox here? Capitalism and kleptocracy embrace in two directly opposing economic systems.

One incidence of an American enterprise benefiting from purloined Russian money is uniquely relevant to my American readers. Back in 2016, one of Donald Trump’s sons was asked how the Trump organization continued to raise money for investments after multiple bankruptcies closed the door to American bank loans. His reply was straightforward: Russian money. Also in 2016, much was made of Donald Trump’s desire to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. He already had a builder in tow, but, in Putin’s Russia, he would need the Russian President’s blessing. How he intended to fund this project is not known, but he already had loans with a foreign bank whose most important Board member was Putin.  His pitch to Putin surrogates included the offer of an executive suite on the top floor for the Russian President. But that bribe-like offer had a greater significance to the parallelism topic of this blog. For it also offered President Putin a “quid pro quo” opportunity. It should be noted that he had begun his KGB career as a spy handler, actively recruiting German, French, and Spanish contacts to obtain Western technology. How could an experienced “handler” not recognize Trump’s offer as an opportunity to recruit this perfectly positioned “idiot source”? Besides, Trump was already compromised by his dependence on oligarch money grifted from the Russian people.

These two men also shared similar predispositions besides their persistent pursuit of wealth and power. After his Presidential election, Trump shared many unrecorded calls with Putin and was reported to quote his mentor/handler as his authority when contradicting his foreign intelligence analysts. Recently, he even credited Putin as a “genius” when the Russian President termed his unprovoked war against Ukraine a “military exercise of liberation.” Therein Trump could readily recognize his own pension for branding as depicted in his MAGA slogan and his self-characterization as “the greatest President in history.” It should not be surprising that these two men could relate to each other for they sought the same things—power, fame, wealth—conducted their relations on the same transactional basis, and brandished self-fabricated facades to hide their self-serving intents. Is there not an unlikely paradox in the relation of these two Presidents? Their parallel time in office represented two diametrically opposed political systems, one democratic and the other totalitarian. Even though these two men could not be more different in personality, education, or intellect, they had a common self-serving enterprise and ego-branded facade—surely, yet another paradox.

Before Putin became President, he developed much of his thievery skills as Chairman of the Committee for Foreign Investments in St. Petersburg. While Chairman, he was not only able to skim money from foreign transactions but to amass a coterie of swindlers/enablers in various skimming and money laundering activities. They would become his lifelong partners in many self-enrichment schemes. From 1991 to 1996, Putin rose to prominence in St. Petersburg while enriching his gang of thieves. Together, they worked with foreign mafia contacts, shared ownership in joint foreign and domestic ventures (like the infamous Ozero Cooperative), and hung onto Putin’s coattails as he rose to ultimate power. ² Most of these men now hold prominent positions in both government and industry. They are part of that uniquely Russian clan of wealthy oligarchs, nearly all of whom have become multi-billionaires. Although Trump lacks the skill and knowledge of Putin, he does see himself as the “genius” benefactor his wealthy friends should acknowledge. After he cut the top tax rate from 35 to 21 percent, he exhorted his Mar-a-Lago guests to thank him for “I just made you a lot richer.” To some extent, he was just replicating what corporate tax lobbyists attempt to do, i.e., assure the rich get richer. When he campaigned for the Presidency, he claimed only he could “clear the swamp” in Washington because he bragged that he knew who the dirty politicians were, for he regularly bought them with his campaign contributions. In fact, he included them in his circle of “my people.” But, as with many of Trump’s assertions, his own words convicted him even while condemning others. He is as much a part of that swamp, as Putin is integral to both the wealth and welfare of his oligarchs. They both lead a band of opportunists, if not outright thieves. Again, these two men could not be more different, and yet so paradoxically alike.

During Joe Biden’s campaign for the Presidency, he spoke about the ongoing conflict between democracy and totalitarianism on the world stage. But his words are also relevant to contemporary America. The January 6 insurrection and defilement of the nation’s capital should have awakened all Americans to what Trump had wrought during his four-year term as the nation’s President. As the Nebraska-Kansas Act set the stage for the Civil War, Trump’s refusal to honor the electorate’s decision in 2020 has inspired his followers’ attempts to game future elections. At his urging, they now plan to permanently divide the country while setting the stage for one party rule. And that party, according to the Republican Party’s official platform, would have no other policy agenda than every dictate or whim emanating from Donald Trump. His acolytes would then reenact in future elections the failed 2020 plans revealed by the J/6 Committee. At this very moment, they are attempting to assume positions in Government that would control a/o certify election results. If successful, they would either attempt to reinstall Trump as President or rig future elections in favor of Trump and his chosen candidates. The Republican House Minority Leader has already vowed allegiance to Donald Trump in exchange for his support of a very dark legislative agenda.  If he becomes the Majority leader after the mid-term elections, as he presupposes, he promises to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, cut Social Security and Medicare budgets, codify a ban on all abortions, reduce the 21% tax on wealthy Americans to 15% and make that reduction permanent, eliminate what he terms America’s blank check that supports Ukraine’s war of survival, and repeal much of the Biden agenda passed within his first two years in office, including limits on seniors’ yearly medical expenses, reduction of prescription drug costs and of student tuition debts, and the single largest investment toward mitigating the impact of climate warming in America’s history. He promises to block anticipated Presidential vetoes by simply shutting down the government. But how does his legislative agenda serve the interests of our general welfare? Instead, It rather deepens the divide between the very wealthy and the rest of Americans, furthering the wealth gap, much like what exists in a totalitarian state like Russia.

My previous blog highlighted how Putin rigged his initial election to the Presidency (reference, “Is War in Europe Inevitable?”). After the controversial Duma elections and President Yeltsin’s resignation, he became the acting President with total control over Russia’s electoral system. Donald Trump, however, does not currently have the power to reconstitute the results of the last election or rig his own reelection in 2024. But he can select and support surrogates/stooges for elective offices where they could control future elections, to include the casting, counting, and/or certifying of votes. His intent is obvious. If he cannot overturn the last Federal election, he must rig the next one. He has already begun to do so. As Sherlock Holmes would say, “the game is afoot.” But his underlying premise is based upon the same fallacy espoused by his Russian counterpart. Putin promised that only he as President could assure democratic freedoms for his people, much as Trump promised “only I can” make America great again. But those promises belie a fundamental truth: totalitarianism and democracy are diametrically opposed at every level. Either people are allowed to vote their conscience, or not. Either government reflects the will of most of its citizens or just a few, usually a ruling class and/or a dictator. The general welfare of citizens appears quite different in a democratic versus a totalitarian state as a result. “Government of, by, and for the people” cannot and will never exists under either of these men.

While Putin can resurrect centuries of Russian imperial or communist totalitarianism, Trump must recall and reinvigorate a less distant past of American white male superiority by virtue of race and gender. Could he take America back before the 2009 women’s pay equity legislation, 1960’s hard won voting and civil rights laws, the 1920’s Amendment granting women’s suffrage, and the 1860’s Amendments abolishing slavery and granting civil rights for all, including Black suffrage? It seems as unlikely that Trump could reintroduce white male supremacy as Putin could reestablish Russian rule over its lost empire. Trump is that repulsive male chauvinist caught on tape during his initial Presidential campaign. And Putin is the very embodiment of the “Russian Bear” caricature poised at Europe’s border anxious to swallow up Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—If NATO would just allow him to do so.  But it is doubtful that his imperialist appetite would be any more satisfied with these conquests than it was with Chechnya or Georgia. In truth, Belorussia, Poland, Hungry, Czechoslovakia and all of Europe would shudder with that hungry Russian Bear on its border (reference, “The Russian Bear”). Ironically, both Trump and Putin relapse into a recidivism of “better” times that they imagine only they can resurrect. While Trump would reverse much of America’s 234 year evolution of its democracy, Putin would re-introduce Russia to a monarchic and aristocratic era not too dissimilar to the Middle Ages. When these men attain positions of power over others, their only intent is to amass more power, fame, and wealth without the least concern for the will or general welfare of their citizens. Moreover, the ego-obsessed brutishness with which these self-deluded strongmen govern are parallel parodies of paranoia.

Is it necessary—or even appropriate—for America to recover a former greatness or for Russia to reclaim its empire? The pursuit of a MAGA or imperial myth-shrouded past is to ignore responsibility to build a better future. History’s tragedies only repeat themselves when the lessons they record are ignored. In truth, neither Putin nor Trump care more for the welfare of their citizens than the advancement of their own interests and pursuits. While Trump was reducing staffing at the White House and appointing sycophants wherever he could to enhance his power, Putin had already concentrated his authority by placing his St. Petersburg gang in charge of key Russian industries and government positions. ³ Both men recognized the necessity to surround themselves with as few acolytes as they could control and to make themselves both the key decision-makers and prime controllers of their country’s wealth distribution. But Putin was better positioned to succeed in his quest for absolute power. He was following a path well-worn in the aftermath of a totalitarian system that had nurtured him from the very beginning of his career as a KGB operative. In addition, as deputy mayor of St. Petersburg and chairman of the Committee for Foreign Liaison, he obtained sole foreign purchasing authority. This chairmanship allowed him to organize his crime syndicate of smugglers, money launderers, and foreign mafias as his power base while his official government position allowed him to embezzle City funds, siphon off money from foreign sales, and extort money from a legal gaming industry. Putin’s St. Petersburg associates, some from his previous KGB period, were not only beholden to him, but anxious to follow him into his Presidency. They became his trusted cohorts and the wealthy oligarchs he often appointed to dual positions in charge of both key industries and their regulatory institutions. As President, any who might oppose him faced more than his anger, but an enabled flight out of a six story window. His St. Peterburg associates, however, he protected as fellow collaborators through whom he maintained control over key business sectors and much of Russia’s wealth. Likewise, Trump attempted to use his Presidency to profit himself (as detailed in previous blogs) and “his” billionaires. He was also willing to harm his or their supposed enemies. While Putin could use his FSB to quietly silence his opposition, Trump attempted to use the Department of Justice to punish his supposed enemies like CNN’s Jeff Zucker, and benefit Fox’s Richard Murdoch, his friend, prime supporter, and initially his regular confidant. In like manner, he tried to find a way to help his Florida neighbor from Palm Beach, Nelson Peltz, in his complaint against a common foe, Jeff Bezos of Amazon. Peltz had a $3.5 billion stake in Procter and Gamble, which he felt was threatened by Amazon’s purchase of Whole Foods, a major competitor. Of course, Trump was anxious to help since he considered Bezos’ purchase of The Washington Post a personal affront to himself. ⁴ Fortunately for America, Trump only appointed a few billionaires to cabinet positions in his government, though his policies could and did benefit many more of them. By comparison, he proved to be just a Putin wannabe or, as I have previously coined, a “Putin’s mini-me.”

It might seem that America’s very democratic roots would explain how its abhorrence of past czars or Soviet totalitarianism would naturally extend to Putin’s present day autocracy. But that assumption would be wrong. There were monarchists amongst our pre-revolution colonists. And there have been anarchists who have risen against our federal system of government throughout our history, not just during our Civil War. Texas once sought individual statehood and threatened war against the United States of America. Even the liberal focus of the so-called Locofoco’s transmuted itself many times between 1820-1870 to support potentially contending rights, meshing laissez-faire economics with the individual rights claimed by classical liberalism. Have we Americans ever resolved this conflict between hyper-capitalism and an equitable distribution of wealth in a democratic society (reference “American Exceptionalism Revisited”). Both the “robber barons” and the civil rights movements of women and Blacks claim their heritage from classical liberalism. Within America’s quest for individual freedoms, we can find white supremacists like the Klu Klux Klan from the 1870’s, Hitlerism in the 1930’s, McCarthyism in the 1950’s, Gov. Wallace in the 1960’s, and the Republican Party’s current flirtation with fascism (referenced here in its historical, rather than philosophical contexts). The point of this argument is that devotion to democracy is not divorced from the vagaries of human ambition or of its moral pitfalls. The paradox here is not in democracy, but in human nature.

How can men like Trump or Putin rise to occult-like power and demand absolute loyalty of their followers and/or subjects? Perhaps this loyalty is explained by Robert Wright’s diagnosis of a “conformist bias” in our nature (as quoted in “What is American Democracy’s Fate?”). Are we then so tribal by nature that we can ignore their actions—even at the expense of our American democracy or Ukrainian lives?  Both Putin and Trump violate the trust and moral beliefs of the people who willfully support their Don Quixote enterprises. But I know most Americans are not yet under the MAGA spell and would never consciously concede to the overthrow of our 234 year-old democracy. Likewise, I doubt that Russians not bilked by Putin’s propaganda would support his genocidal and unprovoked war upon a nation with which they share a common inheritance.

Although Russia and America exist under very different political and economic systems, they both suffer from opportunists who share a common interest in accumulating wealth and power at the expense of the governed. These men—yes, they are always men—will rig elections, surround themselves with their “gang of thieves,” create a “protection racket” to quell their enemies, and justify their ill-got gains as the messianic restorers of an imagined “past golden age.” This latter delusion is the product of their paranoia whereby they see themselves as the “great leader” whom all must acknowledge and follow. The architype they present to their followers is not that of a father, but of a warrior who will lead them into battle and eventual conquest. Neither Trump nor Putin are satisfied with merely winning but in vanquishing their enemies. Trump will destroy free elections, avoid accountability for his lawlessness, and disregard our system of checks and balances to become President forever. Putin will destroy Ukraine and any other independent country he considers an obstacle to his mission of recreating a Russian empire. Neither of these men want to destroy capitalism or their respective governments. Parasites need host victims. Instead, they choose to expand wealth creation, but mainly for themselves and their loyal cronies. And, of course, their egos demand obeisance and supreme command over their respective nations. Ironically, neither man fits the model of a warrior-king: Putin is a control freak, scared of being preempted (reference his quote from the title of my previous blog); and Trump is an occult leader demanding obeisance and undeserved flattery from others. Neither can withstand opposition. Trump will throw a temper tantrum or pen a hateful tweet; Putin will reserve a jail cell for anyone he finds disagreeable or personally offensive. These are men who have attained great power, but who act like ten-year-old brats and schoolyard bullies.

Paradoxically, both men seem bent on returning to the early 19^th century, before the American Civil War and the fall of the Russian empire. An historian might conclude that they are both anachronistic in time and place—historically, square pegs misfitted into round holes. And that observation makes the parallelisms noted here the central paradox⁵ of this blog.

( . . . A Relevant Footnote for my American Readers:

It’s well past the time for us to turn away from unsupported “facts” and “assumptions” purported by bias news sources, hearsay internet nonsense, and incendiary political speech. Democracy cannot survive without an informed electorate. Check your sources. Challenge unsupported arguments. Research incendiary “facts” and withhold your consent until verified by trusted sources. The information age can be a wondrous expansion of individual awareness and knowledge. But it has also proved to be a bottomless well of misinformation, gossip, and self-serving propaganda. Our democracy depends upon us as informed and committed citizens.)

_____________________________________________________

¹ This quote and the Russian stats mentioned in this paragraph are taken from Thomas Piketty’s “A Time for Socialism,” pp. 178-181.

² These references to Putin’s work in St. Petersburg are described by Karen Dawisha in “Putin’s Kleptocracy,” Chapter 3, “Putin in St. Petersburg 1990-1996,” pp. 104-162. It should be noted that Putin began assembling his gang of miscreants while working for the KGB from 1985 forward. Eventually, he rose to the KGB leadership before becoming Prime Minister and then Acting President in 1999. He was still head of the renamed KGB, the FSB (Federal’ Naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti), when he was finally “elected” to the Presidency.

³ Dawisha, ibid, the references in this paragraph to Putin’s Moscow period are taken from Chapter 4, “Putin in Moscow, 1990-1999,” pp.224-265.

⁴ Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, “The Divider,” pp.54-59.

⁵ According to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, the etymology of “paradox” is the Greek, para, near, beside, along, and doka, opinion, notion, expectation. But, as anybody who has studied the Greek language knows (?), doka can be used in context to mean false opinion, delusion, or fancy (ref. Langenscheidt’s Greek-English dictionary). Webster does provide a definition closer to Greek usage: “a tenet contrary to received opinion” or “a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true.” In ancient Greek, word definitions can subtlety change in context. In the context of this article, “paradox” is the only appropriate word that captures the odd, conflicting parallelism of democracy/kleptocracy, wealth/grift, ideals/delusion, or Trump/Putin. Regarding this last parallelism, I suspect my readers have no need of a Greek dictionary to relate to my phrase “parallel parodies of paranoia.”

                                 Nobody controls me here. I control everybody else. ¹

                                                  (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin)

What should we have learned from Hitler’s suicide or from Mussolini’s bitter end? May I suggest that we must recognize that megalomaniac narcistic sociopaths never give up the tribal power they hold over dupped followers—unless overthrown, sometimes violently, or by their deaths. That power must be torn from their greedy hands, for they may well risk death before releasing their hold on dictatorial power—even by suicide. The irony here is that these chameleons (literally, “on the ground lions” or just pesky lizards) never exhibit personal attributes of service to others or to community except for a price. Instead, they make a pact: allow them absolute/unchecked power in exchange for relief of alleged grievances and vague promises of personal freedoms. History informs us that this type of exchange has almost never assured moral leadership or a just society—too often not even with religious leaders of both church and state. Rare are the dictators/monarchs/cult leaders who exhibit the moral leadership and personal integrity to enter such a social pact and deliver justice and freedom for all their subjects. Rather, they exact a heavy price. For they are men of weak character who weigh their power over others as appropriate accouterments to their personal fame and success. Without that power, these men might be pitied as delusional or wholly fanatic. They give little or no credence to their promises of securing the personal freedoms and just governance of their followers. Rather they extort them and abuse their trust while maintaining deniability of their personal misdeeds. They recoil behind the shady cover of their power and control, ever ready to strike down any opposition. “Why do they act thus”—you might ask—perhaps because they shrink in fear of being held accountable for their actions.

Putin is losing his unprovoked war against Ukraine. Not only his credibility, but his presidency is on the line. He came to power promising a renewal of the Russian empire and the establishment of a “vertical” power system exclusively administered by himself. As mentioned in my previous blog, Putin considers himself as the embodiment of the state, much as Trump believes he is the “greatest President in history.” These men cannot willfully separate themselves from their self-identification with the power they hold. For they believe themselves above the law. Without that power, they become not just normal humans like the rest of us, but the faux personae they attempt to hide from view. These men want to “control everybody else” because they refuse to be governed by others or risk being seen for who they really are. Their values are honed by their own self-interests, not by other’s or even society’s. They pay less heed to values, laws, and norms of decency, nor to any intimation of humanitarian concern for the welfare of their fellow citizens, even though they pretend otherwise. As a result, these men stand apart, unconstrained and intractable in their quest for power. Putin, for example, wants to resurrect the Russian empire of the 19^th century. He must then be Czar-like. Therefore, he will eliminate all obstacles in his path to power and glory. Trump, by comparison, can never concede his election loss. He must be President forever wherein he can use his bully pulpit to belittle/attack all opposition. He rails against any slight or criticism, sparing neither political opponents nor even the institutions of government, his so-called “deep state.” Both Trump and Putin have waved the big stick of nuclear war like any bully on a school playground. Before Trump fell in love with the North Korean dictator, he bragged that he could wipe North Korea off the world map. More recently, Putin has threatened NATO, the US, and, of course, Ukraine with his extensive nuclear arsenal.

We have seen the devastation these types of men leave in their wake. The conflagration of World War II is not dissimilar to the genocide and brutal destruction of societal infrastructure we now witness in Ukraine. The shots fired against Ft. Sumpter are also not dissimilar to the Trump-inspired brutal insurrection of J/6 and its aftermath of white supremacists’ death threats. America and the free world cannot compromise or cede any ground to such men for they cannot be mollified by concessions. They feast on each step won towards eventual total victory: state by state for Trump; and country by country for Putin. They must have it all and never concede their power over others, whereby they would lose their self-identity. Instead, they stand alone, self-justified, answerable to no one, and driven to extend their power over others unchecked and uncontrollable. Throughout history, these types have been the ruin of established societies and cultures. Left unbridled, they leave only chaos and suffering in their wake.

While Donald Trump is almost a comic book character, ranting and raving with conspiracy theories, lies, and imagined grievances, Putin waves the flag of nuclear war and attempts to mobilize—that is, forcibly draft—Russian men to fight an unprovoked war of his sole creation. Ukraine never threatened Russia. In fact, it had merely resisted Russia’s illegal meddling in its attempt at self-governance. Stymied by this resistance, Putin chose military conquest of its neighboring state. This violation of national borders is a breach of the UN Charter which Russia, as a member of the Security Council, is sworn to protect. Trump, whom I once called Putin’s “mini-me,” attempted to trash a free election, the very soul of our democracy and in violation of our Constitution. While our Constitution is the bulwark of our democracy, the United Nations’ Charter is similarly constituted as the bulwark of peaceful co-existence among nation-states. It is the only international agreement specifically designed to prevent a rogue state from infringing on the territory and sovereignty of another state—and possibly initiating another world war. ²

To my mind, the problem both America and the world face today is both existential and a test of character. History tells us these “strong” men must not be allowed to carry out their ego-driven demand to hold near absolute power and threaten their chosen adversaries at will. Trump’s lies and incredulous ravings arouse the specter of violence, as we have witnessed on J/6 and almost daily from his mouth since. Meanwhile, Putin’s oft-repeated nuclear threats attempt to hold the free world at bay while he decimates the land and people of Ukraine. That which Trump cannot achieve lawfully—mainly due to negative judicial decisions, he will attempt to win via his tribal threats of violence against the establishment. That which Putin’s military does not win on the ground, he will simply destroy by rendering all of Ukraine an unlivable wasteland. Such a vacuous victory is further proof of the invalidity of Putin’s ploy of restoring greater Russia. A generation of Russians would have to live with the stain of his inhumanity hoisted upon their shoulders. He, like Trump, has no other goal than self-aggrandizement. Both deluded men want to vanquish their supposed enemies and silence all critics of their behavior. Both men despoil the heritage of their respective nations and belie the integrity of their people.

What can be done to stop these besmirched soul-brothers? As a formerly registered Republican, I hate to admit the need to defeat the Republican Party at every level of State or Federal office. The Grand Ole Party cannot be allowed to rigg the next election as Trump demands of his sycophants. Republicanism can only be restored when cleansed of this virulent parasite and his quest to overthrow our Constitutional government. Eventually, Trump will be held accountable by our judicial system. Putin, on the other hand, faces an even greater danger, for Russia has never dealt lightly with failed leaders. As a former Russian foreign service operative admitted, “we do not simply remove the man in charge, we kill him.” It will not go well for Putin as a former KGB operative. He will not be forced into retirement like Gorbachev or Yeltsin. Perhaps, he will be induced to jump out of a six-story window, a KGB fate that has befallen to many of Putin’s antagonists. He must know and fear this outcome, making him even more dangerous.

Neither America nor Europe wishes to engage Russia in actual combat. And no country can forbear a nuclear cloud over its horizon. But if Putin persists in doubling down on his aggression, then conflict may be unavoidable. If Putin cannot stop Ukrainian soldiers with his undisciplined army and extensive firepower, then he likely will escalate his attack with further atrocities against Ukrainian civilians. If NATO and the American military have not already considered the West’s response, they will have failed in their due diligence. It may well be time to show the West’s resolve. When Putin amasses his newly mobilized forces of potentially 300,000 or more soldiers on the borders of Ukraine and his allegedly “breakaway” Russian republics in Southern Ukraine, it may finally be time to ready NATO forces on Ukraine’s Western borders. How long would it take the West to destroy Russian aggressors with the superior firepower NATO has both from land and sea? That war would end in weeks and leave Russia unable to mount a threat from its shared borders or from its naval fleet at the bottom of the Black Sea.

You might ask, how close would the world then be to a nuclear disaster? Too close, for sure. But remember what stops men like Hitler. While Donald Trump can and will eventually fall to the gavel of the courts, Putin can only be stopped by force—or the promise of force. Although his Presidency exists in a “vertical” system of unchecked power, I do not believe the Russian people will allow Putin to take them to the brink of nuclear war. Already, his mobilization of Russian civilians is spreading dissonance among his people. Why would any Russian want to conquer a destroyed and bombed-out country to fulfill the grandiose ambition of a megalomaniac? Are they willing to kill more Ukrainian civilians or occupy a demolished and devastated country for the sake of one man’s assault on windmills? I have had a few Russian friends in my lifetime and can assure my readers (some of whom are Russians) they are not fools–but seriously loyal to family and country. If Putin persists in raising the stakes of his war, Russians will resist and revolt against his lunacy for the sake of Russian heritage and the future of their children.

Some years ago, I sat in a class led by the man who coined the word “glasnost.” He was part of Gorbachev’s administration.  Although “glasnost” (openness) and “perestroika” (restructuring) were sidelined by the communists, the KGB, and the unfortunate ineptness of Yeltsin, there were millions of Russians who hoped for a more humane government. Even Putin promised to protect democracy, but in exchange for absolute rule over his vertical power system, as stated above. The “man would be king,” accountable to no one. But did he protect democracy as promised? We now know he won his first election in 2000 because of a massive fraud coordinated by the Kremlin in support of his Unity party. Among the elements of this fraud were (1) the inexplicable rise in registered voters, (2) evidence of ballot stuffing & election day fraud, (3)  intimidation of the vertical chain of command that reached down through governors, the military, the universities, and farm managers, (4) vote switching after being cast, (5) inexplicable changes in electronic transmission of vote counts, (6) and the telltale elimination of evidence by the summary destruction of “troublesome” voting records. ³ This history is not what Russians were promised by the then young and popular Vladimir Putin. Nor did Americans anticipate Donald Trump’s attack on our democracy as outlined in my blog, “What is American Democracy’s Fate?” But both men exemplify how power-hungry men will connive and prosecute a fraud to gain the seat of power and endeavor never to give it up. It appears likely that every Presidential election during Putin’s reign has maintained some elements of his initial fraudulent election. Likewise, Trump is already planning to reuse in the 2024 Presidential election the same criminal techniques he introduced in the 2020 election to defraud the electorate.

What can and must unite the nations of the world—to include Americans, Europeans, Ukrainians, and Russians—is the common and hopefully universal desire for peaceful co-existence. All peoples should also share a common desire for a government that treats its citizens with respect and secures their individual freedoms. We cannot allow power-crazed leaders to serve their own interests or paranoia instead of the common good of their countrymen. Nor can we allow any post World War II leader to drag his/her country into modern era hostilities that can far exceed the conflagrations of the last century. What we witness now in Ukraine is the insane senselessness of a war where its spoils consist in the total devastation of a country’s infrastructure and the genocide of its innocent civilians. Moreover, nearly every country in our globalized economy has been affected by this unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. But one man stands alone as responsible for this global impact. At this writing, he seems to weigh his vision of a “greater” Russia as more imperative than the costs of war in lives and hardship. Like the man he favored as America’s former President, he values his winning above all else—even though, literally, everybody else loses!

Will the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine result in a greater war in Europe? Will Putin’s genocidal conduct of this war lead to indictments in the proposed International Court of Human Rights? Perhaps, Russians themselves will remove Putin from office, thus avoiding a greater war, creating the possibility for a de-escalation of fighting, and allowing a world court to hold accountable only the warmongers rather than besmirch the pride of the Russian people in whose name Putin acted alone. Certainly, it would take time for the violence and atrocities of this war to be forgotten. But time will cure grievances and soften the memory of personal loss, as it did in Europe after its last great war. Rather than escalate to win at all costs—as it appears to be Putin’s wont—why not institute a cease fire now and pursue peace and reconstruction.  Both Ukrainians and Russians share history and even current familial relations. These are not two people who should be at odds with each other. Divisive politics should never take precedence over our common humanity. And no system of government should allow an executive to rule as if above the law and unaccountable to the people he/she serves. Russia is the largest country with the greatest nuclear stockpile in the world. Both the Russian people and the world need Russia to be a responsible partner in the global economy and a progressive leader in maintaining the peaceful co-existence of all nations.

_______________________________________________

¹ This is an exact quote from a lengthy interview Putin had with three journalists before his 2000 inauguration as President of Russia. That interview became his famous autobiography, “First Person,” as quoted in Karen Dawisha’s incredible journalistic tour-de-force, “Putin’s Kleptocracy,” p. 252.

² On May 13^th, I published a blog entitled “The Russian Bear.” Therein, I suggested changing the role the Security Council now has over UN initiatives. The UN should be governed by a majority of nations that comprise all the continents of the world, not just the former allied partners of World War II. And the Security Council should comprise only those nations willing and able to support the charter of the UN by force if necessary. I offered this suggestion as a starting point for serious discussion. For, If the UN had a more inclusive and effective military force in this manner, Putin’s Russia would not be just facing global economic sanctions but a military confrontation with the entire planet.

³ Ibid., “Putin’s Kleptocracy,” pp.243-250.

“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.