I've talked about what depresses me when I look at the news about home: the risk of economic collapse, the toxicity of political discussion, the sad and venal leadership of our major parties. It doesn't get better when I look abroad.
What's happening abroad?
Western Europe
This one is easy, and it's almost not worth mentioning except that Marie and I will be traveling to Paris in November. But apparently Western Europe is in a recession, and France is about to spend €200 million to destroy excess wine, because the market price is now below the price of production. Part of the problem is that oil and gas are a lot more expensive ever since the US blew up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, so any activity that relies on oil and gas is more expensive as well. Of course France famously relies heavily on nuclear power, but I expect there will still be an impact. Does a recession mean that tourist venues will be closed, especially once we are out of the traditional tourist rush in summer? Maybe.
Also, from a purely selfish point of view, I'd be happy if they saved some of that cheap wine until we were there. Maybe we can promise to drink plenty of it, to make it worthwhile for the producers.
Ukraine
There's a war in Ukraine. Maybe you've heard of it. A year ago I wrote a piece on the Patio about the causes of the war, and reflected that a large number of prominent voices in the media all seemed to be missing the point in a remarkable instance of synchronized stupidity. Seeing so many people start saying the same wrong things all at once made me understand why you hear accusations that the "mainstream media" is nothing more than a propaganda show.
The war in Ukraine makes me sad: partly because it is so unnecessary, partly because it shows us and our allies to be duplicitous scoundrels, and partly because of how I think it's going to end.
It is unnecessary because the United States has no geopolitical interests in Ukraine whatsoever. The proof is that Ukraine was outside of America's control or influence throughout the entire twentieth century and we got along just fine. So our intervention there today is pure aggression, nothing more.
That we in the West have been duplicitous scoundrels requires a little history. Briefly, conflict in this region dates back more than ten years, but it was supposed to have been resolved by the Minsk Accords in 2015. However, late last year Angela Merkel gave an interview to Die Zeit in which she admitted that the West had signed the Minsk Accords in bad faith,* with no intention of actually living by them. "The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to buy time for Ukraine. Ukraine used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. Ukraine in 2014-2015 and Ukraine today are not the same." I'm sure I saw a video of this interview at the time, but I can't find it now. Some people think it has been taken down. But you can find a summary in this article here. A lengthier exposition of the whole history can be found in this 16-minute video.
How is it going to end? That's depressingly easy to answer. Ukraine is a country of 37 million people, or was according to the last census reported in Wikipedia. (It may have fewer by now.) Russia is a country of 147 million people, almost four times as large. So there are two possibilities: either Ukraine loses, or else the fight is taken over by somebody else … which means, by NATO … which means, by the United States.
A lot of people seem to think that if you say this, it's a sign that you want Russia to win. Of course that does not follow. Leaving aside the sad history of Western perfidy that I described above, which created this mess in the first place, it is possible to hate the Russians and still realize that they have an overwhelming advantage based on sheer arithmetic.
- Tucker Carlson gave a recent speech in Budapest, where he described talking to many Hungarians during his visit. He explained that to a man his interlocutors were anti-Russian; then he added that—to a man—they all agreed that the idea that Ukraine has any chance in this fight is sheer lunacy.
- Hal Freeman, an American ex-pat who lives in Russia, writes regularly in his blog "Between Two Worlds" about the war news that he sees made available in Russia. One could reasonably argue that perhaps he is seeing propaganda; but when he describes what daily life is like for himself and his children, I'm inclined to take him at his word. (And his descriptions directly contradict the things we hear in the United States about Russia's internal conditions.)
- For a more detailed account of the state of the war from a strictly military perspective, consider also this interview with Col. Douglas Macgregor:
To repeat: the choices here are either that Ukraine loses, or that the United States goes to war against Russia on her behalf.
Africa
Meanwhile there has been a coup in Niger. It is hard for me to tell exactly what triggered the coup: news outlets as different as Reuters and Al Jazeera report that the coup leaders say they acted because of Niger's "deteriorating security situation."** But there also seems to be some considerable animosity towards France, the colonial power that ruled Niger until 1960. Niger has accused France of trying to destabilize the country, and has demanded that the French ambassador return home. There have also been reports that Niger suspended all exports of uranium and gold to France, though these reports have been disputed.***
Why am I fretting about this? There are some in Niger asking Russia to support the coup. Vladimir Putin has not explicitly offered support yet, so far as I know. But he has called for a peaceful resolution to the situation, and has warned ECOWAS not to take military action. The United States has a drone base in Niger, and we have offered "unflagging support" to the deposed President. What is more, France is of course a NATO ally; and under Article 5 of the NATO Charter, any attack on one NATO member is an attack on them all. If Niger should launch an attack on France, it will be as if she had attacked the United States. We could find ourselves at war with Niger.
And at that point, after the warnings that Putin has issued, there is a non-negligible possibility that Russia could decide to support the junta now ruling Niger. In which case, once again, we would find ourselves at war with Russia.
The international community
Algeria has announced that they will not permit France to use Algerian airspace to carry out any military reprisals against Niger.
Uganda has received strong criticism from Western countries for a recent law criminalizing some homosexual activities.**** In particular, the World Bank canceled a number of large development loans that had been scheduled for Uganda, in reprisal for the law. Uganda's president replied by reminding the world that Uganda is a sovereign country entitled to legislate for itself. And he added, "I want to inform everybody, starting with Ugandans, that Uganda will develop with or without loans."
These are just two examples, drawn almost at random. By themselves they are trivial. But my sense is that the role and influence of the West continues to diminish—every day, every year. And of course "the West" means, in the first instance, the United States. Our place in the world is shrinking. There is some justice in that—we contain only some 6% of the world's population. But this shrinkage won't make our lives any easier.
And, lest we lose the thread here, our shrinking role means that when war comes, we will have fewer allies.
War
And so we come to war with Russia. Do I need to spell out for anyone what a bad idea this would be?
Does nobody else remember this?
If we enter a conventional (non-nuclear) war with the Russians, we will lose. Badly. Our last war against an enemy that was a true peer or posed any kind of existential threat ended on August 15, 1945. We won that war. Next we fought to a stalemate in Korea, and after 58 thousand deaths we gave up in Vietnam. Every conflict since then—for 48 years!—has been with powers that were smaller and weaker than we were: Grenada, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Iraq. Even Niger. And we haven't always been victorious even against small and weak powers: think of Afghanistan. But we are certainly out of practice fighting against an enemy that could destroy us. Our military forces are small; discipline and morale are weak; and we are dependent on expensive gadgets that largely cannot be repaired in the field.*****
In short, if we enter a conventional war with the Russians, they will mop the field with us in no time. The only way for us to avoid surrender at that point will be to escalate to nuclear weapons.
But the Russians have those too.
Am I the only one who remembers that World War III was supposed to be a bad idea?
__________
* Long time readers, who remember when I used this blog to try to think through my dysfunctional marriage, will not be surprised that I'm sensitive on this point. Wife made many deals with me over the years, and she never intended to abide by any of them—but she sure wanted to make sure I did! So I flinched when I heard Merkel admit this. I used to admire Merkel, but no longer.
** The Reuters article goes on to say that in reality "security was actually improving thanks to tactics used by [the former] government and help from French and U.S. forces." By way of clarification it explains that fewer than 450 people had died from jihadist action in the first half of 2023, as if that were a small number.
*** I did a Google search this afternoon and found this story reported in many non-Western media: for example here and here. The story can also be found from Forbes. Reuters, by contrast, explicitly describes this story as "misinformation." The Financial Times published an article which included the story, and then revised that article to remove it. I have no way to assess who is right.
**** The law does not punish anyone for being homosexual. But it punishes "recruitment" with imprisonment, and violent rape with death.
***** Sorry, no URL's for these last claims. I'm tired. But google them all and see if I'm wrong. I don't think I am.
No comments:
Post a Comment