Aside from Saddam Hussein's disastrous 1980 invasion, the ruling Mullahs of Iran, despite their military tentacles reaching many different countries, have been immune from any meaningful military assault against their homeland. Even the US has largely refrained from any overt military action despite, among other things, the hostage crisis that shattered Pres. Carter's re-election chances in 1980 & the death of many GIs in Iraq via an Iranian organized insurgency.
In trying to comprehend the reason(s) for this, one can only speculate. However, I have little doubt that if Israeli or US intelligence detect that the Mullahs are on the verge of joining the nuclear arms club (literally weeks away), they will face a military assault on their nation, including Qom, that will make them wish they never initiated their program. Pakistan may now also join in making it a very interesting military triumvirate.
I wish I was as confident as you as to an attack 2 minutes to nuclear-hood. I don't think the US has plans in place for that and I doubt Biden-Blinken will pull the trigger if they do. As for Israel, I don't know that Israel has the capabilities any longer.
“If avoiding escalation is the highest U.S. priority, then it is only logical to withdraw our forces from the region. That would ensure attacks on our bases don’t continue but ultimately endanger the future of the Mideast. Language that describes avoiding escalation as our highest priority is, therefore, inaccurate and dangerous. It sends an unhelpful signal to our adversaries as well as our friends and allies.”
Here is the reality--Zionist Jews need to stop agitating and stop warmongering. I understand Iran is the final boss of Zionist foreign policy manipulation.
The US will not participate in another disastrous war based on lies. If Israel wants to invade Iran, it's going to do it alone.
Back the fuck off with the warmongering. The goyim aren't signing up. It's not 2003. Stop it.
I will leave the vulgarity and basic anti-semitism to the side and point out to you Ms. Highsmith that opposed to the radical left and radical right narrative not one of the US's mideast wars had to do with Israel. Gulf War 1 was fought to defend Kuwait and their oil fields. Gulf War 2 , in spite of the attempt to blame Zionists and neo-cons for forcing Bush 2 to invade Iraq was done as an extension of the War on Terror against the US and of course to defend oil flow. And Afghanistan? Not much to do with Israel. And US troops have died fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq in order to defend other Moslems who were getting slaughtered - not to defend the evil Zionists and Jews.
I am not sure if you ever studied history in the 5th grade but US involvement in the mideast started with the Jefferson administration and the Barbary pirates. Were Jews to blame for that too?
The US gives Israel about 3.5bn in military aid - ALL of which is spent in the US -- employing American workers and paying US taxes.
Iran is at war with with the west in general and the US in particular. It, along with Russia and China are working to destroy the American way of life. You might not want to admit it but it is true.
If it makes you feel better to blame all US foreign policy blunders on the Jews and Zionists and Israel - that is your business. You can lie to me and your friends - but it is never good to lie to oneself.
These people lie, and then they lie about their lies.
I know what the 2003 Iraq war was about. Stop lying. It was based on the lies that Zionist Jews told to push the US into a war with Iraq. That's what Frum, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser were planning since the Clean Break Memo. That's why they established their own office within the CIA. A list was drawn up after 9/11, and Iran was on that list. Zionists have been gunning for Iran, just like they were gunning for Iraq, for years, and now they see an opening.
You aren't talking to some dumb goy who believes any of this here. Israel and Zionist Jews control US foreign policy, as well as academia and media. Everybody sees it, and nobody cares about "antisemitism" anymore. The word means nothing.
Aid to Israel is not spent in the US. Who the fuck do you think you're kidding, Ira?
Stop lying. Stop warmongering. Stop crying out while you strike. Stop accusing others of what you're doing.
The US will not enter another war for Zionist interests based on lies in the Middle East. Iran is not at war with "the West." Jews are not part of the West. Jews are at war with the world.
It's not going to happen. Back the fuck off because the goyim have had enough.
The goyim have had enough? Do you speak for all non-Jews? There are plenty of goyim, such as myself, who believe that Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself, and that America and Americans are to blame for their own foreign policy adventures and misadventures.
Also, I wonder what so many people think they are accomplishing by using the F-word. It does not give an argument greater weight or authority, and is in fact bad manners.
Look up the Clean Break Memo and who signed it. Look up the people who set up the special office in the CIA and subsequently pushed the war in Iraq: Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Wolfowitz, Frum. I don't deny that non-Jews went along with it because they're stupid and weak like you, but the origin are the Zionist organizations that control US foreign policy.
They came up with a list of countries to invade after 9/11, and Iran is next on the list because it's the final boss.
That is what is pushing the current lies against Iran, which had nothing to do with October 7. Iran is Shia. They wouldn't fund Sunni Arabs. It's not logical.
Qatar, however, is documented as providing hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas and has a literal office for Hamas in Doha where their billionaire leader lives. Odd, no? Nobody is pushing for Qatar to be invaded, just like nobody pushed for Saudi Arabia to be invaded after 9/11 even though 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi, along with Bin Laden, and it was the main source of funds. Literal deja vu, and you're defending it.
Are you going to be signing up to deploy to Tehran? Did you serve in Iraq? I'm curious. What do you have to gain for defending Zionist lobbying groups in America? Do you think they'll defend you?
You're a fucking fool. Grow a backbone. You think swear words are objectionable, but mass lies and wars that results in tens of thousands of deaths are defensible? You have no morals. Idiotic.
I don’t care about the Clean Break memo or who signed it. George Bush was elected in 2000, and he made the ultimate decision to go to war in Iraq, with a great deal of support from the American media and congress. And, he was reelected afterwards. If you blame all of that on secret Jewish influence you are badly mistaken.
Also, much of the American justification for the war did not come from an Israeli memo but had to do with establishing a democratic ally of the US in Iraq. It was believed that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, and we could set up a pro-American democracy like we did in Germany and Japan. This would be to America’s advantage, according to the theory. It was not simply following some Israeli policy memo.
To say that the Zionists control US foreign policy is completely false. It is true that Israel's foreign policy aims do coincide with America's to a very large extent. It was to the Jews' advantage that we destroyed Hitler in WW2 (though of course the state of Israel was not yet in existence at that time), and it was to America's advantage that Israel turned a lot of Russian equipment into junk in 1967. Opposition to Islamic fundamentalism are also common aims.
America and Israel have significant mutual interests and also common enemies – so American policies that benefit Israel are no proof of Zionist control. You say “They came up with a list of countries to invade after 9/11, and Iran is next on the list because it's the final boss.” It is no coincidence that the most violent and dangerous enemies of Israel are enemies of America as well. Do you know what Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran think of America? If you think that people are concerned about the Iranians getting nuclear weapons with no regard for very real dangers, but only because our Zionist masters put Iran’s name on a list, you are not as smart as you think you are.
And, there is a lot of natural support for Israel among the American people as a whole. This is one reason the pro-Israel lobby has clout in Congress – because of American popular support for Israel.
What about America's fiascos in Vietnam in Afghanistan? All of that blood and treasure spent for nothing - Americans are fully capable of their own stupidity without foreign influence. Or do you think America got involved in those countries because of sinister Zionist machinations? Israel and the Jews are not to blame for incompetent foreign policies.
I really don't know why you are so excited about the Jews. Are Jews to claim for the collapse of our southern border? For the astonishing decline of America's major cities? For gigantic budget deficits that will cause who knows what sort of problems in future? For the fentanyl crisis? For the great increases in crime due to failure to enforce simple laws? For an increasingly two-tiered justice system with different rules for friends or opponents of our current regime?
Personally, I think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and the idea of bringing democracy to Iraq was foolish (democracy took centuries of slow development in the West to mature). We could have permanently destroyed all of Hussein’s western forces, leaving Hussein with forces intact in the east to oppose Iran. We could have nullified the Iraqi threat to Saudi Arabia and the UAE without reducing the whole country to chaos and without putting one pair of American boots on the ground – but just because America (with the support of the media and the Congress) invaded Iraq does not mean we are now obligated to attack Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and everyone else that happens to offend us in some way.
Also, about Saudi Arabia and 9/11, you are forgetting that Arab oil money also has a lot of oil influence in Washington. I don’t know where you got the idea I was defending anything about Saudi Arabia. I believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, that says nothing about what our policies toward Qatar and Saudi Arabia or any other country might be. Since America’s biggest military installation in the Middle East is in Qatar, we may be reluctant to attack them for reasons having nothing to do with Israel, especially after American failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
About my signing up to deploy to Tehran, I was born in 1952, and was of draft age in the Vietnam war. I was not drafted, and was not about to volunteer for a war which had no meaning that I could see.
As to what I stand to gain by defending Zionist lobbying groups in America, many people lobby in Washington, many countries and many governments and special interests. I am not concerned about that, as long as it is legally done. I certainly do not think they will defend me – however, as I see things now I am by no means certain that my own government will defend me.
I don't mind the existence of a Zionist lobby, insofar as it is legal, because I like and admire the state of Israel – in spite of its many faults – and because I believe the Jews have a right to a state, and that a strong and secure Israel is to our advantage, that their enemies are our enemies.
You may think that is far-fetched, but I have read that Hezbollah has a significant presence in Mexico, and has had for some time. There is a very real possibility of trouble with them in the future.
Once again, you used the f-word. That does not advance your cause in any way but only makes you look vulgar and inarticulate. As to being a fool, it is not hard for someone to disagree with you without being a fool, since you do not know as much as you think you do.
What if a little child uses a dirty word, and his mommy says, “Now Johnny, you shouldn’t use language like that and mass lies and wars that result in thousands of death are wrong too”? I did not see in your message that you were advocating mass lies and wars and thousands of deaths, so I did not correct you for it.
I do object to all kinds of lies, mass or not, but I do not object to all wars, only to some. I do not object to World War 2, and neither do I object to Israel’s war against Hamas or its other wars of survival. I do think the US adventures in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were useless failures.
To say that I have no morals is completely false. It is precisely because I do have morals that I think Hamas should be smashed, and that Israel, like many other nations, has the right to exist and to defend itself.
America has many more serious problems right now that the Israeli or Jewish lobbies.
That's because you're an unintelligent, weak coward who has no clue what's really going on. If you think George Bush was the one who held the real power, then you're a moron. Money holds the real power, and that money is held by the Zionist Jews who control US foreign policy.
Really?! The media supported the lies and had no problem disseminating them to the American public?! I wonder why! You fucking dolt.
Carry on in life, sir. You're an idiot with no spine. Go join the IDF and put your money where your mouth is.
"Just as those believers in Christ Jesus were treated badly by other Jews--the same Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets. And they forced us to leave their country. They are not pleasing to God, and they are against everyone else."
An insightful article with many good points, but I am not convinced that backpedaling on the Ukraine issue is necessarily appeasement. It could be due to the very real possibility that the Ukraine has no chance of defeating Russia, and / or due to the realization that we do not have sufficient funds for an aggressive posture both in the Ukraine and the Middle East.
Also, the Middle East is much more vital to the economies of the US and of the world. The Ukraine, on the other hand, was completely dominated by the USSR during the entire Cold War with no adverse affects on the west that I can see. A strong and credible military presence was sufficient deterrent without the Ukraine.
Unfortunately, during the Soviet era there was parity with the NATO bloc, but modern Russia is going to remake the world. Moreover, the Russia-Iran-China axis has emerged and wants to impose its own rules. Therefore, the war in Ukraine and the Middle Eastern conflicts are links in the same chain. Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine, and Iran is not going to limit itself to Israel.
It is no longer possible to prevent a war by persuasion, as Blinken is doing. Only a victory for Israel and Ukraine will prevent further wars. Both Russia and Iran have no reason to stop when everything is going so well.
During the Soviet era the West had a strong and credible deterrent, much more so than now. To be sure there are differences as you say. But - while I could be wrong! - I do not believe the Ukraine is vital to the security of the West. We managed quite well for many years while the Ukraine was totally controlled by Russia. Moreover, I don't think Putin is the Hitlerian figure some seem to be making him out to be. Naturally he would like to gain some territory if possible, but I don't think he is contemplating the invasion and conquest of the West and I don't think Ukraine is vital to the defense of the West. In fact, I am inclined to think now that if Biden is doing anything - including giving huge sums of money to the Ukraine - then it must be wrong. I have zero confidence in the foreign policy objectives and policies of this administration.
A victory for Israel and the Ukraine - two very different things. And what would a victory for the Ukraine be? Putin giving up, withdrawing from all disputed territory and allowing the Ukraine to join NATO? What is the likelihood of that? Russia has been invaded through the Ukraine twice in the 20th century. It is vital to their security in a way that it is not vital to the west, and a strong, well-organized west need have nothing to fear from the Ukraine as a Russian satellite, as it has been for centuries.
As to an Israeli victory over Hamas, while it is to be hoped (and fought) for, it would not solve the Iranian problem, or the problems of the West Bank and Hezbollah. True victory for Israel would mean the destruction of the current Iranian regime and the complete dismantling of its military capacity, as well as the complete WW2 type destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah. Is that going to happen? Maybe it will - it is conceivable in a way that a Ukrainian victory over the Soviet Union is not.
In terms of the number of conventional weapons, the USSR was not inferior, and sometimes even prevailed. Human resources were much greater than those of the West.
The peace was maintained by two factors, the doctrine of mutual destruction, and the reluctance to enter into a third world war. Both sides had enough spheres of influence and great potential to expand them politically.
Modern Russia needs to expand its spheres of influence, and precisely through wars to solve problems within the country. Putin is truly a pathological liar who cannot tell the truth even when it is beneficial to him, he repeats the fate and choice of Hitler, which was already noticeable ten years ago.
The USSR collapsed and Ukraine is now an independent state that Putin wants to control. But he can do this only by exterminating and enslaving a forty million people, which is equivalent to the attack on Poland in 1939.
Just as before WW2, the persuasion of the West only gave Hitler confidence that there would be no military resistance from the West, and now insufficient assistance to Ukraine, pressure on Israel to stop actions only pushes countries that are ready to fight, that want to fight, to war.
If Ukraine does not liberate all its territories and Israel does not destroy Hamas, this will be motivation to continue.
Russia and Iran are already working together, exchanging technologies and transferring weapons to each other. Now they are coordinating actions in different areas to divide the efforts of the West.
This is what the article is about, and it is also optimistic, because the Baltic countries, Poland and Finland already see the threats, and they are justified.
Just like the countries of the Middle East are on the verge of escalation.
The path of negotiations, concessions and expectations no longer worked yesterday. Today he is working against the West.
I agree with your concluding statement that “The path of negotiations, concessions and expectations no longer worked yesterday. Today he [it] is working against the West." (Not to be pedantic, but I assumed you meant “it, the path of negotiations” and not “He, Putin”).
When it comes to your summary of the main point of the article though I read the article differently than you did.
The article was mainly about the Middle East (including Pakistan) and Iranian aggression. Russia was mentioned only twice in the article – once in reference to its activities in northern Syria, and once near the very end of the article. “Ukrainian” was mentioned only once, also at the very end, and “Ukraine” not at all. So, the article was really not about Europe.
It is true, that the rule of not appeasing dictators is a general one that applies to many different situations, but the situation in Europe is significantly different in many ways from that of the Middle East. For one thing, there is a solid block of NATO and US opposition already firmly in place which is a very strong deterrent to blatant Russian aggression (I am not sure how solid that block really is, but it is substantial).
In the Middle East, however, the only solid and reliable opponent of Iran is Israel.
In both the Middle East and in Eastern Europe, American failure to act resolutely and decisively is a bad mistake and an invitation to greater troubles further down the road. Dithering and shilly-shallying are not good foreign policy – but I think the two opponents, Iran and Russia, are vastly different and need different measures. To take one obvious example, I think a devastating and thorough first strike against Iran is a viable option, whereas it would be unthinkable against Russia.
Also, there are different kinds of dictators. Franco was a dictator, but not an expansionist and threatening one. Similarly, I think Putin is a lot more canny and practical than the Iranians, and his policy is more rational.
I do not believe Putin’s war against the Ukraine is a harbinger of greater imperialistic ambitions, though he would not be above grabbing some former Soviet territories if the price were not too high. I believe his motivation was the determination not to allow the Ukraine to become a base for Western powers. I think he has a legitimate concern, and he warned plainly before attacking that Western meddling in that area was becoming troublesome and would not be tolerated.
Russia has been attacked through the Ukraine twice in the last century, and it is vital to Russian security. Nato’s expansion into former Soviet territories, maybe a dozen Eastern European countries, looks very ominous to the always highly suspicious Russians – and what is the motive for that expansion?
Much could be asked about that policy. For starters, do the American people, or the Dutch or the French or the Italians really want to go to war for Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia? Was that expansionism of NATO beyond its original mandate wise? Whatever the case, it looks ominous from the Russian point of view – and let’s not forget: in 1928 Germany was a weak country, weak politically, economically, and militarily, and it was also friendly with Russia (the two countries were cooperating economically and militarily).
Then, a mere 13 years later, which is a blink of an eye historically, Germany attacked Russia with the mightiest military machine the world had ever seen. Hitler’s advent was totally unforeseen in 1928 – and who knows what else the future might hold? No one knows, but the Ukraine is vital strategic territory for Russia, and Putin, even though he is a dictator, has every right to be concerned of and suspicious about Western plans and intentions.
What would Americans think if Mexico or Canada were drawn into the Russian orbit of military alliances? Wouldn’t it be normal to wonder what the Russians were up to?
And has anyone asked the Ukrainian people what they want? If they could choose between living as they did before the war, under the thumb of Russia diplomatically and militarily but with a great deal of local autonomy and the ability to live ordinary lives, or what they have today, what would they choose? And I have read that the West has sabotaged previous peace negotiations for political reasons of their own. Maybe – I only speculate – maybe Biden thinks it is to his political advantage to have a war going on somewhere. Or maybe the geniuses who masterminded our policies in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan are hoping that this war will open cracks in the Russian regime and cause it to collapse, thus allowing us to bring western style democracy to Russia.
I think this was a needless war produced by incompetent western meddling, and it is ridiculous to be fighting for democracy and independence in the Ukraine while the USA itself is going straight down the drain. Why are we more concerned about Ukrainian borders than our own?
If America and the Western European countries had sound governments, strong, consistent and effective policies, healthy economies and ready and prepared military forces, we could ignore the Ukraine completely and leave it under Russian control as it has been for centuries.
Naturally, we empathize with the Ukrainians, the Kurds, the Tibetans, and the Uighurs, but it is not the duty of the United States to run around the world spreading its own version of democracy – a version which by the way is coming to seem increasingly dubious.
First, on those points with which I agree. First, of course, “it” (an annoying mistake, I get angry when I make it). Secondly, the article is more about the Middle East, I just noticed that it is no longer possible to ignore the Iran-Russia connection (I don’t think that Russia is more important or smarter in this alliance). And of course I agree that there should be different solutions for each of them. And most importantly, America should not dictate to anyone the support and implementation of democracy.
The question is that when the world is on the threshold of the Third World War, and the West has not decided on strategy and tactics, instead of Churchill and Roosevelt we have Biden and Macron, the world becomes very uncomfortable.
Therefore, we must call problems with the right words, and not try to hide them from ourselves.
Now about what I completely disagree with. NATO's eastward expansion has never been a problem for Russia. This is a reason for further armament and preparation for expansion.
Putin did the same thing as Hitler did before the attack on Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium and France, he said that he was afraid of an attack and was taking preventive measures.
It was clear that Europe, both in 1939 and in 2014-2022, not only did not intend to attack, but was also not ready for war. In Ukraine alone, many more tanks were destroyed than are currently in service in Europe. And if the Baltic countries had not joined NATO, they would have been captured before Ukraine. And Sweden and Finland decided to join NATO under the threat of war.
You think too well of Putin and his entourage. Now he is no different from the ayatollahs or Hamas leaders. He already has the blood of more than a million people on his hands, and he needs to keep the people in a state of fear and war hysteria.
I just named the problems. Just because I named them doesn't mean America has to save everyone.
The last thing I disagree with is. The Ukrainian people chose the path in 2014 when they removed Putin’s puppet. That is why they are fighting now and not giving up.
Comment 1 of 2 (the original was too long and the system would not accept it)
About using “he” instead of “it,” I thought that was maybe a second-language error, since some languages like French and Hebrew only have two genders.
I did not think of the Iran-Russia connection at the moment of writing, but of course it is a real issue. I don’t mean to imply that there is no connection between Eastern Europe and the Middle East, or Asia also for that matter, but I was focusing too narrowly I suppose on the specific content of the article, and not of the wider dimensions directly connected to it. But I am glad to see we agree on some significant points.
History is full of unexpected surprises, and it would be rash to dismiss the possibility of a third world war. I don’t see it as likely in the short term though. Rightly or wrongly, my main concern is with impending disasters within the United States. I am not an economist but some (many?) who are say that our current economic policies of debt and spending are unsustainable. There might be an economic collapse of unimaginable proportions with numerous attendant social dislocations. The deliberate policy of leaving the border opens has many serious implications, not to mention other disaster scenarios which I am reluctant to mention for fear of seeming overly imaginative.
It is true we have Biden and Macron instead of Churchill and Roosevelt, but then Putin and Xi Jinping aren’t Mussolini and Hitler either. They know that it is in their interests to avoid a direct confrontation with the USA, and they are not going to embark on any wild Hitlerian adventures in my opinion. Even if China does invade Taiwan in the next ten years, it will be done at a time when they feel confident of being able to get away with it. What if they miscalculate though, the way Hitler miscalculated the French and British response to the invasion of Poland? But I think they are much more intelligent and far-seeing than Hitler, and will be careful to avoid an overt provocation of the USA – especially when another 10 or 20 years of American decline will leave them in much stronger positions.
I also agree with your statement “Therefore, we must call problems with the right words, and not try to hide them from ourselves.” As far as I can I try to avoid that, and don’t think I did that in my other comments, although I may have missed something, or spoken carelessly somewhere, which is always possible in internet conversations.
About this comment: “Now about what I completely disagree with. NATO's eastward expansion has never been a problem for Russia. This is a reason for further armament and preparation for expansion.” I don’t believe Russia needs any excuse for further armaments and expansion, as they have been expanding and fighting for centuries. Even if NATO had adhered to its promise not to expand, and had stayed out of Western Europe, Putin would not need some excuse to have a strong military and go fishing in the Middle East or to expand Russian influence in areas of weakness in Eastern Europe or central Asia. But the NATO leaders did not keep their promise ot to expand into former Russian-controlled territories and their behavior does look provocative – and does anyone think that Russia today is a real threat to France, England or West Germany? Does Putin want to attack and conquer those countries? I don’t think so. It is easy to see why the Russians would not view NATO’s aggressive policy of expansion as being merely defensive in nature.
“Putin did the same thing as Hitler did before the attack on Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium and France, he said that he was afraid of an attack and was taking preventive measures.”
It has happened at various times in history that one country has used some pretext or another to start a war. But there are many differences between Europe in 1939 and now, and there are many differences between Putin and Hitler.
Czechoslovakia, Poland and Belgium were in no way any real threat to Germany, and the danger of them attacking Germany was nil. His excuses were pure fabrications for racially and ideologically motivated wars of conquest he had been planning years in advance. Putin, however, has legitimate security concerns about a potential if not immediate very real and powerful threat from NATO and the USA. He was not just making something up so he could attack the Ukraine. He was concerned about NATO expansion, and I maintain that if the West had not meddled in the Ukraine there would have been no war at all. Putin was content to have the country semi-independent in matters of foreign policy, as long as it was not a western base. Hitler’s attacks on Czechoslovakia would have occurred no matter what the Western powers did because he was driven by an expansionist ideology. Putin in my opinion is much more pragmatic and would have accepted a negotiated solution as long as his minimal demands were met.
“It was clear that Europe, both in 1939 and in 2014-2022, not only did not intend to attack, but was also not ready for war. In Ukraine alone, many more tanks were destroyed than are currently in service in Europe. And if the Baltic countries had not joined NATO, they would have been captured before Ukraine. And Sweden and Finland decided to join NATO under the threat of war.”
Were Finland and Sweden in immanent danger of Russian invasion? That seems unlikely. About the Baltic countries, naturally I can understand why they would rather be independent than under Russian domination, but I still question the overextension of NATO beyond its original mandate. I have not studied the pros and cons of that. That part of the world has been under Russian domination for centuries, and at the height of the Cold War Western Europe was strong and secure without the Baltic states.
I agree there is no danger of an immediate attack on Russia from Europe, but the West’s constant maneuvering for advantage, expanding their influence in many ways and areas, and then seeking to establish a foothold in the Ukraine as well, while not signs of an immanent attack, could easily be read, and were read, as unfriendly acts which could lead to problems later on. One is not supposed to wait until the actual and immanent danger of attack before taking elementary precautions. Israel should not leave the Golan Heights undefended as long as there is no sign of an immanent attack. And France and Germany have attacked Russia three times in modern history.
But the main point is the significant differences between Putin and Hitler. “Fighting the last war” is a common mistake. France was fixated on WWI and was totally unprepared for something new in 1940. Let us not review the current situation as nothing more than a replay of 1939.
It is true that Europe in 1939 and now was not ready for war, and did not intend to attack – a big similarity. But it is also true that Hitler was motivated by an expansionist ideology and attacked Czechoslovakia and Poland for entirely different reasons than mere security. Putin did not attack the Ukraine only because of an expansionist ideology. He did not want it to become a Western military base, which is a very specific, clear and rational motive, and he clearly warned about it in advance.
And, you didn’t mention my example. Germany in 1928 was weak and friendly to Russia. In 1941 it attacked. The future is uncertain, but the strategic value of the Ukraine is certain. Look at Israel’s return of the Sinai. There were some Israelis at the time who objected to returning this strategically important territory in exchange for a mere treaty. What if Morsi had retained power in Egypt and succeeded in establishing an Islamic state, possible even in alliance with Iran? It is a good idea to hold strategic territory even if there are no immediate clouds on the horizon. Even if there is no immediate threat, there might be one ten or twenty or maybe even 100 years later.
About my thinking too well of Putin, I don’t deny that he is a heartless dictator, but I do think he is vastly different from the Ayatollahs and Hamas. He does not have their fanatical religious / ideological motivation, and is more calculating and rational. It is my contention that if the West had left the Ukraine alone, not meddled in its domestic policy, not sought to bring it into the western camp, Putin would have been content with the then status quo, and would have left the Ukraine alone with a great deal of local autonomy. He would not have invaded the Ukraine out of a crazy Hitlerian dream of Lebensraum or out of an Islamic dream of religious domination.
So, I think you overestimate the evil of Putin – cunning, heartless, power hungry, callous, but not a fanatic, not a Hitler. Whereas the Iranians and Hamas/Hezbollah do have a lot more in common with Hitler in their crazed and hate-filled lust for blood which does not motivate Putin.
Aside from Saddam Hussein's disastrous 1980 invasion, the ruling Mullahs of Iran, despite their military tentacles reaching many different countries, have been immune from any meaningful military assault against their homeland. Even the US has largely refrained from any overt military action despite, among other things, the hostage crisis that shattered Pres. Carter's re-election chances in 1980 & the death of many GIs in Iraq via an Iranian organized insurgency.
In trying to comprehend the reason(s) for this, one can only speculate. However, I have little doubt that if Israeli or US intelligence detect that the Mullahs are on the verge of joining the nuclear arms club (literally weeks away), they will face a military assault on their nation, including Qom, that will make them wish they never initiated their program. Pakistan may now also join in making it a very interesting military triumvirate.
I wish I was as confident as you as to an attack 2 minutes to nuclear-hood. I don't think the US has plans in place for that and I doubt Biden-Blinken will pull the trigger if they do. As for Israel, I don't know that Israel has the capabilities any longer.
“If avoiding escalation is the highest U.S. priority, then it is only logical to withdraw our forces from the region. That would ensure attacks on our bases don’t continue but ultimately endanger the future of the Mideast. Language that describes avoiding escalation as our highest priority is, therefore, inaccurate and dangerous. It sends an unhelpful signal to our adversaries as well as our friends and allies.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lesson-of-the-soleimani-strike-quds-iran-deterrence-war-gaza-attacks-on-americans-5c9bbfa1?st=32gw1lv9z87rmsm&reflink=article_copyURL_share
And what does this have to do with October 7?
Here is the reality--Zionist Jews need to stop agitating and stop warmongering. I understand Iran is the final boss of Zionist foreign policy manipulation.
The US will not participate in another disastrous war based on lies. If Israel wants to invade Iran, it's going to do it alone.
Back the fuck off with the warmongering. The goyim aren't signing up. It's not 2003. Stop it.
I will leave the vulgarity and basic anti-semitism to the side and point out to you Ms. Highsmith that opposed to the radical left and radical right narrative not one of the US's mideast wars had to do with Israel. Gulf War 1 was fought to defend Kuwait and their oil fields. Gulf War 2 , in spite of the attempt to blame Zionists and neo-cons for forcing Bush 2 to invade Iraq was done as an extension of the War on Terror against the US and of course to defend oil flow. And Afghanistan? Not much to do with Israel. And US troops have died fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq in order to defend other Moslems who were getting slaughtered - not to defend the evil Zionists and Jews.
I am not sure if you ever studied history in the 5th grade but US involvement in the mideast started with the Jefferson administration and the Barbary pirates. Were Jews to blame for that too?
The US gives Israel about 3.5bn in military aid - ALL of which is spent in the US -- employing American workers and paying US taxes.
Iran is at war with with the west in general and the US in particular. It, along with Russia and China are working to destroy the American way of life. You might not want to admit it but it is true.
If it makes you feel better to blame all US foreign policy blunders on the Jews and Zionists and Israel - that is your business. You can lie to me and your friends - but it is never good to lie to oneself.
These people lie, and then they lie about their lies.
I know what the 2003 Iraq war was about. Stop lying. It was based on the lies that Zionist Jews told to push the US into a war with Iraq. That's what Frum, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser were planning since the Clean Break Memo. That's why they established their own office within the CIA. A list was drawn up after 9/11, and Iran was on that list. Zionists have been gunning for Iran, just like they were gunning for Iraq, for years, and now they see an opening.
You aren't talking to some dumb goy who believes any of this here. Israel and Zionist Jews control US foreign policy, as well as academia and media. Everybody sees it, and nobody cares about "antisemitism" anymore. The word means nothing.
Aid to Israel is not spent in the US. Who the fuck do you think you're kidding, Ira?
Stop lying. Stop warmongering. Stop crying out while you strike. Stop accusing others of what you're doing.
The US will not enter another war for Zionist interests based on lies in the Middle East. Iran is not at war with "the West." Jews are not part of the West. Jews are at war with the world.
It's not going to happen. Back the fuck off because the goyim have had enough.
The goyim have had enough? Do you speak for all non-Jews? There are plenty of goyim, such as myself, who believe that Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself, and that America and Americans are to blame for their own foreign policy adventures and misadventures.
Also, I wonder what so many people think they are accomplishing by using the F-word. It does not give an argument greater weight or authority, and is in fact bad manners.
Look up the Clean Break Memo and who signed it. Look up the people who set up the special office in the CIA and subsequently pushed the war in Iraq: Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Wolfowitz, Frum. I don't deny that non-Jews went along with it because they're stupid and weak like you, but the origin are the Zionist organizations that control US foreign policy.
They came up with a list of countries to invade after 9/11, and Iran is next on the list because it's the final boss.
That is what is pushing the current lies against Iran, which had nothing to do with October 7. Iran is Shia. They wouldn't fund Sunni Arabs. It's not logical.
Qatar, however, is documented as providing hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas and has a literal office for Hamas in Doha where their billionaire leader lives. Odd, no? Nobody is pushing for Qatar to be invaded, just like nobody pushed for Saudi Arabia to be invaded after 9/11 even though 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi, along with Bin Laden, and it was the main source of funds. Literal deja vu, and you're defending it.
Are you going to be signing up to deploy to Tehran? Did you serve in Iraq? I'm curious. What do you have to gain for defending Zionist lobbying groups in America? Do you think they'll defend you?
You're a fucking fool. Grow a backbone. You think swear words are objectionable, but mass lies and wars that results in tens of thousands of deaths are defensible? You have no morals. Idiotic.
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=580649021262&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9008165&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=16049676726931549957&hvtargid=kwd-3969174326&hydadcr=9335_13533316&keywords=the+israel+lobby&qid=1705708181&s=books&sr=1-1
I don’t care about the Clean Break memo or who signed it. George Bush was elected in 2000, and he made the ultimate decision to go to war in Iraq, with a great deal of support from the American media and congress. And, he was reelected afterwards. If you blame all of that on secret Jewish influence you are badly mistaken.
Also, much of the American justification for the war did not come from an Israeli memo but had to do with establishing a democratic ally of the US in Iraq. It was believed that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, and we could set up a pro-American democracy like we did in Germany and Japan. This would be to America’s advantage, according to the theory. It was not simply following some Israeli policy memo.
To say that the Zionists control US foreign policy is completely false. It is true that Israel's foreign policy aims do coincide with America's to a very large extent. It was to the Jews' advantage that we destroyed Hitler in WW2 (though of course the state of Israel was not yet in existence at that time), and it was to America's advantage that Israel turned a lot of Russian equipment into junk in 1967. Opposition to Islamic fundamentalism are also common aims.
America and Israel have significant mutual interests and also common enemies – so American policies that benefit Israel are no proof of Zionist control. You say “They came up with a list of countries to invade after 9/11, and Iran is next on the list because it's the final boss.” It is no coincidence that the most violent and dangerous enemies of Israel are enemies of America as well. Do you know what Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran think of America? If you think that people are concerned about the Iranians getting nuclear weapons with no regard for very real dangers, but only because our Zionist masters put Iran’s name on a list, you are not as smart as you think you are.
And, there is a lot of natural support for Israel among the American people as a whole. This is one reason the pro-Israel lobby has clout in Congress – because of American popular support for Israel.
What about America's fiascos in Vietnam in Afghanistan? All of that blood and treasure spent for nothing - Americans are fully capable of their own stupidity without foreign influence. Or do you think America got involved in those countries because of sinister Zionist machinations? Israel and the Jews are not to blame for incompetent foreign policies.
I really don't know why you are so excited about the Jews. Are Jews to claim for the collapse of our southern border? For the astonishing decline of America's major cities? For gigantic budget deficits that will cause who knows what sort of problems in future? For the fentanyl crisis? For the great increases in crime due to failure to enforce simple laws? For an increasingly two-tiered justice system with different rules for friends or opponents of our current regime?
Personally, I think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and the idea of bringing democracy to Iraq was foolish (democracy took centuries of slow development in the West to mature). We could have permanently destroyed all of Hussein’s western forces, leaving Hussein with forces intact in the east to oppose Iran. We could have nullified the Iraqi threat to Saudi Arabia and the UAE without reducing the whole country to chaos and without putting one pair of American boots on the ground – but just because America (with the support of the media and the Congress) invaded Iraq does not mean we are now obligated to attack Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and everyone else that happens to offend us in some way.
Also, about Saudi Arabia and 9/11, you are forgetting that Arab oil money also has a lot of oil influence in Washington. I don’t know where you got the idea I was defending anything about Saudi Arabia. I believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, that says nothing about what our policies toward Qatar and Saudi Arabia or any other country might be. Since America’s biggest military installation in the Middle East is in Qatar, we may be reluctant to attack them for reasons having nothing to do with Israel, especially after American failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
About my signing up to deploy to Tehran, I was born in 1952, and was of draft age in the Vietnam war. I was not drafted, and was not about to volunteer for a war which had no meaning that I could see.
As to what I stand to gain by defending Zionist lobbying groups in America, many people lobby in Washington, many countries and many governments and special interests. I am not concerned about that, as long as it is legally done. I certainly do not think they will defend me – however, as I see things now I am by no means certain that my own government will defend me.
I don't mind the existence of a Zionist lobby, insofar as it is legal, because I like and admire the state of Israel – in spite of its many faults – and because I believe the Jews have a right to a state, and that a strong and secure Israel is to our advantage, that their enemies are our enemies.
You may think that is far-fetched, but I have read that Hezbollah has a significant presence in Mexico, and has had for some time. There is a very real possibility of trouble with them in the future.
Once again, you used the f-word. That does not advance your cause in any way but only makes you look vulgar and inarticulate. As to being a fool, it is not hard for someone to disagree with you without being a fool, since you do not know as much as you think you do.
What if a little child uses a dirty word, and his mommy says, “Now Johnny, you shouldn’t use language like that and mass lies and wars that result in thousands of death are wrong too”? I did not see in your message that you were advocating mass lies and wars and thousands of deaths, so I did not correct you for it.
I do object to all kinds of lies, mass or not, but I do not object to all wars, only to some. I do not object to World War 2, and neither do I object to Israel’s war against Hamas or its other wars of survival. I do think the US adventures in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were useless failures.
To say that I have no morals is completely false. It is precisely because I do have morals that I think Hamas should be smashed, and that Israel, like many other nations, has the right to exist and to defend itself.
America has many more serious problems right now that the Israeli or Jewish lobbies.
You don't care?
That's because you're an unintelligent, weak coward who has no clue what's really going on. If you think George Bush was the one who held the real power, then you're a moron. Money holds the real power, and that money is held by the Zionist Jews who control US foreign policy.
Really?! The media supported the lies and had no problem disseminating them to the American public?! I wonder why! You fucking dolt.
Carry on in life, sir. You're an idiot with no spine. Go join the IDF and put your money where your mouth is.
"Just as those believers in Christ Jesus were treated badly by other Jews--the same Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets. And they forced us to leave their country. They are not pleasing to God, and they are against everyone else."
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
An insightful article with many good points, but I am not convinced that backpedaling on the Ukraine issue is necessarily appeasement. It could be due to the very real possibility that the Ukraine has no chance of defeating Russia, and / or due to the realization that we do not have sufficient funds for an aggressive posture both in the Ukraine and the Middle East.
Also, the Middle East is much more vital to the economies of the US and of the world. The Ukraine, on the other hand, was completely dominated by the USSR during the entire Cold War with no adverse affects on the west that I can see. A strong and credible military presence was sufficient deterrent without the Ukraine.
Unfortunately, during the Soviet era there was parity with the NATO bloc, but modern Russia is going to remake the world. Moreover, the Russia-Iran-China axis has emerged and wants to impose its own rules. Therefore, the war in Ukraine and the Middle Eastern conflicts are links in the same chain. Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine, and Iran is not going to limit itself to Israel.
It is no longer possible to prevent a war by persuasion, as Blinken is doing. Only a victory for Israel and Ukraine will prevent further wars. Both Russia and Iran have no reason to stop when everything is going so well.
During the Soviet era the West had a strong and credible deterrent, much more so than now. To be sure there are differences as you say. But - while I could be wrong! - I do not believe the Ukraine is vital to the security of the West. We managed quite well for many years while the Ukraine was totally controlled by Russia. Moreover, I don't think Putin is the Hitlerian figure some seem to be making him out to be. Naturally he would like to gain some territory if possible, but I don't think he is contemplating the invasion and conquest of the West and I don't think Ukraine is vital to the defense of the West. In fact, I am inclined to think now that if Biden is doing anything - including giving huge sums of money to the Ukraine - then it must be wrong. I have zero confidence in the foreign policy objectives and policies of this administration.
A victory for Israel and the Ukraine - two very different things. And what would a victory for the Ukraine be? Putin giving up, withdrawing from all disputed territory and allowing the Ukraine to join NATO? What is the likelihood of that? Russia has been invaded through the Ukraine twice in the 20th century. It is vital to their security in a way that it is not vital to the west, and a strong, well-organized west need have nothing to fear from the Ukraine as a Russian satellite, as it has been for centuries.
As to an Israeli victory over Hamas, while it is to be hoped (and fought) for, it would not solve the Iranian problem, or the problems of the West Bank and Hezbollah. True victory for Israel would mean the destruction of the current Iranian regime and the complete dismantling of its military capacity, as well as the complete WW2 type destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah. Is that going to happen? Maybe it will - it is conceivable in a way that a Ukrainian victory over the Soviet Union is not.
The West had only one deterrent, nuclear weapons.
In terms of the number of conventional weapons, the USSR was not inferior, and sometimes even prevailed. Human resources were much greater than those of the West.
The peace was maintained by two factors, the doctrine of mutual destruction, and the reluctance to enter into a third world war. Both sides had enough spheres of influence and great potential to expand them politically.
Modern Russia needs to expand its spheres of influence, and precisely through wars to solve problems within the country. Putin is truly a pathological liar who cannot tell the truth even when it is beneficial to him, he repeats the fate and choice of Hitler, which was already noticeable ten years ago.
The USSR collapsed and Ukraine is now an independent state that Putin wants to control. But he can do this only by exterminating and enslaving a forty million people, which is equivalent to the attack on Poland in 1939.
Just as before WW2, the persuasion of the West only gave Hitler confidence that there would be no military resistance from the West, and now insufficient assistance to Ukraine, pressure on Israel to stop actions only pushes countries that are ready to fight, that want to fight, to war.
If Ukraine does not liberate all its territories and Israel does not destroy Hamas, this will be motivation to continue.
Russia and Iran are already working together, exchanging technologies and transferring weapons to each other. Now they are coordinating actions in different areas to divide the efforts of the West.
This is what the article is about, and it is also optimistic, because the Baltic countries, Poland and Finland already see the threats, and they are justified.
Just like the countries of the Middle East are on the verge of escalation.
The path of negotiations, concessions and expectations no longer worked yesterday. Today he is working against the West.
I agree with your concluding statement that “The path of negotiations, concessions and expectations no longer worked yesterday. Today he [it] is working against the West." (Not to be pedantic, but I assumed you meant “it, the path of negotiations” and not “He, Putin”).
When it comes to your summary of the main point of the article though I read the article differently than you did.
The article was mainly about the Middle East (including Pakistan) and Iranian aggression. Russia was mentioned only twice in the article – once in reference to its activities in northern Syria, and once near the very end of the article. “Ukrainian” was mentioned only once, also at the very end, and “Ukraine” not at all. So, the article was really not about Europe.
It is true, that the rule of not appeasing dictators is a general one that applies to many different situations, but the situation in Europe is significantly different in many ways from that of the Middle East. For one thing, there is a solid block of NATO and US opposition already firmly in place which is a very strong deterrent to blatant Russian aggression (I am not sure how solid that block really is, but it is substantial).
In the Middle East, however, the only solid and reliable opponent of Iran is Israel.
In both the Middle East and in Eastern Europe, American failure to act resolutely and decisively is a bad mistake and an invitation to greater troubles further down the road. Dithering and shilly-shallying are not good foreign policy – but I think the two opponents, Iran and Russia, are vastly different and need different measures. To take one obvious example, I think a devastating and thorough first strike against Iran is a viable option, whereas it would be unthinkable against Russia.
Also, there are different kinds of dictators. Franco was a dictator, but not an expansionist and threatening one. Similarly, I think Putin is a lot more canny and practical than the Iranians, and his policy is more rational.
I do not believe Putin’s war against the Ukraine is a harbinger of greater imperialistic ambitions, though he would not be above grabbing some former Soviet territories if the price were not too high. I believe his motivation was the determination not to allow the Ukraine to become a base for Western powers. I think he has a legitimate concern, and he warned plainly before attacking that Western meddling in that area was becoming troublesome and would not be tolerated.
Russia has been attacked through the Ukraine twice in the last century, and it is vital to Russian security. Nato’s expansion into former Soviet territories, maybe a dozen Eastern European countries, looks very ominous to the always highly suspicious Russians – and what is the motive for that expansion?
Much could be asked about that policy. For starters, do the American people, or the Dutch or the French or the Italians really want to go to war for Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia? Was that expansionism of NATO beyond its original mandate wise? Whatever the case, it looks ominous from the Russian point of view – and let’s not forget: in 1928 Germany was a weak country, weak politically, economically, and militarily, and it was also friendly with Russia (the two countries were cooperating economically and militarily).
Then, a mere 13 years later, which is a blink of an eye historically, Germany attacked Russia with the mightiest military machine the world had ever seen. Hitler’s advent was totally unforeseen in 1928 – and who knows what else the future might hold? No one knows, but the Ukraine is vital strategic territory for Russia, and Putin, even though he is a dictator, has every right to be concerned of and suspicious about Western plans and intentions.
What would Americans think if Mexico or Canada were drawn into the Russian orbit of military alliances? Wouldn’t it be normal to wonder what the Russians were up to?
And has anyone asked the Ukrainian people what they want? If they could choose between living as they did before the war, under the thumb of Russia diplomatically and militarily but with a great deal of local autonomy and the ability to live ordinary lives, or what they have today, what would they choose? And I have read that the West has sabotaged previous peace negotiations for political reasons of their own. Maybe – I only speculate – maybe Biden thinks it is to his political advantage to have a war going on somewhere. Or maybe the geniuses who masterminded our policies in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan are hoping that this war will open cracks in the Russian regime and cause it to collapse, thus allowing us to bring western style democracy to Russia.
I think this was a needless war produced by incompetent western meddling, and it is ridiculous to be fighting for democracy and independence in the Ukraine while the USA itself is going straight down the drain. Why are we more concerned about Ukrainian borders than our own?
If America and the Western European countries had sound governments, strong, consistent and effective policies, healthy economies and ready and prepared military forces, we could ignore the Ukraine completely and leave it under Russian control as it has been for centuries.
Naturally, we empathize with the Ukrainians, the Kurds, the Tibetans, and the Uighurs, but it is not the duty of the United States to run around the world spreading its own version of democracy – a version which by the way is coming to seem increasingly dubious.
First, on those points with which I agree. First, of course, “it” (an annoying mistake, I get angry when I make it). Secondly, the article is more about the Middle East, I just noticed that it is no longer possible to ignore the Iran-Russia connection (I don’t think that Russia is more important or smarter in this alliance). And of course I agree that there should be different solutions for each of them. And most importantly, America should not dictate to anyone the support and implementation of democracy.
The question is that when the world is on the threshold of the Third World War, and the West has not decided on strategy and tactics, instead of Churchill and Roosevelt we have Biden and Macron, the world becomes very uncomfortable.
Therefore, we must call problems with the right words, and not try to hide them from ourselves.
Now about what I completely disagree with. NATO's eastward expansion has never been a problem for Russia. This is a reason for further armament and preparation for expansion.
Putin did the same thing as Hitler did before the attack on Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium and France, he said that he was afraid of an attack and was taking preventive measures.
It was clear that Europe, both in 1939 and in 2014-2022, not only did not intend to attack, but was also not ready for war. In Ukraine alone, many more tanks were destroyed than are currently in service in Europe. And if the Baltic countries had not joined NATO, they would have been captured before Ukraine. And Sweden and Finland decided to join NATO under the threat of war.
You think too well of Putin and his entourage. Now he is no different from the ayatollahs or Hamas leaders. He already has the blood of more than a million people on his hands, and he needs to keep the people in a state of fear and war hysteria.
I just named the problems. Just because I named them doesn't mean America has to save everyone.
The last thing I disagree with is. The Ukrainian people chose the path in 2014 when they removed Putin’s puppet. That is why they are fighting now and not giving up.
First - this article was about the mideast but I have written others connecting this region to Russia-Ukraine as well as South China Sea.
See here: https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/p/russian-deterrence-in-the-mideast , here: https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/p/russia-joins-iran and most importantly this two part article: https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/p/preventing-wwiii-part-2-reviving and https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/p/preventing-wwiii - i agree that this is a global problem and the US administration either does not realize or does no really care.
Comment 1 of 2 (the original was too long and the system would not accept it)
About using “he” instead of “it,” I thought that was maybe a second-language error, since some languages like French and Hebrew only have two genders.
I did not think of the Iran-Russia connection at the moment of writing, but of course it is a real issue. I don’t mean to imply that there is no connection between Eastern Europe and the Middle East, or Asia also for that matter, but I was focusing too narrowly I suppose on the specific content of the article, and not of the wider dimensions directly connected to it. But I am glad to see we agree on some significant points.
History is full of unexpected surprises, and it would be rash to dismiss the possibility of a third world war. I don’t see it as likely in the short term though. Rightly or wrongly, my main concern is with impending disasters within the United States. I am not an economist but some (many?) who are say that our current economic policies of debt and spending are unsustainable. There might be an economic collapse of unimaginable proportions with numerous attendant social dislocations. The deliberate policy of leaving the border opens has many serious implications, not to mention other disaster scenarios which I am reluctant to mention for fear of seeming overly imaginative.
It is true we have Biden and Macron instead of Churchill and Roosevelt, but then Putin and Xi Jinping aren’t Mussolini and Hitler either. They know that it is in their interests to avoid a direct confrontation with the USA, and they are not going to embark on any wild Hitlerian adventures in my opinion. Even if China does invade Taiwan in the next ten years, it will be done at a time when they feel confident of being able to get away with it. What if they miscalculate though, the way Hitler miscalculated the French and British response to the invasion of Poland? But I think they are much more intelligent and far-seeing than Hitler, and will be careful to avoid an overt provocation of the USA – especially when another 10 or 20 years of American decline will leave them in much stronger positions.
I also agree with your statement “Therefore, we must call problems with the right words, and not try to hide them from ourselves.” As far as I can I try to avoid that, and don’t think I did that in my other comments, although I may have missed something, or spoken carelessly somewhere, which is always possible in internet conversations.
About this comment: “Now about what I completely disagree with. NATO's eastward expansion has never been a problem for Russia. This is a reason for further armament and preparation for expansion.” I don’t believe Russia needs any excuse for further armaments and expansion, as they have been expanding and fighting for centuries. Even if NATO had adhered to its promise not to expand, and had stayed out of Western Europe, Putin would not need some excuse to have a strong military and go fishing in the Middle East or to expand Russian influence in areas of weakness in Eastern Europe or central Asia. But the NATO leaders did not keep their promise ot to expand into former Russian-controlled territories and their behavior does look provocative – and does anyone think that Russia today is a real threat to France, England or West Germany? Does Putin want to attack and conquer those countries? I don’t think so. It is easy to see why the Russians would not view NATO’s aggressive policy of expansion as being merely defensive in nature.
“Putin did the same thing as Hitler did before the attack on Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium and France, he said that he was afraid of an attack and was taking preventive measures.”
It has happened at various times in history that one country has used some pretext or another to start a war. But there are many differences between Europe in 1939 and now, and there are many differences between Putin and Hitler.
Czechoslovakia, Poland and Belgium were in no way any real threat to Germany, and the danger of them attacking Germany was nil. His excuses were pure fabrications for racially and ideologically motivated wars of conquest he had been planning years in advance. Putin, however, has legitimate security concerns about a potential if not immediate very real and powerful threat from NATO and the USA. He was not just making something up so he could attack the Ukraine. He was concerned about NATO expansion, and I maintain that if the West had not meddled in the Ukraine there would have been no war at all. Putin was content to have the country semi-independent in matters of foreign policy, as long as it was not a western base. Hitler’s attacks on Czechoslovakia would have occurred no matter what the Western powers did because he was driven by an expansionist ideology. Putin in my opinion is much more pragmatic and would have accepted a negotiated solution as long as his minimal demands were met.
“It was clear that Europe, both in 1939 and in 2014-2022, not only did not intend to attack, but was also not ready for war. In Ukraine alone, many more tanks were destroyed than are currently in service in Europe. And if the Baltic countries had not joined NATO, they would have been captured before Ukraine. And Sweden and Finland decided to join NATO under the threat of war.”
Were Finland and Sweden in immanent danger of Russian invasion? That seems unlikely. About the Baltic countries, naturally I can understand why they would rather be independent than under Russian domination, but I still question the overextension of NATO beyond its original mandate. I have not studied the pros and cons of that. That part of the world has been under Russian domination for centuries, and at the height of the Cold War Western Europe was strong and secure without the Baltic states.
I agree there is no danger of an immediate attack on Russia from Europe, but the West’s constant maneuvering for advantage, expanding their influence in many ways and areas, and then seeking to establish a foothold in the Ukraine as well, while not signs of an immanent attack, could easily be read, and were read, as unfriendly acts which could lead to problems later on. One is not supposed to wait until the actual and immanent danger of attack before taking elementary precautions. Israel should not leave the Golan Heights undefended as long as there is no sign of an immanent attack. And France and Germany have attacked Russia three times in modern history.
But the main point is the significant differences between Putin and Hitler. “Fighting the last war” is a common mistake. France was fixated on WWI and was totally unprepared for something new in 1940. Let us not review the current situation as nothing more than a replay of 1939.
It is true that Europe in 1939 and now was not ready for war, and did not intend to attack – a big similarity. But it is also true that Hitler was motivated by an expansionist ideology and attacked Czechoslovakia and Poland for entirely different reasons than mere security. Putin did not attack the Ukraine only because of an expansionist ideology. He did not want it to become a Western military base, which is a very specific, clear and rational motive, and he clearly warned about it in advance.
And, you didn’t mention my example. Germany in 1928 was weak and friendly to Russia. In 1941 it attacked. The future is uncertain, but the strategic value of the Ukraine is certain. Look at Israel’s return of the Sinai. There were some Israelis at the time who objected to returning this strategically important territory in exchange for a mere treaty. What if Morsi had retained power in Egypt and succeeded in establishing an Islamic state, possible even in alliance with Iran? It is a good idea to hold strategic territory even if there are no immediate clouds on the horizon. Even if there is no immediate threat, there might be one ten or twenty or maybe even 100 years later.
About my thinking too well of Putin, I don’t deny that he is a heartless dictator, but I do think he is vastly different from the Ayatollahs and Hamas. He does not have their fanatical religious / ideological motivation, and is more calculating and rational. It is my contention that if the West had left the Ukraine alone, not meddled in its domestic policy, not sought to bring it into the western camp, Putin would have been content with the then status quo, and would have left the Ukraine alone with a great deal of local autonomy. He would not have invaded the Ukraine out of a crazy Hitlerian dream of Lebensraum or out of an Islamic dream of religious domination.
So, I think you overestimate the evil of Putin – cunning, heartless, power hungry, callous, but not a fanatic, not a Hitler. Whereas the Iranians and Hamas/Hezbollah do have a lot more in common with Hitler in their crazed and hate-filled lust for blood which does not motivate Putin.