The Russia- Ukraine War

Initially, I did not plan to discuss the Russian-Ukraine war in detail. However, last week I saw Paul Dibb’s article about all-out world war [1]. Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies of Australia National University and well regarded. [1] gave detailed analysis of the Russia-Ukraine war. He warned, together with other conflicts in the world, it could lead to an all-out world war. Although this is not likely at this point, we cannot rule it out, thus it should be carefully considered. A new World War would be devastating since it will likely involve nuclear weapons and Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. I also have seen several videos from prominent scholars, military strategies. Speaker Mike Johnson and Ret. Gen. Jack Keane also warned of WWIII [2,3]. Then I saw Tulsi Gabbard’s interview [4]. Tulsi Gabbard was a 2020 Democrat President candidate. She is smart and articulate. This interview was high quality and compelling. I agree with her on most points. 

Political problems can be difficult and complicated and International Relations more so. It is important to understand viewpoints of major schools so that Tulsi’s viewpoint can be considered in context. Let us start with relatively simple ones. The easiest to comment on is John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs [5]. As most intro level IR textbooks will tell you the two most important schools are liberalism and realism. John Mearsheimer belongs to the school of realism. Realism can be traced as early as ancient Greece and Rome. A more recent philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, 1469-1527 also belongs to this school. Most strategists integrate with some realism. The problem of John Mearsheimer is that it is hard realism. His strategy does not consider differences between democracy, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism. So his suggestions may be taken into consideration but overall have little practical values. Jeffrey Sachs is an economist and does not understand IR. He lives in a different world. 

Now turn to mainstream West/US strategy. Jim Mattis and Stephen Kotkin gave a good presentation of the current IR strategy [6-8]. [9] is similar. You can learn a great deal from these good videos. However, as I mentioned in one of my previous writeups, a grand strategy was needed after the end of the Cold War. What happened were minor changes to the previous one. The West adopted wrong strategies to both China and Russia. John Mearsheimer’s proposal in this regard (presented elsewhere) was correct. 

Tulsi Gabbard’s recount [4] is likely correct (agrees with my recollection). Russia once asked to join NATO. Bill Clinton initially said yes then said no. The reason given was that NATO needs an enemy. If Russia joins NATO, who will be the enemy? This logic appeared because there was lack of a good grand strategy. On the other hand, the US made strategic errors toward China because the US did not understand the nature of CCP. The root of this error was due to John Fairbank. 

Let me quote the following from most prominent scholar on Paul Dibb’s article:  

As I noted in an article for Inquirer in May, Russia’s current nuclear doctrine lists four scenarios under which nuclear weapons would be used: if Russia is attacked with nuclear missiles; if it believes nuclear missiles are being launched against it; if any attack is aimed at crippling its nuclear forces; or if the existence of the Russian state is threatened, including by the enemy’s use of superior conventional weapons.

…Putin when asked if a nuclear confrontation with the West over Ukraine was inevitable, has responded: “I have said many times that Ukraine is a matter of life and death for us.” Avril Haines, chief of US intelligence, seems to be convinced Putin will use nuclear weapons if he feels threatened even though many in the West believe “this is unlikely”. …. 

Hope you can see Paul Dibb’s logic. Thus, Tulsi Gabbard is correct. The US should help to stop the Russia-Ukraine war. D Trump was boasting that he can stop the war in 24 hours. He customarily does that, which is one reason that I would not classify him a statesman. In a democracy, a great leader should motivate citizens but not promise things that cannot be achieved. Nevertheless, his instinct is correct.

References:  

1. Paul Dibb, The prospect of an all-out world war is now very - AU 9-21, 2024p21  

2. Gen. Jack Keane: US is 'on a pathway' to WWIII  (9-6) 

3. Speaker Mike Johnson: We are on the verge of World War III (9-28) 

4. Tulsi Gabbard - Why the US Should Stay out of Ukraine (9-28)

5. John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs | All-In Summit 2024  (9-18) 

6. Forging Alliances in an Age of Complacency | HISPBC (1)  (9-25) Jim Mattis

7. American Character vs. Authoritarian Nature | HISPBC (2) (9-25)  Stephen Kotkin

8. Diplomacy, Deterrence, and the Defense of Democracy | (3) (9-25) 

9. Andrew Roberts on “Conflict: The Evolution of War from 1945 to Ukraine” | Uncommon Knowledge 

10. OK Boomers: Victor Davis Hanson, Pagers, Zelenskyy, and the Fellows “Talkin’ ‘Bout Their Generation” (9-26)  

11. Ukraine and the November Election (WSJ 9-28)