mar 27, 2014

i couldn't condemn the russians for moving into poland or the baltics to dismantle that offensive weapons system before it comes up. the world might not really understand, but that falls under the rubric of self-defense in my estimation. it could actually prevent a catastrophe.

nato has a mutual defense clause, though. so, any invasion would have to be engineered to appear to be a local revolution, so as to not invoke the clause. crimea may be something of a model. it was so fast and smooth that it seemed to be a contingency plan. so, that's something to keep an eye out for.

one of the reasons the neo-con propaganda in iraq was effective was that the idea of preemptive war is indeed justifiable as self-defense. the problem was that the rhetoric didn't meet the reality. saddam wasn't building weapons. he wasn't a threat to anybody. russia, on the other hand, is coming up against the possible necessity to truly move preemptively. the united states is building weapons, and is a threat to the existence of russia.

that being said, i'm having a hard time taking the reports of an imminent russian invasion of eastern ukraine seriously. i'm just having a hard time imagining it, after so many years of russian complicity.

but i was speaking before about a pandora's box. the base in crimea is so strategically imperative that it is tempting to think of it exceptionally. eastern ukraine? not at all. there's some factories, but factories can be built elsewhere. if they move into ukraine, it will dispel all questions as to whether this box has opened, and it will signal russia's intent to shift strategies and aggressively move deep into europe.

...and it *is* america's fault. all of this militarization has created a situation where seeming russian acts of aggression are entirely rational, as they are rooted not in aggression but in defense.

americans do understand this, even if they don't immediately realize it. it's the same logic as the cuban missile crisis. again, people don't know about turkey, so for the sake of the example let's forget about it. how many americans would argue that kennedy should have just shrugged off missiles in cuba? how many would condemn preemptive action against cuba? so, how can they expect putin to just ignore this provocation?

i'm not trying to draw attention to the double standard. that much is obvious. i'm pointing out that if the americans don't change their policy, they are going to be held responsible by history for provoking the russians into a major conflict. at this point, abandoning the missile shield may be the only way to prevent that conflict.

but that will be determined by the severity of russia's next move.