After scolding Ukraine’s Zelensky in the Oval Office and then punishing Ukraine by cutting off U.S. intelligence data, threatening to remove thousands of Ukrainians from the U.S., and stalling military assistance, Trump is now, just an hour ago, threatening Russia with sanctions for waging an aggressive bombing campaign.
Yesterday, he posted this on TruthSocial:
“Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED. To Russia and Ukraine, get to the table right now, before it is too late. Thank you!!!”
This stepped up aggression by Russia is a case of cause-effect based upon Trump’s own recent treatment of Ukraine, the literal cutting off of most aid to Ukraine following the February 28th Oval Office fiasco. Basically, Trump’s post-meeting abandonment of Ukraine made it possible for Russia to do the Ukrainian battlefield “pounding” by removing, for example, Ukraine’s access to U.S. military surveillance thereby allowing Russia to immediately lambaste Ukraine at will. Cause-Effect. When will his madcap foreign policies do the same, and how dangerous will be the result?
“Under Crooked Joe Biden, the world is in flames, our border is overrun, inflation is raging, Europe is in total chaos, the Middle East is exploding, Iran is emboldened, China is on the march, and the worst, most incompetent, most corrupt president in history is going to drag us into World War III.” Donald Trump, at a Racine, Wisconsin MAGA rally June 18, 2024
Donald Trump, Shut Up!
If anything presently on the horizon could ignite a “WWIII” it’s Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, an obvious observation unobserved in Trump’s quote above. If Trump is truly concerned about a worldwide conflict, and not just fear mongering, then a solution to the Ukrainian-Russian war is essential. In that vein, Trump might consider calling for (1) a Russian withdrawal, (2) a Ukrainian surrender, (3) meaningful peace talks, or (4) at the least, a ceasefire. After all, the task would be a snap. He brags about how one phone call to Putin and Zelensky would lead directly to a satisfactory ending based on (Trump’s idea) Ukraine simply surrendering half of its country. Because why? Zelensky will listen to him attentively because . . . Trump’s big brain. As for Putin, he’s a buddy and totally respects Trump’s, well, his big brain. Didn’t Vlad express that respect and bonhomie in 2023?
“We surely hear that Mr. Trump says he will resolve all burning issues within several days, including the Ukrainian crisis. We cannot help but feel happy about it.” Vladimir Putin remark at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia, September 2023.
At the time, Trump – stupidly interpreting Putin’s cheekily ironic statement as something more than a glaringly obvious insult – jumped in with both paws, “I like that he said that, because that means what I’m saying is right. I would get him into a room. I’d get Zelensky into a room. Then I’d bring them together. And I’d have a deal worked out.” Zip, zap, zop. Just like that. After all, it’s essentially a real estate deal. Irony aside, in fact, Trump’s magical thinking, hyperbolic personality, and sense of omnipotence are dangerous threats to Ukraine’s survival, and if one needs a WWIII scenario, to the world’s survival.
And then there’s Tommy Tuberville . . .
Tommy Tuberville, Shut Up!
On another madcap front in the MAGA universe, the one where Putin is a good guy, Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville threw in on this topic a few weeks ago. Appearing on the soon-to-be jailbird Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, Tuberville, the nation’s stupidest senator, after referring to Volodymyr Zelensky as a “dictator,” spewed forth:
“Putin’s just kind of sitting back, watching what’s going on, wondering when y’all gonna come over and we’ll draw a line here. He doesn’t want Ukraine, he doesn’t want Europe. He’s got enough land of his own. He just wants to make sure that he does not have United States weapons in Ukraine pointing at Moscow.”
Of course, Tuberville is right that Russia doesn’t want “United States weapons in Ukraine pointing at Moscow.” Nonetheless, we can be safe in assuming that Putin knows he already has U.S. weapons pointed at him within Europe. As of April 2024, the United States had the largest number of active military personnel in NATO countries, with almost 1.33 million troops and their accompanying accoutrements like artillery, tanks, and other unpleasant things. Moreover, we have approximately 100 tactical nuclear weapons in NATO countries. And, of course, there are American “weapons pointed at him” in Ukraine because Putin invaded Ukraine, some billions of dollars worth soon to be supplemented by F-16 fighter jets. So, if Putin really doesn’t want weapons in Europe pointed at Moscow, then stop being such a juvenile delinquent; start that transformation by getting the hell out of Ukraine!
As for Tuberville’s comment that Putin “doesn’t want Ukraine, he doesn’t want Europe. He’s got enough land of his own,” the comment is belied by the fact that he has numerous soldiers, a Baltic fleet, and an air force there. So, Tuberville’s comment is not remotely reality based, it’s startlingly stupid, and other demeaning terms. Nevertheless, one part of his asinine comment bears examining, “He’s got enough land of his own.” That, too, is both incorrect and stupid, and also belied by his assault on, and occupation of, the second largest country in Europe. Apparently, Russia’s nearly seven million square miles is, Senator Tuberville, not “enough land.”
Putin desires and needs a geographical border, one that can threaten NATO, and provide an economic influx to aid Russia’s lagging economy. Economic theft was among Putin’s reasons for invading Ukraine, especially when he believed he would achieve an easy victory. Lacking that he seems stuck there for the long haul, between a rock and a hard place. Certainly, Ukraine can provide a significant economic input, for example, in 2014, he stole Crimea and grabbed its famous port city Sevastopol, a prize for his fleet. And certainly, should he own all Ukraine, his defense from NATO would be vastly strengthened, especially since, as a part of Russia, Ukraine would therefore never be a NATO country. In a strong sense, it is all about land, and wanting more, Senator Tuberville.
Trump’s Giant Brain Isn’t Up to the Task
Nevertheless, we ought to be wary of viewing Ukraine as simply a land grab by an empire-hungry Vladimir Putin. Certainly, that is a motivation; I believe his (very) long-term aim is to reform the soviet boundaries. That may, in fact, have been his initial objective, a beginning of the rebirth of a new Russian empire, modeled after the Soviet Union. If so, his failure to quickly defeat all of Ukraine has consequences, both militarily and macroeconomically, both strategically and tactically, both long term and short term. All this is a huge setback to his grand design.
Given the staggering human costs of the nearly two-year war thus far, one can see that Putin’s unmoved by the demand that he withdraw, and he will likely continue in this vein. Human and economic costs, it’s well known, are mammoth, and if the war – win, lose, or draw – were to end tomorrow, long term Russian macroeconomic costs in GDP terms are a huge concern, and these costs unabated by a swift victory, have already injured the welfare of the Russian people (an ongoing internally destabilizing event).
In December 2023, RAND Corporation reported, “As of September 2022, researchers estimated military costs reached $40 billion. Full-year 2022 gross domestic product losses amounted to between $81 billion and $104 billion and full-year financial capital destruction reached $322 billion. Direct military spending may amount to almost $132 billion through 2024.” Statista, on May 3, 2024, reported that Russia’s GDP dropped from $2.27 trillion (2022) to $1.99 trillion for 2023, a ten percent decline accounted for by both Ukraine invasion sanctions and war costs. That’s a very meaningful drop, and Russia, literally, cannot afford it given its lack of export product diversity and the many economic sanctions in place.
Of course, as far as the victim, Ukraine, is concerned, its costs are staggering, both ongoing and long term. Its 2021 its GDP dropped from $200 billion to $160 billion for 2022, a 20% decrease. It’s 2023 GDP, perhaps counterintuitively, increased due to a better harvest, additional government spending, increased defense spending, and improved electricity access (yet, recently, Russia has increased its targeting of Ukraine’s electricity infrastructure). Moreover, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), not surprisingly, “Ukraine, however, remains dependent on foreign assistance. According to the [International Monetary Fund] IMF, Ukraine requires in 2023 $3-4 billion in monthly financial assistance from international partners, including the [International Finance Institutions] IFIs, to maintain necessary government functions amidst the ongoing conflict. . . Other programs including the World Bank’s multi donor trust fund (MDTF) which facilitates channeling grant resources from donors. The United States is the largest donor to the MDTF, contributing $10.3 billion. Other donors are Germany ($50 million), Spain ($48 million), Finland ($21 million), Switzerland ($10.5 million), Belgium ($3 million), and Iceland ($1 million).” Foreign assistance enthusiasm may wane in a forever war, and already has in the U.S. given the GOP/MAGA warlike resistance to aiding Ukraine.
Moreover, for both combatants and the world economy, in the end, who will bear the costs of rebuilding a post-war Ukraine? Thus far, as of December 2023, the World Bank Group estimates reconstruction costs at $486 billion over the next ten years. Should Russia prevail or lose, those costs, in a legal and moral sense, ought fall to Russia, yet, if those costs continue for an extended time and reach a trillion dollars or more, Ukraine’s reconstruction will be a worldwide economic challenge, since a trillion dollars is roughly one-half Russia’s present GDP, an unsustainable drag on its economy. In any event, even should major financial institutions, countries, and non governmental organizations like the World Bank chip in, Russia’s economy will be facing large reconstruction costs that will stymie its GDP growth for an extended period. As we say, “It’s the economy, stupid!” and, despite its grievous fault, Russia cannot be allowed to sink into an economic depression, that would be destabilizing on a grand scale, i.e., a cornered bear, an existential threat to Russia, and, thereby, a certifiable World War III scenario.
So, in the end, if Trump does seek to avoid World War III, the war he accused Biden of courting, then his efforts ought to be directed at something he’s intellectually and constitutionally incapable of, for example, sensible solutions. But we know him, his diplomatic skills begin and end in this, “I would get him into a room. I’d get Zelensky into a room. Then I’d bring them together. And I’d have a deal worked out.” That is simply preposterous, the blathering of a dangerous psychopath with no conception of consequences.
Silence. Not Golden. On March 17th, the Libyan No Fly Zone resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 passed the UN Security Council 10-0 with five abstentions. Abstaining were all four of the so-called BRIC countries: Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, and China, with Germany as the fifth abstainer, in all, they represent 3.3 billion people, 48% of the world’s population. And they all chose to remain officially abstinent when it came to a vote, neither approving, nor disapproving UNSC Resolution 1973. However, when the UN ambassadors of countries representing nearly 50% of the masses goes silent, and when two of them, Russia and China are permanent members, something needs explaining. And explain they did.
Membership In 2011
The UN Security Council Is Composed Of Five Permanent Members — China, France, Russian Federation, The United Kingdom And The United States — And Ten Non-Permament Members (With Year Of Term’s End):
Bosnia And Herzegovina (2011) Brazil (2011) Colombia (2012) Gabon (2011) Germany (2012) India (2012) Lebanon (2011) Nigeria (2011) Portugal (2012) South Africa (2012)
China’s Shout Across the Bow. Following the vote, China’s UN Ambassador Li Baodong, explained his abstention to the People’s Daily.
“The continuing worsening of the situation in Libya has the great concern of China. We support the Security Council’s adoption of appropriate and necessary action to stabilize as soon as possible the situation in Libya and to halt acts of violence against civilians. In the Security Council’s consultations on Resolution 1973, we and some other council members asked some specific questions. However, regrettably, many of those questions failed to be clarified or answered. China has serious difficulty with part of the resolution. Meanwhile, China attaches great importance to the relevant decision by the 22-member Arab league on the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya. We also attach great importance to the position of African countries and the African Union.
“In view of this and considering the special circumstance surrounding the situation in Libya, China abstained during the vote on the resolution, Resolution 1973. We support the secretary-general’s special envoy for Libya and the African Union and the Arab League in their continuing efforts to address by peaceful means the current crisis in Libya.”
Russia’s Shout Across the Bow. To Pravda.org, the UN envoy of the Russian Federation, Vitaly Churkin, explained Russia’s position on the No Fly Zone resolution:
“We strongly support the consistent and unconditional protection of civilians. According to this principle and essential humanitarian values Russia shares with co-authors of the project and other members of the Security Council, Russia has not stopped its adoption.” Citing the failure of the Security Council to answer Russia’s questions about the resolution, Churkin mentioned that the “absolutely logical and specific questions regarding maintenance of the exclusion zone area had no response.”
“[Churkin] stated that work on the resolution was not in tune with the practice of the Security Council, with many questions remaining unanswered, including how it would be enforced and by whom, and what are the terms of engagement. His country did not prevent the adoption of the resolution, but he was convinced that an immediate ceasefire would be the best way to prevent loss of life. Russia, in fact, had pressed for an earlier resolution calling for a cease-fire that could have saved many more lives. Cautioning against unforeseen consequences, he stressed that there was a need to avoid destabilizing the region.
“Russia thus did not veto the draft resolution because she wanted to act according to the basic principles of the UN including the protection of civilians, said Vitaly Churkin. However, he also said that another resolution, proposed by the Russian Federation on March 16, on the need to appeal for a ceasefire in Libya has not, unfortunately, “received support from other partners more interested in measures of force. The final document has nothing to do with the original that was proposed, which contained references to a large-scale military intervention, which the Russian Federation and its partners (Germany, Brazil, China PR, India) avoided.”
UN Report. The United Nations Security Council released an unofficial record summary of the session that approved the resolution. The report included a one paragraph item featuring China and Russia. It tracks well with the comments to the People’s Daily and Pravda cited above:
“The representatives of China and the Russian Federation, explaining their abstentions, prioritized peaceful means of resolving the conflict and said that many questions had not been answered in regard to provisions of the resolution, including, as the Russian representative put it, how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be. He said the resolution included a sorely needed ceasefire, which he had called for earlier. China had not blocked the action with a negative vote in consideration of the wishes of the Arab League and the African Union, its representative said.”
The Oh My Zone. We’ll see where this so-called No Fly Zone leads – will the coalition implementation, in the view of China and Russia, become so aggressive and destructive that both countries will raise their objections to a higher level? And what of the Arab League, Brazil, Germany, and India? As mentioned above, these five countries (and now, with the Arab League included) represent well more than 50% of the world’s population and possess vast diplomatic and economic resources. Would, for example, extreme violence against Libya under the resolution, with its unavoidable civilian casualties, reopen the Middle East to more energetic Russian influence? Would China play its economic card to rein in the United States and others now heavily indebted to them? Or, quite to the contrary, is it possible that China would quietly applaud our being lost in another Middle Eastern desert and thus unable to compete effectively in the global commercial and economic contest? And should oil exports from the Middle East be reduced, to manipulate European policies, would cash-strapped Russia use its vast oil resources: proved reserves – 8th worldwide? European importers include Italy, France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Germany imports, by far, the most Russian crude, 25% of its daily needs.
The future is well hidden until it gets here. True. Yet, one thing we all know about military “adventures” is that once in, it’s nearly impossible to get out. Also, initial victories come quickly when the mismatch of forces is as startling as that between the coalition and Libya. Military victory, though, in the Middle East means little; it has led to far more complicated and uncontrollable tasks and responsibilities involving political damage, human loss, infrastructure demolition, long memories, and an unpredictable period of instability “on the street” and in a transitional government.
The forces that may be brought to bear on a post-Gaddafi Libya potentially include the big players, including the Russian Federation, China, and an Arab League that may feel it has again been betrayed by the European and American powers. This is no Bay of Pigs, it’s no Vietnam, it’s certainly no Grenada or Panama. Let’s hope Operation Odyssey Dawn doesn’t slip into another Afghanistan, or worse, doesn’t encourage more violent reactions throughout the region, not merely within indigenous countries in the region, but in Europe, the U.S., and perceived as enemies by many in the Middle East. In effect, today, we’ve already crossed the threshold to this God knows what . . .
