Digest 34: Flirting with the multipolar order
Most interesting highlights from the past few weeks…
- Extremely powerful post from David Sacks on the ‘WAR OF LIES’ (in Ukraine). We are not in a ‘stalemate’ – which was clear back in November. This has been the latest mischaracterisation, perpetuated for the past three months – to yet greater losses and destruction; now laid bare and requiring a latest instalment of narrative pivot.
- Boxing as an analogy. In my last digest, I likened the present state of the conflict to a boxing scene in The Simpsons. I think this is now the right analogy. NATO has clearly drawn a red line that demarcates it to ‘coach’ in the fighting. Often, fighters need to be stopped. In the heat of violence, it is extremely common for someone to go beyond their own self-interest. When a towel is thrown in, or a referee stops a fight, the losing fighter is (in the immediate term) often resentful. But in time, they typically come to see the sense of the decision. The United States and Britain have been woefully irresponsible ring-men to Ukraine. Any further talk of ‘care’ for Ukraine is bogus. With the military reality on the ground, it is pure (attempted) political face-saving.
- Olaf Scholz reveals British soldiers are helping fire Ukrainian missiles.
- NYT: ‘A C.I.A.-supported network of spy bases has been constructed in the past eight years that includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border.’ Yet Putin is still portrayed as a paranoid mad-man, without motive other than imperialism. Stephen Bryen: ‘The British cried foul and accused Scholz of a “flagrant abuse of intelligence”, meaning that Scholz confirmed what everyone already knows, that NATO officers and trained personnel are in Ukraine operating weapons such as the Patriot and NASAM air defense system, the HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, the British-French Storm Shadow cruise missile (SCALP-EG in France), and many other complex weapons provided to Ukraine.’ NATO forces are, by stealth, getting involved in Ukraine. (Perhaps more than ring-men, then.) Needless to say: this is incredibly dangerous.
- More archival footage, which is incredibly damning, of Victoria Nuland saying that the US would destroy the Nord Stream pipelines.
- Turkey says it is ready to host peace talks between Ukraine and Russia again. (I have been saying this should happen routinely since September.)
- China has 200x the shipbuilding capacity of the US – a statistic that has leaked from the US navy (and confirmed by a former Deputy National Security Advisor).
- Professor Mearsheimer on the UK’s military:
GJ: What do you make of Britain’s role alongside the US in the Red Sea?
JM: The British will do almost anything the Americans want them to do. The Americans often find that their allies don’t always want to go along with their various schemes. But there’s one exception to that – Britain. This didn’t used to be the case. The Americans desperately wanted the British to join the fight in Vietnam, and the British declined. But I think if we were to have a Vietnam War today, and the American government were to ask the British to get involved, they would enthusiastically jump into the fight. Such loyalty does not make good strategic sense. Especially when you look at the withering away of the British military. It’s not like British military power is growing; it seems to be headed in the other direction. And in that situation, you would expect the British to cut back on their commitments to these various escapades that the Americans involve them in. But that’s not happening. Quite the contrary.
Brexit was an opportunity for the UK to take on a smarter foreign policy. As the WSJ put it in a May 2019 editorial: ‘The world also needs the Tories’ pro-American streak – as ballast between the US and Europe.’ This has, so far, been squandered.
- Why is it that the people who are advocating for a negotiated outcome most strongly are continually raising the need to further invest in industrial capacity – Dominic Cummings, David Sacks, Stephen Bryen… – while the people who (I think very delusionally) still want to try and fend off Russia seem largely to ignore issues of industrial capacity, and think yet more sophisticated weapons systems will magically produce victory? Dominic Cummings: ‘their revealed preference is “rather lose in Ukraine than face reality on procurement and industrial capacity”. Procurement is so boring we would rather lose wars in our own continent than deal with it. (The West needs urgently to fix its diplomacy and industrial production.)
- 17-year-olds now appear to be getting trained, to be sent to the front line in Ukraine.
- Professor Jeffrey Sachs explaining what it’s like today interacting with editors he’s known for years – on deviating from anything inside ‘permissible narrative’. (This mirrors my humble personal experience.)
- The new term ‘Trump-proofing’. (The media making Trump out to be a mad man because he thinks European countries should contribute towards their own defence.) But why is this controversial? With what insurance provider do you get coverage if you don’t pay your dues? I perceive that Trump is trying to help Europe, by catalysing countries doing nothing to contribute to their own readiness – and sensing, with America’s crazy, spiralling debt levels, there’s no way the US can continue to afford this. Sure, Trump has a manner which isn’t to everyone’s liking. But Europe needs to start paying its own way and get its act together. I encourage everyone to read this excellent piece by Stephen Bryen on the dire state of NATO readiness.
Two most interesting clips
Zelensky visiting Saudi Arabia. MBS gets more than a fist-bump from Zelensky:
The Associated Press reports this is to ask for diplomatic help, not just financial assistance. “Ukrainian President Zelenskyy lands in Saudi Arabia to push for peace and a POW exchange with Russia.”
China’s foreign minister
This on Wang Yi (clip for about 4 minutes) I found fascinating:
I said in my October Ukraine chronology that this would likely happen. And in November 2022: Are the Chinese [regrettably] beginning to sound more diplomatic than the Americans?
Israel/Gaza
Seymour Hersh:
The war has been marked by lots of what, sadly, is irrelevant talk from Biden and Blinken about the necessity of a two-state solution.
Netanyahu replied: “Everybody who talks about a two-state solution—well, I ask, what do you mean by that? Should the Palestinians have an army? . . . Can they sign a military pact with Iran? Can they import rockets from North Korea and other deadly weapons? Should they continue to educate their children for terrorism and annihilation? . . . Of course not.”
Richard Haass’s advice to Biden:
(Richard Haass loathes Trump and wants any non-Trump candidate to win in November.)
What is needed is a more independent U.S. policy. I have suggested President Biden give a speech directly to the Israeli people. Ideally it would be from the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, but more important than the venue is the content. It should make the case that what Israel is doing is unlikely to succeed and could in fact set back its prospects for normalization with the Arab world while weakening its relationship with the United States. It also jeopardizes Israel’s future as a secure, prosperous, democratic, Jewish state. The President would make clear that he is not seeking to establish a Palestinian state today, but that he wants to begin the process of bringing about a Palestinian leadership able and willing to co-exist peacefully with Israel. He might also talk about the conditions Palestinians would have to meet before a state could be considered.
It is possible to support Israel but fear for the likely consequences of its policies and oppose them as a result. Israel is embarked on a course of action that will alienate much of the Arab world, the world writ large, and a generation of Americans that one day will occupy the most senior positions of influence and authority in this country. The Biden administration must disassociate itself from such a policy if it cannot change it.
General interest:
- From Professor Frank Costiglia: George Kennan’s famous ‘long telegram’ was circulated in the US State department on the same day Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech: 5th March, 1946. An interesting detail.
- Graham Allison, speaking with Charlie Rose, reminds us: Henry Kissinger, along with George Shultz and many others, were once strongly in favour of the abolition of nuclear weapons. That’s quite amazing.
- Stephen Bryen: ‘In time, the US will potentially have lasers on board ships that can kill drones and, perhaps, cruise missiles. Knocking out ballistic missiles with lasers is much more challenging, but perhaps possible. Even Israel is looking at lasers and has developed a system called Iron Beam.’
Thank you for reading.