Even Putin Is Less of a Dictator Than Obama When It Comes to War

by Gerard Emershaw

One interesting detail that is sure to get lost in the dramatic unfolding story in Ukraine is that the Russian Parliament passed a bill authorizing President Vladimir Putin to use military force in Ukraine. While many will become preoccupied and view this as a reason to begin a new Cold War, let us set that aside for the moment. Putin is undeniably a dictator, yet even he is bound by a check and balance of the Russian legislative branch. He was required to seek permission to use military force. Compare that with what President Obama did in Libya in 2011. Did President Obama seek permission for his ill advised “kinetic military action”—which produced the blowback that led to the Benghazi tragedy—in Libya? Yes. The problem is that President Obama sought the permission of the UN, NATO, and the Arab League and not the permission of Congress as the Constitution requires.

During World War I, Woodrow Wilson was virtually as powerful as the German Kaiser. During World War II, FDR was practically as powerful as the despotic fascist leaders Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo that he was fighting. Today there is no doubt that President Obama—and the Imperial American President in general—is even more powerful than the Russian dictator. If this does not become a Constitutional wake up call against the imbalance that has arisen between the branches of federal government, then perhaps nothing ever will. President Obama once infamously denied being a dictator. Can he still plausibly deny it when even Vlad Putin is less willing to take political liberties than he is?

A New Cold War Is Unnecessary

by Gerard Emershaw

Vladimir Putin’s Teddy Roosevelt-like bellicosity and Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is inevitably going to make neocon Trotskyites, progressive Wilsonian hawks, and Military-Industrial Complex shills more belligerent than usual. There will inevitably be increasing calls for President Obama to act more like a cowboy like his predecessor in the White House. They will want President Obama to be even more of a warmonger than he already has been—if that is even possible. They will want him to be an alpha dog and best Vlad in some sort of international dog fight. They will lament that the Cold War has begun again or that it never really ended.

The truth of the matter is that the last thing that the United States should do is create a new Cold War with Russia. This is also the last thing that the United States needs to do. The first Cold War was essentially a dangerous waste of resources on the part of the United States. Those who believe that the Cold War was necessary have no faith in the free market. They are most likely not capitalists. Given that many of the war hawks and Military-Industrial Complex Rand Corporation type Dr. Strangelove stooges were far closer to being fascists than free market capitalists, this is no surprise. Similarly, those who believe that the United States must now get back on a war footing against Russia have no faith in the free market. Given that many of the new war hawks are closer to being Bismarckian statists and corporatists than free market capitalists, this is also no surprise.

Vladimir Putin is a tyrant. There is no doubt about that. He seems to be an unstable cross between a Stalinist inner party member of the 1950s Soviet Union, an early 20^th century Czarist nationalist oligarch, and a new era Russian gangster. Nevertheless, sometimes even the most unbalanced despots have reasons for doing what they are doing. Ukraine is Russia’s neighbor and former part of the Soviet Bloc. The political disintegration that is taking place in Ukraine obviously concerns Russia. If similar turmoil were occurring in Canada or Mexico, it is obvious that the United States would intervene militarily. Consider how often American presidents—particularly Woodrow Wilson—intervened in Latin America based upon the Monroe Doctrine. Wilson invaded Mexico on 11 separate occasions due to alleged political instability.

Even if Russia’s actions are not justified, the United States has no important interest in Ukraine. Ukraine is not a major political ally. Ukraine is not truly a democratic republic as its many disputed elections and recent events demonstrate. In reality, its government is closer to fascism. The United States is a trade partner of Ukraine’s, but there is no reason for this to change no matter who winds up controlling the nation when the smoke clears. Trade is what the United States should be promoting with all nations rather than entangling military alliances and rivalries.

Furthermore, the political situation in Ukraine is complex to put it mildly. To put it bluntly, it is a mess. Many in the Crimean region are more aligned with Russia than with the rest of Ukraine. While many of the Ukrainian protesters genuinely want freedom, political groups in that nation range from old school Stalinists to Neo-Nazis. The Obama administration has proven to be no more competent in foreign policy than any recent administration. Therefore, it is highly likely that if the United States were to forge some kind of alliance with a political faction in Ukraine, it would wind up being some Neo-Nazi group. Do not forget that the United States is politically in bed with Al Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria. Do not forget that the United States was aligned with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 80s. Do not forget any of the rogues’ gallery of despots such as Saddam Hussein that the United States has allied themselves with over the years. Also do not forget all the dangerous blowback that this has produced time and time again.

Even if there were a single reason for the United States to intervene militarily, economically, or politically in Ukraine, the truth of the matter is that Americans cannot afford it. The national debt is still $17 trillion and growing. The Bush/Obama wrecked economy is still in shambles. Any ratcheting up of Neo-Cold War tensions will just further exacerbate American economic woes. Even economic sanctions or an attempt to remove Russia from the G-8 will produce economic blowback. The United States does not need and cannot afford some new ill advised arms race with Russia. There is no reason to provoke an unstable dictator like Putin by placing some kind of missile defense shield near Russia’s borders. It is also wise to take a deep breath and realize that Putin’s actions have nothing to do with the United States anymore than United States intervention to prevent a civil war or a total Somalia-like disintegration in Mexico would have something to do with Russia.

Those who fear Russia have no faith in the United States, its people, its economy, or free market capitalism in general. Just as the Soviet Union’s communist economy was inevitably going to collapse even without costly American Cold War maneuvering, so too will Russia’s neo-fascist economy. Despite undeniable economic growth, the GDP of Russia is just over $2 trillion compared with the nearly $15.7 trillion GDP of the United States. More tellingly, according to Heritage, Russia’s economy is only 140^th in the world in terms of economic freedom while the United States economy is 12^th freest. In addition, Russia faces institutional corruption more on par with a banana republic than a world power and is experiencing a troubling “brain drain” in which half of all persons in some key financial and business sectors are leaving Russia. In many ways, Russia is a sick and decaying society. For example, life expectancy in Russia is only 69.85 compared with 78.62 in the United States. The Russian life expectancy level is on a par with impoverished countries.

The bottom line is that Russia’s statist controlled economy is doomed to collapse the nation. If Putin wishes to rattle a saber like he is the second coming of Stalin, then the United States should allow him to do just that. Militarism is expensive, and Russia cannot afford it. Any extra expenditures on defense will just make the Russian economy and government collapse all the more quickly. Either free market capitalism is better or statist centrally controlled economies are better. Those who wish to re-engage Russia in a new Cold War obviously do not believe that free market capitalism is better. Neocons and belligerent Wilsonian progressives have never had faith in free markets or in Americans in general, so it is clear where they will stand on the issue.

Many on the right lament the “welfare state.” However, the most disgusting “welfare state” is not the one which provides sustenance programs to Americans living in poverty. It is not even the one which provides corporate welfare to large corporations and wealth individuals. The most disgusting “welfare state” is the international geo-political “welfare state” by which wealthy European nations and other allies are provided free defense on the backs of American servicemen and women and American taxpayers. Europe, South Korea, Japan, etc. Why are these wealthy nations provided free defense when they can afford to do it themselves? In essence, American taxpayers are paying for the cradle-to-grave Nanny States in these nations. Because these nations can afford to spend so little on defense, they can have free socialized medicine, free college education, subsidized vacations, etc.

NATO is completely unnecessary and probably has been since at least the 1960s. By the time Western Europe rebuilt economically and arose from the ashes of World War II as a vibrant economic power, any costly military alliance with it was unnecessary. Especially a military alliance like NATO in which American military members do all the heavy lifting and American taxpayers foot most of the bill. The European Union taken as a whole has the largest GDP in the world. The United States no longer needs to protect it. And should the United States really risk World War III and atomic Armageddon for the likes of prospective NATO members like Georgia or Ukraine? Are American lives really worth risking for two borderline fascist nations with no important strategic or economic importance to American interests? Has the United States fallen so far that it is necessary for American morale to get the best of Russia on unimportant issues?

Isolationism? No, non-interventionism. Ignoring the hostile regional machinations of decadent European powers like Russia is the sort of thing that George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson preached and practiced. Intervening willy-nilly for no good reason is what William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama preached and practiced. Which group of American leaders do you trust more? Many claim that the United States risks looking “weak.” Only the weak worry about looking weak. The strength of a nation does not come from militarism. If it did, then nations like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would be considered among the greatest nations in history. The true strength of a nation comes from its people and their economic productivity. Instead of empty threats and wasteful increases in military spending which a new Cold War would cause, the United States should show its strength by developing more useful patents, creating more great works of art, creating new entrepreneurial opportunities and more jobs, and again becoming a beacon of freedom around the world through example by following the Constitution.

In the final analysis, if you believe that a new hostile nuclear rivalry with Russia is necessary, then you probably are not a free market capitalist. You are probably not a deficit hawk or a fiscal conservative. You are probably not aligned with the ideals of the Founders.

Putin the Peacemaker?

by Gerard Emershaw

On September 11, The New York Times published an op-ed from Russian President Vladimir Putin entitled “A Plea for Caution From Russia.” In this editorial, Putin urges President Obama not to attack Syria. Has the Russian dictator and former KGB agent become a peacemaker? Probably not, but his words do deserve consideration.

Putin says:

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Putin gives voice to the many possibilities for blowback that military strikes against Syria by the United States would create. In many ways the Syrian Civil War is a microcosm of the violent tensions in the Muslim World. The war pits Assad’s Alawites—a branch of Shia—against the Sunni rebels. The Muslim world at present can be viewed as a tense religionist rivalry between the Shia Iranians and the Sunni Saudis. With the importance of Middle East oil to the world economy, the worst possible scenario would be a wider regional sectarian war involving Shiite and Sunni factions. The potential fall of the Shiite Syrian government could make Iran nervous, as it would be losing one of its few allies. A nervous Iran is far more likely to continue its nuclear weapons program in earnest. More turmoil in the Middle East will definitely make solving Israeli-Palestinian issues more difficult.

Unlike President Obama, who tried to characterize the radical Jihadist Syrian rebels as “moderates” who wanted peace and democracy, Putin does not attempt to characterize his ally Assad as the Thomas Jefferson of Syria:

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world. Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

At no point did President Obama discuss the tensions in Syria between Alawites and Sunnis. Clearly, unlike his predecessor in the White House, President Obama knows the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. Does President Obama consider that to be unimportant? Or is it a nuance that he believes the American public is not intelligent enough to grasp? Unlike President Obama, President Putin is also willing to address the elephant in the room—the al Qaeda affiliated Jihadists fighting on the side of the rebels. Calling Jihadists “moderates” does not make them so. Putin is correct about the dangers that Jihadist mercenaries represent. These are the individuals who become agitators, insurgents, and terrorists. Putin is right to be afraid of them. Russians do not want to become targets for terrorists any more than Americans do.

Putin continues:

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

The Butcher of Grozny pretending to be a peacenik might be funny, but after a good laugh, his words need to be considered. Putin clearly cares little or nothing about international law. He certainly had no concern for international law when he was killing Chechens or Georgians. Putin is obviously protecting Russia’s ally Syria. Russia has long enjoyed strong relations with Syria. Russia's only Mediterranean military base is in Syria. Russia's exports to Syria are worth over $1 billion per year, and its investments in Syria are worth over $20 billion. But why is it okay for the United States to staunchly support its allies, right or wrong, but not okay for Russia to do the same? Of course, supporting tyrants in nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain is immoral for the United States, but clearly no more immoral than Putin supporting Assad. With the fall of Russia’s ally Qaddafi in Libya, it is easy to understand why Putin might feel uneasy. With the NATO alliance getting closer to the Russian border, and allies falling left and right, Russia naturally feels threatened.

Putin is correct in stating that an American attack against Syria would be illegal under international law. Since Russia opposes an attack on Syria, Russia would veto such a decision by the UN Security Council. This would leave self defense as the only other possible justification. Syria has not attacked the United States, and President Obama acknowledges that Syria poses no military threat to the United States. 

Putin denies President Obama’s claim that it is a certainty that Assad used chemical weapons:

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack—this time against Israel—cannot be ignored.

There has indeed been no confirmation of Assad being responsible. It is just as likely at this point that the attack was perpetrated by Jihadist rebels, perhaps as a false flag. Indeed, multiple sources have allegedly told RT that militants are planning to launch a chemical attack on Israel from government-controlled territories as a “provocation.” While this must be taken with a grain of salt, it is obvious that rebel Jihadists pose as big if not bigger threat to Israel than Assad’s government does.  

Sounding oddly like an American non-interventionist, Putin contends that recent American military actions have been failures and that any American attack on Syria will lead to civilian casualties:

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes. No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

It is strange that Putin can see the parallels between Iraq and Syria yet President Obama cannot. Is this the same President Obama who reflexively blames anything and everything on President George W. Bush? Why would he want to follow in President Bush’s footsteps?

Putin urges: “We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.” When the tyrant is urging peace and the Nobel Peace Prize winner is urging war, all bets are off. If Putin can indeed encourage Assad to give up Syria’s chemical weapons, then he will make himself a favorite to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Fox News is reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have reached a framework for an agreement on securing Syria's chemical weapons. 

Putin concludes with a zinger:

And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

The idea of “American exceptionalism” has been dangerous. It has given rise to evils such as Manifest Destiny. When the United States was at its greatest, it was a humble beacon of peace. When you are exceptional, you do not need to tell everyone that you are. If and when the United States returns to its non-interventionist roots and promotes peace and freedom by example, it will again be exceptional. Right now, it is far from such exceptionalism.