The Critical Hour Interview, Feb. 16
By Ray McGovern
Yesterday’s discussion took off from my Ukraine Invasion Scheduled for Wednesday [Feb. 16] Canceled (See: https://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2022/02/15/ukraine-invasion-scheduled-for-wednesday-canceled/). We focused initially on what emerged from German Chancellor Scholz’s discussions with President Putin Tuesday (as well as some of the “anomalies” in Western media coverage of that summit meeting).
HERE IS THE LINK TO CRITICAL HOUR
After talking with Putin on Feb. 15, Scholz described the prospect of a “possible military conflict” over the question of Ukraine membership in NATO as “absurd”. Ukraine membership is “not on the agenda,” the German Chancellor pointed out, because there is zero likelihood in the foreseeable future of Ukraine meeting the entry qualifications. Scholz appealed to all those involved to “step back a bit” and “take stock”.
Mirabile dictu, the NY Times took a step in that direction on the 16th, assuming one has the patience to read all the way down to paragraph 19 (of 22). (See https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/world/europe/ukraine-russia-putin-nato.html? )
Here’s the Times:
Mr. Putin appeared to dial down tensions this week in part because he had already made important early gains in a diplomatic effort that could still last for months. The United States, for instance, said it was prepared to revive talks on the placement of short- and intermediate-range missiles in Europe. Some dialogue had already begun last year.
Not a Bad Idea
The Chinese, Germans, and others have said this would be a great idea. So who is feeding the feckless frenzy this morning, and why? The MICIMATT is, understandably, the usual suspect, but so is politics in a narrower sense. Indeed, from the political side, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have given that part of the game away when she said a bit too much to George ‘Is-Biden-a-Killer?’ Stephanopoulos on Sunday:
Spilling the Beans?
STEPHANOPOULOS: The White House is warning of an imminent invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainians seem to think that that’s all hype. Are — do you believe that Putin is poised to invade?
PELOSI: Well, I think we have to be prepared for it. … But if we were not threatening the sanctions and the rest, it would guarantee that Putin would invade. … And the president’s made it very clear. There’s a big price to pay for Russia to go there. So if Russia doesn’t invade, it’s not that he never intended to. It’s just that the sanctions worked. ( See: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-13-22-speaker-nancy-pelosi-sen/story?id=82849151 ) [Emphasis added.]
So it is hardly a surprise that this morning President Biden replayed, well, let’s call it a ‘broken record’ to the media: “The threat of an invasion is very high…my sense is this will happen in the next several days,” warned Biden as he left the White House for a trip to Ohio. (One wag asked whether underground bunkers in Ohio have an extra layer of concrete. (See: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-expects-putin-ukraine-invasion-days/story?id=82954609 )
Putin and U.S. Presidents
President Putin is no stranger to the reality that U.S. presidents are beset by domestic political pressures — like, in this case, having the opposing party take complete control of Congress next year. So, on the Ukraine imbroglio, when he tells the media, that everything is going according to plan (по плану), that plan must take into account the vicissitudes and disarray of current politics in the U.S. While Putin attempts to exude confidence in dealing with this, this is largely pretense, given the immensity and complicated nature of the problem.
Putin acknowledged this last June in a keynote speech to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum:
“I am sure that it [US policy towards Russia] is primarily impacted by domestic political processes. Russia-US relations have to a certain extent become hostage to the internal political processes that are taking place in the United States.” ( See: https://tass.com/politics/1298867 )
As if yet another complicating factor were needed, Putin is painfully aware that at key junctures in the past when a U.S. president gave his word, well, it turned out not to be “the last word”, so to speak. In Oct. 2016, for example, Putin spoke of the “feverish” state of international relations at the time and lamented: “My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results.” Putin complained about “people in Washington ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice.”
For those with short memories, ten days before Putin said this, the U.S. Air Force had just scuttled a cease-fire in Syria that had required 11 months of intense diplomacy and included personal approval by both Obama and Putin. I wrote about it at the time: https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-putin-obama-20161030-story.html
Blinken: Incomprehensibly Clever – or Dense?
Back to Ukraine and to what Secretary of State Antony Blinken might be thinkin’: when asked early this morning “What would be the upside for Putin by invading Ukraine?”, he could not think of any. Blinken actually suggested we should “ask Putin” (No, really!). (See No Thinkin’ Blinken: https://raymcgovern.com/2022/02/17/no-thinkin-blinken/ )
And so it goes.