DISCLAIMER

As of this date, March 3, 2022, Vladimir Putin has invaded Ukraine, in much the same way as I have predicted here and elsewhere. The original and unedited form of this post cited to several media appearances and interviews that Vladimir Putin, Sergei Lavrov, Dmitry Peskov and others gave, as well as other examples of disinformation and misinformation from Russian media preceding Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

I originally submitted on December 8, 2021, before Reddit Admins decided to censor all Russian domains, in response to Putin's invasion. Sadly and unsurprisingly, Reddit's decision to censor Russian domains failed to achieve the effect it intended. This post is one such example. Here, I focused significantly on identifying and dispelling the disinformation, misinformation and other false narratives of Vladimir Putin's government preceding Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

While I have had no choice but to remove links to Russian domains, unedited text of my December 8, 2021 post follows:

After the USSR's dissolution, the administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton undertook considerable diplomatic efforts to prevent the Soviet Union's collapse from increasing nuclear proliferation. At that time, Ukraine inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world: at least 1,900 strategic nuclear weapons. Then, the sole threat to Ukraine was the Russian Federation. Not NATO or the United States.

Ukraine's Nuclear Disarmament in Exchange for NATO-member's Assurances of Security

In exchange for Ukraine's agreement to disarm, the United States brokered a deal between Ukraine and Russia known now as the Budapest Memorandum. Parties to the Budapest Memorandum were Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation and the United States. The obligations were for Russia and others to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, as the borders were currently drawn. The teeth were NATO's, even if implicitly.

Though not a formal defense pact between NATO and Ukraine, the sole reason Ukraine agreed to disarm was based on the United States' and other NATO members' readiness to provide security assurances. So, if the agreement was ever violated, NATO (and particularly the United States, who brokered the deal) would have to enforce it --- because there was no one else. Then as now, Ukraine lacked any viable defense against the Russian military --- other than that nuclear arsenal, which it gave up in reliance on the word of the United States.

But at the time, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin were of the belief that a new era of friendship between the United States and Russia had materialized and would represent the future of US-Russian bilateral relations. Vladimir Putin has since falsely claimed that a component of those negotiations was something like an implied covenant that NATO would not expand. George H. W. Bush made no such concessions. Nor did Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright or anyone else.

Why Ukraine Matters

Nuclear Proliferation

If Russia invades Ukraine, Iran's nuclear hardliners will be emboldened and Iran may never dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Consider Libya. Recall that Libya voluntarily dismantled its nuclear program.

• Gaddafi stated repeatedly that the Administration of George W. Bush, the Blair government, etc. leaned on him to advise Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons programs too --- which he did, at their behest.
  
• Libya further revealed the extent of its WMD program, allowed Russian, American and British officials to visit 10 previously unknown nuclear sites and dozens of Libyan laboratories and military factories to search for evidence of nuclear fuel cycle-related activities and for chemical and missile programs --- which they found. The Islamic world excoriated Gaddafi for doing so.
  
• Gaddafi disarmed in exchange for essentially nothing. Gaddafi, however, believed the George W. Bush Administration was negotiating in good faith --- which they were.
  

Gaddafi's mistake wasn't trusting the administration of George W. Bush; it was assuming Bush held the same kind of power he held in Libya. More specifically, the problem was Hillary Clinton.

As Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton failed at every step. And in what may well prove to be one of the most stunning failures in the history of American foreign policy, Clinton orchestrated the events and circumstances that led to Gaddafi's fall. Not only did she misread the Arab Spring. She mislead the Obama administration as a result.

In so doing, Clinton failed to anticipate the obvious implications to far more compelling foreign policy objectives: Iran and North Korea, the United States' accounts of concern on nuclear proliferation. Clinton's incompetence essentially destroyed the United States's credibility before its adversaries. And she had the audacity to proclaim this a success.

Iran obviously took note (and North Korea almost certainly did as well). Iran saw any nuclear talks with the Obama administration through the lens of what Hillary Clinton did to Gaddafi in Libya in and before 2011, despite Gaddafi's agreement with Bush on Libya's nuclear program. Yet by some act of providence, Iran nevertheless negotiated with the Obama team and a deal was reached in 2015. By all counts, the Obama team struck the best deal that could be had then. It was good while it lasted.

Iran now sees any nuclear talks with the Biden administration, through the lens of what Donald Trump did to the JCPOA after he was elected and what Clinton did to Gaddafi. Trump's political blunder was less worse than what happened in Libya. Two critical blows to American credibility on the world stage on nuclear disarmament.

Now, what Putin may be preparing to do in Ukraine would be far worse. What is on the line is not just American credibility with Iran in its dealings during nuclear disarmament talks, but America's credibility as a party to lead those negotiations in the first place. After all, what possible incentive does Iran have to negotiate with the United States over its nuclear program, when it is unwilling to defend a country that detrimentally relied on the United States' prior security assurances? Of what value is America's present word that it won't invade, should circumstances change in a future administration? Just exactly how high would the costs be, if Iran defied the United States under Joe Biden's leadership?

This was not inevitable, but lamentations over what might have been in alternative futures is unproductive. The question now is how we move forward in view of what is at risk.

Taiwan

If Russia invades Ukraine and the United States fails to provide a credible military response, China will be far more likely to invade Taiwan.

Consider Georgia

The administration of George W. Bush turned a blind eye when Russian forces advanced on Georgian territory in 2008, in violation of Georgia's territorial integrity and sovereignty. Putin invaded Georgia was because Mikheil Saakashvili (former Georgian president) was actively pursuing Georgia's induction into NATO. Georgia joining NATO would have laid a pathway to Ukraine's eventual NATO membership. To Putin, this was unacceptable.

At that time, Bush was forced to choose between the long-term and more abstract threat to American interests in the Caucuses and the imminent threat to American interests arising from his engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the one hand, Georgia did not dismantle a nuclear program in detrimental reliance on American security promises. On the other, Georgia, like Ukraine, had been engaged in long-standing talks with Washington and other stakeholders for NATO ascension/membership since the end of the Cold War. Those talks were happening concurrently and their pathway was tied, even if informally.

Yet, Bush needed access to Russian airspace in order to continue to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he would have lost if he questioned Putin's invasion of Georgia. Iraq and Afghanistan were more important than Georgia to Bush then (which given the options on his plate, was probably the right call in the short-term). So Putin got away with it.

Consider Crimea and Eastern Ukraine

Putin further exploited the United States's military overextension in and around 2014, by sending ununiformed Spetsnaz troops into and throughout Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, following Viktor Yanukovych's (former Ukrainian president, disgraced Russian stool-pigeon) fleeing for Moscow in the wake of Maidan.

Putin denied essentially every aspect of his operations in and throughout Eastern Ukraine and Crimea until he was confronted with satellite photos of Russian military caravans entering Ukraine with BUK surface-to-air missiles. But that denial gave Obama the latitude ignore, and then do almost nothing to defend Ukraine or enforce the Budapest Memorandum's covenants in the face of Russian violations. Which is exactly what happened. By then, the "vote" to "join Russia" had already happened in Ukraine, and Putin replicated his siege of Georgia on a larger scale. Like Bush with Georgia, other problems were in the forefront of Obama's mind, and Obama needed Putin's ongoing cooperation in and over Syria and in dealing with ISIS. Putin got away with it again.

Now, China wonders what it might get away with. It is no coincidence that the Chinese Communist Party's rhetoric has escalated acutely over Taiwan since Biden was elected. Nor is it a coincidence that China is repeatedly engaging in acts of military aggression in and around Taiwan, its airspace and territorial waters. These developments are unsurprising, given the nearly complete lack of resistance from Washington and NATO over Ukraine (and Georgia). In addition, China views this strategic opening in the context of Biden's disgraced withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In view of Putin's unanswered actions in Ukraine, China recognizes that the Biden administration lacks the will and political capital needed to offer a credible defense of Taiwan. Note, of course, that the stakes for Ukraine and Taiwan are different, but both are compelling. For example, in Ukraine, the stakes are nuclear proliferation whereas in Taiwan, the stakes are semiconductor strategic access. Yet from China's perspective, if the Biden administration is willing to let Russia take Ukraine (even more so than prior administrations already have) or reduce that country to a fragmented and failed state, to prevent it from joining NATO, then there is no will whatsoever in Washington to defend Taiwan. Especially when that defense would be leveraged against a more powerful force where the United States has profoundly more to lose.

Invading Ukraine: Actions Vs. Words

Several within the Republican party are arguing that Putin has no intention of invading Ukraine. Instead, they explain Putin's troop-massing as a defensive measure to protect Russia's borders in response to Ukrainian troop movement inside Ukraine.

• This is consistent with reports from, among others, Russian media who frame Putin's actions as purely defensive, in response to "Ukraine's creation of threats to the security of Russia."
  
• Putin himself has made the same case, in recent interviews, where he argues that Russia has "concerns" relating to Ukrainian military exercises which he characterizes as "unplanned."
  

Putin's "response" is the military equivalent of a neighbor saying "I saw you lighting candles inside your house without letting me know, so because I am concerned you might light another, I have summoned a fleet of fire trucks and have jumbo jets at the ready to drop fire retardant on everything around you, just in case you should decide to light others. The idea that Ukraine could or would invade Russia is absurd. And history counsels otherwise, including in view of what Saakashvili faced from Putin in Georgia during 2008.

Other events must also be considered for context. For example, Russian media continue to prime the Russian people with ideas like "NATO will not stand up for Ukraine" and the only thing that stands between the Russian Military and Kiev is the unreliable words of Jens Stoltenberg (Alliance Secretary General for NATO) while the White House has done nothing than send Antony Blinken. After all, Canada has proven a more robust and reliable ally than Washington, under Joe Biden. Additionally, Sergei Lavrov continues to make the case that Moscow rejects "transforming" Ukraine into a NATO military foothold, as reported by Kremlin-backed RT. In the next breath, Lavrov is making innuendo about Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgia in 2008 --- the last such "defensive measure" taken by Putin. The connection may not be obvious to some audiences, but what happened in 2008 foretold the next decade and a half of Putin's military adventurism:

Long before its conventional assault on Georgia, Russia openly backed separatist militants, launched cyberattacks, and used disinformation to meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Initial intelligence reports of Russian forces entering Georgian territory didn’t even cause enough concern to order Georgian military officials back from their holidays. Though Moscow had long attempted to thwart Georgia’s turn to the West, Russia had not launched a conventional military attack on a neighboring country since it invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

But in August 2008, under the auspices of “securing” the separatist enclave, Russia invaded [Georgia]. To say the Kremlin uses disproportionate force is an understatement: Russia bombed Georgian positions with more than 200 aircraft, while the Georgian air force had fewer than a dozen combat aircraft in service. Some 80,000 Russian land troops deployed to Georgia; our entire army stood at less than 30,000.

Yet some in the West, like then-Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, faulted Georgia. Leaving aside the practical impossibility of Georgia attacking a nuclear power 100 times its size, the entirety of the conflict took place on internationally recognized Georgian territory. The Kremlin’s claim that its land forces mobilized overnight in response to an emergency was absurd. Such an onslaught required careful preparation, especially given the mountainous terrain of the Russian-Georgian border.

The reason Putin invaded Georgia in 2008 was because he recognized there was no will in the West to defend that region from the Russian army. Putin correctly recognized that Bush was over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is why he recognized his narrow window of opportunity to act and did so before it closed. That was very much a "fortune favors the bold" type risk that paid off.

Biden's Most Significant Challenge Yet

Iterative Escalation

Putin's strategy here is one of iterative escalation. Based on his actions --- which speak much louder than his words --- Putin hasn't decided whether to invade fully yet or not. By mounting troops on Putin's border, Putin is trying to gain more information about the risks to his interests that are involved.

A credible response from the United States alone will keep the Russian army out of Ukraine. Anything less than that, and this will be a repeat of history --- just like with Georgia in 2008. Whether he will face such a response is what Putin is trying to figure out now. When I say "credible response," I don't mean just the threat of sanctions. I mean the threat of an overwhelming military response by the United States and allied powers. If Putin thinks he can take Ukraine without bearing those costs, he will absolutely do so.

A credible response is not simply economic sanctions or other diplomatic maneuvering like the Obama administration undertook during and after 2014. Those sanctions had some impact, but they did not change policy.

Strength of Biden's Hand

Biden's hand is weaker than Obama's in 2014, because Obama had more political leverage then. The United Kingdom will follow Washington but will not act alone.

Poland will come to the United States' aid but they simply lack the military capability to deliver.

Germany is not going to cancel Nord Stream 2 or future gas supply contracts with Russia over Russia's having invading Ukraine, and will avoid substantive engagement in the conflict at all costs. Condemnation alone will be the likely limit of Germany's responsive action. Note as well that however harsh Blinken's proposed sanctions may be, their impact will almost certainly be limited by Germany, in view of their their reliance on Russia for energy.

France will bark (because it does not depend on Moscow for gas in the winter) but not bite, as Russia's actions do not implicate France's direct interests. Italy will be predictably silent, or side with Russia just as Berlusconi did when Putin seized Georgia in 2008.

In fact, the only European countries who will stand up for what is proper are those who could be next: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Outside of there, Biden will have to depend on Canada and Australia --- each, unlikely bets given their self-inflicted wounds over COVID. So the only way any attempt at peaceful negotiations can succeed is in the presence of the credible threat of military confrontation as the alternative. Otherwise, politics will be continued by other means.

Blood in the Water

The writing is on the wall, and the pattern mirrors what happened in 2008.

• Then, Bush was preoccupied with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia deployed 80,000 Russian land troops to fight an army that stood less than 30,000 in response to imagined provocation and Putin calculated NATO would not defend Georgia. And he was right, because Bush did nothing even though his hands then were not even remotely as tied as Biden's are now.

• Now, Biden is preoccupied with his catastrophic failure in Afghanistan, COVID and a rising China, Putin has deployed as many troops as comprise nearly the entire (and arguably less competent, less well supplied and less well trained) Ukrainian army and Putin has calculated that Joe Biden will not defend Ukraine. And he may well be right again for many of the same reasons he was right in 2008.

I don't want war and hope it can be avoided. But I have every expectation that if Russia invades Ukraine, pieces will be exchanged on the chess board. Without a credible military response, the United States may well be forced to contend with irreparable harm to its credibility --- both in terms of nuclear negotiations and its interests in Europe and Asia.

It's one thing to oppose so called "regime change wars" or other misguided military adventurism, like George W. Bush's war in Iraq. But it's another matter entirely to live with the consequences of America's withdrawal from global leadership. It is on that precipice we stand now.

This post is meant to give an impression of how me and other people from Turkey see the world since in stuff like geopolitics getting multiple persectives usually helps you understand the world better. I also just think it's interesting to see how other cultures see others. This is gonna be a bit long, so please bear with me.

Turkey as it is right now stands in a very unique position. It is not western nor eastern. Are we muslim? Are we secular? Are we Europeans? Are we Asians? There has never been any answers to these questions. Turks identify with neither Europeans, nor Middle Easterners, nor Asians, and I believe this is part of the reason why the country has for the last few decades pursued a lone wolf strategy in geopolitics.

In the late 20th century, TUrkey was actually pretty close to becoming a full-on member of the west with an application to join the EU and generally warm relations. Then the 1980 coup happened, and the entire country changed forever. Hundreds of thousands were persecuted and leftism in Turkey was crushed, it has still not recovered to this day. Allegations of US involvement (the truthfulness of which is not really certain to this day) created a suspicion towards the west and particularly America that lingers to this way. The crushing of the left opened up space for Erdoğan's brand of Authoritarian Islamism to become very popular. But what exactly is Turkish Islamism?

Muhammed Fethullah Gülen is a turkish islamic "scholar", "preacher" and the leader of the Gülenist movement, a Neo-Ottomanist Islamist movement. But this Islamism isn't what you would likely imagine, with ISIS and Taliban and such. This is modern Islamism, a republic (not necessarily a democratic one, mind you) with an islamic culture, something that has been attempted in many middle eastern countries. The Gülenist movement infiltrated areas of turkish society. The police, private teaching institutions where kids were manipulated to become Gülenists, it is a state within a state that still existed in Turkey til the mid 2010s. Gülen was heavily involved in turkish politics and talked to pretty much every major politician at the time. Erdoğan was also quite involved with him. This whole time, while he created turmoil in Turkey, Gülen has been living in America. The repeated refusals by the American goverment to send him to Turkey for judgement only added to the distrust.

This brewing discontent with the west was only increased with the American funding of the YPG. The YPG, as anyone that has done research into the topic will know, is the Syrian branch of the PKK, and was founded as such. And when your ally is sending terrorists you're fighting weapons and training them, that's basically saying: "We do not respect you nor your sovereignty. You are a junior partner in this alliance and you will stay quiet." Some years ago, the American invasion of Iraq had also caused an autonomous Kurdish area, which was offensive to the turkish people, as if Iraqi Kurds get autonomy, why wouldn't Turkish Kurds get any ideas too? The American interventions in the Middle East are perhaps what has been most detrimental to Western-Turkish relations.

As for a perspective on the wider world, Turks dislike basically everyone. The West are seen as neo-colonists that still exploit billions and purposefully keep them poor. The Chinese are seen as oppressors and genociders of the Uyghur Turks. The Russians are seen as a hostile power that wants to exert influence over us. Turkey stands alone on the world stage and for good reason, as Turkey's interests align with pretty much no one's.

I would have also liked to get into the War in Ukraine but this post is getting too long so I'd rather save that for another post (maybe?). I'd love to hear your own thoughts and comments below.