"The Emperor has no clothes!" by FB Ali

The recent (April 17) meeting in Geneva on Ukraine was a game-changing event. Yet this significant aspect of it has not been explicitly recognized in any analysis or commentary on the situation; at least none that I've come across. It seems that the prior chest-thumping by Western politicians and their lackeys, and the drumbeat of propaganda in the media has so overawed the commentariat that they are afraid to adopt such a different view. A few have tiptoed around the issue, hinting obliquely at the real outcome, but shied away from anything definitive.

If no one else seems willing to do it, then I am going to stick my neck out and say what others hesitate to articulate: at Geneva the United States folded!

Compare the rhetoric in the period before the meeting to the actual terms of the agreement, not only what it contains but, even more importantly, what it doesn't. There is no mention of Crimea. It says nothing about the Russian troops "massed along the Ukraine border". It equates the armed men in the East with those in the West, requiring both to disarm and withdraw from the locations they have occupied. It commits the Ukraine government to a constitutional process involving negotiations with all "regions and political constituencies" (designed to achieve decentralisation and regional autonomy). It gives Russia a role in Ukraine both through the OSCE and in possible upcoming consultations on economic and financial support.

Compare the rhetoric in the West before the Geneva meeting to that afterwards − or rather its absence. There is now almost a deathly hush among politicians and the media (apart from some half-hearted efforts to spin the terms of the agreement). Where are the daily thunderings of the Kerry's, Rasmussen's, Breedlove's?

What caused the US to fold? We can only speculate, but it seems that it realised that its threat of further sanctions was proving an empty one. Most likely, powerful elements of the European industrial and financial sectors told their governments of the damage they were likely to sustain should broader sanctions be applied. It is quite possible that their US equivalents told the US government the same thing. With wider and deeper sanctions likely to inflict as much damage on the West as on Russia, and with the reluctance of European leaders to impose them, there wasn't anything left in the US's arsenal − except for the 'financial neutron bomb'.

A recent article in the London Telegraph described this 'neutron bomb' (referenced by Zanzibar recently in a comment on another thread). If the US were to use this financial weapon (the "scarlet letter") it could probably fry Russia's financial sector and bring its economy to a standstill, even though this would inflict much collateral damage on US allies, especially Germany. Arguably, this weapon is too powerful to risk using it on a peripheral issue such as Ukraine. There is also the likelihood of a riposte.

While Russia does not have anything comparable in the financial and economic sphere, it does have a marked advantage in another equally deadly sphere − cyber war. Former DNI Mike McConnell said in 2010, "If we were in a cyber war today, the US would lose". Leon Panetta talked in 2012 of a cyber-Pearl Harbour. If Putin considered the US use of the financial neutron bomb to be the equivalent of a nuclear first strike, he could well retaliate with an all-out cyber attack. Obviously the US administration was not prepared to risk this.

So, in this changed environment, what is likely to happen in Ukraine now? It appears that the present Ukraine government is too weak and too hard-pressed from the Right to engage in any meaningful mutual de-escalation and negotiations with the Eastern provinces. It is possible that the OSCE (with the backing of the US and Russia) might be able to impose such a process. In that case there may be the possibility of a loosely federal Ukraine emerging from this turmoil. Otherwise, we can anticipate a low-level civil war breaking out in the East, with increasing infiltration of Russian support to the dissidents there. This will mean that ultimately the East will break away and, perhaps after an autonomous phase, join Russia.

The US and the West will make the usual gestures, including some more token sanctions, but will do nothing that has a realistic chance of stopping Russia from achieving its goal of a neutral, decentralised Ukraine or, failing that, the breakaway of the Russian-speaking East.

 

©  FB Ali (April 2014)

Comments

[Madhu]

My academic parent (stem graduate and immigrant) says the same about US kids and creativity. Sadly, says the STEM skills getting worse too. Administrators do not care about professor's or teacher' input. A racket.

[Fred]

GCP,

You mean Ciber Command won't keep us safe? No surprise there. Some of us are missing the point? You started off with:

"This is a direct result of the denigration of science in the US by right wing interests." Now you are saying:

".... network engineers thwarting coordinated attacks on our electrical grid, hospitals, financial systems...."

There are plenty of people doing this now. They are employed by electric grid operators, hospitals, financial service companies. The reason private companies are doing this on private networks is " the denigration of science by right wing interests"?

No, sorry that isn't the cause of companies being responsible for their own networks. Perhaps you'd like congress to mandate all traffic go through government controlled networks? That would sure make NSA data collection easy. Good luck getting the left to support that.

[GulfCoastPirate]

This is related to the subject we are discussing:

http://my.firedoglake.com/anotherquestion/2014/04/25/are-we-falling-behind-on-engineers-and-scientists/#comments

[kao_hsien_chih]

The trend has been there for some time already: STEM in US has gotten steadily more formulaic over last 20-30 years, although the pressure seems to be for accelerating this trend even further. Good times. :(

[kao_hsien_chih]

It is worse than the theoretical being worshipped over the practical. In the truly "theoretical" disciplines with real merit, the natural sciences, no theory can trump evidence and data. (This is why creationism can never be "science" since they cannot specify, even hypothetically, what evidence would suffice to get them to abandon the "theory" of creationism.)

A lot of these "policy-oriented" soc sci types operate from a mindset more like creationists. They "believe in" X and denigrate contradictory evidence (and those who point them out). Like their creation science cousins, any "scientific" lingo they might use is in service to a dogma that cannot be questioned.

Having said that, I do have to wonder if it is quite appropriate to dump on the "theoreticians" too much. There are usually some good reasons why theories point in some direction or other and, if evidence contradicts them, that is something worth investigating. This is, after all, how a real science progresses, but only with the theory and the data (ie ppl who know the facts on the ground) collaborating in full knowledge of what value the other side is contributing and limits of their own way of thinking. Alas, this is not what is going on when soc sci tries to be "relevant."

[William R. Cumming]

ALL: Great post General Ali and wonderful comments! Many thanks!

[Madhu]

I hear you on the ramifications of the wider world. That our non-stop meddling is perceived as such, and as a threat to many, just never occurs to a certain type of person. The system trains, teaches and creates its own. How can it change but with a concerted effort for a sort of 'counter-counter intellectual revolution', as the neoconservatives and neoliberals have successfully attempted over the past decades. I don't know. Too fanciful?