James, perceptive questions indeed. I too worry about a dearth of people who understand these places along with the potential penalties they pay for studying them. As I understand it, getting a security clearance if you have been in China for any extended time is nearly impossible. Yet we need people who understand China. Competing priorities strike again. Thanks for this reflection and question.
Keith, thanks so much! i am NOT saying that I think we caused the war but I do wonder if we gave an inherently aggressive Putin to justify his actions. But, your points are all good ones. My question is whether--as with Taiwan--we will in fact buy an in perpetuity commitment to Ukraine against Russia (or Taiwan and the mainland). We do have a tendency to get tired of things. More relevantly, i think both Russia and China will argue that behaviour by others invading them justifies their 'defensive' actions. Right; only if you are talking about a single point in time. Anyway, thanks so much for the feedback. My concern ALWAYS is what is best for the United States and how do actions affect that. Keep sending feedback as I learn and reconsider, much less show how poorly I am expressing things.
Andy and all who see this, THIS is why i want to engage on topics so we can share the knowledge, thoughts, questions, and doubts of all about whom these things matter. Thank you so much.
I am well outside of my depth here given your readers. I would have agreed with you before February of this year that NATO expansion was rash. In the mid-90s while at EUCOM I worked extensively in Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics under the guise of the partnership for peace program. At the time I was concerned that NATO expansion would appear intent on isolating Russia and, candidly, I didn’t think any of these countries were ready for NATO membership - no tradition of civil control of the military and services populated by corrupt officers, sadistic NCOs and frightened conscripts. NATO, in short, was a (cold) wartime alliance looking for relevance. Today after Russian incursions into Georgia, eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea I’m not so sure. Is NATO expansion the root cause of Putin’s war in Ukraine or a convenient excuse? In the absence of article 5 protection, the framework for Ukrainian disarmament in return for territorial and sovereignty guarantees guaranteed nothing for Ukraine. Had NATO not expanded I’m not sure the Baltic republics would exist as independent countries today. The French liaison officer to EUCOM said something that I’ll probably never forget. “France has the will but not the means to be a superpower. The United States has the means but not the will to a superpower.” I would posit the reasoned application of self interest is not a bad thing for a superpower to do. NATO was founded to counter the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact. The names have changed but has the mission? Back to the kiddie pool. 😎
Interesting conversation. I wonder, also, to what degree isolation of Russia through earlier sanctions and their kleptocracy discouraging business collaboration contributed to this? We really do not understand each other. And as you point out we have not been at war with people on the ground in the U.S. from other nations in the lifetimes of those in Russia. China also has experienced attacks, and frankly still even has skirmishes with India now. Probably our closest geographic threat was the Cuban missile crisis and look at how we isolate Cuba as a threat due to that and Communism on the island - I have a hard time believing they threaten anyone - yet we don't recognize that Russians (and I think Putin uses this as a way to power not a real worry) are concerned that they might be attacked again.
Just read this yesterday https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/14/xi-biden-meeting-china-isolation/ on the impact of changing engagement with China since 2018. This paragraph in particular worries me: "There is a dearth of young Americans who might once have been the next generation of China experts. According to a U.S. official, there are now less than 300 American students in the entire country, down from over 11,000 students at the peak in 2018." Though, this says they still see value in understanding us: "There are still large numbers of Chinese exchange students abroad—including more than 300,000 students in the United States as of 2021, the most recent year for which there is data—but most have been cut off from home because of quarantine demands."
Great analysis, Cynthia. Regarding Russia's invasion, I think you've nailed it--a mix of security concerns, anger at being marginalized as a "great power" since the 1990s, and crass opportunism on Putin's part all mix to have pulled Russia, Ukraine and the world to this nasty point. Madeline Albright, who was key to the NATO expansion as Secretary of State, also had justified fears that certainly shaped her view on the expansion. Tying this to our current and future relations with China and Taiwan is excellent food for thought on the most pressing security relationship of this era. While I hope that the debacle Russia has inflicted on itself will serve as a cautionary tale for China with respect to Taiwan, I think your argument for National Security expertise, historical perspective, and reason (as opposed to passion!) are more important than hope.
James, perceptive questions indeed. I too worry about a dearth of people who understand these places along with the potential penalties they pay for studying them. As I understand it, getting a security clearance if you have been in China for any extended time is nearly impossible. Yet we need people who understand China. Competing priorities strike again. Thanks for this reflection and question.
Keith, thanks so much! i am NOT saying that I think we caused the war but I do wonder if we gave an inherently aggressive Putin to justify his actions. But, your points are all good ones. My question is whether--as with Taiwan--we will in fact buy an in perpetuity commitment to Ukraine against Russia (or Taiwan and the mainland). We do have a tendency to get tired of things. More relevantly, i think both Russia and China will argue that behaviour by others invading them justifies their 'defensive' actions. Right; only if you are talking about a single point in time. Anyway, thanks so much for the feedback. My concern ALWAYS is what is best for the United States and how do actions affect that. Keep sending feedback as I learn and reconsider, much less show how poorly I am expressing things.
Andy and all who see this, THIS is why i want to engage on topics so we can share the knowledge, thoughts, questions, and doubts of all about whom these things matter. Thank you so much.
I am well outside of my depth here given your readers. I would have agreed with you before February of this year that NATO expansion was rash. In the mid-90s while at EUCOM I worked extensively in Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics under the guise of the partnership for peace program. At the time I was concerned that NATO expansion would appear intent on isolating Russia and, candidly, I didn’t think any of these countries were ready for NATO membership - no tradition of civil control of the military and services populated by corrupt officers, sadistic NCOs and frightened conscripts. NATO, in short, was a (cold) wartime alliance looking for relevance. Today after Russian incursions into Georgia, eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea I’m not so sure. Is NATO expansion the root cause of Putin’s war in Ukraine or a convenient excuse? In the absence of article 5 protection, the framework for Ukrainian disarmament in return for territorial and sovereignty guarantees guaranteed nothing for Ukraine. Had NATO not expanded I’m not sure the Baltic republics would exist as independent countries today. The French liaison officer to EUCOM said something that I’ll probably never forget. “France has the will but not the means to be a superpower. The United States has the means but not the will to a superpower.” I would posit the reasoned application of self interest is not a bad thing for a superpower to do. NATO was founded to counter the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact. The names have changed but has the mission? Back to the kiddie pool. 😎
Interesting conversation. I wonder, also, to what degree isolation of Russia through earlier sanctions and their kleptocracy discouraging business collaboration contributed to this? We really do not understand each other. And as you point out we have not been at war with people on the ground in the U.S. from other nations in the lifetimes of those in Russia. China also has experienced attacks, and frankly still even has skirmishes with India now. Probably our closest geographic threat was the Cuban missile crisis and look at how we isolate Cuba as a threat due to that and Communism on the island - I have a hard time believing they threaten anyone - yet we don't recognize that Russians (and I think Putin uses this as a way to power not a real worry) are concerned that they might be attacked again.
Just read this yesterday https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/14/xi-biden-meeting-china-isolation/ on the impact of changing engagement with China since 2018. This paragraph in particular worries me: "There is a dearth of young Americans who might once have been the next generation of China experts. According to a U.S. official, there are now less than 300 American students in the entire country, down from over 11,000 students at the peak in 2018." Though, this says they still see value in understanding us: "There are still large numbers of Chinese exchange students abroad—including more than 300,000 students in the United States as of 2021, the most recent year for which there is data—but most have been cut off from home because of quarantine demands."
Great analysis, Cynthia. Regarding Russia's invasion, I think you've nailed it--a mix of security concerns, anger at being marginalized as a "great power" since the 1990s, and crass opportunism on Putin's part all mix to have pulled Russia, Ukraine and the world to this nasty point. Madeline Albright, who was key to the NATO expansion as Secretary of State, also had justified fears that certainly shaped her view on the expansion. Tying this to our current and future relations with China and Taiwan is excellent food for thought on the most pressing security relationship of this era. While I hope that the debacle Russia has inflicted on itself will serve as a cautionary tale for China with respect to Taiwan, I think your argument for National Security expertise, historical perspective, and reason (as opposed to passion!) are more important than hope.