Ray McGovern on Russia and Ukraine: A Light Conversation on Dark Subjects

Our discussion started with a key question: Why is it that Secretary of State Antony Blinken seemed at sea when asked why Russia would invade Ukraine? Yesterday, on Morning Joe, Blinken was gently asked: “What would be the upside for Putin by invading Ukraine?” Strangely, it seemed clear that Blinken had not thought that one through. After a minute of circumlocution, he gave up and said we should “ask Putin.” (See No Thinkin’ Blinken.)

Listen to “The Russian Invasion Seems to Have Been Either Canceled or Was Never Planned” on Spreaker.

Has President Joe Biden not yet asked Putin? Has U.S. Intelligence “assessed” why in the hell Putin would do such a dumb thing? “Morning Joe” might have suggested to Blinken that he ask his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov the next time they meet [that, reportedly, will be next Wednesday in Europe].

As an aside, I noted that Blinken does not know how to pronounce Foreign Minister Lavrov’s last name – and usually mispronounces Ukraine, as well. (In both cases, the accent is on the last syllable.) This is not mere pedantry; a country’s’ top diplomat really should show enough respect for foreign counterparts to pronounce their names correctly – especially easy ones with only two syllables.

China: the Key to Putin’s Assertiveness

Speaking of disrespect, reference was made to the “attitude” that top Chinese diplomats encountered on the part of the Blinken/Sullivan duo in Anchorage last March. This is far more serious than the nicety of taking the time to learn how to pronounce a counterpart’s name correctly. The Chinese were insulted at the imperious behavior of Blinken and Sullivan, and refused to be talked down to.

Putin suffered a similar indignity at the hands of Joe Biden himself at their summit in Geneva on June 16, 2021. Biden’s words on China showed him to be woefully misinformed about the “world correlation of forces” (to borrow an old Soviet term). He seemed to be stuck in a several decades-old paradigm of Sino-Russian hostility, a reality that President Richard Nixon was able to leverage into key arms control agreements with Moscow during the early 70s.

In my first piece on the strategic backdrop for that June summit, I noted that the triangular relationship had drastically changed in recent decades and that, although the triangle may still be equilateral, it is now essentially a matter of two sides against one – with Washington odd man out.

This is basic: How could any U.S. statesman be unaware? How could it be that foreign policy “experts” could be telling Biden that the US can still try to play Russia and China off against each other amid the radically changed “correlation of forces” today?

Here’s the president at his solo, post-summit press conference:

“Without quoting him [Putin] – which I don’t think is appropriate – let me ask a rhetorical question: You got a multi-thousand-mile border with China. China is … seeking to be the most powerful economy in the world and the largest and the most powerful military in the world.”

Plane-side just before departing Geneva, Biden added:

“… let me choose my words. Russia is in a very, very difficult spot right now. They are being squeezed by China. …”

Putin and Xi Give Biden a Tutorial

During the second half of 2021, the presidents of Russia and China spared no effort to demonstrate that their strategic relationship “in its closeness and effectiveness, exceeds an alliance.” (See: Putin and Xi Show United Front Amid Rising Tensions With U.S. (New York Times). They were at pains to demonstrate that the triangular relationship did indeed amount to two-against-one.

Particularly striking is the high-level official commentary now coming out of China explicitly endorsing Putin’s policies. In the past, China typically bent over backwards to avoid getting involved, even rhetorically, in contentious problems on the other side of Eurasia.) Not any more.

Newsweek just published China: US Should Oblige Russian ‘Legitimate, Reasonable Concerns’ in Europe, by Tom O’Connor.

Here’s an excerpt of O’Connor’s article:

China has called on the United States to satisfy Russia’s security concerns regarding NATO expansion in Eastern Europe as a crisis along Ukraine’s borders drags on, with Washington warning the Kremlin could order an invasion at any minute.

Moscow has repeatedly rejected the notion that it is planning to attack its neighbor, and Beijing has joined in cautioning against hyped-up potential war scenarios.

“Disseminating disinformation and creating an air of tension is not conducive to resolving the Ukraine issue,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin told reporters Thursday. “Clamoring for bloc confrontation and wielding the big stick of sanctions will only impede dialogue and negotiation.” …

“The U.S. side should value and accommodate Russia’s legitimate and reasonable concerns over security protection and play a constructive role for all parties to seek a political settlement to the Ukraine issue on the basis of the Minsk II agreement, rather than hype up and sensationalize the crisis and escalate tensions,” Wang said.

This is new – and important.

This originally appeared at RayMcGovern.com.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).