China, Tibet; Russia, Ukraine. Humanity? Kind of Sucks

In 821-822 CE, Tibet and Tang China concluded a peace treaty, commemorated on stone pillars (rdo ring) erected in Lhasa, the Tang capital Chang'an, and the border at Gungu Meru.

The treaty proclaimed "Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet, and Chinese in China. Both shall not intrude into other's territory."


The Lhasa pillar still stands.

In October 1950, China invaded again breaking the pact, most significantly, when 40,000 Chinese troops invaded Tibet, the event the Tibetan government-in-exile and most Western sources refer to as the Chinese invasion/annexation of Tibet.

No new treaty. No renegotiation. Just violation.

Since then: forced sterilization campaigns targeting Tibetan women.

Mass Han in-migration reshaping the demographics of Lhasa and other Tibetan cities.

Tibetan children removed into state boarding schools designed to erase language and culture.

Genocide by birthrate of foreign national invaders.

1,129 years of a written commitment, broken in a season, followed by 75 years of dismantling the people the treaty was meant to protect.

The documented drivers of the original invasion were more plural:

securing a strategic buffer against India,

asserting PRC sovereignty over former Qing/Republican-era territorial claims, and

ideological consolidation of the "five races" into one state.

China's stated reason: humanitarian rescue. Backward, primitive Tibetans, in need of liberation from feudalism.

What "liberation" actually offered:

no referendum,

no aid freely given,

no autonomy preserved.

Just 40,000 troops, then Han settlement, then dispossession.

What it delivered instead, over seven decades:

mineral and timber extraction,

hydropower projects for mainland China, mostly

and

water diversion on Tibetan rivers,

resources flowing outward while Tibetans were displaced.

Humanitarian concern doesn't require an army.

It doesn't require replacing the population you claim to be rescuing.

The water and power stay in China's system, the fiscal and construction benefits are structured in ways that reinforce settlement patterns, and the same infrastructure doubles as military hardening on a contested border. That's mechanism-first and doesn't require one to assert intent—the design speaks for itself.

Abuse of another country you claim as your own for your own country’s benefit, regardless the harm you inflict, or the demands you impose.

Sounds a lot like Russia’s intent in Ukraine, and elsewhere.

Different border, different decade, different cover story. Same mechanism: claim the land as always yours, extract what's underneath it, replace who's on top of it, call it help.

Tibet got a UN resolution and silence.

Ukraine got a coalition.

The mechanism didn't change. The world's willingness to name it did.

We, as a planet—kind of suck.


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Missteps in Countering Russian Expansionism: From Strategic Failures to Donald Trump's Ineffective Policies

Before the 2014 Russian Crimean invasion, the United States had significantly reduced its troop presence in Europe prior to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. 

First up, CFPOTUS47 Donald Trump's EOs:

Tracking Trump's executive orders: What he's signed so far (from Axios).

Oh, and this: Female Bishop Calls Out Trump to His Face at Church Service

Moving on...

This topic was so disturbing to ChatGPT, that this was the only graphic it would generate for me for this blog today. So I guess we'll go with that...

This reduction was part of a broader post-Cold War drawdown and strategic realignment:

Troop Reductions Post-Cold War

• Cold War Peak: At the height of the Cold War, there were over 300,000 U.S. troops stationed in Europe, primarily in West Germany, to deter the Soviet Union.
• 1990s Drawdown: After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, U.S. forces in Europe were gradually reduced. By the early 2000s, the number was closer to 100,000.
• Global War on Terror: The U.S. focused resources on Iraq and Afghanistan, further reducing its European military footprint.

Specific Reductions Before 2014

• Base Closures: Many U.S. bases in Europe were closed or consolidated, particularly in Germany.
• Troop Numbers: By 2013, the number of U.S. troops in Europe had fallen to around 60,000, a fraction of Cold War levels.
• Strategic Reorientation: The U.S. shifted focus toward the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific, deemphasizing Europe as a central theater of operations.

Response to the Crimea Crisis

After Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, the U.S. and NATO reassessed their force posture in Europe:

• NATO Reassurance: NATO initiated the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) to bolster Eastern European allies.
• Rotational Deployments: The U.S. began deploying troops to Europe on a rotational basis, particularly to Eastern European NATO countries like Poland and the Baltic States.
• Increased Exercises: Joint military exercises with European allies were ramped up to signal commitment to collective defense under NATO's Article 5.

The 2014 crisis marked a shift back to a more cautious stance toward Russia, leading to gradual increases in NATO and U.S. military activities in Europe.

When we removed nuclear subs from Iceland, Russian action and bases increased? This also included the withdrawal of nuclear-powered submarines and the closure of Keflavík Naval Air Station in 2006, Russia's military activity in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions increased in subsequent years.

U.S. Withdrawal from Iceland:

• Closure of Keflavík Base (2006): The U.S. Navy closed Keflavík Naval Air Station as part of a global realignment of forces, reducing its direct military presence in Iceland.
• Reduced Arctic Focus: With the end of the Cold War, the Arctic and North Atlantic were no longer seen as primary theaters of U.S.-Russia competition, leading to less emphasis on maintaining military infrastructure in the region.

Russian Military Activity Afterward:

• Increased Submarine Patrols: By the mid-2000s, Russia had begun modernizing its submarine fleet and increasing patrols in the North Atlantic, signaling a renewed emphasis on asserting its presence in the region.
  • The Northern Fleet, based near Murmansk, became more active in Arctic and Atlantic waters.
• Long-Range Bomber Flights: Russian Tu-95 and Tu-160 bombers began flying more frequent missions over the North Atlantic, often skirting NATO airspace.
• New Arctic Bases: Russia established new military bases and reopened former Soviet-era bases in the Arctic, bolstering its strategic foothold in the region.
• Focus on Sea Lanes and Resources: Russia’s interest in the Arctic increased due to melting ice, which opened potential shipping lanes and access to valuable resources.

U.S. and NATO Response:

• Renewed Interest in Iceland: By the mid-2010s, as Russia's activity grew more assertive, NATO and the U.S. re-engaged with Iceland, including:
  • Rotational Deployments: U.S. and NATO aircraft, including P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, began operating from Iceland to monitor submarine activity.
  • Surveillance Upgrades: NATO invested in upgrading radar and surveillance systems in Iceland to track Russian aircraft and submarines.
• Focus on Anti-Submarine Warfare: The North Atlantic once again became a focal point for NATO’s anti-submarine efforts, particularly as Russia’s submarine fleet advanced technologically.

The withdrawal of U.S. forces and subsequent increase in Russian activity highlighted the strategic importance of the North Atlantic as a critical area for NATO deterrence and response efforts.

Two Brief asides: Development Plans, Military Potential, and Conflict Prevention (2021)

Also: As melting ice bringing Arctic into geostrategic prominence, Russia quickly establishes its military dominance over it (2021)

We've seemingly been taking a poor orientation toward ending Russian expansionism. As many analysts have argued, the U.S. and NATO underestimated the geopolitical consequences of their post-Cold War military drawdowns and their focus on other regions, may have inadvertently emboldened Russian expansionism. The reduction of military presence and attention to areas like the Arctic and Eastern Europe arguably created perceived power vacuums that Russia sought to exploit.

Key Aspects of the Orientation Toward Russian Expansionism:

1. Post-Cold War Optimism:

   • After the Soviet Union's collapse, there was an expectation that Russia would integrate into a cooperative international system.
   • NATO's focus shifted away from direct deterrence of Russia to global conflicts and counterterrorism, reducing emphasis on Eastern Europe and the Arctic.

2. Military Reductions:

   • Withdrawal of U.S. forces from critical areas, like Iceland and Eastern Europe, signaled a de-escalation of focus on Russian threats.
   • NATO expansions to Eastern Europe may have been seen as provocative, but without corresponding defensive build-ups, they likely appeared symbolic rather than substantive.

3. Russia's Strategic Opportunism:

   • Russia perceived the U.S. and NATO's shifting focus as a chance to assert itself regionally and internationally.
   • Actions like the 2008 war in Georgia and the 2014 annexation of Crimea exploited the lack of a robust Western deterrent in these areas.

4. Underestimation of Hybrid Warfare:

   • The West was slow to recognize and respond to Russia's use of hybrid warfare, including cyberattacks, propaganda, and covert operations, which were employed effectively in Crimea, Ukraine, and beyond.
   • Traditional military responses were less effective against these tactics, leading to gaps in strategic deterrence.

Poor Orientation Factors:

• Delayed Responses: It took events like the annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Syria to prompt a significant reevaluation of Russian intentions.
• Lack of Unified Strategy: NATO and EU countries often had differing approaches to handling Russia, with some prioritizing economic ties over security concerns.
• Insufficient Arctic and Atlantic Focus: Reduced presence in key regions like Iceland and the Arctic allowed Russia to expand its military and economic influence.
• Energy Dependency: Europe's reliance on Russian energy limited the willingness of some countries to challenge Moscow directly.

Recent Course Corrections:

In recent years, NATO has made significant efforts to address Russian expansionism:

• Increased Troop Deployments: NATO has established rotational forces in Eastern Europe and bolstered defenses in countries like Poland and the Baltic States.
• Arctic and Atlantic Reinvestment: The U.S. and NATO have re-prioritized the North Atlantic and Arctic as critical strategic regions.
• Support for Ukraine: Military aid and sanctions have been employed to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine, aiming to raise the costs of expansionism.

While these steps indicate a shift toward addressing Russian threats, some argue that earlier, more decisive actions could have deterred Moscow’s aggressive behavior, especially in the 2000s.

So, how do we stop and push back Russian expansionism? It requires a multifaceted strategy that combines military deterrence, economic pressure, diplomatic engagement, and strategic resilience. Below are the key components to effectively counter Russian aggression:

---

1. Strengthen NATO and Regional Allies

• Increase Military Presence: Bolster permanent and rotational deployments in Eastern Europe and the Arctic to deter Russian aggression, particularly in NATO's most vulnerable areas like the Baltic states and Poland.
• Defensive Infrastructure: Invest in air defense systems, early-warning radars, and pre-positioned equipment in key regions to counter potential attacks.
• Enhanced NATO Cooperation: Streamline decision-making within NATO to allow rapid responses to threats, especially hybrid warfare tactics.
• Arctic Strategy: Increase NATO's presence in the Arctic to counter Russian military buildup and secure new shipping lanes.

---

2. Support Ukraine and Other Vulnerable States

• Military Assistance: Provide Ukraine with advanced weaponry, training, and intelligence to defend itself effectively.
• Economic Aid: Support Ukraine's economy to reduce vulnerability to Russian pressure and ensure long-term resilience.
• Integration with the West: Encourage reforms in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia to bring them closer to NATO and the EU, signaling they are not within Russia's sphere of influence.
• Cyber Defense: Help vulnerable states build robust defenses against Russian cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns.

---

3. Impose Economic and Energy Sanctions

• Target Key Sectors: Maintain and strengthen sanctions on Russian energy, finance, and defense industries to limit Moscow's ability to fund military operations.
• Counter Energy Dependency: Help European allies diversify their energy sources through renewables, LNG imports, and investments in infrastructure to reduce reliance on Russian energy exports.
• Restrict Technology Transfer: Deny Russia access to critical technologies, such as advanced semiconductors and energy exploration tools, to hamper military and economic modernization.

---

4. Counter Hybrid Warfare

• Combat Disinformation: Develop coordinated efforts to expose and counter Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns in Western democracies.
• Secure Cyber Infrastructure: Protect critical infrastructure against Russian cyberattacks by investing in cybersecurity and fostering international cooperation.
• Expose Covert Operations: Identify and neutralize Russian intelligence and paramilitary activities abroad through intelligence-sharing and counterintelligence efforts.

---

5. Build Resilience in Europe

• Strengthen Democratic Institutions: Support democratic governance, rule of law, and media independence in Europe to counter Russian influence.
• Economic Integration: Deepen trade and economic ties between vulnerable nations and Western economies to reduce Russia's leverage.
• Energy Independence: Promote investments in renewable energy and infrastructure to eliminate Europe's reliance on Russian gas and oil.

---

6. Diplomatic and Strategic Engagement

• Clear Red Lines: Communicate unambiguously the consequences of further aggression, backed by credible military and economic capabilities.
• Engage in Diplomacy: Keep diplomatic channels open to de-escalate tensions when possible, focusing on arms control, Arctic cooperation, and mutual security concerns.
• Coalition Building: Work with other nations, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, to build a global consensus against Russian expansionism.

---

7. Support for Russian Civil Society

• Promote Internal Reform: Provide indirect support for Russian civil society groups, independent media, and pro-democracy movements to foster internal pressure for reform.
• Expose Corruption: Highlight and sanction corruption within the Russian elite to undermine domestic support for the Kremlin's expansionist policies.

---

8. Long-Term Strategic Objectives

• Maintain Strategic Patience: Recognize that countering Russian aggression is a long-term effort requiring sustained commitment from the U.S. and allies.
• Adapt to Hybrid Threats: Continuously refine strategies to address evolving forms of aggression, from cyberattacks to energy blackmail.

---

By combining these measures, the U.S. and its allies can effectively deter Russian expansionism, protect vulnerable nations, and push back against Moscow's influence while encouraging internal changes in Russia that may lead to a more cooperative stance in the future.

Is someone like convicted felon-POTUS Donald Trump then, the wrong direction for us to take in all this? Assessing whether Donald Trump's approach is effective in countering Russian expansionism involves examining his policies and actions during his presidency and campaign statements.

Trump's Policies and Actions on Russia:

• Sanctions and Energy Policies: The Trump administration considered using oil sanctions as leverage to facilitate peace in Ukraine, proposing relief for Russian oil producers if an agreement was reached, and stricter sanctions to pressure Moscow into negotiations.

  ElHuffPost

• NATO Relations: During his campaign, Trump suggested he might not defend NATO allies who did not meet the alliance's defense spending target of 2% of GDP, stating he would "encourage" Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" in such cases.

  Wikipedia

• Russia-Ukraine War: Trump pledged to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war swiftly, proposing to halt U.S. military aid to Ukraine unless it engaged in peace talks, and to increase aid if Russia refused negotiations.

  Wikipedia

Criticisms and Concerns:

• Inconsistent Rhetoric: Trump's praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin contrasted with actions like expelling Russian diplomats, leading to perceptions of inconsistency in his stance toward Russia.

• NATO Commitment: Statements questioning the U.S. commitment to NATO allies raised concerns about weakening the alliance's deterrence against Russian aggression.

• Ukraine Policy: Proposals to condition U.S. military aid on Ukraine's participation in peace talks could be seen as pressuring Ukraine to make concessions, potentially emboldening Russian expansionism.

Conclusion:

While the Trump administration implemented certain measures against Russia, such as considering sanctions and expelling diplomats, other actions and rhetoric, including questioning NATO commitments and proposing conditional support to Ukraine, may have signaled a less robust stance against Russian expansionism. 

Therefore, one might argue as some analysts do, that Trump's approach could be seen as misaligned with strategies aimed at effectively countering Russian aggression.

Meaning, Donald Trump is the worst possible person for POTUS, at the worst possible time, to allow for this kind of a cockup.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT