PART 2.
Ironically, Mr. Putin took the opposite position in 2008, when Kosovo declared independence. He vehemently objected to the move. Now, he cited Kosovo as a precedent for his action against Ukraine:
“We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.”
He conveniently ignored the fundamental differences between the cases of Kosovo and of Ukraine.

Violent ethnic conflict was going on for years between the Albanians who represented 90% of the population in Kosovo and the Serbs minority supported by the Yugoslavia central government, which carried out an ethnic cleansing program against the Albanians. Despite his claim to the contrary, there was no crack down or ethnic conflict between Ukrainians and Russians in Crimea or Ukraine.

For nine years, the Yugoslavia government and Kosovo engaged in talk but failed to agree on a solution because the government refused to make concessions on crucial issues. Only then, Kosovo democratically elected parliament voted to declare independence. That did not happen in Crimea. Only a month after a new government was formed in Kyiv, Crimea declared independence and held a referendum to unite with Russia. Strikingly, a foreign country that is Russia, took over the Crimean parliament by military force, replaced the prime minister with a separatist leader whose separatist party had received only 4% of the votes of the Crimeans in the last election. There was no negotiation regarding the status of Crimea.

Mr. Putin argued that “Russia’s Armed Forces never entered Crimea; they were there already in line with an international agreement.” It is sophism and a strange argument. According to his theory, the Americans could just surround Seoul or Tokyo with the armed forces already on their soil and force the South Korean or Japanese parliament to declare them to be a part of the U.S. And for Mr. Putin, it would clearly be totally acceptable.

Mr. Putin likened the case of Crimea to Kosovo. They are hardly comparable.

Kosovo referendum in 1991 presented a choice between independence and staying with Serbia. The Crimea referendum deliberately eliminated Ukraine as a choice for the Crimeans because it allowed them only two choices: becoming a part of Russia or independence. Either way, Ukraine would lose Crimea. The choices were clearly dictated by Russia with the help of at least a division of Russian armed forces stationed inside Crimea.

With such an uncivilized, undemocratic, and violent strategy against Crimea, he destroyed the good will he had been building up since assuming the top job in Russia. In the eyes of the world, he suddenly pulled himself and his country down to a primitive level.

The invasion of Ukraine is probably the worst political and military blunder he has committed.
(Next, Part 3)

PART 1:

In a speech to the Russian parliament right after invading and annexing Crimea, at the time a part of Ukraine, the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin said this:
“…The total population of the Crimean Peninsula today is 2.2 million people, of whom almost 1.5 million are Russians, 350,000 are Ukrainians who predominantly consider Russian their native language, and about 290,000–300,000 are Crimean Tatars, who, as the referendum has shown, also lean towards Russia.”

He explained his decision:
“We had to help create conditions so that the residents of Crimea for the first time in history were able to peacefully express their free will regarding their own future. However, what do we hear from our colleagues in Western Europe and North America? They say we are violating norms of international law. Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never.
Secondly, and most importantly – what exactly are we violating?”

He then cited international laws:
“Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: ‘No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,’ and ‘General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.’ Crystal clear, as they say.
“I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: ‘Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.”’End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.”

He was righteous and indignant, the reaction and action of a Russian patriot. The first time you heard it, it sounded reasonable and balanced. The speech had the effect of lowering the decibel of the criticism from the West, which took no significant action against Russia.

But coming from the head of a major and influential country who had vowed to democratize Russia (but in a slower pace), it is dubious, nearsighted, and dangerous. His geo-political stand is unsupportable. His statement without stating pre-conditions is irresponsible because it advocates instability and riots in many parts of the world as almost all countries have enclaves of different ethnic groups. Mr. Putin advocates any ethnic group in any country, the American Indians, the Muslims in France, the Poles in Germany or the Germans in Poland, the Chinese in Eastern Russia or the Korean in Japan, to organize a referendum and declare independence or become part of their original countries. No one seriously believes he meant what he said and would happily and helpfully allow, say, the Chinese in Eastern Russia to form an independence nation or become a part of China.

He could have adopted the correct approach, in fact the only approach in our modern and more enlightened time, that is true Democracy where the voice of EVERYONE can be heard, the majority has consideration for the minorities and the minorities respect the majority’s decisions.

He could have adopted the method used in solving the Kosovo problem to solve the supposed grievances of the Russians in Ukraine or even in Crimea, and he could have won the hearts and minds of not just the Russian and Ukrainian people but the world.

(Next, Part 2)

MR. PUTIN’S PLAN B
Like all politicians, Mr. Putin wanted the easy way. Surrounding Ukraine with 15 divisions of Russian soldiers with a reputation for taking no prisoners, noisy tanks and scary sight of the big guns agitating for action only a few miles from the Ukraine’s borders, Mr. Putin had high hope that its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy would shake and beg for a meeting with him, in Sochi perhaps. There, Mr. Putin would magnanimously dictate the terms. He would achieve his goals without invasion or bloodshed: a friendlier Ukraine and the world’s admiration for his statesmanship. But his plan did not pan out as he wished.

During the 1968 Tet Offensive, the North Vietnamese central command believed that the Vietnamese populace in South Viet Nam would rise up and the South Vietnamese government would collapse, saving them the hard work. The Russian leadership probably entertained the same thought about the Ukrainians but unlike the North Vietnamese, they had a Plan B.

No rising up by the Ukrainians, no successful move by the separatists, and Mr. Zelenskyy is surprisingly heroic and full of stamina. Contrary to Mr. Putin’s belief, he is no joker. So, Mr. Putin had to execute his Plan B, invading Ukraine. But Plan B, he knows, is fraught with unknown dangers, probably a desperate move.

The defeat in Afghanistan must be on the mind of the Russians including Mr. Putin. Going into Ukraine, Mr. Putin must be haunted by the specter of defeat, and indeed he looked tired and haunted on TV. Thus, he and his generals lack the needed psychological stability supported by past victories in the battle fields.

He is facing the same adversary elements as in Afghanistan, but more formidable in Ukraine. Just like in the Russian-Afghanistan war, the devilish Americans stay by the ringside playing a corner man and spectator cheering and supporting his opponent, and now coupled with their ability to impose sanctions, expanded as the Russians get wealthier, where they hurt Russia and its leadership the most. Afghanistan has its mountains, but Ukraine has fighters as fierce and better generals and strategists who know how to fight the Russians after they had worked alongside them for the last century. They also have anticipated the Russian invasion after they lost Crimea and been well prepared, with the help no doubt of the U.S.A. and NATO.

But the gravest danger is probably lurking in the Kremlin. This should be well noted by some of the Republicans who want a dictatorship. If he lost the war, or the outcome were not what is expected by the Politburo in Moscow, Mr. Putin would be done. No chance to explain at a Congressional committee hearing or to the citizens in an election campaign. No one there
would want to hear from him, and probably of him. The thought should shake him to the core while he needs all the calmness that he could muster to conduct the war.

In the next few weeks or months, that Sword of Damocles on his head makes Mr. Putin very unpredictable and dangerous.

If I were in the Russian president’s shoe, I would not attack Ukraine. What is the upside? Nothing because what he wants would be achieved by staying his military divisions around Ukraine to prevent foreign interventions into the Ukraine’s “internal affairs” meaning Ukrainians (the government in Kiev) fighting Ukrainians (the separatists and their sleepers in Kiev and Odessa). That would happen around the U.S. election in November. Supported by Russia’s overwhelming fire power only a few miles from the Ukrainian border, the separatists would just move to the Ukraine’s capital and declare victory or some sort of conciliatory statement a la Afghanistan then Ukraine would become at least a friendly country to Russia and in no time it’s ally.

Would the U. S. and its allies in Europe interfere in that scenario? I doubt it. President Biden has said many times the U.S would retaliate against Russia IF RUSSIA ATTACKED Ukraine. So, if Russia did not attack then, any retaliatory measure is just a formality and mild such as telling the Germans to postpone the approval of the Nordstream gas pipeline for a few months then business returns to usual.

Why would president Biden have to involve the U.S. in that conflict? He should not and would not. If Ukrainians fought Ukrainians, the U.S. would uphold its overt principle of not interfering in another country’s internal affairs. If a pro-Russian sat in Kiev’s presidential place replacing the current pro-western president, Volodymir Zelenskyy, so be it. The U.S. would save tons of money and sooner or later, American business people would be visiting Ukraine abundantly.

I tend to believe this scenario because Mr. Putin has shown to be a clever strategist, very cautious, and has so far made very few mistakes.

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA IS BEING TESTED – PART VII
Human beings have developed and progressed far enough to understand that nature does not discriminate, and God does not play favoring. The earth is one community and hatred for one another is erosive and destructive.

People are originally good, Confucius said, and he was right. The populace is ambivalent about races just like they are ambivalent about neighbors, not knowing for sure if they are good or bad until a rumor spreads around. They are susceptible to persuasion and easily led astray by unscrupulous manipulators.

Racism promoting division and mutual hatred is anathema to democracy. Racism itself presents a serious problem. But the real problem is that it has been deliberately used, manipulated, and exploited by extremist political operators to gain advantages.

America’s Democracy is a political creature standing on two legs, one being the Democratic Party and the other the Republican Party. The two-legged Democracy has worked so well and effectively for the last 300 years to create democratic institutions that have in turn protected and defended the wellbeing of Americans.
The Republican Party, or at least its extremist faction, does not seem to respect that system anymore. They have used racism as a weapon to gain power. But the extremists have succeeded in nudging the Party toward extremism. If the Party is not careful, it is quite possible that racism is not just a weapon but will become its philosophy, its ideology. There have been signs that they want to turn Democracy into a dictatorship.

The fate of American Democracy is intertwined with the fate of the Republican Party. To save Democracy, it is imperative that the Republican Party be saved. It sounds ridiculous in the current political environment, but the Democratic Party will have to play a crucial role in saving the Republican Party. It should start with efforts to convince the 74 Million that its policies serve their interest as well.

The Democrats must work with the silent (hopefully) majority of the Republicans including the long idling Republican Establishment, to save Democracy, which political theorists have agreed is the best political system in the whole history of mankind – best for everyone including the extremists.

It is not difficult to imagine what would happen to them if the January 6 riot took place in Moscow, or the defiance of the government’s policy on COVID vaccination happened in Beijing.

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA IS BEING TESTED – PART VI
Discrimination has been practiced in Europe since ancient times. It has created the caste system in India. It was, and still is, used as a means or weapon to stay on top. For a long time, it has been seen as ugly and wrong.

White people themselves had fought fiercely against discrimination in Europe. But the struggle was hard and almost impossible to overcome because discrimination had been built into the fabric of societies in Europe and because discrimination was based on wealth and status (another topic worth discussing at another time). Waves of discriminated white moved to the New World, to try to create and build a society supposedly free of discrimination.

Two of the most notable efforts were Thomas Jefferson’s declaration and Abraham Lincoln’s fighting the Civil War.
Jefferson did not just possess an extraordinary insight but was honest and brave. Living in an environment where everyone, his friends and his constituents (he was a politician if you did not know), owned slaves, he had the courage to declare that “all men are created equal”, meaning, unambiguously, that white was just a color like any other color on the skin of a person. With his declaration, he pointed out the irrationality of the claim that white, just like a color on a piece of clothes, was superior to other colors.

Credits should also be given to his colleagues, the Founding Fathers of this country who endorsed his declaration as the new country’s Declaration of Independence, which has been as important as the Constitution of the U.S.A. in creating and building Democracy in America.

Documents about the Civil War recorded Lincoln as saying that he had always seen slavery as unjust. He was even engaged in a devastating war, the American Civil War, against his own race to correct their wrong. Along the way, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation not just abolishing slavery in the U.S. but changing the focus of the Civil War from preserving the Union to freeing the slaves.
(Next, Part VII)

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA IS BEING TESTED – PART V
Billionaires – forget millionaires – of all ethnic groups pop up almost every month. They not only have tons of money in their control, but also time, ample time, because those new billionaires are so young. The old money knows that real power will soon shift to these younger rich kids who unfortunately do not belong to the old hierarchy and do not answer their beck and call. They don’t need to climb the tree because they don’t need to look into the house; they are building their own house. The system that has been created and built meticulously to protect and serve the old guards’ interest does not seem to work as intended.

The banking system has been not just the circulatory system regulating the life blood of the world economy but also the U.S.’s weapon for control. But now, there has been talk, and even effort, to move the money transactions out of the banking system. With technology and science having made progress so fast and so frequently, the old guards are wary of this new wealth and new knowledge, and the potential loss of their control.

And then, there is another threat. The “ah so” Chinese, the mocking image of weak Orientals suitable for nothing but being servants to the white families, suddenly shattered that image and have become formidable competitors against the West in every aspect of life including technology, computer science, economic activities, arts, architecture, movie making, and even ballet dancing. Now the West says “jump”, the Chinese do not meekly say “how high” but shoot back with “excuse me?”, a strongly backboned and proud attitude that is alarming.

The threat might still be far away, but the old guards wanted to pre-empt and fight back immediately. And they needed allies.

Thus, a coalition had been formed between the extremists and the old guards preceding the political tsunami of 2016 that was when the coalition found a spokesperson so natural in the racist language and racist manner as to be extremely persuasive to the white population. It was, and still is, a formidable coalition that has effectively swayed the thinking of so many Americans. That is why 74,000,000 Americans voted for that coalition’s representative even after four disastrous years with him at the helm.
(Next, Part VI)

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA IS BEING TESTED – PART IV
For most of the history of the U.S.A., the country has been run by the energy companies (oil, gas, and coal), industrial companies (railways, automobile, defense) and banking companies. The incestuous relationship among these companies enables them to control our country and therefore the world.

Anything or anyone outside of their circle, including other countries on earth, is just a service provider for them.

For the past few decades, the world has changed to the dismay and anxiety of lots of members of this circle.

There was the story of a former U.S. Secretary of State meeting a delegation of Japanese businessmen in Bangkok. They asked for help to sell cars in the U.S. The secretary put his hand in his vest’s pocket to pull out a chain watch, looked at it then told the Japanese to better sell their cars in the third world countries such as Thailand; the Americans would not buy Japanese cars because of their low quality. The secretary was probably not condescending, just stating a matter of fact.

But the fact had changed.

One example is the automobile industry. A few decades after the Bangkok meeting, Japanese cars surpassed American cars not only in sale but in terms of engineering, technology, and craftsmanship. They even beat the Germans, the white bastion of engineering excellence according to automobile experts including German. With the new wave of changes caused by electric cars coming on the markets, the dominance of Detroit was sunsetting. Toyota just surpassed General Motors as the seller of most cars in the U.S. in 2021. The founding ultra-rich families and the millionaires who rode the coattails of the combustible engine revolution to wealth saw the writing on the wall.

The coal industry and the oil and gas business have struggled against a different kind of attack, at first not from competition but from the people and therefore the governments, on environmental issues, climate change. That has led to competition, the solar energy industry, currently not a major threat to them but the trend is worrisome. In no time, coal, and with it wealth and power, will be history.

The most striking, and to the white establishment the most threatening changes have been in the finance sector, the heart of capitalism and the seat of power of the old order for centuries.

Sabrina, the movie, was the perfect image of the old order, which the old guards have tried to preserve. It is not just a beautiful movie but for them a beautiful order. The patriarch, though senile still sits at the top, proud and respected. His executive power has already been transferred to his oldest son, therefore the continuity of the family’s wealth and influence is preserved. The second son is the embodiment of the bon vivant aspect of the privileged life, having none of the cares in the world. Everyone else, represented by the chauffeur and his daughter, can only climb the tree to look in from the outside, dreaming of the life inside and of being admitted. The hierarchy is rigid, and the separation is absolute: without permission – and permission is granted only after passing heartbreaking tests – an outsider has no way to get in.

Until now.

(Next, Part V)

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA IS BEING TESTED – PART III
The profound wisdom of having only two political parties seems to have been challenged, at least after the general election of 2016. Before that, the leadership of the parties and the elders played a catalytic role. Politics was still the art of compromise. The parties were supposed to fight each other, fiercely sometimes, to attain the best solutions to serve democracy and build a stronger and better nation. But bipartisanship was considered a noble call.

The Republicans, at least the extremist Republicans, have been determined to change that foundation. Their political fights are mortal combats meant to destroy and bury the enemies, the Democrats, or anyone who opposes them. No more gentlemanliness. Coarseness, rudeness, vulgarity, lies, and dishonesty all are weapons they readily use without exception. Bipartisanship is betrayal.

The Republican Party has become as monolithic as the targets of their constant animosity: the communist regimes. Not a single Republican dares to disagree with the extremists’ line, except for a rare example of some who are willing to take the risk of being rudely attacked and ostracized. Except for a handful of them, there is no Republican extending his or her hand across the aisle to reach a compromise. Not even Republican leaders dare to publicly disagree let alone criticize their colleagues’ extremist views.

How the extremists have been able to wrestle the control of the Republican Party?

The current state of the Republican Party has its roots in the Southern Strategy that started out as a scheme to win the white votes to defeat the Democrats in the South.

The weapon they used? Racism.

Up until the election of Donald J. Trump, racism had been used discreetly: words of mouth in small gatherings such as PTAs, clubs, HOAs, neighborhood associations. Racism had proved to be effective to gain control of local and state governments.
Then, several forces converged to push racism to the forefront, widespread and perhaps mainstream – white mainstream.

Immigration has stirred anxiety in the general white population, which has become more amenable to wild conspiracy theories. The manipulators, the extremists, who are not just the KKK and their cohorts, but include many intellectuals, academicians, tech billionaires, influencers such as TV and radio hosts, movie actors, have found a large audience. That combination has encouraged the extremists and made them bolder and more aggressive. They started making public racist statements and digging up past racist discourses of intellects such as Ayn Rand previously reserved for literary salons or academia.

The interaction between these two groups – the anxious white population and the racists – helped push the wave higher and higher until it coalesced with the third force to create a tsunami, which reached the American political shore in 2016.

(Next, Part IV)

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA IS BEING TESTED – PART II
My wife and I drove down Highway 101 South from San Jose. Somewhere between Atascadero and Paso Robles, we found ourselves in a deserted one street downtown, looking for gas. It was a late Sunday afternoon. Everything on the street was closed. But a little farther ahead, there was a restaurant with outdoor wood tables still open. I parked the car in the graveled parking lot and went inside to ask for information. Then, I ordered a cup of coffee.

“How much do I owe you?” I asked the young white man who handed me the coffee.
“It’s ok. It’s on me.” He smiled and pushed the cup into my hand. For a moment I did not quite grasp what he said. He repeated it, “It’s ok. You don’t have to pay.”
I said thank you and tried to do something, like shaking his hand, but could not because one of my hands was holding the cup of coffee and the other my car key, before he went back into the kitchen.

On the way back to my car, I walked by one of the large wooden tables with seven or ten people standing around it, sitting on it or on the benches, middle aged, young, male, female, children. All were white. A little girl said “Hi”. I turned around to wave at her and several of them smiled and waved back at me. It was quite a good feeling.

But it struck me as something more.

Even though it was a random encounter, probably a speck of gold in a river, and I should not conclude that the river is full of gold, it is difficult to think that they are bigots or racists, just like it is difficult to think that all the 74,000,000 voters are bigots or racists.

But it is much easier to believe that they want to preserve what is theirs and precious to them, their way of life, their tradition and culture that have been built by many generations. They don’t want such to be disturbed by some foreign forces and are determined to fight to protect them. That means they can be persuaded and convinced to do the right things, right for Democracy, for the country and for themselves. That is Democratic America’s fervent hope.

But that also means they could be persuaded the other way.

The Democrats cannot just pursue progressive ideals at the cost of alienating half of the country. They cannot just ignore them without a convincing explanation as to why their progressive agenda is good for them and their children. The Democrats could be forgiven for not knowing the deep feeling of the white “silent majority” because they had been silent. But after 2020, they have no excuse. In the pursuit of lofty ideals, their policies must take into consideration the wish of 74,000,000 voters. They cannot simply dismiss them as deplorables if they want to govern.

Attacking the former president is barking at the wrong tree. He did not create the extreme right wing of the Republican party. He had been a Democrat before switching side. He even invited Hillary (and Bill) Clinton to his wedding.

Mr. Trump was just an astute businessman who saw a profitable opportunity and took it without knowing for sure that the unseen (by him) political wave would carry him all the way to the pinnacle of American politics. The immense power had caused him headaches and giddiness. It was clear he did not like it (being the president of the democratic U.S.A) at all. He was not prepared to handle the heavy burden of the top job and unable to associate himself with competent and talented professionals to help him run the country.

The tree is the huge number of voters who voted for Mr. Trump – twice – because he and his supporters have successfully persuaded them, true or not, that they serve their interest.

It is a tree not to be barked at but cultivated.

(Next, Part III)