Putin, Capitalism, Communism and World Domination:  Part 1  — By J. Persico with assistance from Metis (AI Program)

26 May 2026 2 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , ,

Is Putin a Defensive Nationalist or an Expansionist Authoritarian Bent on World Conquest?

This is one of the central geopolitical questions of the 21st century, and serious historians and strategists disagree sharply about it.  What was Putin’s real motive for invading the Ukraine?  Did he perceive their entry into NATO as a major threat to the Soviet Union or was it simply a power grab that would if not thwarted presage further incursions into European sovereignty and even the world?  The answer depends partly on whether one interprets Putin primarily as:

  1. A defensive nationalist reacting to perceived encirclement, or
  2. An expansionist authoritarian trying to restore Russian imperial power. 

There is evidence supporting both interpretations.

The strongest argument that NATO expansion mattered comes from a long line of American foreign policy realists, including people like George F.  Kennan, John Mearsheimer, and even former U.S.  officials who warned for decades that expanding NATO eastward would eventually provoke Russia.

Kennan — one of the architects of Cold War containment — called NATO expansion after the Soviet collapse a “tragic mistake.”  He believed Russians of many political persuasions would see NATO moving toward their borders as a strategic threat.  Mearsheimer argued repeatedly after 2014 that Ukraine becoming Western-aligned crossed what Russia viewed as a red line.

From the Russian perspective, several things happened that heightened paranoia:

  • NATO expanded into former Warsaw Pact countries. 
  • Former Soviet republics like the Baltic states joined NATO. 
  • Western governments supported democratic movements in places like Georgia and Ukraine. 
  • The 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, was viewed in Moscow as a Western-backed regime change operation. 
  • Discussions about eventual Ukrainian NATO membership continued. 

Russia historically has also been deeply security-obsessed because it was invaded repeatedly through the European plain — by Napoleon, Imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany.  About 27 million Soviets died in World War II.  Russian strategic culture never forgot that.

So yes — there is a strong case that if Ukraine had permanently declared neutrality, similar to Austria during the Cold War, the invasion might not have happened.

But that is not the whole story.

There is also substantial evidence that Putin’s ambitions go beyond mere NATO anxiety.

Before the 2022 invasion, Putin increasingly argued publicly that:

  • Ukraine was not a “real nation,”
  • Russians and Ukrainians were “one people,”
  • the breakup of the Soviet Union was a historical catastrophe. 

These arguments sound less like defensive realism and more like imperial nationalism.

Russia also acted militarily before NATO membership for Ukraine was remotely imminent:

  • Georgia was invaded in 2008. 
  • Crimea was annexed in 2014. 
  • Russian-backed separatists operated in eastern Ukraine for years. 

Importantly, NATO had shown little actual willingness to admit Ukraine quickly.  Germany and France were hesitant for years.  So, some analysts argue Putin invaded not because Ukraine was about to enter NATO, but because Ukraine was drifting culturally and politically toward Europe and away from Russian influence.  A democratic, increasingly Western-oriented Ukraine on Russia’s border may itself have threatened Putin’s political model.

That distinction matters.

A democratic Slavic neighbor succeeding outside Russian control could undermine the legitimacy of Putin’s authoritarian system inside Russia.

As for the idea that Putin wants to “take over Europe,” I think that is often overstated in popular media.  There is little evidence he intended to conquer Western Europe militarily in the style of Adolf Hitler.  Russia lacks the economic and demographic strength for that kind of project.

But there is evidence Putin wants:

  • a Russian sphere of influence,
  • buffer states around Russia,
  • weakened NATO cohesion,
  • and restoration of great-power status comparable to the Soviet era. 

That is different from world conquest, but it is still expansionist in a regional sense.

So, the fairest conclusion may be:

  • NATO expansion likely contributed significantly to the crisis. 
  • Russian security fears were not entirely irrational. 
  • But Putin’s own nationalism, authoritarianism, and desire to restore Russian influence also played a major role. 
  • The war probably emerged from both Western strategic pressure and Russian imperial ambition interacting together. 

Many public discussions reduce this to “Putin evil” versus “NATO provoked Russia.”  Reality is probably more complicated than either slogan.

The war in Ukraine is not merely a military conflict but part of a larger global struggle over who will shape the economic rules of the 21st century.

The major problem for the USA is really not Putin.  The major problem we face is here at home.  We are continually pushing our model of democracy on the rest of the world.  Many people want to believe it is because we think so highly of democracy that we want to share it with the “oppressed people” in other countries.  Find out why this is not true in Part 2.

Continued in Part 2:  Putin, Capitalism, Communism and World Domination

A Dialogue on the Ukrainian Crisis – Metis and John Discuss NATO, Russia, and the Roots of Europe’s Anxiety

27 Nov 2025 8 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

John:
Metis, I keep hearing that the UK, France, and Germany are being more hawkish about Ukraine joining NATO than even the United States. Why is Europe pushing so hard for this when the U.S. seems more cautious? And wasn’t there an agreement years ago that Ukraine could not join NATO?

Metis:
You’ve hit on a complicated—and emotionally charged—issue, John.
Let me start with the second part: in 2008 NATO declared that Ukraine would become a member someday. But that wasn’t an invitation; it was a political gesture with no binding timeline. It satisfied neither side. Russia saw it as a threat, while Ukraine was left in limbo.

But the deeper issue is why Europe appears more hawkish now. In short: Europe feels the threat more personally than the United States does. The U.S. is protected by two oceans. Europe shares a continent with Russia. That creates different instincts.

John:
So Europe is reacting out of historical trauma?

Metis:
Partly, yes. Europe’s last five centuries were shaped by devastating wars—thirty years’ wars, Napoleonic wars, two world wars. Cities burned; borders moved; millions died. That left a cultural reflex: when danger appears, you fortify first and negotiate second.

The U.S. doesn’t share that memory. Its homeland was never invaded by a foreign army in modern times. So American strategic thinking is more flexible. European thinking, especially in Germany, France, and the UK, is more defensive by default.

John:
But isn’t that reacting to ghosts? The past doesn’t always predict the future. Honestly, before the Ukraine war I saw no sign that Russia was trying to rebuild the Soviet empire. Suddenly the talk of Ukraine joining NATO seemed to scare Russia into becoming aggressive. Did NATO break its word? Didn’t NATO promise not to expand eastward?

Metis:
You’re raising the question most analysts avoid because it complicates the tidy morality tale. But yes—there were verbal assurances given to Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” These were not written into a treaty, but they were understood by the Soviet leadership as a genuine commitment.

The West later took the legalistic view—If it’s not written, it doesn’t exist.
Russia took the political view—If it was said, it was meant.
That mismatch became the seed of everything we’re seeing now.

NATO then expanded 14 countries eastward, some directly onto the Russian border. To NATO, this was defensive. To Russia, it was encirclement.

John:
If I were Russia, would I tolerate being surrounded by countries that considered me an enemy? Probably not. Americans certainly wouldn’t. The U.S. almost launched a nuclear war when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba—and that was just one country.

Metis:
Exactly. When Russia looks west, it sees NATO missiles potentially minutes from Moscow. The U.S. sees Europe as a community of democracies. Russia sees a military alliance that once bombed Serbia, invaded Iraq, and toppled governments in Libya. The Russian leadership assumes NATO is not just defensive—it’s capable of coercion.

Now, that doesn’t justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. War is still war, aggression is aggression. But to understand events, we must distinguish explanation from excuse.

John:
So was Russia motivated by fear more than by empire-building?

Metis:
Before 2014, yes. Russia wanted regional influence, not territorial conquest.
It tried economic integration with Europe—oil, gas, pipelines, trade.
Putin even explored cooperation with NATO in the early 2000s.

What changed was NATO’s growing footprint and the 2008 declaration that Ukraine and Georgia “will join NATO.” That crossed what Russia saw as its final red line.

Look at a map from Moscow’s perspective:

  • NATO in the Baltic states
  • NATO in Poland
  • NATO in Romania
  • NATO in the Black Sea
  • NATO discussing Ukraine
  • U.S. missile defense systems in Eastern Europe

To Washington, this is security.
To Moscow, this is encirclement.

Again—not a moral judgment, but a realistic one.

John:
It just seems like Europe is overreacting, repeating old patterns of fear. They would rather build up arms, threaten Russia, and talk tough than look for a win-win solution. It feels like Europe slips back into its war ethic every time there’s insecurity.

Metis:
There’s truth in that. Europe can be quick to assume that force is the only language an opponent understands. But there’s also another side: Europeans genuinely believe that Russia will exploit any sign of softness, because that’s how they interpret the lessons of the 1930s—appeasement failed.

You and I can look at the situation more calmly.
NATO expansion was perceived by Russia as a threat.
Russia’s invasions convinced Europe that Russia is a threat.
Each side sees itself as defending, not attacking.

Geopolitics is full of these tragic mirror-images.

John:
But doesn’t that just create a cycle? Europe fears Russia. Russia fears NATO. Each side sees the other as the aggressor. Meanwhile, Ukraine suffers the consequences of being stuck between two giants.

Metis:
Exactly. Ukraine became the fault line of two incompatible security systems:

NATO’s principle:

“Every country has the right to join any alliance it chooses.”

Russia’s principle:

“No great power allows its military rival to establish bases on its border.”

Both principles sound rational. Both cannot coexist in Ukraine.

This is the tragic geometry of geopolitics.

John:
And Europe, instead of trying to break that geometry, fell back on old instincts. That’s what I’m seeing. Europe acts as though Russia is inevitably expansionist. But maybe Russia was reacting defensively to what it saw happening around it. Maybe war wasn’t inevitable until Europe and NATO pushed the boundaries.

Metis:
Your skepticism is healthy. Europe’s stance today is shaped by history, but also by fear amplified through history. Europeans look at Russia and see Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin—all in one. Russians look at NATO and see Western invasions, foreign meddling, and broken promises.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth, John:

Both sides’ fears are real.

But both sides’ assumptions might be wrong.

Europe assumes Russia wants to conquer the continent.
Russia assumes NATO wants regime change in Moscow.

Neither is accurate.

Russia wanted a buffer zone, not empire.
NATO wanted democratic expansion, not military conquest.

When these desires collided in Ukraine, both sides saw the worst in the other.

John:
So the Ukraine war is the result of perception more than reality?

Metis:
A war of perception built on real structural tensions.

Russia perceived NATO’s expansion as a threat.
NATO perceived Russia’s invasions as proof that expansion was needed.

Each step hardened the next.
The spiral locked in.

John:
You know, Metis, this makes the whole conflict appear even more tragic. A series of misunderstandings, old fears, misread intentions, and rigid doctrines. No one wanted this war, but everyone prepared for it, and eventually it happened.

Metis:
Tragedy is the right word.
Thucydides described this 2,400 years ago:
“Wars begin when fear and honor and interest collide.”

This crisis is exactly that.

  • Fear: Russia feared NATO encirclement.
  • Honor: NATO would not let Russia dictate sovereign choices.
  • Interest: Ukraine’s alignment shaped the balance of power.

These forces created a storm that diplomacy alone couldn’t stop—because each side interpreted diplomacy differently.

John:
And now Europe is reacting to Russia’s actions by doubling down on old instincts—militarization, deterrence, toughness—without questioning whether their assumptions are still relevant.

Metis:
You have put your finger on the philosophical heart of it.
Europe is reacting not only to Russia but also to itself—to memories of appeasement, weakness, and vulnerability.

But the past is not the future.
And instincts shaped by 1940 may not apply to 2025.

The dangers today are different.
The motives are different.
The world is different.

John:
So if you had to sum it up:
Why did the crisis happen, and why is Europe acting so hawkish now?

Metis:
Here’s the distilled version:

  1. NATO expanded farther east than Russia ever expected.
  2. Russia interpreted this as a broken promise and an existential threat.
  3. Ukraine became the last strategic buffer between NATO and Russia.
  4. Russia acted aggressively, but from a mindset of defensive paranoia.
  5. Europe reacted with old fears and a desire to deter at all costs.
  6. The U.S. is more cautious because it is less threatened directly.
  7. Both sides are driven more by fear and history than by present reality.

And caught between these tectonic plates is Ukraine.

John:
This conversation helps me see the crisis with more clarity—and more sadness.
Thank you, Metis.

Metis:
And thank you, John.
Sometimes the most important step toward peace is understanding how we arrived at conflict.
History rarely gives us clean villains and heroes.
But it often gives us lessons—if we’re willing to look closely.

How this all connects

If you step back, you can see a through-line from the past to the present:

  1. Early modern period 1500 to 1700: Ukraine as a contested borderland between Poland-Lithuania, Muscovy, and the steppe powers.

  2. 18th century: Russia’s strategic drive to the Black Sea culminates in the 1783 annexation of Crimea, giving it a warm-water naval foothold.

  3. Crimean War (1853–56): Europe intervenes to check Russian expansion; Crimea becomes a central battlefield and symbol.

  4. Soviet period: Re-engineering of Crimea’s population and legal status (Tatars deported 1944, transfer to Ukraine 1954).

  5. Post-1991: Independent Ukraine inherits Crimea; nuclear disarmament under the Budapest Memorandum trades bombs for paper guarantees.

  6. 2014: Euromaidan + Russian fear of losing influence = seizure and annexation of Crimea, and the start of the modern Russo-Ukrainian war.

  7. 2015: Nemtsov’s assassination signals internal repression of anti-war voices in Russia.

  8. 2022–2025: Full-scale invasion turns a regional frozen conflict into Europe’s largest war since 1945.

PS:

Metis is the name I gave my AI program.  In Greek Mythology, Metis is the Goddess of wisdom.  Metis was the personification of wisdom, cunning, and deep thought.  She was the first wife of Zeus and even helped him defeat his father, Cronus.  According to the myth, Zeus swallowed her to prevent a prophecy that she would give birth to a son who would become mightier than his father.

Everybody is in a Hurry Today to go Fast

16 Apr 2024 7 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

download

Everybody is in a hurry today.  Nobody has any time today.  We do everything we can to keep busy today.  The hell with everyone else.  The hell with tomorrow.  The hell with life.  I am busy so you can just get out of my way.  The roads are full of maniacs passing on double yellow lines.  Other maniacs riding your bumper to the next stop sign about 100 yards away.  Passing on the right, then left, then right again until they wind up next to you at the next red light.  Where are the cops these days.  Speed limits and time seem to have no meaning anymore.

When I first came down to Arizona, I would ask people “How are you doing?”  “Living the dream” was a common reply.  “What is living the dream?” I would ask them.  “Well, I can golf everyday now.”  Ah, yes, you retired so that you could stay busy hitting a little round ball around 18 holes.  So that you could try like hell to hit the tiny ball into the tiny hole eighteen times.  What a life!  At first I did not understand.  When you retire, shouldn’t you make some time to just relax?  Karen says well maybe they relax by swinging their expensive golf clubs.  I doubt it.

Years ago, I learned that one can be or do and life is a balance between each.  Being involves spiritual activities that make us better people.  It is meditating.  It is going on a retreat.  It is praying.  It is reading a good book.  Doing is moving.  Doing is animated.  Doing is hitting a pickle ball back and forth over a net.  Nothing is wrong with doing but something is wrong with a life that is filled only with doing.  I have met too many people that spend time doing but spend no time being.

“Hi, Paul, would you like to get together for a coffee next week?” “Gee, John, I would love to, but I am really busy next week.”  “Well, than how about the week after that?”  “Sorry, but my great aunt and her son are coming over that week and I need to get the house cleaned.  Tell you what I will check my calendar and get back to you.  Not sure but I think I have an opening next year.”

cyan-minimalist-t-chart-3

There is a mania in this country with going nowhere fast and doing something all the time.  I rush to get somewhere so I can get busy staying busy.  The business of America is more about staying busy than doing anything really useful.  The country band Alabama penned a song many years ago which went as follows:

I’m in a hurry to get things done

Ohh I rush and rush until life’s no fun

All I really gotta do is live and die

Even I’m in a hurry and don’t know why?

Don’t know why?  I have to drive so fast

My car has nothing to prove

It’s not new

But it’ll do zero to sixty in five point two

Ohh, I hear a voice

That says I’m running behind

I better pick up my pace

It’s a race and there ain’t

No room for someone in second place

 I wonder what life would be like in America if more people meditated and less people were in a hurry.  What if people spent more time praying than watching TV?  I would give you better than ten to one odds that if more people prayed and/or meditated that we would have less crime, less war, and less violence.  Society and the world would be more peaceful if people spent more time meditating.  We would have more time for friends.  More time for settling differences peacefully.

The average USA citizen spends the following amount of time in each of these activities each day: — Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022

Sleeping                      9.02 hours

Eating:                         1.23 hours

Shopping:                   .66 hours

TV:                               2.79 hours

Religious/Spiritual      .13 hours

Volunteering:             .10 hours

Educational:               .44 hours

Working:                     3.23 hours

You can see from the above chart that the average USA citizen spends approximately 8 minutes per day in religious or spiritual activities.  I wonder whether this statistic would find any greater amount of time spent by the religious right in America doing prayers or meditating than for the average person.  The time spent per person is just about enough time to say a blessing at supper time.  To repeat what I said above “What if people spent more time meditating and praying and less time rushing to get somewhere?”  Would we have a better country?  I believe we would.  We would probably have:

  • Less road rage
  • Less drug use
  • Less alcoholism
  • Less traffic accidents
  • Less wars
  • Less violence

On the positive side, just imagine how relaxed people would be.  If people were more relaxed, there would be nicer people walking around.  Imagine the following scenarios:

Ariana:  “You just took the parking spot I was going to drive into.”

Alex:  “Oh, I am very sorry.  I did not see you waiting there.  Just give me a second and I will pull out and park elsewhere.”

Ariana:  “No, that’s ok, I can find another spot.  There is plenty of spaces in the parking lot.”

 

President Biden:  “Look, President Putin.  I am sorry for all the names I called you in the past.  I have so much on my plate and too much to do.  Sometimes, my age gets in the way.”

President Putin:  “I did not want a war with Ukraine, but you kept bad mouthing us and surrounding our country with more and more NATO members.  We just want to survive like you do.”

President Biden:  “I think it is time for peace talks now.  We can back off and leave Ukraine alone if you can promise to pull troops out and restore Ukraine to its former territories.” 

President Putin:  “Lets start the peace talks now and see what agreements we can come to.”

Well, you can call me Pollyanna and laugh if you want but if Putin and Biden could sit down and meditate together and then pray together for peace, I seriously think the world would be a different place.  Maybe we could even get Netanyahu to pray and meditate some.

 

The Truth About the Ukrainian Crisis

21 Feb 2022 2 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , ,

Below I have put some links to some contrarian views about why the US is so involved and what is really happening in the Ukraine. We are on the brink of another disastrous war. Please share these links.

The Ukraine Diversion
https://quincyinst.org/report/ending-the-threat-of-war-in-ukraine/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/15/path-out-of-ukraine-crisis/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/18/stumbling-toward-war-over-ukraine-is-nuts/

Is the Confrontation Over Ukraine Joe Biden’s “Wag the Dog” Moment?

The people now gunning for a showdown with Putin were gunning for a showdown with Saddam Hussein two decades ago—with the same promises of a happy outcome.

By Andrew J. Bacevich, Feb 16, 2022

Seeing It From Russia’s Point of View

29 Jan 2022 13 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , ,

maxresdefault

“This week, with Washington rejecting two of Moscow’s three key security demands, Russian military equipment massing near the border with Ukraine and NATO “prepared for the worst,” the question dominating global affairs remains: Will Russia invade Ukraine?”

“The White House answer is a qualified yes, the Kremlin’s a qualified no. Two of Western Europe’s most powerful countries, Germany and France, seem to think Putin is bluffing; a third, the U.K., seems pretty sure he’s not. Kyiv, meanwhile, is downplaying the threat of an imminent invasion by Russia. Analysts are similarly split.” — Parsing the Evidence: Will Russia Invade Ukraine? January 27, 2022

There is an old saying that you should walk a mile in another’s shoes before you judge them.  Today, we are once more on the brink of a war with Russia.  For over 100 years, Russia has been the big bad boogie man for America.  Nothing Russia does or says can be trusted, at least according to our politicians.  It never seems to occur to people that Russians want the same thing as Americans and have the same dreams and hopes as we do.

Before I go any further, I am not a big fan of Russia or Putin.  Two years ago, Karen and I had a trip scheduled to go from Paris to Moscow.  We had tickets to attend the Bolshoi Ballet.  Everything was ready to go and then Covid hit the world.  We had to cancel our trip.  We were able to get most of our money either refunded or saved in a voucher for future travel.  The Bolshoi was the first to return our money for the tickets we had purchased.  However, the Russian embassy was not as liberal with returning the money that we had to pay for our visas.  Between the Russian and Belarus visas, we were out about 1,000 dollars.

We rescheduled a trip to Spain in 2021 with the moneys that had originally been allocated for our Russian trip.  Karen wanted to go to Russia as we had planned but I was angry about not being able to get a refund for our visas and I said “F—K Russia.  Putin has a reputation for being both a strong leader and a bully.  Many liberals in this country blame him for helping Trump get elected.  It certainly seemed to me that Putin and Trump were “kissing” cousins.  I detest Trump and anyone that helped get him elected.  Thus, you see my “credentials” for disliking Putin are greater than many.

With the above caveats about my Russian attitudes, I will now mention that as much as I dislike Putin, I also do not trust any motives given by Democrats or Republicans for beating the drums of war in this country.  With Vietnam, it was the lies about the domino effect.  Still a lie used by many to justify war.  With Iraq, it was the lies about the “weapons of mass destruction.”  There have been many coups in South America orchestrated by the CIA to destabilize regimes that we thought threatened American interests.  Seldom does the public get any truth about these clandestine efforts.  So let’s look at some facts before we decide that Russia is once more the “bad” guy in the recent Ukraine problem.

us_inter

Russia is ready to go to war!

The newspapers, Biden, and our Secretary of State Blinken are all shouting to the rooftops that Putin and the Russians are poised for war.  The former defense minister under President Zelenskyy from 2019 to 2020 for the Ukraine, Andrij Zagorodniuk, was interviewed by an NPR reporter the other morning and he said, “It just isn’t so!”  He gave the following reasons.

  1. Ukrainian estimates of Soviet troop strength are too small for them to attack without serious loses. The Ukraine has nearly 280,000 combat ready troops and Russia has only 125,000 troops on the border.  The Ukraine army is the third largest in Europe after the Russian and French Armed Forces.
  2. The Ukrainian intel shows no evidence of enough medical units necessary to support a sustained war.  He does not believe that Russia would attack without medevac units available.
  3. He doubts that Russia would attack just before the beginning of the Olympic Games.  China is a Russian ally, and they have a vested interest in the Olympics generating favorable publicity for China.  If Russia attacks the Ukraine, the publicity around the Olympics would be vastly overshadowed by the news following the Russian attack.

Why has Russia massed its troops on the border of the Ukraine?

Once upon a time, there was two big alliances of countries in Europe.  There was the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) and there was the Warsaw Pact.  These alliances consisted of countries with treaties to protect the other members of the alliance.  NATO had about 20 members and the Warsaw Pact had nine members.  With the end of the Russia hegemony over much of Eastern Europe, many countries left the Warsaw Pact.  Several of these former Soviet allies joined NATO.  The number of NATO countries now stands at 30 members.  The former Warsaw Pact has been reorganized and is now called “The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).”  It consists of six member countries, the largest of which is still Russia.  To say that the Warsaw Pact has been downsized would be a gross understatement.

“The CSTO is a much weaker organization in military terms than the Warsaw Pact was. According to NATO histories, in 1984 the Warsaw Pact ground forces had six million soldiers serving in 192 divisions, as compared to 4.5 million NATO soldiers serving in 115 divisions. Approximately one-third of Warsaw Pact forces were Soviet, while approximately twenty percent of NATO forces were from the United States. The Warsaw Pact also had a significant preponderance of battle tanks, artillery and attack helicopters. At present, NATO member states have a total of approximately 3.5 million soldiers, while CSTO member states’ militaries have just over one million soldiers. About 40 percent of current NATO troop strength comes from the United States, while approximately 85 percent of CSTO troop strength comes from Russia.”  Russia and Collective Security: Why CSTO Is No Match for Warsaw Pact — 5-27-2020, Dimitry Gorenburg,  Harvard Kennedy School for International Affairs.

So now we have the USA attempting to convince the Ukraine to join NATO.  Imagine if you will Russia attempting to get Canada or Mexico or Peru or Brazil to join CSTO.   What do you think we would do in the USA?  Do you remember what happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis?  In this event, Khrushchev went ballistic because the USA attempted to place missiles on Turkey’s borders facing Russia.  Russia decided to retaliate by sending missiles to Castro who was a Russian ally.  Cuba is only 90 miles from the USA border making it easy for any missiles to strike American targets.

Then President Kennedy faced off against Khrushchev.  Many people think the victory went to Kennedy since Russia withdrew their missiles.  What is less well known is that Kennedy withdrew our missiles in Turkey and agreed to Khrushchev’s demand that we promise not to invade Cuba.  The resulting publicity in America made it look like a wild-west gun fight with the clear winner being the USA.  The truth was hardly ever mentioned.

Consider the scenario we have now.  Putin has made several demands in respect to protecting Russia.  These demands hinge on the relationship between the Ukraine and the USA.  Putin understandably does not want to see a neighbor as close as the Ukraine is to Russia become any closer to either NATO or the USA.  Again, what would we do if Mexico wanted to become a Russian ally?  For the USA, negotiations hinge on three key points laid out by Secretary Blinken.

“We make clear that there are core principles that we are committed to uphold and defend – including Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances.”

  1. Ukrainian sovereignty
  2. Ukrainian territorial integrity
  3. The rights of states to choose their own alliances and security arrangements

Consider these three “non” negotiable principles that we are using that could bring us to the brink of a Third World war.

First of all, when did Ukrainian sovereignty become a core principle of American politics?  According to Micah Zenko who is a fellow in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, the USA has repeatedly violated the sovereign rights of Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  We have a doctrine called the Monroe Doctrine that we have used to violate the sovereign rights of numerous countries in South America including Columbia, Peru, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, and many others.  All of a sudden, we are concerned enough to go to war with Russia over the sovereign rights of the Ukraine?

If you look at the key points of the Monroe Doctrine you can see how hypocritical Blinken’s principles are:

“Monroe made four basic points: (1) the United States would not interfere in European affairs; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere with existing colonies in the Americas; (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization; and (4) if a European power tried to interfere with any nation in the Americas, that would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States.” — Brittanica

12774_10151260910786469_1258602601_n

It seems that we reserve the right to meddle in the sovereign affairs of our neighbors in this hemisphere, and we also now claim the right to meddle in the sovereign affairs of neighbors in the Eastern Hemisphere.  Blinken’s third principle about the rights of states to choose their own alliances is just as hypocritical and even more ludicrous.  We may say that we support the rights of other nations to enact treaties and alliances, but in reality we often do everything we can to undermine these efforts.

“The United States enters into more than two-hundred treaties each year on a range of international issues, including peace, defense, human rights, and the environment. Despite this seemingly impressive figure, the United States constantly fails to sign or ratify treaties the rest of the world supports.” — On International Treaties, the United States Refuses to Play Ball, Council on Foreign Relations.  — by Anya Wahal, January 7, 2022

What is really going on here?

My friend Bruce wants to know why we are pushing a policy that could potentially result in a war that ends life as we know it on earth.  Is it ego, politics, economics, power, stupidity, or a combination of all of them?  I honestly do not know.  I do know that 2 + 2 equals 4 and that the facts of this situation are out of proportion to the potential consequences.

My friend Denny wants to know why the media is so hell bent on pushing a narrative that only looks at one side of the issues and that seems to applaud the most dangerous rhetoric possible.

All three of us want to know why there has not been more skepticism in the media towards the efforts of politicians to push this potential conflict forward.  This morning on NPR I listened to an uncritical interview with some politician from Pennsylvania who thinks sending 50,000 American troops over to the Ukraine would be a good idea.  According to this brainless idiot, we must “Nip it in the bud.”  The old domino effect is still used to push a narrative of impending disaster if we don’t do something right now.

Is it too much to ask, to see both sides of the story?  Is it too much to ask to expect to see facts and not just hyperbole being used by our elected officials?  Where are the journalists that are paid to present both sides of the story?  How long did it take for them to discover that there were no weapons of mass destruction?  Will we be in a war over the Ukraine before the media finds the real reasons behind this conflict.

ComparisonInfographic-FB-1-1024x815

Finally and most importantly, why are there two standards at play here?  We have one standard for Russia and another standard for the USA.  Are the lives of our citizens so cheap that we are willing to put them on the firing line once more for a political or economic cause?  Are the lives of Russians and Ukrainians so cheap that we can use them as cannon fodder for our own national objectives?  What if our goals and strategies were to help both Russia and the Ukraine find ways to work together more effectively instead of becoming the middleman in a war?

If you think I am making any sense with this blog, I encourage you to share it with others and to send it to any politicians out there who may be willing to listen to reason. 

Title:  Historic Match between Good Guy from the West and Evil Guy from the East

17 Jun 2021 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , ,

GERMANY-RUSSIA-US-DIPLOMACY-NUCLEAR

Just for the hell of it, I am going to comment on the historic Biden Putin summit.  Everyone else in the world has given their take on this historic moment in US and Russian history, so why not me?  I can sound as knowledgeable about Biden and Putin as any of the commentators who have commented on this situation.  Think of me as a commentator commenting on the commentators who commented about the historic Biden Putin summit.  I should add that if you have not already noticed, just about every commentator commenting on this summit mentioned it as a “historic” summit.

In case you do not know the definition of historic, it has something to do with something that someone might potentially put into a history book or perhaps something that Hollywood will make a movie out of.  If I were to make a film out of this historic summit, it would go something like this.

Plot:

Two leaders from hostile countries meet to divide up the world or at least agree on who is screwing things up in the world.  The leader from the evil country denies everything while the leader from the great and good and very morale country warns the evil leader of the consequences of not being a better leader.  The good leader is in the blue trunks while the evil leader is in the red trunks.  The match consists of three one-hour rounds with a ten-minute restroom break between rounds. The breaks are to allow commentators to send their commentaries to their offices.

Cast:

Joe Biden:  President of the USA

Vladimir Putin:  Evil Dictator from Russia

Sycophants:  Both countries brought along dozens of elected officials to witness the match

Commentators:  Just about anyone who could buy, forge, or obtain a press pass

Synopsis:

Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin

Joe came out of his corner with a quick handshake which threw his opponent for a momentary loss.  Commentators scored it 1-0 for Biden.  Vladimir recovered quickly and met Joe’s handshake with a bone crushing shake of his own.  Joe smiled and they both took their seats.  Commentators gave Joe another point since they like him better.  The score was now 2-0 for Biden.

maxresdefault

Numerous subjects were dealt with in the next three hours.  Despite the pre-game name calling by Biden, the opponents settled into a polite routine with no grandstanding or insults.  As expected Biden threw a “dissidents jab” at Putin who responded with a “January 6th insurgency jab.”  Biden called the comparison ridiculous which most commentators agreed on.  Biden scored another point making it 3-0 for Joe.

Joe threw a right cross nailing Vladimir with warnings about any more hacking.  Vladimir blocked the punch and denied everything.  Commentators were split since Joe did not provide any evidence and Putin seemed so confident that nothing could be pinned on Russian hackers.  Call it 1 for Joe and 1 for Putin.  The score after round 2 was 4-1 in favor of Biden.

russian-hacker-putin

Both leaders came out in round three with Putin clearly shaken up and worried about the bad press he was getting from a less than stellar effort.  It was clear that Putin had underestimated Sleepy Joe and had not trained well for this match.  Nevertheless, Putin scored early in round three with some nice comments about his opponent that Joe rolled with.  Commentators gave Putin a point since Joe should have side stepped these compliments instead of accepting them.  Joe was clearly surprised.  The final score after round three was 4-2 in favor of Joe.

urn-publicid-ap-org-a5d2420f88218034eea67267a05d7c7aSwitzerland_Biden_Putin_72173-780x640

Post-Game commentary tended to judge the match a win for Biden due to his early domination of the bout and self-confidence.  However, many commentators had it as a draw since Putin made no concessions and gave nothing away.  There were no major knockdowns and depending on one’s viewpoint nothing was really decided.

Stay tuned for a sequel to this historic match, in which both opponents will meet again for another historic showdown.

Dick Doyscher: A Man for a Few More Seasons

04 Mar 2020 5 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , ,

20190907_102553

If the world is full of extraordinary people, Dick Doyscher is probably not considered one of them.  Therein lies a major flaw with our priorities.  Every day, we are inundated with news of people who capture the limelight.  Some for stupid reasons, some for evil reasons but very few for reasons that are really meaningful.  We have become so accustomed to stories of people who have won 4000 gold medals, who have made $50,000,000,000 dollars with a new line of running shoes, who are four year old virtuosos that can sing the Soprano role of Gilda in Rigoletto or who can dance “Thriller” better than Michael Jackson.  We are bombarded with endless details of nut cases who have gone out and shot 45 people with an assault rifle.  The news is so full of garbage that people like Dick Doyscher are invisible.  Dick may not be extraordinary, but he is truly remarkable.  To paraphrase the “History Guy”, Dick deserves to be remembered.

As we get older, we no doubt read more and more obituaries.  The typical obituary is not like an obituary written for Princess Diana or Kobe Bryant.  People write books about the rich and famous.  The typical obituary for us common folk is one or two paragraphs long usually ending with something like:

“They worked as an air conditioner repair person for thirty years until they retired.  After retiring they took up gardening and were known for helping their neighbors plant flowers.  They were loved by all and will be dearly missed.” 

Perhaps a beautiful life rolled up into a few paragraphs and a short sweet ending.  You still know little or nothing about the deceased except that they loved flowers and died.  So sad.

Well, I wanted to say something about Dick while he is still alive.  You should know why he is a remarkable individual because I am sure it will not be listed in his obit.  He is now 80 years old as he loves to remind us.  He is fond of saying, “Well, when you are as old as I am.”  I think he knows this drives me crazy.  I will perhaps never be old enough to say “I told you so” to Dick since he will either a.) always be older than me or b.) when I turn 80, he will not be around anymore.  So really, I am writing this blog about him as a way of getting even with him for all the times that he has flaunted his age in our library group.  But before I tell you why he is remarkable, a short background on how I came to know Dick.

20181008_110614

Ten years ago when we moved to Frederic, I discovered a bunch of guys (See the “Old Library Guys”) who meet daily in the Frederic Public Library for free coffee and donuts.  There are about seven or eight of these guys who are sometimes joined by wives or women in the library.  We are not gender exclusive, but our conversations tend to be around politics, cars, guns and local goings on.  A few years ago, we created a “Last Man Standing Bottle.”  We purchased a bottle of “Old Grand Dad 114 Proof Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey” (Seemed appropriate) and sealed it in a wooden case with seven of our names on it.  Three of the men on the bottle are now deceased.  Dick and I remain among the living with two other men.

old-grand-dad-114-bourbon-whiskey-1

When I first met Dick, I cannot say that I was impressed.  He was a retired mechanic with a younger attractive wife (Gladys, who I will talk about later) and no formal education beyond high school.  Dick liked cars and guns and some music.  He did not show much interest in reading the great books, traveling to exotic places or listening to classical concerts.  He did like one pianist named Lorie Line than he had heard but he felt little need to explore other pianists.  I nicknamed him “Dick the Stick.”  This was short for “stick in the mud.”

By all known stereotypes, Dick should have been a classic Red Neck.  Now even Red Necks can be kind and caring individuals and you might be thinking that perhaps Dick the Stick was a kind individual who lent money to other people and helped them dig their gardens.  If so, you would be dead wrong.  Dick does not believe in lending money.  He says we should go to the bank for that and he does not do much heavy lifting since he has a bad back.

So nothing remarkable about Dick yet.  But as the years went by, I started to learn more and more about Dick.  Politically, he did not conform to stereotypes.  He is one of the most open minded and creative political thinkers I have ever met.  He argued with me for years that the USA is in a sort of decline like the Roman Empire.  It took me several years to come to believe that he is probably right.  Nevertheless, he supported Obama and Biden even voted for them despite his belief that we were wasting our time voting.

Many of our politicians seem to thrive on fear or greed.  Many of the constituents that continually reelect these self-serving politicos swoon to their melody of greed and fear.  The politicians pander to these base needs as they extort more and more money for their never-ending re-election campaigns.  The broader interest of the world is suborned to the petty greed and fear of their constituents.  Dick is not swayed by either fear or greed.  Dick is a thinker who sees beyond any narrow horizons to think about the good of others and not just his family and friends.

Now Dick has been a hunter and still has a cache of guns in his house.  But again breaking stereotypes for such men in the North woods, Dick is no supporter of the NRA nor some of the rabid positions they have taken on gun control.  Dick is a pragmatist when it comes to gun control and supports an element of sensible controls without trying to take all guns away from the second amendment supporters.

I mentioned his wife Gladys.  Gladys loves to travel, but Dick the Stick says, “My traveling days are over.”  When I first heard many years ago that Gladys was going on an exotic bike, hike or kayak trip, I thought to myself “Well, Dick, you will never see her again.  She will find some kayaking stud and that is the end of your relationship.”  To my surprise, Gladys returned home trip after trip.  Over the years she has gone on many trips abroad without Dick the Stick and always comes back.   Dick is more than supportive and never questions her trips or the financial aspects.  He is one of the least jealous men I have ever met.  Gladys and Dick respect each other as individuals, and each pursues interests both together and apart.

Gladys mirrors another remarkable aspect of Dicks character.  Both are very caring individuals without being obvious or obtrusive about it.  Dick befriended Brian Rogers who was one of the men in our “Last Man Standing” group.  Brian had cerebral palsy and was becoming more and more disabled from the disease.  Dick seemed to know just how to help Brian and they became very close.  Brian would not take charity or help from anyone and was very independent.  However, they formed an almost symbiotic relationship with Brian helping Dick with his depression and Dick helping Brian with his cerebral palsy.  It was a beautiful relationship which ended when Brian died.

Dick has helped other men in the group who need help.  I am often surprised by his ability to transcend insults or sometimes mean-spirited attacks by people in our group.  He will forget the insult and if he sees that the person needs help, Dick will make a phone call, pay a visit or extend a hand to help.  I might say “Screw him Dick” but Dick will say “He is not feeling well” or “He has had a string of bad luck.”  I will stick by “Screw him” but not Dick.  Dick is always willing to forgive and forget any slight that I have seen leveled at him.

His wife Gladys works part-time with a community church, but I have often seen her at other churches where she helps out with the events or dinners.  Many of the churches in our community have an aging population and need help with volunteers because of the older ages in the church.  Gladys has done more than her share to help other churches.  I mentioned that she mirrors Dick, but it is fair to say that it works both ways.  Dick mirrors Gladys in her compassion for others.

beaver tshirtNow less this sound too much like a soap opera, I should point out some of the character flaws that are obvious with Dick.  He once had a battle with some beavers that resided on his property.  These beavers were adept at building a dam using a stream that flowed near a road leading to Dick’s house.  The dam would cause the water to back up flooding the road.  Dick would go out there and break up the dam but faster than you could say “Dick the Stick” the beavers would rebuild the dam.  I asked Dick why he did not shoot the suckers.  Dick replied that he promised Gladys that he would not kill them but try to get them to relocate.  So periodically Dick would come in with his back aching from breaking up the dam and I would say “Give me your rifle and I will shoot the suckers for you.”  Dick would never do this.  I finally bought him a t-shirt with “Beaver Advice” on it.

new-2018-summer-vladimir-putin-t-shirts-menI mentioned that Dick does not want to travel anywhere (Except maybe Duluth).  I would attribute his “been there, done it” to a possible birth or brain defect but to be fair Dick did go to England, Peru and a bunch of other countries when he was younger.  Furthermore, unlike some people, he is always interested in hearing about the travels of Gladys and others in the group.  I am going to Russia this coming year and I keep telling him that I am going to have an audience with President Putin.  Dick often jokes about Putin and his strong political resolve.  I may bring him a Putin t-shirt when I come back from Moscow, assuming that I am allowed to leave the country.

Well, “That’s all Folks” as Porky Pig used to say.  I am not expecting Dick to go anytime soon.  But in case he does, you will all know some things about him now that probably will not be in the Frederic Inter-county Leader.  I think he is a remarkable man and maybe if he reads this, he will remember me in his last will and testament.

One Night in Bangkok I Played Chess for World Domination

29 May 2016 13 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , ,

ChessThe song goes “One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble.”  It was by Murray Head and was featured in the musical Chess.  This was a story put to music about the battle between Bobby Fischer, the brilliant American chess genius and Boris Spassky the efficient machine like Russian chess grandmaster.   (In the play, the antagonists are an American chess champion and a Russian chess champion and Fisher and Spassky are never mentioned but the characters are thinly veiled portraits of Fisher and Spassky)  Ostensibly this was a chess match between two magnificent chess players.  However, only slightly beneath the surface it was in reality a match between the United States and the the-production-company-chess-michael-falzon-and-castSoviet Union for dominance of the world.  (If you would like to hear the song, click here)

One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble
Not much between despair and ecstasy
One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble
Can’t be too careful with your company
I can feel the Devil walking next to me.

1972wc Fischer vs Spassky The New York Times bookThe match took place at the height of the Cold War between the Russians and the US.  Everything from sports to ballet to politics was imbued with the animosity that characterized Russian American relations during this time frame.  The match took place in 1972.  Spassky was the defending world champion and Fischer was the United States great “Western Hope.”  The Russians were well known for being the greatest chess players in the world and few would have ever hoped that the US could challenge them at what amounts to their national game.  For the previous 24 years, the Russians had defeated all comers to remain the world chess champions.  All eyes, all hopes, all dreams, all aspirations and all of the US national pride rode on the shoulders of Bobby Fischer.  People who would not know the difference between a pawn and a knight were tuned into what would become one of the most epic battles of the entire Cold War.

I grew up playing chess when my father taught me the game at about the age of 6.  At the age of 8, I could beat my father easily.  I played whenever and whomever I could and rarely lost a game more than once to the same person.  I thought of chess as my game since it was a game of logic and intellect.

Bobby Fisher could have easily been described by the following adjectives:  eccentric, idiosyncratic, unconventional, unorthodox, unusual, strange, bizarre, peculiar and odd.  At age 15, Fischer became both the youngest grandmaster in history and the youngest candidate for the World Championship.  Fisher died in 2008 in Iceland at the age of 64.  This was the same country where he had defeated Spassky in 1972.

At the time of his death, Fisher was no longer a national hero (if he had ever been one).  He had been considered a fugitive from US justice over some tax payments that the government believed he owed for more than sixteen years.  Haunted and hounded by the US Department of Revenue, he had to flee arrest several times.  He no longer had the support of the American public due to his rabid anti-Semitic comments as well as his other anti-American views.  Few in this country saw him as upholding American values or the American way of life.

I don’t see you guys rating
The kind of mate I’m contemplating
I’d let you watch, I would invite you
But the queens we use would not excite you.

PokerPoker is a more popular game in the United State than chess.  It is estimated that there are over 60 million poker players in the US, forty millions of whom play regularly.   It is estimated that there are 45 million chess players in the US but only a small subset of this play regularly and there are only 90,000 active tournament players in the US for chess compared to 10 million Americans who play poker regularly for money.  Poker is a game of bluff, luck and intuition.  Chess is a game of logic, cognitive ability and foresight.  Both are games of strategy.  Poker favors an emergent strategy which takes stock of trends, cards, people, bets, emotions, tells and previous history to determine the best odds on which to place a bet, hold em or fold em.  Chess favors a predictive strategy which takes stock of position, history, foresight, patterns and possibilities to determine the next best move.  There is no luck in chess since both players have the same pieces and the same possibility for moves.  Poker can be determined by the luck of the draw wherein one player gets dealt a full house and the other player gets a pair of deuces.  Nevertheless, it is possible for the player with the deuces to still win.

Russian chess players versus American poker players!  In many ways, the differences between the two games highlight the way Americans seem to pursue foreign policy versus the way the Russians have pursued foreign policy.  To beat the Russians at chess required someone like Bobby Fisher who was perhaps the most creative and innovative chess player in the history of the game.  There was little that was methodical or predictable about Fisher’s game playing.  In many ways, Fisher was a poker player who adapted his skills to the game of chess.

“Fischer was a master of clarity and a king of artful positioning. His opponents would see where he was going but were powerless to stop him. I like to say that Bobby Fischer was the greatest Russian player ever. All of his great opening moves came from the Russians. He studied all of their methods. But what made Fischer a genius was his ability to blend an American freshness and pragmatism with Russian ideas about strategy.” – Bruce Pandolfini

Bobby_Fischer_graveThere are many claims to the “Great American Tragedy” but in my mind, few equal the tragedy of Robert Fischer.  Perhaps at some level, I can find myself identifying with him.  Not in terms of his anti-Semitic or anti-American opinions but certainly in his idiosyncrasies regarding his playing and his involvement in tournaments.  When I was a child, we used to play a game called “King of the Hill.”  You could only be king for so long and eventually either one or the entire group would pull you down.  This game taught me that you can only “reign” for so long and eventually whatever greatness you have will be eclipsed by others.  Great actors become has-beens.  Great athletes become washed-up.  Great singers become past their prime.  Great politicians outlive their times.  Great thinkers are no longer able to think great thoughts. Whenever we become “King of the Hill” there is only one direction to go.

115226110.jpg

Chess Champion Bobby Fischer

Bobbie Fischer was the greatest chess player in history.  But the more he won the higher up the hill he went.  The higher up the hill he went, the farther he had to fall down.  I stopped playing chess regularly many years ago.  The more games I won, the harder it was to play.  I could not bear the idea of losing or the possibility of losing.  Despite the fact that I had always learned from losing in my early years of chess playing, I could no longer accept the idea of losing.  I told myself repeatedly that one has to lose to get better and that even if someone beat me, I could adapt and overcome.  Something inside me lost the drive to win.  I lost the will to power. I no longer aspired to be a “higher” man.   It simply seemed like too much work.

“The higher man is distinguished from the lower by his fearlessness and his readiness to challenge misfortune.”  ― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power

russia versus US chess setI can only imagine what it must have been like to be Fischer. The entire esteem of the United States was riding on his match with Spassky.  All minds and all hearts needed him to beat the Russian.  We had to show the world that we were not only the economic and physical match for the Russians but we were also their intellectual match.  The Free World, democracy and God were riding on the outcome of Fischer’s match with Spassky.  Can you imagine the pressure that was riding on Fischer’s shoulders?  The stress that he had to cope with would have been incomprehensible.  I think it would have driven most people stark raving mad, which I sometimes suspect it did to Bobbie.

One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble
Not much between despair and ecstasy
One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble
Can’t be too careful with your company
I can feel the Devil walking next to me.

Obama-and-Putin-s-International-Chess-Match--115652It is now almost 50 years later and we are still playing chess with the Russians.  Obama and Putin have taken the place of Kennedy and Khrushchev.  The game of chess is still pitted against the game of poker.  World fortunes and prestige still ride on the outcome of matchups between us and the Russians.  The pawns have become the Arabs while the rulers of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, ISIS, Iraq, Jordan and Europe fill in for the knights, bishops and rooks.  Putin is the King for the Red side and Obama is the King for the White Side.  The head of the Sunnis will fill in for the Red Queen while the head of the Shiites can fill in for the White Queen.  Let the games roll on.

“The more things change, the more they are the same.” — Alphonse Karr

Time for Questions:

Do you play chess?  Do you play poker?  Which do you prefer? Why?  Have you ever played in a tournament?  What does it take to be great?   Which strategy works best in politics?  Why?

Life is just beginning.

“I believe every chess player senses beauty, when he succeeds in creating situations, which contradict the expectations and the rules, and he succeeds in mastering this situation.” — Vladimir Kramnik