The invasive war of the Russian Federation in Ukraine has been going on for almost a year. During this time, the many imperfections of the Russian army have been revealed, and international opinion saw the determination of Ukrainians to fight for their homeland. In an interview with Jan Hernik, Professor Clifford Angell Bates, a political scientist and expert in the field of geopolitics, summed up the course of this conflict and pointed out the realities of American aid to Ukraine.
Jan: The first thing that we will discuss today is the situation in Ukraine. The last time we spoke on air was a week before the outbreak of the war. Back then, you were skeptical of the possibility of escalation. On the day we record this interview, we are eight months into the war in Ukraine.
Professor: I was taking kind of a conservative view. I did not think he (Vladimir Putin) would do it simply because it was too risky, and I thought that Putin was not that stupid. He has always been able to get the things he wanted through the use of threats and intimidation, as well as other means. In other words, he was good at the use of perception of force and relied on that. My knowledge of the Russian government always led me to believe that the Russian army was incapable of doing anything real. It could intimidate others with threats ofits vast large force, do limited special operations, and rely on mercenaries and professionals, as well as contract soldiers to do limited engagements, but a real war was simply beyond their capacity.
Jan: However, the war in Ukraine has grown significantly in intensity…
Professor: Exactly. What Putin relied on was the fact that his forces outnumbered the enemy, but it does not matter if they’re disorganized, poorly led, or undisciplined, in other words, if they’re still Soviet-style troops. It means they are led by a very top-down command structure. There are no real NCOs (non-commissioned officers). Junior officers are nothing but whips to keep the soldiers obeying, whereas senior officers are doing the work of junior officers. Even divisional commanders are doing the work that would be typically that of the battalion or company commander. The question was whether Ukraine modernized since 2014. The perception in many people’s minds, given perception of wild-spread corruption, they did not. . But the war has changed everything. It changed the perception that Ukrainians were incapable of waging war and capable of fighting a modern (NATO style) war.
Jan: There are no doubts that the war has been waged for years and not only since February 2022, of course, with continued military support from other countries, but Ukraine has also been able to respond to Russian aggression. How do you assess this?
Professor: Well, we have to understand that Poland played a role in shaping this even before. The 2014 annexation of Crimea erupted, and you must also remember the role of the Orange Revolution back in 2004. We should remember that the 2014 events happened when Civic Platform (PO) was in power in Poland. This party was lukewarm to the incidents at Maidan. An example of this was Radosław Sikorski (the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland) shouting at the organizers of the Maidan protests that they were stupid and that the Russians were going to slaughter them and they needed to be more moderate. People have a short memory of the 2014 events. But even under the PO government, there were active assistance to Ukraine in recreating and modernizing its military (as well as giving its militia units modern NATO style training [mostly done through special forces style units]).
Jan: The United States provides the largest portion of military help to Ukraine. How do you assess this assistance from the Biden administration?
Professor: We must distinguish between the Biden administration and the White House. It is a complicated problem. Biden uses the fear of Russia, especially Russia’s supposed role in the manipulation of our elections, as a very important narrative that the Democratic Party has embraced. So, he needs Russia presented as a ‘monster’ to show that the Republicans have close ties with the aggressor.
It is the same thing in Poland. That the ruling party, Law and Justice (PiS) is nothing but a Putin-owned government. This narrative is a very important political tool for domestic politics. But to achieve Biden’s goal with Iran, and to restore Obama’s attempt to get a nuclear deal with Iran, requires Russia’s cooperation. Western powers have no connection with Iran. Since Iran is relying on Russia for its nuclear capacity, Russia plays a very central role. That’s one thing.
However, the US has become reliant on Russia, like Germany, to meet its energy needs. Again, this is because the Russians have been very good at funding environmental groups and other political advocates who captured many of the parties and got them to engage in a policy of being increasingly dependent on Russian energy. Again, the Democratic Party does not intend to be dependent on Russian energy, but because of their green energy policies, and the economic reality of needing resources such as oil, that has been the ultimate result. Yes, there was aide by the US following events of 2014 and the Obama/Biden administration offered assistance to Ukraine, mostly non-lethal and not enough. It was under Trump did the US start sending leathal system and more advanced training for the Ukranians. The Biden administration in Feburary 2021 halted of it and quit cooperation upto just prior to the Russian invasion in Feburary 2022. But They did not give equipment until after the Russians attacked. They engaged in the idea that any assistance to Ukraine would be an escalation in tensions. The Biden administration has been operating on the premise that we cannot scare Putin.
Jan: Isn’t this because Biden understands that the US needs Russia in the further geopolitical game?
Professor: First, let us have no foolishness about Russia’s nuclear capacity. It is more of a danger for Russia than it is for the Americans, because given the likelihood of their repair and maintenance; given what we know about corruption in the Russian military, do you think they have maintained or updated their nuclear arsenal in any way? No. Their nuclear force is probably no better than it was under the Soviets.
Jan: Well, it is clear that the majority of their equipment stems from the Soviet Union. They have not produced a significant amount of new equipment, unlike the United States or its Western allies…
Professor: Given the reality of corruption and lack of care and maintance, Russian nuclear stockpiles have not been really maintined as is required. Given there has not been the real investment in updating lanch platforms, most of the Russian nuclear platforms remain Soviet stock (barely maintained). Thus, the Russian strategic nuclear force is more of a treat to Russia than others. And while their tactical and intermediate Nuclear forces were better maintained, these weapons systems also mostly remain versions of Soviet Era weapons and not significanlly modernized to deal with the new AGM environt of the past 20 years.
A past KGB report brought to light the consequences of a nuclear strike by either party, particularly if the Russians instigated it. It reported that the nature of American society is that if major American cities were exterminated, it would not harm the long-term future of American interests. In other words, the Russians determined that the American urban centers are more mechanisms of constraint of American power and that, by potentially eliminating cities, Russia would make a stronger and more dangerous America. Whereas, if Russian cities are eliminated, Russia disappears. Therefore, from the Russian perspective, a nuclear attack is unthinkable. I do not believe that colonels and the majors who would be responsible for launching an attack order will comply. Also, I do not think anybody believes that the Putin regime is worth Russia ceasing to exist.
Jan: Summing up all the things you mentioned, is this why we see a mass exodus from the Russian Federation following the announcement of the partial military mobilization? Does this mean that Russians don’t want to die for Putin’s war?
Professor: Yes, and particularly of the upper-class, and the wealthier. The Russians know that nuclear confrontation with the United States would be detrimental for both parties, but more to Russia. American geopolitical experts do not want to talk about this because it calls into question urban cities and the problems that they pose, and therefore it is politically incorrect. Biden’s team is terrified because they do not understand that you have to call bluffs, particularly the nuclear bluff. We must show their regime that we pose a much larger and more stark nuclear threat than them.
Jan: Was that what Trump was trying to do when he held the office?
Professor: That’s exactly what Trump was trying to do. What should be happening now is increased nuclear drills. Nuclear forces should be doing daily nuclear drills to show Russia that we are ready. Moving nuclear-capable F-35s would also be critical. Under Boris Johnson, the British stationed weapons in the Arctic. Those ships carried about over 30 F-35s. That was done for one purpose, to show Vladimir Putin that we could sooner strike Moscow than they would have time to respond. From where they were stationed, they could have easily targeted Moscow or St. Petersburg. In the case of the F-35s, the Russians would not be able to detect their presence. They would be unaware of an attack from them until it already happened. You could take out major political hubs. The British could do that.
Jan: As we mention the US, Russia, and the UK, I recall the commitments of the 1994 Budapest memorandum. It supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The Russian Federation broke these agreements, but there is still no clear reaction from the other states that participated in the pact. How should we understand it?
Professor: You must remember that it was a British conservative government that signed on to that, and then later the Blair government upheld it. However, the Clinton administration made it as weak as possible so that it would not have to go to the Senate. It is designed to convince the Europeans and particularly the Ukrainians that it was a treaty when, in effect, it does not perform the functions of a treaty.
Jan: However, isn’t it clear that the Russian Federation broke this agreement? What about the reaction of other states that participated in that pact?
Professor: Yes, they broke the agreement. However, previous American administrations, namely the Obama administration, underplayed this. Obama had very soft words about this.
Jan: What was the reaction of other states that participated in that pact, if there was any?
Professor: Remember there are only four real parties involved: the Ukrainians, the Russians, the British, and the Americans, and all of the powers gave their guarantee. Of course, this was not a real treaty, because it is not enforceable as treaties are. However, the argument is if the Ukrainians had nuclear weapons, they would be able to defend themselves. The problem here is more about failing to honor the agreement. This is what the Americans did in 2014. They insisted on not interfering with Russians directly, only gesturing, because it is not worth it for American interests to go to war with Russia. That was the gist of the Obama position. That signaled to the rest of the world that some countries had been relying on American protection. It now appeared that American protection was worthless. These countries began considering developing weapons themselves. Therefore, Obama’s administration destroyed the nonproliferation regime. The whole reason behind the Budapest memorandum was the non-proliferation of weapons. They (the signatories of the Budapest memorandum) were worried about Ukraine’s instability and the potential for weapons from Ukraine to be sold on the international market. Therefore, in the name of nuclear nonproliferation, we needed to have those weapons destroyed. In the 1990s and 2000s, the view of Putin was that he was a stable leader who could ensure the nuclear nonproliferation of Ukraine. Nonproliferation was driving western security views. This is where Obama destroyed that with his behavior in 2014. We have not yet recovered from the consequences of his decisions. In my opinion, what we are seeing with Ukraine aid is a bookkeeping trick from the Biden administration. Money that is being directed for Ukraine aid is in effect not being sent to Ukraine (at least most of it) but being used to nominally buy existing weapons stockpiles of older weapons that will be sent to Ukraine and the money will be used to replace those weapon and platforms with newer weapons and platforms. This ultimately is a budget trick to allow them to achieve their goals of replacing older systems without asking for congressional appropriation. This is a moment where the Deep state worked against the true intentions of Democratic Party controling Congress and the Biden administration. Much of Biden’s Ukraine policy is that they’re just being dragged on by bureaucracy and by powerful voices among the Senate Republican leadership.
Jan: Let me now move on to the US midterm elections. The elections will be held in less than two weeks from this conversation. Right now, Republicans have the upper hand in most polls for the midterms. By the time this interview is published, we will have known the results, but I think that our Readers will be interested in your assessment of the political situation in the US. What is your standpoint on that?
Professor: Let me talk about the elections. Every poll now shows between a + 4 and a + 6 lead for the Republicans, but that could change. Right now, 30% of voters will be voting before Election Day. All the trends are saying that it is going to be a sweep, many say it is because of the economy, Biden’s age, mental condition, or his bad perception. In other words, he looks like he is incapable of leading. He appears to be a frail elderly person who invites other nations to take advantage of us. But what are they strong on? They are strong on the notion that Trump is the biggest threat. For example, on January 6th, and the media continues to harp over it. Given that they have not put similar BLM rioters in prison, I think that you would argue for unequal treatment of justice here. In my opinion, any convictions would be overturned. Therefore, the Democrats are relying on creating this hysteria about Trump.
The Democrats’ only hope right now is that the Black and minority vote does not leave them and that they can attract enough White women, that is the strategy. For instance, that is why abortion is again an issue. Biden is relying on Trump and abortion to save him. Ironically, Trump does better with Black and Hispanic men. Therefore, the use of Trump is not necessarily helping them with any of their minority strategies, it’s helping them with their women base. The abortion argument has been elevated recently. I think there is an increasing prevalence in the Black community of seeing abortion law as means for the White establishment reducing the Black population. This is a popular narrative that’s out (i.e., Kanye West and others Black performers). In the Black community now, abortion is seen as a White privilege and a weapon of White social control. Whatever your stance on abortion is, you must understand how Black advocates are perceiving it now. Male Black elites have always favored abortion, as did women elites in the Black community. But the entire community, including the churches, never did. Therefore, the Democratic Party have always had to buy out the churches to keep them silent on abortion. The possible danger here is that the churches are being bypassed by new activists.
On the other hand, inflation is at almost 20% now and getting higher, and its causes include COVID spending, and the quantitative easing in 2008 of the banking markets. We did not see inflation because it effects of quantitative easing tended to inpact capital assests (hence the increased cost of assests over the past decade), not retail prices. Only with the beginning of the COVID shutdowns did we see the full effect of inflation on our day-day living.
Jan: Public debt in the United States is rising along with the financial crisis and inflation. Republican Minority Leader in the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy indicated in a recent interview that House Republicans will not write a ‘blank check for Ukraine’ if they take control of the lower chamber. How do you assess his statement?
Professor: McCarthy is in a very tenuous position, with may so-called MAGA candidates pleged to remove him from his leadership position. The thing that most Americans do not realize is that most foreign policy aid is contingent on that country buying American goods that are produced ideally in the United States by American workers, this is particularly the case in the defense sector. We must remember that the decline of the American lower working class came with the end of the Cold War with the drastic demise of the defense industry. You must understand that the World War II booms created much of the prosperity of the American working class and that, therefore, once that ended with the Cold War, all of this ceased. When deindustrialization occurred, our defense capabilities came down with it. This heavily affected the working classes in America. I call it the “dumb Republican problem.” Low-information voters don’t necessarily understand this phenomenon (of where Foreign Aid is really spent), they just go by symbols and things like that. Everyone looks at the disaster and the mismanagement of the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq and suggests that we should have never done it in the first place. It is an example of ignorance rather than trying to understand what went wrong. We must distinguish between things that are done for the right reasons but are poorly executed and things that were correctly executed but for the wrong reasons. I would argue that both Iraq and Afghanistan were donefor the right reasons, but we they were overly conducted was done rather badly. In other words, what should have been a limited military operation with clearly defined and obtainable goals. But what happed was vauge and broad goals and mission-creep, that suddenly includeda lot of social engineering (i.e., brining gender studies to Kabul, etc.). Again, in the political landscape of the past 30 year, to sell anything to the Democrats, you need must bring social issues into it.
Instead of gauging in direct military conflict, the United States began engaging in social issues. The goal of the US military was to defeat the enemy and not to engage in social issues. Until Iraq and Afghanistan can create a civil society, the only way you can hold them together is by force. In other words, democracy is only possible in a civil society. We cannot spread democracy to every country in the world. What should have been done in Afghanistan was the integration of tribal leaders into the central government, and not forcing liberalism on them. The history of every society rests on establishing order through legitimate and represenative leadership.
Jan: And do you believe that, in light of what you have said, Ukraine would become this civilized society and country by fighting for its independence?
Professor: Yes, what Ukrainians are going through now is the same thing that the American revolutionaries did in 1775. If during the years of the American revolution, foreign governments did not aid The United States militarily, we would not have been able to gain Independence from Great Britain. What’s happening in Ukraine is the birth of civil society and a new nation. Ukraine has always had a Christian culture fundamentally separated from Russian culture. The events of 2014 redefined the identity of Ukrainians. It became less of an ethnic identity and more of a political identity. Ethnic Russian people in Ukraine began turning against Russia as they saw atrocities unfold. Putin’s position was that the ethnic Russians and Jews would outnumber the ethnic Ukrainians and that, therefore, it would be an easy war. He believed that ethnic Russians and ethnic Jews would support Russia. The hypocrisy of Russia is that it fuels nationalism in the West. This war created a new civic identity amongst Ukrainians. This is the idea of civic nationalism.
Jan: Now we’re seeing this clear parallel with the US. Do you expect your predictions to come true in the near future with regard to the civilization of Ukrainian society?
Professor: Compared to Russia, it is already completely civilized and Westernized. You can see it in the way they are fighting, not fighting in a way the Soviet soldiers fought. Even the way their territorial units are fighting is much different from the way the Russian territorial units are fighting. It is night and day. You see dispersed control and consensus-based decisions. Zelensky is also lucky to have a number of very competent and well-qualified military officials and generals. Moscow has a top-down control system, and the military has no autonomy to make decisions. What you see with Putin is wasting of military infrastructure on civilian targets that ultimately have no endpoint. Ukrainian troops have been trained by many foreign competent militaries in the West and are becoming more advanced.
Prof. Clifford Angell Bates Jr. is an American political scientist specializing in the history of political philosophy/theory, especially comparative politics, international relations, literature and politics, American Constitutional Thought, and Institutional History. He published two books, “Aristotle’s Best Regime” (LSU, 2004) and “The Centrality of the Regime for Political Science” (WUW, 2016). His interests include the intersection between human biological nature, human institutions, and environmental forces that shape the political and social forces of humanity. He is now working on two projects: the question of the formation of state structures (and concepts) and their viability over time and his exhaustive commentary on Aristotle’s Regime Science.
Jan Hernik – He is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of the influence of religion, race, and ethnicity on political choice in the US presidential elections. His research interests also include US activity in the Arctic and Indo-Pacific regions. Currently, he is completing postgraduate studies in geopolitics and geostrategy at the Academy of Applied Sciences and at the Caucasian International University.
