There is the English saying: Put yourself in his shoes. It
means: Think of yourself being in his place, and ask how you would do things
under similar circumstances. It also means that even if you do not empathize with
the other guy; try at least to understand where he is coming from.
However, when we look at the way that the English speaking
elites think and express themselves these days, we could swear that the saying
is as alien to them as eating a sandwich of monkey brains. Apparently this is a
highly praised delicacy in some places in Asia
but not in the West or anywhere else in the world.
Lucky for us, there is an example which illustrates the
point relating to empathy or lack of it, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal
editors who seem to dislike wearing the other guy's shoes. They wrote: “Some
Realism on Russia ,” an
editorial that also came under the subtitle: “The U.S.
has done far too little to deter an invasion of Ukraine .” It was published on
August 16, 2014. The editors begin by mocking President Obama who suggested
that if Russia invaded Ukraine , the relationship between America and Russia will so deteriorate; the
time remaining in his presidency will be wasted trying to get back to a
cooperative relationship.
What they do next says that these so-called journalists,
editors, thinkers, intellectuals and what have you – are hopelessly incapable
of putting themselves in someone else's shoes if only to formulate a realistic
view as to how the other person may react to something they are advocating. It
also says that when they pretend to write an editorial discussing “Some Realism
on Russia ”
they are making a bad joke. It is like a four-foot standup comedian making
jokes about bumping his head against the ceiling of his buddy, the tall
basketball player.
The editors do two incompatible things at the same time.
First, they pretend to know what the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, wants
now and will want tomorrow. What he has done up to now, and what he will do
tomorrow. What the outcome of his doings has been and what the ramifications
will be. Second, they totally ignore the reality that Putin will react to the
things they suggest that President Obama should do, let alone try to anticipate
how Putin will react, and answer the very pertinent question: what then?
But to explain their point of view, they say that Putin has
a dream: The restoration of greater Russia . Of course, we heard this
refrain uttered before, but it was never revealed how someone made that
determination, and the editors of the Journal are not revealing the secret
either. They also say that Putin has determined that an independent Ukraine will
violate his dream. And that's not all because they also know what goes on
inside his soul. They say this: “he believes he'll suffer politically at home
if the separatists are pushed out of eastern Ukraine .” And you know what this
means? It means that Putin “backed himself into a corner,” they say. So you
wonder: How much worse can it get? And you realize that according to them, the
man must be desperate if not outright dangerous.
As a result of all that, they anticipate that Putin will
want to invade Ukraine ,
which is why they say America
must do what is necessary to deter him before he does. And the way to do this,
they suggest, is to “raise the costs of his revanchism” beyond what he is
willing to pay. The pretense being that they know what he is willing to pay and
what he will not, they suggest to President Obama some ideas he could use. They
are four: military aid to Ukraine ,
individual sanctions, financial sanctions and new defensive deployments.
And this makes you wonder if these people have the ability
to think rationally at all. They say they want to deter Russia from invading Ukraine ,
and then recommend arming Ukraine
to help it “defeat the separatists more quickly.” How will that deter Russia ? They
don't say.
As to individual and financial sanctions, they admit that
what was done up to now has not worked; yet they do not explain why doing more
of the same will work. Still, they have an idea that seems to come from the
book of the eternal losers. They say that Mark Dubowitz who is a member of the
poop tank for the ripping of democracies, has suggested conflating America 's
tattered finances with the Patriot Act, a move that will deliver to the dollar
the coup de grace that will render it unfit to remain the world's reserve
currency for much longer.
We now come to “New defensive deployments,” and again we are
reminded that the idea is to deter Russia from invading Ukraine; and yet this
is how they argue that point: “Russia has violated the 1987 INF Treaty … The
U.S. should send a signal that violations have consequences.” And then what? Do
they really believe that Putin will tremble in his boots and decide not to
invade Ukraine ?
Yes, something like that, they say. Why? Because Obama can
start by “repairing the damage he caused relations with Poland and the Czech Republic by reversing the
decision to abandon anti-ballistic missile [ABM] systems in both countries.”
What? They mean to say this will deter Russia
from invading Ukraine ?
Have they not looked at the map of the region? How will ABMs in far away Poland and the Czech
Republic prevent Russia from invading nearby Ukraine if
Putin so decides?
Moreover, to reopen that file will revive the old argument
that such systems in Poland and the Czech Republic were meant to intercept
Iranian missiles, not Russian. And there is more. Polish and Czech analysts who
know how these things work have argued that ABM systems in their countries will
not protect them. They will protect Western Europe while increasing the chances
that a potential aggressor (Iran
or Russia ) will try to take
them out before launching longer range missiles at Western
Europe . Thus, instead of protecting them, the systems will make
them a prime target, and a more vulnerable one at that.