America and the truth of asymmetric warfare

Sharansky’s truism:

“Everybody has a knife, but not everybody is prepared to use it.  Putin believes that he is willing to use his knife and the west isn’t—that the west can only talk even if it is physically stronger.”

From Putin to Tehran and the Palestinians, the west fails to grasp that fanatics mean what they say

By Melanie Phillips


The fable of the scorpion and the frog

In an interview about the war against Ukraine, the former Soviet dissident turned Israeli public figure, Natan Sharansky, made a key observation.

Commenting in Tablet that both Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, were far from the strongest in the world, Sharansky shared something he had learned from his time in a Soviet prison.

The ringleader in the cell, he said, wasn’t the one who was physically strongest but the one ready to use his knife. “Everybody has a knife, but not everybody is prepared to use it,” he said. “Putin believes that he is willing to use his knife and the west isn’t—that the west can only talk even if it is physically stronger.”

Of course, most people assumed that Putin would never use his knife. They thought he would never invade Ukraine and embark on a horrific campaign against its civilian population. Yet that’s exactly what he has done.

In a similar vein, no one apparently believed that Putin would ever deploy nuclear weapons. Yet with the Russian dictator issuing not-so-veiled threats about nuclear war, Britain and America are refusing to yield to the pleas by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to fly bombing raids against the invading Russian forces for fear that Putin may do just that.

At a stroke, therefore, a key tenet of western defence policy has been destroyed. For decades, western leaders have told themselves that the principle of “mutually assured destruction” — under which any nuclear first strike would provoke a devastating nuclear counter-strike — is so obviously suicidal that no leader in his right mind would ever use nuclear weapons.

Yet what Putin is demonstrating is that this doctrine may not apply to him. The west’s nuclear knife is sheathed; but he is brandishing his own in a menacing manner and, as a result, has the upper hand.

Once again, the west has made the false assumption that every world leader is fundamentally a rational actor acting in his own self-interest. But some individuals are driven by fanatical devotion to a cause which means they make an entirely different set of calculations.

This is one reason why the Biden administration is making such a catastrophic mistake over Iran.

The United States has reportedly reached a deal with the Iranian regime that will not only enable it to develop nuclear weapons at the end of mere two-and-a-half years, will not only facilitate its receipt of tens of billions of dollars to finance its attempts to annihilate Israel and its war on the west, but will also effectively de-list it as a terrorist state.

Currently Putin, who is key to bringing Iran into the deal, is demanding that the United States lift its sanctions against Russia over Ukraine to allow it to trade with Iran.

Maybe America will capitulate over this, too. But how can one explain its astounding eagerness to empower the enemy of the west in Tehran?

A key reason is that, like former President Barack Obama who brokered the 2015 agreement, the Biden administration believes that if Iran is offered the prospect of substantial material benefit it will put its knife away.

This is a really terrible mistake. For the regime is dominated by the Shia “Twelver” sect, which believes that bringing about an apocalypse will cause the Shia messiah, the “Twelfth Imam,” to descend to earth.

With the prize being the messianic end of days, the notion that short-term self-interest can tame Iran is risible. The fanatics in Tehran don’t care if a very large number of Iranians are killed in battle or die of privation. Vladimir Putin doesn’t care if a very large number of Russians are killed in battle or die of privation. The cause is everything.

The same is true of Islamic radicals who blow themselves up in order to cause the maximum possible loss of life among everyone else. “We will win,” they gloat, “because we love death while you love life”.

This is so chilling because it’s absolutely true. It’s the reason for what’s called “asymmetric warfare,” in which those who are relatively powerless in military terms can win against states bristling with the latest armaments.

If even a superpower like America is reluctant to use its weaponry against its enemies because it flinches from sacrificing any of its own people, then those enemies will win.

Israel faces this dilemma every day. The Palestinian Arabs are incited by an evil narrative that teaches them to hate and fear Jews, kill Israelis and steal their land. So they fire thousands of missiles from the Gaza Strip and repeatedly attempt murderous attacks from the disputed territories.

This is because they know that of all people the Jews will go to the most extreme lengths in the world to avoid loss of life, even among their enemies.

Israel has the firepower to have disposed of the problem of Palestinian Arab violence once and for all. It has the military means to raze Gaza to the ground. It could also have expelled the Arabs from the disputed territories.

This is how other countries have always behaved against regimes and populations that attack them and show no wish to stop doing so. Yet having been under murderous siege for the entirety of its existence, Israel has chosen not to behave in this way.

It deals with the attacks on its population from the disputed territories through policing methods subject to the rule of law enforced by the human rights-obsessed Israeli courts.

It goes to war in Gaza well after the severity of Palestinian missile attacks has become intolerable. It provides humanitarian assistance to those Arabs, who repay this by continuing to fire missiles at Israeli civilians.

When it eventually goes to war, it kills proportionately far fewer of its enemy’s civilian population than any other military in the world.

Remarkably, therefore, Israel endures significant pain to protect the life of its enemies. For this, the same western world that is so admiring of the Ukrainians for dying gives it no credit whatsoever. Indeed, the west grotesquely accuses Israel instead of being an abuser of human rights.

The great challenge for the civilised world is how to defend itself while retaining its humanity. It needs to strike a difficult but essential balance between protecting itself against attacks and continuing to adhere to its core moral values.

Israel meets this challenge. America has stopped even trying. From the moment Obama went back on his pledge to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria, the United States started to signal to its enemies that it would no longer commit its people to fight and die for freedom.

Instead, America and the west have told themselves that war solves nothing. Against those who tell themselves that violence solves everything, this western dogma enables fanatics to win while the innocent are killed or enslaved.

The same deluded western world that is calling for more measures to protect the Ukrainians backs the Palestinian Arabs who slaughter Israelis. And that same western world is currently indifferent to the assistance the United States is giving Iran that will facilitate its attempted nuclear genocide of the Jews.

Sharansky is teaching us that if a certain type of guy brings a knife to the fight, he has to be disabled before he can use it. Because otherwise, he will. It’s a lesson the west should have learned in 1939. And yet it still hasn’t done so.

Ukraine is currently paying the price. Israel now urgently needs to ensure that it is not subjected to Iranian missiles raining down from Lebanon on Tel Aviv and Haifa while the west once again wrings its hands at the slaughter it has helped facilitate and looks on.

March 11, 2022 | 6 Comments »

Leave a Reply

6 Comments / 6 Comments

  1. On the Indian “Oops!” into Pakistan:

    Pakistan Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director-General Babar Iftikhar detailed the incident during a press briefing on Thursday, saying:

    On March 9, at 6:43 pm, a high-speed flying object was picked up inside the Indian territory by Air Defence Operations Centre of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF).

    From its initial course, the object suddenly manoeuvred towards Pakistani territory and violated Pakistan’s air space, ultimately falling near Mian Channu at 6:50pm.

    Iftikhar said the projectile in question “was a supersonic flying object, most probably a missile, but it was certainly unarmed (???).”

    Pakistan Air Vice Marshall Tariq Zia told reporters on March 10 the projectile “was 40,000 feet high” while flying at three times the speed of sound. The missile traveled 77 miles into Pakistani airspace from an origin point in the northwestern Indian city of Sirsa.

    “It is important to highlight that the flight path of this object endangered many international and domestic passenger flights — both in Indian and Pakistani air space,” Iftikhar said Thursday.

    Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned India’s charge d’affaires in Islamabad on March 10 to issue the envoy a formal diplomatic protest against the incident.

    “The Indian Cd’A [charge d’affaires] was told to convey to the Government of India Pakistan’s strong condemnation of this blatant violation of Pakistani airspace in contravention of the established international norms and aviation safety protocols,” Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said.

    “The Indian diplomat was conveyed that the imprudent launch of the flying object not only caused damage to civilian property but also put at risk human lives on [the] ground,” the ministry added.

    Sometime within the space of seven minutes, the Pakistanis knew that the missile was certainly unarmed? Somebody tell me, how it is that they were so “certain”.

  2. Some clippings from Natan Sharansky’s interview in the March 7 Tablet.

    I studied in a Russian school where the second language was Ukrainian, and there were many Ukrainian schools where the second language was Russian. As a Jew, I tried to be the best in everything, so I tried to also be the best in Ukrainian literature. And that is a real literature. Ukraine has its own songs, art, history. This is evidence of a Ukrainian people that Putin denies. It’s true that for only very short periods of time Ukrainians played an independent role. But the culture was real, no doubt.

    When I became an activist, I moved to Moscow at the age of 18. And then I started university and became an activist in the Zionist movement, and then also in the human rights movement. And I met Ukrainian nationalists in the Moscow Helsinki Group, in fact the second Helsinki group was created in Kyiv. And later, in prison, I met many Ukrainian nationalists. And it was clear to us then that we had a lot of mutual interests, in freedom and independence and democracy.

    In 1997 I came back as the minister of trade for Israel. I came to Kyiv, and I signed the first economic agreement between Ukraine and Israel. Many businessmen came to my meetings there, there were a lot of hopes for economic development. It didn’t really develop well because the economy was not transparent, there was a lot of corruption, as you know. But it was and is a democracy.

    Now, for the last five years, I’ve been the chairman of the advisory board of Babyn Yar, which closes a very important circle in my life. Babyn Yar is the symbol of the Holocaust for me. It is not only the biggest mass grave of Jews; it is also the symbol of the efforts of the Soviet Union to erase the memory of the Holocaust, to destroy our identity, and to fight against the Jewish nation. So I decided it was an extremely important project that we had to do, to turn this symbol of Holocaust memory destruction into the biggest Holocaust museum and study center in Europe.

    And for this reason, I’ve had a lot of opportunities to meet with President Zelensky and his team. And he has always been very positive and very interested. And now he is leading the Ukrainian people, to the big surprise of Putin, in showing such a passionate devotion to Ukrainian national identity, and to their freedom. The fact that they are now an example for people all over the world, and that the one who is leading them and inspiring them and the man who is the most important president in their history is openly Jewish and proud of his Jewish roots and his connection to Israel—that is just really something. I don’t know whether to call it ironic or symbolic or meaningful. But it is really something.

    Do you understand the invasion of Ukraine as a border dispute, or as a chapter in a larger, more global Russian or Russo-Chinese assault on the democratic order? What endgame do you think Putin has in mind for this conflict?

    Putin, whom I met 15, 20 years ago, in the first years of his presidency, is a very different person than he was then. He has always of course been the same KGB officer with the same approach and view of the world, but back then he was urgently looking for recognition by the leaders of the world—by George W. Bush, by Angela Merkel—and he tried very hard to find ways to convince them that he was a new type of Russian leader. I think what happened with him is that after 20 or more years in power, he saw all these leaders—Bushes and Merkels and Obamas and Bidens and Macrons and all the others—as pawns, they just come and they go, and they’re exchanged, they’re replaced. He is the only one who is never replaced.

    He is the one, real, strong leader, and he is the only real historical figure—as he sees himself—and he has a historical mission. He has said over many years that the biggest tragedy of the 20th century was the destruction of the Soviet Union. So his mission is to bring back that unique Russian superpower. He doesn’t want to bring back communist ideology, which he is not interested in. Putin views himself as filling the shoes of Peter the Great, Ekaterina [Catherine the Great], and Stalin. These are three of his big heroes, who brought historical “Russian” lands under one rule.

  3. Ukraine. A big question is to figure out what the hell Zelensky is all about. This man is nominally Jewish and he is urging on neo-fascists same Fascism of their
    grandparents in the Holocaust of the Jews in Ukraine where over 1 million perished. https://t.co/khvjLfKAh6

  4. I am not disappointed at all with Melanie. Her analysis is brilliant, the way it nearly always is.

    Putin is indeed a fanatic. His behavior increasingly resembles that Hitler. True, he hasn’t murdered as many people-yet. But in Ukraine, he is moving in direction of equaling Hitler’s “achievements.”

    Hitler and Napoleon were both rational is the way they pursued their objectives–at least for a time. But neither had entirely rational objectives. Both were obsessed with conquest and military glory even to the point where it harmed their own interests. Putin is the same way.

  5. I am so disappointed with Mellanie.
    Putin is not in the least a fanatic.
    He is a very rational, focussed, calm thinker.