Sometimes you have to just call things as you see them, and Nicholas Kristof does just that. In a recent blog post, the New York Times contributor offered his "takeaways" regarding Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin's highly anticipated first face-to-face meeting. Some would hardly surprise you—it is titled "Did Putin Have Trump for Lunch?" after all. Still, Kristof's commentary was concise and precise, and helped contextualize the G-20 summit as well as the impact that Trump and Putin, both separately and together are having on the world.
Kristof asserts that it is absurd for Trump to accept Russia's account on interference in the 2016 election over our own intelligence agencies, none of which, despite what the President says, are in dispute of Russia's efforts. It's also very disconcerting that Trump's attack on the news media (and bullying of our allies) seems to be one of his priorities, so it's altogether fitting for him to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the leader of a country that saw 58 journalists murdered and regularly defies the international community. Kristof goes on to elaborate his worries about the American withdrawal from the global stage and the dangers of Russia or China filling in the vacuum over, say, the European Union. There's also a significant danger that as the investigation of the Trump/Russia collusion continues, what little credibility Trump still has will dry up and he will become even more erratic. This could lead to wild cards like North Korea or Venezuela taking risks and provoking a disproportionate response. Kristof convincingly argues that our foreign policy is rapidly flipping upside-down.
However, I think that Trump and Putin's meeting planted the seeds (or showed existing ones) of a potential conflict in the future, one that Kristof did not touch upon: Trump vs. Putin. It sounds ridiculous even by today's standards for what passes as possibility, but hear me out. I think we can all agree that both Trump and Putin are two of the most prominent opportunists in the world. Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall, whether as KGB head, Prime Minister, or President, Putin has done nearly everything in his power (and some things arguably beyond) to push back against Western political and economic influence. Despite these acts prompting international backlash against Russia and claims that Putin could push his luck for only so long, he's been thriving. Enter Trump, an equally opportunistic man willing to challenge anyone who stands in his way and fan the populist flames that had been spreading across America even before 2016 by promising to "clear the swamp" of American politics. Trump's motivations seem much less clear than Putin's (unless it really is just something like pungent narcissism) but is just as strong, if not more.
Why wouldn't these two make a marriage of convenience? It's not like there's no history of it ever happening in Russia. Just in the last century alone, Russia signed two deals with their devils at the time. The first came in 1894 with the Franco-Russian alliance, then in an expansion in 1907 with Britain, later known as the Triple Entente. Though meant to counteract the rise of Germany, an alliance between two democratic and liberal countries and such a backwards and authoritarian one like Russia proved to be embarrassing to all parties. Its much more notorious sequel came in 1939 with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, a non-aggression pact between a fascist Germany and a communist Russia, which by anyone's account should be natural enemies (as they soon proved to be). Hitler proposed it to cover his back for when he went to war with Western Europe later, Stalin did so in order to gobble up Eastern territory. Such cynically opportunistic act from both nations shocked the world. So why wouldn't Russia, who's been on the losing end on the global stage even before 1989 be willing to try it again?
The problem with these sorts of arrangements is that they rarely last because they stand on such shaky ground between untrustworthy parties. While it's absolutely not certain to happen, I believe it is possible that there will come a time when Trump and Putin will turn against each other. Maybe it will be over Russian intransigence in Syria, or a trade deal gone wrong, or one or the other finally overplay their hand. While we shouldn't be afraid of this yet, since there's so many other pressing concerns at this time, I think it would be prudent to keep such a possibility in the back of our minds. Because as many of us know, conflicts stemming from friends-turned-enemies are not pretty.
The recent headlines of a U.S. fighter jet shooting down not just a Syrian Air Force jet but also one of its drones definitely raised an alarm or two in my head. It was made even more disconcerting by the fact that the Russians said they would target U.S. warplanes west of the Euphrates River and were cutting their avenue of communication to us. And that's not even accounting for Syria or Iran's feelings about it. It seemed like yet again that the situation in the Middle East was spinning out of control.
Now, I don't think that these two instances will escalate to a war with Russia or even fundamentally alter the current situation in the region. Everyone just might get off easy. However, if the parties involved aren't careful and mindful of the implications of their actions, in the future a similar incident could occur. If heads are too hot, it could prove to be the spark to greater quagmire and bloodshed, if not in Iraq and Syria then elsewhere.
Sadly, there's plenty of wars that by accident. I'm not referring to instances where deliberate attacks were staged with full awareness of the potential consequences, such as the Nazi invasion of Poland or the Confederates firing on Fort Sumter. Nor am I referring to parties being tricked into fighting, like the French in the Franco-Prussian War. No, here are just a few wars that started because some people unable to keep their #$%& together.
Perhaps the most well-known example of a seemingly distant geo-political conflict spiraling out of control. The assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire by the Serbian separatist-terrorist organization the Black Hand quickly roped in treaty-bound (and opportunistic) European nations. Austria-Hungary threatened war with Serbia if its government wouldn't turn over the terrorists. Then Russia jumped in to protect a fellow Slavic/Eastern Orthodox nation. Then Germany stood up for its ethnic German sibling and attacked Russia...'s ally France first because they bordered Germany, which drew Britain in shortly after. Within a couple of short months, a Balkan regional squabble had escalated into a full-scale European war, engulfing the world within a few years.
China had already been mired in civil war between communists and nationalists, and in 1931 the Japanese decided to take advantage of the chaos and annex Manchuria in the north, renaming it Manchukuo. Then 1937, nationalist soldiers traded shots with a Japanese dispatch along the Yongding river outside of Beijing. The skirmish itself passed without incident as no one was killed, but the next day when a Japanese soldier was missing at roll call, it was all the Japanese command needed. By the time that soldier returned from the local brothel, fighting had already broke out and in just a few weeks the Japanese crossed the Marco Polo Bridge into China proper.
Frederick the Great of Prussia thought (with good reason) that the rest of Europe was gearing up to attack him. So in 1757 Frederick launched a preemptive attack against where his enemies would most likely strike, Saxony. Though the attack itself was perfect, unfortunately Frederick guessed the wrong country, and it turned out he attacked a neutral country without a declaration of war or a provocation. This made it easy for Russia, France, and Austria to declare war on Prussia. However, Frederick's tactical brilliance and huge war chest would keep the war going for years.
Again, these are just a few examples of wars, and and only wars. That being said, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves and curse past stupidity. Just because some of these wars started by accident doesn't mean they probably weren't going to happen at all. In many cases, one or both sides were itching for a fight anyway and it would have come to blows sooner or later, by accident or on purpose.
The point is that wars rarely, if ever, start from nothing. Tensions often grind on for years or even decades between parties, steadily escalating until someone makes one final provocation and someone else starts shooting. Long fuse or not, the spark has to be snuffed long before it reaches the dynamite.
