Rubicon

Rubicon (pronounced roo-be-kon)

(1) A river, some 50 miles (80 km) in length in northern Italy, flowing eastwards into the Adriatic.

(2) A point of no return expressed as crossing the Rubicon (sometimes not capitalized; both considered correct).

(3) A penalty in piquet by which the score of a player who fails to reach 100 points in six hands is added to his opponent's total.

The Latin rubicō was derived from the adjective rubeus (red).  The river's name was from rubicundus (ruddy) and was a reference to the color of the soil on its banks.  Two-thousand odd years later, the mining company Rio Tinto similarly picked up its name from the river where copper was first mined.  Rio Tinto in Spanish translates as "colored river", the color caused by copper deposits leeching into the waters.  The figurative phrase "cross (occasionally "pass") the Rubicon" meaning "take a decisive step" or "past the point of no return" is from the 1620s, a reference to the crossing in 49 BC, in defiance of Roman law, when Julius Caesar (100-44 BC; Roman general and dictator of Rome 49-44 BC) left his province to attack Pompey.

The die it is cast

A kind of Mason-Dixon Line from Antiquity, during the Roman republic, the Rubicon marked the boundary between the Roman province of Cisalpine Gaul and Italy proper, controlled directly by Rome to the south.  Governors of Roman provinces were granted an essentially absolute executive authority in their territory, the governor serving as general of the Roman army within his province.  Roman civil law specified that only elected consuls and praetors could hold such authority within Italy so any provincial governor entering Italy at the head of his troops forfeited his office was therefore no longer legally allowed to command troops.  It was more than an administrative point because exercising military authority without authority was a capital offense and this extended to the soldiers under command.  The point of the law was to prevent generals with political ambitions from marching on Rome with their own army.

2015 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon.

In 49 BC, Julius Caesar led a single legion over the Rubicon from Cisalpine Gaul to Italy to make his way to Rome; in doing this, he deliberately broke the law and made war inevitable.   Writers at the time noted Caesar paused on the northern bank and waited a while, attributing this delay to his contemplation of the enormity of what he was about to do; a general needs to think a bit before committing mutiny.  As described by Suetonius Tranquillus (circa 69–circa 128), as he crossed the Rubicon, Caesar uttered the famous phrase ālea iacta est (the die has been cast).  The phrase crossing the Rubicon has endured to refer to individuals or groups committing irrevocably to a risky or revolutionary course of action.  It means the point of no return, what’s done is done and can’t be undone.

Julius Caesar and the Crossing of the Rubicon (1493-1494) by Francesco Granacci (1469-1543).

An insight into the tastes of those who actually paid for art during the Renaissance, the imagery presented in Granacci's work would have been far removed from how Caesar, a practical military man at the head of a legion, would have done a river crossing into hostile territory.  The painting does though reflect the influences from the art of Antiquity, especially in the representation of armors.  Granacci  trained in Florence, with Michelangelo (1475–1564), in the workshop of Domenico Ghirlandaio (circa 1448-1494), and the two then studied sculpture in the Medici garden at the Casino Mediceo di San Marco under the supervision of Bertoldo di Giovanni (circa 1420-1491).  One of the noted artists of the era and a long-time collaborator of Michelangelo, his best remembered work is probably the high altarpiece for the church of Sant'Apollonia, Florence (1530).

BeiBao Lindsay Lohan spare wheel cover on Jeep Wrangler Rubicon.

Caesar's swift military action forced the lawful consuls and a large part of the Roman Senate to flee Rome in fear and his subsequent victory in the civil war and takeover of the state ensured punishment for the infraction would never be imposed.

Trope

Trope (pronounced trohp)

(1) In art and literature, any literary or rhetorical device, as metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony, that consists in the use of words in other than their literal sense and which tends to become a motif.

(2) In rhetoric, a figure of speech in which words or phrases are used with a non-literal or figurative meaning, such as a metaphor.

(3) In geometry, a tangent space meeting a quartic surface in a conic or the reciprocal of a node on a surface (archaic).

(4) In music, a short cadence at the end of the melody in some early music; a pair of complementary hexachords in twelve-tone technique.

(5) In the rituals of Judaism, a chanting (cantillation) pattern, or one of the marks that represents it.

(6) In medieval Christianity (and preserved in the rituals of certain factions in Roman Catholicism), either a phrase or verse added to the Mass when sung by a choir or a phrase, sentence, or verse formerly interpolated in a liturgical text to amplify or embellish.

(7) In Athenian philosophy, any of the ten arguments used in scepticism to refute dogmatism.

(8) In Santayanian philosophy, the principle of organization according to which matter moves to form an object during the various stages of its existence.

(9) In metaphysics, a particular instance of a property, as contrasted with a universal.

1525–1535: From the Latin tropus (a figure of speech (in rhetoric)) from the Ancient Greek τρόπος (trópos) (a turn, direction, course, way; manner, fashion; a mode in music; a mode or mood in logic (in rhetoric, "a turn or figure of speech)) and related to τροπή (tropḗ) (solstice; trope; turn) and τρέπειν (trépein) (to turn).  Root was the primitive Indo-European trep (to turn), related also to the Sanskrit trapate (is ashamed, confused, literally "turns away in shame") which Latin picked up trepit (he turns), the Latin adoption in the figurative.  The meaning is now understood as something more diffuse but technically, in rhetoric, a trope was "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is used in a sense other than the usual definition".  In English, the word is found often in combined form (such as heliotrope) and occurs also in concrete nouns that correspond to abstract nouns ending in -tropy or -tropism.  Trope is a noun & verb, troper, tropist, tropology & tropism are nouns and tropey is an adjective; the noun plural is tropes.

When younger, Lindsay Lohan's signature trope was playing dual roles (The Parent Trap (1998), Freaky Friday (2003) and I Know Who Killed Me (2007).  During her “troubled starlet” phase, she became emblematic of the “downward spiral” trope.  In 2022, she appeared in Falling for Christmas, Netflix's latest take on the "Christmas movie trope".  Although the scripts for tropes have long followed an algorithm, the studios are said now to be using a predictive form of artificial intelligence (AI) to hone the generation of whatever should have the most audience appeal.  The screen-writers (most of whom drive cars and use other products manufactured using processes in which machines substantially have displaced the human labor content) are are unlikely ultimately to succeed in keeping AI out of their profession and, in the medium term, their future may lie in the creation of the quirky and bizarre but in the economy, that's a niche.  For the formulaic stuff (most commercial cinema), the studios are likely to find the AI path "better, cheaper, faster" and the history of US industrial relations suggests these imperatives will prove irresistible.               

The Stage Five Clinger Trope

Most sources cite origin of the Stage 5 Clinger trope as the movie Wedding Crashers (2005) although there are claims it merely popularized the use; without earlier citations however, the trope’s origin appears to be the movie.  As a technical point, a stage one clinger isn’t initially labelled as such, the term applied retrospectively after syndrome is diagnosed.  If men are smart or lucky, they’ll recognize this by stage two but some men are so stupid they don’t realize until stage four.  While in movie there was no discussion of stages other than “5”, by implication five was most extreme and memes soon fleshed out 1-4:

Stage 1 Clinger: She seems fine

First date goes well, she’s attentive, interested, even gets the drinks sometimes and she makes breakfast.  Afterwards, text messages are fun and flirtatious.

Stage 2 Clinger: Hunter and game

The text messages become frequent, the first hint of the lure / engage / trap strategy of the lone hunter.  SMSs start out OK which lulls you into a false sense of security.  Before long, a few messages have been exchanged, most of which have required you to agree with her about innocuous stuff like the weather or today’s traffic.  Then, she’ll suggest a second date and extract a commitment to a specific time/date/place.  That will be soon.       

Stage 3 Clinger: Manoeuvres

Second date not something you’ll wish to repeat.  Bit creepy, how much she knew about you, clearly adept at mining the web.  To escape, you agree to third date while finding pretext to avoid confirming time.  Within hours, text messages become frequent to the point of nuisance.  Check Facebook and you’ll see she’s friended everyone you know.  Ignore SMS and eventually it goes quiet… for about an hour.  Then she phones.  Third date will not be possible to avoid, the illusion you’ll use it to end things still something you convince yourself to believe.  The S3C stage can frequently be the point of no return.  Acquaint yourself with the tale of Julius Caesar (100-44 BC; Roman general and dictator of Rome 49-44 BC) crossing the Rubicon and ponder.      

Stage 4 Clinger: The circling vulture

By stage four, clinging has slurred effortlessly into stalking and S4C is likely to send your mother flowers on her birthday and attempt at avoidance will prompt texting and calling from other phones.  Those who drive are even more of a threat because, where you go, she can follow so you’ll run into her in the most improbable places, and usually she’ll suggest taking advantage of the coincidence by going to lunch, dinner or whatever else might be close.  No matter how studiously you watch the rear-vision mirror, she’ll hunt you down and find you. 

Stage 5 Clinger: Thrill of the kill

At this point, her life is scheduled around your own, even to the point where she may now work in the same building, expects to have lunch together every day and a drink after work whenever possible.  When you try to avoid these, emotional meltdowns ensue, the only way to avoid a scene being to agree.  Many of your friends start asking you out as a couple and tell you you’re lucky because she’s wonderful.  She’s been to their dinner parties where she talks about your plans together.  Stage five clinger can also be APC ("actual psycho-chick", the two not synonymous but there’s frequent overlap).  Pursuing another relationship in an attempt to dissuade her brings its own problems, the S5C-APC will spray-paint CHEATER on either their car or yours (in red; unless car is red, then she’ll use black).  At this point, faking your own death begins to look like good tactic.

Crooked Hillary (b 1947) and Bill Clinton (b 1946) in the rain at the formal dedication of the William J Clinton Presidential Center, Little Rock, Arkansas, November 2004.  Cling on and no matter what, never let go.

The significance of dividing the path of the clinger into stages is it’s vital to extricate yourself from their clutches during the earliest stage possible; it needs to be remembered progression can be rapid, some clingers so adept at the art they're able to skip one or even two stages.  The longer delayed the excision, the harder it becomes and if allowed to reach the later stages, you may be stuck with her forever and for that, you can’t blame her: you're trapped and it's all your fault; you have only yourself to blame.

Coup

Coup (pronounced koo)

(1) A highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment; a brilliant and successful stroke or action

(2) As count coup, a brave or reckless deed performed in battle by a single warrior, as touching or striking an enemy warrior without sustaining injury oneself (believed specific to the Plains Indians of North America); a blow against an enemy delivered in a way that shows bravery.

(3) A short form for coup d'état, used (1) literally, in the context of a political takeover or overthrow (a putsch) and, (2) by extension, in business, sport, academia etc.

(4) A rubbish tip.

(5) In Scots, to barter; traffic; deal

(6) As (the unrelated) chicken coop (pronounced koop), a construction made up of an outdoor area, a roosting box, a roosting box support, a nesting box, and a garden above the outdoor area.

(7) In roulette, a single roll of the wheel.

(8) In the French card game rouge et noir, a deal.

(9) In the card-game bridge, one of various named strategies employed by the declarer to win more tricks (such as the Bath coup & Vienna coup).

(10) In billiards, the direct pocketing of the cue-ball, which is a foul stroke.

(11) To perform a coup; to recount or relate the coups one has performed.

1350–1400: From the Middle English coupe (to pay for), from the Old Norse kaupa (to buy, barter) and cognate with the Old English cēapian and the German kaufen.  The use in the modern sense of “blow; strike against” emerged in the 1640s and was from the French coup (literally “blow, stroke”) from the twelfth century Old French colp (a blow, strike), from the Medieval Latin colpus, from the Latin colaphus (blow with the fist; a cuff, box on the ear), from the Greek kólaphos (a blow, buffet, punch, slap) of uncertain origin.  In Modern French the word is regarded as a “workhorse”, used variously to describe physical blows from “a pat on the back” to “a serious assault”, gunshots, sudden, dramatic weather events such as claps of thunder or gusts of wind and moves in games including cards & chess.  Depending on the context, the synonyms include action, plot, revolt, revolution, overthrow, stratagem, accomplishment, upset, stroke, exploit, stunt & deed.  Coup, coupist & coupism are nouns; the plural is coups (pronounced kooz (or koo in French)).

A coup de grâce is a “mercy killing”, a final blow or shot delivered to kill a wounded person or animal, the rationale being it "puts them out of their misery".  Some have been notable: When it became clear to the coup plotters that Unternehmen Walküre (Operation Valkyrie, the 20 July 1944 attempt to overthrow Nazi rule, the success of which was predicated on the assassination of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) had failed, a number of the plotters decided to anticipate the inevitable by committed suicide.  Most succeeded but Colonel General Ludwig Beck (1880–1944), pencilled in as head of state in the provisional government, given permission by his captor to take his own life, shot himself in the head (twice according some accounts) but managed only to wound himself.  That might sound like an indictment of the marksmanship in the senior ranks of the Wehrmacht but it transpires not to be unknown in suicide attempts, especially when the weapon is a small calibre pistol loaded with the steel-jacketed bullets used by the military.  An army sergeant delivered Beck the coup de grâce with a single shot.

The meaning “a sudden decisive act” was first used in 1852 as clipping of coup d'etat.  The linguistic gift was the consequence of the coup d'état of 2 December 1851, staged by Charles-Louis Napoléon Bonaparte (1808–1873; first president of France (1848-1852) and (as the Emperor Napoleon III) the last monarch (1852-1870)).  In the narrow technical sense, political scientists often list the event as a “self coup” because he was at the time serving as President of France (the Second Republic) and the appropriately-named Operation Rubicon was a way to ensure his continuation in office, the president, under the constitution, compelled to relinquish office in 1852.  Charles-Louis was a nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; leader of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815) who would become known as Napoleon I.  Just to emphasize the imperial connection, the coup was timed to coincide with the anniversary of Napoleon I's victory at the Battle Austerlitz (2 December 1805, the so-called “Battle of the Three Emperors”), one of the great set-piece engagements of the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815).

Emperor Donald I in his coronation robes, post coup d'etat (digitally altered image).

The sense of history was real but the motive was more Machiavellian.  Le President liked being head of state, was frustrated his agenda had yet to be implemented and the coup took the course familiar in dozens since, dissolving the parliament & vesting the office of president with the power to rule by decree.  Giving a lesson which would be well-learned by later dictators, within days of the coup the president had conducted a constitutional referendum which (carefully counted) approved his actions and by 14 January 1852 a new constitution had been promulgated (replacing the document of 4 November 1848 which had been the founding text of the Second Republic).  However, even enhanced powers (strengthened still further over the next few months) proved insufficient and, with the concurrence of the Sénat (the unelected upper chamber of the national assembly) and another referendum (one in which who counted the votes was of more importance than who voted), on 2 December 1852, Bonaparte proclaimed himself “Emperor of the French” as Napoleon III.  In the French monarchical tradition, he now thought he had a job for life.  Things didn’t quite work out that way but he was for a while a real emperor which is something few presidents get to be.  When he turns off the light at night, it may be that Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) early-morning thoughts turn not to memories of Stormy Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Gregory, b 1979 with whom nothing ever happened) but to Napoleon III.  Were he to follow the business model of 1852, he could be crowned Donald I.

The coup d'état (pronounced koo dey-tahz or ku-deta (French)) is the sudden, unlawful (although this is often retrospectively “fixed”) often violent, decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.  In French, unlike English, the word État (sovereign political entity) is capitalized.  As a political tactic, coup d'état has existed probably since the first forms of government emerged but the phrase is recent, apparently unknown in English prior to 1802 when, finding no better phrase in English to convey the idea, the French form was adopted.  Neither coup d'état nor putsch have ever been defined in international law and tend to be used interchangeably, any variation in use tending to occur according to the linguistic traditions of the country in which the event happens rather than any differences in practice.  Technically, both are any sudden, decisive political act but are usually used to describe an attempt, successful or not, to overthrow a government or leader.  In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état (sometimes truncated to coup) or putsch, does not involve a mass uprising, being instead usually an action where a small group arrests, executes or in some way disposes of incumbent leaders, seizing the institutions of the state and proclaims themselves in power.  That’s the essence of the coup d'état, it’s the takeover of the state, usually by one or more of the constituent institutions of the state.  Debate continues about whether Nacht der langen Messer ((Night of the Long Knives, also called Unternehmen Kolbri (Operation Hummingbird), the bloody purge between 30 June-2 July 1934, when the Nazi regime carried out a number of extrajudicial executions, ostensibly to crush what was referred to as “the Röhm Putsch”) should be called a “pre-emptive” or “preventative” strike.  All the evidence suggests there was no likelihood of a coup in the immediate future but that it wasn’t something which could in the future be thought impossible.  Most settle on “preventative”.

Nice day for a coup d'état.  Air Marshal Perence Shiri (1955-2020, left) and the late Robert Mugabe (1924–2019; prime minister of Zimbabwe 1980-1987, president 1987-2017, right).

Occasionally, there’s the curious case of the military coup where both the soldiers and the deposed deny it was any such thing.  In 2017 the Zimbabwe Army’s high command engineered the “retirement” of Robert Mugabe and most unusually, it was greeted with almost universal local and international approval, despite a consensus that military overthrows are pretty bad form and not to be encouraged.  This was a special case, everyone preferring to welcome the outcome and not dwell too long on the process.  As military coups go, it wasn’t too bad and to smooth the process, Mr Mugabe’s was granted a “severance package” along the lines of that Mr Putin offered to some annoying types: “We know what you’ve stolen over the years but you stole it fair and square so you can keep it but you have to go away and keep quiet.”  Despite the generosity of that, within a few months he was complaining he’d been the “victim of a coup d'état.”

Coups d'état (coup d'états the alternative plural in English) also attract modifiers.  A “colonels' coup” is a military coup in which the dominant players are not from the most senior ranks (ie not the Generals or Admirals).  The classic example was the Greek coup of 21 April 1967 which was staged by literally a number of colonels, the resulting right-wing military dictatorship often dubbed the “Regime of the Colonels”.  In 1973, the generals got their revenge, overthrowing the colonels and in the jargon of political science, a “generals’ coup” is one considered to have been instigated by the military establishment rather than a faction meaning a coup led by only a couple of generals is not a “generals’ coup” but a “military coup” which happens to have been staged by generals.  Political scientists enjoy distinctions like this and they really like “soft-coup” which describes an overthrow which is essentially administrative.  The political demise of both Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013; UK prime-minister 1979-1990) and Jim Bolger (b 1935; prime-minister of New Zealand 1990-1997) were achieved by way of soft-coup, a pack of colleagues assembled to tell the leader they “no longer have the numbers”.  The number of failed soft-coups is legion but, when the first fails, the second often succeeds.  The soft-coup is also a favorite of conspiracy theorists who see in all that is wrong in the world the hand of the “deep state” (or else the Freemasons, the Jews, the Jesuits or the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or).  They may be right about the Freemasons.

Lindsay Lohan never forgave Hosni Mubarak (1928–2020; president of Egypt 1981-2011) for shouting at Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001).  When told in 2011 he’d fallen from power as one of the victims of the Arab Spring, she responded: “Cool.”  When told it was brought about by a military coup she replied: “Gross!”  Lindsay Lohan doesn’t approve of Coups d'état and believes in due constitutional process.   

A “palace coup” is one staged by those who were already part of the group in power (the word “palace” is thus used here as a synecdoche and there’s not necessarily a physical palace involved).  It’s really the ultimate factional power-play and often used of the (figurative) back-stabbing which tended to be the culmination of the low skulduggery which is a feature of modern democratic politics.  The “self-coup” (also called the auto-coup) is better thought of as a power-grab and involves someone lawfully in power seizing (by non-constitutional or by some means of dubious lawfulness) power from other branches or institutions of government.  Typically, this will involve dissolving legislatures or removing judges.  There are also “failed coups” which often are notable for the bloody (sometimes literal, sometimes figurative depending on where it happens) aftermath, revenge visited upon the plotters (and sometimes their friends, family and other “usual suspects”).  Done properly, the vengeance should be short and sharp (though not necessarily with a low-body count).  In that it differs from a successful coup because in those the settling of scores and elimination of enemies (real and imagined) can drag on from weeks, or in extreme cases, such as the 1973 military coup in Chile, years.

A coup d'essai (literally “stroke of trial”) is a first attempt at something.  A coup de force (literally “stroke of force”) is a sudden violent action.  A coup de foudre (literally “stroke of lightning” is a sudden unforeseen event, the most attractive use of which is the peoetic “love at first sight”).  A coup de glotte (a glottal stop) is a term from phonetics which describes a plosive sound articulated with the glottis (the opening between the true vocal cords which is located in the larynx and affects voice modulation through expansion or contraction).  A coup de main ( literally “stroke of hand”  is a military term meaning “surprise attack” but is sometimes used in other contexts; if successfully executed, it could be said to be a coup de maître (a master stroke).  A coup de poing (literally “stroke of fist”) is persuasion by means of violence (sometimes used loosely of coercion or implied violence); in archaeology it describes a hatchet or hand-axe.  A coup de soleil is an attack of sun-stroke.  A coup de theatre is (1) a sudden or unexpected event in a play (the work either of the author, director or performer) or (2) a theatrical trick, twist or gesture staged for dramatic effect.  A Coup de vent (literally “stroke of wind”) is a whirlwind or other gust of unusual strength.  A coup d'œil (literally “stroke of eye”) is “a comprehensive glance; a general view” which in military use refers to a “rapidly sizing up of a position and estimating its strategic advantages and drawbacks”.

Buffer

Buffer (pronounced buhf-er)

(1) A static apparatus at the end of a railroad car, railroad track etc, for absorbing shock during coupling, collisions etc with the contact section made usually from spring-loaded steel pads or (in areas of low-speed activity such as shunting yards) timber.

(2) Any device, material, or apparatus used as a shield, cushion, or bumper, especially on machinery.

(3) Any intermediate or intervening shield or device reducing the danger of interaction between two machines, chemicals, electronic components etc.

(4) A person or thing that shields and protects against annoyance, harm, hostile forces etc, or that lessens the impact of a shock or reversal.

(5) Any reserve moneys, negotiable securities, legal procedures, etc., that protect a person, organization, or country against financial ruin.

(6) In ecology, as buffer state, an animal population that becomes the prey of a predator that usually feeds on a different species.

(7) In computing, a storage device for temporarily holding data until the device is ready to receive or process the data, as when a receiving unit has an operating speed lower (eg a printer) than that of the unit (eg a computer) feeding data to it.

(8) In electronics, a circuit with a single output activated by one or more of several inputs.

(9) In chemistry, any substance or mixture of compounds that, added to a solution, is capable of neutralizing both acids and bases without appreciably changing the original acidity or alkalinity of the solution; also called a buffer solution; any solution containing such a substance.

(10) To treat with a buffer.

(11) To cushion, shield, or protect; to lessen the adverse effect of; ease:

(12) In computing, temporarily to save data before actively accessing it so it may be loaded at a rapid or uniform rate.

(13) A device for polishing or buffing, as a buff stick or buff wheel, often in the form “floor buffer” for polishing floors; a worker who uses such a device.

(14) In admiralty slang, the senior non-commissioned officer serving on a ship or boat.

(15) In (mostly UK) colloquial use, a good-humored, slow-witted fellow, usually an elderly man, thus often as “old buffer” (archaic).

(16) In medicine, a preparation designed to decrease acidity in the stomach.

(17) In geopolitics, as buffer state, a country the land mass of which physically separates two opposing potentially powers and the existence of which is intended to prevent conflict or permit an attacked state a greater time to organize its defense.

(18) In geopolitics as buffer zone, a region separating two areas, often demilitarized, to segregate antagonistic populations: based usually on regional, ethnic or religious lines.

1835: The noun buffer in the sense of "something that absorbs a blow, apparatus for deadening the concussion between a moving body and that against which it strikes" was an agent noun from the obsolete verb buff (make a dull sound when struck), from the mid-sixteenth century Old French buffe & bufe (a blow, slap, punch).  The figurative sense of "anything that prevents impact or neutralizes the shock of impact of opposing forces" is from 1858 and was adopted universally by the railroad industry.  The sense of “one who or that which polishes by buffing” dates from 1854, an agent noun from the verb.  The verb use extended to “lessen the impact of” by 1886.  The use in chemistry began in the mid-nineteenth century, borrowed by analogy from the railroads although the meaning in science was soon extended and was adopted in electrical engineering.  In geopolitics the term wasn’t used until the mid-nineteenth century, the word again picked up from the general use inspired by railroads.  However, the concept had been well-understood for centuries.  The Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) created the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (modern day Belgium & the Netherlands) to remove the means of conflict between the UK, France & Prussia and although it lasted only until the separation of Belgian in 1830, the defined land-mass continued to fulfil the same function.

The derived forms include buffering, buffered & bufferize; the noun plural is buffers.  In the nineteenth century, a number of languages picked up buffer directly from English, including Danish, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese & Romansch, spread apparently by the international growth in railroad construction.

Europe 1945-1989.

The deployment of ten-odd Russian army divisions on the border with Ukraine’s revived interest in the old squabble about whether, in the last days of the USSR, politicians from the West made promises or at least provided assurances to Moscow that NATO would not expand eastwards.  The archivists have for decades been looking for any document which might clarify at least what was at the time discussed but nothing emerged until some material was declassified in 2017.  The conclusion is that the USSR was never offered any formal guarantee about NATO membership but the interpretations of what happened after 1990 vary, the view from the West that the enlargement of NATO was undertaken honorably and in accordance with the rights international law accords to sovereign states whereas Moscow’s narrative is one of Western deception and duplicity. 

Most scholars of the Cold War seem to agree the story begins in February 1990 when James Baker (b 1930; US secretary of state 1989-1992), secretary of state under George HW Bush (1924–2018; US president 1989-1993 (George XLI)) met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev (b 1931; leader of the USSR 1985-1991) in Moscow.  Only three months after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the matter of immediate interest was whether Germany, divided since 1945 into east and west, would be reunified, something that was most feared, though for different reasons, in the Kremlin and Downing Street.  London’s concern was its traditional fear to the emergence of an overwhelmingly strong Germany; Moscow feared the specter of NATO’s missiles being stationed in the GDR (East Germany). 

What both Russian and US transcripts of the meeting reveal was that the US position was it was in everyone’s interest that a unified Germany existed within NATO's political and military structure but at no point did either side discuss any of the nations aligned with the Warsaw Pact joining NATO.  That was not on the agenda because the thought of the imminent collapse of the USSR had not then occurred to many, none of whom were prominent in the US administration.  Orthodox political thought in the US, across most of the political spectrum, was that the Soviet empire probably was doomed but it’s life was expected to extend for at least decades.  A similar spirit animated the discussion Gorbachev had the next day with the FRG’s (West Germany) Chancellor Helmut Kohl (1930–2017; Chancellor of FRG or Germany 1982 to 1998), most taken up with the matter of German unification, NATO enlargement not even mentioned.  What was agreed was that the US, France, the UK and Germany, agreed not to deploy non-German NATO forces in the former East Germany.

However, in the great geopolitical event of the second half of the twentieth century, the USSR did in 1991 collapse, ending the perhaps unhappy but essentially stable post-war arrangement whereby east and west were separated by an array of buffer states, the cordon sanitaire which was built by Comrade Stalin (1878–1953; leader of the USSR, 1924-1953), which constituted the line of the Iron Curtain from “…Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic…”.  They were difficult years for the post-Soviet buffer states but, in 1999, NATO welcomed as members, three nations of the former Warsaw Pact: Hungary, Poland & the Czech Republic.  That sounds now like an event of great significance and of course it was but with all the social and economic disruption happening in Russia, it evoked surprisingly few complaints, the political faction in Moscow which tilted towards Europe and saw their country’s future there, much more influential than today.  Some did however dwell on things.  A decade after the first NATO expansion, Gorbachev complained that the West had tricked Moscow, claiming he’d been assured NATO would not be moving “one centimeter further east."

Gorbachev later retreated from that, in 2014 admitting that in all the discussions which followed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification Germany, the topic of “NATO expansion” was never raised by either side, adding that not a single Eastern European country brought up the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved 1991.  Equally sanguine seems to have been the first Russian president, Boris Yeltsin (1931–2007; president of the Russian Federation 1991-1999).  Although hardly enthusiastic about NATO expansion, he raised no objection but did urge caution on the West, warning it was important to take into account public opinion in Russia.  In that he may have had some misplaced faith in realism of those he viewed as his new Western partners, writing later that "the spirit of the treaty on the final settlement...precludes the option of expanding the NATO zone into the East."  None of that was in writing of course, the generous interpretation being inferences were drawn where no implications were intended.  Either that or, in Washington, views changed in the post Cold-War world.

Still, for a time, tensions seemed not great and cooperative structures were created including NATO-Russia Founding Act, a kind of statement of peaceful co-existence and in 2002, a joint consultative council was established as a framework in which differences could be resolved; rather wishy-washy in detail, it was regarded by most as ineffectual but at least harmless.  The real crossing of the Rubicon came in 2004 when NATO undertook its largest expansion, admitting seven more Eastern European countries including, critically, the Baltic states Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia, Latvia, all of which had been republics, unhappily, of the USSR.  It was the closest NATO’s divisions & missiles had ever been to Moscow.

By 2007 with the oil price high and the Russian economy thus buoyant, if rather distorted by its reliance on energy exports, the new Russian president, Vladimir Putin (b 1952; Russian president or prime-minister since 1999) made the official Russian position explicit, accusing NATO (ie the US) of duplicity and threatening Russia:  “I think it is obvious that NATO expansion has no relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.”  “What happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today?"  There being no documents, it seems Mr Putin might be relying on Mr Yeltsin’s evocation of the “spirit” of the discussions which both he and Mr Gorbachev had earlier confirmed contained no discussion of NATO expansion.  Still, some sense of realism was on display at a summit in Bucharest in 2008 when NATO declined to offer Georgia and Ukraine a fast-track path to membership but assured both they would eventually join the alliance.  No date was mentioned and it seemed a quiet triumph of Realpolitik for the Kremlin.

However, four months later, Russia invaded Georgia, crushing its armed forces and occupying two regions that had already had near complete autonomy.  Then, in 2014, after seizing and then annexing the Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula, Moscow equipped, financed, and provided military support to separatist fighters in eastern Ukraine, stoking the war that continues to this day, the death toll some fourteen-thousand.  NATO and the Kremlin no longer have active anything but emergency channels of communications.

Mr Putin is quite emphatic that assurances were provided NATO would never expand beyond what was necessitated by the unification of Germany and the last US ambassador to the USSR did insist, in his testimony to a congressional enquiry, that Mr Gorbachev had received assurances that if Germany united and remained in NATO, the borders of NATO would not move eastward and declassified documents released in 2017 do suggest Mr Baker may well have said “not one inch eastward” (source or Mr Gorbachev’s “one centimetre”) but that this was subsequently vetoed by Mr Bush who had a different vision of a “new world order”.  In the West, over the years, many seemed to treat all this as hearsay evidence and prefer to cite the 1990 treaty (the 2+4 Treaty) which created the framework by which German unification would be achieved.  There was no mention of NATO enlargement.  Beyond that, also invoked in the West is an argument apparently based on the doctrine of “acceptance by acquiescence” from contract law: Russia accepted enlargement, with detailed conditions, and in writing, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was agreed.  One can see what they’re getting at but to use an analogy with domestic contract law seems a bit of a stretch but NATO expansion anyway didn’t happen in isolation.  The first expansion, in 1999, came around the time of the NATO’s bombing campaigns in the Balkans, a traditional Russian sphere of influence and aimed at their traditional allies the Serbs.  While sympathetic to the US operation in Afghanistan, the 2003 invasion of Iraq raised Moscow's ire.

Mr Putin’s position has since hardened.  The massing of infantry and cavalry divisions on the border has a nineteenth century feel but the economic and cyber warfare is already being waged and what’s already being called the Ukrainian crisis has attracted speculation from military and political theorists.  All agree (1) Mr Putin wants his buffer states back, (2) this is the first time in history the timing of military action must await the end of the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics and (3), the Kremlin learned certain lessons about the nature of the Biden administration from the scuttle from Afghanistan.  There the consensus seems to end but Mr Putin's ambition, no less than a re-configuration of the architecture of European security arrangements back to the 1992 lines on the map, is breathtaking.  This is not however 1941 and the world isn't (yet) quite holding it's breath.  Mr Putin has gambled before and won and if he can emerge from this round with something tangible, like a land bridge to the Crimea, he'd take it.  He plans anyway to still be Tsar when all the Western leaders facing him are gone and believes Russia's position in the future will only strengthen.