Link: Cease fire in Ukraine planned for 1 September.
Here we go again. For the third time in the past two years, France and Germany have assisted in the crafting of a ceasefire agreement between Ukraine and Russian-backed Donbas separatists. According to negotiators, the ceasefire is a blanket agreement in which both sides unilaterally agree to end the discharge of weapons in eastern Ukraine on September 1, 2015. Up until the very minute of the announcement of the intended ceasefire, separatist forces had escalated attacks against Ukrainian troops, killing two soldiers less than ten miles outside of the strategic port city of Mariupol. This attack comes one week after a separatist artillery barrage killed three civilians in a suburb of Mariupol. On August 10, a separatist combined arms assault east of the Donetsk-Mariupol highway, in conjunction with an increase in separatist shelling of Ukrainian-held areas outside Mariupol, indicate that the Russian-backed separatists have set the table nicely for this most recent negotiated ceasefire. You see, each time the negotiators reach the more difficult issues at hand, the separatists increase offensive activity, as a means of influencing the diplomatic proceedings. By raising the level of military activity, the separatists are sending the clear message that they are nowhere near backing down, and it would be in Kiev's best interest to compromise. You would think that after two ceasefires that were violated by the separatists almost immediately, that the Ukrainians and their European allies would be reticent to enter into another agreement. But Poroshenko has absolutely no wiggle room. Basically, he has to do what is told. Without the support of France, Germany, and the United States, Poroshenko knows that Ukraine would be invaded by Russia in the blink of an eye. The real question, which has been asked so many time over the past few decades and has never received an adequate explanation, is why the leaders of Europe are so intent on placating aggressive dictators who are fully intent on expansionist enterprises?
On September 1, the latest ceasefire (Minsk III?) will be implemented. Because the provisions contained within are so favorable to the separatists, it is likely that we won't see a violation for some time. You see, the new agreement calls for elections, and also mandates the establishment of a special self-management status for separatist-minded regions. What is so fascinating is that until Russia started expressing real annoyance at Ukraine's insistence on being an independent nation, there was no "eastern Ukraine separatist movement". For the past decade, Ukraine has tweaked Moscow's nose on a number of occasions, and the cozying up to NATO and the United States was probably the last straw (or was it the popular removal of a president who was acting as a Russian puppet?). Putin didn't try and create a nationalist, pro-Russian movement in Crimea; he just gauged the complete lack of spine amongst the European leaders and the United States. The annexation of Crimea was a marvelously orchestrated "fait d'accompli" on the part of Putin; but it did get the attention of the international community, so justification had to be created for the biting off of eastern Ukraine.
I'm sure the OSCE will deploy observers whenever elections take place in the disputed regions, and no doubt the separatists will hound and harass them so that it is impossible to validate the electoral process. Why will the separatists do this? Because they can. Even if the election observers were able to verify extensive electoral fraud, what would be the end result? Nothing. Probably within six months after the elections occur, the separatists will kick the military campaign back into gear, to swallow up the next piece of free Ukraine, which more than likely will include the city of Mariupol. We will repeat the same process, with Merkel and Hollande pressuring Poroshenko to agree to more demands. The only hope for a free and democratic Ukraine will be if the Ukrainian people rise up and remove Poroshenko, and replace him with someone who is willing to tell the west to go suck an egg. Unfortunately, this will create the military environment that Putin is waiting for: an under-equipped Ukrainian military facing off against the Russian Armed Forces. And the EU and the United States will stand back and say, "we tried to get the Ukrainians to negotiate, but they were determined to follow another course". My prognostication is probably way off base, but it doesn't take Henry Kissinger to see that Putin has manipulated this crisis in a manner that guarantees some level of success. God forbid that the European nations are ever faced with the decision to fight for their freedom, or become the slaves of a group like ISIS. I fear for the decision that will be made.
Showing posts with label Donetsk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donetsk. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2015
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Ukrainian separatists pretend to abide by the Minsk Agreement by re-deploying certain forces.
Links: A. Calls for the implementation of the Minsk Agreement.
B. Right wing protests Poroshenko in Kiev.
Both Kiev and Moscow are very interested in giving the impression of support for the Minsk negotiations. The discussions, which include the Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia, evolved after the failure of the Minsk Protocol, a 5 September 2014 agreement to halt the war in the Donbas Region. The Minsk Protocol included twelve main points, but within the first few weeks, both sides had violated the agreement. By January 2015, it was acknowledged by all parties concerned that the Minsk Protocol was a failure, and that negotiators had to return to Minsk and begin again. On 11 February 2015, the leaders of Ukraine, Germany, France, and Russia agreed to a new package of measures which for all practical purposes, revived the Minsk Protocol. As opposed to the first agreement, it appears at this early stage that both parties are interested in at least giving the appearance of compliance. As an addendum to the Minsk II agreement, both parties (Ukraine and the Donbas separatists) agreed to a heavy weapons withdrawal that includes tanks and certain "previously excluded" lighter weapons. On June 21, monitors for the Organization for the Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) reported that both Ukrainian and separatist forces had begun removing the proscribed weapons from the front lines, even though the addendum had yet to be actually signed. Although the intention of the addendum was to reduce the intensity of the fighting in southeast Ukraine, the separatist almost immediately issued a declaration that they will retain armor around the key cities of Donetsk and Debaltseve. It is apparent that the separatist will utilize a well-worn strategy of continually moving heavy weapons and firepower from one location to the next, to give the impression that they are abiding by the agreement. In reality, as long as the armor and heavy firepower are present in Donbas, they can be maneuvered into position to fire on Ukrainian targets within a day's notice (and in most instances, less).
Not surprisingly, the separatists will agree to whatever particular parts of the agreement that suits their military and political objectives. While Ukrainian President Petro Poroschenko bends over backwards to demonstrate to his European supporters that he is willing to negotiate with the separatists (and the Russians), regardless of the continual violation of previous agreements and the brutal destruction of a civilian passenger airliner by an SA-11 missile fired by Russian Buk missile launcher, he faces mounting disapproval in his own capital. The Right Sector Movement (RSM), the political movement which led the demonstrations that eventually removed Poroschenko's successor, has become increasingly more active and vocal in their opposition to the manner in which Poroschenko is handling this crisis. Poroschenko must be very careful how he maneuvers around this pot-hole, because the RSM, which contributes volunteers to actively fight alongside the Ukrainian Army, is very popular in western Ukraine. One issue that receives a great deal of attention in Ukraine, is the fact that Poroschenko continues to refer to the crisis as an anti-terrorist action (!) as opposed to an actual war. Poroschenko has also been opposed to calls in Parliament (supported by RSM and the majority of Ukrainians) to institute and economic blockade of Donbas, and he does not support the various volunteer military units that have sprung up in support of the Ukrainian Army. All of these measures would be seen by the European "friends of Ukraine", as being inflammatory and not in the spirit of de-escalation, so its obvious from where Poroschenko is currently receiving his marching orders. And you can't blame Poroschenko for taking direction from the leaders of nations that haven't been to war in over five decades, at least not declared. He is being advised by honor graduates of the Neville Chamberlain "sacrifice anything and everyone for peace in our time" school of diplomacy. It should come as no surprise; this is how Europeans think in 2015. Considering the devastation of two World Wars, I certainly understand their wish to avoid aggravating the situation. But dangerous times call for courageous leadership. This is the time and place for the United States to act as the leader of the European delegation, and start dealing with Putin directly. Since the entire planet recognizes that he is calling the shots for the separatists, why to we continue to avoid dealing with him directly?
At present, we in the United States are without a President who is willing to utilize both our diplomatic and military resources appropriately and aggressively, in defense of international freedom and security. Since 2008, the United States has basically been adrift internationally, occasionally reacting to important events, but always the last one to show up at the party. The establishment of ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of the rash removal of U.S. forces in contrast to the phased-out, long-term withdrawal schedule preferred by the Pentagon. And Ukraine is obliged to cling to the coat tails of Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande because our government is preaching the same, defeatist diatribe as they are (and they're closer). If I could only remember the number of Democrats who have argued against long-term sanctions at one time or another (Cuba comes to mind); and now these same Democrats watch Vladimir Putin and the Russian people totally ignore the sanctions regime in-place against Russia, and call for.....continued sanctions! Putin will eventually swallow Ukraine piece-by piece. Why? Because its in his nature; he is a megalomaniac, and like true megalomaniacs, he won't stop until HE IS STOPPED. When we made the point in favor of aggressive and appropriate diplomatic and military action, we were recognizing that the United States and our European partners have the opportunity to persuade Putin to climb back into his box. We must show that we are determined to protect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, and this can be accomplished by providing all supplies and military equipment that the Ukrainian military requests. Would you like a chuckle? If the Iranian nuke treaty is approved, we will then be able to sell F16s and Abrams tanks to Iran, but no to Ukraine! We can also influence Putin's decision-making by returning U.S. military forces to Europe, but in new locations, possibly, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Romania? The threat of a missile-defense shield for eastern Europe is another issue that annoys Putin (and that we have sacrificed for absolutely no political gain). We have military options in dealing with both Putin and ISIS; now all we need is the motivation and the backbone.
2016 can't come fast enough.
B. Right wing protests Poroshenko in Kiev.
Both Kiev and Moscow are very interested in giving the impression of support for the Minsk negotiations. The discussions, which include the Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia, evolved after the failure of the Minsk Protocol, a 5 September 2014 agreement to halt the war in the Donbas Region. The Minsk Protocol included twelve main points, but within the first few weeks, both sides had violated the agreement. By January 2015, it was acknowledged by all parties concerned that the Minsk Protocol was a failure, and that negotiators had to return to Minsk and begin again. On 11 February 2015, the leaders of Ukraine, Germany, France, and Russia agreed to a new package of measures which for all practical purposes, revived the Minsk Protocol. As opposed to the first agreement, it appears at this early stage that both parties are interested in at least giving the appearance of compliance. As an addendum to the Minsk II agreement, both parties (Ukraine and the Donbas separatists) agreed to a heavy weapons withdrawal that includes tanks and certain "previously excluded" lighter weapons. On June 21, monitors for the Organization for the Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) reported that both Ukrainian and separatist forces had begun removing the proscribed weapons from the front lines, even though the addendum had yet to be actually signed. Although the intention of the addendum was to reduce the intensity of the fighting in southeast Ukraine, the separatist almost immediately issued a declaration that they will retain armor around the key cities of Donetsk and Debaltseve. It is apparent that the separatist will utilize a well-worn strategy of continually moving heavy weapons and firepower from one location to the next, to give the impression that they are abiding by the agreement. In reality, as long as the armor and heavy firepower are present in Donbas, they can be maneuvered into position to fire on Ukrainian targets within a day's notice (and in most instances, less).
Not surprisingly, the separatists will agree to whatever particular parts of the agreement that suits their military and political objectives. While Ukrainian President Petro Poroschenko bends over backwards to demonstrate to his European supporters that he is willing to negotiate with the separatists (and the Russians), regardless of the continual violation of previous agreements and the brutal destruction of a civilian passenger airliner by an SA-11 missile fired by Russian Buk missile launcher, he faces mounting disapproval in his own capital. The Right Sector Movement (RSM), the political movement which led the demonstrations that eventually removed Poroschenko's successor, has become increasingly more active and vocal in their opposition to the manner in which Poroschenko is handling this crisis. Poroschenko must be very careful how he maneuvers around this pot-hole, because the RSM, which contributes volunteers to actively fight alongside the Ukrainian Army, is very popular in western Ukraine. One issue that receives a great deal of attention in Ukraine, is the fact that Poroschenko continues to refer to the crisis as an anti-terrorist action (!) as opposed to an actual war. Poroschenko has also been opposed to calls in Parliament (supported by RSM and the majority of Ukrainians) to institute and economic blockade of Donbas, and he does not support the various volunteer military units that have sprung up in support of the Ukrainian Army. All of these measures would be seen by the European "friends of Ukraine", as being inflammatory and not in the spirit of de-escalation, so its obvious from where Poroschenko is currently receiving his marching orders. And you can't blame Poroschenko for taking direction from the leaders of nations that haven't been to war in over five decades, at least not declared. He is being advised by honor graduates of the Neville Chamberlain "sacrifice anything and everyone for peace in our time" school of diplomacy. It should come as no surprise; this is how Europeans think in 2015. Considering the devastation of two World Wars, I certainly understand their wish to avoid aggravating the situation. But dangerous times call for courageous leadership. This is the time and place for the United States to act as the leader of the European delegation, and start dealing with Putin directly. Since the entire planet recognizes that he is calling the shots for the separatists, why to we continue to avoid dealing with him directly?
At present, we in the United States are without a President who is willing to utilize both our diplomatic and military resources appropriately and aggressively, in defense of international freedom and security. Since 2008, the United States has basically been adrift internationally, occasionally reacting to important events, but always the last one to show up at the party. The establishment of ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of the rash removal of U.S. forces in contrast to the phased-out, long-term withdrawal schedule preferred by the Pentagon. And Ukraine is obliged to cling to the coat tails of Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande because our government is preaching the same, defeatist diatribe as they are (and they're closer). If I could only remember the number of Democrats who have argued against long-term sanctions at one time or another (Cuba comes to mind); and now these same Democrats watch Vladimir Putin and the Russian people totally ignore the sanctions regime in-place against Russia, and call for.....continued sanctions! Putin will eventually swallow Ukraine piece-by piece. Why? Because its in his nature; he is a megalomaniac, and like true megalomaniacs, he won't stop until HE IS STOPPED. When we made the point in favor of aggressive and appropriate diplomatic and military action, we were recognizing that the United States and our European partners have the opportunity to persuade Putin to climb back into his box. We must show that we are determined to protect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, and this can be accomplished by providing all supplies and military equipment that the Ukrainian military requests. Would you like a chuckle? If the Iranian nuke treaty is approved, we will then be able to sell F16s and Abrams tanks to Iran, but no to Ukraine! We can also influence Putin's decision-making by returning U.S. military forces to Europe, but in new locations, possibly, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Romania? The threat of a missile-defense shield for eastern Europe is another issue that annoys Putin (and that we have sacrificed for absolutely no political gain). We have military options in dealing with both Putin and ISIS; now all we need is the motivation and the backbone.
2016 can't come fast enough.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
How do we fix this mess that we are in overseas?
Presently, the United States has involved itself in three conflicts raging overseas. I'm sure some folks actually believed President Obama when he paid lip service to the Elizabeth Warren click within the Democratic Party and promised to end foreign U.S. military involvement. I can't really pin the blame for the crisis in the Ukraine on Obama, because Russian President Vladimir Putin has obviously been the one calling all the shots. I can, however, call into question his strategy of implementing sanctions on Russia, and keeping the sanctions in place long after it has become apparent that Russians don't give a shit about sanctions. But Putin's ballsy decision to scoop up the Crimea practically overnight was a surprise to just about everyone. When the move in Crimea coincided with an outbreak in separatist activity in Donbas (ESE Ukraine), it was apparent to us that Putin was looking for a bargaining chip, something he could trade in exchange for recognition of Russia's claim to Crimean sovereignty. But Putin was taken as much by surprise as we were by the weak and limp-wristed response by the European Powers, NATO, and the United States. Putin annexed territory belonging to a foreign state and began fomenting rebellion elsewhere, and the response from the free world is little more than a 5-minute stay in time out. Don't agree? Well, explain it to me then. I am in serious need of educating. How has the sanctions regime impacted the Russian decision to invalidate the territorial integrity of a UN and NATO member state? It appears to me, that as of May 22, 2015, the Russians/Separatists (it will continue to get more and more difficult to tell them apart, as Russia decides to end the charade) are again on the offensive, moving further west into Ukraine, consolidating their hold on Luhansk and Donetsk, and preparing to lay siege to Mariupol. What can be done? Europe and the United States seem content to talk about more sanctions (you would think that they would be a bit embarrassed by now, talking about additional sanctions when the ones in place have had no impact on Russian policy whatsoever), so its up to us to talk about solutions.
First and foremost, when dealing with Putin, a foreign leader with any hope of success must call Putin's bluff. Inform Putin that if Russia does not evacuate Crimea and Donbas within a week, that the U.S. and NATO will begin full military deployment in the Baltic Republics, Poland, and Ukraine. By deployment, I don't mean actual U.S. Marines, I'm talking about full military support, in equipment, tanks, planes, anti-aircraft batteries, surface to air missiles, and, if possible, implementation of the defensive, anti-ballistic missile "Dome" that everyone nicknamed "Star Wars". Putin cannot accuse the west of militarizing Russia's borders, not when Putin is in the middle of doing it himself. The only language Putin understands is the language of force. His only choice for diplomacy is diplomatic aggression. On the other hand, if he makes a move in the right direction, and starts to de-militarize eastern Ukraine, then the United States and NATO should take appropriate, similar action. Dealing with Putin is like trying to stop a flood. The only way to be successful is by building a dam, and saying, "no further".
The situation in Iraq and Syria is more complicated. Formerly we would evaluate the scenarios as separate battlefields. We have abandoned that perspective. The Islamic Front (IS) continues to surprise analysts and military leaders alike in its ability to rebound from defeats and its ability to transport men and equipment so quickly and effectively. Granted, the IS has become masterful at taking full advantage of sandstorms and other weather anomalies, but recent events in Anbar and also Syria have made it apparent that the IS views the conflict as one battlefield, and regroups, resupplies and conducts offensives accordingly. Today, the Iraqi military is taking drastic measures to present an all-out disaster with the loss of the Baiji refinery. There has been some discussion of an offensive to retake Ramadi, but if resources are allocated for just such an operation, don't be surprised to see Tikrit again fall to the IS. It has become apparent to us that the Iraqi military has a limited number of effective, reliable troops, and they are shuttled from one crisis area to the next. No doubt the 1500 U.S. instructors are tasked with increasing that number, but so far they haven't had much peace, with al-Asad Airbase under constant threat. We are most concerned, as we have always been, with the security of U.S. personnel, and the possible occupation of Baghdad by the IS. We would like to take the opportunity to repeat our warning to either move all non-essential U.S. personnel out of Iraq, or, evacuate it completely, hook, line, and sinker. As it is, with State Dept., Intel folks, USAID, multiple private security contractors, etc., all over the place, from Mosul to Basra, I am petrified that the IS is going to get its hands on any number of U.S. persons. We all can only imagine what would happen.
Syria is a bit different. We don't have the same concerns regarding U.S. personnel, although given the nebulous nature of the Free Syrian Army, we may be mistaken. We have been convinced for a few months now that Assad and the Ba'ath regime is living on borrowed time. We cannot envision a scenario in which Assad can pull defeat from the jaws of victory. It does appear as if Assad has been forsaken by his Russian friends, as the influx of weapons and equipment we anticipated never materialized. Is it possible that Putin's addition of one naval port (Crimea) allowed him to shelve his designs for a Mediterranean naval base, at least for the time being? The IS and its surrogates, including the burgeoning Jabhat al-Nusrah, are sitting in the catbird seat, with regime forces only in control of areas west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains. Sure there are outposts and isolated units in the east, but lets be realistic: Assad needs to decide if he is going to go down with the ship, a la Gadhafi, or when its best to vacate Damascus for friendlier environs (a Black Sea Dacha, maybe?). It appears as if the IS is in no hurry to settle things in Syria, probably because it currently has the full military initiative in Iraq.
How can something positive be delivered of this difficult predicament? Firstly, the decision must be made in the capitals of Europe and Washington DC, that there will be no negotiating with the Islamic State. If the member States of the EU and the United States were to sign such a pledge, it would send the right kind of message to the IS, and be a move in the right direction. The battlefield in Iraq is the key to the conflict with the IS. They have proven to be much more strategic and adept at military planning than expected, but it shouldn't be difficult to take advantage of their limited military experience. What the IS can ill-afford to lose is fighters. Make the IS bleed in Iraq; make every inch, every foot, every mile carry a tremendous price tag. This can't be achieved by the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) alone, although if the Iranians were keen on a full engagement against the IS, we believe that they would win the day handily, as would the Marines that we believe should be deployed in Iraq in targeted operations, with the sole purpose being to kill as many IS fighters as possible. Sure, we could give the Iraqis the equipment that our Marines would use, but I don't trust them. In a week, there would be another evacuation, and all that equipment would end up in IS hands...again. The Marines know the job, and they will clean up. Within a month of targeted operations involving the U.S. Marines, with heavy Air Support, the IS will be on the run from Baiji and from Anbar itself. More importantly, they will be suffering a manpower issue, which can only assist whatever policy is formulated in Syria. We can't hypothesize about possible U.S. action in Syria because we still have no clue who or what the Free Syrian Army is, and where they are. Its possible that the IS could be bled enough in Iraq to allow a large-enough neutral army like the Free Syrian Army, to pacify the countryside for possible elections and the arrival of UN Peacekeepers. At this stage, in Iraq, we believe that the time has come to remind the Iraqi people that we do believe in their future, and we are willing to fight alongside them against the IS. This effort should be worth at least two permanent Air Bases and at least one, huge Army facility.
First and foremost, when dealing with Putin, a foreign leader with any hope of success must call Putin's bluff. Inform Putin that if Russia does not evacuate Crimea and Donbas within a week, that the U.S. and NATO will begin full military deployment in the Baltic Republics, Poland, and Ukraine. By deployment, I don't mean actual U.S. Marines, I'm talking about full military support, in equipment, tanks, planes, anti-aircraft batteries, surface to air missiles, and, if possible, implementation of the defensive, anti-ballistic missile "Dome" that everyone nicknamed "Star Wars". Putin cannot accuse the west of militarizing Russia's borders, not when Putin is in the middle of doing it himself. The only language Putin understands is the language of force. His only choice for diplomacy is diplomatic aggression. On the other hand, if he makes a move in the right direction, and starts to de-militarize eastern Ukraine, then the United States and NATO should take appropriate, similar action. Dealing with Putin is like trying to stop a flood. The only way to be successful is by building a dam, and saying, "no further".
The situation in Iraq and Syria is more complicated. Formerly we would evaluate the scenarios as separate battlefields. We have abandoned that perspective. The Islamic Front (IS) continues to surprise analysts and military leaders alike in its ability to rebound from defeats and its ability to transport men and equipment so quickly and effectively. Granted, the IS has become masterful at taking full advantage of sandstorms and other weather anomalies, but recent events in Anbar and also Syria have made it apparent that the IS views the conflict as one battlefield, and regroups, resupplies and conducts offensives accordingly. Today, the Iraqi military is taking drastic measures to present an all-out disaster with the loss of the Baiji refinery. There has been some discussion of an offensive to retake Ramadi, but if resources are allocated for just such an operation, don't be surprised to see Tikrit again fall to the IS. It has become apparent to us that the Iraqi military has a limited number of effective, reliable troops, and they are shuttled from one crisis area to the next. No doubt the 1500 U.S. instructors are tasked with increasing that number, but so far they haven't had much peace, with al-Asad Airbase under constant threat. We are most concerned, as we have always been, with the security of U.S. personnel, and the possible occupation of Baghdad by the IS. We would like to take the opportunity to repeat our warning to either move all non-essential U.S. personnel out of Iraq, or, evacuate it completely, hook, line, and sinker. As it is, with State Dept., Intel folks, USAID, multiple private security contractors, etc., all over the place, from Mosul to Basra, I am petrified that the IS is going to get its hands on any number of U.S. persons. We all can only imagine what would happen.
Syria is a bit different. We don't have the same concerns regarding U.S. personnel, although given the nebulous nature of the Free Syrian Army, we may be mistaken. We have been convinced for a few months now that Assad and the Ba'ath regime is living on borrowed time. We cannot envision a scenario in which Assad can pull defeat from the jaws of victory. It does appear as if Assad has been forsaken by his Russian friends, as the influx of weapons and equipment we anticipated never materialized. Is it possible that Putin's addition of one naval port (Crimea) allowed him to shelve his designs for a Mediterranean naval base, at least for the time being? The IS and its surrogates, including the burgeoning Jabhat al-Nusrah, are sitting in the catbird seat, with regime forces only in control of areas west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains. Sure there are outposts and isolated units in the east, but lets be realistic: Assad needs to decide if he is going to go down with the ship, a la Gadhafi, or when its best to vacate Damascus for friendlier environs (a Black Sea Dacha, maybe?). It appears as if the IS is in no hurry to settle things in Syria, probably because it currently has the full military initiative in Iraq.
How can something positive be delivered of this difficult predicament? Firstly, the decision must be made in the capitals of Europe and Washington DC, that there will be no negotiating with the Islamic State. If the member States of the EU and the United States were to sign such a pledge, it would send the right kind of message to the IS, and be a move in the right direction. The battlefield in Iraq is the key to the conflict with the IS. They have proven to be much more strategic and adept at military planning than expected, but it shouldn't be difficult to take advantage of their limited military experience. What the IS can ill-afford to lose is fighters. Make the IS bleed in Iraq; make every inch, every foot, every mile carry a tremendous price tag. This can't be achieved by the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) alone, although if the Iranians were keen on a full engagement against the IS, we believe that they would win the day handily, as would the Marines that we believe should be deployed in Iraq in targeted operations, with the sole purpose being to kill as many IS fighters as possible. Sure, we could give the Iraqis the equipment that our Marines would use, but I don't trust them. In a week, there would be another evacuation, and all that equipment would end up in IS hands...again. The Marines know the job, and they will clean up. Within a month of targeted operations involving the U.S. Marines, with heavy Air Support, the IS will be on the run from Baiji and from Anbar itself. More importantly, they will be suffering a manpower issue, which can only assist whatever policy is formulated in Syria. We can't hypothesize about possible U.S. action in Syria because we still have no clue who or what the Free Syrian Army is, and where they are. Its possible that the IS could be bled enough in Iraq to allow a large-enough neutral army like the Free Syrian Army, to pacify the countryside for possible elections and the arrival of UN Peacekeepers. At this stage, in Iraq, we believe that the time has come to remind the Iraqi people that we do believe in their future, and we are willing to fight alongside them against the IS. This effort should be worth at least two permanent Air Bases and at least one, huge Army facility.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Developments in Ukraine and Syria.
Links: A. U.S. Troops Training Ukrainian Army.
B. Syrian War Nearing Conclusion?
No doubt the Ukrainian military is pleased that the United States has provided military trainers to prepare the growing number of Ukrainian Army recruits for combat, as all indications point to an escalation in hostilities. Although I don't recall the legislation that allows for U.S. troops to be peripherally involved in the conflict, I'm glad that at least we have made it clear that we believe Russia to be the antagonist. Like most of Congress, I urgently call for the Obama Administration to provide immediate military assistance to Ukraine. Today I noticed a Reuters Article that quoted Vladimir Putin as identifying Ukraine as a "fascist state". Not to be outdone, Reuters took the time to educate all of us idiots out here that the Ukrainian government and parliament were passing legislation that could be interpreted as "fascist". News flash to Reuters (News Flash to a premier news organization?): Ukraine is under military assault by a nation with a much larger army and greater access to military resources. What country does not rely on extreme internal measures during war, to protect the safety of the people and the integrity of the state? Heck, Russia has draconian internal laws and they are always the aggressor in these instances. By my history book, Russia has not been invaded since Hitler's Operation Barbarossa in 1941. Since the dissolution of Communist Russia, the Russians have managed to be militarily aggressive towards Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. I'm waiting for Reuters to point out that "invading your neighbors under false pretenses" is a tad bit fascist, but I'm not holding my breath.
During the 9 May May Day celebrations in Donetsk and Luhansk, the separatists paraded all sorts of military gear in front of small of enthusiastic crowds. Interestingly enough, much of the hardware on display was supposed to be removed from Ukraine according to the provisions of the 12 February Cease Fire signed in Minsk by Russia and Ukraine. Of course, the Russians will claim that the military vehicles and weapons on display were removed according to the Cease Fire obligations, but had only recently been returned. And those of us with a shred of common sense will chalk that claim up to another in a long list of outright Russian lies. Here is a bit of free intelligence for everyone who hasn't caught on yet: Vladimir Putin is a liar, and the Russian government cannot be trusted to fulfill a treaty requiring it to clean a litter box. And yet, looking about as moronic as is humanly possible, here is Secretary of State John "Frankenstein" Kerry, discussing the possibility of a new Cease Fire with Putin. What is congenitally wrong with these people, that they continue to go on trusting people who have proven time and again that they can't be trusted? Has it been that long since the Russian separatists in Ukraine, misusing the latest in Russian military equipment, shot down a commercial jet full of innocent men, women and children? Lets not forget that the Russian government disseminated every kind of bizarre "breaking news story" to try and blame the incident on everyone from the Ukrainians to the United States. The Ukrainian front line in southeastern Ukraine is soon to be assaulted by Russian weapons, Russian warplanes, and probably even Russian troops. The brave of ineffectual Ukrainian Army (and the undisciplined collection of foreign mercenaries they've contracted, who can walk off the battlefield at any moment, and will) will be no match for the firestorm that approaches, and when we all wake up a few weeks later, Kiev itself maybe in the Russian's gun sights.
Simply put, the only action that Putin will respect is a hard military response. And you can bet your last ruble that he needn't worry about seeing one.
As we have been reporting over the last month, the pro-Assad military has suffered one strategic calamity after another, mostly at the hands of Jabhat al-Nusrah (JN). In reality, aside from a few isolated and unimportant outposts out in the eastern desert, Assad's authority is limited to Syria "west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains. He has lost both the border in the north to the Kurds, and the Jordanian border to a variety of opposition. Folks are beginning to grumble about chemical agents because the use of such unpredictable weapons is usually reserved for desperate times. And lets be clear about one thing: the clock is ticking on the Assad Presidency. The key was the lack of real support from his usual sugar daddy, Russia. We had expected the Russians to take advantage of last year's lull in fighting to rebuild Assad's armor capabilities and air force. Aside from a few new helicopters, we see no indication that Russia has made any kind of effort to strengthen Assad's army. Is it possible that Putin realized that his dream of a Russian naval port on the Mediterranean wasn't going to happen, at least not on the Syrian coast? Is it possible that the situation in Ukraine demanded too much focus from the Russian military, so Assad was cut lose? That would be highly unlikely, so the decision was more of a pragmatic, realistic choice on the part of Putin. With the extremist armies growing in strength, and Turkey screaming for Assad's removal, Putin probably weighed his equities and decided that Assad would have to sink-or-swim on his own. And the last few weeks have been all about swimming for Assad and his dwindling military.
Indications are that the Islamic State (IS), which had been quiet on the Syrian front as of late (and making lots of noise in Iraq), is about to launch a two-pronged offensive in Syria, exclusively targeting regime forces. So let me scream this from the rafters, so those in Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon can hear: we need a proactive plan regarding what happens after Assad leaves. The United States cannot find itself in a Libya, part II situation. Even though the Free Syrian Army still hasn't made an impression on the battlefield, is it possible that they can be utilized to protect our interests and equities in Syria? We didn't spend billions of dollars on training an army and leading an air campaign in order to have no say-so in post-Assad Syria. But this is where my suggestions end. I have no idea what to do with this mess. If it had been up to me, we would have mobilized the entire U.S. military to destroy the IS in both Syria and Iraq, and left a few useful military bases behind us. But I guess I can be labeled as a bit of a "Hawk". Both JN and IS have legitimate claim to rule in Syria, if we follow the law of the desert: he who stands last, stands tallest. If the IS flushes Assad and his herd of cronies out of Damascus, have they not earned their "Caliphate"? I have a sneaky feeling that the end of Assad will result in a "rapprochement" with JN, the IS, Khorasan, and all the other shitty little groups out here in the desert. They all fight for the same goal: Islamic extremist hegemony, under the guise of Al-Qaeda. So dealing with is may be all that will be needed. Either way, do we try and negotiate with them, or do we go to war again? Is there another option? I guess we could just evacuate all of our folks and let Israel sort it out.
B. Syrian War Nearing Conclusion?
No doubt the Ukrainian military is pleased that the United States has provided military trainers to prepare the growing number of Ukrainian Army recruits for combat, as all indications point to an escalation in hostilities. Although I don't recall the legislation that allows for U.S. troops to be peripherally involved in the conflict, I'm glad that at least we have made it clear that we believe Russia to be the antagonist. Like most of Congress, I urgently call for the Obama Administration to provide immediate military assistance to Ukraine. Today I noticed a Reuters Article that quoted Vladimir Putin as identifying Ukraine as a "fascist state". Not to be outdone, Reuters took the time to educate all of us idiots out here that the Ukrainian government and parliament were passing legislation that could be interpreted as "fascist". News flash to Reuters (News Flash to a premier news organization?): Ukraine is under military assault by a nation with a much larger army and greater access to military resources. What country does not rely on extreme internal measures during war, to protect the safety of the people and the integrity of the state? Heck, Russia has draconian internal laws and they are always the aggressor in these instances. By my history book, Russia has not been invaded since Hitler's Operation Barbarossa in 1941. Since the dissolution of Communist Russia, the Russians have managed to be militarily aggressive towards Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. I'm waiting for Reuters to point out that "invading your neighbors under false pretenses" is a tad bit fascist, but I'm not holding my breath.
During the 9 May May Day celebrations in Donetsk and Luhansk, the separatists paraded all sorts of military gear in front of small of enthusiastic crowds. Interestingly enough, much of the hardware on display was supposed to be removed from Ukraine according to the provisions of the 12 February Cease Fire signed in Minsk by Russia and Ukraine. Of course, the Russians will claim that the military vehicles and weapons on display were removed according to the Cease Fire obligations, but had only recently been returned. And those of us with a shred of common sense will chalk that claim up to another in a long list of outright Russian lies. Here is a bit of free intelligence for everyone who hasn't caught on yet: Vladimir Putin is a liar, and the Russian government cannot be trusted to fulfill a treaty requiring it to clean a litter box. And yet, looking about as moronic as is humanly possible, here is Secretary of State John "Frankenstein" Kerry, discussing the possibility of a new Cease Fire with Putin. What is congenitally wrong with these people, that they continue to go on trusting people who have proven time and again that they can't be trusted? Has it been that long since the Russian separatists in Ukraine, misusing the latest in Russian military equipment, shot down a commercial jet full of innocent men, women and children? Lets not forget that the Russian government disseminated every kind of bizarre "breaking news story" to try and blame the incident on everyone from the Ukrainians to the United States. The Ukrainian front line in southeastern Ukraine is soon to be assaulted by Russian weapons, Russian warplanes, and probably even Russian troops. The brave of ineffectual Ukrainian Army (and the undisciplined collection of foreign mercenaries they've contracted, who can walk off the battlefield at any moment, and will) will be no match for the firestorm that approaches, and when we all wake up a few weeks later, Kiev itself maybe in the Russian's gun sights.
Simply put, the only action that Putin will respect is a hard military response. And you can bet your last ruble that he needn't worry about seeing one.
As we have been reporting over the last month, the pro-Assad military has suffered one strategic calamity after another, mostly at the hands of Jabhat al-Nusrah (JN). In reality, aside from a few isolated and unimportant outposts out in the eastern desert, Assad's authority is limited to Syria "west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains. He has lost both the border in the north to the Kurds, and the Jordanian border to a variety of opposition. Folks are beginning to grumble about chemical agents because the use of such unpredictable weapons is usually reserved for desperate times. And lets be clear about one thing: the clock is ticking on the Assad Presidency. The key was the lack of real support from his usual sugar daddy, Russia. We had expected the Russians to take advantage of last year's lull in fighting to rebuild Assad's armor capabilities and air force. Aside from a few new helicopters, we see no indication that Russia has made any kind of effort to strengthen Assad's army. Is it possible that Putin realized that his dream of a Russian naval port on the Mediterranean wasn't going to happen, at least not on the Syrian coast? Is it possible that the situation in Ukraine demanded too much focus from the Russian military, so Assad was cut lose? That would be highly unlikely, so the decision was more of a pragmatic, realistic choice on the part of Putin. With the extremist armies growing in strength, and Turkey screaming for Assad's removal, Putin probably weighed his equities and decided that Assad would have to sink-or-swim on his own. And the last few weeks have been all about swimming for Assad and his dwindling military.
Indications are that the Islamic State (IS), which had been quiet on the Syrian front as of late (and making lots of noise in Iraq), is about to launch a two-pronged offensive in Syria, exclusively targeting regime forces. So let me scream this from the rafters, so those in Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon can hear: we need a proactive plan regarding what happens after Assad leaves. The United States cannot find itself in a Libya, part II situation. Even though the Free Syrian Army still hasn't made an impression on the battlefield, is it possible that they can be utilized to protect our interests and equities in Syria? We didn't spend billions of dollars on training an army and leading an air campaign in order to have no say-so in post-Assad Syria. But this is where my suggestions end. I have no idea what to do with this mess. If it had been up to me, we would have mobilized the entire U.S. military to destroy the IS in both Syria and Iraq, and left a few useful military bases behind us. But I guess I can be labeled as a bit of a "Hawk". Both JN and IS have legitimate claim to rule in Syria, if we follow the law of the desert: he who stands last, stands tallest. If the IS flushes Assad and his herd of cronies out of Damascus, have they not earned their "Caliphate"? I have a sneaky feeling that the end of Assad will result in a "rapprochement" with JN, the IS, Khorasan, and all the other shitty little groups out here in the desert. They all fight for the same goal: Islamic extremist hegemony, under the guise of Al-Qaeda. So dealing with is may be all that will be needed. Either way, do we try and negotiate with them, or do we go to war again? Is there another option? I guess we could just evacuate all of our folks and let Israel sort it out.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
With the intensification of the conflict, what is Putin's goal in the Ukraine?
Links: A. Fears of New Separatist Offensive in Ukraine.
B. Concern over likely new Offensive.
The conflict in Ukraine shows no indications of de-escalation, as Russian-backed separatists continue to dictate the course of events. Since last September's "cease fire", the Separatists have conducted a number of important operations, including the seizure of the airport at Donetsk and the occupation of the strategic town of Debaltseve. So what, exactly was the purpose of the cease fire? A serious analysis of the conflict over the past year, with a focus on where both sides are today, makes it apparent that the Russians have had no trouble outmaneuvering, outgunning, and outthinking the Ukrainians. Yes, the sanctions are in place, and yes, they have damaged the Russian economy. But they have failed miserably in their intention, which was to encourage a cease fire and pressure Russia into de-militarizing eastern Ukraine. In fact, the opposite has occurred. No doubt we here at MB were not the only bloggers who predicted that Russia would thumb its nose at sanctions. The Russian people no do respond well to that type of pressure. Traditionally, they have shown much more understanding for conflicts that are settled on the battlefield. We predicted that the Russian people might become even more galvanized behind Putin if the west insisted on a sanctions regime. Evidence points to our correct interpretation of the circumstances. The Russian media is loath to print or air a story that is critical of the Separatists, and the concocted stories regarding the Ukrainian government and alleged "atrocities" against ethnic Russians take a page right from Nazi tactics on the German-Polish border, circa 1939. Someone needs to deliver a polite message to Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Barack Obama: Sanctions have failed. Please tell us you have a plan B. If not, Putin may be tempted to split Ukraine right in half.
The Ukrainian military has not shown the strength and decisiveness that MB had predicted. Outgunned and outflanked repeatedly, the Ukrainians have been obliged to evacuate a number of strategic towns and locations. Its possible that this is a direct result of the lack of military support from the west, in particular the United States. With Congressmen of both parties urging President Obama to start providing weapons and supplies to the Ukrainians, Obama did nothing, although U.S. military advisors are on the ground, as well as instructors, and the United States has been sharing sensitive imagery and intelligence with the Ukrainians from the beginning of the conflict. One disturbing trend has been the increasing number of foreign mercenaries that have been fighting on behalf of Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine continues to function normally, as Russia has not curtailed the supply of gas. It does appear that the port city of Mariupol is the next strategic target for the Separatists, which would make sense, given Putin's obsession with the turning the Black Sea into a Russian lake.
As of mid-April, 2015, the military situation is extremely delicate for the Ukrainian government. While its true that the majority of Ukraine's military has not been brought into the conflict, there are reasons for that decision. The government has the obligation of ensuring at least a modest defense of the capital city of Kiev, should the conflict escalate. If the actions of the present Ukrainian government are any indication, then the military decisions have been made conservatively and the bulk of Ukraine's armor and air resources have not been deployed (although a great deal of artillery seems to have made its way to the front). The Ukrainian military authorities are concerned that the regular army, with so many new conscripts, will get pulverized on the eastern front. So the arrival of U.S. advisors/instructors is welcome. But the United States must set an example and demonstrate that it can discern the difference between the "good guys and the bad guys". If we can arm Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey, then we should be able to assist Ukraine in a battle for survival against a 21st century fascist state.
As for Putin's goal, your guess is as good as ours. It appears that possibly he has decided to emasculate Ukraine by splitting it in two and depriving Kiev of any port access to the Black Sea. I can understand why some analysts might hypothesize that Putin intends on destroying independent Ukraine. No matter how we size it up, we cannot imagine that Putin actually intends on occupying the entire Ukraine. Western Ukraine is very Nationalist and Russia in particular is despised (with good reason). Trying to occupy anything west of Kiev would be more trouble than its worth, not to mention the Ukrainian military, such as it is, would take a toll on the Russians before all was said and done. But Putin has become hard to predict. In fact, he new policy seems to be, "what can I do to surprise the west today", so truly, the only surprise would be if Putin reverted back to what we believe was the original strategy and offers to evacuate eastern Ukraine in exchange for official recognition of Russian suzerainty over the Donbas Basin.
B. Concern over likely new Offensive.
The conflict in Ukraine shows no indications of de-escalation, as Russian-backed separatists continue to dictate the course of events. Since last September's "cease fire", the Separatists have conducted a number of important operations, including the seizure of the airport at Donetsk and the occupation of the strategic town of Debaltseve. So what, exactly was the purpose of the cease fire? A serious analysis of the conflict over the past year, with a focus on where both sides are today, makes it apparent that the Russians have had no trouble outmaneuvering, outgunning, and outthinking the Ukrainians. Yes, the sanctions are in place, and yes, they have damaged the Russian economy. But they have failed miserably in their intention, which was to encourage a cease fire and pressure Russia into de-militarizing eastern Ukraine. In fact, the opposite has occurred. No doubt we here at MB were not the only bloggers who predicted that Russia would thumb its nose at sanctions. The Russian people no do respond well to that type of pressure. Traditionally, they have shown much more understanding for conflicts that are settled on the battlefield. We predicted that the Russian people might become even more galvanized behind Putin if the west insisted on a sanctions regime. Evidence points to our correct interpretation of the circumstances. The Russian media is loath to print or air a story that is critical of the Separatists, and the concocted stories regarding the Ukrainian government and alleged "atrocities" against ethnic Russians take a page right from Nazi tactics on the German-Polish border, circa 1939. Someone needs to deliver a polite message to Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Barack Obama: Sanctions have failed. Please tell us you have a plan B. If not, Putin may be tempted to split Ukraine right in half.
The Ukrainian military has not shown the strength and decisiveness that MB had predicted. Outgunned and outflanked repeatedly, the Ukrainians have been obliged to evacuate a number of strategic towns and locations. Its possible that this is a direct result of the lack of military support from the west, in particular the United States. With Congressmen of both parties urging President Obama to start providing weapons and supplies to the Ukrainians, Obama did nothing, although U.S. military advisors are on the ground, as well as instructors, and the United States has been sharing sensitive imagery and intelligence with the Ukrainians from the beginning of the conflict. One disturbing trend has been the increasing number of foreign mercenaries that have been fighting on behalf of Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine continues to function normally, as Russia has not curtailed the supply of gas. It does appear that the port city of Mariupol is the next strategic target for the Separatists, which would make sense, given Putin's obsession with the turning the Black Sea into a Russian lake.
As of mid-April, 2015, the military situation is extremely delicate for the Ukrainian government. While its true that the majority of Ukraine's military has not been brought into the conflict, there are reasons for that decision. The government has the obligation of ensuring at least a modest defense of the capital city of Kiev, should the conflict escalate. If the actions of the present Ukrainian government are any indication, then the military decisions have been made conservatively and the bulk of Ukraine's armor and air resources have not been deployed (although a great deal of artillery seems to have made its way to the front). The Ukrainian military authorities are concerned that the regular army, with so many new conscripts, will get pulverized on the eastern front. So the arrival of U.S. advisors/instructors is welcome. But the United States must set an example and demonstrate that it can discern the difference between the "good guys and the bad guys". If we can arm Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey, then we should be able to assist Ukraine in a battle for survival against a 21st century fascist state.
As for Putin's goal, your guess is as good as ours. It appears that possibly he has decided to emasculate Ukraine by splitting it in two and depriving Kiev of any port access to the Black Sea. I can understand why some analysts might hypothesize that Putin intends on destroying independent Ukraine. No matter how we size it up, we cannot imagine that Putin actually intends on occupying the entire Ukraine. Western Ukraine is very Nationalist and Russia in particular is despised (with good reason). Trying to occupy anything west of Kiev would be more trouble than its worth, not to mention the Ukrainian military, such as it is, would take a toll on the Russians before all was said and done. But Putin has become hard to predict. In fact, he new policy seems to be, "what can I do to surprise the west today", so truly, the only surprise would be if Putin reverted back to what we believe was the original strategy and offers to evacuate eastern Ukraine in exchange for official recognition of Russian suzerainty over the Donbas Basin.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
How Similar is the New Russia To The USSR? (Part II)
Links: A. Russia Wikipedia
B. Description of Organized Crime in Russia
C. Useful Background on Russian Political Structure
D. Putin Wikipedia
I've finally been able to shelve my disappointment at the direction Russia is moving in the twenty-first century. In the last decade, Putin has repeatedly demonstrated his disdain for NATO and the international rule of law. What amazes me is the European willingness to cling to the idea of international law, even while the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and Islamic terrorists are giving Den Haag the finger. We live in a time during which an illness that I like to call the "Chamberlain Syndrome" seems to be infecting the leaders of Europe. It coincides with another malady I have named, the "America has been naughty and we are so sorry" Syndrome, which has taken root in the present U.S. Administration. It should come as no surprise that the bad guys aren't moved by "national moments of reflection". They will take advantage of every inch and every ounce that they are given. The Chinese, Russians and Iranians are a perfect example of how the rest of the world thinks and behaves. They follow military and diplomatic initiatives that have one purpose only: to further what they see as their own best interests, to the detriment of whomever it is that they consider to be their prime enemy. In all four cases (throw in the Islamic extremists as well), the number one enemy is the United States.
In the case of Putin, his ability to build such a formidable base and consolidate his personal power has been phenomenal. History demonstrates that while Yeltsin spent most of his
time in office drunk out of his gourd, the Russian Mafia and related organized crime interests practically took over Russia. The networks which now call the shots in Moscow are not nearly as numerous as they once were. This is a direct result of one criminal enterprise swallowing up the smaller, less powerful guppies. What we see in Russia today are a handful of criminal organizations, usually headed by one individual, who methodically and without conscience demand a cut of just about every piece of the Russian economy. Who says criminals can't appreciate organization? In the United States we have observed a number of law-abiding Wall Street firms go bad, and transpose all of their assets and training to almost 'legitimize" their corrupt activities. Who is more powerful, the crime lords of Russia or Vladimir Putin? Its basically a moot point at this juncture, since they continue to drink at the same trough. But my suspicion is that Putin has the upper hand. Why? Because he never hesitates. If one of the oligarchs pisses him off, they end up in jail. It's that simple. I don't know of a Russian, crime lord or not, who can give orders to Putin. He singularly controls the Duma, the Press, the Military and the Police. The criminal elements understand that they need to play nice with Vlad, and then everyone goes home happy. The recent problems with the Russian economy will no doubt cut into the profits of these various enterprises, and it will be interesting to see how things shake out if the price of oil doesn't rebound soon.
Continued crippling economic contraction is the one development which can damage Putin. But in order for this to continue, the price of oil must stay low or go lower. This will not happen, because the Arabs need a return to payday just as much as the Russians do. Once the price moves back in the other direction, Russia will again have its battering ram against Europe. If only the countries who are dependent upon Russia for oil and natural gas were in a position to buy it from the United States instead, then Russia would lose most of its clout.
Why do Russia and Putin insist on being so contrary? I'm no psychologist, but I believe Putin is a bit of a sociopath. He craves power, and conveniently for him, he has no conscience. Putin doesn't want to share power with the United States. As a former KGB man, he has nothing but disdain for the American people and all those values we constantly lecture others about. Putin wants to win, and he will do what it takes to end up on top. The Chinese are a bit more pragmatic. They don't take their endemic distrust of the United States personally. Its about the glory of China, and the spread of Chinese power and influence around the globe. I think Putin sees the world through a special pair of glasses, that allow him to always gauge his decisions vis-à-vis the United States. Putin doesn't fear China because he considers the Chinese military to be a bit of a paper tiger — and he should know, given the volume of military trade that has taken place between China and Russia. The American people had better give serious and full consideration on who they choose to elect in 2016, because the four main antagonists (not to mention the rise in anti-U.S. politics in Latin America and Africa) all see the U.S. as their principle adversary. Its a very dangerous time to be an American, with so many enemies about. Thankfully, we can rely on diplomacy and allies to deal with most of our troubles. Islamic extremists are a whole different matter. They must be dealt with as a priority, and with military determination and strength. We may be saying the same thing about Russia one day.
B. Description of Organized Crime in Russia
C. Useful Background on Russian Political Structure
D. Putin Wikipedia
In the case of Putin, his ability to build such a formidable base and consolidate his personal power has been phenomenal. History demonstrates that while Yeltsin spent most of his
 |
| 1999 Putin and Yeltsin with Patriarch Alexy II Source: Kremlin.ru |
 |
| Putin with Chairman of Gazprom’s Mgmt Committee and the Vice Premier of China, Zhang Gaoli; Source: Kremlin.ru |
Why do Russia and Putin insist on being so contrary? I'm no psychologist, but I believe Putin is a bit of a sociopath. He craves power, and conveniently for him, he has no conscience. Putin doesn't want to share power with the United States. As a former KGB man, he has nothing but disdain for the American people and all those values we constantly lecture others about. Putin wants to win, and he will do what it takes to end up on top. The Chinese are a bit more pragmatic. They don't take their endemic distrust of the United States personally. Its about the glory of China, and the spread of Chinese power and influence around the globe. I think Putin sees the world through a special pair of glasses, that allow him to always gauge his decisions vis-à-vis the United States. Putin doesn't fear China because he considers the Chinese military to be a bit of a paper tiger — and he should know, given the volume of military trade that has taken place between China and Russia. The American people had better give serious and full consideration on who they choose to elect in 2016, because the four main antagonists (not to mention the rise in anti-U.S. politics in Latin America and Africa) all see the U.S. as their principle adversary. Its a very dangerous time to be an American, with so many enemies about. Thankfully, we can rely on diplomacy and allies to deal with most of our troubles. Islamic extremists are a whole different matter. They must be dealt with as a priority, and with military determination and strength. We may be saying the same thing about Russia one day.
Monday, February 2, 2015
How Similar is the New Russia To The USSR? (Part I)
Links: A. Russia Wikipedia
B. Description of Organized Crime in Russia
C. Useful Background on Russian Political Structure
D. Putin Wikipedia
Of all the posts I've written for the blog, this one has been the most difficult to put together. When the Cold War ended and Boris Yeltsin was singing the praises of capitalism, I was truly optimistic about Russia's future. There can be no doubt that the Russian people work hard and take pride in their country. In July 1998, when the bodies of the former ruling Romanov family were interred in St. Petersburg, and the streets were lined with people showing their respect as the coffins made their way to the St. Peter and Paul Cathedral, I thought to myself that Russia had come to terms with its past and was ready to embrace the future. I had this crazy notion that the United States and Russia would lead the world on a crusade for peace, economic freedom for all, and ecological responsibility. It was a serious dose of wishful thinking. Since that time, I have been reminded that the Russian people are obsessed with the need for a strong leader, regardless of the freedoms they must relinquish. The everyday, on the street Russian is fairly well-read and educated. They watch the news, read the paper and listen to the radio. Granted, it's mostly propaganda bullshit, but they know how to read between the lines. They just chose not to. The average Russian is well aware of President Vladimir Putin's ties to organized crime and his manipulation of the political system to allow for his permanence in power. They are not blind to the fact that Putin cut every state budget, while increasing defense spending by twenty percent. Does anyone see a threat to Russia? Is there a need for the Russians to be stocking up on equipment and weapons to defend the Motherland? Of course not; and the increase in defense spending was for offensive intentions, vice defense. The next reasonable question to ask is, "if Russia doesn't have an outside threat, then what offensive operations are being considered?"
Obviously Putin is not satisfied with the situation in Ukraine. I imagine that he expected the Ukrainians to have folded by now, and accepted the loss of the Crimea in order to secure the integrity of Eastern Ukraine. Putin keeps up the charade of a Donbas indigenous
movement to be annexed by Russia, in order to keep his military active in the region. His military and the equipping of the guerilla forces around Donets'k, Luhans'k and Mariupol' is singularly intended to create a bargaining chip. Putin will pull out of Eastern Ukraine, if Ukraine and the west will recognize the annexation of Crimea to Russia. I believe that Putin expected the Ukrainian government to fold, given their dependence on Russian oil and natural gas, and the apparent sorry state of affairs in the Ukrainian military. But the people of Kiev and Western Ukraine have had just about enough of Russian military bullying. The people of Ukraine have suffered heavily from Russian intervention over the years, and, particularly in western Ukraine, they want nothing to do with old school "business-as -usual". They want a Ukraine as part of Europe, a member of NATO and hopefully one day a member of the EU. Ukrainian military officials were not prepared for the number of volunteers from western Ukraine who have flooded recruitment centers, and the new government has been given a free-reign to conduct the war as it sees fit, as long as no concessions are made to Russia. If the current government gave any indication that it was considering a swap of Crimea for peace in Donbas, they would be under siege from protesters in Kiev. The unexpected success of sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe has steeled the nerve of the government in Kiev, but for how long is anybody's guess. The reality is, if it weren't for certain decisions being made in Saudi Arabia, then the price of oil would not have fallen dramatically and the EU and U.S. sanctions would have been basically harmless. Make no mistake, the real impact of sanctions on Russia are only causing hardship because of the combined impact of the fall of the price of crude.
Contrary to what many in the west want to believe, Putin is not losing any sleep. If he were, then he wouldn't have initiated a costly, aggressive move into the Arctic region. Putin knows that the low price of a barrel of crude is a temporary factor, and that the Ruble will rebound sooner rather than later. Putin's actions in the Arctic are not a short-term strategy. He realizes that taking control of the desolate islands in the Arctic (by right of simple possession) won't give him overnight access to thirty percent of the world's natural gas reserves and thirteen percent of it's oil reserves. This move, to rebuild airbases, relocate naval squadrons, position troops and begin a diplomatic offensive, will take time. Putin is counting on a Hillary Clinton presidency, as he sees her as little more than a shorter, fatter version of Barrack Obama (have a look at the provisions of the "New Start" Treaty that Hillary negotiated with Putin in 2010; believe me, Vlad is salivating at the thought of another President Clinton). He knows that he can threaten and bluff all the way to Spitsbergen/Svalbard and back, if necessary. Norway has a huge stake in the future debate over the Arctic, as does Canada and the United States. Heck, even Denmark (Greenland) should be part of the discussion. Even if the U.S. elects a Republican as president in 2016, it will be hard to displace Russia once she has militarized Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land. The real issue of contention will be the area of the Berents Sea and anything close to Norway. Frankly, the majority of the deposits sit well within Russian territory as it is. I can only assume that the military build-up in the region is to ensure that any contentious strikes, or new discoveries, will go Russia's way as well.
B. Description of Organized Crime in Russia
C. Useful Background on Russian Political Structure
D. Putin Wikipedia
Of all the posts I've written for the blog, this one has been the most difficult to put together. When the Cold War ended and Boris Yeltsin was singing the praises of capitalism, I was truly optimistic about Russia's future. There can be no doubt that the Russian people work hard and take pride in their country. In July 1998, when the bodies of the former ruling Romanov family were interred in St. Petersburg, and the streets were lined with people showing their respect as the coffins made their way to the St. Peter and Paul Cathedral, I thought to myself that Russia had come to terms with its past and was ready to embrace the future. I had this crazy notion that the United States and Russia would lead the world on a crusade for peace, economic freedom for all, and ecological responsibility. It was a serious dose of wishful thinking. Since that time, I have been reminded that the Russian people are obsessed with the need for a strong leader, regardless of the freedoms they must relinquish. The everyday, on the street Russian is fairly well-read and educated. They watch the news, read the paper and listen to the radio. Granted, it's mostly propaganda bullshit, but they know how to read between the lines. They just chose not to. The average Russian is well aware of President Vladimir Putin's ties to organized crime and his manipulation of the political system to allow for his permanence in power. They are not blind to the fact that Putin cut every state budget, while increasing defense spending by twenty percent. Does anyone see a threat to Russia? Is there a need for the Russians to be stocking up on equipment and weapons to defend the Motherland? Of course not; and the increase in defense spending was for offensive intentions, vice defense. The next reasonable question to ask is, "if Russia doesn't have an outside threat, then what offensive operations are being considered?"
Obviously Putin is not satisfied with the situation in Ukraine. I imagine that he expected the Ukrainians to have folded by now, and accepted the loss of the Crimea in order to secure the integrity of Eastern Ukraine. Putin keeps up the charade of a Donbas indigenous
 |
| 1921 Soviet propaganda poster praising Donets Basin as Heart of Russia; PD-1923 |
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Update On Troubles In Ukraine
Link: Russian Army Tank Column Crosses Border Into Ukraine
Its been a while since we visited Ukraine. Syria, Iraq and West Africa have been a bit distracting as of late. In all honesty, I was beginning to hope that cooler heads had prevailed in Moscow. Putin had the opportunity to "magnanimously" withdraw all Russian units from eastern Ukraine, and invite the Ukrainians (alone) to join him at the negotiating table. You know and I know that Russia will not be returning Crimea to Ukraine, and Putin's influence and reputation have suffered because of this unilateral annexation. So a peace offensive on the part of Putin would provide a way out for those Europeans who have been looking for a way to forgive Russia, and to do so without losing face. While theoretically this could begin with a sign of good faith in form of the departure of Russian military units from eastern Ukraine, it isn't going to happen. We now have clear and dangerous indications that Russian armor is on the move in eastern Ukraine. Friday's actions remind me of the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and I fully expect to see a mobilization of sorts from the Russian Army (In the long run, Russia's less-than prepared Army and Airborne units invading Georgia resembled Mussolini's forces invading Greece in 1940). Putin knows he doesn't need to play "peacemaker," and negotiate to keep Crimea. He recognizes that Russia can tear off just as much of Ukraine as she pleases. Merkel, Cameron and Hollande (is this little pipsqueak still around?) will go to lunch and toss a few more sanctions at Russia. Putin is well aware that this is the only recourse for the European
Union. Since I don't see much anti-Putin agitation in Moscow these days, we can assume that the sanctions haven't been much of a deterrent.
Last month, I hypothesized that Putin was really only interested in Crimea, because of its strategic location on the Black Sea. I believe he stirred up the shit pot among the substantial Russian minority in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, and Dnipropetrovsk (why do I like saying "Dnipropetrovsk" so much?) in order to create a problem that only he could solve. I assumed that Putin was planning to offer peace and the departure of Russian forces from eastern Ukraine, in exchange for an acknowledgement of Russia's Crimean annexation. It's really simple, when you think about it. If you want something that belongs to someone else, you take it, along with something else of value. In order to return the second item of value, they must accept that you are keeping the first item. If not, they risk losing both. I believe that Putin's original intention was to maneuver his way into receiving European and Ukrainian acceptance of Russian Crimea. For the life of me I couldn't find a reason why Putin would want eastern Ukraine. Forgive the rudeness, but have you been to Donetsk? Its not Vienna or Paris, that's for sure. Hell, its not even Des Moines. But Putin did not need to find justification for invading eastern Ukraine. All Putin needed to do was CONVINCE THE WEST that he had reason for invading eastern Ukraine (all those poor, abused ethnic Russians). Then when the mercenary slugs hired by Putin in the Donetsk region accidentally shot down a civilian jet full of totally innocent folks, I imagine that Putin was obliged to review his escape strategy. But, as it is with most things, if you wait awhile, people will forget. I can't remember the last time I heard mention of the Malaysian Airlines jet that was shot down.
The truth is, Putin realizes that he doesn't have to order the departure of Russian forces from eastern Ukraine. The typically weak line of diplomacy offered up by Obama, Merkel, Hollande and Kirk Cameron has allowed Putin to annex Crimea and absorb the Ukrainian Navy. And to Putin's surprise, it looks like he gets to keep as much of the Ukraine as he chooses. It's no longer about Crimea. The presence of a column of what appears to be functioning (nothing is guaranteed) Russian armor tooling around in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine is a clear indication to me that Putin has decided to "up the ante". It is in Putin's nature to take advantage of as many opportunities as possible, which includes the west being distracted by events on Syria, Iraq and Liberia. These distractions, and Obama's continued mantra about "no ground troops" (which is an example to be followed by everyone....except France), have given Putin the opportunity to decide just how much of
Ukraine to keep. Interestingly enough, while Putin dances diplomatic circles around Obama and the Europeans, he has had plenty of time to send equipment, supplies and possibly air units to his buddy Bashir al-Assad in Damascus. I'm guessing that Vlad is trying to get as much accomplished as possible before 2016, when its likely that the White House will be home to someone "with a pair". I can just imagine what the map of Ukraine will look like in 2016. Eastern Ukraine does have a number of lovely forested regions, perfect for a topless Putin to go on lots of horseback excursions. I only ask, for the sake of decency, Vlad: either find a training bra or put your shirt back on.
Its been a while since we visited Ukraine. Syria, Iraq and West Africa have been a bit distracting as of late. In all honesty, I was beginning to hope that cooler heads had prevailed in Moscow. Putin had the opportunity to "magnanimously" withdraw all Russian units from eastern Ukraine, and invite the Ukrainians (alone) to join him at the negotiating table. You know and I know that Russia will not be returning Crimea to Ukraine, and Putin's influence and reputation have suffered because of this unilateral annexation. So a peace offensive on the part of Putin would provide a way out for those Europeans who have been looking for a way to forgive Russia, and to do so without losing face. While theoretically this could begin with a sign of good faith in form of the departure of Russian military units from eastern Ukraine, it isn't going to happen. We now have clear and dangerous indications that Russian armor is on the move in eastern Ukraine. Friday's actions remind me of the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and I fully expect to see a mobilization of sorts from the Russian Army (In the long run, Russia's less-than prepared Army and Airborne units invading Georgia resembled Mussolini's forces invading Greece in 1940). Putin knows he doesn't need to play "peacemaker," and negotiate to keep Crimea. He recognizes that Russia can tear off just as much of Ukraine as she pleases. Merkel, Cameron and Hollande (is this little pipsqueak still around?) will go to lunch and toss a few more sanctions at Russia. Putin is well aware that this is the only recourse for the European
Last month, I hypothesized that Putin was really only interested in Crimea, because of its strategic location on the Black Sea. I believe he stirred up the shit pot among the substantial Russian minority in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, and Dnipropetrovsk (why do I like saying "Dnipropetrovsk" so much?) in order to create a problem that only he could solve. I assumed that Putin was planning to offer peace and the departure of Russian forces from eastern Ukraine, in exchange for an acknowledgement of Russia's Crimean annexation. It's really simple, when you think about it. If you want something that belongs to someone else, you take it, along with something else of value. In order to return the second item of value, they must accept that you are keeping the first item. If not, they risk losing both. I believe that Putin's original intention was to maneuver his way into receiving European and Ukrainian acceptance of Russian Crimea. For the life of me I couldn't find a reason why Putin would want eastern Ukraine. Forgive the rudeness, but have you been to Donetsk? Its not Vienna or Paris, that's for sure. Hell, its not even Des Moines. But Putin did not need to find justification for invading eastern Ukraine. All Putin needed to do was CONVINCE THE WEST that he had reason for invading eastern Ukraine (all those poor, abused ethnic Russians). Then when the mercenary slugs hired by Putin in the Donetsk region accidentally shot down a civilian jet full of totally innocent folks, I imagine that Putin was obliged to review his escape strategy. But, as it is with most things, if you wait awhile, people will forget. I can't remember the last time I heard mention of the Malaysian Airlines jet that was shot down.
The truth is, Putin realizes that he doesn't have to order the departure of Russian forces from eastern Ukraine. The typically weak line of diplomacy offered up by Obama, Merkel, Hollande and Kirk Cameron has allowed Putin to annex Crimea and absorb the Ukrainian Navy. And to Putin's surprise, it looks like he gets to keep as much of the Ukraine as he chooses. It's no longer about Crimea. The presence of a column of what appears to be functioning (nothing is guaranteed) Russian armor tooling around in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine is a clear indication to me that Putin has decided to "up the ante". It is in Putin's nature to take advantage of as many opportunities as possible, which includes the west being distracted by events on Syria, Iraq and Liberia. These distractions, and Obama's continued mantra about "no ground troops" (which is an example to be followed by everyone....except France), have given Putin the opportunity to decide just how much of
 |
| A horse with two asses . . . |
Friday, August 29, 2014
What game is Putin playing?
Link: What is Putin trying to accomplish by invading the Ukraine?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a fan of "vox.com". They don't hesitate to offer possibilities that more mainstream news sources shy away from. As for the issue addressed in this posting (Putin, Russia and this mini-invasion of Eastern Ukraine), I wish I had some clue what Vlad is planning, or if he has script at all. My first thought was that Russia was stepping up military activity vis-à-vis Eastern Ukraine for two reasons: first, the attention of NATO and the United Nations has been drawn back to the Near East (I chose to say Near East instead of Middle East; its how I was raised from an infant Case Officer) and this Caliphate bunch of beasties. Second, with the eyes of the West elsewhere, an opportunity arises to bolster the battered pro-Russian guerillas around Luhansk and Donetsk.
To be honest, I've been a bit confused by the part being played by the Ukrainian military. I realize that the Ukrainian Army and Air Force (the Navy ceased to exist a few months back) cannot stand up to a full mobilization by Russia. But we have yet to see anything close to a full Russian mobilization. I would love to see it, though. Vlad would be exposing the weaknesses of his planning and organizational capabilities to the very interested eyes of NATO. Back to the Ukrainian Army. The Ukrainians have been very active in every peace keeping operation in recent memory. They have troops (not a whole lot, granted) who have seen action and also worked side-by-side with Western forces. Ukraine recently reduced the size of its army by leaps and bounds, but this was more of an effort to modernize and streamline than anything else. As of today, the majority of Ukraine's fighting potential is still sitting around Kiev and to the West. Why haven't they charged into Eastern Ukraine, full force, and wiped out this bunch of ass holes that take hostages and shoot down civilian jet liners? Obviously the new administration in Kiev does not want to act rashly and encourage Russia to raise the stakes as well. But aggressive action is the only action Putin respects. Taking small steps only will allow Putin to completely step over the Ukrainians. I have been encouraged by the Ukrainian Army's recent successes, but I can't help wonder if a full assault against these thugs would not have ended this issue altogether.
I have a brilliant friend who is convinced that Putin is trying to occupy a bit of land and strengthen the guerillas to improve his bargaining position. My buddy believes that the Russian people will not give Putin an unending vote of confidence as sanctions start to really bite the Russian middle class. The sanctions are hurting, but mostly in the pocketbook of the richest of Russians. But these guys are the ones who seem to be backing Putin lately (the ones who farted without his permission ended up in jail or in exile in the UK). My friend believes that Putin will use Eastern Ukraine as a bargaining chip to permanently attach the Crimean Republic (just in name only, folks) to Mother Russia. Crimea does appear to be the most valuable piece of this puzzle from a strategic perspective. Putin has already reunited the Russian Navy and if he can gain some legitimacy for his military conquest of Crimea, then the Black Sea again becomes a Russian lake (no offense to the Bulgarians, Romanians, Moldovans, Turks, etc.). The Black Sea is more than just important from a military viewpoint. The issue of oil and its transport (pipelines, drilling, refining, shipping, all that good stuff) are unavoidably connected to the Black Sea. Maybe Putin believes he can trade stability in Eastern Ukraine (and friendly relations with Russia) with the acceptance of a fait d-accompli in Crimea.
The Obama Administration has a very painful headache to deal with. Instead of the proverbial two-front war (that doomed Hitler and Napoleon), Obama is faced with a two-front diplomatic crisis. Both might one day involve the U.S. military, so forward-thinking (not this Administration's strong suit..) is a must. I would argue that the day has come and gone for giving the Ukrainian Army and Air Force whatever they want. The Ukrainian people are majorly pissed off at Putin and the Russians, and the regular Ukrainian Army echoes those feelings. I say give them what they need to free their homeland, and call Putin's bluff. As for the Near East, you will have to tune in tomorrow for that commentary. Much obliged, folks.....
In case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a fan of "vox.com". They don't hesitate to offer possibilities that more mainstream news sources shy away from. As for the issue addressed in this posting (Putin, Russia and this mini-invasion of Eastern Ukraine), I wish I had some clue what Vlad is planning, or if he has script at all. My first thought was that Russia was stepping up military activity vis-à-vis Eastern Ukraine for two reasons: first, the attention of NATO and the United Nations has been drawn back to the Near East (I chose to say Near East instead of Middle East; its how I was raised from an infant Case Officer) and this Caliphate bunch of beasties. Second, with the eyes of the West elsewhere, an opportunity arises to bolster the battered pro-Russian guerillas around Luhansk and Donetsk.
To be honest, I've been a bit confused by the part being played by the Ukrainian military. I realize that the Ukrainian Army and Air Force (the Navy ceased to exist a few months back) cannot stand up to a full mobilization by Russia. But we have yet to see anything close to a full Russian mobilization. I would love to see it, though. Vlad would be exposing the weaknesses of his planning and organizational capabilities to the very interested eyes of NATO. Back to the Ukrainian Army. The Ukrainians have been very active in every peace keeping operation in recent memory. They have troops (not a whole lot, granted) who have seen action and also worked side-by-side with Western forces. Ukraine recently reduced the size of its army by leaps and bounds, but this was more of an effort to modernize and streamline than anything else. As of today, the majority of Ukraine's fighting potential is still sitting around Kiev and to the West. Why haven't they charged into Eastern Ukraine, full force, and wiped out this bunch of ass holes that take hostages and shoot down civilian jet liners? Obviously the new administration in Kiev does not want to act rashly and encourage Russia to raise the stakes as well. But aggressive action is the only action Putin respects. Taking small steps only will allow Putin to completely step over the Ukrainians. I have been encouraged by the Ukrainian Army's recent successes, but I can't help wonder if a full assault against these thugs would not have ended this issue altogether.
I have a brilliant friend who is convinced that Putin is trying to occupy a bit of land and strengthen the guerillas to improve his bargaining position. My buddy believes that the Russian people will not give Putin an unending vote of confidence as sanctions start to really bite the Russian middle class. The sanctions are hurting, but mostly in the pocketbook of the richest of Russians. But these guys are the ones who seem to be backing Putin lately (the ones who farted without his permission ended up in jail or in exile in the UK). My friend believes that Putin will use Eastern Ukraine as a bargaining chip to permanently attach the Crimean Republic (just in name only, folks) to Mother Russia. Crimea does appear to be the most valuable piece of this puzzle from a strategic perspective. Putin has already reunited the Russian Navy and if he can gain some legitimacy for his military conquest of Crimea, then the Black Sea again becomes a Russian lake (no offense to the Bulgarians, Romanians, Moldovans, Turks, etc.). The Black Sea is more than just important from a military viewpoint. The issue of oil and its transport (pipelines, drilling, refining, shipping, all that good stuff) are unavoidably connected to the Black Sea. Maybe Putin believes he can trade stability in Eastern Ukraine (and friendly relations with Russia) with the acceptance of a fait d-accompli in Crimea.
The Obama Administration has a very painful headache to deal with. Instead of the proverbial two-front war (that doomed Hitler and Napoleon), Obama is faced with a two-front diplomatic crisis. Both might one day involve the U.S. military, so forward-thinking (not this Administration's strong suit..) is a must. I would argue that the day has come and gone for giving the Ukrainian Army and Air Force whatever they want. The Ukrainian people are majorly pissed off at Putin and the Russians, and the regular Ukrainian Army echoes those feelings. I say give them what they need to free their homeland, and call Putin's bluff. As for the Near East, you will have to tune in tomorrow for that commentary. Much obliged, folks.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)