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.  

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. 

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

1999 Putin and Yeltsin with Patriarch Alexy II
Source: Kremlin.ru

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.

Putin with Chairman of Gazprom’s Mgmt Committee and the
  Vice Premier of China, Zhang Gaoli; Source: Kremlin.ru

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.

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

1921 Soviet propaganda poster praising
Donets Basin as Heart of Russia; PD-1923

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.

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

A horse with two asses . . .

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.

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.....