Ukraine and Russian- backed Donbas separatists are negotiating a complete ceasefire to begin on September 1.

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.       

France, Germany pressure Kiev to grant autonomy to separatists, as conflict escalates.

Link: Poroshenko meets with Hollande, Merkel in Berlin.

Today, Ukrainian President Poroshenko traveled to Berlin for consultations with German Chancellor Merkel and French President Hollande to discuss the rapidly unravelling "Minsk II" accord.  As anticipated, in recent days, separatist forces have launched numerous attacks against Ukrainian positions.  On August 10, separatists used tanks and heavy artillery in an attack on Ukrainian forces 20 kilometers east of the Donetsk-Mariupol Highway, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitoring installations continue to track "Grad" multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) strikes along much of the frontline in Donetsk Oblast.  On August 16, separatists launched an artillery barrage on the northeastern outskirts of Mariupol.  It is widely suspected that the upturn in violence is an effort on the part of the separatists to influence Kiev, as negotiations continue in Minsk and now also in Berlin.  The Russian-backed separatists hope that the more pessimistic the current military situation appears, the more likely that Kiev will be more flexible when it comes to negotiating the issue of autonomy for Donbas.

It is also widely accepted that both Hollande and Merkel will pressure Poroshenko to yield on the issue of autonomy for Donbas.  Again, just another example of the complete lack of conviction and courage on the part of European leaders when faced with military aggression.  If history has taught us anything, it is that a bully, regardless of the size of the playground, will continue to terrorize until he is confronted by a united opposition.  Poroshenko has no choice but to follow the advice of his benefactors (I would include President Obama on this list, but I'm not really sure where he has been lately...probably putting the final touches on his Amnesty Executive Order Action); without the continued support of Europe and the United States, Ukraine would be totally occupied by the Russian Army by the end of next week.  Back to the present: if Poroshenko grants autonomy to Donbas (without a plebiscite, mind you....shades of Austria, 1938), no doubt the separatists and Russia will control whatever elections come next, and those "elected" will uniformly support the annexation of Donbas by Russia.  Remember this blog post from August 21, 2015: if Poroshenko approves any form of autonomy for sections of Eastern Ukraine, those areas will eventually be swallowed up by Russia, a la Crimea.

Why are the European leaders so reticent to militarily confront Putin?  They must realize that this is a problem they will be forced to deal with sooner or later, and later will always be more difficult.  If the EU decided to support Ukraine militarily, and German, Polish, French and Italian Air Forces enforced a no-fly zone over Ukraine, Putin would be obliged to either back off, or actually go to war.  I don't believe the Russian Air Force is in any state of readiness to confront the combined Air resources of Europe and the United States.  Also, why not "loan" Ukraine a few hundred LeClerc Heavy Battle Tanks, and maybe a few Leopard as well.  This will be akin to the leaders of free and democratic Europe drawing a line in the dirt, and telling Putin, "you've gone far enough; don't cross this line".  If I were Poroshenko, I would ask Hollande to imagine what it must have been like for France when Germany "stole" Alsace-Lorraine in 1871?  Or remind Chancellor Merkel of Russia's stranglehold on East Germany.  Allowing a foreign country to invade and occupy Ukrainian territory should be unacceptable not only to Poroshenko, but to the EU as well.  Our position on this issue is not unique; many other blogs and learned analysts are warning that Russia will not stop its efforts at expansion with the annexation of Donbas, anymore than Putin quit with Crimea (which, considering how little it is mentioned by Hollande and Merkel, is obviously a Fait Accompli).  When will they learn?

Ukraine separatists take full advantage of Minsk negotiations; France cancels Russian warship purchase.

Link: France cancels Russian warship order.


While pro-Ukrainian demonstrators in Mariupol argue against making concessions during the latest round of negotiations in Minsk, separatists continue to accuse the Ukrainian military of double-dealing.  The issue at hand deals with the withdrawal of heavy weapons and tanks from sensitive areas.  The negotiations have reached the point at which anything that the Ukraine agrees to will be manipulated for press consumption; how the participants on the Kiev side can continue to negotiate in good faith is a mystery to us.  The separatists regularly violated the Minsk II agreement to withdraw heavy weapons from contested areas, but for some reason current negotiators are discussing the same issue, with the idea that the separatists will, for some reason, decide to abide by the agreement this time.  Every effort on behalf of both the separatists and the Russian government is intended to further the determination to dismember the Ukrainian state as we know it.  The frustration expressed by the numerous nationalist groups in Kiev, Mariupol, Odessa, Lvov, and other Ukrainian cities, is beginning to put tremendous pressure on the government of President Petro Poroshenko.  The current government in Kiev has shown incredible restraint, taking great care to not upset its European and U.S. allies.  Unfortunately for Poroshenko, his popularity is in free-fall as the Ukrainian public grows increasingly frustrated at the lack of direct military support from Europe and the Obama Administration.  The crisis in Donbas is no closer to being resolved than it was at the commencement of the original Minsk negotiations.  No doubt the separatists consider the subject of national boundaries to be an issue of occupation.  At this stage, its hard to imagine Ukraine returning to its pre-conflict borders.

In 2011, Russia and France negotiated the purchase by Russia of two French Mistral-class amphibious assault ships.  The delivery of the ships was on schedule, when the Ukrainian conflict intervened.  The French government decided to review its decision to sell the modern warships, following Russia's obvious military support for the Donbas separatists.  The decision to reconsider the sale was controversial for both the French and the Russians.  The French weapons industry was anxious for the positive press that would accompany the on-schedule delivery of the warships, not to mention the financial windfall.  And the Russian military is determined to upgrade and modernize its amphibious capabilities.  Regardless, on Wednesday the French government, after lengthly deliberation, decided to cancel the contract and all payments to Russia.  The Russian foreign ministry has responded as anticipated, accusing the French of illegally breaking the contract.  This development will probably negatively impact the French arms industry temporarily, but the French are always in the forefront of developing new military hardware, and in the end, Paris will have its usual backlog of defense industry orders from international customers.

Separatist (read Russian) offensive about ready to kick off in Ukraine.

Link: Indications point to a Russian-backed offensive in the Ukraine.

We've had so much news coming out of Iraq and Syria, not to mention to deterioration of Constitutional authority in the United States lately, that we haven't had much to say about events in Ukraine.  Fortunately, while we were away, most of the action was taking place in planning rooms and in front of the press.  Both the Ukrainian government and the Russian-backed separatists continue to make a show out of adhering to the cease-fire conditions of the "Minsk 2" agreement.  The Ukrainians probably felt as if they had no choice, but everything that comes from the other side is complete crap.  I have always been amazed at watching diplomats negotiate with people who can't be trusted.  Hillary Clinton is a classic example.  She would sign a treaty with Hitler if it might win her an election.  We can't pretend to be "just discovering" what a snake Putin is; we've known for decades, even before he took the throne.  But we signed a treaty with him, one that eliminates any strategic edge we might have in ballistic missiles.  Believe me, when these Republican egoists go at each other in the upcoming debates, I will be listening to someone talking about REAL issues: drastic reduction in government spending and the abolition of the New Start Treaty.  But I digress.  I believe we were talking about Ukraine . . .

Recently the Pentagon released an annual threat assessment, which highlighted Russia more than any terrorist group.  The brief correctly concluded that Russia has no respect for any international borders, as they prove time and time again.  Pretending that the Donbas Separatist Groups are really behind the insurrection in Ukraine is like trying to hide an amputation with a Band-Aid.  It just doesn't fly, especially in light of intelligence collected by drones that illustrate a continued Russian military build-up.  Kiev claims that there are at least 7,000 Russian soldiers in Ukraine, under the authority of five Generals.  That's a bit much.  I think we could handle 7,000 U.S. Army troops with a Lt. Colonel . . . but you know how those Russians like to show off their rank, with the giant medals

Source: russiandefpolicy.wordpress

and hilariously oversized hats.  A friend of mine suspects that the Russian military noticed that our officer's uniform hats were a bit more attractive than theirs. So, in typical Russian fashion (bigger is better), they just increased the circumference of their officer hats, which leave them looking like a combination of a hubcap and a sombrero. But again I digress. I believe we were talking about Ukraine . . .

I understand that the Ukrainian military is still hesitant to fully deploy their armed forces in the Donbas region, for security fears regarding Kiev.  The way I see it, if they don't deploy sometime soon, we will be at the gates of Kiev soon regardless.  The truth is, Poroshenko would have been wiser to have called out a full-mobilization and an offensive by now.  He might have had hope of recovering Crimea, given the difficulty the Russians would have initially had resupplying their forces.  But the entire province has been militarized and Russianized by now, and the defensive positions taken by the separatists are going to be a hard nut to crack.  Poroshenko had to attempt a diplomatic solution first, though, he knows as well as us that Russia and Putin weren't interested in any political solution.  In the beginning of the conflict, Putin would have withdrawn support for the separatists if Kiev and the West had acknowledged the annexation of Crimea.  But our weakness and unwillingness to supply the Ukrainian military with weapons and equipment have far surpassed Putin's wildest hopes.  Now he is in a position to dismember Ukraine for good.

The upcoming offensive that is being discussed in the halls of the Pentagon, in Kiev, and in the living rooms of Mariupol, no doubt, are intended to widen the territory over which the separatist political arm can claim authority.  The more territory you occupy, the better your bargaining position.  President Obama, who should be leading on this issue, has only introduced sanctions to ward off Russian aggression.  We knew how far that would go.  We need to arm the Ukrainians to the hilt, and start deploying (or at least pretend to) some sort of missile shield system in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.  What I would give to see someone call Putin's bluff.  The missile defense is key. . . he will abandon Ukraine if it's used as a threat.  But we don't do those sorts of things.  This administration went to the Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy: give everything away, and then bend over.  Yes, I know Europe has been just as prostrate, but most of the NATO countries committed self-emasculation some time ago.  Outside of the UK and France, who won't hesitate to throw troops into Africa on a moment's notice, no European country has been engaged militarily since the first Gulf War (I don't count Kosovo or U.N. peacekeeping duty, OK?).  But I believe that the Europeans are scared, and are willing to follow our lead.  Now to find a leader . . .

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.  

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.