Is Russia making preparations for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine?

The Russia of Vladimir Putin has a habit of telegraphing its intentions ahead of time.  Putin's foreign policy and its imclusion of Russia's military in one way or another, is all about aggression against his neighbors, intimidation, and force projection.  Although most analysts are closely monitoring Russian  military activity in Syria and on its borders with Ukraine, the truth is, every move Putin makes is primarily directed against the United States.  Sadly, everything Putin wants, he gets.  The United States has such week, reactive policies regarding Russia, that Putin must be very tempted to push the envelope one more time before the Obama Administration leaves office.  In fact, the recent Russian military buildup on its borders with Ukraine has all the indications of a full-scale imvasion.  It not only fits the Putin mold, but it makes sense geo-politically, at least in the way Putin has played the game lately.  One of the few cards we have left to play against Russia is our membership (and stewardship) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  This military force presents Putin with a potential enemy which would be very difficult to defeat with a conventional force.  There was a time when NATO was discussing a possible membership invitation to Ukraine, which would have really pissed off the folks in the Kremlin.  No doubt Ukraine, for defensive reasons alone, would have quickly accepted any such formal invitation, but no one in Kiev is waiting for the mail these days.  All Putin had to do was diplomatically complain and threaten a bit to put to flight the idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO.  Since then, Putin has demonstrated that Russia now calls the shots.  At one time, the Baltic Republics showed an interest in NATO, bit that issue has been run off the table as well.  The worst casualty of the willingness to let Russia dictate policy has to do with defensive strategy in Eastern Europe.  There was a time when NATO intended to deploy a missile shield in Poland and other Eastern European nations.  This device, if it operated as intended, ideally would destroy any missiles fired from Russia into Eastern Europe.  The Russians had no answer to the missile shield, so they threatened and blustered until that option also appears to now be off the table.  Why is Putin allowed to maneuver with such impunity?

On August 7, Russia issued formal complaints against Ukraine, accusing Kiev of attempting to either invade Crimea (!) or of trying to destabilize upcoming elections.  As proof, Russian television broadcast video of a handful of ragged so-called Ukrainian guerillas and a small cache of explosives and ammunition.  Staying true to their M.O., the Russian military was simultaneously building up its forces on its borders with Ukraine.  From August 7 -12, the Russian military deployed additional air and naval units, ground forces and military hardware on the border with Ukraine.  We believe this new military posture from Moscow is an indication that Russia intends to invade Ukraine before the Obama Administration leaves office, and a potentially less pliant government takes the reigns of power in DC.  Putin has everything to gain and nothing to lose.  The Ukrainian Army is in dire need of new equipment, parts, ammunition and training.  The Air Force appears to be in even worse shape.  The Obama Administration has continually refused repeated requests from Kiev for assistance, although some U.S. personnel have been detached to assist in training the Army.  Russia will steamroll the Ukrainian military, and the leaders of Europe, who follow behind Obama like a line of baby ducklings, will convene to discuss what sanctions to impose on Moscow.  Putin will permenantly eliminate the troublesome Ukrainians and their flirtation with NATO, the Baltic States will be cowered into acquiescence.

During the last 8 years, no matter what the issue or location, Russia has dictated the end game.  In Turkey, President Erdogan used the recent coup attempt that he very likely supported himself, to quash any pro-west sentiment, and then made nice with Putin.  Turkey's membership in NATO hangs in the balance, as do the missiles NATO has positioned in Turkey which are, we assume, aimed at Russia.  With Turkey and the Kremlin now best-of-friends, how safe are the U.S. military personnel still based in Turkey?  What about the U.S. military installations and aircraft?  All the while, U.S. foreign policy remains exactly how it was left by former Secretary of State Clinton: as a reactive, useless waste of taxpayer's money.  The only time we see Secretary Kerry is when he is stuck behind a bunch of media microphones, trying to explain how the ransom used to free U.S. hostages in Iran wasn't actually ransom, but part of a larger effort to repay Iran for a broken arms deal in the 1970s.  Sorry for straying a bit off-topic, but why are we repaying Iran for ANYTHING?  They remain the world's largest supporter of terrorism, so you can imagine where that money will end up.  This arms deal was in the 1970s; has Iran offered to compensate the family of U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer, who was killed by Iranian agents in 1985?  Has Iran paid any compensation for destroying our Embassy in 1979 and taking over one hundred Americans hostage?  Why is U.S. foreign policy always about placating the bad guys, Russia included?

I have no idea how either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will deal with Vladimir Putin.  As Secretary of State, in 2010 Hillary Clinton negotiated and signed the disasterous New Start Treaty with Putin, and Trump has praised Putin, seeming to not recognize the danger the Kremlin presents today.  Hillary has had her shot; I would rather take a chance on a new approach than continue the crippling foreign policy of the Obama Administration.  

Russia attempts to block IMF lending to Ukraine as Russian separatists violate ceasefire.

Link: Russia attempts to disrupt Ukrainian IMF loan.

It took two months for Russian-backed separatists to violate the latest ceasefire in eastern Ukraine.  The only surprise was that the ceasefire lasted as long as it did, but we can probably blame the delay on Russia's current pre-occupation in Syria.  The government of Ukraine and the various Russian-backed separatist groups in the east have agreed to two previous ceasefires, at least by my count.  In every instance, the apparently inevitable violation was committed by the separatists, which begs the obvious question: why does Kiev keep making agreements with these jerks?  Simply put, Ukraine has no choice.  President Petro Poroshenko has yet to implement any personal strategy for resolving this conflict.  Every decision from Ukraine's corner has been made by Kiev's European allies.  Ukraine is in no position to ignore the "advice" put forward by the U.S., French and German diplomats, and we all know that these three would just as soon see Ukraine completely overrun with Russians before agreeing to any type of aggressive military action.  Not that the Ukrainian Army is in a position to conduct a serious offensive in the southeast.  Repeated requests for military aid, to the U.S. in particular, have been denied, as the U.S. strives to encourage a more "peaceful" approach the to crisis.  Russia has taken full advantage of the prostrate policy currently put forth by the Europeans and the Obama Administration to occupy strategic villages and all-but off the vital port city of Mariupol from the rest of Ukraine.  During the last three years, Russia and her surrogates in eastern Ukraine have been able to dictate the time and pace of negotiations and military action to suit Russia's international strategy.  Expect the Ukrainian separatists to step-up military action in an attempt to occupy as much territory as possible before the election of a new, less-accommodating administration following the November 2016 presidential elections in the United States.

It appears that Russia's very recent diplomatic effort to interfere with Ukraine's relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has failed.  Russia has been known for this type of occasional diplomatic overreach, and who  can blame Moscow for trying?  Internationally, Russia continues to court various U.S. allies.  Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to enhanced military ties with the Emir of Kuwait, and Putin's envoy to Afghanistan has announced preparations to sell Hind Attack Helicopters and small arms to Kabul.  Russia has also reached out to Tunisia and Algeria, expressing the desire for increased cooperation in the fight against international terror.  The U.S. Department of State will respond to these overtures with some belated offer of aid or a concession on a trade treaty,  but the real problem for the United States has nothing to do with a Russian agreement with Kuwait or Helicopter sales to Afghanistan.  The fact is, Russia is running diplomatic circles around the U.S., and is showing no hesitation to flirt with long-time U.S. partners.  In the past, the United States would have reacted swiftly to Russian diplomatic advances to an ally by taking the same action.  The Bush or Reagan presidencies might have responded by agreeing to sell weapons to Ukraine, or by increasing the presence of U.S. troops in eastern Europe.  At present, the U.S. has no response to these Russian overtures.  Russia continues to express an interest in forming a security alliance of sorts vis-à-vis Syria, to include the U.S. and its allies.  Washington DC has responded in a positive way to this potential agreement, but many suspect it is nothing more than a Russian distraction.   

Russia taking advantage of disinterested Obama Administration to project military strength internationally.

In the last few months, Russia has aggressively extended its military footprint around the globe.  While most eyes are focused on Russian military action in Syria, Moscow has completed construction on a military facility in the Arctic, and stepped up diplomatic efforts vis-a-vis Baghdad, Cuba, and the United Nations.  Everytime that Russia succeeds in extending its military influence, the United States suffers accordingly.  Russia's move to establish s military base in the Arctic comes on the heels of discoveries that the vast frozen areas north of the Arctic Circle hold great potential for mineral and fossil fuel exploration.  Researchers and businesses in the United States have also expressed interest in Arctic resource exploration, but the Obama Administration has responded to such entreaties with suspicion and concern regarding the potential ecological impact.  Also, the recent rapprochement between the United States and Cuba has apparently not dimmed the close relationship between Moscow and Havana.  Many expect Cuba to lead the proposed Russian military "coalition" in Syria.  Presently, this coalition can count Iran, pro-regime Syria, Hezbollah, and possibly Belarus as members; many consider this grouping of Russian allies to be a counter to the U.S. coalition already in place in Syria.

A number of U.S. allies are beginning to discreetly express concern over the apparent apathy that appears to dominate the foreign policy of the United States in the later period of the Obama Presidency.  Since the election of 2008, most European leaders have been quick to support the Obama Aministration's policies, with the crises in Ukraine and Syria being two prime examples.  But as the failure of these policies become more apparent, and Obama seems unwilling to stand up and confront increased Russian global activity, certain European leaders are reviewing what options might be available that do not require the presence of the United States government in a leadership role.  No doubt our allies outside of Europe are also concerned about the lack of movement on the part of the United States.  China must also recognize that an opportunity currently exists, and will assuredly take advantage as well, while Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Australia wonder if the status quo can hold until a new administration takes over in Washington DC.

At present, more so than at any point in the last seven years, the United States needs to be an international leader.  This administration was quick to mobilize its diplomatic resources to conclude terrible treaties with both Russia (2010 New Start disarmament treaty with Russia), and Iran (2015 agreement on Iranian nuclear research).  Given that our allies are simply waiting for some sign of strength and consistency, it's not too late to check Vladimit Putin's strategy to create in Russia the world's sole super-power.  A fascinating aspect of these developments is that Russia's aggressive military and diplomatic moves have come while the Obama Administration continues to characterize Russia's economy as being close to collapse.  It seems as is if we've been waiting for that collapse ever since the beginning of the sanctions regime that was imposed on Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.  I'm glad we weren't holding our breath.....

Foreign Policy Armageddon: Obama fiddles as the Middle East burns.

Link: Syria is showplace for Russia's new military.

We keep waiting for the Obama Administration to introduce a flurry of new policy initiatives to counter the aggressive movements made by Russia in Syria and Iraq, but all we get from the Oval Office is diplomatic double-speak.  The fact is, it appears that the job of President no longer interests Barack Obama, and he's just counting down the days until he can become a permanent fixture on the celebrity golf circuit.  Actually, I'm convinced that Obama has one more important presidential decision to make before 2016 comes to an end.  I believe Obama will use Executive Action to provide a direct path to citizenship for up to twenty million illegal aliens living in the United States.
We will hear the tired excuse that Congress is broken and that the American people deserve action.  I guess the American people don't deserve action as far as the Middle East is concerned, regardless of our security concerns and the fact that every country in the region short of Iran is swarming with U.S. intelligence officers, military training specialists, diplomats, aid workers, State Department personnel, evangelists, and last and least, media correspondents.  I can only assume that Europe has its fair share of citizens traipsing around Baghdad, Damascus, Amman and Jerusalem as well.  One interesting development to note about the European nations is their willingness to follow the United States hook, line, and sinker since Barack Obama took office.  I haven't decided if its just another symptom of Obamamania, or fear on the part of the Merkels and the Hollandes that their people would remove them from office if they step out of the Obama line. 

One thing is certain: now would be an ideal time to create a coalition to either oppose Putin's heavy-handedness, or build a military coalition to fight ISIS side-by-side with the Russians.  It would allow the west to reap some of the good press that will result from the squashing of the Islamic State.  How can I be sure that Europe would support an appeal from Obama for some kind of collective response to Russia's heavy-handed military intrusion into Syria?  For the answer, all that is needed is a simple review of every policy move made by Obama since he took office.  Count the times that his initiatives were in the smallest manner opposed or criticized by a European government outside of Hungary; probably never.  Actually, all you need to do is observe how quickly the European leaders suffered "shrinkage" when Putin pushed the envelope on Ukraine.  Obama was quick to announce that NOTHING would make him take steps harsher than sanctions in response to blatant Russian aggression.  Obama provided the Russians with the European, NATO and U.S. strategy in one fell swoop:  regardless of what you do, Mr. Putin, you will never have to deal with anything more uncomfortable than economic sanctions, which in reality will only end up hurting the middle-class and poor in Russia.  Putin with his KGB background has never expressed the slightest sympathy for the average Russian.  Once Putin knew Obama's limits, he announced the permanent annexation of Crimea.  

Back to the Middle East, where President Obama continues to argue that he sits in a position of "strength", and Russia "argues from a position of weakness".  Anyone who makes that statement is trying to convince an audience of something that they themselves know to be untrue.  Obama has been drowning in sycophant bullshit for so long, that he thinks he can get away with anything.  Hell, what am I taking about; he can.  A treaty with Iran that legitimizes their in-your-face effort to obtain a home-brewed nuclear weapon (just like whiskey, home brew is always better than purchased, because if you want more, you can always make it yourself), turns Inspections into an embarrassing waste of time, and gives the Ayatollahs access to buy freely from the world's most modern stockpiles of weapons, is declared a victory by Obama.  Also, he doesn't see any connection whatsoever to the return of ISIS to Iraq and the simultaneous departure of most of the U.S. military personnel.  The Obama Administration's policy vs-a-vis the Arab World is so convoluted, that even the press seems about ready to throw in the towel.   I give Obama some credit; in other regions, including the South China Sea, Obama appears willing to allow the experts to run the show, i.e. the U.S. Navy.  In fact, for some time it appeared that he was determined not to allow the Taliban to regenerate in Afghanistan.  But the Taliban are like cactus; sooner or later, they'll be back.  The key is, when one of those nasty bastards shows his bearded mug in public, he should have a 500-lb bomb dropped in his lap. Considering the number of troops that have been withdrawn from Afghanistan in the last two years, I'm not optimistic regarding the success of the above-mentioned Operation Bomb the Bad Guys.

Russia is running rampant, using Turkey as its roadmap to Syria, eliminating the groups that originally opposed Bashar al-Assad, and making friends in Baghdad by providing intelligence on ISIS to the Iraqi military.  Every step seems well-thought and executed, with the Iranians along for the ride.  The relationship between Tehran and Moscow has become increasingly friendly as the Russians expressed their willingness to sell anything that wasn't cemented down, including nuclear-related goodies.  In my next blog post, we will discuss what Iran hopes to gain from its involvement in Iraq and its evolving partnership with Russia.