Just How Evil Has Russia Become?

Links: A. Problems with New START Treaty
           B. Russia's Support for Syria's Bashir al-Assad
           C. Russia Assisting Iran's Nuclear Program
           D. Russia Launches New UK Channel

Today's post will probably be broken up into two segments, as much as I despise "Part I and Part II" reading selections.  This subject can't be addressed with only a handful of paragraphs.  Recently we've discussed Iran, the resurgence of Al-Qaeda in sub-Saharan Africa, and the Ebola crisis.  All of these issues deserve serious attention.  In fact, as we dither, I'm assuming the Iranians have been making tremendous progress in their efforts to enrich Uranium.  In the mind of President Obama, though, the real threat to the liberty and safety of the American people is......the need to "legalize" persons who are living in this country sin documentos.  Hey, we all have out priorities.  I won't be tackling that issue in my blog, at least not anytime soon.  Let's take another look at Mother Russia.

In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got to work negotiating a Nuclear Reduction Treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (of course we actually mean Prime Minister Vladimir Putin). Many analysts questioned the timing and the need for this treaty, and once the guts were on the table for us to examine, the United States did not come off well (I won't drop this pile of manure squarely on Hillary's doorstep; thirteen GOP Senators voted in favor of the treaty; of course, that was during the days when we had separate branches of government).  If you want to know what is wrong with the treaty, have a quick look at the first link above. More than anything else, any treaty with Russia is a roll of the dice because the Russians lie, hide and cheat.  Ask any of the officials who have previously been involved in weapons reduction verification.  And yet we trust them with our Nuclear Security on a handshake.  In a case of terrible timing for Hillary, the Russians are not winning any philanthropy awards this year.  It will be very difficult not only bragging about the New START Treaty in her 2016 Presidential Campaign; it is something she will have to defend (at least from questions by the Fox News folks).  My personal question to candidate Hillary: "As Secretary of State, you undoubtedly knew of Russian assistance in Iran's efforts to enrich Uranium.  How could you agree to sign a Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty with a nation that was actually helping to create another third-world country with nuclear weapons?"

I don't have to spend too much ink on Russia's support for Syrian de facto President Bashir al-Assad.  During the dark days of the Soviet Union, Russia supported Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad (at least daddy had a chin, for goodness sake), and anyone else who was willing to oppose Israel.  I have a challenge to all of you armchair generals out there.  Lets try and determine just how many Russian tanks have been laid waste in Sinai, Golan, and the West Bank over the past five decades?  What used to fascinate me was the Soviet's willingness to replace the tanks that the IDF destroyed.  And most of the time, it was an upgrade: T-54/55 to 7-62 to T-72 to T-80; what a bargain.  Assad in Damascus still has as many as 1600 T-72/T-72Ms, not to mention 2000 T-54/55 clunkers and 1000 T-62s.  I have no idea how Assad's armor has been reduced, but you can be sure he has taken full advantage of the recent international focus on ISIL to get his front-line units in shape.  Why do the Russians continue the Soviet policy of support for Assad and the Syrian Ba'ath Party?  It all boils down to location and strategy.  Syria sits in a very strategic location, south of Turkey, north of Saudi Arabia and Israel, and west of Iraq.  Having Syria as a close ally has been advantageous to Russia in the past, and the opportunity to create a Mediterranean Russian Naval Base at Tartus is a tempting inducement.  Russian patronage of Assad is paying off.  It gives Russia a seat at the Syria/ISIL/Iraq table, wherever that table may be.

Why are the Russians so anxious to create additional member of the nuclear weapons club?  It has to be more than an issue of money, although I'm sure the Iranians are willing to pay.  Russia has its own oil, so petroleum can't be the reason for assisting Iran's Nuclear efforts.  Historically, the Chinese have also been willing to share their knowledge of all things nuclear (most of it stolen from our labs and universities), but with Beijing it was always about money.  And Iran has contracted with Russia to build a number of reactors.  Heaven only knows where the payment for all of this "help" will end up...probably in a Cyprus Bank Account under a Russian name.  Iran claims to be solely interested in peaceful use of nuclear energy, but the reality is, the Iranians are only interested in enrichment of uranium.  In fact, the Iranians have been using laser technology to create weapons-grade Uranium, which takes less time and is more difficult to detect, therefore encourages proliferation.  It would be such a welcome change if a Russian government would make a decision based on the notion that "its simply the right thing to do".

We have discussed the situation in Ukraine ad nauseam, and I refuse to send the few readers I have left, running for the exits.  My original suspicion was that in order to punish Ukraine for removing a pro-Russian president, Putin decided to annex Crimea and swallow up the modest Ukrainian Navy (poor Ukrainian Navy; I'm the only blogger who gives them any face time).  Putin created the "independence" movement in eastern Ukraine as a bargaining chip; if Ukraine accepts the annexation of Crimea, then Russia will withdraw their criminals and thugs from the streets of Luhansk, Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk.  After the fourth or fifth round of punishing sanctions (and one jetliner full of passengers, shot right out of the sky), Putin was reminded of the complete lack of nerve in Washington DC and the EU, and decided to keep mixing things up in the Ukraine.  Lets face it, what does he have to lose?  Putin could order a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Moldova, and what would President Obama's response be?  Noodle on that one for a while.

The reason I decided to discuss Russia today was the news of a new Russian UK television channel and a new Russian international news service, ostensibly to "combat western propaganda".  One can only hope that people won't pay attention to this new news service called "Sputnik", unless it becomes an outlet for comic relief.  Last week, some Russian news service (probably all of them) highlighted a video clip showing a Ukrainian jet shooting a missile at Malaysian Airlines MH 17.  If it weren't so disgusting and vile, it would have been funny, because the clip was obviously fabricated.  These gross morons don't seem to understand that if the Ukrainians wanted to shoot down that jetliner, they could have done so from at least a few miles away.  The absurdities regarding this alleged photo of a military jet shooting a missile at a civilian jetliner go on and on and on.  And this is the kind of honest reporting that we can expect from Sputnik and the new UK-based Russian television channel.

When the Iron Curtain fell, I was so excited for the future.  I have always been fascinated by Russia, and I was thrilled with the idea of an entirely new relationship between Washington DC and Moscow.  I'm not sure how, but things have fallen completely off the rails.  The Russian people don't seem to be happy unless they have an oppressive, militaristic government.  Can you imagine if Gorbachev had come to power instead of Putin?  But we are stuck with Vlad, and everyday he finds a way to remind me that he is nothing more than a sociopathic bucket of shit with serious homosexual tendencies (nothing personal, Gay folks), who managed to be at the right place and at the right time.  Putin used his KGB and Russian Mafia connections to elbow his way into the power vacuum that was left over after Boris Yeltsin.  And we are all suffering for it.  One fact is becoming more and more apparent all the time; the United States needs a leader who is proud of his/her country and is prepared to stand up to the bullies of the world.  2016 can't come fast enough.......       

Obama vs. ISIS and Benghazi

Links: Obama Vows to Attack ISIS

Benghazi: Did CIA Order Rescue Team to Stand Down?


Per the first link, President Obama made a public declaration today that the United States would be waging war on ISIS/ISIL.  And then he announced that he would provide more details to the American people (and ISIS/ISIL, we assume) on Wednesday.  Personally, an announcement that we were going to drop Agent Orange on these ISIS/ISIL Assholes would have been just fine with me.  I don't need the details "on Wednesday".  When did we start providing military strategy in public forums?  But at least the President showed some resolve.  Since I'm no longer in the loop, its okay for me to hypothesize what this Administration intends to do.  Lets review this post Wednesday afternoon and see how many I got correct: we will work with a coalition of our Arab (and European?) partners to develop a strategy that will surely work to erode ISIS/ISIL's ability to conduct terror activities.  And we will enact sanctions on any nations who we determine to be providing ISIS/ISIL with weapons and supplies.  Most importantly, we will continue and in some instances intensify the bombing campaign.  Because bombing the enemy is safe.  You don't put any troops in harm's way, which would be a terrible blow to the base just before November mid-term elections.  And millions of dollars in humanitarian aid is on its way to the people suffering from ISIS aggression.

I am old enough to remember the day when an enemy like this was identified, and every resource at our disposal was used to destroy it.  I have this theory, and I would like to know if you agree with me.  War is the most disgraceful insult that we can deliver to our Creator.  It involves every kind of evil behavior known to our species. But history has shown that war can be unavoidable in the defense of liberty and human rights.  I believe that if war is forced upon us, then we must do everything in our power to win quickly and decisively.  It doesn't take Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, or Machiavelli to teach us that a short victory is the best kind of victory. Fewer people die when the conflict is resolved decisively and quickly.  If your army has more resources, more weapons, more allies and more initiative, then throw the book at the bad guys, and make a statement to the next bunch of cowards who like to engage in random beheadings.  I believe that once ISIS/ISIL was declared an enemy of the state (actually, for me it was the beheading of Thomas Foley), then we should have instructed our respective military commanders to develop a plan for a rapid annihilation of this group.  And if someone doesn't want to come along for the ride (read: our Arab friends), then they had better look for cover.

Regarding the recent revelations by Fox News (timed to perfection with the release of the book by these Special Ops guys), I am going out on a limb by writing these comments before the evening broadcast of the Fox News Special on Benghazi.  I'm confident I won't step on my tongue, though, because I think I already know the basics of the "new developments".  A trio (or was it five?) of Special Ops guys were prepared to make their way to the CIA Annex and assist Amb. Stevens and his three companions. A CIA officer with some level of authority (they listened to him at first, right?) allegedly told these soldiers to "stand down".  I believe their version of events, and I think I am personally familiar with the ubiquitous "CIA Bob" (no love lost, believe me).  The Fox News link I have provided repeatedly refers to Bob as the "Top CIA Officer In Benghazi".  What exactly does that mean?  Was Bob the Benghazi Station Chief?  Not to quibble, but I doubt seriously that the top ranking Agency official in Benghazi was sitting with these guys that evening.  But Bob obviously did carry some bona fides.  It would not surprise me if Bob instructed these soldiers to "stand down" because that seems to be the order of the evening.  Folks, Bob did not make that decision unilaterally, regardless of the comment that Bob "was trying to rally local support".

I hope everyone keeps one fact steady: just like everyone else, Bob had orders.  Someone was instructing Bob throughout the evening's events.  Having been present in a few similar events in my career, I have learned that at the end of the day, any military action involving embassies and annexes must be approved by the Secretary of State.  Agency presence in diplomatic quarters is a controversial subject.  At the end of the day, Agency personnel working in a State Department facility fall under the authority of the Ambassador and, higher up, the Secretary of State.  Until someone proves to me otherwise, I believe the decision that night to "stand down" on military action was made by the Secretary of State.  I believe that she made the decision after weighing the negative diplomatic repercussions of offending the new Libyan government, who I am convinced would not have given their approval for an exfiltration (extraction) operation.  All of this is supposition on my part, and its very possible that I'm wrong.  We may never know who made the binding decision that cost Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods their lives.  What tremendously brave men they were, and we won't see their like again.  God Bless Them and their families.