Backing Into Yet Another Losing War
Backing Into Yet Another Losing War
Gary Anderson
A day after leading his party into an election debacle that was at least partially enabled by his strategic ineptitude in foreign affairs, President Obama trumpeted his success in getting American troops out of Iraq; two days later, he announced that he was sending 1500 more troops into Iraq. American strategy is beginning to more resemble ALICE IN WONDERLAND than ON WAR.
From 1961 to 1965, when Lyndon Johnson finally committed American forces to full scale combat in Vietnam, the United States backed into war by incrementally sending troops to Vietnam in a manner that neither seriously impacted the conflict nor impressed the North Vietnamese. After that, Johnson pursued an equally ineffective bombing campaign in North Vietnam that did even less to impress our adversaries. The result was a loss of confidence in America abroad and at home. Many of my Baby Boom contemporaries refused to participate in an open-ended conflict that had no hope of a reasonable outcome. Johnson wanted the United States to dip its feet in the water in waging war; what he got was a quagmire.
In 1972, I wrote an article for the Marine Corps Gazette advocating a massive raid into North Vietnam that would destroy its military capability to provide a threat to South Vietnam for at least a decade. I believed that if we did not do this, our strategy of merely bombing the North into submission would result in a conventional invasion of South Vietnam. Like most articles by Second Lieutenants, it didn’t influence policy. Three years later, the South fell to the North in a conventional North Vietnamese invasion led by tanks. In fairness to the Nixon administration, it feared that an incursion into the North would lead to Chinese intervention. No such threat exists regarding the Islamic State; it has no protectors willing to take on the United States.
If we go into the areas of Iraq and Syria controlled by the Islamic State with massive force with the vowed limited intent of destroying its conventional military force, and leaving the residue to local forces to deal with, we can accomplish the end state of eliminating the immediate threat in the region and the well- funded existential threat to the United States. That will not solve the problem of how to govern the areas of Iraq that the Islamic State has overrun or the issues raised by the Syrian Civil War; those are problems the Syrians and Iraqis have to grapple with. We can help, but not with the sword of the Islamic State and other jihadist groups hanging over the region.
President Obama enabled the Islamic State’s forays into Iraq by the failure to keep engaged and continuing to help build both an effective government and a competent military capability. We can resume that project with a small but effective advisory presence, but not until the conventional military capability of the Islamic state is dismantled. Only we can do that.
We know how to advise client states in providing good governance and in creating effective militaries. However, we cannot do that unless we stay engaged. We left Iraq half done in 2011, and we never worked hard enough to create a Syrian alternative to Assad that was viable and militarily effective.
Obama’s incremental approach will not achieve success. Backing into a war never works. Obama’s new, slightly enhanced mission will produce body bags but not results.
Like Lyndon Johnson, our current President will find himself in a quagmire that he will continue to deny exists. He won’t fool the American people, our enemies, or our allies. Our prestige as a great power will continue to decay.
As we again commit the sin of amateur incremental engagement in a war against an enemy against a deadly and committed enemy, we face again the very real possibility of being humiliated by an opponent that we can beat if we take a serious approach to warfighting. President Obama has asked the Congress to authorize over five billion dollars to fund his latest strategic fiasco. Our lawmakers should give him a resounding NO! I’m not recommending defunding the war the way the lamentable 1974 Democratic Congressional class refused funding to South Vietnam; I am advising the Congress to force the President to wage real war.
The next Congress would be well advised to refuse to fund any more Mid East adventures until the President can lay out a coherent strategy with an obtainable end state. The President needs to hear things that he doesn’t want to hear. He currently has too many “yes” men and women on his national security team. If President Obama wants to hear only thinks that he likes, he should buy a good record collection.
Why are we so dead set on “figuring it out” in Iraq and Syria and now with a “3200 total non boots on the ground approach” and heavy bombing—just what will it get us in the end state?
Yet on the other, the US/EU/NATO is actively being openly and directly militarily/politically challenged by Putin and his UW strategic/tactical strategy which for the US is far more politically dangerous than a bunch of black flag wavers.
We seemingly are simply standing by in a wait/see mode and are sort of aimless with the Ukraine when in fact the black flag wavers have never threatened the US and or NATO with the implied use of tactical nuclear weapons and have sent in an “invasion” army into a sovereign central European country 25 years after the fall of the Wall.
Here are a number of examples of totally new Russian military equipment being taken into the Ukraine and “field tested” against Ukrainian troops and not a single comment from the US/EU/NATO.
BREAKING From #Izvarino to #Ukraine for #Krasnodon 4 #Russian army mobile reconnaissance unit PRP-4 entered.
pic.twitter.com/M8G61NEd0P
Picture of #Russia’s new 2S35 Coalition-SV artillery system off for testing. Looks like new turret design + 1 barrel
pic.twitter.com/CQOFhzVR9g
Heavy shelling and attacks of UA positions continued in all directions, artillery and rocket systems used. 1 soldier killed, 5 wounded
Terrorists continue preparation of aggressive actions against Ukraine, supported by Russian weapons and soldiers – col. Lysenko, NSDC spoks
But if the IS waves around a SAM 7 in a battle video the entire western media goes over the cliff with comments.
We are it appears even “scared” to make the hard call and use the word “invasion”—we split dictionary terms and settled on “incursion”- BUT after hundreds of tanks travelled from Russia to the Ukraine and now over 10,000 “vacationing Russian troops” are in the country—do we change the word?—no. In fact the more Russia moves militarily into the Ukraine the “quieter” the US gets.
National boundaries in the ME were always destined for change as they were artificially drawn up by the colonial powers after the fall of the Ottoman Empire–BUT European security for the last 25 years was built on the concept of sovereign borders that were not to be challenged especially via the use of military force.
So again why the deep concern in Iraq/Syria? —but when it is virtually next door to the US/EU/NATO we the US wander aimlessly in circles?
Maybe the Ukrainians should start waving “black flags” and shouting “Praise to Allah” in order to get our attention.
This goes to my previous comment on why are we so wrapped up with the IS—when Russia has in over 40 incidents come dangerously close to triggering a war via their Air Force incursions which one almost hit/downed a civilian airliner, to threatening and practicing tactical nuclear strikes against Poland and the Baltic regions and now sending an unannounced Russian Naval convoy into Australian coastal waters as a show of force in the upcoming G20 meeting there when Putin will be challenged on MH17.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25496667/russian-warships-bearing-down-on-australia/?cmp=fb
Last time I checked the IS has no nuclear weapons, has never threatened the US with a nuclear strike, does not have an Air Force with tactical nuclear cruise missiles and does not have a Navy, nor a well trained Special Operations Command.
So again why the massive emphasis on something that is no direct threat to the US BUT ignore on the other hand a very direct threat?
Again—while everyone is so totally focused on beating back the IS war is in effect breaking out in central Europe and that is not more important?
We failed to keep in the back of our minds the Putin “threat”—“he could take Kyiv in two weeks”.
Nato commander Breedlove, quoted by AFP: “We have seen columns of Russian equipment… and Russian combat troops entering into #Ukraine”
NATO cmdr Breedlove: “Across last 2 days we’ve seen…columns of Russian equipment, primarily Russian tanks, Russian artillery…”
#BREAKING Ukraine preparing for combat in face of Russian build-up: defence minister via @AFP
This goes to the comment above—we hear countless comments both from the White House, Congress and the media concerning the IS—BUT after 96 hours of Russian troop movements into the Ukraine and nothing from anyone in the US.
This is reflecting a number of leading European decision makers right about now.
Every hour Obama makes no statement re Putin’s overt invasion of #Ukraine gives Kyiv an hour to realize they, sadly, are on their own.
While the US is so fixated on the IS— the Russian strategy of taking over and annexing eastern Ukraine as the “New Russia” is in full swing and still no word from the US.
The Russian UW strategy and their strategy for the Baltics should start worrying some in Washington.
More Russian “white dots” in Donbas, going soon to Mariupol and Kharkiv pic.twitter.com/4G6sIsgoaG
The Russian “peacekeeping” troops are already inside the Ukraine and yet not a single word from Washington—is that not strange or not?
Outlaw’s points (below) would seem to be well made, to wit:
a. In comparison with what is going on in the Ukraine,
b. Should the President place his focus there — rather than entertain the author’s suggestion that he “wage real war” in Iraq and Syria?
Or, perhaps a better question:
Are Iraq and Syria — or, indeed, the Ukraine — of sufficient strategic importance as to warrant either (a) a further commitment and/or (b) “real war?”
Bill C—does his article seem to you to indicate the seriousness of the Russian threat vs say a bunch of “black flag waving Islamists” stuck in Iraq and Syria?
As anyone pointed out the simple fact that the IS does not have nuclear weapons nor have they threatened tactical nuclear strikes against NATO and the US.
After reading the article ask the one simple question– is IS more or less a serious threat to the US than say the somewhat loose cannon called Putin who actually believes he can use tactical nukes and so states it repeatedly or is the threat of a “black flag” waving on top of a hill somewhere in Syria —far more dangerous than a Russian nuclear tipped battlefield tactical missile pointed at Poland and the Baltics–all members of NATO with Article 5 in their hip pocket?
A great read—
Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike “de-escalation”
http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation
Bill C—here is another view that basically says the Putin threat far outweighs anything the IS can currently carry out inside Europe or the US.
The Putin Doctrine is far more dangerous to Europe and the US than the IS call for a Caliphate in the ME.
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/putin-s-project-sparta
Putin’s militarized beachhead in eastern Ukraine offers a further benefit for Putin: It can focus independent Russian ultranationalists toward activity outside Russia, and away from challenging Putin’s corrupt state at home.
Putin’s creation of a mini-Sparta in Ukraine’s east is a serious challenge to the West. It reveals both the extent of Putin’s irrational calculations and the limits of Russian power. With an economy about 5 percent as big as that of the NATO alliance, Russia can ill-afford long-term isolation and accelerating economic decline. Nor can it afford a major military occupation of Ukrainian territory. What it can do is to promote long-term instability and regional violence.
With his new preparations in place for a long, renewed war, President Putin has now revealed all his cards in his fight against Ukrainian independence and democracy.
It is time for the West to respond.
Bill C—
At least the IS does not want to divide up Europe again as did Stalin at Yalta or with Ribbentrop in 1939.
Ilarionov says Putin wants a new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with the West. He keeps Crimea and (somehow) delivers Iran.
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2014/11/window-on-eurasia-putin-proposing.html …
This idea that the US gets their settlement with Iran with Russian “help” and in return the US remains “quiet” on the Ukraine—seems to come up again from the Russian side.
By the way this is the third “trial balloon” with this offer—the first one came out of Germany where it was “suggested” the Russians could pay X billons to the Ukraine for the Crimea along with massive not to be paid for gas deliveries which got shot down—then came along virtually similar suggestions as this article from a group of US and Russians who met in Finland looking for an off ramp for Putin and now we have the third option.
Core problem would be—who could now trust anything Putin says and or signs especially from the Ukrainian side—there is no trust when it comes to Russian actions.
Without driving a wooden stake through the heart of the Putin Doctrine Putin and whoever comes behind him will continue down the path of ethno neo imperialism (actually a Russian form of fascism)using the Russian language as the hammer against the Baltics and just about anyone else that has a Russian minority.
What is more interesting is the release of this trial balloon followed by this out of the mercenaries of the Ukraine–also from today.
#Russia terrorists in #Ukraine tell of an order to start full-scale offensive on Sunday, Nov16
http://obozrevatel.com/politics/20436-terroristyi-oplota-soobschili-o-nastuplenii-terroristov-v-voskresene-zhurnalist.htm …
pic.twitter.com/p1Y1SpqHZ3
Gary Anderson,
You are wrong about your gazette article, it did influence policy from the standpoint that tests were done to see if it was possible, at least as far as Airborne raids were concerned. Operation Vault was done while I was in the 82nd to see if we could be dropped inside North Vietnam (practice drop was done in Korea)while the Marines hit the beach. Plan was stopped due to lack of airlift for a whole division.
Outlaw, below, warns us of escalation in the Ukraine.
And he points to Putin’s new threatening behaviors — which we seem to ignore.
And Outlaw asks why we do nothing.
Could the answer to his question be that the Ukraine is considered to be of little strategic importance to the United States/the West?
Same-same re: Iraq and Syria?
Both simply being examples of our “overreaching?”
Thus for reasons of (1) little or no strategic importance, and (2) understood overreaching, should we come to understand that:
a. We are prepared to let the Ukraine fall/go to Putin.
b. And, indeed, prepared to let portions of Syria and Iraq fall to ISIS?
Herein, we will do the “sanctions” thing re: the Ukraine and Putin — and the “no-boots on the ground” thing re: ISIS controlled Iraq and Syria — but nothing more. This, due to the “lack of strategic importance”/”understood overreaching” argument that I have made above?
So:
a. We will not risk nuclear war with Russia to save the Ukrainians. And
b. We will not “wage real war” to save the Iraqis and Syrians.
Thus, should Outlaw — and indeed COL Anderson — simply “chill out;” as the “loss” of the Ukraine, etc., should now be understood as being foregone conclusions?
MF–you might this article enlightening as it goes into an area that is little discussed these days—has the Putin Doctrine now replaced the Westphalia world of order concept?
IS as based on the article thus could not then be viewed as a direct political threat to the US as is say Russia currently.
Well worth the read as it was written by a European looking at the current European core problem—Russia.
http://www.diplomaatia.ee/en/article/butsantsliku-diplomaatia-raudvara/
The Return of Byzantine Diplomacy
The most obvious action that unmistakably illustrates Byzantine diplomacy (and which can be used to predict future intentions) is to accuse others of what you are doing or are about to do. Violation of human rights, persecution of minorities, non-respect for the right to self-determination, excessive violence towards opponents, silencing the press, territorial disputes, interference in internal affairs—all these are found in the annals of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Putin’s Russia. Predictably, they all blamed (or blame) these actions on countries against which they had (or have) aggressive plans.
The forceful return of Byzantine diplomacy is threatening the continuance of the entire world order based on honouring international law. Is the world of Westphalia coming to an end? Are inhuman laws making a comeback?
There are all types of instruments in the Byzantine diplomatic arsenal to get what is wanted: arguments derived from history, law, self-determination, the protection of minorities and human rights etc. Total propaganda, the distortion of history, the arbitrary interpretation of facts, pure lies and the systematic deception of the people are used in making these arguments public. The following concepts can be identified in the light of this discussion:
1) ancient territories. A territory touched by a Russian soldier’s boot or where a Russian soldier has spilled blood is regarded as an ancient Russian territory (Crimea, Eastern and Southern Ukraine). Territories where Germans live must belong to the Reich (Austria, Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine).
2) protecting fellow countrymen. The Reich and the Derzhava are justified in protecting their countrymen, wherever they live or wherever their “rights” might be violated. This is also used as a justification for ethnic cleansing and the relocation of other national groups (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Karelia, the Baltic states).
3) justified interests and spheres of influence. Large countries have their security interests, the protection of which is lawful even if the rights of others are violated. Russia, as the core state in Eurasia, has the right to subject the “near abroad” to its control, and carry out military interventions (so-called “peacekeeping” in Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova). The Soviet Union had the right to move the Finnish border further from Leningrad and to annex eastern Poland, the Baltic states, and Bessarabia because it increased its security this way. Germany, in turn, was entitled to western Poland—as the core state in Europe, it had the right to lebensraum at the expense of others. The rights of other countries to security and sovereignty are not acknowledged.
4) “the world of large nations”. Countries do not share equal rights. Only large countries can have interests, and the right to decide over the whole world order proceeding from these interests. Small countries exist at the mercy of big ones and have to be either in their spheres of influence or under their control. In this concept, all international laws that treat big and small countries equally are unacceptable and must be abolished.
Byzantine diplomacy is thus the diplomacy of an expansionist country, and a politics that inevitably leads to aggressive behaviour towards other countries.
A scheme of action can be outlined from this definition—expansion and annexation are advanced as far as possible by diplomatic means, and direct military aggression is initiated when diplomatic means are exhausted.
Why some in Europe are stating to question US leadership coming out of the White House–Putin fully understands the inability of the US to effectively lead NATO and to work with the EU and he fully understands the US President’s lack of a foreign policy strategy towards Russia.
Russian Tanks in Ukraine, but US Won’t Say ‘Invasion’
By KIRIT RADIA (@kiritradia) Nov 13, 2014, 4:06 PM
MOSCOW – Thousands of Russian troops have crossed into eastern Ukraine in recent days, along with columns of tanks, artillery and air-defense systems, according to NATO’s top commander.
By nearly every definition – indeed, according to the Oxford dictionary – the act of armed forces crossing the border would constitute an invasion.
But the Obama administration has noticeably avoided using the word to describe Russia’s apparent action (Russia denies any of its troops or military equipment are in Ukraine). Instead, U.S. officials have resorted to terms like “incursion” or even more contorted rhetorical gymnastics.
“Russia is instead surging more forces and more equipment across the border,” Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said Wednesday.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki referred to heavy weapons being “moved to the front lines” and endorsed “the developments seen by NATO.”
Asked point blank by email whether Russia had invaded Ukraine, Psaki again declined to use the term.
“As we’ve said consistently, Russia is blatantly violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine,” she told ABC News. “No matter what you call it, Russian action inside Ukraine must end immediately.”
Psaki offered no explanation for why the term “invasion” was not being used, but the blatant effort to deflect it suggests a policy decision was made within the administration.
John Herbst, director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council and a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, says it is “obvious” the Obama administration is trying to downplay the significance of Russia’s military aggression to avoid an equally forceful response.
“If they say invasion, they’re afraid it will pressure them to take the strong actions that they are reluctant to take,” he said. “It would make people ask ‘Well, why isn’t our response stronger?’ And that’s a very good question.”
This isn’t the first time.
In late August, when Ukrainian troops were close to defeating the Russia-backed rebels, NATO said it saw Russian troops crossing into Ukraine to bolster the rebel forces. Administration officials declined to call it an “invasion” then, too.
“It’s certainly unauthorized entry,” Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby said at the time.
President Obama called it an “ongoing Russian incursion.”
When confronted with his avoidance of the “I” word, he again dodged the question.
“Russia determined that it had to be a little more overt in what it had already been doing, but it’s not really a shift,” he said.
Some terms carry legal weight, meaning their use could trigger required action by the United States. Calling an act “genocide,” for example, triggers a certain response by law.
Not long ago, the Obama administration made a conscientious decision to start talking about Russia’s “occupation” of the Crimean peninsula, which was annexed from Ukraine in March. The United States does not recognize Crimea as part of Russia, but using the term “occupation” recognizes not just a de facto governance over the region, but also that Russia has a legal responsibility for what happens there.
The term “invasion” can also trigger a certain response, like in the case of NATO where treaty allies are bound to defend each other in such a situation. No such treaty obligation exists, however, between the United States and Ukraine.
“I am unaware of any legal reason why they are not using the word invasion,” Herbst of the Atlantic Council said. “I believe it’s political.”
Latest US IS strategy that at least might work?
White House unveils its new strategy for fighting #ISIS. #Iraq #Syria
pic.twitter.com/gdAJmw1aUe
Gary,
Our problem is not so much that we “back into war” but that we see situations through such a biased lens that we talk ourselves slowly into fights that were never ours to win or lose to begin with.
The war in Vietnam was over by the mid-fifties. Ho won fair and square, the illegitimacy of US-backed French colonialism was defeated, and all that was left for the US to do was to develop diplomatic relations with the new government of Vietnam and settle into the emergent peace. Instead we convinced Ho to pull his forces up into the north, shipped thousands of Catholics into the south, cancelled the promised elections and created the Western fiction of two new states of North and South Vietnam. When the US came into the fight a decade later we bought into and waged war against our own fiction, rather than dealing with the actual situation at hand.
In Syria and Iraq we are once again so consumed by our own fiction that we are once again battling demons that exist far more in our own minds than in the reality on the ground.
“Defeating” ISIL only serves to convert the emergent de facto Sunni Arab state back into a revolutionary insurgency. This solves nothing, except perhaps opening the door for AQ to say “I told you so” and re-exert their influence with this population.
Any successful strategy must offer the Sunni population at least as much as we have already guaranteed for the Kurds. The strategy must recognize that ISIL is not AQ. The strategy must engage ISIL leadership and disrupt their actions in a manner that is consistent with an overarching narrative that we support the Sunni Arab people equally to the other people of the region.
In short, we must deal with the world as it actually is, not as we have convinced ourselves it has become.
Seems that others see Russia as a far greater problem for this White House than IS will ever be.
#Russia is a bigger problem than Isis for Obama – http://FT.com http://on.ft.com/1uW4ABv
Behind a paywall though.
Robert is interestingly correct—check this former NATO commanders assessment of how many US boots on the ground must now go into the region if one is going to challenge IS on the ground.
Reports of Russian troops in Ukraine ‘irrefutable’ says ex-Nato commander
14 November 2014 Last updated at 18:09 GMT
Reports of Russian troops crossing the border into Ukraine are “somewhat shocking” and “irrefutable”, according to former Nato Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis.
“This is not hot air coming out of Brussels. This is lying coming out of Moscow”, he told Jane O’Brien on the BBC’s World News America programme.
Admiral Stavridis also spoke about US strategy in the battle against Islamic State, saying he believes the US will need to send 8-10,000 more troops into the region.
He is Dean of The Fletcher School at Tufts University and author of The Accidental Admiral.
This is what some would openly call “mission creep”–first 300, then 1500, then 3200 and now 8-10K.
MF–another distinct difference between the Russians and the IS–Russia has deployed an amazing information warfare fight against Europe and the US and we are not even in the game as he attempts to influence US/European populations and their leaders.
Something IS does not do as they focus on recruitment and funding an other Muslim populations.
Really, really,— worth the read as we have a serious problem with the info war currently inside the US at this moment and most Americans would not even recognize it.
http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-the-kremlins-growing-army-of-internet-trolls/
Another great difference between the IS and Russia–if we intently listen IS is telling us everything we need in order to understand them—we just do not do “listening well”.
If we listen to Russia all we hear are blatant lies and that with an itchy nuclear trigger finger.
Russia signed the Minsk agreements and as not implemented a single point in them—since the ceasefire went into effect on 5 Sept there have been over 3000 violations by the Russian troops and mercenaries—yesterday alone 60 shelling attacks and three ground attacks on Ukrainian positions.
Putins ‘spokesperson’ Markov on Dutch TV: Russian people demand Putin to send troops to liberate Russians in Kharkov, Odessa of Kiev junta.
(NOTE:–this statement in fact is totally correct as Putin needs Kharkov as the capital of his “New Russia” and he needs Odessa as his “land corridor” to the Crimea—IMO I have not seen his end goal so clearly stated on European TV AND by his own spokesperson—that is not by accident)
From this morning from the Ukrainian Commander of this unit:
BREAKING: “We are facing a tank division. And not a simple division of the separatists, but of Russian elite troops.” – Batt.Aydar
LISTEN IN TO #DEBALTSEVE!
NONSTOP SHELLING OF CIVILIANS BY RUS TERRORISTS AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION’S ARMED FORCES!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTw21sVX9cE …
The detained #Russian marine in #Ukraine turns out to be a lecturer in National Naval Academy.
http://novorab.ru/ArticleSection/Details/1099/17 … pic.twitter.com/iMtZUuLGGi
Dozens of unmarked Russian army forces inside #Russia, minutes before entering #Ukraine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JBunc
(Note immediately after it was released–it was pulled by someone)
And the IS is seriously a “strategic threat” to the US?
We live in an era of self-determination.
Nations like the US may say we promote change, but our actions more accurately convey that of course we see our national interests served best by sustaining some, slightly more like us if possible, version of the status quo.
Most others, however, see their interests served best by change. This is true between nations and within nations. Not to be more like the US or anyone else (to include AQ, MB, ISIL, etc), but to be MORE LIKE THEMSELVES.
Our national narrative AND history supports this reality, even if our recent policies and actions have not.
Interesting—there has been for the last two days extremely heavy Russian heavy lift aircraft chatter—appears their VDV units in Western Military District and Southern Military district are apparently on the move.
Not normal for usual Russian military activities.
Latitude 67N SIGINT
@uascan Priboj transport net continues to be very active and have been for 2 days. “Something” beeing moved in western Russia?
This is how the social media net then responds to the tweet.
An interesting experiment in crowdsourcing intel gathering and analysis without the big three letters in support of a government under massive invasion pressure.
Aki Heikkinen @AkiHeikkinen1 · 35m35 minutes ago
@uascan Vacation flights 😉
GorseFires Collectif @GorseFires · 24m24 minutes ago
@AkiHeikkinen1 @uascan We don’t like this. Not at all. Coincides with rumint about Ilyushin transports prepping for VDV lifts WMD & SMD !!
GorseFires Collectif @GorseFires · 22m22 minutes ago
@AkiHeikkinen1 @uascan If anybody out there in Twittersphere has info/intel/rumint on VDV & transports, NOW is the time to let folks know.
Aki Heikkinen @AkiHeikkinen1 · 18m18 minutes ago
@GorseFires @uascan Any rough number of flights & aircraft types would be cruicial info for Ukraine.
GorseFires Collectif @GorseFires · 17m17 minutes ago
@AkiHeikkinen1 @uascan Any leads at all (even if rumint, ‘cos crowdsourcing will kick in and focus the info) 🙂
Latitude 67N SIGINT @uascan · 13m13 minutes ago
@GorseFires @AkiHeikkinen1 no. I do sigint, not analysis.
Aki Heikkinen @AkiHeikkinen1 · 13m13 minutes ago
@uascan Big thumbs up to you! @GorseFires
Something we do not often write about here is “does sometimes leaders of Russia ie former Soviet Union live in an altered state of reality”?-meaning they have set their belief paradigm in such a way that their belief in that paradigm cannot allow them to see the “real reality” out of fear that it clashes with the “paradigm”.
It is interesting that since Russia basically can never admit to her military being actively engaged in the Ukraine it tends to actually block them from thinking logically in order to find a way out of the maze they find themselves in right now.
Trapped by one’s own propaganda (Russia) should be for world leaders a “wake up call” as it restricts one’s ability to formulate solutions as Putin’s world is not one of reality where the rest of the world is currently at.
If one really takes the time to read in Russian the Putin G20 parting statement—one has the distinct feeling Putin is really residing in “an altered state of reality” ie one formed by his own propaganda and old line Communism which he cannot get out of in both his thinking and actions.
AND that is far more dangerous that a bunch of “black flag waving Islamists” that really only focus on the ME. Why—he is then literally a “loose cannon” as he has no distinct touch to actual reality and that clouds then when necessary clear and distinct decisions he needs to make in the coming days.
Kind of a summation of his comments would be;
Yes we supply the Russian speaking peoples of the DPR and LNR with arms, munitions, fighters, and food but you don’t get it. Let me explain again and again and again. We are protecting them from the mean junta Nazi’s who are trying to destroy them.
#Putin: In meanwhile #Russia considers the crisis in #Ukraine will come to an end & the relations with the West will normalize.
#Putin: We don’t want that. We won’t allow that.
#Putin: It means you favour Ukraine government killing everybody there, all the political dissidents & opponents. You want that?
NOTE: It is interesting that the formal leader of Russia still thinks and acts in terms of the Stalinist days when he seemingly thinks the Ukrainian government can in fact pull off a killing progrom similar to the Stalin days. Tends to show just how “frozen” Putin’s world is in the Stalin days.
#Putin: #Ukraine government has deployed its armed forces. Even rocket propelled shells are used but does anyone mention abt that? No a word
NOTE: Surprisingly Putin assumes that the Ukrainian government has no inherent national rights to defend their country from what they perceive to be an invasion of foreign fighters ie Russian mercenaries from the Russian ultra right wings and the Russian army “voluntold”.
#Putin to ADR: The most important is in the fact one can’t look at the problem one sidedly. Today in East #Ukraine war is going on.
This current Administration sends upwards of 3200 “non boots on the ground advisors” back into Iraq, bombs across Syria/Iraq and supplies “lethal aid” to just about anyone who wants to fight IS –BUT then tap dancers like a world class champion when the word “invasion” should be used if one just picks up the Oxford dictionary when it comes to the current Russian invasion of the Ukraine.
Ever wonder why this White House wonders why Europeans are disjointed–they really do not fully understand the White House’s actual reluctance to take a harder stance towards Putin and company–all they see is a steady stream of tap dancing.
All the while calling for a “global armed response to IS”–does that not seem strange?
Why is it so hard for this administration to simply call a spade a spade?
“I am unaware of any legal reason why they are not using the word invasion,” Herbst of the Atlantic Council said. “I believe it’s political.”
Russian Tanks in Ukraine, but US Won’t Say ‘Invasion’
By Kirit Radia
Nov 13, 2014 4:06pm
MOSCOW – Thousands of Russian troops have crossed into eastern Ukraine in recent days, along with columns of tanks, artillery and air-defense systems, according to NATO’s top commander.
By nearly every definition – indeed, according to the Oxford dictionary – the act of armed forces crossing the border would constitute an invasion.
But the Obama administration has noticeably avoided using the word to describe Russia’s apparent action (Russia denies any of its troops or military equipment are in Ukraine). Instead, U.S. officials have resorted to terms like “incursion” or even more contorted rhetorical gymnastics.
“Russia is instead surging more forces and more equipment across the border,” Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said Wednesday.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki referred to heavy weapons being “moved to the front lines” and endorsed “the developments seen by NATO.”
Asked point blank by email whether Russia had invaded Ukraine, Psaki again declined to use the term.
“As we’ve said consistently, Russia is blatantly violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine,” she told ABC News. “No matter what you call it, Russian action inside Ukraine must end immediately.”
Psaki offered no explanation for why the term “invasion” was not being used, but the blatant effort to deflect it suggests a policy decision was made within the administration.
John Herbst, director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council and a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, says it is “obvious” the Obama administration is trying to downplay the significance of Russia’s military aggression to avoid an equally forceful response.
“If they say invasion, they’re afraid it will pressure them to take the strong actions that they are reluctant to take,” he said. “It would make people ask ‘Well, why isn’t our response stronger?’ And that’s a very good question.”
This isn’t the first time.
In late August, when Ukrainian troops were close to defeating the Russia-backed rebels, NATO said it saw Russian troops crossing into Ukraine to bolster the rebel forces. Administration officials declined to call it an “invasion” then, too.
“It’s certainly unauthorized entry,” Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby said at the time.
President Obama called it an “ongoing Russian incursion.”
When confronted with his avoidance of the “I” word, he again dodged the question.
“Russia determined that it had to be a little more overt in what it had already been doing, but it’s not really a shift,” he said.
Some terms carry legal weight, meaning their use could trigger required action by the United States. Calling an act “genocide,” for example, triggers a certain response by law.
Not long ago, the Obama administration made a conscientious decision to start talking about Russia’s “occupation” of the Crimean peninsula, which was annexed from Ukraine in March. The United States does not recognize Crimea as part of Russia, but using the term “occupation” recognizes not just a de facto governance over the region, but also that Russia has a legal responsibility for what happens there.
The term “invasion” can also trigger a certain response, like in the case of NATO where treaty allies are bound to defend each other in such a situation. No such treaty obligation exists, however, between the United States and Ukraine.
“I am unaware of any legal reason why they are not using the word invasion,” Herbst of the Atlantic Council said. “I believe it’s political.”
Interesting—Putin declares he is not in the Ukraine in his G20 speech but then he is overridden by his “rep” in the DPR speaking in Donetsk.
And we yet worry about the IS in Iraq/Syria?
From Interfax today:
14:46 DPR should exist within Donetsk region boundaries – Zakharchenko
Comments from Zakharchenko from 16/11:
Alexander Zakharchenko, 16.11.2014
http://ria.ru/world/20141116/1033542814.html …
“#Sloviansk and #Mariupol will be within our borders. With the help of the Russian Federation, these problems will be solved very quickly.”
#STATEMENT
“The line of demarcation must be on the boundary of the Donetsk region. We do not recognize the current border.” – #Zakharchenko
There is an interesting trend ongoing currently within the Russian Army that was never calculated when Russia developed their new UW strategic strategy.
What happens with all the new doctrine and you have/plan a war and no soldiers show up?
This is the second similar social media report and if correct then it is a serious development that is not calculated within the Russian UW strategy.
#Russia|n soldiers are doing everything not to go to war,-take sick leave,family leave,or just flatly refuse to go to
Russian officers write THAT war ENDS in 1 month. No Soldiers left for PUTIN http://m.censor.net.ua/video_news/312228/ofitsery_pishut_chto_voyina_zakonchitsya_cherez_mesyats_potomu_chto_u_putina_skoro_zakonchatsya_soldaty?
I keep going back to the new Russian UW strategy which is now becoming more and more tied to a Russian tactical nuclear weapons usage.
The US is massively looking at the IS as the most serious threat — but is somehow at the senior civilian leadership level ignoring the possibility that the Russian nuclear threats are just more than rhetoric thus in fact the more serious threat at the moment to the entire US.
http://hudson.org/research/10772-russia-and-its-nuclear-strategy
Taken from the article:
Our panel today looks at the disturbing new nuclear rhetoric and actions coming out of Moscow these days. As all of us know, in late August Vladimir Putin offered a not-so-veiled nuclear threat against Ukraine, followed by numerous incidents in recent weeks where Russian strategic bombers flew into both American and Canadian air defense space. These actions and rhetoric occurred against the backdrop of an unprecedented announcement by Putin at a recent meeting of the Russian Duma in Ukraine and Crimea, in which the authorization of the basing of nuclear systems in Crimea was permitted, including long-range air launch cruise missiles and Russian short-range ballistic missiles. And this occurred following an announcement in April that Russia might place tactical nuclear weapons in Crimea.
Not only would these obviously violate Ukrainian sovereignty, but as a number of leading figures in Congress–Chairman Buck McKeon of the House Armed Services Committee of Congress and subcommittees chairs Mike Rogers and Michael Turner–wrote in a letter to the president, they make a mockery of nonproliferation goals and give Russia an enhanced strategic advantage. This quote from this important letter is from these members of Congress: “Locating nuclear weapons on the sovereign territory of another state without its permission is a devious and cynical action that further undermines Russian credibility in terms of the Budapest Memorandum that the Russian Federation signed in 1994.” This Russian action would be ironic if it was not so threatening to global nonproliferation goals. It further positions Russian nuclear weapons closer to the heart of NATO, and it allows Russia to gain a military advantage from its seizure of Crimea, allowing Russia to profit from its actions. If Russia thinks it can gain advantages from such actions, it will continue them. It is also a clear and perhaps irrevocable tearing of the peaceful and stable security environment that made the Founding Act of Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation of 1997, also known as the NATO-Russia Founding Act.
Current Kyiv joke going around;
“Our only choice is to declare war on China. To get to us, they have to invade Russia first.”
The fundamental questions remain:
a. Is the Ukraine as per Outlaw — and/or Iraq/Syria as per COL Anderson — of sufficient strategic importance as to cause the United States to consider, itself, “waging real war?”
b. Or are such questions — re: strategic importance and waging real war — more properly the purview of the states and societies residing within/near these regions?
And why are we so involved in countering the IS?
“More people with American citizenship have been killed by Palestinian terrorists in the lst year than have been killed by ISIS”
And beating up more on the IS–they definitely have not been threating the Baltics and the Scandinavian countries and or call NATO into question with it’s Article 5 commitments.
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/putin-targets-the-scandinavians
Throughout 2014, an unprecedented number of air space violations and incidents have required NATO Baltic Air Policing to scramble jets in response. Most significantly, there has been a dramatic increase in Russian military exercises in the area. Such air space violations have been equal opportunity bullying, targeting Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania alike. The goal of these increased military activities in or near Nordic/Baltic space is to undo the emergence of a collective defense system in the region.
To put it bluntly, if Russia can take Sweden and Finland out of the NATO ledger, any conversation about Article 5 defense for the Baltics becomes a highly theoretical proposition. Hence, Moscow’s ploy to pressure the Scandinavians to stay out of its power play in the Baltic has been underway for several years now, and dates prior to the move to sever Crimea from Ukraine. . . .
Russian planning, exercises, and patterns of harassment aim to convey to the Scandinavians that, should Russia choose to move against them, it would target their territory as well. The goal is to undercut the confidence among NATO members along the northeastern flank that the alliance would in fact fulfill its Article 5 obligations in a crisis.
By targeting and pressuring Sweden and Finland, Russia seeks to, on the one hand, obstruct any move on the part of the Swedes and Finns for full membership in NATO, while at the same time convey a strong message to the Balts that in a crisis their Article 5 security guarantees cannot be taken for granted, and that they will be left to their own resources. If Moscow succeeds, it will weaken collective defense in the region, undercutting NATO’s credibility in the process.
Just so we understand what the ME looked like in 1914.
pic.twitter.com/F7hA43aXKP
This article indicates Putin has selected war a long time ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/masha-gessen-putins-combative-course/2014/11/18/56278cb8-6e7a-11e4-8808-afaa1e3a33ef_story.html
Putin talks often about his and the Russian “humiliation” much as does the IS but I have wondered why his shift to supporting the Stalin Ribbentrop secret agreement from 1939 when in 2009 he rejected it outright as being a “Nazi” thing.
Some commenters here at SWJ also supported his claims of NATO “humiliation” as his core reasons for the Crimea and eastern Ukraine Russian invasions.
Well worth the read and it does go straight to Putin’s current thinking patterns which makes him a far more serious threat than anything the IS can think up and or carry out towards the US.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/nov/10/putin-nostalgia-stalin-hitler/
Without any apparent cause, in 2013, for the first time, the Russia government designated the European Union as an adversary. In its media and indeed in official foreign policy pronouncements it has characterized the European Union as “decadent,” in the sense of about to disintegrate.
This change in policy toward Europe, accompanied by the creation of a rival Eurasian Union, was then followed by the Russian assault on Ukraine. The Kremlin has continuously presented its intervention in Ukraine as resistance to European aggression. This is all a bit strange. The Russian invasion of Ukraine precipitated a rupture with the West that, from the point of view of protecting Russia’s basic interests, makes absolutely no sense. This was Russia’s choice, and it hardly seems a masterpiece of strategic thinking. Now the Kremlin’s tortured search for a justification and precedent has led to the jettisoning of one of the basic moral foundations of postwar politics: the opposition to wars of aggression in Europe in general and the Nazi war of aggression in 1939 in particular
This again cements the three core reasons for Putin’s various moves.
1. splitting the US from Europe
2. destabilization and eventual elimination of the EU or placing it under Russian influence and tying it to his EEU
3. destabilization and eventual elimination of NATO or the destruction of it’s creditability
The greatest single social media tweet of the entire Russian Ukrainian war that explains to the Russians on how they can “recognize” their own involvement.
Should be handed to both Putin and his Foreign Ministry.
Lol… Best tweet ever in the Ukrainian-Russian war! @UKinUkraine pic.twitter.com/DifUGdk4XU
Now just how will the EU/NATO/US respond to this—will be interesting if this is real or a fake report series—if true then Putin has a serious problem.
Ukrainian official says MH17 shot down by RUSSIAN team/crew. http://bit.ly/1voUBVy
Also see http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/08/why-russia-shot-down-mh17-and-not-local.html …
pic.twitter.com/MUUzSoESMx
Scoop of the year!
#Malaysia prosecutors have proof & will indict #Russia’s “highest authorities” for providing men & missile to down #MH17.
Commander of #Russia Army Salyukov, an officer and 2 NCO’s of the Russian Army, who fired the Buk and a bunch of #Donetsk rebel leaders.
#Putin will get off the hook for “diplomatic reasons”… #Malaysia discussing now with #Netherlands, #Australia when to go public. #MH17