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.
Comments
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-n… …
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
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
In comparing the IS and the Russian movements into the Crimea and eastern Ukraine---there is one big difference---the IS definitely does not reside in an "altered state of reality" these days as do the Russians.
LPR boss Igor Plotnitsky has challenged Poroshenko to a duel "to end the war for good."
"Luhansk Ppl's Republic" PM: "We will not have a banking system in the near future.We will resort to MAIL for money transfer."
Lavrov " Poroshenko prepares Invasion". Where in Russia ?? http://24tv.ua/n510716
#Lavrov says financial blockade of #Donbas by #Kyiv could be step to military invasion https://twitter.com/ukrpravda_news/status/534982013649178626 …
BREAKING: Lavrov says Ukraine conflict is internal issue and 'all attempts to turn Russia into party to conflict have no chance of success
Gorbachev believes West accepts Crimea’s reunification with Russia http://en.tass.ru/russia/760473
Lavrov says Ukraine crisis is result of 25 years of efforts by West to strengthen own security at the expense of others
admire the optimism, but 'TO BERLIN' may be a tad ambitious.
pic.twitter.com/0OLeJbFbZz
"We will continue to make it much more tense the longer our national interests are endangered."
#Putin spokesman to @BBC
Levada: In Russia, the Ukraine crisis has boosted public trust in "televised" authorities. http://www.rbcdaily.ru/economy/562949993022807 …
pic.twitter.com/lKg4mFcwL0
Putin just keeps on trying to find a way out of his being cornered--but on his terms and not on a fair compromise of all involved---that is also Merkel's comments thus her massive critique of Putin in the comment he wants no solution other than his own.
He is "afraid" of NATO when he has nuclear superiority in Europe?
Ukraine crisis: Russia demands guarantees from Nato
18 November 2014 Last updated at 23:48 GMT
Vladimir Putin's chief spokesperson has said the West's response over the Ukraine crisis makes them "feel fear" and so they have taken "methods of precaution".
NOTE: He is what "afraid" so he does what---export war?
Dmitry Peskov said that Russia would like to receive a guarantee that Ukraine will not join Nato, as they are fearful of the Nato-affiliated countries on their borders.
President Putin accused the US of trying to subdue Russia, but gave assurances this would never happen.
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…
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
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-scand…
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-co…
For more on the German view of Putin:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-worried-about-russia…
Merkel would seem to have drawn her own conclusions. At a Monday lecture held by the German chancellor at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, where she was following the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Merkel was clear about her view of Russia. "Truly, the Ukraine crisis is in no way a regional issue," she said. "It affects all of us." During the following discussion, she warned that the EU will not yield to Moscow like East Germany once did. "Otherwise, one would have to say: We are too weak, be careful, we can't accept any others, we have to first ask Moscow if it is possible. That's how things were for 40 years; I never really wanted to return to that situation." She then made a particularly notable comment: "And that doesn't just apply to Ukraine. It applies to Moldova, it applies to Georgia. If the situation continues ... we'd have to ask about Serbia, we'd have to ask about the western Balkan countries."
Tit-for-Tat Reprisals
Her concerns about the Balkans are justified. Last Wednesday in the United Nations Security Council, Russia surprisingly refrained from voting in favor of extending the EURFOR mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was the first time it has abstained in such a vote. The reason Moscow gave was that the resolution contained language referring to the country's prospective accession to the European Union. At the same time, Russia expressed reservations about Germany's announced candidacy for the 2016 presidency of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Over the weekend, Putin also left the G-20 summit before its official conclusion, though he claimed that his premature departure was related to the long flight back home to Moscow.
Bill there is also something we seriously tend to overlook.
IS truly believes what it states, they may exaggerate a tad or bend the Koranic verse to fit their world view, but they need little motivation to do what they are doing and if one takes the time and listens and intently reads what they write one gets a fairly good feel for where they are coming from.
Russia on the other is currently in a true "altered state of reality" why because their leadership in fact believes their propaganda beamed to the West is in fact the "truth"---and that is far more dangerous for the US.
Why-- a nuclear power with a leadership that has lost touch to true reality is inherently unable to even control their decision making in a rational manner thus cannot and or will not find and or accept offered "off ramps" as it would be viewed as violating their inherent believes and or biases.
If one looks at the "good ole Cold War days" the Soviet leadership fully understood MAD and would take things to the edge, but inherently knew the "game" and when to back off after making their points.
Putin and his leadership circle simply are not willing to do that as they view it as "weakness". Therefore MAD has no meaning to them because now since they have more nuclear warheads and have violated the INF they feel they can in fact launch a tactical first strike and the West will not respond as they have repeatedly stated they do not want a war.
Example:
Double page spread in Nezavis.Gaz military review claims Britain is "Russia's chief enemy". Cites 500 yrs of history. pic.twitter.com/G4c6TjEyqF
Lost for words reading this stuff: "Just as British PMs called for USSRs destruction in 1938, '45 & '46, so Cameron wants to destroy Russia"
Seems as if it is the Germans especially the former GDR citizen Merkel that "fully gets Putin" and his grand designs. It also shows that it is often necessary for leaders of a country to speak a foreign language.
By the way Merkel in fact pointed out to the entire EU/NATO and the US the clear intentions of Putin after her meeting with Putin---namely his rebuilding of the Cold War soviet Empire--remember she spent over four hours in talks with him--far more than any other western leader AND she came away mad.
First time I have seen her actually angry.
On Monday, Merkel warned about Russian interference in the Balkans. Today Russia did this
http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/760285
http://itar-tass.com/ekonomika/1579514 …
Bill--think about this---we are not directly threatened by the IS either financially, militarily or in any other way and yet we send weapons, bombers and 3200 non boots on the ground.
In the Ukraine we preach that populations should have the right to choose their own rule of law and good governance then they are basically invaded and yet we send blankets, MREs, words, politicians, and money.
THEN the EU and the US basically twist their arm to agree to a ceasefire and they then do it and attempt to hold to the ceasefire and still what is our response, less money, fewer words, blankets and MREs.
They are currently losing between 4-9 KIAs per day and over 10 WIAs every day in trying to hold to what the West "suggests" to them.
THEN this yesterday:
Tymchuk: as of today, Russian forces have attacked Ukrainian positions over 3000 times since the "ceasefire" was declared
And yet we focus on what "a bunch of black flag waving Islamic fascists" that have no threat capacity against the US and yet we ignore a serious nuclear threat focused directly at the US/EU/NATO and a population that made an honest decision on what they want.
Strange is it not?
Bill--would argue that the following---if the US wants to go into retrenchment and believes "soft power" is the way forward then neither the IS nor the Ukraine is of "strategic" importance.
Better question would be ---do most Americans even understand the words retrenchment, disengagement, and withdrawal behind the Pacific and Atlantic walls?
Better question would be if the US population wants retrenchment do they then understand that they cannot simply disconnect from the current globalized world as that would mean the loss of a major number of jobs and lost investments and a downward turn for the economy for a long number of years.
If on the other hand Americans understand that they are actually extensively tied into the globalized world economy and their economical outlook is tied to that globalization then the Ukraine is strategic because outside of oil which we are currently swimming in there is no need for the ME?
If in fact TTIP is eventually passed then the Ukraine will be part and parcel of that and another market place totaling over 400M is a solid market for many American products.
So oil or long term economic ties to a far larger marketplace---interesting question in light of the US surpassing the KSA in oil production.
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?
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.
RC---this might be what is fueling the alleged coup rumint.
An article in Znak.com argues that as a result the economic crisis, ever more people around Putin are “suddenly beginning to have doubts about the all-powerful nature of Vladimir Putin” and thus are beginning to engage in “a war of all against all” on the principle that “you die today; I’ll live until tomorrow.”
People close to Putin who have escaped criticism now are being attacked, it says, noting that last week, pro-Donbas demonstrators denounced Vladislav Surkov for failing to back the insurgency in Ukraine, saying that he is “a Chechen Jew who is afraid of the triumph of the Russian Orthodox faith.” And doctors are denouncing Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin for his plans to close hospitals.
Znak.com’s sources who it says are close to the Presidential Administration say that “the elites are not conducting any single game” but rather struggling to get their share of what are “sharply reduced resources,” all the more so because “there is the sense,” the source adds, “that Putin has paused,” something that makes many around him nervous about the future.
Valery Solovey of MGIMO says that “two factors define the situation: the reduction in the amount of resources and a lack of appreciation of where the bottom will be and where the possibility of stopping the slide will arise.” Many fear that the future “will be worse than now,” and they are struggling.
The critical moment will come, he suggests, if it appears Putin is losing his hold on the population. At present, only he has that capacity while others control specific institutions. “If the elite sees that society has ceased to trust Putin in an unqualified way,” Solovey concludes, “then it will begin to reflect upon what to do in 2018 in a serious way.”
Two less measured comments have also surfaced this week. Nationalist commentator Maksim Kalashnikov says that he is hearing about discussions in the Kremlin about the need for Putin to move forcefully toward the creation of a personal dictatorship, but he expresses his fear that Putin will rely on the oligarchs and the bureaucracy rather than basing it on his personal ties with the population.
And Argumenti.ru this week says it has evidence that “in the highest political echelons of the country the idea of establishing a second ‘shadow’ government are now being discussed. Most probably, it will be formed in the Security Council” as a political balancing structure to hold things together.
One official familiar with such plans told the news service anonymously that “to call it ‘a shadow’ government is not entirely correct. More precisely, it is a government of national salvation, or a senior council of expert advisors attached to the president.” It will have a broad range of tasks, fully “comparable with those of the real government.”
Whether anything comes of either or both of these, of course, remains to be seen. But discussions of such things, something Russians had avoided when oil prices and Putin were both riding high, tell a story of their own – and one that may become increasingly important as the price of oil and the exchange rate of the ruble continue to fall.
RC---a quick exercise in Russian international affairs---how many times has Putin stated and his Foreign Minister stated--- there are no Russian troops inside the Ukraine?
Just how many times has the social media totally disproved both of them.
AND then the international community should "trust" anything he says---his actions are what one watches not his words.
#Russian soldier admitted fighting in #Ukraine:We were given #Terrorists' uniform http://en.censor.net.ua/photo_news/312270/russian_soldier_admitted_figh… … pic.twitter.com/oIzhBLC0LN
RC---there has been in effect a coup---a Putin driven coup to consolidate power into his hands and control that power via the FSB.
Since the Maidan there have been a large series of changes to the various Russian laws to ensure a Maidan does not occur inside Russia.
Those changes place a massive amount of power into Putin's hands and only his--that is the coup that has taken place since the Crimea.
Taken from Foreign Affairs that virtually says the same thing--a good read:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142366/alexander-j-motyl/the-sou…
Kennan’s optimism about the future can also be applied today. Thanks to Western sanctions and the general Russian economic stagnation, Putin’s Russia is rapidly approaching irreparable decay. The fascistic regime Putin built suffers from the pathologies of all such states: vast corruption, overcentralization, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and bureaucratic empire-building. With containment, such decline—or, as Kennan suggested, genuine reform—could be accelerated.
RC---an interesting question for a number of reasons. His arguments used to leave does lend credence to something is up---either the rumored coup and or the launching of actual invasion operations to fully take over the full Donbas.
1. there was an massive fuel truck series of Russian convoys that headed into multiple locations inside eastern Ukraine today---many were actual Russian army fuelers---with the heavy amount of tanks. APCs and artillery they were probably running on empty
2. there was a strong attempt today to break through the Ukrainian defense lines they have drawn around the occupied areas that failed--was coupled with Russian troop support
3. there seems to be a very strong growing resistance that is being vocalized by Russian draftees to not serve in the Ukraine---AND those that took "vacations" had only "vacations" approved through to the middle of November
4. Russians losses have actually been high ---runs in the 4K KIA and thousands more wounded---stating to look like AFG all over again
5. today the Ukrainian President stated they are ready for a war and will not shy away if pushed into one---this ups the ante for far more Russian losses and hikes the chances for increased sectorial sanctions even against Putin
6. the Russian economy is totally crashing around Putin's ears
7. there has been a not so subtle guerrilla war being waged in the occupied areas and Ukrainian SF raids into those areas to crank up Russian losses
8. a new video of the MH17 crash site just moments after the crash surfaced today---where one of villagers directly mentioned a missile had been fired thus pointing the shot down of MH17 directly at Russia
IMO Putin has been maneuvered into a tiny corner and he does not fully understand how to get out of it---but when a nuclear armed country is cornered---then it is usually will lash out using violence---thus the full operational takeover of the Donetsk with the Crimea land corridor will probably go forward with the resulting economic crash of Russia which he will fully place the blame on the West.
There was an interview today in the German ARD TV--which if one really listened to his answers lends full credence to the argument his is in an "altered state of reality" and really is not listening to anything the West is saying and or doing.
Some of his statements:
#Putin: "Where do militias in #Donbas have tanks and arms from? In a modern world, people will find weapons if they need them."
Notice---no answer of the actual transfer of heavy tanks and other equipment literally across the border in full view of western journalists and on video.
#Putin: "The Ukrainian government wants to annihilate all opposition, all dissent in the east. We will not allow this
Notice--he does not talk about the only going Ukrainian ethnic cleansing in the occupied areas ie the over 1500 civilians and POWs they have not released under Minsk 1 nor the disappearing Tartars in the Crimea.
After watching the entire interview then one has the following thoughts;
1) he has completely lost touch with reality
2) or he brazenly lies now all the time
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_za…?
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
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.”
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.
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
Outlaw wrote,
‘Seems also the young Russian troops inside the Ukraine are "awakening" to the reality that they are being misused--seriously long term problem for the Russian Army as the Ukrainians are also Slavic.’
IMO this development cracks open the Pandora’s box wherein lies the power that will determine the final outcome of the conflict. All too often this prime motivator is obscured by the smoke and thunder caused by the Putins of the world and we fall into the trap by conjuring up similar fires that needlessly ignore/obscure the COG of the conflict.
It was exactly the same in Afghanistan.
Many folks continue to explain the Soviet defeat in terms of Islam, terrain, sanctuary, Stingers etc. despite the fact that 99% of the Muj couldn't read a single word of the Koran, wouldn't fight or carry supplies if they weren't paid, the terrain posed insurmountable problems for Muj comms, logistics, medevac etc., Pakistani-Punjabi hatred of anything Pathan and RMA mickey-mouse BS.
Ditto Vietnam.
Even in the non-Networked 1980s the Soviet troops were completely demotivated by the preposterous premise the Red Army leadership attempted to sell the conflict to the rank and file. Their genocidal approach to the ‘other’ did not hang well with a Soviet mindset (both young and old) that had been immersed in a culture of victim-hood and sacrifice that was unparalleled in human history.
In a young Russians 2014 world, wherein comms to the other side of the planet is something they can do waiting for a bus, the killing of fellow Slavs is an atrocity Putin cannot sustain for much longer before it blows up in his deluded KGB face.
RC
Robert---your comments on self determination are actually quite interesting---especially in reference to the Ukraine.
While not verified yet outside of the small press release by the Russian mothers organization that is dealing with the Russian Ukrainian KIA/MIA issues for those families of the KIA/MIA.
They made a small announcement yesterday that 100s of the new Russian draftees are refusing to be sent to Russian military units involved in the Ukraine and or serve in the Ukraine.
That might explain why so many Russian units from literally all over Russia have been pulled in close to the Ukraine--especially the Far Eastern units--that is an old Stalin trick---pull in units the farthest away as then they have only the propaganda to go on in following their orders.
So just maybe this young generation of Russian draftees is far more "aware" of the world than many give them credit for--actually not a bad thing.
Seems also the young Russian troops inside the Ukraine are "awakening" to the reality that they are being misused--seriously long term problem for the Russian Army as the Ukrainians are also Slavic.
MT @DmitriyKb No there is no Novorosii! We're killing innocent people. Write soldiers of #Russian Army
#Ukraine
pic.twitter.com/NY2GKZqoo1
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.
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?
Well worth the read on Russian info warfare.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/11/14/putin-wages-informatio…
MF---here is a perfect example of our total lack of understanding how to use the internet when we built the internet.
There is an open source analysis group on the blogging side around the twitter side bellingcat that has done a massively great job at identifying who shot down MH17 and pointed the finger directly at Russia and even to the exact Russian BUK launcher and what Russian AD unit it came from.
He and his group of analysts released another 30plus pages of their work where they really nailed down the BUK responsible for the shot down and again pinpointed the Russian military being behind the shot down---that led to the typical Russian massive push back in their media.
THEN yesterday evening a major Russian TV channel in support probably to Putin at the G20 released a long video and their "evidence" claiming the Ukrainians shot down MH17 with one of their fighters--the standard theme by Russia since the shot down.
Within one hour from the release of the Russian video on the web his group definitively called it a "blatant poorly constructed photo shopped fake"---the Russians then pulled it from their web site later in the evening.
AND where was the western and or US media?--and yet the US built the web and claims daily how great it is for mankind-- but a group of global users is quicker and faster than the entire CIA/NSA and DIA-who have released absolutely nothing--strange is it not?
Brown Moses @Brown_Moses
My mentions timeline is full of angry Putin supporters in deep denial over the Russian MH17 propaganda image we've debunked
Brown Moses @Brown_Moses
BBC News - Web users debunk Russian TV's MH17 claim
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30064374
Brown Moses @Brown_Moses
'Sensational' Russian photo of MH17 being shot debunked by citizen journalist group - http://m.theage.com.au/world/sensational-russian-photo-of-mh17-being-sh… …
Marcel van den Berg☁ @marcelvandenber
@Brown_Moses LOL. Trolls are having a bad weekend.
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-arm…
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.
Bill C---this is what I mean by the US only providing the Ukrainians "words" to stop shellings and tanks.
And we assume the Ukrainian government does not "see" our only support as being only "words"---in all of history "words" have never stopped a T-72B1 with total reactive armor--TOWs have "words" have not.
From yesterday 14.11.2014-Reuters
(Reuters) - The United States, as the world's only superpower, is leading the global community in opposing Russia's aggression against Ukraine, as well as other threats, U.S. President Barack Obama said on Saturday.
"We're leading in dealing with Ebola in West Africa and in opposing Russia's aggression against Ukraine, which is a threat to the world, as we saw in the appalling shoot-down of MH17," Obama said at a speech in the Australian city of Brisbane, where he is attending the Group of 20 Leaders Summit.
Bill C--while like your style of questioning it places me often into a circular style of answering.
If one takes Robert's comments at face value over the last few years and surprisingly he has not come off them ---as I started paying attention to them already years ago as it matched what I was "seeing" at the tactical levels.
He is massively correct in one point--take right now the Maidan in the Ukraine---it was an underlying expression of the general population that something had gone astray from their previous colored revolts.
Something that we in the West cannot fathom is the sheer amount of general corruption which had become a way of life for 45M living in the Ukraine which really was a continuance of the Soviet style corruption just on a massive scale---their former president stole over an estimated 70B USD from his own people in just under three years.
The population then expressed in the Maidan their desires to move towards the West ie the EU---why because from their many travels there--- it is a short jump just to get to Berlin or Poland or Slovenia where they "saw" a civil society based on a form of "rule of law and good governance" that "showed them they could envision raising families, making a decent wage and living in a relative secure civil society unafraid of the local police and state security which is at the heart today of a lot of their corruption.
One should never underestimate the impact of being a "tourist" in gaining new ideas and seeing other societies.
Then they went into the "streets" in bitter cold and were gassed, froze, and were even snipered by their supposedly democratically election government---yet they still hung on and in the end drove out their elected president out of office or what the Russians call "a junta lead coup".
Now here is where it starts getting to be very similar to the birth of the US---in the middle of all of this their "Slavic brothers" in Russia now became fearful of "allowing" such activities to take hold inside Russia also another Slavic country. By the way a very valid "fear" on the part of Putin and his inner circle of advisors.
Then in the middle of losing 5% of their country via armed annexation their are pushed into a fight with an unequal opponent.
In some ways similar to the birth of the US---we stood up, created a form of local national guards, the British superpower then reacted aggressively and fighting then broke out and in the middle of all of this we tried to form a functioning government establish some form of laws and taxation and end in the end defeated the colonial power.
Exactly the same path is being taken now by the Ukraine---population stands up for something, got involved in fighting a regional hegemon, attempted to rebuild their government, their parliament and their laws and to desperately hang on economically-AND along the held two relatively correct, fair, and democratic elections--no small task for any country---and all in the middle of a true "invasion" as per the English dictionary--not "an incursion" a political definition to comfort the US "so they would not feel obligated" to provide lethal aid.
Three things have come out of the Maidan and Russia actually pushed their development inside the Ukraine;
1. for the first time in the entire history of the Ukraine there is now a sense of "nationhood and being Ukrainian" and if a population wants that then they must stand up and fight for it--that was never the previous cases in the Ukraine--and they are dying now for their country
2. they have started creating a modern trained military in order to defend their country---the previous army was just patterned on the Soviet Army and had no connections to the population---now their military is inherently part and parcel of their society--a modern army based on similar values as the US Army as many of their officers had served in Iraq and Kosovo
3.---AND this is the big one---they fully recognize now the impact of corruption and are really attempting to dam it up and slow it down and eventually get it under control--democratically via their elections, their new parliament and via their own passed laws and they are focusing on rebuilding their police and state security. And actually since the Maidan had such an impact the population is now holding their politicians to the statements made there.
They fully understand the path to the EU will be long and economically hard for them BUT the vision of a better life for their children and for themselves is driving it forward.
We in the West can call it anything we want BUT Robert is correct---it must come from the population and it must be their own decisions not dictated from outside forces.
You can call this independence or whatever one wants to but are they not really just following a natural human instinct for a better life for themselves and their families tied to the rule of law and good governance in a fear free environment?
In many aspects this was the same underlying tone of the Arab Spring---but outside of Tunisia the ruling elites drove back the population revolts using the existing security forces under control of the elites or they overreached on the Islamic side.
Here is also where Robert is correct instead of having individual strategies for each of these events we floundered and swam and did basically nothing (being a good and supporting friend) to assist the populations in their turmoil periods.
IE the Ukraine has never asked the US for "boots on the ground" they asked for lethal aid in order to overcome the sheer number of Russian tanks, their asked for assistance in creating an effective military leadership and assistance in helping fight corruption and economic assistance for a plundered country.
They were willing to do the fighting as it was their own country---is this not what we did ourselves in the Revolutionary War? We tend to forget just how much the French militarily "assisted" with lethal aid to the struggling US military.
And what did our current US civilian leadership do---sent words, a few political visits, some loud/vocal UNSC support, some money and blankets to stop what?---tanks. Reminds me a little of the Prague 1968 event.
So where is in fact our current strategy that addresses the aspirations of the Ukrainians who are the ones suffering on the ground and where is our strategy to handle Russian neo imperialism which is really a Russian form of fascism BUT this time a form of fascism with their fingers on the nuclear button--something even Hitler strived for in WW2.
Robert is also correct--this is not rocket science- but straight forward fully attempting to understand each environment without the usual US political biases.
And that is the hard part for the US political elites.Walking in someone else's shoes is tough and we have never been good at it.
Outlaw:
I agree that COL Jones makes very interesting and valid points.
However, my questions (writ small here) remain:
a. During America's Civil War, and in the face of the American North's efforts to transform the American South, were the American Southerners simply fighting for their independence? Or were they actually fighting to (1) retain an alternative way of life, this (2) via the VEHICLE of independence?
b. Same general question re: Vietnam; in this case, with Ho fighting to ESTABLISH an alternative way of life based on communism. This to be achieved via the vehicle of independence?
c. Likewise currently, and in the face of America's continuing efforts to transform outlying states and societies more along modern western lines, should we say that various populations are fighting -- not for independence, per se -- but, rather, to establish (or to retain) a unique and different way of life; this, to be achieved via the VEHICLE of independence?
Each of these (in the West's eyes) adverse outcomes provided for by our granting of, or recognition of, independence?
Thus, these such actions being (1) diametrically opposed to the United States' best interests then and now and (2) effectively defeating our mid-19th Century domestic policy, and our 20th and 21st Century foreign policy objectives (to wit: the ELIMINATION of alternative ways of life)?
COL Jones's suggestions above, as always, are intriguing.
In Vietnam, cir. 1950, COL Jones seems to suggest that we could have avoided war and, much earlier, gained Vietnam as an ally and trading partner; this, by simply granting (or recognizing), in the 1950's, Vietnam's independence under Ho. (To wit: the matter that Ho, et al., were fighting for.)
Likewise today, re: Syria, Iraq and ISIS, COL Jones appears to advise that we might defuse the situation by simply granting the Sunni Arabs that which they are fighting for, to wit: a form of autonomy.
But do these suggestions tend to avoid critical questions/matters?
These being: Were/are these such approaches (then as now) considered to be politically -- or otherwise -- feasible? This given:
a. The political climate of the times (the perceived threat of communism and the desires/needs of France then, and the perceived threat of radical Islam today)?
b. The belief that innumerable numbers of ethnic, or otherwise "different" peoples, granted the independence/autonomy that they all desire; this will create MORE, not LESS, opportunities for, and instances of, conflict? And, most importantly,
c. Are these such approaches considered politically or otherwise feasible given our enduring political objective of transforming outlying states and societies more along modern political, economic and social lines?
COL Jones seems to believe that radical Islam (etc.) today -- much like communism then -- would simply "whither on the vine" minus their common raison d'etre (in our cases above, the desire of these people for independence/autonomy).
Thus, the questions:
a. Do we believe that that communism then, and radical Islam today -- denied their common "life's-blood" (the desire for independence/autonomy) -- would have/will "whither on the vine?"
b. Or should we more correctly associate communism then, and/or radical Islam today, more with a desire of people to defend their unique way of life -- and their unique values, attitudes and beliefs -- this, against an on-rushing western assault on same?
c. Do we believe that granting independence to innumerable numbers of people -- all desiring autonomy -- will lead to fewer (rather than more) instances of conflict? And, most importantly,
d. Do we believe that, via this approach, various states and societies will become transformed -- more along modern western political, economic and social lines -- quicker and easier?
Last question:
Was/is this approach feasible (then or now) given (1) our perceived national security needs and (2) the political climate of the times?
(As we test -- and/or temper -- our answers to these questions, might I suggest that we consider [1] how the United States/the North viewed such "self-determination" matters, in the mid-19th Century, re: their desire to transform the South more along "modern" lines and [2] how the South, when confronted with such an assault, saw itself as fighting for its way of life; this, via a bid for/the vehicle of independence/autonomy.)
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.
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."
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.
You had great comments as usual but I think we largely are talking by each other. My point is you should not have to choose between where we defend our interests and ground forces must be an integral component. Whether its Europe, the Middle East, or the Pacific (not to mention numerous other places), ground forces appear to have become the designated "man-out" in future funding and employment.
A few brief responses in bold to your numbered comments about Russian military capabilities:
<blockquote>1. started to ignore the INF and developed a tactical nuclear cruise missile-- crossed a very fine line on the number of accepted nuclear warheads. <strong>Yes, the Iskander missiles are scary and also have a large conventional capability. As I mentioned earlier, what happens if Putin not only flies conventional bombers in the Gulf of Mexico but also puts conventional Iskanders in Cuba and other conventional systems in "container" ships and sub off our east coast. How is our proposed reliance on air-sea systems affected given that so many are near and on our coasts.</strong>
2. ignored the from Russia signed OSCE disarmament agreements to destroy 1600 armored vehicles and tanks while the rest of Europe disarmed per OSCE. <strong>Yeah but the Russians still have limited numbers of T-90s which I read have about 80% the capability of Western tanks. T-72Bs and problem T-80s are in greater numbers but we saw what our armor did to T-72s in Iraq let alone T-62s and T-55s. How will Russia's attempts to rearm and fill-in hollow brigades while building stealth fighters and starting over on a Navy fare with oil at $80 and falling? We also should recall that AH-64s and infantry missiles can do a number on tanks as well. There is much more to capability comparisons than a tank-vs.-tank number count.</strong>
3. rebuilt and developed a new nuclear first strike capacity and strategy.<strong>Didn't the Bulava missile have all kinds of problems in development and they also depend on Russian subs that are less than dependable and easier for our subs to detect. We will never find road mobile ICBM or tactical missiles so why risk violation of MAD by overflying states like Russia and China with LRS-B that could be nuclear? It risks escalation to nukes even if only carrying conventional weapons (unbeknownst to adversaries). The same also applies to some degree if Russia launches conventional Iskanders and other missiles against our coasts.</strong>
4. developed a new UW strategy to support the concept of political warfare.<strong>Yes. but the latter UW phases that count the most require massive ground force deterrence which appears to be the solution being avoided by the Obama administration in both Europe and against ISIS, and the Pacific needs ground troops as well to defend points of entry and demonstrate resolve to defend allies. New UAS rounds for MLRS also would allow us to circumvent INF treaties because they would be UAS/RPAs instead of missiles. These UAS launched from an MLRS 6-pack (or new 4-pack) could launch AMRAAM and anti-ship missiles and protect Pacific, European, and Middle East allies.</strong></blockquote>
Then you had these comments as well:
<blockquote>Core goals;
1. to fully decouple the US from Europe. <Strong>If Russia can't buy European products due to sanctions, falling oil prices, and a declining ruble, Europe is more likely to continue to stand by trade with the U.S. rather than Russia.</strong>
2. to fully expose NATO as a paper tiger thus causing discord with their new members from the former Warsaw Pact and thus reestablishing Russian hegemony over them <strong>At some point, West Europe will realize it is in their interests to rebuild and reposition defenses to East Europe. In the interim, the reliance of all of Europe on the U.S. increases rather than decreases.<strong>
3. discredit and damage the EU both as a political and economic power again reestablishing Russia as the regional European hegemon.<strong> Except Russia's economy is a paper tiger without political or economic power compared to Europe. They have oil and it is coming down in price and more sources are being created as other renewable sources expand.</strong>
This is the main thought behind Putin---will the US or Russia dominate militarily Europe that is what he is now trying to.</blockquote>
Alternately, Putin could be creating a distraction to keep the minds of Russians off homegrown lack of expansion in their economy. How does Russia sell natural gas to a Europe smoldering after attack by tactical nuclear weapons or with pipelines destroyed by guerilla action? I don't think Putin is dumb and it would be to use tactical nukes or overplay his hand in East Europe.
I don't know how serious the offer was, but the Russian proposal to buy and reimburse Ukraine for its lands using a combination of money and energy sounds like a reasonable off ramp to me.
MF---you asked whether the IS or the Ukraine crosses over US strategic interests---a way of asking back---does in fact IS have a strategic strategy for attacking the US?--no and or does Russian have a strategic plan-yes they do and it is called "New Generation Warfare"---when you fully read the eight phase steps of modern warfare they envision you will notice a great emphasis on new weapon systems as the deciding feature with a very strong SOF/intel joint side with their conventional forces.
If you really take the time, speak Russian and live in Europe you can research all day long and find nothing written by Russian experts and or Putin suggesting close economic development, improvement in the Russian industrial base and or vastly improving Russian living standard in a joint cooperative fashion between Russian and Europe or for that matter the US--what one finds is countless articles on warfare and or future warfare--strange is that not?
Heck in a lot of places inside current Russia and outside of the 2 or 3 main Russian cities---it still looks like 1972 when I first travelled there and still looks like 1992 after the Wall came down. Absolutely no development in the country side and or smaller towns and cities to this day 2014.
Right now Russia is in effect actually implementing and testing that new military doctrine and improving where they can--and that is not a strategic threat to the US?
Are all those Russian AF aircraft "incursions" really just for pleasure as are the "vacationing troops in the Ukraine" or is it a real live test runs for practicing nuclear first time strikes using nuclear strike cruise missiles in violation of the INF?
That does not mean take one's eyes off of the IS --but at this time and place Russia is the foremost strategic threat.
Sophisticated new weapons are arriving in the contested battlefields of eastern Ukraine.
http://atfp.co/1pWbogB
pic.twitter.com/dPce4CAOal
MF---just a side comment---does the IS have any drone bases near US borders?
That fine line between death wish and demanding respect.. #Russia Opens Drone Base off Alaska.
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-open-arctic-military-drone-base-420-mile…
MF---let's see how one can return the comments'
1. regardless of what one thinks or does not think of the Ukraine---potentially the Ukraine sits atop so of the most massive shale gas/oil deposits in central Europe
2. had the Ukraine not lost the Crimea equally large gas and oil deposits were also being located there by western oil companies
3. Ukraine has the largest potential of being the bread basket of Europe if it can get it's farmers off of Soviet style farming methods
4. has potential for a strong developing young IT business centers as they have a strong educated young generation coming online---some really sharp coders come out of the Ukraine
That said---this is not about the Ukraine it is all about the US plain and simple.
These have been the three core Putin reasons for his activities --all aimed at reviving Russian superpower status that he somehow feels the West "took" (his version of humiliation)from Russia as he and many like him totally failed to accept the responsibility of Soviet Communism as the cause of their failure.
And oh by the way he has a deep hatred of what he views as "failed western liberalism".
So let's see how he does this;
1. started to ignore the INF and developed a tactical nuclear cruise missile-- crossed a very fine line on the number of accepted nuclear warheads
2. ignored the from Russia signed OSCE disarmament agreements to destroy 1600 armored vehicles and tanks while the rest of Europe disarmed per OSCE
3. rebuilt and developed a new nuclear first strike capacity and strategy
4. developed a new UW strategy to support the concept of political warfare
Core goals;
1. to fully decouple the US from Europe
2. to fully expose NATO as a paper tiger thus causing discord with their new members from the former Warsaw Pact and thus reestablishing Russian hegemony over them
3. discredit and damage the EU both as a political and economic power again reestablishing Russia as the regional European hegemon
This is the main thought behind Putin---will the US or Russia dominate militarily Europe that is what he is now trying to .
Now let's counter balance that against the IS--have they done any of the above--no---have they threatened their neighbors heck yes and even threatened Islam---yes---have they annexed say the KSA or Jordan or Egypt---no--do they threatened their neighbors economically via oil and gas--no.
So do the simple math---which grouping is a major and serious threat to the US at this moment in time?
In the world of international relations I never accept the concept that there are "foregone conclusions"---only problems to analyze and find solutions for as always a way forward can be found if one is willing to find it---and that by the way requires sometimes the use of military power and violence.
But many miss a really interesting point---is the ethno driven neo imperialism of Russia--- actually a Russian long standing form of fascism--- in all it's glory and impact ANY different than the brand of Islam IS practices with all of it's equally gory publicity?
Both are fascist at heart and at their core just different styles.
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?
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.
<blockquote>According to Pravda, "Russia prepares nuclear surprise for NATO." 5,000 tactical nuclear weapons to NATO's 260.</blockquote>
Outlaw, it's Pravda. They can and do say anything they want for home consumption propaganda.
From a Russian arms expert who was jailed and then traded to the West with similar numbers backing him up from a FAS expert.
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/fewer-russian-tactical-nukes-are-battle-…
<blockquote>The report estimates that Russia’s ground forces hold between 128 and 210 operationally assigned nonstrategic nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, 330 are under navy control, 334 are deployed to the air force, and 68 to 166 are assigned to air-defense forces. That puts the total number of such artillery shells and other weapons between 860 and 1,040, spread across the territory of the nation.
Sutyagin’s analysis places the total count of nonstrategic weapons at about 1,900, which would cover roughly 900 weapons that are viable but would not be immediately available for use in a nuclear conflict.</blockquote>
But it really is irrelevant because Russia has 528 carriers with 1643 strategic nuclear warheads and the U.S. has 794 carriers with 1652 strategic nukes. Which "carriers" do you suppose are more stealthy, our B-2s and subs or their old prop planes and few subs that sail? 664 of their tactical nukes rely on old Russian bombers and a Navy that seldom leaves ports. It sounds like 68 to 166 are for air defense like our former Nike nuclear air defense missiles. The tank numbers provided are equally sketchy and even then relatively few are modern and work, let alone have trained crews. They also lack the combat experience of our Army armor troops and leaders.
The big point is we took all our heavy armor out of Europe. Some of it needs to return at least in prepositioning form with rotating forces manning it and training with NATO allies. Putin is not going to use nukes over Crimea and Ukraine and even if he did, he would launch one, we would launch one and so on. If we got anywhere near the 200 number of tactical nukes being used on both sides, the strategic ones would have long since been launched meaning we would all be screwed and Putin knows it. It was called mutually assured destruction for a reason and it worked for decades of the Cold War.
MF---carrying the Pravda article a step further:
According to Pravda, "Russia prepares nuclear surprise for NATO." 5,000 tactical nuclear weapons to NATO's 260
This is how the net summed up the Pravda article today:
Moscow propaganda sounds ever more Pyongyang-ish. Threats, taunts, nukes, yo-mamas. This is a big deal. And not in a good way.
Now again just what is the direct threat to the homeland from IS vs say the 5000 tactical nukes that Putin has implied he will indeed use if necessary.
We have reached the age of nuclear blackmail have we not and yet we are obsessed by black flag waving Islamists.
Side note---if one would believe the Russian and mercenary propaganda--after all of the heavy weapons and ammunition "they have captured" from the Ukrainians--they do in effect have now the second largest standing army in Europe---if one believes the propaganda.
Not even IS can state that for the ME.
MF--this is why we have a difference of opinion.
This was taken from a major statement yesterday in Pravda and it is not for the feint hearted.
Really, really, really read the article thoroughly and a second one in the series is due out.
Taken from a blogger I happen to enjoy reading.
"Russia prepares nuclear surprise for NATO": If this doesn't scare you, it's b/c you don't understand it.
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/12-11-2014/129015-russia_nato_… … ht
Putin made clear in last 2 Valdai speeches that he thinks the world itself is at stake here. He means it. He will gamble more.
Pravda is openly threatening US/NATO with nuclear weapons. Bluster, yes, but if you think Putin isn't dead serious here, I dunno what to say
Russia overcame inertia of collapse & started reviving its power, while West, lulled by sweet day-dreams of the liberal 'end of history'
"castrated its armed forces to the point, when they could be good for leading colonial wars with weak and technically backward enemies
"The balance of forces in Europe has thus changed in Russia's favor." There you have it, folks, the Kremlin wants war, stated by Pravda
Still think we're not in Cold War 2.0? Based on Pravda's statements today, best case is it stays cold.
Now compare that to the al Baghdadi statement in English and then tell me we the US are seriously threatened by IS--yes you are correct it is a threat for the entire ME but they themselves have to work it out and they will and it will be brutal and bloody but in the end their own populations will make that decision not by anyone who is not a resident of the ME.
The current IS response towards the US is nothing more nor less than what some of us stated would occur if we started bombing.
Besides in his speech he tends to focus to a degree clearly on the KSA.
English translation of the new speech of Islamic State leader Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi here:
https://ia601403.us.archive.org/21/i...english.pdf%20 … …
pic.twitter.com/pHekh6tGsG
From Pravda:
Qoute:
It was the first strategic agreement, after the treacherous policy of democrats, in which Russia managed to win significant advantages. In the treaty, the Americans, for the first time in history, undertook to reduce their strategic nuclear potential, while Russia won an opportunity to increase it. Furthermore, the new treaty removed important limitations that existed in the previous START 1 and START 2 treaties. It goes about the size of areas for the deployment of mobile ICBMs, the number of multi charge ICBMs, and the possibility to build railway-based ICBMs. Russia did not make any concessions.
UNQOUTE:
You do realize Russia has been in direct violation of the INF?
This next part is extremely interesting as it confirms that Russia is in direct violation of two signed OSCE agreements concerning decommissioning of their armor.
QUOTE:
How do things work in this area now? In early 2013, the Americans withdrew the last group of heavy Abrams tanks from Europe. In NATO countries, over the last 20 years, one new tank would replace 10-15 old, yet still capable, tanks. At the same time, Russia was not decommissioning its tanks.
As a result, today Russia is the absolute leader in this regard. In mid-2014, the balance of the Defense Ministry had as many as 18,177 tanks (T-90 - 400 pcs., T-72B - 7,144 pcs., T-80 - 4,744 pcs, T-64 - 4,000 pcs, T-62 - 689 pcs, and T-55 - 1200 pcs.).
UNQUOTE:
NOW notice the tank series T72B---they are currently being seen in large numbers in the Ukraine AND they were scheduled by the OSCE for destruction.
So again IS a direct threat to the US --yes or no---based on the three threats concerning the implied use of tactical nuclear weapons made by Putin---no the IS is not a direct threat.
<blockquote>At least the IS does not want to divide up Europe again as did Stalin at Yalta or with Ribbentrop in 1939.</blockquote>
Except ISIS wants to carve up Syria and Iraq and after that Saudi Arabia and Jordan. That creation of a Sunni homeland really would be acceptable in Syria and Iraq if reasonable Sunnis were involved instead of ISIS and al Nusra Front. Until Russia threatens to take all of Ukraine and any of a NATO country, your Stalin comparison is an exaggeration. In contrast, when terrorist events occur in Canada/U.S./Europe, sailors are affronted in Turkey as it becomes less secular, Mexican unrest and border security is questionable, an unstable North Korea has nukes, and China threatens its neighbors, the need for a large active Army in many places in addition to Europe is self-evident.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
Considering that Russia already <strong>has</strong> the Crimea and much of Eastern Ukraine, perhaps some sort of deal ala the Louisiana Purchase and Seward's purchase of Alaska makes sense. Given the alternative of continued war and expansion into NATO countries, this "whole of government" approach just isn't that unreasonable. Those in the Crimea and East Ukraine who want to remain Ukrainians could move west and be reimbursed by Russia, the E.U., and the U.S.
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-pr… …
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-n… …
pic.twitter.com/p1Y1SpqHZ3