The Matryoshka is Empty: Why Russia Doesn’t Really Matter

Added to just a bit from my earlier offering:

The manner in which Russia "matters" -- to the U.S./the West in the New/Reverse Cold War of today -- this is much the same way that the U.S./the West "mattered" -- to the Soviets/the communists in the Old Cold War of yesterday.

Explanation:

In both cases noted above, the manner in which one's opponent "matters" is re: this opponent's determination and capability to stand in the way of, prevent, thwart, contain and/or roll back your effort to "expand;" often into the opponent's very own backyard/its own sphere of influence. (In the Old Cold War of yesterday, and re: Soviet/communist expansionist attempts back then, think Eastern Europe and Latin America; in the New/Reverse Cold War of today, and re: U.S./Western contemporary expansionist attempts now, think the Russian borderlands and Syria.)

It is in this "expansionist entity versus containment entity" light that one might come to easily understand why, in the New/Reverse Cold War of today, one "might not have been able to find such places as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the Donets Basin, Transnistria on a map." That is, until such time as:

a. The U.S./the West targeted this region of the world for "transformation" more along modern western political, economic and social lines. And until such time as:

b. Russia determined that it would stand directly in the way of our such expansionist attempt.

Likewise, in the Old Cold War of yesterday, one might not have been able to find various -- otherwise unknown and unimportant -- locales on a map; this, until such time as:

a. The Soviets/the communists targeted these regions for "transformation" -- in their case -- more along communist political, economic and social lines. And, until such time as:

b. The U.S./the West determined that they would stand directly in the way of these such expansionist efforts by the Soviets/the communists back then.

To conclude:

In the Old Cold War of yesterday, the U.S./the West -- and indeed the conservative elements of various other populations -- "mattered" to the Soviets/the communists; this, because these such entities showed that they had both the capabilities, and indeed the determination needed, to stand directly in the way of the Soviets/the communists' expansionist designs for the rest of the world back then.

Likewise, in the New/Reverse Cold War of today, Russia, China and Iran -- and the conservative elements of various other populations -- these entities "matter" to the U.S./the West today; this, because these such entities have shown that they, likewise, have both the capabilities, and indeed the determination needed, to stand directly in the way of our expansionist designs for the rest of the world today.

Ever notice after close review the similarities between the Putin attack on US neo liberalism using his non linear warfare and comments being made by Trump???

“Trump is proposing nothing less than the liquidation of the liberal world order”
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2695854c-efaf-11e5-a609-e9f2438ee05b.htm… …

The similarity is actually quite close.....

Really worth inhaling the comments towards the end by the Russian FM.....

http://www.interpretermag.com/the-road-from-damascus-to-yalta/

Brian Whitmore

The Road From Damascus To Yalta

March 15, 2016

Vladimir Putin has learned that being a global troublemaker pays dividends.

He’s discovered that being a big part of the problem assures that you are treated as a big part of the solution.

He understands that the politics of blackmail and geopolitical extortion can work wonders.

Before Putin intervened in Syria’s civil war nearly six months ago, Russia was internationally isolated, bogged down in a quagmire in Ukraine, and reeling from Western sanctions.

It was a regional rabble-rouser that was — justifiably — being treated like an international pariah.

And now, amid an apparent pullout after 167 days of air strikes?

Well, now it has a seat at the big table, alongside the United States, as co-sponsor of the Syrian cease-fire.

Syria wasn’t an end — it was a means to an end.

And Moscow is seeking to leverage its success there into more global clout, the lifting of sanctions, a free hand in the former Soviet space, and a revision of the post-Cold War international order.

For Putin, Damascus is just a stop on the road to Yalta.

In addition to killing 1,700 civilians, bombing hospitals, exacerbating Europe’s refugee crisis, and keeping Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime afloat, the Kremlin clearly thinks it has established a template in Syria to get what it has always craved: status as a global power presiding over a bipolar world.

Writing in Slon.ru, Moscow-based foreign-affairs analyst Vladimir Frolov noted that the intervention “resurrected Russian-American cooperation from the dead” and created the illusion that only the two “superpowers” can solve major international crises.

“The strategic goal of the Syrian gambit, to revive the bipolar format of Russian-American cooperation and rivalry for influence in the Middle East and the world that existed during the Cold War, has almost been reached,”Frolov wrote.

“It is obvious that the Kremlin would like to make Syria a template not only for bilateral relations with the United States, but also to develop new rules of the game in a broader sense, and in other regions, for example with respect of Ukraine.”

In fact, Ukraine will no doubt be the first place where the Kremlin will try to test what it believes to be its new-found leverage.

In a televised interview on March 13, one day before Putin announced the Syria withdrawal, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov appealed to Washington to team up with Moscow to resolve the conflict in the Donbas — presumably on Moscow’s terms.

“We know that Kyiv is heavily influenced by the United States, which actually controls everyday life in Ukraine,” Lavrov said.

“I hope that the Americans are aware of the need to search for compromise solutions to ensure the full implementation of the Minsk agreements.”

Leaving aside the fact that Lavrov’s comment is delusional in that it pretends that Russia is a mediator in Ukraine and not the aggressor, it appears to telegraph where the Kremlin is going next.

Russia will try to leverage the momentum from its Syrian gambit to get a final settlement in Ukraine that preserves Moscow’s influence in the Donbas and gives it a virtual veto over Kyiv’s political direction.

It will try to force the West to forget about Crimea and get on with business as usual.

That, of course, is how things work in the Kremlin’s preferred world order. Might makes right; rules don’t matter; great powers rule their spheres of influence and decide the fates of smaller nations.

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor in chief of the journal Russia In Global Affairs and chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, all but declared the post-Cold War order dead in a gloating March 8 commentary in the official government newspaper, Rossiiskaya Gazeta.

“Twenty-five years of trying to build a new world order have vanished into thin air,” Lukyanov wrote.

“Once again, just like in the previous era, the real bosses remain Moscow and Washington, with no one else having the power or capacity to make important decisions and to start to implement them.”

This is, no doubt, premature. But the Kremlin is moving closer to making it a reality.

A really worth reading article from a Ukrainian political viewer that applies deeply to the Arab Spring and Putin.....AND Obama

http://www.interpretermag.com/what-v...e-arab-spring/

James Miller

What Vladimir Putin Learned From The Arab Spring

March 14, 2016

Taken from the article.......
In the April 2016 cover story of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg has interviewed the soon-to-be-former President of the United States about “The Obama Doctrine,” Barack Obama reflects on (and defends) his controversial foreign policy. We will be addressing several of the claims made by President Obama in future articles, but the overall tone of his interviews suggest that he believes that he was right to pull back from the Middle East and to not push back against Russia more in places like Ukraine and Syria.

One has to question whether the 44th President of the United States was too quick to allow Russia to control not only the narrative but the political landscape and the physical battlefields of the 21st century’s greatest armed conflicts.

If one's "interests" can be defined:

a. As transforming other states and societies more along one's own political, economic and social lines,

b. As incorporating these transformed states and societies more into one's own political, economic, social and military arrangements and alliances and

c. As keeping these such transformed, incorporated and aligned states and societies within one's domain,

(Both the Soviets/the communists in the Old Cold War of yesterday, and the U.S./the West in the New/Reverse Cold War of today, defining their interests in these exact terms?)

Then should actions -- taken by one's opponents -- to reverse, undo and/or upset these such arrangements and/or attempts; should these not be seen as "threatening one's interests?"

If this, indeed, is the case, then should we not say, accordingly, that the actions being undertaken by our state and non-state actors opponents today (to include Russia) -- to reverse/undo/upset our expansionist designs and/or accomplishments -- these, indeed, threaten our interests?

With this explanation before us, might we not, now, respectfully disagree with our author's contention here -- that Russia's alleged threat to American interests:

a. Is exaggerated,

b. Is taken well out of context (by those that would benefit from sustained American defense spending) and

c. Is only applicable as it relates to NATO expansion in the Baltic States?

(Herein to ask: Are we not "interested" in transforming and incorporating Ukraine, Syria, etc., etc., etc., also; this, as I have described above? And, re: these "interests," are not Russia, et. al., now standing directly in our way?)

What more can I say...other than Obama seems to let his own personal biases get in the way of FP and strategy.....and personal biases are not to be ever found when conducting foreign affairs......I have been repeating over and over this is the weakness US President in the last 70 odd years and he has literally one of the equally weakest NSCs advising him.......

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...lution/473481/

Barack Obama’s Revolution in Foreign Policy

When you think you’re the smartest person in the room, it’s tempting to make up your own grand strategy.

Niall Ferguson
| Mar 13, 2016

Quote:

It is a criticism I have heard from more than one person who has worked with President Obama: that he regards himself as the smartest person in the room—any room. Jeffrey Goldberg’s fascinating article reveals that this is a considerable understatement. The president seems to think he is the smartest person in the world, perhaps ever.

Power corrupts in subtle ways. It appears to have made Obama arrogant. As described in Goldberg’s story, he is impatient to the point of rudeness with members of his own administration. His response to Secretary of State John Kerry when he hands him a paper on Syria is: “Oh, another proposal?” “Samantha, enough,” he snaps at the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. “I’ve already read your book.” We learn, too, that he “secretly disdains … the Washington foreign-policy establishment.”

The president is also bluntly critical of traditional American allies. He is said to have told Prime Minister David Cameron that Britain “would no longer be able to claim a ‘special relationship’ with the United States” if it did not “pay [its] fair share” by increasing defense spending. The Pakistanis and the Saudis get especially short shrift here, as—predictably—does Israel.

“Bibi, you have to understand something,” he tells the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. “I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house. I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.” Netanyahu may have wondered what exactly in Obama’s biography gives him such insight into the present-day predicament of Israel.

The president is also dismissive of a number of past presidents as strategists. “We dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos than on Europe in World War II,” he tells Goldberg, “and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have emerged from that hell.” So much for Nixon and Kissinger.

He is equally dismissive of “mythologies” about Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. The release of the American hostages in Iran had “nothing to do with … Reagan’s posture, his rhetoric, etc.” Invading Grenada did not help “our ability to shape world events.” The Iran-Contra affair “wasn’t successful at all.” Nor was Reagan’s withdrawal of U.S. forces from Lebanon in 1983. These views are not necessarily wrong. Instead, it is the president’s tone that jars—the sarcasm that Goldberg notes. The same tone is manifest in Obama’s sole comment on his immediate predecessor. “As I recall, because apparently nobody in this town does,” he says, “Putin went into Georgia on Bush’s watch, right smack dab in the middle of us having over 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq.”

Is there anyone to whom Obama does not feel himself superior? The surprising answer is President George H.W. Bush’s national-security adviser, Brent Scowcroft. “I love that guy,” Obama is quoted as saying. This will come as no surprise to readers of his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, but most people will scratch their heads. The president explains: “I am … an idealist insofar as I believe that we should be promoting values, like democracy and human rights” not only out of self-interest, but also because “it makes the world a better place.” But “you could call me a realist in believing we can’t, at any given moment, relieve all the world’s misery. … We’ve got to be hardheaded … and pick and choose our spots. … There are going to be times where our security interests conflict with our concerns about human rights.”

Power corrupts in subtle ways. It appears to have made Obama arrogant.

Which brings us to Syria, the central foreign-policy failure of the Obama presidency. The grim details of what has happened as the Syrian Civil War has escalated are all too familiar: a death toll of 470,000 according to the Syrian Center for Policy Research, nearly 4.8 million refugees according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and a flood of displaced persons and migrants arriving in Europe by sea at a rate of roughly 100,000 a month. Aside from the human suffering, the escalation of the conflict has had grave strategic consequences, not least of which has been the return of Russia to the region as a major player for the first time since the early 1970s.

The consequences of American non-intervention in Syria have, in some ways, been as bad as the consequences of American intervention in Iraq, though fewer American lives and dollars have been expended. Yet the realist in Obama has no regrets. Goldberg does future historians a valuable service by setting out in detail the president’s reasoning.

The president dragged his feet on Syria for three reasons. First, having been elected partly on the strength of his opposition to the Iraq War, he was and remains in principle reluctant to deploy U.S. troops (though not U.S. drones). In 2009, he felt the Pentagon had “jammed” him into approving a troop surge in Afghanistan; four years later, he felt he was being jammed again. Second, he misread the Arab Spring, initially equating protesters in Tunisia and Tahrir Square with Rosa Parks and the “patriots of Boston.”

Third, Obama regretted succumbing to pressure from his own advisers as well as from European allies to intervene in Libya in 2011. When similar pressures were brought to bear on him over the red line he himself had drawn regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Obama revolted. On August 30, 2013—after consulting only Denis McDonough, his chief of staff—he decided to call off planned air strikes against the Syrian government, telling McDonough of his “long-standing resentment: He was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries.”

CONTINUED....a long read.....
NEEDS TO BE FULLY READ AND INHALED....

Is Obama in fact placing personnel into key positions ...ie this one is for four years that effectively places the next President in a bind if he or she wants to do something other than the Obama Doctrine towards Russia......WHAT is important to remember is that Obama and this pick has largely kept both Europe and Congress totally in the dark on known and verified INF Treaty violations by Russia....AND the question is WHY????

THE last sentence is telling especially in light of the Obama interview...

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-11/hawks-see-obama-s-nato…

Hawks See Obama's NATO Pick as Soft on Russia

Mar 11, 2016 9:56 AM EST
By Josh Rogin

At a crucial moment in the U.S. relationship with Europe, President Barack Obama has chosen a No. 2 for NATO whom some Republican lawmakers see as the face of a wrongheaded approach to Russia.

On Tuesday, the Obama administration informed NATO allies that it will recommend the undersecretary of state for arms control, Rose Gottemoeller, to be NATO's next deputy secretary general, the military alliance’s second in command. It is typically a four-year term.

“Our nomination of Rose, a veteran diplomat with extensive experience in European Security Affairs, is a symbol of America’s strong commitment to NATO during a period of heightened challenges,” Douglas Lute, the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, wrote Tuesday in a letter to the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s political arm.

Gottemoeller has been an integral part of the Obama administration’s “reset” policy with Russia, an approach that made modest gains at first but has been all but abandoned in light of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and beyond. Republican critics of that policy have become critics of Gottemoeller as well. Two years ago, many Republican senators, including John Cornyn, James Risch and Marco Rubio, opposed her confirmation for her current job. They object to the terms of the New START Treaty, for which she was the lead negotiator.

There is a new round of criticism with this new nomination. Republican hawks in Congress have faulted her as not rigorous in negotiating and enforcing treaties with Russia. They have alleged that as she pursued new arms-control treaties with Moscow, she was not up front about Russian violations of existing accords. Her critics point to two congressional appearances in particular.

The first was in 2012, when, according to two U.S. officials who saw a classified transcript, Gottemoeller told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Russia had been developing a ground-based cruise missile whose ranges violated an existing accord, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. The administration didn’t brief NATO allies on it until January 2014 and didn’t publicly disclose the violation until July 2014. State Department spokesman John Kirby told me that the U.S. government did not have any information about the Russian violations of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty while the New START Treaty was being negotiated. It was signed in 2010.

The second appearance was last December, when Gottemoeller publicly testified to the House Armed Services Committee about a different Russian military system, a long-range sea-based nuclear torpedo system called the Status-6. When asked whether she knew about Russian development of the Status-6 while she was negotiating the New START Treaty, Gottemoeller said “unequivocally no.”

Representative Michael R. Turner, a Republican member of the committee who serves as president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, wrote in a letter on Monday that she answered differently when asked behind closed doors. Gottemoeller subsequently told Turner that she had “misunderstood the nature” of his question and that the intelligence community would clarify what the U.S. knew and when. Representative Mike Rodgers, chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee, has agreed to convene another hearing to clarify the issue.

The lawmakers troubled by these two appearances see them as evidence that the Obama administration is trying too hard to preserve its existing arms treaties with Russia, and ignoring increasing evidence of Russian cheating and bad behavior. Advocates of continued engagement with Russia, like Gottemoeller, are at odds not only with Russia hawks like Turner but also with other top administration officials like the supreme allied commander in Europe, Gen. Philip Breedlove, and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who both call for more pressure on Putin.

Last month, Breedlove said that Russia poses a “long-term existential threat” to the U.S. and its allies. Nuland has been advocating for more sanctions against Russia and for the U.S. to provide defensive weapons to the Ukrainian army to fight Russian intervention there.

Alexander Vershbow, the former Defense Department official and ambassador to Russia whom Gottemoeller would replace at NATO, is known for a tough stance toward Russia. That shift would play into the fears of U.S. allies. Europe already is questioning the U.S. commitment to confronting Russia on major issues.

NATO Secretary General Jan Stoltenberg told the Munich Security Conference last month that Russia was recklessly increasing its exercises that include tactical nuclear weapons and “blurring the line between conventional conflict and nuclear conflict.”

Gottemoeller has been trying to start discussions with Russia about eliminating tactical nuclear weapons altogether. Her vision of a cooperative and peaceful relationship between Russia and the West may be a good fit for her current job building consensus for arms-control treaties. But her appointment to be NATO’s No. 2 official risks sending the signal to Europe that the U.S. hasn’t reconciled that vision for the future with the reality of what Russia is today.

One area the author totally failed to research and maybe with good reason is the new Russian nuclear doctrine usage as defined in 2013 and then upgraded again in 2014 to include the first tactical use of a TBM in order to "deescalate".

Russia's ships w/ Kalibr cruise missiles will now be perpetually present in Mediterranean
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=45169&… …

Then the French discovery announced this week of a Russian "boomer" parked just next to the edge of French territorial waters in the Bay of Biscayne.

Obama in his interview outlining what he viewed as a high successful FP for the last seven years stated the following;

...."when one is nothing but farmers, carpenters and engineers and facing to two major powers Iran and Russia WHY should I/we get involved...?"

FOLLOWED before by the smokescreen debate "there are no moderates" that we could support in Syrian against Assad, Iran AND in the fight against IS.

BUT WAIT...there is in fact a Sunni Army...three actually... fully capable if given support to attack IS inside Syria without US boots on the ground and are fully capable of actually defeating IS.

AND those farmers, carpenters and engineers are led by well educated/trained former SAA Officers and NCOs....

Rebels have liberated Yani Yiban (SW of Dudyian) in north rural Aleppo from ISIS last night.

Rebel groups that took part in liberation are:
Faylaq al-Sham
Hamza Brig
Sultan Murad Brig
Suqour al-Jabal Brig
Ahrar Souriya Brig
Div 99

ALL these groups have been declared in the CoH to be "moderate forces"...kind of shots down the Obama smokescreen there is no one to support that could in fact take on IS.......

NOTICE...there has been a distinct silence on the debate smokescreen "of what is a moderate"??????

Something to think about........

If you're an American confusedly watching the darkest forces of your nation rally behind a demagogue-maybe you can understand the Mid East now.

It is not that difficult......

Info warfare does not work???...regardless of who uses it.....

This is the backstory for that viral Nazi salute photo taken at the cancelled #TrumpRally, photographer: @ejwamb.

White, female and in her 50s......

If you still don't believe Russia is a major sponsor of @realDonaldTrump, have a glimpse at this Russian "US" site https://www.facebook.com/wnpolitics/photos_stream …

BTW...Obama "smokescreens as well"....

Bill C...it has always been about civil societies and their wants and needs as defined by themselves and not by the Russians and or the US.

Something Robert keeps saying over and over.

Syria truce gave people a chance to remind us that the war began w/ a dictator & his crimes http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/10/the-guardian-view-… …

AFTER five long years of genocide, starvation, refugee flows, torture and disappearance the Syrian civil society when there is a moment of "quiet" gets back to what they did best in 2011, peaceful demonstrations against Assad.

While Obama constantly hides behind the "smokescreen of disinformation" that there is not a "moderate force to be seen in Syrian"....there is and they have been fighting IS for over four years.

Remember it was Obama that stated...."farmers carpenters and engineers" cannot be trusted to form an effective fighting force" which has been defying Assad, his major Iranian backed Shia mercenary army, IS and now dodging Russian bombs...FOR a long five years....

DID Obama totally forget the American Revolution which was also founded on farmers, carpenters and engineers which fought for HOW long and in the end accepted foreign assistance to defeat a major power.....and there is no similarity between the US and Syrian revolutions????

BUT WAIT Obama forgot along the way to the WH his own history....and all that Harvard education cannot replace that simple fact.

BTW...Obama claims now to be a "progressive realist"...first of all he has never been a "progressive" as progressives were and are able to think out of the box and he has really never been a "realist" as a "realist" would be able to fully recognize "genocide"....

Are the following leaders all wrong? Or might there be something more than an internal MCO vs. IW debate going on here?

President Putin: "If I wanted, Russian troops could not only be in Kiev in two days, but in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw or Bucharest, too.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11106195/Putin-…

Putin Doctrine: “In recent weeks, the Russian government has articulated what might be called the Putin Doctrine, a blanket assertion that Moscow has the right and the obligation to protect Russians anywhere in the world. Speaking on Russian television last month, Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for President Vladimir Putin, said that "Russia is the country on which the Russian world is based" and that Putin "is probably the main guarantor of the safety of the Russian world.".”

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-ethnic-russification-baltics-kazakh…

Russia’s New NSS: "The 2015 NSS is a blueprint for Moscow’s re-establishment of a militaristic, authoritarian state that gains it legitimacy through the blatant promotion internally of nationalism and fear of an imminent Western military threat. Confrontation with the West is now the order of the day as Russia seeks to reassert its “great power” dominion over the former states of the Soviet Union and divert domestic attention away from a declining economy. Strong Russian words have been matched by deeds since Russia’s 2008 military operations in, and occupation of Georgian territory. This was followed by the 2014 military occupation and annexation of Crimea, and the on-going Russian military operations in Eastern Ukraine and Syria"

President Obama: "And yet, as we gather here today, we know that this vision is threatened by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. It is a brazen assault on the territorial integrity of Ukraine -- a sovereign and independent European nation. It challenges that most basic of principles of our international system -- that borders cannot be redrawn at the barrel of a gun; that nations have the right to determine their own future. It undermines an international order where the rights of peoples and nations are upheld and can’t simply be taken away by brute force."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/03/remarks-presiden…

Secretary Carter: "Two of these challenges reflect a return to great power of competition. First is in Europe, where we're taking a strong and balanced approach to deter Russian aggression, and we haven't had to worry about this for 25 years. While I wish it were otherwise, now we do. . . Russia and China are our most stressing competitors. They have developed and are continuing to advance military system that seek to threaten our advantages in specific areas. And in some case, they are developing weapons and ways of wars that seek to achieve their objectives rapidly, before they hope, we can respond.”

http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/64…

General Dunford: "Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, in line to assume the nation's highest military post later this summer, cited Russia's nuclear weapon stockpile and aggressive, unpredictable actions as reasons that country presents the most serious near-term threat to worldwide stability. "They present the greatest existential threat," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing. "If you look at their behavior, it's nothing short of alarming.””

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/07/09/dun…

General Breedlove: "Russia is blatantly attempting to change the rules and principles that have been the foundation of European security for decades. The challenge posed by a resurgent Russia is global, not regional, and enduring, not temporary. . . We cannot fully be certain what Russia will do next, and we cannot fully grasp Putin's intent. What we can and are doing is learning from his actions. And what we see suggests growing Russian capabilities, significant military modernization, and ambitious strategic intent. We also know that Putin only responds to strength and seeks opportunities in weakness. We must strengthen our deterrence in order to manage his opportunistic confidence. EUCOM and the NATO alliance are adapting through improving our readiness and improving our responsiveness, adapting to the challenge, and increasing our own collective security."

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/673338/breedlove-russi…

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: "We have seen a more assertive Russia. A Russia which is destabilising the European security order. NATO does not seek confrontation. We do not want a new Cold War. At the same time our response has to be firm. So how do we square this circle? I strongly believe that the answer lies with both more defence and more dialogue. Pursued together, they can help us to achieve greater stability in Europe. Let me start with defence. Russia’s actions in Ukraine have triggered a robust response from the international community. Involving sanctions, suspension from the G-8, and increased support for our eastern partners. And NATO is undertaking the biggest strengthening of our collective defence in decades. To send a powerful signal to deter any aggression or intimidation. Not to wage war, but to prevent war. And this is why deterrence is a key part of our overall strategy. Deterrence starts with resolve. It’s not enough to feel it. You also have to show it. . . At our summit in Warsaw in July, I expect NATO Heads of State to decide to further strengthen the Alliance's defence and deterrence.”

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_128047.htm

Estonian Defense Minister: “The problem is that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin thinks he can do things very quickly . . . I would say that, in order to adjust the situation, we have to have a deterrent posture,” Misker said. “But the deterrent has to be significant enough to change [Putin’s] calculus.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-to-boos…

Where does this leave us? "During the Cold War, Nato assumed that a Soviet offensive through the Fulda Gap could only be defeated by nuclear weapons. But the permanent presence of 200,000 US troops in Germany – along with 55,000 soldiers from the British Army of the Rhine – would slow down the onslaught and buy a few days, or perhaps weeks, for cooler heads to prevail before the terrible moment of decision arrived. Today, no such safety margin exists. If Russia were to invade the Baltic states, Nato would probably have one option – and one alone – to defend its members. America, Britain and France would need to decide almost immediately whether to use nuclear weapons. If they opted to abandon the Baltics, then Nato would be finished. Once a collective defence pact throws one member to the wolves, the game is up. At that moment, Nato would effectively be dissolved, leaving every European country with no choice but to ask Russia for gentle treatment. By moving against the Baltic states, Mr Putin could force us to choose between scrapping Nato or going nuclear. Does anyone believe the thought has never crossed his mind?”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11548412/Would-…

- - - - -

We should neither inflate nor deflate threats to suit predetermined priorities, but assess them objectively and realistically. Russia lacks the reach to invade Western or Central Europe, but it can seize the Baltic States in less than three days given NATO's current posture. This would leave the President with bad options: take six months to deploy forces and launch a delayed counter-offensive that would risk nuclear escalation, or badly damage the credibility of US extended deterrence by effectively ceding control of NATO allies while adopting a long-term economic strategy to impose costs.

A Baltics conflict is only plausible because the US and NATO allies have drawn down their force posture and strategic readiness to the point that invites aggression. Instead of returning to Cold War force levels (8 corps, ~72 brigades), 3 armored and 4 infantry brigades with supporting enablers could deny a rapid fait accompli. Another ~9 European armor brigades could be made ready to counter-attack to restore their lines of communication. It is not mission impossible to deter this conflict.

Let me try this angle. . . Where is there greater strategic utility for those armored brigades? Based in the US to deter Canada & Mexico? In Afghanistan to interdict Al Qaeda and Taliban? In Iraq and Syria, conducting another large-scale, long-duration counter-insurgency with ineffective partners? Or perhaps in Europe to deter Russia?

Why then is it valid and necessary to assume that Russia would never use force against the Baltic States and rest US vital interests entirely on a analysis of Putin's intentions when our track record for predicting -- or even understanding -- Russian actions has been so poor?

with respect,

Michael W. Johnson

"Russia’s alleged threat to American interests is exaggerated, taken well out of context by those that would benefit from sustained American defense spending, and only applicable as it relates to NATO’s expansion in the Baltic States."

The context within which one must decided if Russia, and indeed other entities, might "threaten American interests" is, I suggest, as I describe it -- via a critical question -- below:

Question:

In the New Cold War of today:

a. Can such great nations as Russia, China and Iran, and various lesser non-western states and societies with significant conservative populations,

b. Herein using similar strategies against us today -- such as we used against the Soviets/the communists in the Old Cold War (think "containment" and "roll back"),

c. And herein using similar methods against us today (think "hybrid warfare," "unconventional warfare," etc.) -- much as we used against these against the Soviets/the communists back-in-the-day. Can such great nations and other entities, using such strategies and methods,

d. "Threaten American interests" (specifically our determination to spread and maintain "market democracy" throughout the world) today; this,

e. Much as the U.S./the West, using similar strategies and methods, successfully threatened Soviet/communists interests (to wit: their determination to spread and maintain communism throughout the world) in the Old Cold War of yesterday?

If the answer to this question is "YES (American interests, thus, can indeed be threatened), then our author above's contention, to wit: that Russia (etc.?) "can challenge American interests only at great cost to itself and only under exceptional circumstances;" this would, should we not agree, be disproved?

Especially as this relates to the "threat" to our such interests re: our desire to spread, and/or maintain, "market-democracy" (a) within these very nations themselves and/or (b) within their backyards/their spheres of interest?

Bottom Line:

Such strategies as "containment" and "roll back" -- and such methods as "unconventional warfare," hybrid warfare," etc., employed in their name -- these appear to be relatively cheap, reasonable and viable means for such nations as Russia, China and Iran, and various nations with significant conservative populations, to use to stop -- dead in its tracks -- America's grand expansionist designs (think the spread of "market-democracy" worldwide)?

Herein to suggest that accordingly, and in sharp contrast to author's assertion above, that: (a) The matryoshka may be far from empty and, thus, (b) Russia (etc., etc., etc.) may, indeed, still matter?

I appreciate any and all feedback on the article, but I must confess that I join many others in questioning the credibility of anything from RT, whether in live broadcast and online. I think you should consider it too.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-russia-today…

This confirms a point I was making yesterday...namely the author washes away any possible true Russian threat to Europe as a whole.....and the utter lack right now of both the US and or NATO in pushing back if Article 5 was ever triggered.

Electronic Warfare ‎@ArmyEW
@USArmyEurope Cmdr LTG Ben Hodges discusses the importance of electronic warfare training via @Bloomberg
http://tinyurl.com/z72xv3g

Right now the US Army has only about 300 EW Officers and NCOs all designed and trained for the CIED fight...BUT not for a true EW fight....as we have seen it practiced in eastern Ukraine nor in the sheer number of new Russian EW equipment fielded and being fielded.

We had this ability also in the early 90s and then we "retired it" as there was never going to be a need for in the so called "future" well the "future" is here and where is the Army EW?....not to be seen until late 2020 if then......

The author would do well in going back and fully understanding the Russia desire for a "new Yalta"..it is simply just not about words as he seems to think.....that is exactly why the "new Russian non linear doctrine" was designed....the ability to increase a "sphere of influence" just one step below open warfare...inch for inch across Europe.

Notice the Russian FM restates the desire to have an economic union from Portugal to the Russian Far East....naturally under Russian "sphere of influence" and or what Putin has termed a "new Yalta"...where the hegemon has "inherent sovereign rights"

https://www.rt.com/news/334392-russia-global-affairs-lavrov/

Attempts to unite Europe without Russia ended in tragedies – Lavrov

Published time: 3 Mar, 2016 11:19

Western attempts to exclude Russia from shaping European and global affairs have led to countless historical tragedies over the centuries, according to Moscow's foreign minister, who added lasting stability can only be reached through cooperation.

In an article for the Russia in Global Affairs magazine, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov outlines the historical importance of Russian foreign policy over the course of the last 1,000 years, arguing that Russian policy has always been based on preserving the fragile balance of peace and stability in international relations. Any attempts to isolate Moscow as a major world power have led to historical defeats and countless deaths, he says.

“During at least the past two centuries any attempts to unite Europe without Russia and against it have inevitably led to grim tragedies, the consequences of which were always overcome with the decisive participation of our country,” Lavrov wrote.

Being the largest country on earth with a unique “cultural matrix,” Russia has always followed its own national interests, Lavrov says. Yet at the same time it has served as a bridge between the East and the West, while Russians have always welcomed and respected numerous religions and cultures.

While welcoming Western ideas and applying them to modernize Russia, Moscow has never allowed itself to be consumed by Western culture. At the same time Moscow has always advocated working with the West to achieve common objectives.

Lavrov stressed the constructive role Moscow has played in European affairs, especially during the Napoleonic Wars, as well as in First and Second World Wars. The influence of the Soviet Union in shaping modern Western values should also not be underestimated, the minister argues, highlighting the USSR’s role in decolonization and shaping the European socio-economic system.

“The Soviet Union, for all its evils, never aimed to destroy entire nations,” Lavrov said. “Winston Churchill, who all his life was a principled opponent of the Soviet Union and played a major role in going from the World War II alliance to a new confrontation with the Soviet Union, said that graciousness, i.e. life in accordance with conscience, is the Russian way of doing things,” he added.

The post-Soviet world, Lavrov argues, offered the unique opportunity for European states to unite with Moscow and work towards a wider and more solid security mechanism in Europe – a mechanism that would enable long-lasting peace on the wider continent.

“Logically, we should have created a new foundation for European security by strengthening the military and political components of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE),” the minister wrote.

Instead of uniting, some European countries chose to ally themselves with NATO and Washington, and once again embarked on the centuries-old matrix of trying to isolate Russia and expand the military alliance’s borders further east, while pursuing a global agenda of regime change and ‘color’ revolutions.

“It is notable that George Kennan, the architect of the US policy of containment of the Soviet Union, said that the ratification of NATO expansion was ‘a tragic mistake,’” Lavrov said.

Rather than serving as architects of peace, NATO and its member states, Lavrov said, continued to engage in destructive policies that threaten international stability and have already led to the collapse of states, starting from the bombings of Yugoslavia, to the invasions of Iraq and Libya.

Arguing that the liberal system of globalization has failed, the minister stressed that the world is standing at a crossroads, where a new system of international relations is taking shape. At such an important historical junction, Lavrov says it is wrong to accuse Russia of “revisionism” just because Moscow refuses to bow or close its eyes to NATO’s policies.

“A reliable solution to the problems of the modern world can only be achieved through serious and honest cooperation between the leading states and their associations in order to address common challenges,” Lavrov wrote.

The most pressing issue in the modern world is the threat of terrorism, which can only be defeated by a united front, he added.

The foreign minister stressed that Russia is not seeking any “confrontation” with the US or the EU. On the contrary, Moscow is and has always been open to “the widest possible cooperation with its Western partners.”

Russia continues to support the notion that the best way to ensure the interests of Europeans would be “to form a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so that the newly formed Eurasian Economic Union could be an integrating link between Europe and Asia Pacific.”

BTW...the author would do well in reading the various comments from both Putin and his FM since 2008....this message above has been their main drumbeat theme since 2008 and they have never come off it...clearer messaging one does not always get these days in the FP world......

I can certainly appreciate the level of candor contained in this assessment. Below are a few points for discussion:

1. " Russia is at a stalemate against an arguably inferior military in the Ukraine, and is logistically constrained to operations in the Donets Basin, close to its border and overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Russians."

1: A few people here on SWJ have argued the underestimation of Ukraine's regular and irregular fighting force's ability to resist full occupation of the Donbas despite equipment and mission command shortcomings. Other arguments involve the gross miscalculation of ethnic Russian support in the Donbas involving Projekt Novorossiya.

2. " As recent models demonstrate, the Baltic three would be no match for a concerted Russian assault."

2. Additional Baltic Threat Scenarios contained in Ambiguous Threats and
External Influences in the Baltic States (AWG Nov 2015).

-Deliberate and sudden Russian conventional attack on the Baltic States.

-The second scenario involves another Article V situation, but one in which Russia would conduct a more limited incursion.

-The third scenario takes place along similar lines. Russia could conduct limited artillery, air strikes or a raid.

-The fourth scenario involves cyber attacks or Russian intelligence and/or special operations forces in the Baltic States.

-Perpetuation of the status quo until one or both sides could no longer take part.

3. "Further indicators that Russia is relatively unconcerned by security challenges from the Baltic, is that it has made a clear prioritization of resources to its southern military district. It is evidently more concerned over jihadist terrorism in the Caucuses and support for breakaway regions such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Crimea, than it is in diminishing U.S. influence in the Baltics."

3. Caucasus and Central Asia to Become Key Priority for Russian Military in 2016

On 1 January 2016 Gazeta ru (Newspaper) published an article about the future of Russian military operations in 2016. According to the article,
in addition to continued military engagement in Syria and Donbass, the Caucasus (Armenia predominantly) and Central Asia will also become strategically important. Indeed, the article emphasizes that the “Caucasus-2016” strategic exercises will be a critical element the Russian army’s combat training. -OE Watch

4. " Some analysts point to Russia’s operations in Syria as an example of expanded capabilities."

4. Excerpt from unpublished "Regarding the Republic: Understanding Georgia's Contributions to Security through History, Military Reforms and Partnerships"

Independence, Civil War, “Color Revolutions”, and New Generation War: 1988-2008

"Next, this section provides a historical twenty year military centric review of the evolution of 21st century new generation war 3, non-linear or hybrid warfare, in the Caucasus region. New generation war in the region has involved exploitation of political and ethnic vulnerabilities and social strife (prepare/shape), subversion, state supported irregular and hybrid separatist formations (attack), and conflict ceasefire initiatives and justification for peacekeeping operations (strategic stabilization) 4. Precursors for new generation warfare and supra-means combination refinement 5 in Chechnya (First and Second Chechen Wars), Estonia, and Ukraine included, non-military means, protest potential of the population, ethnic and economic manipulation, irregular and regular maneuver forces, and constant external influence as deliberate foreign policy. Lessons learned from the Russo-Georgian War were applied to the War in Donbass, and primarily involved non-military, informational and irregular means (as outlined in this author’s previous article in Small Wars Journal entitled Grading Gerasimov: Evaluating Russian Non-linear War through Modern Chinese Doctrine).

Additionally, gross miscalculations and lessons learned in the Donbas region of Ukraine include the underestimation of population-centric core grievances, separatist support and Ukrainian regular and paramilitary forces fighting ability. The current application of devastating conventional military means in Syria demonstrates the complete advancement of hybrid capabilities. It also demonstrates the potential for more successful applications in all domains, first through escalation dominance, and then through both calculated direct and indirect effects based combinations to reach political objectives.

5. " This argument assumes Europe will have the stomach and means to join us in another non-article V adventure like Iraq or Afghanistan. Europe’s armies are shrinking in both size and capability, as is the political will to support such a campaign."

5. Afghanistan was and is indeed an invocation of Article V.
http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm

6. "It is a loud and boisterous bully whose activities are largely constrained to its home turf, and whose approach to its neighbors generates derision and scorn as often as it does awe."

6. Octavian Manea's "The Strategy of Hybrid Warfare" on SWJ highlights regional escalation dominance and NATO's posture.

For years NATO has adopted a defense-in-depth posture, leaving its Eastern Flank exposed. Consequently, NATO promised to secure its Eastern allies through power projection solutions that involve expeditionary forces. Yet in the last few years Russia has invested massively in access-denial capabilities that have the potential to keep at bay expeditionary reinforcements. At the same time Russia has regional escalation dominance in certain points of the Eastern Flank. Russia can cut land access into the Baltics in the so-called Suwalki Gap. Is this added incentive for a revisionist power that has the intent, and now increasingly the capabilities and the ability, to wage low cost irregular warfare campaigns under an A2/AD umbrella, psychologically deterring a NATO response? #FreeSavchenko

Thanks.