How Do You Solve a Problem Like Russia? By Rep. Mac Thornberry, Real Clear Defense
If there was ever any question that the security situation in the world is constantly changing, these past five years provide undeniable evidence.
It must be clear even to Barack Obama that the world he hoped and wanted to find is not the world as it is. In the real world there is evil, aggression and opportunism willing to exploit any perceived weakness. Whether it is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, al-Qaeda, North Korea, Iran, China, or others, there are adversaries ready to pounce on any opening offered by U.S. retreat. And they, as well as our allies and the rest of the world, are watching very carefully to see how the United States proceeds in light of Russian annexation of Crimea.
What should we do? …
Comments
Ned---remember the test sale of 5M barrels out of the Strategic Oil Reserve-that drove down the pricing and is the same sour grade oil as sold out of the Urals.
Seems as if Putin has not forgotten what actually caused the collapse of the soviet Union which was not our outspending them.
Taken from Interfax today---maybe it means he is hoping they do not reduce the price:
14:51 Putin doubts Saudi Arabia would take abrupt action to lower oil price (Part 3)
Outlaw-09,
Good points, all. Two thoughts come to mind, perhaps applicable.
1. It is hard to mount an information campaign when one's mind is not made up.
2. Possibly, U.S. and E.U. policy-makers see eastern Ukraine as unsustainable and are acceding to Russian designs; less politely stated, the West is not willing to risk a confrontation.
Thank you for the article from Kiev. This article from "Foreign Affairs" is interesting, too. There are issues to be resolved and the article presents one idea of how to do that peacefully. The larger issue, however, is how Russia has addressed this division; i.e., by aggression.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141182/keith-darden/how-to-save-…
A moderate non-kinetic push-back by the West, a few basic concessions on the table since DAY-1 as well as, most importantly, an information campaign to legitimate the the first two responses can still preserve the European order and Ukraine's territorial integrity. Those concessions include:
1. federalization of Crimea and other eastern russophilic regions;
2. no national language officially; and,
3. establishing a framework toward referenda in several years.
In that manner, outstanding and legitimate historical issues may be redressed without planting the seeds for a larger conflict, later.
P.S. Here is an opinion piece by a well-known foreign service trouble-shooter in Iraq that articulates my thinking far better than I: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-should-send-ground-troops-to-… Nevertheless, I would take this one step further by placing trip-wires in Ukraine itself along the lines previously argued (i.e., SOF training in the east and California National Guard exercises in the west).
Still see no interest it seems by the NSA in releasing to western media cell phone intercepts of proRussian armed groups in their conversations with their "management" inside and outside the Ukraine.
Yes I know all about methods and procedures, but since when has that stopped individuals in DC from releasing items to support a particular view point especially when the entire world knows the capabilities of the NSA.
Where is the US information operations campaign to counter a very good FSB campaign---seems to be missing in action. Intercepted cell conversations are so easy to use in I/O to win and influence world media opinions.
Why is it that Russian opinions seem to rule the world media at least in Europe.
Released today by the Ukrainian SBU security service is this telling cell conversation.
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/insurgents-in-kramatorsk-in-arm…
Within what overall context might we view conflict today?
Yes, let us consider if there is something in common, say, between the conflicts in Afghanistan and Ukraine.
For example: Could both of these conflicts -- and, indeed, many other conflicts in-progress or pending today -- be seen within the context of the West's efforts to (1) transform other states and societies more along its (the West's) political, economic and social lines and, via these and other processes, (2) to incorporate these transformed states and societies more into its (the West's) sphere of influence?
If this suggestion is accurate, how then might one get into conflict situations today?
Might this occur when certain population groups (examples: in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns; in Ukraine/Crimea, the ethnic Russians) are unwilling, and/or unable, to re-order, re-orient and re-organize their ways of life, ways of governance and traditional loyalties to meet Western desires?
Herein, these population groups being assisted in their resistance efforts by neighboring nations and like-minded/related peoples (in this example, those of Pakistan and Russia respectively).
If this theory of modern conflict and war has merit, how then might one get out of these such conflict situations?
One way might be for the West to back off.
Thus, can modern conflict generally be seen from the point of view of (1) the West's efforts to consolidate its potential post-Cold War gains and from the point of view of (2) the resistance of various populations groups, and related parties, to this agenda and these demands?
Outlaw-09, Carl and MoveForward,
Beautifully stated. I hated the Viet Nam war; what I did not realize at the time was that that quagmire was not a military blunder or defeat but a failure of civilian leadership with consequences visited on the military.
Yes, we civilians have broken the trust with you in the military; my younger brothers and sisters in uniform are not the clean up crew / hired help of civilian leadership to bail it out of poor policy-making.
I salute you service to my country,
Ned McDonnell.
P.S. The articles that are posted on both sides are fascinating. Thank you.
With all the power of the NSA that has been released by Snowden we cannot seem to get a single voice intercept of a "proRussian non Russian uniformed Russians" on a single cell phone conversation which if one watches the approximately 20 plus online videos released by the proRussian defense groups out of eastern Ukraine they are all on cells at every event.
Yet it takes the SBU to release a great cell conversation between Russia area code +7 and "proRussian non Russian uniformed Russians" on the ground in eastern Ukraine concerning the various attacks in and around Donetsk.
Come on NSA---why cannot you provide something more than what the SBU has done---if not then why not and why have the taxpayers provided the NSA with so much money if one cannot get a single cell intercept released to western media. There must be literally hundreds of cell calls going on between eastern Ukraine self defense groups and Russia.
There needs to be more of this released daily to western media until it reaches a drumbeat in order to roll over a very good Russian I/O campaign being carried out in Europe and basically ignored by US media.
That is the least the US/NATO can do to provide flanking support if no boots are to be on the ground and until someone can come up with a coherent strategy.
We have basically lost the I/O campaign the FSB has been running against western media. What happen to the abilities that the DoD has built during the last 13 years of war---seems like it was to one sided and focused only on jihadi's.
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russian-paramilitary-leaders-in…
Some of these comments sadly parallel the appeasement talk of early WWII. Madhu's comments are particularly telling insofar as the dollars often wasted in the medical community where she probably makes nearly 1/3 of a million $ most likely is one dollar in every six of the U.S. economy's GDP. In contrast, the amount spent on defense is about one dollar in every 21. Shall we compare which sector contributes most to the annual deficit?
I offer the following response made to an earlier "Slow-Motion Coup" SWJ article quoting Eisenhower's famous "military-industrial complex" speech. Read the facts and decide if we really are a more militaristic nation today. Then I invite Madhu to perform an inflation comparison of doctor pay and patient/insurance costs to include the government's portion thereof between 1960 and today. My strong wager is that the military is using and wasting far less of our inflation-adjusted tax dollars relative to GDP today than the medical community:
Are President Eisenhower’s admonitions more true today than in years past? If that is the case how do you explain these figures from the following link:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html
Service: Army……Air Force……Navy……Marines
1955:..1,109,296..959,946….660,695….205,170
1960:…873,078…814,752….616,987…170,621
1965:…969,066…824,662…669,985…190,213
1970:…1,322,548..791,349…691,126…259,737
1975:…784,333….612,751….535,025….195,951
2013:…490,000…329,000…285,000….182,000
If that is militarism, why is the military scheduled to be so small during a time of war with other conflicts potentially looming. Even as U.S. Servicemembers were fighting two wars, today’s active Armed Forces were a fraction of the size of Eisenhower’s non-war years, forcing many reserve component troops to deploy.
Scores of past Presidents and Congressmen over many decades had military experiences like President Eisenhower giving them an informed capacity to keep the military in check. With that trend lessened by a far smaller volunteer military, few legislative and executive leaders have military service. Civilian leaders who are clueless about the military are not a great argument for reduced military influence in how to employ the military. There remains no clear evidence that state department officials, NGOs, the UN and similar civil influence could end problems and operate securely outside major cities in war-torn lands. Past ambassador decisions have been just as problematic as those of military leaders, with both learning on the fly.
<blockquote>If ‘small wars’ are the most likely circumstance for the future of conflict, these, of necessity, require ‘small’ responses. Not just an appropriate force structure but a support establishment short of the scale and scope of the current Department of Defense with all its rococo embellishments. There is a need for specialized, scaled components specific to the need and not large, general purpose forces.</blockquote>
Small initial responses in Afghanistan led to at least a 13 year war with inadequate resources for wide area security. This was driven by an Army far smaller than in the past which meant that split war efforts required extensive Soldier deployment pain of 12-15 months for most of OIF and OEF. USAF aerial refuelers deploy for 2 months and most USAF tours are 6 months. Compare that to the new policy that has the Army deploying for 9 months without a mid-tour leave, and a major discrepancy exists in the sacrifices we ask ground troops to endure for the same or less (flight) pay.
Deployment duration is a function of force size available. Even Marines have just 7 month tours. In Eisenhower’s 1955 and 1960, the Marines were 1/5th the size of the Army. Today, that number is more than 1/3rd of the Army’s size and A2/AD strategies render forcible entry from the sea a less than viable tactic or strategy. Given such typically short USAF, Marine, and Navy tours, and the propensity for continued flying in the civil sector, coupled with stateside operation of Remotely Piloted Aircraft, you would believe that all services that fly fixed wing aircraft could have a far larger reserve flying component.
In addition, many world Armies are as large or larger than our own. That isn’t the case for the world’s Navies and Air Forces. Adversary populations and Armies live and hide on the land, far from the reach and targeting eyes of the air or sea. Our abhorrence to committing collateral damage increases threat likelihood of hugging civilians, both their own and those of invaded nations, thus rendering less effective the reach of airpower.
Underground and mobile systems, typical of China, Russia, North Korea, Hezbollah, and Iran also shield threat systems from our easy detection and air attack. Abstract concepts such as the Global Commons are somewhat irrelevant when billions live far inland and only one nation has a substantial blue water Navy. The closest second place Naval threat has no reason to obstruct the Global Commons that are the lifeblood of their own trade.
Mr. Olson makes this interesting observation in his fourth footnote:
<blockquote>A return to isolation was not an option. Engagement was not the result of a motive for hegemony, the way many now read it, but a sense, based on some experience, that failure to engage now meant having to engage later when things were even worse and harder to deal with.</blockquote>
This was referring to U.S. entry into the long Cold War following WWII. Many would submit that it applies equally to U.S. engagement of terrorism most represented by Jihadists. With so many worldwide Muslims, and no U.S. intent to withdraw support for Israel, we can expect Islamic terror will continue all around the world whether we engage or not. Some say our engagement causes the problem. Others can claim with legitimacy that terror unaddressed is terror that increases both in amount and effectiveness. WMD proliferation brings new meaning to the idea of hybrid warfare.
As the recent attack of a Pakistani air base and past attack on a Navy facility thought to contain Pakistani nuclear weapons illustrate, extremists without a Jihadist diversion against armed international forces demonstrating resolve, are extremists able to focus more efforts obtaining and using WMD on innocent civilians in Europe, the U.S., Asia, and Israel. When extremists are unafraid to die, advocate suicide attacks, and are eager to impose Sharia law, their extremism is hardly deterred by the prospect of international community retaliatory strikes that could return their homeland to the stone age...condition not altogether unlike their current aspirations for how their people should live.
Drone attacks and limited use of GPF and SOF are a preferable solution when the resulting casualties, both military and civilian on both sides of the conflict, are a fraction of those ignorantly considered acceptable in past conflicts. In Afghanistan, despite a decade of efforts of varying emphasis, U.S. casualties remain fewer than those of 9/11. Others argue that we are spending too much treasure in addition to blood. In his famous speech, Eisenhower said this:
<blockquote>We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.</blockquote>
Today, just the top 25 corporations paying the highest tax rates according to Forbes, generated over $364 billion in net income in 2011. Imagine the net income of the rest of the Forbes 500. Lockheed Martin, our nation’s largest defense contractor had only $3 billion in net income in 2011 compared to Exxon Mobil’s $41 billion, Chevron's $27 billion, Apple’s $33 billion, Microsoft's $23.5 billion, GM’s $20 billion, and Wells Fargo/IBM/G.E.'s 15.9 billion, and Wal-Mart's $15.7 billion. LockMart received only 7% of Pentagon spending as the largest defense contractor employing 123,000 direct employees and countless indirect who enjoy the spending of their employees.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/which-megacorps...
So as we consider Eisenhower’s words, ensure that we place them in the current context of a larger world market with expanded economic interdependencies. Two of the biggest players in this economic market are Japan and Germany, past U.S. foes that we helped to rebuild following major wars. That investment has paid off insofar as these nations alone create substantial manufacturing jobs within the U.S.
In other rural areas, Servicemember spending is a hefty portion of many local economies creating many middle class jobs and providing training, education, and experiences that translate to the civil sector. Many of these Army jobs are in areas that otherwise would languish due to the lack of other civil sector opportunities. Also, many defense contractor jobs are the last vestige of science, technology, engineering, and math jobs. Defense procurement manufacturing jobs are not as likely to be sent overseas as other low skill non-defense manufacturing. Yet these same jobs also produce high dollar exports such as the F-35 fighter.
When Exxon Mobil had to pay an effective rate of 42% on its $41 billion net income, surely we can ask our nation’s wealthiest to pay a higher effective rate than the 13% that Presidential candidate Romney recently revealed. Recall that when Eisenhower made his famous speech and from 1950 through 1963, the marginal tax rate on the highest earners was 91% of the upper portions of their income. It was 70% or higher from 1964 through 1980, and 50% through 1986. The problem isn't the military industrial complex, it is a portion of the conservative sector that refuses to make the wealthiest amongst us pay adequately for our nation's defense.
<blockquote>More top defense industry executives and lobbyists have written checks to the re-election campaign of <strong>Mac Thornberry</strong> than to his potential rivals for the House Armed Services Committee chairmanship.
Wes Bush, chairman and chief executive officer of Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC), gave $2,500 to Thornberry, according to Federal Election Commission records. Contributions to the Texas Republican’s campaign from executives of Falls Church, Virginia-based company added up to $16,500, according to 2013 year-end FEC filings.
The Northrop executives didn’t write personal checks to the campaigns of Thornberry’s potential Republican competitors for the chairmanship, Randy Forbes of Virginia and Mike Turner of Ohio. They did give to the campaign of current Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon of California before he announced his plans to retire.
“It’s a classic case of someone who is next in line,” David Wasserman, House editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said of the donations to Thornberry. He said it’s a sign of “someone who’s elevation is anticipated and, as a result, there is an infusion of campaign funds.”
Among the contributors to Thornberry, Sid Ashworth, vice president of Northrop’s Government Affairs unit and a former Senate Appropriations Committee staff member, donated $1000. Several other leaders in the company, including Gloria Flach, the president of the electronic systems unit, also gave to him. Those donations all were dated Nov. 4, 2013.
The company’s political action committee also gave $10,000, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.</blockquote>
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-06/thornberry-s-committee-prospec…
I guess the most important thing is to increase defense spending. Remember, Mom and Pop America, be a sucker. Always be a sucker. That's called defending American interests.
Dayuhan:
You are talking about Europe, nasty old selfish ungrateful Europe. I am talking about Ukraine and Ukrainians, Poland and Poles, Czech Republic and Czechs etc. Ultimately about individual people with names, faces, families and old black and white photos on the mantelpiece of relatives, dead, murdered by the millions in years past. Now those countries aren't the wealthy Germans or the decadent British and they need our help. They need it now in the face of a mortal threat by the same people who murdered their relatives those many years ago.
No kidding that actual gas exports from the US years down the road won't have an effect right now. But quick approval and decisive cutting of red tape to get those export facilities going will have an effect right now. Putin will notice that kind of thing. The Ukrainians and the Poles will notice it too.
Well let's see, if I get it right only nations that spend at least 2.5% of gdp on defense should be worthy of our help. So nations like Canada, Australia, Netherlans and Georgia aren't worthy of help and nations like Russia, Morocco, Pakistan and Swaziland are. I think that a poor criterion upon which to base it. One of the reasons I think that is the group of Georgian soldiers I saw rolling around the wide halls of a hospital for a few days once. Blood was leaking out of some of the bandages at the ends of their leg stumps. Younger guys they were.
Oh, by the way. Ukraine spent 2.8% of GDP on defense in 2012.
The problem for us is "We're here lad. Nobody else. Just us." There is nobody but the Americans to stand in the face of the Putins of the world, the men who would wrench open the gates of hell for their own purposes. It has been like that for over 70 years. It is a curse and an honor but there is nobody else, just us. When those front line countries say NATO, they don't mean ferocious bands of Spaniards and Belgians, they mean the Americans because there is nobody else who may stand with them against the agents of hell, just us.
I don't want to turn our backs on them.
Bravo, Dayuhan. You might find the following interesting:
<blockquote>The construction costs for a new Nato headquarters in Brussels could soar by as much as 25 per cent presenting a bill to the British taxpayer of over £150 million at a time of national defence cuts.
The construction consortium building a state-of-the-art HQ for the Western Alliance has run into financial difficulties that could push the bill for the building up to a total of over €1.25 billion (£1bn).
Officials have confirmed "that the general construction contractor submitted a claim for extra costs and time to finalise the new Nato headquarters building, beyond their initial bid".
"Belgium, as responsible for the contract upon Nato's request, has advised Nato that it is analysing the claim," said a spokesman for the Alliance.
The spokesman added: "The construction of the new Nato HQ is a large and complex project with unique features driven by security requirements. Such projects carry the risk of claims for additional cost and time." </blockquote>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10588219/Cost-of-Natos-n…
And what did some NATO member states spend the last decade or so doing? Training other militaries? Geez, that sounds like a transferrable skill theater to theater.
Yeah, the problem is the US. Buck passing and blame shifting: a twenty-first NATO. What is this, some left over colonial monarchal attitude toward the Americans? Peel me a grape, America!
I agree with you on exports, but as he notes, this is a three year plan.
As for increases in defense spending, I just assumed that was for his political base and campaign contributors. No one in their right mind believes we can afford an increase in defense spending ... particularly since you can make no rational argument that more spending will deter Russian ambitions. It doesn't matter what you spend it on, you have to be both able (in a geographical position) and willing (have the US population's backing) to do something. Right now, and probably for the next two years, that is not going to be the case.
Any real action, as in UW inside the Ukraine or Russia, does not require more spending, only secrecy ... which politicians and people in the Pentagon suck at.
There are some fairly questionable arguments here.
Calling Europe "the weak link in the sanctions chain" is specious. Russia's commercial and financial connections with Europe are far more extensive than those with the US, and US sanctions without European participation mean pretty much nothing. Europe isn't the weak link in the sanctiopns chain, they're the strong link.
Accelerating US gas export capacity is something the US gas industry wants to promote, but the effect on Europe will not be felt for years and will be peripheral: export facilities take a long time to build, and the gas is going to flow to Asia, not Europe, because Asia is where the price is highest. Gas producers talk about their gas as a strategic lever against Russia, but that's talk: the intent is to get approval rammed through and then sell the gas to the highest bidder, which is not going to be in Europe. Eventually US and Australian gas exports will push down world prices and have a real impact on Russia, but that's years down the line.
"Increase defense spending" is almost mind-boggling. The US spends 4.4% of GDP on defense, EU spends 1.7%... and the US taxpayer is supposed to pick up the tab for defending Europe? Excusez-moi, cherie, but I don't think so. Seems to me the US should be telling the EU that if they want US military support now, they should commit to raising their own spending to at least 2.5% of GDP and start carrying their own share of the burden. I am sure that Rep. Thornberry's constituents and contributors in the defense industry would love to see an increase in defense spending, just as the constituents and contributors in the gas industry would love to see expedited approval for export terminals that will send gas to Asia. Whether that's really necessary for anything but the vested interests remains very much open to question.
You are certainly prone to oversimplification. You pretend there is an international will on the part of our NATO partners. In the absence of that you pretend there is a national will on the part of the Americans to go unilaterally into the Ukraine. And where exactly is the request for military aide from the Ukrainians that McCain kept talking about back in Mid March?
"Ukraine didn't address to individual countries or international organizations to provide direct military assistance in connection with the Russian military aggression.This was announced in Brussels by Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Andrei Deshchitsa after a meeting with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
According to the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, he will give over to the headquarters of the Alliance a list of specific logistic resources needed by the armed forces of our country to oppose to the Russian direct and possible aggression. This military- technical cooperation takes place within the current legal framework in the relations between Ukraine and NATO. The matter is about increasing the number of joint military exercises , said the official." 18 Mar 14 http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/en/148/559203/
So again, we were acting unilaterally as if WE ran the Ukraine not the Ukrainians. We MUST know what is best for them.
That said, my guess is that, if there is any aide coming in, it is not being advertised for the same reason that the press release from the Ukrainian Foreign Minister claimed that no aide was requested. Notice the caution in the language of the official DoS Press Release:
"On the security side, we have long-standing military-to-military cooperation with Ukraine. Our ongoing Foreign Military Financing and International Military and Education Programs have focused on supporting defense reforms, military professionalization, increasing the interoperability of Ukrainian forces, and expanding Ukraine’s deployable peacekeeping capabilities. We currently are working with Ukraine to determine its requirements across the security sector. Based on those requirements, we will review options for potential additional security assistance." http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/04/224806.htm
I think it is too early to be talking about what is going on behind the scenes. But the US policy has to balance limited financial capability (because of our own financial issues), appeasing a war weary population at home, building a consensus in NATO, and not prodding a reaction out of the Russians too soon.
I may be reading the situation wrong, but I am almost positive that the oversimplification of publicly announcing massive military support that we can't get on the ground and to the forces in the field for weeks, and then still have to train them with it, will not do much to stabilize the situation or convince Putin that he should not act sooner rather than later.
Curmudgeon,
I must accept that we simply differ. I do not see this as the U.S. versus U.S.S.R., round-2. The head of state in Moscow, however, has that world view bred into him by many years of serving with the K.G.B. Perhaps the Germans are not stepping up, because of a perceived absence of leadership on the part of the United States. People are willing to defy short-term interests is they are given good reason to do so.
Something tells me that, were President Kennedy or Reagan in office now, he would be in Berlin calling for democracies to stand firm, not only for new members in N.A.T.O. but also for the peoples of Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine and, yes, Russia herself.
Those Americans polled, whom you so frequently cite, may be saying, "show us why we have an interest or responsibility..." As it is, everyone is worried about stepping up and being left exposed without the support rightfully expected of other democracies. Leadership requires staking out a strong position and persuading others to come together.
Such guidance has not been forthcoming from the United States, the logical initiator of such a unified response. While I am happy to see that sanctions are not being imposed upon the Russian people, relying upon oligarchs, originating from the K.G.B., to pressure President Putin remains wishful thinking. http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/04/russia Targeting the oligarchs will not deprive them; they are financially insulated.
That leaves the U.S., U.N., N.A.T.O. et al. with fewer options in the immediate term. One non-military response to consider would be freezing the bank accounts of these oligarchs and other governmental accounts in Europe and the U.S. Then the collected nations could draw down those funds to pay down part of Ukraine's debt to Russia.
Thank you for the lively debate.
Ned,
I believe that the German's will do what they believe is best for them ... and I believe events so far have proved that I am right. You too believe that this is the USSR vs the US, round two. It is not, and those closest to the fight understand that. The world is a complex place, it is not as simple as a dichotomy between democracy and dictatorship.
Curmudgeon,
By focussing on the long run, without leadership now, means that there is no long run to worry about. Carl has amply refuted that. Focussing attention, however, requires leadership and determination. Thirty years after taking the risk to stand up to a far more formidable U.S.S.R., President Reagan's words still stir the heart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqWNJDqkajQ
The President was dismissed, by me and others who deemed themselves smarter than the average bear, as a second-rate Hollywood actor with a third-rate intellect. Yet this President understood the limits of intellection and the requirements of character, and knew enough to tap good but humble minds to stand up to the U.S.S.R. http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4495726/cultural-leadership-can-win-cultu…
President Reagan's secret was his comfort with not being the smartest man in the room, together with a deep and abiding faith that Americans can step up, but they need to be persuaded to do so. Do you really believe that, were President Obama to state just how high the stakes in Ukraine are for the future of democracy across Europe, including Russia, that Chancellor Merkel would really respond, "No, don't think so. The Stasi was not so bad..."?
Curmudgeon:
You apologists for the ruling class are just shameless about your superciliousness toward the Americans aren't you? Saying the Americans are not stupid, just thoughtlessly selfish is the flip side of the same coin, that of the ruling political class blaming their gross and persistent failures upon the upon the supposed intrinsic character flaws of the Americans. Oh if only the people were up to our standards they say. No, I think it the other way around.
You see in matters of foreign policy it is the responsibility of the elected officials to keep an eye on things overseas because the average man has a lot of other things to do, like raising the kids and working. That is what we elect those guys for, look out at the world. When something happens they are supposed to note it, recognize when there is a case for action then clearly explain why. Like now. Like the past 70 years. Then we come thru, like the past 70 years. Naturally enough before that case is explained most people will say no we don't want to get involved. To blame that upon the people rather than the failure of the leaders is to turn the system on it's head. What a perfect way for lousy leaders to excuse themselves, blame it on the people.
When you use phrases like "a well crafted argument by a gifted demagogue can sway the average American" I can't help but get the idea that there is a contempt for the Americans that runs wide and deep.
Carl, most American's already think that we have no obligation in the Ukraine: "Most Americans don't think the U.S. is obliged to intervene in the recent annexation by Russia of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. A majority of 61 percent of Americans do not think the U.S. has a responsibility to do something about the situation between Russia and Ukraine, nearly twice as many as the 32 percent who think it does. There is widespread bipartisan agreement on this."http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-say-us-doesnt-have-a-responsibili…
That is today, while this is occurring. Give it six months and see if it is even on the average American's radar. I do not think American's are stupid. I do think they are selfish. If it is not affecting the price of their oil or vodka, they just don't care. This is not a issue of leadership, although a well crafted argument by a gifted demagogue can sway the average American, it is an issue of the nature of the American population. I am sorry, but America is concerned about ... America.
Curmudgeon:
You know that is the standard excuse the members of the American political class and their apologists use for their failures-that those benighted NASCAR fans in flyover country won't be able to understand something or don't have the patience. That's nonsense as demonstrated by our long effort in Afghanistan in the face of continuous criminally stupid direction of that effort by our so called betters inside the beltway. The Americans can do it, have done it and will do it if those genii inside the beltway can grow a backbone. Don't look down your nose at the Americans. Contemn the leadership class instead.
Your attitude reminds me of the debates we used to have about whether to be up front with the passengers when there was problem with the airplane. I always figured it was best to tell them what was going on as straight as I could. The other guys would disagree and want to lie or dumb it down. They would justify that with the old saw "What, they're not rocket scientists you know.". Then one day during a delay I was talking to one of my passengers in the terminal and asked what he did. He said he worked at China Lake. Turns out he was a rocket scientist. That was who was in the pax cabin of my airplane, rocket scientists, doctors, combat veterans, nurses, cops, fireman, ship captains, brain surgeons, you name it. And those are the people you are talking about when you talk about the Americans no matter how the ruling class wants to look down their nose at us.
You spoke about trading time for space somewhere above. That applies when there is active resistance. When done without being part of active resistance, it is called giving up without a fight.
Curmudgeon,
Thank you for thoughtful response. The intellectual cowardice is that, by putting the choice in the binary terms of big war / no action, there really is no choice available. Nobody wants a big war; so, facing the choice as it is presented, President Obama evades the responsibility of making a meaningful response somewhere in between.
The other issue provoking the view I have is the fact that the lead-time between the imposition and effect of sanctions is too long, inviting Russia to consolidate now and let things calm down later as the West settles into a new complacency.
Ned.
Sir,
I am simply pointing out what should be oblivious to everyone; before you place American troops into the Ukraine you may actually want to get the consent of the Ukrainians to do it.
Just out of curiosity, what would be your response when the first American Soldier is killed by a baklava clad individual?
But more to the point, what you consider intellectual cowardice I consider Intellectual rigor. You are not looking at the situation in its entirety. You are not looking at it in the long term. And you are certainly not looking at it from the Ukrainians perspective.
I have no problem in grey areas. If we are concerned that Putin is the enemy than what are we doing about it? We are attempting to weaken Putin directly. Economic sanctions are slow but they can work assuming the rest of the world is interested. If the rest of the world is not interested, then what are we doing and why are we doing it?
You may be right that there will be a larger conflict later, so let’s concentrate on deterring that aggression. Let's look at placing some of those regionally aligned forces in the region where they are needed (something not suggested by the Representative from Texas, probably because there is no profit in it for his political supporters). Let’s look at other, more interesting options for weakening Putin. How can we use his willingness to put ethnic Russians ahead of others inside his country, yet put ethnic Tatar’s ahead of Russians in the Crimea against him? Divide and conquer. Who can we buy (or just rent) inside Russia to create drains on Russian resources? Perhaps a “One Tribe at a Time” strategy might be helpful here, if you know what I mean. If this is really about more than the Crimea of even the Ukraine, than start thinking that way.
This isn’t our first rodeo. We have done this before against a force that was much more formidable. We did it without direct conflict. We did it without turning Europe into a burning pile of rubble. We can do it again.
No one is talking of a massive military commitment. A decisive push-back need not be kinetic. We are talking about 1,000 personnel or less from the SOF and Caliporno national guard (for training and safe-conduct of neutral peace-keepers) versus 40,000 Russian troops on the borders and thugs already in Ukraine; continued patrols of the coast of Crimea and over-flights over eastern Ukraine, particularly the cities, versus pseudo-strafes already conducted by Russian war-planes on a U.S. navy vessel.
The lack of will from Europe would dissipate with a decisive show of initiative (not dominance) by the like-it-or-not leader of N.A.T.O. Perhaps it is simplistic to respond based on actions to date and capabilities. The situation is rather simple, after all. And what implications will this trend of running away from aggression, diplomatic conflict and atrocities in Poland, the Czech Republic, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine over the last four or five years have for Taiwan, the Baltics or even South Korea and Japan?
Carl points out that there will be three more years of this trend, which -- in my idiotic view -- will likely accelerate. Adversaries know that the window potentially closes in three years, perhaps exciting aggression in the shorter term. As for my feeling better about America, that is a point well-taken. The financial constraints are real, too, very real. The response I prefer is relatively inexpensive and, hopefully, nips this problem in the bud. These measures will not be perfect but they will be present.
Otherwise, I believe the probability unacceptably high of a much larger conflict later, not necessarily in Europe. And, yes, there is a question of national honor in standing by commitments. Unquestionably, this approach of non-kinetic military support is fraught with risk, particularly of mutual miscalculations spiralling out of control. Doing nothing, however, has proven to be a miscalculation of terrible magnitude in the past as well.
Sir, I regretfully submit that you have been seduced by the intellectual cowardice of this Administration that has cast responses to Syria and Ukraine as a binary choice of black (war or invasion) and white (doing nothing, except MREs and humanitarian supplies) while omitting many intermediate responses that telegraph peaceful intent and still remain cognizant of adversarial capacity in place.
Call me incorrigibly prone toward 'simplistification'. Carl is right. Outlaw-09 is right. My guess is that Eastern Ukraine is gone by the end of the month and all of Ukraine by the end of the year. Let's revise history just a detail or two. September 1939: the deteriorating peace has given way to blitzkrieg. Already, special forces of Germany -- the Eisengruppen -- are running amok, assassinating Jews as sport.
The valiant Poles put up a fight but are hopelessly outgunned. The United Kingdom and France have declared war with no action to back it. Desperate to preserve their homeland from the invaders, the Polish government appeals to the heavily listing League of Nations for support (peace-keepers). With millions of Poles living in the United States, pressures mount for the global 'arriviste' to do something for the old country.
U.S. President, Cactus Jack Garner, taking office after the untimely death of President Roosevelt, believes that European problems are European. Despite the pleading of a few internationalists, President Garner refuses to aid the Poles. He is determined not to get drawn into another European ground war. President Garner recognizes that Hitler is an aggressor. So he offers left over K-rations. No guns. No hits. No errors. Nobody left.
Nobody left to stop Hitler. Within two years, the Nazis have fulfilled most of Hitler's geopolitical aspirations of gaining Europe's bread-basket in Ukraine and Belarus; the oil fields of Bessarabia (Moldova); lebensraum in Poland; as well as, a western buffer in a humiliated, dismembered France. The offer of K-rations becomes a joke of history: the 'great biscuit blitz'.
President Garner is forever derided as the commander-in-chef and President butterball; he has mis-read axis intentions. Had Cactus Jack, Chamberlain et al. judged possible moves by the axis based upon capabilities rather than intentions and solemn pledges by Hitler, far fewer than 50+ million would likely have died, including grotesquely high numbers of jews, gypsies, slavs and chinese.
NOW LOOK AT RUSSIA. Our civilian leadership is seeking solemn promises from President Putin and refuses to push back on Russian capability well positioned to re-conquer a far weaker Ukraine, whose internal resistance has been undermined by looting of the expelled President Yanukovich. Russia is on the threshold of getting its needed bread-basket, locking up precious oil and gas stocks.
Ukraine needs help. And President Obama has offered up MREs. No defensive weapons, ammunition and supplies. No national guard training in Western Ukraine. No aerial protection of eastern Ukraine. Now that KIEV has requested peace-keepers and now that Russian leadership is counting on the WEST to prevent civil war, the hollowness of the current U.S. response is screaming in bold relief.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/04/13/russia-were-counting-o…
Seventy years from now, the mere offer of MREs in the face of an oncoming invasion will be remembered as a twisted joke. Such neologisms as 'Obamanation' will emerge. The call for peace-keepers, however, provides an indirect invitation to you all in the Special Forces. Two or three companies could go to the troubled cities of eastern Ukraine to train first responders in maintaining order in the urban centers.
The dispatch can be under the cover of "assuring safe-passage into the country of neutral peace-keepers". AGAIN, there are two keys here. First, this dispatch of Special Forces bridges the deterrent needed for sanctions and other measures to make themselves felt. Second, Russia has thrown a clear gauntlet. Russia does not think the WEST will act to "prevent civil war." Russia will then invade Ukraine to prevent the civil war the West is unwilling to prevent. The problem is that, once the civil war has been prevented, Russian 'peace-keepers' will not leave.
Carl,
I am always open to a new recipe, but jumping out of perfectly good airplanes?
I thought the Representative was very reasonable and measured, but he was not advocating anything out of the ordinary. He admits that energy in Europe is a problem and discusses exporting LPG and developing resources outside Russia. He talks about bolstering NATO presence closer to the Ukraine. He talks about supporting our NATO allies, particularly those on the front line with Russia. But I did not see him advocating Unconventional Warfare ... nor would I suspect that any politician will do so publicly.
Putin's weaknesses are in his own country. He is trying to create a unified Russia using ethnicity as a key. That is his greatest weakness and one we could exploit, but we are all about democracy, so we don't see the opportunity.
Nothing we do in the next few weeks or months is likely to change events in the Ukraine. We will trade space for time, just as we did after WWII when we handed half of Europe over to Stalin (my mom was pissed about that till the day she died). We were tired of war then; we are tired of war now. We are being smart. The Representative noticed, even if he would not give credit to the President.
I suspect that there will be further territorial grabs. But Putin is playing both sides at home. Even if our economic sanctions don't bite him, his own rhetoric might.
ScottForster:
You are right. There are many things, many extremely effective things we could do. Firn over at the Council Ukraine (catch all thread) details them very well. His outlining of Russian economic vulnerabilities is mostly at the beginning of the thread. The upshot is the Russian economy is very weak and they need the West, specifically Europe a lot more that they are needed.
But it all matters little if somebody on our side doesn't grow a backbone.
Carl:
What principle or strategy are we invoking when speaking about Ukraine? I, for one, don't see much of a difference for the average Ukrainian between Uncle Ivan's boot from Moscow or Uncle Ayvan's boot from Kiev. To be frank, the Ukraine is a modern creation that is in the throws of defining its own nationhood. They are failing, and I am not inclined to feel one way or another about it. They may yet succeed in creating a more unified Ukrainian nation, but it seems likely that this can only happen on a smaller piece of real-estate. Otherwise, Ukraine will need to be a federation of many nations, a prospect the Ukrainian nationalists aren't all that excited about.
All that said, picking an economic fight with Russia has to be done as part of a strategy. Poking them in the eye isn't a strategy. Compelling a country the size of Russia (physical and economic) to bow to what amounts to a blockade to exact concessions is dangerous and, in my opinion, pointless if it's not part of a much larger package of costs/incentives. Our inability to come up with one shows more than anything our lack of power to compel Russia. And I do think this is a matter of power, not will. The reasons for not picking a fight with them over the Ukraine are the same reasons we didn't pick a fight with them over Afghanistan, or Hungary, or Czechoslovakia. They are the same nuclear-armed behemoth they were then, just a few % points smaller.
If we gave a damn about the Ukraine as a matter of strategy, we wouldn't have noticed them only once they were in jeopardy. Ukrainian corruption and general dysfunction have been known for years. We have been fair-weather commentators on what happens in that country, with the net result of being taken by surprise. We could have, for instance, talked the Maidan rebels into giving Yanukovich assurances that he wouldn't be lynched during that crucial power transition, diffusing some of the fears that Russia capitalized on for their Crimea move. But we didn't. We are confused and myopic, and Russian intransigence is our reward. There is no need to escalate the issue, but there is a need to use it as a strong motivator to make Russian adventurism impractical in the future.
Kiev has lost effective control of their territory. If things escalate, the people that would become the insurgents are the ethnic compatriots of a behemoth next door. To expect Russia NOT to capitalize on this to recover former territory is also myopic. But I ask you, as a matter of strategy, what do you propose to do as an incentive to prevent this?
Sparapet:
All very good reasons not to expect instantaneous miracles from actual economic sanctions. Not one of those reasons is a good argument against applying economic sanctions. Yours is species of argument that is common amongst the let's do nothing or to simplify, let's appease through inaction crowd, that is-what we do might not work or might not work immediately so it's better we do nothing.
That argument about pissing them off always mystifies me when I hear. I figure it is like telling a neighbor that you won't help him fight off a home invader who is raping his daughter and carting off his stuff because it might piss the robber off.
You are not inclined to let Ukraine be smaller in the future. You are inclined to let Ukrainians, real live people with names and faces, go under Ivan's boot.
(I forgot, about selling the gas to Red China, all they have to do is build a pipeline across Asia. Maybe that window isn't closing so fast.)
Picking an economic fight with Gazprom is a tough sell. The Russian government is very much a fascist dream...a strong central government rooted to an ethnic core that is in control of major industries. Gazprom is a state-run enterprise, as most things of value in Russia. It allows the central government to make up for the abysmally low tax revenues. I've seen estimates that put Russia's unrealized tax revenues at over 80%, meaning it collected around 20% of what the tax code says it should. That being said, there is no way for Russia to cut losses with Gazprom, so it will be a direct challenge to Putin et al.
Also, Russia is aggressively diversifying away from Europe in the hydrocarbons(see: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-22/gazprom-says-china-natural-gas… ). Diversifying is a Russian agenda item. This means that the window of opportunity to mess with Russian state enterprises is closing rapidly. Once more diverse players develop an interest in them, it will be harder to mess with them (see German obstinate position on the whole Ukraine issue).
There is another element that is under-estimated in any economic effect. The Russian media is state-run. Meaning that the West will be blamed for every ounce of lost growth or economic pain. The Russian citizenry will resonate with that message. They will sooner lash out at their neighbors that at their own government. In other words, you would just piss them off and put the leadership in a position of taking more risks to demonstrate action.
I am inclined to let Ukraine be smaller in the future, while using its suffering as an excuse to bolster the West's position on the Russian periphery. Containment does have its merits. It just can't last if that is all you do.
I would like to “step outside the box” and do a little creative thinking. The 2008 stock market crash was investigated and reported to DoD by Kevin Freeman. This report
https://archive.org/download/EconomicWarfare-RisksAndResponsesByKevinD…
links the 2007 run–up in oil prices with the 2008 market crash allegedly caused by hedge funds and dark pools outside the USA collapsing the credit default swaps and executing naked short sales against specific banking stocks. The targeting of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Fannie May and Freddie Mac was directed economic warfare. These actions were explained by Congressman Kanjorsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODBPlD0FXOU
So, if others could do this to our banking stocks, then why can’t we “attack” Gas Prom with a similar processes and let Russia deal with the fall-out?
Carl and Outlaw-09,
Mark is right in commending you, Carl, and I add you in, Outlaw-09. I have left lengthy answers to your discussions under the 'America's Secret Weapon' post that I will not repeat here since I am sounding like of broken record. The articles, the links of which you two have posted in this commentary and the other, are very sobering.
Hopefully, someone will ask our President whether he fears anything more than war. Russia may be weak but untamed aggression will make her stronger and more confident of victory, likely leading to more attack. That eventually means a larger conflict. By the time the U.S. and / or N.A.T.O. does something, the price will be higher, multiples higher for our servicemen.
What are we so scared of? It must be galling for you all to be watching this nightmare. MREs? Embarrassing.
Mark:
That is a complicated question. Here are two article I just read that help outline the problem,
http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-re…
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=143…
but how to solve it I don't know exactly. But the world is going make us solve it and take responsibility, and I fear the price the world will exact will be dead and enslaved Americans.
Dave---a really timely article and here was my response to another topic which fits into the author's comments.
What is interesting is your article on MONTR as it goes to the heart of current failure-- if there is a strategy towards Russia and it goes back to your comments a number of times on unconventional warfare and now political warfare and how the two can coexist and even comingle.
If we had not 13 years of war and had not USASF been so focused on that war and had indeed built a UW capability based on the previous years of UW experience of Company A 10th SFGA and Det A the current WH could have inserted any number of ground teams to assist the Ukrainian military under the current NATO/Ukraine agreements as well as the deep cooperation by the Ukrainian military in the GWOT.
Interfax press releases flipped out this weekend when it was being rumored the CIA Chief was on the ground in the Ukraine---what would have the responses been if in fact via actual training events USASF teams had been on the ground all under the auspices of NATO.
Here is a good example of a lack of a strategy---if in fact buzzed 12 times why was the aircraft not illuminated via radiation to signal the ships' displeasure? The BMD destroy is a strong signal to Russia but then buzzing is what just an accepted practice--kind of deters from the BMD message being sent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/14/us-usa-russia-blacksea-idUSBR…
Ned---Madhu has hit it on the head--there is absolutely not a single/no strategy coming out of the WH--example---the EU sanctions were reported in a Berlin newspaper today to have frozen exactly one single account---that must have really hurt Russia. Example---What has the US sanctions achieved if viewed against the actions in eastern Ukraine starting this weekend---absolutely zip, zero, nada, nothing and the sanctions were to "cost" Russia ---that is suppose to impress Putin---evidently it has not? I guess the "cost" statement was just another "red line in the sand" statement---all words but no actions.
If one is supposedly a superpower in a unipolar world --bluffing and hope are not strategies.
As a private person I could list four items that will get immediate Russian attention and not involve military actions or troop movements--so if I can do that as a private citizen then where is the WH in their thinking and actions.
If the US does not lead in this critical moment in the 21st century then hang it up and Europe will turn from the US which is actually something Putin has been doing with the Ukrainian crisis.
Germany has basically walked away from the Ukraine and is not even via Merkel saying anything---some statements today from lower ranking but not from her personally---you have noticed a distinct lack of anyone from the EU visiting in the last week and even Biden is not scheduled until after the so called meeting of the 4.
The WSJ had an article in their Opinion comments that was highly critical of the US and the EU towards their non actions in support of the Ukraine.
Russia today via Interfax virtually threatened the eastern flank of NATO by saying if troops are send there Russia will be forced to counter and the assumption was militarily.
18:21 Russia to take measures in case NATO force configuration changes - Grushko (Part 2)
Some of my comments here were echoed as well in a very good article linked below which was released in the Kiev Post today and comes from an author out of DC. It is really a telling article.
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/anders-aslund-putin-needs-victory…
Reference the NSA---in over 12 videos being published today by proRussian eastern Ukraine supporters there is virtually always a cellphone being used in the middle of the event---based on Snowden's releases one would assume the NSA had everything being monitored--why not release to the world the conversations---no----why not provide just basic intel to the Ukrainians on Russian troop concentrations--again a no---Breedlove had to resort to Digital Global to release open source photos.
Does this sound like a US government that has a strategy?
Dave:
There is nothing wrong with the Americans. There is something dreadfully wrong with the American leadership class, both civilian and military. Us flyover people have done what has been asked with small complaint and will do so again. We don't mind the doing, we mind the mindless doing as directed by the elites, the feeding of the Pak Army/ISI hand that stabs us for the last 13 years being a case in point. Or, alternatively, after 9-11 we stood ready to do what was needed, we were told to go shopping.
Our so called betters are paralyzed with indecision and will do nothing. What to do isn't the problem. There are many good courses of action (and I really like your idea of waging UW against Ivan in the Ukraine) that can be followed, but they won't be followed. Because our leaders will do nothing..They are exemplified by Mr. Obama and he is a horse in the face of a threat, not a burro. A horse runs, a burro fights. Horses are prettier though.
So that brings us to a problem that proficient military thinkers like you had better get started on. We have three more years of this before a chance of change. How are we going to get out of the deep hole we will be in?
This is the problem. Now that action is required we cannot act and can only speak. I think this is the legacy of Afghanistan and Iraq and the fact that the public and political leaders are tired of war. We have backed ourselves into a corner in terms of foreign policy because we think that any type of military action will result in another Afghanistan and Iraq. No one wants war in Ukraine but there are times when actions do really speak louder than words. But we are no longer able to act and can only use words and to outsiders those words appear empty. To add to the Congressman's list of actions I would recommend something we have discussed long ago when this began: determining Ukrainian resistance potential and if credible, assisting them in their preparations to resist where Russian forces have occupied and are likely to occupy as well as prepare for the possibility that the Russians might occupy all of Ukraine. It would be a good thing for us to figure out how to counter Putin's unconventional and political warfare. Unfortunately words alone are not going to do it.