Archive for the ‘U.S. Military’ Category

Russian threats to invade Ukraine proper: NATO commander has suggested 80,000 Russian troops mobilized; Hagel rules out use of force in response to any invasion

Friday, April 11th, 2014

Developing

Supreme Allied Commander for Europe (NATO) U.S. General Philip Breedlove, has reportedly told Congress in classified briefings that Russia has mobilized 80,000 troops for a potential invasion of Ukraine proper. He is reported to have urged more vigorous support of the Ukraine military with communications equipment and intelligence. His superiors reportedly do not share his views.

The pacifist leaders of the U.S., including President Obama, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen have a different approach, seemingly dictated by fear of angering Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As 40,000 to 80,000 troops are mobilized for a potential invasion of the Ukraine, and in any case are in a posture that constitutes a threat of the use of force in violation of Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, U.S. military assistance to the Ukraine has consisted, to date, of 300,000 “ready meals”.

These are not likely to anger Putin.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reiterated once again that the U.S. would not use force in the Ukraine, even in response to a Russian invasion.

Aggressors and invaders are never angered and always welcome the pacifist responses of leaders who have chosen the path of appeasement.

Meanwhile, as the U.S. prepares to meet with Russia, the EU, and Ukraine on April 17, they seem not to understand the international law implications of Russia’s actions.

The absence of a distinguished and forceful State Department Legal Adviser (the position has been vacant for over a year) may be in part responsible for the fact that Obama and his administration don’t seem to fully grasp the implications of the Russian invasion and annexation of the Crimea.

Do Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry fully understand, for example, that any agreement with Russia that accepts the annexation of the Crimea, or which is concluded under the threat of a Russian invasion of the Ukraine, would be null and void under jus cogens principles of international law? These include the prohibition of the threat or use of foce against the territorial integrity or political independencev of any state.

News Updates

See:

Eli Lake, “Key General Splits With Obama Over Ukraine,” The Daily Beast, April 11, 2014 (10:02 am EDT)

The commander of NATO is insisting that the West do more to protect Ukraine from a possible Russian invasion. But the Obama administration has other plans.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Munich II: The meeting in Geneva between the U.S., the EU, the Ukraine and Russia

Friday, April 11th, 2014

It is a very bad idea for the U.S. and the EU to meet with Russia on April 17 to discuss the Ukraine’s fate, even with the Ukraine also participating.

Under international law, Russia has no right to make demands about the internal constitutional arrangements of another sovereign state. The U.S. and the EU likewise seem to have forgotten that since the Yalta conference decided the fate of European countries as World War II was still raging, the United Nations Charter was adopted in December of 1945, and for nearly 70 years international law and legal institutions have progressively developed to govern world affairs, from arms control agreements to the regulation of trade through the World Trade Organization.

To sit down with the aggressor which has invaded and annexed the Crimea, and which has 40,000 combat-ready troops on the border poised to invade eastern Ukraine, is the height of folly. It is like going to negotiate with a criminal over illegal demands when the criminal has a gun pointed at your head.

The incompetence of the Obama administration in foreign policy seems to have no limits, as does that of the Europeans and NATO.

The meeting should be called off, period.

Certainly it should be called off if the 40,000 troops on the Russian border with Ukraine are not withdrawn prior to the meeting.

In 1938, Great Britain and France sold Czechoslovakia down the river at Munich, after earlier urging Czechoslovakia to enter into mediation with Germany. That deal was consummated on September 30, 1938, at the Munich conference. The meeting in Geneva on April 17 risks becoming the opening stage of a Munich II settlement, bringing once again “peace in our time”–but war looming far into our future.

When this riff of incompetence, pacifism and appeasement is over, the world will be a much more dangerous place.

National budgets will divert monies from health and education to defense. Nuclear arms will proliferate among a number of countries, from Saudi Arabia to Japan, as well as Iran. Instead of international order and striving to maintain international peace and security in the world, as mandated by the U.N. Charter, nations will increasingly look to weapons and armies which will have a growing voice in determining national boundaries, and the outcome of territorial disputes (e.g., as between Japan, China, Korea and nations in the South China Sea).

Nations may no longer feel bound to abide by the international law provisions that establish order in the world in matters of trade, finance, and international security.

The tragedy is unfolding before our eyes. The mere fact that the West has agreed to this ill-conceived conference in Geneva to resolve “the Ukrainian crisis” suggests that that the likelihood of resisting appeasement and upholding international norms against military aggression and annexation of the territory of another sovereign nation is subject to the most serious doubt.

What should be done?

The West should adopt strong economic sanctions before any meeting with Russia, both to punish Russia for threatening further aggression, and to create very powerful pressures on Russia to return the Crimea, restoring matters in the Crimea to the status quo ante, prior to the Russian invasion and annexation.

And if the Russians don’t withdraw their combat-ready forces from the border region, the meeting should simply be called off.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

The language of actions: Russia, the Ukraine, and the response of the West

Thursday, April 10th, 2014

According to NATO, Russia has 35,000 to 40,000 combat-ready troops on its border with the Ukraine, which could be launched into action on as little as 12 hours.

See:

“UKRAINE: Russische Soldaten laut Nato sofort einsatzbereit; Die Nato spricht von ungewöhnlichen Vorgängen an der russisch-ukrainischen Grenze; Das westliche Militärbündnis zählt bis zu 40.000 Soldaten in dem Grenzgebiet,” Die Zeit, 10. April 2014 (17:28 Uhr).

“UKRAINE: Nato fürchtet russischen Einmarsch in die Ukraine; Russische Truppen sind an der ukrainischen Grenze stationiert; In wenigen Tagen könnten sie laut Nato alle Ziele im Nachbarland erreichen; Die Lage sei besorgniserregend,” Die Zeit, 2. April 2014 (16:04 Uhr).

These are Russian actions which deserve urgent attention.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has reassured Secretary of State John Kerry and others in the West that Russia will respect the territorial integrity of the Ukraine. These are Russian words, the same ones he used days before the Russian invasion of the Crimea.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has reassured German Chancellor Merkel that Russian troops would be withdrawn from the border. These are Russian words. The troops have not been withdrawn.

We should not place any trust in these words, which come from known liars. We should not trust either Putin or Lavrov, or anything either of them says. They have been telling blatant lies as part of the Russian propaganda campaign, and have lied directly both to John Kerry and to Angela Merkel.

As the U.S., the EU, Russia, and the Ukraine prepare to meet on April 17, Western leaders and everyone else needs to understand that the only language of genuine communication between Russia and the West is now the language of actions. Consequently, they should go to the meeting with new actions that have already been taken, and which they can use to communicate with the Russians.

Russian Actions

So far, Russian actions include:

1) The invasion and annexation of the Crimea;

2) The infiltration of agents provacateurs into the eastern Ukraine to foment disturbances;

3) Demands that the Ukraine meet Russian demands for Ukrainian constitutional reforms granting greater regional autonomy to Russian-speaking regions, backed by the palpable threat of military intervention represented by invasion-ready military forces on the border;

4) An increase in gas prices to some $100.00 above market prices, on top of an increase that wipes out the concessionary price established in international agreements which extended Russia’s lease on naval facilities in Sevastopol, where the Russian Black Sea fleet is based.

In addition, Russia has demanded payment of an additional $11 billion dollars as repayment for concessionary price discounts since the lease agreements were signed in 2010, on the theory that since the Ukraine is part of Russia these lease agreements and concessionary gas price agreements are void; and

5) Russia has now demanded payment one month in advance for future gas deliveries to the Ukraine, and threatens to halt deliveries if payment is not made.

Western Actions

So far, Western Actions have included:

1) The imposition of targeted sanctions on less than three dozen individuals from Russia, the Crimea, and the Ukraine, and one Russian bank;

2) Development of lists of additional or “stage-three” sanctions which might be imposed (e.g., if Russia invades the eastern Ukraine), including trade, financial and other sanctions which could have a very serious impact on Russia (as well as Western countries);

2) The commitment of financial assistance to the Ukraine from the EU, the U.S. ($1 billion), and the International Monetary Fund ($15 billion, contingent on financial reforms in Ukraine);

3) Deployment of additional surveillance and fighter aircraft to NATO members Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; and

4) The scheduling of additional NATO military maneuvers in eastern NATO member states; and

5) The dispatch of 100 OSCE observers to the Ukraine, which German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is now pushing to increase to 500 observers, in compliance with an earlier OSCE decision to which Russia agreed.

Absence of Strategy and Sanctions to Compel Russia to Return the Crimea

The West has failed to adopt any sanctions or other measures designed to force Russia to undo its invasion and annexation of the Crimea.

Ominously, officials in both the U.S. and the EU, have hinted they might be prepared to continue doing business with Russia so long as it doesn’t commit further aggression by invading the eastern Ukraine, leaving it in possession of the Crimea with little more than verbal and diplomatic protests from the West.

The loudest “action” by the West with respect to undoing the invasion and annexation of the Crimea has been a failure to act. The “slap on the wrist” measures of the first- and second-round sanctions cannot be taken seriously as measures to produce a rollback.

The West has failed to adopt the extremely obvious economic sanction of prohibiting financial or other business transactions with any company operating in or doing business with the Crimea (corrected).

Actions Going Forward

Decision makers in the diplomats’ meeting with the Russians on April 17 need to communicate with Russia in the language of actions, not merely the verbal formulations of diplomacy, which insofar as Russia is concerned have neglible effect. All the diplomatic words and entreaties, and telephone calls to Putin and Lavrov, do not appear to have affected the language of actions which Russia is speaking.

Russia speaks in actions from a strong position, having invaded and annexed part of another country, in open violation of the most fundamental norms of the U.N. Charter, international law, and the postwar political, economic, and legal order.

Will the West’s responses, in the language of actions, be up to the task of halting and rolling back Russian aggression, and its ill-gotten gains?

If we connect the dots, and take note of the fact that Japan has in the last day reversed its policy of reducing its plutonium stocks–whether by coincidence or not–we can glimpse in an instant how critical the answer to the preceding question may be.

See Hiroko Tabuchi, “Japan Pushes Plan to Stockpile Plutonium, Despite Proliferation Risks,” New York Times, April 9, 2014.

Helene Cooper and Martin Fackle, “U.S. Response to Crimea Worries Japan’s Leaders,”
New York Times, April 5, 2014.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Russia threatens further aggression against the Ukraine: The response of the West has been a bad joke; Putin must be stopped

Tuesday, April 8th, 2014

Updated and revised

Let me say quite frankly that it pains our hearts to see what is happening in Ukraine at the moment, see the people’s suffering and their uncertainty about how to get through today and what awaits them tomorrow. Our concerns are understandable because we are not simply close neighbours but, as I have said many times already, we are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other.

–Vladimir Putin, speech to Russian parliament (Duma), March 18, 2014.

The full text of the speech is found here.

The Russian Threat

Vladimir Putin made clear in his victory speech to the Russian parliament or Duma, on March 18, 2014, that he considers the Ukraine and Russia to be inseparable.

See:

Michael Thurmann, “Deckmantel der Geschichte; Wie Wladimir Putin die Vergangenheit missbraucht, um seine Politik der Gegenwart zu rechtfertigen,” Die Zeit, 4. April 2014 (18:35 Uhr).

Ulrich Speck, “Die Ukraine-Krise bedroht besonders Deutschland;
Deutschland muss empfindlich auf die Aggression Russlands reagieren. Es wird auf der Seite der Verlierer stehen, wenn wieder das Recht des Stärkeren gilt, Die Zeit, 7. April 2014.

The Response of the West

The response of the West to Russian seizure and annexation of the Crimea has been to adopt targeted personal sanctions against less than three dozen individuals in Russia, the Crimea, and the Ukraine (Yanukovych), and one Russian bank.

In response to these sanctions, Putin has ruled out any discussion of a rollback to the status quo ante before the Russian invasion and annexation of the Crimea, massed 40,000 troops on the eastern and northern borders of the Ukraine, and fomented separatist demonstrations and protests in major Ukrainian cities with a large Russian-speaking population, following the same script as was used in the Crimea.

Meanwhile, the West has continued to engage in diplomatic conversations with Russia, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in constant contact with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The U.S. has been practically begging Putin not to invade eastern Ukraine, while demonstrating a shocking receptiveness, as revealed in background conversations reported in the press, to acceptance of the Russian annexation of the Crimea as a fait accompli–with no further sanctions.

The same naiveté that was in evidence when the U.S. and other Western nations totally failed to anticipate Putin’s military intervention in the Crimea is, shockingly, still operating.

Minimal sanctions were adopted after the Russian military intervention in the Ukraine, with the hope that by not angering Putin and providing him with an “off-ramp”, he would not annex the Crimea.

Within days, Russia annexed the Crimea.

Now, the West with its second round of sanctions, which are tragically disproportionate to the aggression which they aim to undo, hopes that Putin will not send Russian troops into other parts of the Ukraine.

They are also making plans to make some minimal efforts on the military front to reassure front-line NATO member states, like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, of their commitment to mutual defense under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

As for the Ukraine, they are planning to undertake some joint exercises with the Ukrainian armed forces, NOT NOW, but sometime in the summer.

The Western states congratulate themselves on the “strong” measures they have imposed in their first round and second round of sanctions against less than three dozen individuals and one bank.

They have done virtually nothing to inflict real pain on Russia as leverage to force a withdrawal of forces and an undoing of the annexation of the Crimea.

Is there anything in this mix that is likely to force Putin to restore the status quo ante in the Crimea?

Hardly.

Given the weak responses of the West, is there anything in this panorama that is likely to dissuade Putin from dispatching troops to the eastern Ukraine to “protect” Russian-speaking populations from persecution and abuses?

Hardly.

Russia itself, in a replay of the Crimean script, is doing everything it can to stir up disorder in Russian-speaking areas of the Ukraine.

The “Rational Actor Fallacy”

See “The “Rational Actor” Fallacy and Stopping Syria’s Atrocities—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #8 (March 9),” The Trenchant Observer, March 9, 2012.

“The Rational Actor Fallacy” should also be borne in mind. The entire sanctions approach of the West is based on the assumption that Russia’s actions will be decided by the functional equivalent of a single rational mind, in an analytic paradigm in which costs to Russia–present and future–will be carefully weighed in reaching any decisions.

Putin, however, has unleashed forces which he may not be able to control. His propaganda machine has generated nationalistic passions in Russia, organizational processes within the government are operating, and personal commitments by bureaucratic leaders and decision makers have been secured, all of which may inevitably lead to military intervention in the Ukraine (whether by stealth or otherwise).

If this is true, the only thing which might reverse the current momentum of events could be sharp responses by the West that are sufficient in magnitude to force reconsideration in Russia, by all of the actors involved, of decisions already taken or well in progress–which will not otherwise be reversed.

In this context, the finely-tuned calculus of costs and benefits which Obama, the EU, and NATO believe will be decisive may simply be irrelevant. There is already persuasive evidence that Russia’s long-term interests, or even Putin’s, are not having an impact on Russian behavior.

The Real Choice for the West

The greatest question is whether it might prove easier to get Putin to withdraw his forces from the eastern Ukraine after a Russian invasion than it might be to dissuade him from such further aggression, by leaving no room for doubt in his mind about the consequences of such an action, including military consequences.

One measure which might focus the minds of the adventurers currently leading Russia would be to dispatch 20,000 Western troops to the Ukraine NOW–from NATO if possible, or from France and / or the United States if unanimity among the 28 member states of NATO proves unachievable. The troops could be dispatched in response to a request from the Ukraine, in exercise of the inherent right of collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, in full accordance with international law.

Ukrainian territory–the Crimean peninsula–remains under Russian occupation following its aggression against the Ukraine.

Moreover, having abrogated the treaty arrangements which granted Russia the right to maintain a certain number of troops and its naval base at Sevastopol (the terms of which to be sure were violated during the Russian invasion), if that termination is legally valid (which is dubious), there would be no legal basis under international law for the presence of any Russian forces in the Crimea.

Russia incidentally is committing economic aggression against the Ukraine by raising the price of gas above market levels, and insisting that the Ukraine repay $11 billion in discounts which it granted to the Ukraine in exchange for an extension of the naval base agreements.

The Russian legal argument for repayment of the discounts is ludicrous, in effect claiming that they don’t owe the Ukraine any discounts under the treaty because the Crimea is a part of Russia. In other words, if you have a lease and related agreements with another country for the use of certain assets, and you invade that country and seize those assets by military force, the original obligations are void. Unbelievably, that is the Russian position.

Not one independent court in the world, domestic or international, would uphold that argument. But then the Russians are not thinking in terms of independent courts, or international law as it might be determined by an independent international tribunal.

Urgent Measures to Stop Russian Aggression

It is quite possible that the invasion of Russian-speaking regions of the Ukraine will take place in the near future, within weeks if not days, long before Europe can develop a consensus on how to block such action. This is precisely what happened in the Crimea, and there is every reasons to suppose that Putin is similarly prepared to move quickly, before effective blocking measures can be adopted by the West.

Consequently, at this very moment the West may be facing its last chance to block a Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Before it is too late, NATO and the West should consider and adopt the following measures on an extremely urgent basis:

1. The first step, which should begin immediately, is for the U.S. and the EU to adopt new sanctions that would prohibit any U.S. or EU financial institution or company from handling transactions or doing business with any financial institution doing business in the Crimea, or any Russian or other company doing business in the Crimea, until such time as the annexation and military occupation have been undone, restoring the situation to the status quo ante prior to Russian military intervention.

The sanctions should be adopted as permanent sanctions which will not be lifted until the stated conditions are met.

The current EU sanctions are valid for only six months and must be renewed in order to be continued. Given this proviso, it is no wonder that Putin hasn’t taken them seriously.

Moreover, the precedent of only a six-month authorization, in Putin’s thinking and probably that of the EU nations, would also be used even if so-called “third-stage” sanctions are adopted by the EU in response to further aggression. That means that in six months Russia would only have to peel off one EU member state in order for the sanctions to lapse.

2. The second measure, which should be implemented immediately, is the dispatch to the Ukraine of 20,000 troops from NATO or individual Western countries to assist the Ukraine in its defense against current and threatened Russian aggression.

3. NATO should immediately issue a statement saying that in view of Russian aggression and the threat of further aggression against the Ukraine, its earlier statements that the use of force is not under consideration are no longer in effect, and that it will respond to any military aggression in the Ukraine in a manner which is appropriate under the circumstances.

4. Certain so-called “third-stage sanctions” should be progressively implemented over the next six months if Putin does not restore the Crimea to the status quo ante prior to the Russian invasion. The sanctions should be carefully planned, be meaningful, and progressively implemented in accordance with a time table which is made public. The message to Putin should be, loud and clear: The annexation of the Crimea will not stand.

Putin must be stopped.

The Stakes

Europeans and Americans should stop to think for a minute of the sacrifices their countrymen have already made to ensure that no further territories will be invaded or annexed–as in WW II, for example. Both the Korean war and the Gulf war were fought to uphold this principle. Many in the U.S. also believed that the Vietnam war was a response to invasion from the North (which in fact turned out to be the case, we now know).

If they do stop and think, they may come to understand that we are no longer in normal times, and that what is perhaps the greatest threat to international peace and security since the Korean war must be confronted directly, now, and if necessary by the defensive use of military force.

This is a tall order for the leaders of Europe, the U.S. and the West, who up until now have manifested strong pacifist inclinations and a willingness to consider appeasement in response to the Russian takeover of the Crimea.

But no less than this is required, if the postwar political, economic and legal order is to be upheld and maintained.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

America’s shame: By-passing Europe to meet with Lavrov before NATO foreign ministers meeting aimed at stiffening response to Russian aggression in Ukraine

Sunday, March 30th, 2014

It has taken a day of reflection to fully grasp America’s perfidious betrayal of Europe in hastily agreeing to bilateral talks on Sunday with Russia, on the eve of a EU summit.

Obama is no longer, if he ever was, a leader of the Free World who could be trusted to not go behind the backs of his alliance partners to cut a side deal with Russia.

He demonstrated this by selling out the Syrian resistance, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states when he cut a deal with Russia for the withdrawal of chemical weapons from Syria.

Now, as Europe gathers for a NATO Foreign ministers meeting at which responses to Russian aggression In the Ukraine are to be discussed, Obama has undercut the common position of the U.S. and Europe vis-a-vis Russia by agreeing to bilateral talks with Russia to defuse the Ukrainian crisis.

With tens of thousands of Russian troops gathered on the border of the Ukraine, and Putin threatening to send them into the eastern Ukraine and/or Moldova, Obama has agreed to hold bilateral talks with Russia, which at this moment has seized and annexed the Ukraine in violation of the most fundamental prohibitions of the Unied Nations Charter.

Merely talking to Russia sends a powerful signal to Putin: His aggression has paid off, and further aggression promises to pay off more. He can send troops into other countries, and the Americans will still jump at any opportunity to discuss his further demands–at the end of the barrel of a gun.

When the U.S. and Europe should be implementing permanent sanctions against Russia for what it has already done, a pacifist Obama pleads with Russia not to commit further acts of aggression.

The minimal sanctions which should be imposed now, and not lifted until the Russian seizure and annexation of the Crimea has been reversed, include a total ban on doing business with any company or finanial institution which conducts business in the Crimea.

This measure should stay in place for 50 years, if necessary, until Russia’s aggression against the Ukraine is reversed.

50 years Is about how long it took to reverse the Soviet aggression and annexation of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia.

Russia will not agree to that, some say. Who could naively expect an aggressor, with armies on the march, to agree to anything except its further demands?

Such a measure, and others, however, are needed now to communicate forcefully to Putin and his band of war criminals (it is an international crime to launch a war of aggression) that the military takeover of the Crimea will not stand.

For a broader view of the current crisis with Russia, see

Joschka Fischer, “Europa, bleibe hart,”Suddeutscher Zeitung, 30. marz 2014.

Die EU muss anerkennen, dass sie nicht nur eine Wirtschaftsunion, sondern auch ein machtpolitischer Akteur ist. Wenn sie Putin jetzt nachgibt, dient sie nicht dem Frieden. Dann ermutigt sie Russlands Präsidenten, den nächsten Schritt zu tun.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Fear of Provoking the Aggressor: Obama, Putin, and the West

Saturday, March 29th, 2014

Washington’s difidence in responding to the Ukraine’s request for military equipment, out of fear of provoking Russia to engage in further military aggression in the Ukriane (or elsewhere), reveals how deeply pacificist beliefs have permeated from the top into U.S. military and civilian leadership circles. Or, alternatively, it has demonstrated how effective a pacificist President in the U.S. has been in checking the normal upward flow of analysis, options, and proposals from military and civilian leaders.

The absence of Secretary of State John Kerry from the inner group of decision makers in Washington has been remarkable, suggesting he has been relegated to a preipheral role of flying all around the world and meeting with leaders, without having a seat at the dining room table where major decisions are made. One consequence of his absence is that the analyses and options developed by the State Department have no powerful defender at the White House. This kind of influence cannot be exercised by teleconference.

So, after the military seizure of the Crimea by Russia, what does it tell us that Obama is so concerned about provoking the Russian aggressor that he won’t even send military equipment to the Ukraine in response to its urgent request, which has been placed “under study”.

To the Observer, it suggests that Obama has been cowed by Putin in terms of taking actions beyond the mild targeted economic sanctions so far imposed by Europe and the U.S.–aimed at less than three dozen individuals and one bank.

Obama solves problems with beautifully crafted torrents of words. Putin seizes opportunities by stealth, lies and the decisive movement of troops and tanks.

It’s clear now that the sanctions imposed by the West have been “too little, too late”. If so-called “stage three” sanctions (real trade and financial sanctions directed against Russia itself) had been imposed immediately following the Russian military seizure of the Crimea, it is possible that Putin might have hesitated before proceeding to annex the peninsula.

For that matter, maybe Putin has already decided to intervene militarily in eastern Ukraine, and to use military force to prevent Ukriane’s movement toward integration in the the European Union.

Thus, for the moment, like Nevellie Chamberlain and Èdouard Daladier at Munich in September 1938, the U.S. appears to feel there is no alternative other than to cower before the aggresor.

At that point, of course, the aggressor has already won half the battle, which turns decisively on the will and determination of his opponents to stand up against further acts of aggression, through effective means.

With Obama now willing to have his Secretary of State meet with the Russian foreign minister to seek agreements that will forestall further Russian aggression–while rolling back its military seizure of the Ukraine is off the table, we can see clearly how a pacificst president continues to lead his nation down the road of appeasement.

See Anne Gearan, “U.S. seeks detente with Russia over Ukraine with Kerry, Lavrov to meet in Paris,” The Washington Post, March 29, 2014.

The sad truth is that Obama and his foreign policy team are not capable of leading the West — alone — in the current crisis with Russia, following the latter’s seizure and annexation of the Ukraine.

To meet bilaterally with Russia at this time, on these implicit terms, reflects Obama’s pacificism and constitutes a total act of further appeasement. Putin astutely has tried to peel off the U.S. from Europe, two days before NATO foreign ministers meet to decide upon a stronger response to Russia’s aggression. Obama, clueless, plays right into Putin’s attempt to divide the Western alliance.

The U.S. should meet with Russia, if at all, only if it is joined by representatives from EU and NATO governments, and then only if the restoration of the status quo ante prior to the Russian military takeover of Crimea is on the table for discussion.

We have seen how ready Obama is to sell out his allies, particularly in the case of the agreement in Geneva with Russia to remove chemical weapons from Syria. That agreement let Obama off the hook in terms of military strikes against Syria after the latter’s use of chemical weapons. But it also sold out the Syrian resistance and the strongest allies of the United States in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia.

See “The Leopard and the Impala: Putin astutely plays Obama for a chump,” The Trenchant Observer, September 12, 2013.

Europeans and other NATO members, to safeguard their own interests and those of the West, should insist that they participate fully in any discussions involving Russia and the United States.

The pacifist mind-set which reigns in Washington is completely revealed by the agreement to hold bilateral talks between Kerry and Lavrov on Sunday. The move starkly undercuts the actions German Chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier are taking to develop a strong European consensus to opppose Russian aggression.

Obama seems far too ready to let stand the Russian military aggression and takeover of the Crimea, and get back to business as usual.

He is quite prepared to negotiate with the aggressor over whether Russia will commit further acts of aggression, under continued Russian military threats represented by tens of thousands of troops menacingly poised on the border with the Ukraine.

The moral bankruptcy of Barack Obama and the Obama administration has never been more fully on view.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

REPRISE—Appeasement in the West: Clueless Obama assures Russia the U.S. rules out the use of force in Ukraine

Saturday, March 29th, 2014

First published on March 20, 2014

President Barack Obama and top military leaders in the U.S. know nothing of the “coercive diplomacy” which Stanford political scientist Alexander George persuasively demonstrated has helped the U.S. avoid armed conflict on a number of occasions.

In his efforts to influence Putin’s calculus, Obama does not believe it is useful to maintain doubt in Putin’s mind as to whether the U.S. or NATO might respond with military force if, for example, Russia were to invade the rest of the Ukraine.

Obama pursued the same course in Syria, repeatedly reassuring his opponents (in Damascus, Moscow and Tehran), through his own statements or those of top U.S. and NATO military officials, that the U.S. and NATO would not use military force to halt the atrocities in that country.

When pushed into a corner by his own rhetoric about his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and his own inaction in the face of smaller-scale attacks with chemical weapons in the months leading up to al-Assad’s attack at Ghouta on August 21, 2014, he made preparations to launch cruise missile and other attacks against Syria. In the weeks leading up to the point of decision, the press was full of leaks about the nature of the strikes being contemplated, including assurances that they would not involve major or extended military action.

When the moment came to launch even these self-described minimal strikes, Obama flinched, and did not order the strikes. Instead, without consulting his top military and civilian advisors, he threw the hot potato to Congress for authorization, which he had to know was unlikely, while grasping at the lifeline Russia threw to him to remove chemical weapons from Syria. The agreement brokered by John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov in Geneva and subsequently endorsed by the U.N. Security Counci, was reached in exchange for what has amounted to a policy of allowing al-Assad to remain in power and to continue his commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a very broad scale.

Obama apparently never heard of the old boxer’s maxim, “Never telegraph your punches.”

We are left with a leadership in the U.S, and Europe (except for France) of “hybrid” pacifists, who are unwilling to even think of the use of force to defend fundamental principles of the U.N. Charter and international law, and the Enlightenment values of individual freedom and respect for fundamental human rights (e.g., the right not to be tortured, or the right to trial by an independent judge), or indeed against the military seizure and annexation of the territory of another state.

They are “hybrid” pacifists because they will use force on a limited scale in Africa with Security Council authorization, but remain unwilling to consider the use of force in a major way to defend their most important national interests.

As the pacifists in Washington and Europe reassure Putin that they are not even considering the use of military force, no matter what he does, an entire civilization opens itself to the depredations of authoritarian rogue states like Russia, and a brutal reshaping of the political and economic order established and maintained for the last 70 years following plans for and the establishment of the United Nations.

Ronald Reagan in Berlin challenged the Soviet Union to “Tear down this wall!” Now Obama and the other pacifist leaders of the West reassure Putin and Russia (and China) that they will not even consider using force to defend their vital interests, no matter what Russia does, as new walls go up.

The sanctions for the miltary takeover of the Crimea hardly amounted to “a slap on the wrist”. The expansion of those sanctions to include additional targeted individuals and now a bank are more serious, but still unlikely to prevent Putin from further mischief in the Ukraine and with its economy over the next year or so, when the concentrated attention of the West has dissipated and things have returned to business as usual. There is no leverage to force Russia through negotiations to disgorge the Crimea. Thus, a military invasion and anexation of the territory of another state is likely to be left standing, in Europe.

Appeasement continues, as Russia and China urgently work on a treaty of alliance that would profoundly disrupt and reshape the postwar political and legal order. Meanwhile, the President of the European Parliament urgently warns of war in Europe if stiffer sanctions against Russia are not adopted.

Russian aggression. Tanks and rockets, and in the background rockets with nuclear weapons. Pacifist and clueless leaders in the West, determined to pursue–and to telegraph to Russia–a policy of appeasement in the face of Putin’s military threats.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Obervateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Thinking out loud: Obama’s war of words in the face of Russian aggression

Thursday, March 27th, 2014

President Obama has now gone out of his way twice to assert that the U.S. and by implication NATO would not use military force in the Ukraine.

This calls to mind a statement made by the U.S. in 1950 that appeared to exclude Korea from the zone of countries the U.S. was ready to use force to defend. Not long after, North Korea invaded the South, launching the Korean War.

Obama is saying reckless things, like NATO will not consider the use of force in the Ukraine, under any circumstances.

Obama doesn’t know anything about diplomatic and military history, apparently, or perhaps he is just so taken with the power of his own intellect that he feels no need to draw insights from the lessons of history.

In foreign policy, he is out of his element, all the while seeking to exercise tight control over every aspect of foreign policy from the White House.

Moreover, he can’t shut up, and keeps on talking, using words which from his manner of delivery he evidently believes have unusual persuasive force. And he always talks down to his audience.

His continuing statements can be quite dangerous. For example, for what conceivable purpose of state could he have referred to Russia as a “regional power” in his recent speech in Brussels?

Doesn’t he understand that with Putin we are dealing with an individual with delusions of grandeur, whose delusions have already led to aggression and the rending of the postwar legal and political order?

Such loose words could provoke Putin and his cronies to “show Obama” by pushing militarily into eastern Ukraine. When you are dealing with someone acting in a delusional state, might it not be wise to carefully choose your words?

It is worth recalling that the United Nations was founded on the idea that the use of force was prohibited except in individual or collective self-defense. The idea was not simply that countries would defend each other when they were members of a mutual defense alliance such as NATO, but that they would also come to the defense of other nations when the latter were attacked. The hoped-for response would be action through the Security Council, but Article 51 collective defense actions were also admitted.

The critical concept is that countries may and should come to the collective self-defense of a country which is the victim of aggression.

If Russia invades the rest of the Ukraine, other countries should be prepared to come to the Ukraine’s defense.

We don’t need a naive and incompetent president assuring the Russians that they can invade the Ukraine and will meet no resistance.

Poland, for example, could come to the defense of Ukraine if so requested. If Russia were to then attack Polish forces, particularly in Poland, that could potentially trigger the collective self-defense obligations of other NATO states under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

Obama also said he worried a lot more about a nuclear bomb going off in New York City than he did about the regional power that Russia has become. Perhaps the president should review the number of nuclear weapons Russia has aimed at the U.S. including NYC, and take care that the nuclear bomb he fears does not come–whether by accident or design–from Russia or North Korea.

It is absurd to refer to Russia as merely a “regional power” when it has thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at the U.S.

Obama should stop talking, and communicate his messages to Mr. Putin through coordinated sanctions and other actions with EU and NATO partners.

A good place to start would be to ask Congress to immediately repeal most-favored nation trade status for the import of Russian goods and services to the United States.

The Trenchant Observer

Appeasement in the West: Clueless Obama assures Russia the U.S. rules out the use of force in Ukraine

Thursday, March 20th, 2014

President Barack Obama and top military leaders in the U.S. know nothing of the “coercive diplomacy” which Stanford political scientist Alexander George persuasively demonstrated has helped the U.S. avoid armed conflict on a number of occasions.

In his efforts to influence Putin’s calculus, Obama does not believe it is useful to maintain doubt in Putin’s mind as to whether the U.S. or NATO might respond with military force if, for example, Russia were to invade the rest of the Ukraine.

Obama pursued the same course in Syria, repeatedly reassuring his opponents (in Damascus, Moscow and Tehran), through his own statements or those of top U.S. and NATO military officials, that the U.S. and NATO would not use military force to halt the atrocities in that country.

When pushed into a corner by his own rhetoric about his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and his own inaction in the face of smaller-scale attacks with chemical weapons in the months leading up to al-Assad’s attack at Ghouta on August 21, 2014, he made preparations to launch cruise missile and other attacks against Syria. In the weeks leading up to the point of decision, the press was full of leaks about the nature of the strikes being contemplated, including assurances that they would not involve major or extended military action.

When the moment came to launch even these self-described minimal strikes, Obama flinched, and did not order the strikes. Instead, without consulting his top military and civilian advisors, he threw the hot potato to Congress for authorization, which he had to know was unlikely, while grasping at the lifeline Russia threw to him to remove chemical weapons from Syria. The agreement brokered by John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov in Geneva and subsequently endorsed by the U.N. Security Counci, was reached in exchange for what has amounted to a policy of allowing al-Assad to remain in power and to continue his commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a very broad scale.

Obama apparently never heard of the old boxer’s maxim, “Never telegraph your punches.”

We are left with a leadership in the U.S, and Europe (except for France) of “hybrid” pacifists, who are unwilling to even think of the use of force to defend fundamental principles of the U.N. Charter and international law, and the Enlightenment values of individual freedom and respect for fundamental human rights (e.g., the right not to be tortured, or the right to trial by an independent judge), or indeed against the military seizure and annexation of the territory of another state.

They are “hybrid” pacifists because they will use force on a limited scale in Africa with Security Council authorization, but remain unwilling to consider the use of force in a major way to defend their most important national interests.

As the pacifists in Washington and Europe reassure Putin that they are not even considering the use of military force, no matter what he does, an entire civilization opens itself to the depredations of authoritarian rogue states like Russia, and a brutal reshaping of the political and economic order established and maintained for the last 70 years following plans for and the establishment of the United Nations.

Ronald Reagan in Berlin challenged the Soviet Union to “Tear down this wall!” Now Obama and the other pacifist leaders of the West reassure Putin and Russia (and China) that they will not even consider using force to defend their vital interests, no matter what Russia does, as new walls go up.

The sanctions for the miltary takeover of the Crimea hardly amounted to “a slap on the wrist”. The expansion of those sanctions to include additional targeted individuals and now a bank are more serious, but still unlikely to prevent Putin from further mischief in the Ukraine and with its economy over the next year or so, when the concentrated attention of the West has dissipated and things have returned to business as usual. There is no leverage to force Russia through negotiations to disgorge the Crimea. Thus, a military invasion and anexation of the territory of another state is likely to be left standing, in Europe.

Appeasement continues, as Russia and China urgently work on a treaty of alliance that would profoundly disrupt and reshape the postwar political and legal order. Meanwhile, the President of the European Parliament urgently warns of war in Europe if stiffer sanctions against Russia are not adopted.

Russian aggression. Tanks and rockets, and in the background rockets with nuclear weapons. Pacifist and clueless leaders in the West, determined to pursue–and to telegraph to Russia–a policy of appeasement in the face of Putin’s military threats.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Obervateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Appeasing the Aggressor: (Hybrid-) Pacifists in U.S. and E.U. give Russia a slap on the wrist for aggression and military intervention in the Ukraine

Tuesday, March 18th, 2014

Appeasement in Europe, 2014

The “hybrid-pacifists” who lead Europe and the U.S. may have been willing in some cases to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, but having departed Iraq and now withdrawing from Afghanistan, and following the NATO action in Libya in 2011 (with Security Council authorization), they are now only (in a few cases) willing to send forces to Africa in limited numbers, with Security Council blessings.

In terms of defending the vital national interests of Europe or Syria, they have become (or remained) diehard pacifists, who cannot imagine any circumstances in which real force might be used, or its threate ven mentioned or displayed.

While the efforts of Angela Merkel and her foreign minister to engage Russia in the kind of dialogue that might reverse the momentum on the ground were worthy, for a while, it must now be recognized that they have failed.

The hybrid-pacifist leader of the U.S., Barack Obama, after giving into military pressure for “the surge” in Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010, and discreetly joining the multilateral efforts in Libya and Africa sanctioned by the Security Council, is now willing to use deadly force only by eliminating targets on the “kill lists” prepared for and aproved by the White House, where indivual enemies can be destroyed by rockets from drones or secret special forces units where the risk of military engagement with another nation’s forces is non-existent. He was notably unwilling to actually use military force against Syria after al-Assad crossed his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta on August 21, 2014.

That moment, when he flinched and turned away from the use of force, was probably the green light that convinced Putin he had nothing to fear in the Ukraine.

So, we are where we are. Neither Europe nor the United States is prepared to stand up and really oppose Russian aggression in the Ukraine. There is not even a hint that they will move troops or do anything to make Russia think twice before committing further aggression.

In the face of the pacifism of Europe and the U.S. as they are confronted with military intervention in the Crimea, and both threats and actions backed by threats in the eastern Ukraine, the Russian aggressor faces an open field for further aggression, with no opposing military force to be seen, even in the distance.

The “sanctions” imposed on Russian and Crimeans prior to the Russian decision to annex the Crimea, announced on March 18, were laughable if their intent was actually to dissuade Russia from annexation or further aggression in the Ukraine. The derision they were met with in Moscow was fully merited.

The sanctions were not designed with a view toward actually influencing Putin’s and Russia’s actions in the Ukraine. They were reminiscent of the EU sanctions against Syria which probited gold transactions with Syria, or financing them.

What can be done?

Ultimately, with the pacifist leadership of Europe and the U.S., the West can only beg the Russian aggressor not to commit further aggression in the Ukraine or beyond.

They could, if they understood history and the present situation, impose serious economic sanctions. These might include, for example,

1. Extending targeted sanctions to include Putin’s closest associates, and even Putin himself. He after all, has been the architect and prime executioner of the aggression.

The problem is bureaucratic thinking, particularly in Europe but also in the U.S. and its non-European allies.

Sanctions are targeted against individuals and some companies. That is the bureaucratic and organizational tool that is available, once you’ve ruled out any really serious sanctions.

Many beleve such sanctions are the reason Iran (until now) has been more forthcoming at the negotiating table with the U.S. in Oman and in the five plus one (5 + 1) talks. This is far from established, however, and may have more to do with internal developments in the Iranian political system.

The effects of similar targeted insanctions in Syria are there for all to see: Nil.

What would real economic sanctions look like? Here are a few examples:

1. Europe cuts gas delivery orders from Russia by 25-50%.

2. Strict Limits are established on Russian access to international banking and financial services sectors. Sharp restrictions on the tranfer of funds from and to Russia through the EU and the U.S. are set.

3. The U.S. repeals (or at least suspends) most-favored-nation trading status, thereby raising tariffs on Russian products in the U.S., with immediate effect.

4. The U.S. and the EU impose broader Limits on exports and imports, and financial services.

Putin has probably factored in sanctions into his calculus, betting they would be mild. Really tough santions might get his attention.

5. EU and U.S. legislation is adopted to prohibit any financial institution under their jurisdiction from processing financial transactions involving any individual or company in the Crimea, with a process for granting exceptions on a case-by-case basis, or doing business with any company or institution which processes such transactions.

The world is in an extrely dangerous situation, with four nuclear powers facing each other in a confrontation over the Ukraine. Many former nuclear arms control arrangements and the previous status of forces agreement between Russia and the West are no longer operating.

If NATO and the West do not respond much more forcibly, including through military exercises and the deployment of forces to strategic positions to defend against an invasion by Russia of the Ukraine proper or another country, there will be no opposing force to make Putin and his advisers think twice before engaging in further aggressive behavior.

Putin and his advisers are in an emotional and delusional bubble. Pinpricks will not pierce that bubble. Much stronger actions, implemented urgently–not over five years as with the Iranian sanctions–will be required both to burst that bubble and to mobilize other actirs in Russia who can bring pressure on Putin to reverse his current course of action.

Above all, the peoples and leaders of the West must be brought to understand that the peace and prosperity they have known for the last 70 years were not given to them for free. The costs were paid by NATO and the Marshall Plan, both disproportionately funded by U.S. taxpayers. That peace and prosperity were also won through successful management of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and the nuclear show-down with the Soviet Union during the 1973 Yon Kippur war in Israel.

History reveals that the path of appeasement, whatever the short-term benefits of what Neville Chamberlain called “peace in our time” in 1938, have huge costs further down the road.

The challenge for everyone in the West is to change the thinking of their pacifist leaders, or replace them, while standing up and paying the price for upholding the postwar political and legal order enshrined in the United Nations Charter, in order to avoid war.

The situation is explosive. But appeasement of the aggressor is not going to improve it.

The Trenchant Observer