Wednesday, March 18, 2015


George Friedman, head of Stratfor Global Intelligence, on US policy in Europe.

Russia Insider
Stratfor Chairman Straight-Talking: US Policy Is Driven by Imperative to Stop Coalition between Germany and Russia
Damir Marinovich

See also

Stratfor Global Intelligence
Can Putin Survive?
George Friedman

This article was originally in July 2014, and it was re-published on March 17, 2015.

19 comments:

Ryan Harris said...

I see it the opposite, I think Obama wanted to get out of NATO or at least reduce the US role in the alliance and focus resources elsewhere. He has contributed 1/10th of what the eastern members requested and tried to take a back seat and follow along with the Merkel/Hollande lead.
I read the Russian propaganda and the old guard war hawks (Where I categorize you, Tom) where supposedly the US orchestrated everything, but the Obama admin had exactly the opposite agenda. They wanted to increase integration with Asian countries, including China and Africa on economic, political, and military levels and stop paying so much attention to Europe. They made extraordinary efforts to do so too but clearly he has failed miserably because his moves were seen as aggressive into Asia and his pullback from Europe was met by Putin who was looking for an opening to push back against European expansionism. And Obama was even somewhat hoodwinked by his own intelligence agencies because they clearly have pushed this sort of narrative in these foreign policy documents, which are completely verifiably at odds with the stated foreign policy of the elected POTUS. So either Obama lied about his policy objectives of "pivoting" to Asia or he doesn't control his government's policy. Either way he look incompetent to me.

Ryan Harris said...

Putin's interview on Monday pretty much confirmed he saw an opening to move the troops into Ukraine and take the territory back while Europe and the US weren't prepared. It was smart and well executed.

Tom Hickey said...

Ryan, I don't disagree about Obama's ambivalence. He is a pragmatist and leans the way he senses the wind blowing, taking into account what he thinks he can accomplish. He has had to tussle with the war hawks (like McCain, Graham), the neocons that run State, and the deep state that has provided continuity to US policy since Truman. Obama prefers nuance to confrontation.

As a "man of principle" (unidimensional) G. W. Bush was entirely predictable. Not so pragmatist Obama, who also lacks the political depth. The continuity comes from the various factions of the Establishment (Obama is bipartisan here) vying with each other. Bush's enforcer was Dick Cheney. Obama's was Rahm Emmanuel. No comparison in political depth.

I don't think that Bush was necessarily "stronger" than Obama personally. He had a very monolithic organization behind him, much of which he left in place, just has he found it in place after Reagan and his father. Witness the political machine rushing out to ensure that W was installed as president in the election debacle, including bringing James Baker out of retirement. These folks were serious.

Hillary had political depth, too, but even though Obama didn't, a quirk of history worked in his favor. However, I think he quickly learned his limitations and also learned to work within them.

Not having deep organization or political depth behind him, he is flying largely on his own and there are a lot of cross currents. I think that this more than other factors is the root of his looking incompetent.

Tom Hickey said...

Perhaps you mean "Crimea" instead of "Ukraine." As Putin said, he did not exceed the level Russian troops permitted in Crimea by previous agreement. He also revealed that he acted quickly since the coup organizers were also sparking an overthrow in Crimea and polling had shown that this was not the outcome most Crimeans wanted.

One can argue whether Putin's story is accurate, as one can also argue whether the US story fits the facts. I tilt toward the Russian side for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that George Friedman of Stratfor admitted in an interview with Kommersant that the coup was orchestrated by the US.

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The United States, for its part, were interested in forming a pro-Western government in Ukraine. They saw that Russia is on the rise, and were eager not to let it consolidate its position in the post-Soviet space. The success of the pro-Western forces in Ukraine would allow the U.S. to contain Russia.

Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'etat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history.

KOMMERSANT: You mean the termination of the agreement of February 21, or the entire Maidan?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The whole thing. After all, the United States openly supported human rights groups in Ukraine, including financially. Meanwhile, Russia's special services completely missed these trends. They didn't understand what was taking place, but when they did realize what was going on they were unable to take action to stabilize the situation, and then they misjudged the mood in East Ukraine.


Eventually Russia did provide equipment to the separatists and allowed volunteers to cross the border, but this was only after Strelkov had sparked the separatist movement in the spring. Strelkov is a Russian nationalist and he tried to get Putin to commit Russian forces, which Putin did not do.

The only action that Putin took immediately after the Maiden coup, and yes, it was a coup that overthrew a democratically elected government, was to rescue the top echelon of the deposed government, which was being hunted down by the coup organizers, as Putin reveals, was known by Russian intelligence.

As a result, nationalists severely criticized Putin in Russia for failing to act more forcefully and decisively, instead allowing so much mayhem in Eastern Ukraine, which is largely ethnically, culturally, and linguistically Russian.

Unknown said...

All these people need to have a historical and intellectual reset. Barring that, at least update their text books.

First and foremost, Crimea is now part of Russia, no one, and I mean no one in their right mind is going to invade Crimea (i.e. Russia) . Whether that is under the auspices of "taking it back" or otherwise.

The age old great game rules have changed. The nuclear age renders historical templates irrelevant.

Obama and the US have no desire to extract themselves from NATO.

NATO is controlled by the US and is an indispensable military arm of US foreign policy, that by design, permits the US to bypass International Law and the UN.

For goodness sake, the EU has outsourced its Foreign Policy to NATO ..... that fact, sadly, is undeniable.


Look at all the International forces that were deployed to Afghanistan under the specious R2P protocol.

Ryan Harris said...

Well, I *did* actually mean Ukraine, not Crimea. I don't think even the most dedicated propagandist, denies Russian troop involvement in Crimea now that Putin has stated it openly. But it doesn't really matter if we agree or disagree about whether Crimea was ever part of Ukraine, it is Russia now.

Also, I think if you look at the Russian troops training in Luhansk this week, openly, with Russian flags, using the same bases that have been used by the volunteers, the same entry points, and the same equipment, the previous satellite photos of the troops on the borders, the injured soldiers, the advanced weaponry itself, much of which is only used by Russian regulars, it's pretty clear and undeniable except to those who refuse look where the fighters are coming from. The soldiers and their VK social network sites aren't hiding where the troops are when they post selfies in transit to Ukraine and then in Ukraine, the gps tags in photos could be faked, I suppose, but the details in the photos are pretty convincing. A few of the units came from the opposite side of Russia even with photos all along the way! Their employment is listed as Russian military, their relatives say they simply signed contracts for additional pay to go to Ukraine. (If a US soldier does that would it be US Government action even if they were working covertly? Yes.) There will be people who say, "but.... they aren't regulars, since they were contracted by the Russian government so it is different", I say whatever... a quirk of law in Russia prohibits mercenaries so they must maintain "volunteer" status even though they are compensated covert agents of the Russian government.

Russia has an existential interest in Ukraine not falling into European hands, to pretend otherwise is silly. Of course they are Russian troops and Putin has said ****nothing***** including nuclear weapons and full out conventional warfare are out of the question in defending the territorial integrity of Russia and that eastern ukraine is essential to maintain territorial integrity, that being the case, do you really cling to the notion that Russia doesn't officially send people? Really? They will nuke but won't send troops? uhm kay, right. They have shown restraint and haven't completely steamrolled western Ukraine, which they could do in days if they wanted. But make no mistake, Russia is 100% committed to Eastern Ukraine. It is not going to fall to Europe because of a lack of forces or weapons from Eastern Ukraine. You can't defeat a few rag-tag rebels because that is not the adversary.

So how the troops are paid, motivated or conscripted isn't really the point. Russia is defending the territory with a scorched earth policy. To pretend otherwise risks that the Europeans or American politicians that want to promote western liberal democracy stumble into adversaries far more committed to the cause. This isn't about Putin doing a land grab, it is about Russian defense. When Europe threated to take Georgia, Putin used the same tactics to ensure critical territory did not fall to adversaries. The ongoing battles in the towns that connect a land bridge between Crimea and Russia are probably necessary. This isn't a negotiable position for Europeans/NATO with Russia so in order for Europe to keep western Ukraine under its control it needs to negotiate from a position that is more realistic about what is happening.

And yes, I do think the European system, warts and all is superior to the Russian and ultimately will prevail because individuals prefer to be wealthy and free.

Tom Hickey said...

References, please. Where are these photographs of Russian troops?

Ken said...

http://aco.nato.int/new-satellite-imagery-exposes-russian-combat-troops-inside-ukraine.aspx

Tom Hickey said...

Old news that Russia has supplied the separatists and allowed volunteers to cross the border, including Russian military on leave.

"Russia is reinforcing and resupplying separatist forces in a blatant attempt to change the momentum of the fighting, which is currently favouring the Ukrainian military," Brigadier General Tak said. "Russia's ultimate aim is to alleviate pressure on separatist fighters in order to prolong this conflict indefinitely, which would result in further tragedy for the people of Eastern Ukraine," he added.

NATO claims "Russian troops in Ukraine" based on implication rather than evidence. That is, interpretation of the photographs. It has not convinced the Germans, for example, who remain skeptical of a so-called Russian invasion. There is no evidence of the Russian military itself being directly involved cross-border, or the insurgency being run from Russia, which senior Western and Ukrainian military officials have admitted.

The Russians have said, however, that they will not permit the separatists to to be defeated. (This is not just Putin, btw.) No one doubts that support is coming from Russia. Just the volume of artillery exchanges would go to show that resupply is needed.

The Ukrainian (US) strategy has been to force the Russia to intervene directly in a way that is obvious and can be condemned as Russian "aggression." So far that charge has not stuck, and Germany recently called US generals out on it.

Putin has been careful not to cross that line, but the Ukrainian (US) strategy is to keep pushing toward that goal. US or NATO troops there first would bring in Russian troops in response.

Obama is being pushed in that direction, but Merkel is saying, No Way, and other European governments are balking, too. Those counseling the US not to send troops warn that it threatens to destabilize the Atlantic alliance itself.

MRW said...

Tom, this is an OT request to you personally. I asked it before, but I can't remember the thread name.

Can you tell me the name of the guy who wrote the memo about FDR saying that Social Security was a political move?

This time I will remember this thread.

Thanks

MRW said...

It begins with an 'L'.

Ken said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/europe/ukraine-russia-military-border-nato.html?_r=0

Tom Hickey said...

@MRW

Luther Gulick

http://www.ssa.gov/history/Gulick.html

Tom Hickey said...

@ Ken

More old news. No evidence. The primary testimony is from Gen. Breedlove, who Germany has accused of lying about this.

All of this is from the US and Ukraine, which rushed to judgement on MH17, too, without providing evidence. Nothing substantial from other sources.

US and Ukraine accuse Russia of invasion. Russia denies involvement.

The only thing I see that as well established is that Russia is providing resources and volunteers to a resistance organized and operated by separatists who are citizens of Ukraine.

Crimea is different, of course, since there was a large contingent of Russian military there by prior agreement.

Ken said...

"Old news" doesn't mean "wrong". Claiming something is "old news" is a standard spin technique and is itself a form of propaganda.

Seems to me any dispute between US/Germany over Russian troops inside Ukraine is about the numbers, not the fact.

http://www.bnd.com/2015/03/12/3707807/europe-us-at-odds-over-size-of.html

Tom Hickey said...



No, of course, not, but evidence needs to be corroborated, ideally by non-interested third parties. Virtually all the "evidence" is coming from interested parties and it is not corroborated.

It's also not in agreement. The US and Ukrainians are claming a Russian "invasion," while other who don't dispute direct Russian invovlement say that it is much less that the US and Ukraine make out.

The supposedly objective party is The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), but that's not exactly the case either. They are doing a poor job of monitoring the supposed Minsk 2.0 cease fire and pull back.

There is a lull in fighting and virtually no meaningful pull back of Ukrainian heavy weapons, and fighting is expected to resume as soon as the Ukrainians can regroup and resupply after their losses in the Debaltsevo cualdron.

Tom Hickey said...

The takeaway here is that there is a civil war going on in Ukraine between ethnic groups, neither of which is willing to concede its goals short of defeat on the battlefield. This is an issue that has been endemic in Europe for centuries and it continues owing to the way borders are drawn that don't recognize this differences. Same in the Middle East.

This puts both the Atlantic alliance and Russia at somewhat of a quandary since this is a proxy war between them, and they don't fully control their proxies. For example, at Minsk, Putin left the conference room and talked to the separatists leaders for two hours before getting their agreement to a cease fire when they were winning.

One of the reasons that the Minsk agreement is doomed is that Merkel could not get the Ukrainians to agree that they were surrounded in the Debaltsevo cauldron. The result is that the separatists hold that according to the agreement, they hold Debaltsevo and according to the Ukrainians they don't.

Now there is little the Atlanticists or Russians can do to the stop the war from starting up again soon. Theoretically, the West could refuse to continue to fund Ukraine, or Russia could refuse to resupply the separatists. But that would mean their proxy losing, which is unacceptable at this point.

As result the situation remains fluid and uncertain, which is upsetting the Europeans much more than Russia, the US, or the UK.

The Russians are committed across the board to their preferred outcome regardless it it means nuclear war.

The US and UK remain aloof, since they have little skin in the game.

Europe, on the other hand, is looking down the barrel of a gun and possibly tactical nukes.

And this is just one of the many unresolved trouble spots in Europe and Eurasia, not to mention the Middle East. While China is peripheral, it also has an interest owing to its ethnic makeup at its Eurasian border.

Ryan Harris said...

Sorry wasn't ignorning, just been busy at work. Maybe this weekend I can post what I've seen. There are hundreds of images and videos each day posted of Russian troops by Ukranian and Russian people to social media. It all seems random and crazy. The pictures and videos have to be verified though to see if they are credible and real. So you have to see if what is known about the location (physical trees, landscape, buildings, roads and other non-disputed geography) where the picture is claimed to have been taken matches before you can be sure the pictures are real. Then you have to look at the weapons, and other stuff and learn what/where/why/how.

So this is a verifiable dashcam of Russian Regular Armor Group on the move near Peskov in Russia, yesterday, German intelligence verified:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zVyUmIhJG0

This is the location of video: https://www.google.de/maps/@57.7298608,28.8200244,478m/data=!3m1!1e3

Pause the video when tanks are in view. See the numbers and stuff? Those used to be covered up, even when transporting through Russia. They are identifiers that indicate which Russian units these are coming from. Starting a couple weeks ago, they stopped covering them. The soldiers too used to remove Russian flag patches before travelling across country and entering Ukr. So have a good look at this tank unit, make note of the models of equipment, numbers on the tanks, and try to see faces.

So I've got to go to work now, but lets just follow this one tank unit and one or two more over the coming weeks and see where it ends up, shall we?

There is a large build up for the push to take Mariupol, in the next month or two and most of these kids will end up there. Or The tanks may continue to patrol the border in exercises. Or it could disappear and we'll not see it again. But I think its best to pick a few units and follow them. Since they are on-the-move, they likely are going to battle. It helps to tell the Human story of what is happening without all the strategic intrigue. The speculation on what it all means is endless. But troop movements and military studies aren't that complicated. I'll try and leave my political views out! Call me out when I don't. Lets just watch the Russian troops. We could follow the NATO light armor battle groups on the move through Europe.

(Obviously there are far more images than can be verified)

On Going Reports and Image Verification by UK intelligence linked group:
https://bellingcat.checkdesk.org/en/story/171

https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/case-studies/2015/03/03/stunt-geolocation-verifying-the-unverifiable/

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/03/11/vreditel-sobaka/

(US officially unofficial spook)
https://twitter.com/finriswolf

(US officially unofficial military intelligence)
https://twitter.com/Conflict_Report

(Independent academic, US based)
https://twitter.com/armedresearch

The Russian sponsored military intelligence that was posting on twitter that I was following, all got deleted from twitter this week in some sort of mass sweep, but they will be back soon. It's just gone! the images, everything. They actually provided good images of Russians and Rebels in the region that could be used to corroborate the western intelligence, probably why they were deleted.

German Intelligence:


Good on the ground imagery from Ukraine-Russian social media aggregator: https://www.youtube.com/user/eliezer861 (Unverified images!!! Could be old, could be new, could not be real, could be anywhere!)

MRW said...

THANK YOU, Tom.