Russia's back at it again folks.
Putin continues to strengthen a his forces along the Ukrainian border while simultaneously cutting off imports of American and European food while also flexing and even increasing Russia's global military presence.
Military news:{Russia re-opens cold war era intelligence base}
Russia has reached an agreement with Cuba to re-open a cold-war era intelligence base located in Cuba, some 150 miles off the U.S. coast.
The base is, or rather listening and intelligence gathering complex, is used specifically to spy on U.S. communications. That alone is not alarming by any means, we do the same to them albeit at further distances. What is alarming is simply the fact they are doing it all. They had originally closed the base due to operating costs and after running some-sort of cost-benefit analysis they probably figured their time and resources could be put to better use elsewhere. The U.S. was not a threatening them and if anything, we were on fairly peaceful relations with them back in 2001 when the base had originally closed.
Additionally, this comes a year after the Snowden scandal. You remember him right? The third party intelligence analyst that made the mistake of betraying his country. Hence why this is a bigger deal than it would seem. Not even the U.S. government is entirely sure what information he has given the Russians. We can be assured by the actions Russia is taking, that the information Snowden leaked to the Russian government has encouraged them to act more boldly against the U.S. than they have since the days of the Soviet Union.
I don't believe this is a simple coincidence. I am fully convinced that Snowden handed them fairly sophisticated information regarding our defensive and intelligence capabilities as well as information regarding our less-known exploits around the globe. Oh, and one more: I believe Snowden had information pertaining to our relationships with several key nations around the globe. Information that is the result of both diplomatic-relations and for a lack of a better word, spying.
There are two more reasons that help reaffirm my belief that Russia has more knowledge of the inner-working of our intelligence gathering capabilities and defense than they ever have:
Russian incursions of US airspace
Russia, Iran oil deal, Russia seeking to bypass the dollar
On the issue of Russian incursions of US airspace:
The Russians are flying more aircraft more closely and more frequently around and sometimes even in U.S. airspace than ever before.
They have always enjoyed flying close to our borders or close to our aircraft, so in one respect it's nothing new. However, what is new is just how close they are flying our borders, to our military aircraft and ships operating in international waters, and how often they are doing. Most of the aircraft they're flying are extremely out-dated and don't pose much of a threat if any at all. Save for one: the TU-95 Russian Bear H bomber. This is an extremely out-dated monolith of a plane. It's not even a jet! It has four massive turbo-props!
Hearing that news, you might think "no big deal then, sounds like a cold-war relic." Well true, it is a cold-war relic and wouldn't normally be much of a threat if it was simply a bomber. But the TU-95 is no ordinary bomber, it's cargo isn't a simple 500lbs JDAM. It's actually a nuclear war-head. Whether or not they're carrying nuclear war-heads when they fly along U.S. borders and sometimes within U.S. borders is not known and frankly it's inconsequential because they're nuclear capable and were designed specifically to carry nuclear war-heads over a target and drop them. This makes it a serious threat and a geopolitical nightmare. It's basically the Russian way of giving us the finger. It's incredibly dangerous and hostile to us as Americans. Furthermore, it shows an incredibly naive and reckless Russian government.
On the issue of the Russia-Iran oil deal:
This is nothing new really. Russia has always supported any U.S. hater out there.
What is new, is how far-reaching their deals are becoming and how accommodating they've become to potential allies. For instance, they completely erased the debt owed to them by Cuba. They have consistently gone around U.S. and EU sanctions to create alliances and deals with several nations including Turkey, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, and Iran, knowing that these countries are unstable and even dangerous to the U.S. and EU.
Russia has fostered diplomatic relations with those previously mentioned countries as well as economic ties through brokered gas and oil deals, military munitions contracts, and most recently, they have begun a huge push to eliminate the dollar as a global currency that every other currency is pegged to.
Which leads to....
Russia seeking to bypass the dollar:
By partnering up with China, India, Turkey, and even south American countries like Brazil, is an incredibly smart economic move to make against the U.S. They're leading the push to de-dollar the world more than ever which will hurt the U.S. economy as we'll see a drop in the demand of our currency and an uptick in the demand for other nations currencies. In a way, this was inevitable. But the degree to which they're pushing is get rid of the dollar is stronger than it's ever been and is clearly aimed at hurting the U.S. economy.
All these actions put-together point to a Putin fear-mongering within the Russian government to help create an unstable world where confidence in U.S. power is weakened to such a state that we become the bad-guys.
My personal opinion of Putin is that he is a military-minded man, not a man capable of understanding economics or any sophisticated science. He is governed by his own cold-war era mindset and is becoming increasingly dangerous and unpredictable. This doesn't make him retarded or stupid by any means! No, he know's what he is doing and is going about it mostly through sophisticated means.
Arguably the more pressing concern here is what the U.S. and EU will do. So far, they have both failed miserably at deterring Russian aggression and showing any guts whatsoever. We have both become passive, patient, and almost too hopeful for world peace to acknowledge and take action against those who threaten it.
The U.S. is by no means a peace-seeking country. We have solidified our place in history as a war-mongering nation and today is no different than it was thirty years ago. However, what has changed is our fortitude and degree of ignorance of world affairs. Our foreign policy is worse now than it quite possibly has ever been in the history of our proud nation. Thanks to the Snowden revelations, two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a poor campaign against terrorism that stretches across the entire globe, and a failure to secure our allies both militarily and economically.
Putin can clearly see our weaknesses and is doing everything he can to capitulate. Brokering deals with our former allies, forging relationships with anti-U.S. governments, and pushing forward a new world that doesn't depend so much on U.S. economic activity.
Before, we had Bush jr. Though not a "good" president by any definition of the word, he did have the balls to stand up to Russian aggression. He essentially kept Russia "in-check" by always playing offense. Obama has taken more of a defensive stance with Russia and combined with his many other mistakes has helped to create a more emboldened Russia.
Before we had Clinton, Bush sr. Reagan, etc. All these former presidents who were far from perfect had one thing in common: the same policy of dealing with Russia/Soviet Union aggression. They understood how to deal with the Russians and how to keep them from endangering the world. Reagan helped to create a path by which many of the later presidents could and did follow up until the current administration.
If we want to put-Russia in check again we have got to improve our foreign-relations, solidify stronger alliances, clamp-down on "super" or "hyper-capitalism", adjust our campaign against terrorism in such a way that civilian deaths are significantly decreased, and push-forward a policy of non-violent muscle-flexing.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Edward Snowden
By now everyone has heard of Edward Snowden and the documents he has been leaking via The Guardian newspaper.
I just wanted to make a quick statement on him here.
First, it is important to highlight what we may consider to be "good" or of "importance" to both the U.S. and the world. He brought to the attention of the world, the vast depth and breadth of U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities within the U.S. and abroad.
And it came as a shock. Previous to Snowdens revelations, few people had any understanding of the complex reach that U.S. intelligence agencies were capable of. Certainly no mass population knew that their every digital footprint was being recording, analyzed, and filed away.
Americans weren't necessarily shocked at being spied upon, rather they were shocked at how much they were spied upon. Every e-mail, instant message, video call, and key stroke were being recorded. Some of us weren't surprised by such spying, but were certainly surprised to hear about phone conversations being recorded, webcams that were manually activated and recorded by government agents, and basically every facet of our lives scrutinized by a dishonest and fearful government.
Such revelations were good for democracy and society. Because we the people are supposed to be the masters of our government, not the other way around. And the spying that was happening domestically, was also (and still is) occurring abroad in nearly every country around the world.
But, Snowden for all his bravado, courage, and smarts, proved himself too good to be true.
Snowden made a series of mistakes, mistakes that were intentionally you might say and were well thought of to the best of his ability, and it is these mistakes that have proven him to be less intelligent and courageous than he otherwise might be perceived.
Mistake #1:
He fled. Fleeing is for cowards, especially as a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. He would not have been killed, but he certainly would have been prosecuted and likely served a lengthy jail sentence. Turning him into something of a martyr which would in turn give greater emphasis and influence to his intelligence leaks.
Mistake #2:
He fled to the wrong place. Whether he had hoped or expected to remain in Russia is uncertain, but fleeing there ultimately proved he had run short on logic. Russia is the one and only longtime legitimate U.S. threat and counterweight. Essentially, Russia is our rival and has been since the days of the Soviet Union. They obviously had selfish intentions with him and it would be these intentions that would help propel their expansionist agenda later.
I just wanted to make a quick statement on him here.
First, it is important to highlight what we may consider to be "good" or of "importance" to both the U.S. and the world. He brought to the attention of the world, the vast depth and breadth of U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities within the U.S. and abroad.
And it came as a shock. Previous to Snowdens revelations, few people had any understanding of the complex reach that U.S. intelligence agencies were capable of. Certainly no mass population knew that their every digital footprint was being recording, analyzed, and filed away.
Americans weren't necessarily shocked at being spied upon, rather they were shocked at how much they were spied upon. Every e-mail, instant message, video call, and key stroke were being recorded. Some of us weren't surprised by such spying, but were certainly surprised to hear about phone conversations being recorded, webcams that were manually activated and recorded by government agents, and basically every facet of our lives scrutinized by a dishonest and fearful government.
Such revelations were good for democracy and society. Because we the people are supposed to be the masters of our government, not the other way around. And the spying that was happening domestically, was also (and still is) occurring abroad in nearly every country around the world.
But, Snowden for all his bravado, courage, and smarts, proved himself too good to be true.
Snowden made a series of mistakes, mistakes that were intentionally you might say and were well thought of to the best of his ability, and it is these mistakes that have proven him to be less intelligent and courageous than he otherwise might be perceived.
Mistake #1:
He fled. Fleeing is for cowards, especially as a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. He would not have been killed, but he certainly would have been prosecuted and likely served a lengthy jail sentence. Turning him into something of a martyr which would in turn give greater emphasis and influence to his intelligence leaks.
Mistake #2:
He fled to the wrong place. Whether he had hoped or expected to remain in Russia is uncertain, but fleeing there ultimately proved he had run short on logic. Russia is the one and only longtime legitimate U.S. threat and counterweight. Essentially, Russia is our rival and has been since the days of the Soviet Union. They obviously had selfish intentions with him and it would be these intentions that would help propel their expansionist agenda later.
Mistake #3:
It is very, very likely that he has more important documents than simple spying habits of U.S. government agencies. It's quite probable that he has important, classified military and national defense documents that, if in the wrong hands could pose a risk to American citizens' health and safety. Even if he didn't have such documents, the fact that a foreign government has him and his documents on U.S. spying capabilities and current operations creates a giant hole in our defense capabilities. Even worse, it is Russia that has such information. As I mentioned earlier, they are the only country which has and continues to perceive themselves and demonstrate to the world their legitimate "anti-U.S." attitude. I emphasize the word "legitimate" here because they are large enough economically, powerful enough militarily, and influential enough socially to have wide-ranging and effective measures against the U.S. and many western European countries. That is something Iran, North Korea, and even China lack.
Mistake #4:
He fled to the wrong place. Yes, I am bringing this up again because it is incredibly important. It reveals errors in his logic, and a lack of intelligence. Anyone with half a brain would know that a U.S. who is traveling through Russia with a treasure trove of U.S. classified national security documents would be at least questioned by Russian agents. At least! So if it turns out that he ultimately had no intention of staying in Russia and helping Russian authorities (which he most certainly is), then we can get to understand him a bit better by acknowledging he made a mistake, one in which he likely did not think through well at all. A very costly and stupid mistake.
Now, if he had fled to Russia with the intention of handing over the documents to Russian authorities and helping them then we have a bigger issue, or rather he does as well: a case of stupidity. He has essentially turned out what could have been an act of heroism into an act of cowardice and even more seething, an act of betrayal to his country.
Russia has just as bad a human rights record as the U.S. if not worse (arguably, worse). And those in charge of the country currently known as the Russian Federation, happened to be high ranking brass of the former empire known as the Soviet Union, whose human rights abuses outweigh nearly every country that has ever existed in the entire duration of our species on this planet. We can also surmise judging by Russia's current actions in the Ukraine, Syria, Iran, China, and their power-projections around the globe that Russia as we know it today is but an extension of the old Soviet Union thirst for power and glory.
It is very, very likely that he has more important documents than simple spying habits of U.S. government agencies. It's quite probable that he has important, classified military and national defense documents that, if in the wrong hands could pose a risk to American citizens' health and safety. Even if he didn't have such documents, the fact that a foreign government has him and his documents on U.S. spying capabilities and current operations creates a giant hole in our defense capabilities. Even worse, it is Russia that has such information. As I mentioned earlier, they are the only country which has and continues to perceive themselves and demonstrate to the world their legitimate "anti-U.S." attitude. I emphasize the word "legitimate" here because they are large enough economically, powerful enough militarily, and influential enough socially to have wide-ranging and effective measures against the U.S. and many western European countries. That is something Iran, North Korea, and even China lack.
Mistake #4:
He fled to the wrong place. Yes, I am bringing this up again because it is incredibly important. It reveals errors in his logic, and a lack of intelligence. Anyone with half a brain would know that a U.S. who is traveling through Russia with a treasure trove of U.S. classified national security documents would be at least questioned by Russian agents. At least! So if it turns out that he ultimately had no intention of staying in Russia and helping Russian authorities (which he most certainly is), then we can get to understand him a bit better by acknowledging he made a mistake, one in which he likely did not think through well at all. A very costly and stupid mistake.
Now, if he had fled to Russia with the intention of handing over the documents to Russian authorities and helping them then we have a bigger issue, or rather he does as well: a case of stupidity. He has essentially turned out what could have been an act of heroism into an act of cowardice and even more seething, an act of betrayal to his country.
Russia has just as bad a human rights record as the U.S. if not worse (arguably, worse). And those in charge of the country currently known as the Russian Federation, happened to be high ranking brass of the former empire known as the Soviet Union, whose human rights abuses outweigh nearly every country that has ever existed in the entire duration of our species on this planet. We can also surmise judging by Russia's current actions in the Ukraine, Syria, Iran, China, and their power-projections around the globe that Russia as we know it today is but an extension of the old Soviet Union thirst for power and glory.
This leads into his next mistake...
Mistake #5
Wrongly place criticism. He has consistently stated and held to the belief that the American government is bad and has overstepped its bounds with the level of spying they do. But he goes further by referring our government as "evil" and "corrupted". No doubt he's right to some extent, but then he often praises or hints to the so called "good deeds" and righteousness of the Russian Federation. By doing either, or by doing both as he is currently doing, he's essentially labeled Russia the better country. Which in terms of economics, stability, household wealth, satisfaction, healthcare, birth rate, military power, etc, he's wrong. So we must assume that he is either a) ignorant of Russian history, b) ignorant of American history, c) ignorant of both, d) he's just not as intelligent and courageous as he's hyped-up to be, or e) he's emotionally unstable from the point of view that he is unable to make a rational decision without emotional interference. Emotions have a time and place for decision making and this was not a proper time for it.
In conclusion, I believe he did a good thing by revealing the illegal spying activities of the U.S. government. But rather than accept being something of a hero, he not only fled the country, but he went to Russia of all places and from the comfort of his new Russian home, he condemns the U.S. It's irony and stupidity at it's worse. He's a traitor to his country for putting the health and safety of me, you, and all our neighbors and family at greater risk.
Mistake #5
Wrongly place criticism. He has consistently stated and held to the belief that the American government is bad and has overstepped its bounds with the level of spying they do. But he goes further by referring our government as "evil" and "corrupted". No doubt he's right to some extent, but then he often praises or hints to the so called "good deeds" and righteousness of the Russian Federation. By doing either, or by doing both as he is currently doing, he's essentially labeled Russia the better country. Which in terms of economics, stability, household wealth, satisfaction, healthcare, birth rate, military power, etc, he's wrong. So we must assume that he is either a) ignorant of Russian history, b) ignorant of American history, c) ignorant of both, d) he's just not as intelligent and courageous as he's hyped-up to be, or e) he's emotionally unstable from the point of view that he is unable to make a rational decision without emotional interference. Emotions have a time and place for decision making and this was not a proper time for it.
In conclusion, I believe he did a good thing by revealing the illegal spying activities of the U.S. government. But rather than accept being something of a hero, he not only fled the country, but he went to Russia of all places and from the comfort of his new Russian home, he condemns the U.S. It's irony and stupidity at it's worse. He's a traitor to his country for putting the health and safety of me, you, and all our neighbors and family at greater risk.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Ukraine Crises: Russia, China, and world diplomacy.
The crises in the Ukraine is much more serious than what we read about online and see on the news every evening. It is simply shocking that what I'm about to discuss hasn't yet been mentioned by any news organization anywhere. I haven't seen the Financial Times, CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, BBC, Foreignaffairs, The Economist, or even ForeignPolicy mention what I'm about to. It's quite likely that someone somewhere has mentioned it in a small blog much like mine here and that it is simply too small to be widely recognized.
The Real Issue(s):
1) : NATO
* The Russian Federation is stuck in Soviet era rut thanks to a Soviet era leader at the helm. They have an imperialist agenda of always wanting more and to prove themselves to the world. Despite their stagnate economy, fairly outdated military, internal problems, domestic terrorism, socialist issues, and both moral and financial corruption, they insist on invading sovereign nations. All the sovereign nations they invade just happen to be their neighbors and former satellite states during Soviet times.
This Soviet mentality fuels their desire to conquer and expand the size of their nation and also encourages their embrace of their "East versus West" perception.
NATO, originally created to counter the "Soviet threat" of the latter half of the 20th century has always been predominantly run and empowered by U.S. military forces and U.S. funding. There has been little change in the financial and military structure within NATO since its creation; the change that has come is due to the U.S. opting to reduce its involvement in NATO as a result of it's involvement in the global war on terrorism and it's involvement in Afghanistan.
As a result of the U.S. scaling down its involvement with NATO, NATO is severely weakened and hasn't been of considerable strength for many years. What isn't discussed very often is the lack of power-projection i.e. the lack of teeth that is, NATO.
NATO still has considerable military power and capabilities but is severely hampered by its lack of geo-political weight and internal problems. Most of the countries that make up NATO consists of European countries with strong economic ties to Russia.
In summary: NATO has no geo-political weight; NATO is ineffective and essentially useless. I.e. NATO has no teeth to enforce nor deter any legitimate threat.
That is not the point I wanted to discuss that has yet to be mentioned by anyone else as I had mentioned above. I will get to it now:
2) The deeper issues not yet talked about:
* This is all hypothetical at the moment but have very real possibilities of materializing in the very near (<5 years from now) future.
First, remember the Russian invasion of Georgia a few years back? The aggressor nation (Russia) went virtually unchecked. Historically, The U.S. has acted as a counter-weight to Soviet Russia aggression. We consistently prevented them from rolling over Europe and Asia for decades, both in terms of military might and political influence. However, in the Georgian conflict we refused to intervene. We shy'd away from any conflict with Russia and adhered to a sense of isolationism and pacifism that hadn't been witnessed since pre-WW2 years. This last sentence can also be used to describe current U.S. geopolitics and diplomatic relations.
Before we continue, we need a basic understanding of why the U.S. has become a passive-nation in terms of international diplomacy and military enforcement... i.e. world police.
First: our economy is severely strained. Were still experiencing growth but the vast majority of that wealth is going to the already wealthiest Americans. While most of the debt is being incurred not just by those in poverty but is also now infecting the middle-class with fewer chances than ever before to ever repay it, leading to a sharp yearly increase in loan defaults.
In other words: more inequality=less geopolitical might
At first, this might seem strange if not counter-intuitive. You might say "look at the influence American companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, or Coca-Cola have on the world" well yes, it's true those companies have a huge influence on people around the world but that simply does not translate into geopolitical might. At least, not in terms of action equaling reaction. There are other factors at work here. The most important of which is money. Thanks to current regulatory standards, investment boards, and the incessant drive for greater profits and wealth disparity, money absolutely rules everything. Including politics.
No major public company is going to support a war that may result in profit-loss, whether short of long term. It simply cannot be afforded. And if an already poor nation is at war they are less likely to purchase more luxury goods (such as a new computer) when they are more focused on affording food or rent as prices are driven up and job losses increase.
In other words: war typically=a decrease in profits for for luxury consumer goods
Lastly, all major U.S. companies are represented in congress through the sponsorship of politicians and lobbyist groups.
In other words: major companies influence government policy
Those are two main reasons why the U.S. and NATO countries are not interfering with current Russian aggression. Next, we move on to theories to help explain the consequences of this current aggression.
So far, the Russians have acted exactly as predicted by many analysts. They have moved into the Crimea region of Ukraine and have successfully "taken" or "acquired". Of course, the region has not yet declared itself part of Russia, but that will come shortly. Russia is in it's power-projection stage and will continue to flex its muscle through hostile invasions. The Baltic states lie in the immediate danger zone. Followed by the more western-Eastern European countries. Russia is using this current conflict to test the strength and courage of it's NATO counterparts. They want to know if the U.S. or anyone will intervene, and if so, how much and in what way. The U.S. has not made a military threat, hasn't made a legitimate economic threat, and has not made a definitive political threat. Nor has any NATO, or European country. It is not surprise that Europe hasn't made any legitimate threats or moves against Russia because for one, no country in Europe has any want or need for war, nor do any of them have the capacity for it, and secondly they have ties to Russia that extend well-beyond normal economic ties and into energy and life-dependency. Most of Europe cannot risk an open war or even to make threats against a country like Russia who's ego is as bare and small as that of a menacing eight year old hyped up on caffeine, because they need Russian oil, Russian business, and most importantly Russian natural gas.
That last point has been discussed at length in several places over the years so I will not dive into that any further. But here is where things continue to get more interesting:
The U.S. has no deep-rooted energy ties with Russia. We have no dependency on Russia or anything Russian. We don't need their technology, their natural gas, their roads, nothing at all! We do have formal relationships with Russian companies through business contracts and other dealings. But again, we are not dependent upon them (other than using a couple roads to transport materials to Afghanistan). And historically, we have always stepped up to confront and check Russian aggression. ---So why are we not stopping them? Why have we not checked Russian aggression this time?
Well, for one we have been deescalating our involvement in major confrontations in both scale and geopolitical importance and opting to fight in wars against incredibly weak opponents and have been doing so with a severe lack of intelligence and frequently under false pretenses. In one sense, you might say that our latest wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are quite similar to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, our mission never was and still isn't to occupy for the long-term nor acquire. If we did, we could be appropriately labeled imperialists. The Russian invasion is actually a take-over, they seek and will acquire the Crimea region of Ukraine through illegal means. Though our invasions were illegal, we still had more legal means and reasons for doing it than the Russians can fabricate for their own invasion.
Secondly, and this may sound crazy at first but will make sense later, we have a democrat in office and not a Republican. Democrats are known for being more tame and seeking more diplomatic and peaceful relations with nations and making every attempt at avoiding war. I'm not saying this is bad, in fact I am not making a judgement here at all so please don't think I am bashing democrats. Republicans on the other hand are known for being more aggressive and dare I say, warmongers. Remember when George W. Bush was in office? Remember what the main issue was between the U.S. and Russia? Missiles! Bush wanted to install a vast network of missiles throughout Europe that would act as a missile shield. Russia saw this and interpreted it as a direct threat to it's security and claimed they would increase their ballistic missile capabilities and networks along their European borders.
Looking back at those years (2000-2008) we notice how Russia, as aggressive and hostile as their threats were, never made an invasion of a sovereign nation. They kept to themselves mostly, and thanks to our aggressive nature, they never made good on their most terrible of threats. Then, we have Obama come to office and has made many efforts to keep the U.S. passive from conflicts with major powers. This is predominantly a democrat phenomenon but also a growing U.S. epidemic. An epidemic of passivity that would, under perfect conditions be ideal, but are unfortunately unrealistic.
I predict that Russia will continue its excursions into sovereign nations' territory, intimidating and even taking away land and assets by illegal means for years to come.
Now on the next big issue that is not discussed:
China
China has an intimate relationship with Russia, they have strong economic and political ties. Additionally, they share similar ideologies in how they run their governments, how they project power abroad, how they settle internal disputes, power-struggles, and domestic terrorism, how they view the world, and how they perceive themselves in it.
China has the same "short-man in the room" syndrome that Russia suffers from. Unlike Russia however, China has a booming economy that allows them to showcase their power with little effort. China is also vastly more important than Russia on the geopolitical and global economic stage. They do, however wish to flex their military might and let the world know just how powerful they are.
Unlike what a few quack journalists have said in such magazines as the Economist, PoliticalAffairs, and others, China certainly is paying attention to the situation and they certainly are rooting for the Russians because if they see Russia succeed and go unchallenged by Western powers, they too will make similar moves. First, they will threaten then move militarily against smaller, less powerful Asian neighbors. Neighbors that the U.S. and Europe are even further from than the Ukraine. They may also make more hostile and more aggressive moves in Africa, using their economic might to intimidate African nations in appeasing them. They will obtain land for military bases as they have already begun doing, this will lead to similar moves in both Central and South America where they are already undoubtedly in the process of acquiring land for military and intelligence purposes. We already have assets in their neck of the woods so it will make perfect for them establish military assets in our region of the world to act as a counterbalance to us. This would be incredibly dangerous but still inevitable. We have no allies that can or seem to want to project power the way we do, and we know it. We've been working to get our European allies to step up for years now and thus far there has been no sign that they will. The time may surely come when we rely on them to help defend us or deter anti-U.S. threats coming from abroad.
In summary: we must continue to counter Russia and not back down. We must continue to police the world and check any threats, and deter any hostile acts.
The Real Issue(s):
1) : NATO
* The Russian Federation is stuck in Soviet era rut thanks to a Soviet era leader at the helm. They have an imperialist agenda of always wanting more and to prove themselves to the world. Despite their stagnate economy, fairly outdated military, internal problems, domestic terrorism, socialist issues, and both moral and financial corruption, they insist on invading sovereign nations. All the sovereign nations they invade just happen to be their neighbors and former satellite states during Soviet times.
This Soviet mentality fuels their desire to conquer and expand the size of their nation and also encourages their embrace of their "East versus West" perception.
NATO, originally created to counter the "Soviet threat" of the latter half of the 20th century has always been predominantly run and empowered by U.S. military forces and U.S. funding. There has been little change in the financial and military structure within NATO since its creation; the change that has come is due to the U.S. opting to reduce its involvement in NATO as a result of it's involvement in the global war on terrorism and it's involvement in Afghanistan.
As a result of the U.S. scaling down its involvement with NATO, NATO is severely weakened and hasn't been of considerable strength for many years. What isn't discussed very often is the lack of power-projection i.e. the lack of teeth that is, NATO.
NATO still has considerable military power and capabilities but is severely hampered by its lack of geo-political weight and internal problems. Most of the countries that make up NATO consists of European countries with strong economic ties to Russia.
In summary: NATO has no geo-political weight; NATO is ineffective and essentially useless. I.e. NATO has no teeth to enforce nor deter any legitimate threat.
That is not the point I wanted to discuss that has yet to be mentioned by anyone else as I had mentioned above. I will get to it now:
2) The deeper issues not yet talked about:
* This is all hypothetical at the moment but have very real possibilities of materializing in the very near (<5 years from now) future.
First, remember the Russian invasion of Georgia a few years back? The aggressor nation (Russia) went virtually unchecked. Historically, The U.S. has acted as a counter-weight to Soviet Russia aggression. We consistently prevented them from rolling over Europe and Asia for decades, both in terms of military might and political influence. However, in the Georgian conflict we refused to intervene. We shy'd away from any conflict with Russia and adhered to a sense of isolationism and pacifism that hadn't been witnessed since pre-WW2 years. This last sentence can also be used to describe current U.S. geopolitics and diplomatic relations.
Before we continue, we need a basic understanding of why the U.S. has become a passive-nation in terms of international diplomacy and military enforcement... i.e. world police.
First: our economy is severely strained. Were still experiencing growth but the vast majority of that wealth is going to the already wealthiest Americans. While most of the debt is being incurred not just by those in poverty but is also now infecting the middle-class with fewer chances than ever before to ever repay it, leading to a sharp yearly increase in loan defaults.
In other words: more inequality=less geopolitical might
At first, this might seem strange if not counter-intuitive. You might say "look at the influence American companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, or Coca-Cola have on the world" well yes, it's true those companies have a huge influence on people around the world but that simply does not translate into geopolitical might. At least, not in terms of action equaling reaction. There are other factors at work here. The most important of which is money. Thanks to current regulatory standards, investment boards, and the incessant drive for greater profits and wealth disparity, money absolutely rules everything. Including politics.
No major public company is going to support a war that may result in profit-loss, whether short of long term. It simply cannot be afforded. And if an already poor nation is at war they are less likely to purchase more luxury goods (such as a new computer) when they are more focused on affording food or rent as prices are driven up and job losses increase.
In other words: war typically=a decrease in profits for for luxury consumer goods
Lastly, all major U.S. companies are represented in congress through the sponsorship of politicians and lobbyist groups.
In other words: major companies influence government policy
Those are two main reasons why the U.S. and NATO countries are not interfering with current Russian aggression. Next, we move on to theories to help explain the consequences of this current aggression.
So far, the Russians have acted exactly as predicted by many analysts. They have moved into the Crimea region of Ukraine and have successfully "taken" or "acquired". Of course, the region has not yet declared itself part of Russia, but that will come shortly. Russia is in it's power-projection stage and will continue to flex its muscle through hostile invasions. The Baltic states lie in the immediate danger zone. Followed by the more western-Eastern European countries. Russia is using this current conflict to test the strength and courage of it's NATO counterparts. They want to know if the U.S. or anyone will intervene, and if so, how much and in what way. The U.S. has not made a military threat, hasn't made a legitimate economic threat, and has not made a definitive political threat. Nor has any NATO, or European country. It is not surprise that Europe hasn't made any legitimate threats or moves against Russia because for one, no country in Europe has any want or need for war, nor do any of them have the capacity for it, and secondly they have ties to Russia that extend well-beyond normal economic ties and into energy and life-dependency. Most of Europe cannot risk an open war or even to make threats against a country like Russia who's ego is as bare and small as that of a menacing eight year old hyped up on caffeine, because they need Russian oil, Russian business, and most importantly Russian natural gas.
That last point has been discussed at length in several places over the years so I will not dive into that any further. But here is where things continue to get more interesting:
The U.S. has no deep-rooted energy ties with Russia. We have no dependency on Russia or anything Russian. We don't need their technology, their natural gas, their roads, nothing at all! We do have formal relationships with Russian companies through business contracts and other dealings. But again, we are not dependent upon them (other than using a couple roads to transport materials to Afghanistan). And historically, we have always stepped up to confront and check Russian aggression. ---So why are we not stopping them? Why have we not checked Russian aggression this time?
Well, for one we have been deescalating our involvement in major confrontations in both scale and geopolitical importance and opting to fight in wars against incredibly weak opponents and have been doing so with a severe lack of intelligence and frequently under false pretenses. In one sense, you might say that our latest wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are quite similar to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, our mission never was and still isn't to occupy for the long-term nor acquire. If we did, we could be appropriately labeled imperialists. The Russian invasion is actually a take-over, they seek and will acquire the Crimea region of Ukraine through illegal means. Though our invasions were illegal, we still had more legal means and reasons for doing it than the Russians can fabricate for their own invasion.
Secondly, and this may sound crazy at first but will make sense later, we have a democrat in office and not a Republican. Democrats are known for being more tame and seeking more diplomatic and peaceful relations with nations and making every attempt at avoiding war. I'm not saying this is bad, in fact I am not making a judgement here at all so please don't think I am bashing democrats. Republicans on the other hand are known for being more aggressive and dare I say, warmongers. Remember when George W. Bush was in office? Remember what the main issue was between the U.S. and Russia? Missiles! Bush wanted to install a vast network of missiles throughout Europe that would act as a missile shield. Russia saw this and interpreted it as a direct threat to it's security and claimed they would increase their ballistic missile capabilities and networks along their European borders.
Looking back at those years (2000-2008) we notice how Russia, as aggressive and hostile as their threats were, never made an invasion of a sovereign nation. They kept to themselves mostly, and thanks to our aggressive nature, they never made good on their most terrible of threats. Then, we have Obama come to office and has made many efforts to keep the U.S. passive from conflicts with major powers. This is predominantly a democrat phenomenon but also a growing U.S. epidemic. An epidemic of passivity that would, under perfect conditions be ideal, but are unfortunately unrealistic.
I predict that Russia will continue its excursions into sovereign nations' territory, intimidating and even taking away land and assets by illegal means for years to come.
Now on the next big issue that is not discussed:
China
China has an intimate relationship with Russia, they have strong economic and political ties. Additionally, they share similar ideologies in how they run their governments, how they project power abroad, how they settle internal disputes, power-struggles, and domestic terrorism, how they view the world, and how they perceive themselves in it.
China has the same "short-man in the room" syndrome that Russia suffers from. Unlike Russia however, China has a booming economy that allows them to showcase their power with little effort. China is also vastly more important than Russia on the geopolitical and global economic stage. They do, however wish to flex their military might and let the world know just how powerful they are.
Unlike what a few quack journalists have said in such magazines as the Economist, PoliticalAffairs, and others, China certainly is paying attention to the situation and they certainly are rooting for the Russians because if they see Russia succeed and go unchallenged by Western powers, they too will make similar moves. First, they will threaten then move militarily against smaller, less powerful Asian neighbors. Neighbors that the U.S. and Europe are even further from than the Ukraine. They may also make more hostile and more aggressive moves in Africa, using their economic might to intimidate African nations in appeasing them. They will obtain land for military bases as they have already begun doing, this will lead to similar moves in both Central and South America where they are already undoubtedly in the process of acquiring land for military and intelligence purposes. We already have assets in their neck of the woods so it will make perfect for them establish military assets in our region of the world to act as a counterbalance to us. This would be incredibly dangerous but still inevitable. We have no allies that can or seem to want to project power the way we do, and we know it. We've been working to get our European allies to step up for years now and thus far there has been no sign that they will. The time may surely come when we rely on them to help defend us or deter anti-U.S. threats coming from abroad.
In summary: we must continue to counter Russia and not back down. We must continue to police the world and check any threats, and deter any hostile acts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)