Daily Star editorial: Don’t invite disaster: Israel - Hezbollah conflict
Commentaries, Analysis, And Editorials -- January 28, 2015
Hezbollah strikes back at Israel: Why escalation is not inevitable -- Christa Case Bryant & Nicholas Blanford, CSM
Isis hostage crisis: Jordan's fear of internal strife is behind decision to release of bomber Sajida al-Rishawi -- Lina Khatib, The Independent
Deal for ISIS Hostages in Limbo -- Christopher Dickey & Jake Adelstein, Daily Beast
US uses Kobane defeat in 'counter-message' against Islamic State. Can it work? -- Howard LaFranchi, CSM
The lesson from Yemen -- David Ignatius, Washington Post
Did Obama’s Drone War Help Cause Yemen’s Collapse? -- Joshua Keating, Slate
Why We’re Stuck With Saudi Arabia -- Michael Tomasky, Daily Beast
Long Live the King! Why President Obama is suddenly cozying up to the Saudi royal family. -- Fred Kaplan, Slate
What does North Korean leader Kim Jong-un really want? -- BBC
Nigerian Army missing in action amid Boko Haram terror surge -- Michael Holtz, CSM
Ukraine looking more like Poland on the brink of World War Two -- John Lloyd, Reuters
Sorry, Ukraine, You Can't Beat Putin -- Marc Champion, Bloomberg
Can Syriza renegotiate Greece's multi-billion bailout? -- Inside Story/Al Jazeera
Why Europe Will Cave to Greece -- Clive Crook, Bloomberg
Draghi's Dangerous Bet: The Perils of a Weak Euro -- Spiegel Online
Cry for Argentina as terrorists and gangsters get away with murder -- Clifford D. May, Washington Times
Argentina Loses Its Intelligence -- Bloomberg editorial
Amal Clooney Begins Next Big Human Rights Case -- Time
"Sorry Ukraine you can't beat Putin" is an interesting read. Actually I figured this one out the moment the pro-Russian government was ousted. I'm pleased that the author of the article has figured this one out even if it did take a ridiculously long time.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore the author recognizes that sanctions aren't going to stop Russia. Even it were possible, there's simply to many leaks in the sanctions and the Europeans aren't going to go along with them over the long haul. Again, nice to see he's figured this one out even it was a bit late.
In order to be fully correct, the author needs to realize even if NATO became fully involved in Ukraine or it had become fully involved in the Georgia conflict before, Russian forces would have crushed the combined forces of NATO like a bug with only minimal losses to themselves. As such, the article could read "sorry America you can't beat Russia" and it would be 100% correct.
Given that NATO is no match for Russia and membership of former Soviet and Eastern Bloc states only serves to antagonize Russia, it's hard to imagine why any of these states would want to be involved in this. I suppose their leaders are as stupid if not stupider than the folks leading America.
I'm not sure what the best approach for these nations is, as I don't live there, but for America it's best approach is as follows. 1.)Extricate itself from the Ukrainian situation by any and all means necessary. A couple of ways to get started on this is to explain publically and forcefully that Ukraine will NEVER be a member of NATO as long as America is. Also, publically and forcefully announce that their is absolutely no daylight between America and Mr. Putin on Ukraine and America vigorously opposes economic sanctions on them over Ukraine and will actively undermine them in any way possible. I could go on but these are good starting points. 2.) America's military has been worn down from continuous fruitless nation building operations around the world to the point where even basic national defense is going to be problematic at best. Also, the nuclear arsenal has not been upgraded in quite some time and this needs to be addressed. These factors combined with America's massive national debt and general poor economy mean the country is in no shape to be able to honor the many commitments such as NATO that it has foolishly gotten itself into. America should withdraw from NATO as soon as possible and all other forces around the world should be redeployed to positions off of America's coast and along its borders. This would make strategic sense for our national security needs and would at least give our forces a fighting chance to defend America. 3.)Try and find ways to add value to nations like Russia and China. These are the most powerful nations on earth and will be for the foreseeable future. Americans and their leaders especially their leaders need to GET USED TO THIS as there is NOTHING we can do to change this. Do these things and America may yet survive. Perhaps it could even prosper. Don't do these things and there is no prospect for America's survival short of a Divine miracle along the level of the parting of the Red Sea or something to that effect.
Much more would need to be done of course but this would be good areas for America and its leadership to start. Finally, even if the author of the article has not fully caught up with reality at least he's made some steps in the right direction.
Hopefully America will find the statesmen to lead us in the right direction and hopefully its not already to late. In any event, policies that bring enmity either by accident or by design with the most powerful countries on earth is no way to run a country!!
Thank you for your response B. Poster. When I read that Bloomberg commentary I was saying the same thing .... that some in the West are now beginning to understand that being involved in this conflict is a no-winner for the simple reason that Putin will be doubling down after each move by the West.
ReplyDeleteWNU Editor,
DeleteThere is in strategy, the Zero Sum Game, first proposed, ( on paper) by Oded Yinyon, as the Yinyon Plan in the early 1980's. the Plan called for Israel and it's Allies, to forment invasion, civil war and extremist Radicalism in Lebanon, Syria, Lybia, Iraq, then ( later) in the former allies of Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
By breaking all the neighbors up into ungovernable tribal extremist mini states and micro states, Israel would stand dominant, unassailable and able to cherry pick off any land or resources the State needed.
Independence movements in post-Tito Yugoslavia, got a lot of arms, funding and aid, from France, Germany, The US, Canada and Britian. While Mosovich's Greater Serbia racism didn't help, there were theories that a Unified Yugoslavia, with it's Tech Sector, Heavy Industry, Raw Resources and Hydropower, would, it it were allowed to progress, threaten German and French hedgemony in the EU, and their economies. If it were violently broken up into it's constituent States however, only Serbia and Croatia would ever achieve the position of being Minor Partners in the EU. The rest would simply serve as a source of cheap labour and raw resources.
The Yinyon Plan, was re-written into A Clean Break Policy Paper for Bibi and the Likkuid Party by the PNAC Alumni, then, over the years, embedded into various PNAC National Security papers for the US Leadership.
One way of dealing with an Economic/Political/Military compeditor, is to just break them, rather than conquor or convert them.
It's the policy of "beggaring thy neighbor".
Breaking the Ukraine and leaving it broken, weakens the EU, weakens Russia, and has no costs what so ever, for the US.
Jay .... as I had mentioned to you before .... what you are saying is an eye-opener for Russian foreign policy thinkers .... because I know that this is not how they think. They know about the divide and conquer rule .... but the idea of willingly and deliberately destroying a functioning country for the simple reason that they refuse to be dominated by U.S./EU economic interests and/or policies .... it is difficult for them to compute.
ReplyDeleteBut I do know that in China .... they have been aware of this for a very long time. When I was working in China in the mid-1980s .... senior political Chinese leaders in their foreign office told me more than once that their biggest fear was the U.S. would deliberately ferment rebellion among China's many minorities against the predominantly Han Chinese.
WNU Editor,
ReplyDeleteIt was a common strategy, in the few Total Wars, of Medieval Mid Europe, most famously the Thirty Years War. It was last used as a strategy by several of the Minor Players in WWI.
Once you are top dog, it takes a lot of innovation, technology, economic and political progress, along with trade and technology protections, to stay Top Dog.
It's much easier to remain Top Dog by using your economic and military advantages to just knock down potential compeditor, while they are weak and vulnerable.
It has long been a Corporate strategy, and given the Corporate dominance of the US Political and Military Leadership, it should be no surprise that it's in the US mindset.
"Breaking the Ukraine and leaving it broken, weakens the EU, weakens Russia, and has no cost whatsoever for the US." Very respectfully I don't think this is correct.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all a broken Ukraine is no cost to Russia. Having a weak state on their border that they can easily control would seem to be a net benefit for them. As such, a "broken" Ukraine works well for them or so it would seem.
As for the EU, if the operation had been successful they'd have gotten a new EU member out of it. Since the EU views the US as a strategic competitor all we've been doing by getting involved is to take actions that would strengthen a strategic competitor had they been successful. Additionally, Ukraine might have joined NATO. This would lead to yet another military commitment that America would be on the hook for and yet another military commitment it couldn't possibly keep!!
Since it appears Ukraine is going to lose, the EU doesn't get its new member and we don't have yet another NATO member we can't defend. No real loss for the EU.
The actions have emboldened Russia and further enraged them against America. America was never going to gain anything from this and could only lose from this. It's easy for the leaders of say Germany, Canada, Australia, and others to talk tough against Russia. Furthermore its easy for certain countries to introduce UN General Assembly resolutions and vote a certain way. After all they were and are not going to bear the brunt of a Russian military response. It would be America that would bear this response.
While this was and is arguably the stupidest move a major power has ever made in world history, very respectfully the notion that had or has no cost for the US is incorrect. The US was and is going to bear the brunt of the cost second only to the Ukrainians in the short to mid term. In the long term the US was and is going to bear the brunt of the costs with no real gain in the long run. Essentially an action with only costs and no gains.
B. Poster,
DeleteAs Yakonovitch discovered, at the last minute, the Ukraine's trade with Russia, was not the $15 billion dollars a year the EU had initially calculated, but instead, $60 billion dollars a year. Russia aas the Ukraines single largest customer, and trade, ( everything from wheat and coal, to jet engines and missile guidance systems) was just one angle of it.
The Ukraine also functioned as a warm water port system, and a railsystem East to Russia, and for Russia, a pipeline system, rail system and warm water ports, West to Europe and into the Med, and out into the Atlantic. 60% of the maritime trade with Russia, entered or exited the Port of Sevastipol. For comparison, for the US, the equivalent would be every US East Coast Port combined, from New York City right down to New Orleans and Corpus Christie.
If, in a broken Ukraine, Russia were to get the Donbass, right up to the Dniper, that would be only 40% of the previous Ukraine trade, and would be based on coal, steel, and some heavy industries Russia has a surplus of, not the high tech, or agricultural sectors, that Russia needs.
And Gazprom has started the 4 year process of shutting the Ukraine down as an oil and gas transit hub.
For the EU, a broken Ukraine, leaves them with an IMF/World Bank beggar state they are now responsible for, swarming with Nationalists, and shut down as a transit hub for 40% of the EU's energy needs. The western Ukraine industries they get, ( jet engines, guidance electronics, satellite boosters, satellites, radio and telecommunication gear, TV's and commercial electronics) are all "obsolete" or " surplus" to EU economic needs, ( other than the software and computer engineering industries) which can function for Siemens as a Little India.
They get the agriculture, ( that won't make the French farmers happy), but they don't get the coal, the iron ore, the cheap steel, or the potential of Black Sea oil and gas.
And that is if a divided Ukraine becomes stable, if it remains a frozen war, then it remains a financial and military drain on both Russia and the EU.
If I was a betting man, I would say that this conflict is heading to a frozen war .... and for the next few years a definite financial and military drain on both Russia and the EU.
ReplyDeleteWNU Editor,
ReplyDeleteOne part of the conflict will probably ( hopefully) wind up frozen, ( the alternate I see is a constant drip of tit for tat terrorist attacks),
The other part, may not remsin frozen, but instead, continually "churn". yarosh is talking about setting up a paralell General Staff, with it's own "allegences" with units of the National Guard and Ukraine Army,
Maiden has started seizing City Halls and building tire barricaides again,
And the IMF/EU/World Bank cuts have barely started their bite on Ukrainians.
Agreed Jay. The talk of cutting back government services is now being translated into action. The old generation and people like me are use to it .... but the under 30 crowd is definitely not .... and they are (to put it bluntly) freaking out. This can quickly snowball into a bad situation that would make the war in eastern Ukraine a minor distraction. And if there is violence and talk of revolution .... the EU/IMF/World Bank would use that as an excuse to not lend any money.
ReplyDelete