Reaping the Wahhabi Whirlwind

Where do I even start with this?

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- The king of Saudi Arabia has warned that extremists could attack Europe and the U.S. if there is not a strong international response to terrorism after the Islamic State group seized a wide territory across Iraq and Syria.
While not mentioning any terrorist groups by name, King Abdullah's statement appeared aimed at drawing Washington and NATO forces into a wider fight against the Islamic State group and its supporters in the region. Saudi Arabia openly backs rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad, but is concerned that the breakaway al Qaeda group could also turn those very same weapons on the kingdom.
"If neglected, I am certain that after a month they will reach Europe and, after another month, America," he said at a reception for foreign ambassadors Friday.

The Saudi royal family has done more than any other agency in the world to spread the Islamic vision (Wahhabi) which brainwashes and spawns tens of thousands of jihadi head-choppers the world over, so this is pretty rich, coming from them.  For any who don't know how this works, Saudi money pays for the Wahabbi missionaries and madrassas (religious boys' schools) to spread the fundamentalist strain of Arabian Islam to the corners of the planet.    

Things are pretty dire in the region  still, but it looks like we are now in a combined rollback ("our side") and consolidation (IS).  This is a bit of good news, as taking key infrastructure back from IS, especially revenue generating stuff like oilfields and refineries, is vital to any kind of a coherent strategy to smash them and limit their ability to hurt people.

Too bad the Americans don't have a strategy.  The question of how much blood and treasure to devote to this conflict is not a simple one, but it is mostly a question of materiel (mostly JDAMs and Hellfires) which as I mentioned earlier you can get the Saudis to pay for, likewise fuel costs and maintenance.   As for the rest of it, I have a strategy for dealing with this as I'm sure the Planning elements in the Pentagon do, so this is just political incompetence. Obama's mantra for his second term seems to be "No, We Can't."

Of course they may also be distracted by the widening war in eastern Ukraine, but really that's Europe's problem.  The NATO side of it (i.e. existing members) is getting attention to tell the Russians unequivocally where the buck stops, but Putin is exploiting the EU grey area that is Ukraine.  It's a stretch to say that IS and the proxy (and increasingly direct) war for "Novorossiya" are connected, but the IS situation is certainly a distraction to the US and to some extent for NATO.

I guess it would be too much to ask that the various regions sort their own issues out, at least as long as the USA retains the global capability it still has.  This "multipolar" world still have one pole that sticks up more than the others, but it could stand a bit taller still under (sensible) decisive leadership, though that also appears too much to ask. 

Ebola Haram and war in al Sham

The #bringbackourgirls bullshit has of course failed the test of real-world effectiveness and Boko Haram continues its' depredations in northern Nigeria. Some of the girls "escaped" (read: were quietly ransomed) but the rest face an unpleasant future.

Today's topic lead-in was triggered by reports from a couple of sources about Nigerian soldiers refusing orders to deploy against/fight BH, the reasons given being general lack of support (mostly weapons and equipment). Groups like Boko Haram are notoriously difficult to eradicate, but if events in the "Islamic State" are any indication (and Afghanistan c. mid-2001 is further evidence if needed) they have to be at least severely disrupted before they metastasize into countries of their own.

Sticking with West Africa, the latest Ebola outbreak is the worst (on record) to date with over 1300 fatalities and counting and the baffling sack of an Ebola quarantine ward in Liberia raises the possibility of rampant infection in a crowded urban slum. Ebola is currently complicating everything, extending into Nigeria and slapping travel restriction all over the continent and beyond. The point was raised in one of the articles I read that Ebola is only one of umpteen deadly diseases in the region and the disruption in the healthcare system will lead to knock-on effects as immunizations are neglected, etc.

All of that, and with much more attention on ISIL/IS these days, means that Boko Haram will remain a threat for the foreseeable future. This brings up the meat of any of my rants here, the "So what?"

West Africa, sub-Saharan Africa in general, is in objective terms of no great import to Canada's national interest and the same goes for the US. Europe will have an uptick/surge in migrants, but that is a local problem, albeit one that the EU bureaucracy will prevent any effective measures to counter. In any event, the situation in Syria and Iraq has their attention, as does that in Ukraine.

"Far called our Navy slips away, on distant headland sinks the fire,

Lo all our pomp of yesterday is one with Nineveh and Tyre"

A century plus in the future from Recessional and NATO is finally waking up to what is going on in the world around it. France (OK, technically not NATO) is still in Mali, and that requires essentially a constant European troop presence. Libya is a vortex of armed disorder for which NATO has no-one to blame but themselves, but Algeria and Egypt can help keep that localized. Turkey is slipping from NATO and anything one might consider "Western" interests as Erdogan tries to recreate the Ottoman Empire. The former Warsaw Pact members of NATO are nervous about Russia, and Ukraine is either headed for a general war with the latter and/or some sort of Finlandization. Whatever the result of that contest, in the near to medium term NATO needs to place a viable conventional deterrent in the territory most threatened, e.g. the Baltic States, Poland, Romania.

Since that's not enough, back to the erstwhile, and at the moment de-facto Islamic State. Support is finally going to the Kurds so ISIS' gains (including the Mosul dam) are being trimmed back. The video beheading of and Anglo-American journalist by ISIS in the last couple of days appears to be one of those things that finally gets attention, the thousands of locals ISIS has already gruesomely executed somehow less important. What this results in will be at best more US and UK contribution to the fighting, further diluting the resources to deal with anything else.

Canada is already schlepping gear into that theatre with our CC-117 Globemasters (and maybe CC 130J Hercs, I'm not sure) so at least we're able to do something useful albeit non-kinetic. Whether or not Bismarck ever said that thing about the Balkans not being "worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier" it's true, and it begs the question of what exactly is worth the risk of our blood and treasure.

Should Canada commit ground troops to Iraq to fight ISIS? As far as I know this is not being seriously considered so it's probably moot. I'd be surprised if none of our SOF guys have been at least in Kurd territory so far, but we can't even scrape up the mech brigade group we once had in Germany during the Cold War, so I don't see more than that happening. It would be good experience in ground support for our fighter jocks, but I see that as only slightly less likely than sending in a Battle Group a-la Kandahar. [27 Oct 14: this is why I don't put money on this stuff]

The same question could be asked about Nigeria in terms of keeping the Islamist threat down.  BH is no threat outside the area for now, and the Nigerians have the resources to deal with them if they can manage their corruption enough and overcome the government’s distrust of the Army.  Backing up our allies by providing credible kinetic forces (also known as “hard power”) to delineate our sphere of influence to the Russians should rank higher in geopolitical calculus than either of the above conflicts.  That said, the overlap is obvious when those same allies see a threat to all, e.g. Afghanistan, so horse-trading such as providing strategic airlift has its’ place in that math.

The Americans remain the lynchpin of international military action, so we’re not likely to do much if they don’t.  A new President might make a difference, but it might not so NATO will have to seriously consider its’ raison d’être which I would argue has been wandering since about 1991.  War with Russia is a worst-case scenario to be avoided, but not at the cost of the smaller fish around them.  Another way to send a message to Putin (besides the aid already going to Ukraine) is to send some EW (electronic warfare) aircraft to help out the Ukrainian air force and supress the heavy stuff that the Russians sent, like the one which shot down that Malaysian airliner. This scheme would keep troops out of direct contact but is still adding warfighting strength.  

With all of this going on, North Korea is sending tanks to the border with China, sure to slip under the general media radar, but a radical departure from past relations.  Not a NATO problem and certainly not Canada’s, but it’s not a boring world we live in at least.   

POTUSeless

Honestly I don't know where to turn right now, the world is spinning out in so many places. It is of course of no import to the grand scheme whether I'm tracking everything or not, but it is a big deal (it turns out) when the USA can't do it.

I am profoundly unimpressed with the current POTUS, but it is not a partisan or ideological attack I make when I say that he is worse-than useless in his current job. "Worse-than" for a number of reasons, but particularly since leadership of the (still) most powerful nation in the world is a zero-sum game, i.e. if he's occupying the top position nobody more capable can be.

The USA has a number of internal problems, being deeply indebted (mostly to their greatest strategic rival) being one of them, but their ability to project power is still unrivalled. Things would certainly be different on the foreign policy front were G.W. Bush still in charge, but since that can't happen (even if it were advisable and I don't suggest that) would things be any better around the world had Romney won the last Presidential election?

Let's start by enumerating the bigger strategic threats to the US and various other distractions, in descending order.

Threat #3: China's encroachment in the South China Sea and environs

In the big picture this is hugely destabilizing to world trade and the economic development of countries in the region. It is also something only the US Navy can be an effective counterweight to. There was a "pivot to Asia" bruited about recently, but again just saying something doesn't make it true. The Chinese aren't playing around here, and if you want to stop them you’d better be prepared to park a carrier task force over the Spratleys or Paracells, etc. in support of the most legitimate national claim under international law. And use it if push comes to shove.

I rank this one in last place for strategic threats, but it approaches zero if you decide to let the Chinese run the area. There are hundreds of millions of people on that region who would rather that didn't happen, for whatever that's worth.

Threat #2: The Islamic State, formerly Sunni Iraq and eastern Syria

ISIS/L has metastasized into a regional jihadist vortex, drawing in violent Muslim extremists from around the region and increasingly around the globe. They are firewalled in the north by the Kurds and nervously watched from all other points of the compass, the Shia government of rump Iraq and Iran doing the closest thing to heavy lifting right now.

The US didn't want to get involved in Syria, and I don't fault that since we are seeing with the looting of military stores in Mosul a Salafist organization with American military equipment, something widely predicted should the US arm the Syrian rebels. Turns out it happened anyway since the US backed the wrong horse (Maliki) in Iraq.

No however is the time to start whacking those jihadi moles. It's not a free-fire zone but the next best thing which is a great chance to kill a whole lot of assholes the world could really do without. This would be light on boots on the ground but could be used judiciously in support of limited goals, e.g. securing the Jordanian and Kurdish border areas. You support the outposts of civilization in the region but learn the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan and eschew the nation-building part of it. Killing them there prevents them from coming here.

Threat # 1: The Border

Central America is coming apart and people in desperation are sending their children north to the US in belief (well-founded if not technically accurate) that they won't be deported. Obama is trying hard to bury his head in the sand over this one, but with 350,000+ immigration cases backed up in US courts and upwards of 60K unaccompanied minors this year alone fetching up along the Rio Grande things are well out of hand.

Bleeding hearts who would abolish the border (another pesky "social construct" to be wiped out no doubt) have zero grasp of basic math, but let me put this in the starkest terms I can. There are TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. Specifically, there are too many people in the world with lower standards of living than we (working and middle class Westerners) have, about 5 Billion of them. They can't all come to the developed countries or those countries will cease to function as developed countries, and the whole world will look like Nigeria (failing state) or worse.  Think the L.A. from Elysium without the space habitat.

What to do? Start with enforcing the immigration laws already on the books. Then, dismantle the "War on Drugs" and send all those resources into Central America to clean out the root causes of the panic immigration. Bugger going after the drug distribution networks, just shoot-on-sight anyone on the streets with a gun. Go after the guns and kill with extreme prejudice any of the gang-bangers who want to fight it out. The US can put together intelligence cells to track insurgent groups better than anyone else, and I can make a case that stabilizing Central America (and ceasing to fuck with Mexico) would do more for the medium to long-term security of the US than the Middle East, possibly even China..

Distractions

1. Ukraine is setting into a counter-insurgency phase and at the moment (some rumours aside) the Russians have backed off. As I hypothesized a while back, Putin has taken the low-hanging fruit (Crimea) but realizes that the Donbas is more trouble than it's worth. This keeps things on NATO's radar, but it is now mostly a European problem.
2. Africa. There is a persistent Ebola (variant) outbreak in West Africa which deserves having an eye kept on it, and the continent is still awash in jihadi groups (AQIM, and Boko Haram the most visible) who need pruning.
3. Afghan elections/final drawdown/status of forces. Karzai's out, but the squabbling commences over alleged fraud and run-offs.

The big and the small all require leadership, the sort that believes in what they're doing. Since Obama only objective was to dismantle US power projection he's largely managed that, but it doesn't really get troops or the population rallying around the flag for some dirty work overseas, or even in your own back yard.  Romney is looking prescient for his attitude toward Russia, even if I disagree on the threat Russia really presents to us.  More of a mystery is domestic politics, but we know Romney knos how to run things so I really think he was the President the US needed, but instead they got the one they deserve.  Do better next time America, for you own sake as well as the world.

 

Poles getting the shaft?

I just have to wonder if the Poles would have this (realistic) attitude had Mitt Romney won the last US election:

Poland's Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski called his country's ties with the US "worthless", a Polish news magazine says, giving excerpts of a secretly recorded conversation.

Mr Sikorski called Poland's stance towards the US "downright harmful because it creates a false sense of security", according to the new leak.

He has not denied using such language.

According to the excerpts, Mr Sikorski told former Finance Minister Jacek Rostowski that "the Polish-US alliance isn't worth anything".

Using vulgar language, he compared Polish subservience to the US to giving oral sex. He also warned that such a stance would cause "conflict with the Germans, Russians".  

Poland of course has centuries of experience on the shit-end of the Russian stick and will be grateful for any meaningful support against that threat.  It is a sign of the dire state of US policy toward Russia (and NATO; hell. everywhere) that the Polish Foreign Minister holds this opinion, but twice-bitten, thrice shy.

I don't believe that Russia needs to be "contained", as they are no longer a threat to whatever Western Civilization is.  It could be in fact argued that they are a bulwark against what it's turning into, but I won't go down that rabbit hole.  Russia is a regional power with certain prerogatives and the Americans are hypocritical to treat them any other way.  That said, invading your neighbours to consolidate the "volk" and/or reconstitute your Cold War-era glacis of western-border satellite states is not on, but the two things need to be kept in their lanes.

Back to the central point, the Poles are on the front line of any Russian revanchment of the USSR and history suggests (screams, really) that this needs to be taken seriously.  I have talked before about having "lines" and any members of NATO are behind ours.  In this context it includes former Warsaw Pact countries and SSRs (Poland, the Baltic States, Czech Republic, Roumania, Bulgaria) who are most exposed to, and painfully familiar with, anything Russia might do.

The Poles' concern is a practical one hinging more on deterrence than anything else, and it wouldn't have come up during W's time in the White House.  As Mr Sikorsky notes, the current US policy/posture has virtually zero deterrence value while aggravating the Russians and Germans simultaneously.  The Germans need Russian gas too badly to kick up much of a fuss about anything not on their doorstep and "demonizing" Putin and the entire country over the latest activity in Ukraine isn't useful to getting relations back on track.

There is a lack of subtlety in North American diplomacy vis a vis Russia and I admit the situation is tricky.  The carrot and the stick both need to be used judiciously, and that means letting your allies KNOW that you have their back while at the same time letting the other side know (when appropriate) that there are benefits for "good" behaviour.

Russia is NOT a threat to us as world communism was.  They are a regional issue, and our friends there require assurance that we take it seriously, which involves concrete action and appropriate language.  It also might require a Striker Brigade moved to Poland.  Canada is doing what it can (short of pulling the stops out for a war) but the US is the big dog in the ring.  When your allies have lost faith in your willingness to back them up you can imagine what the opposition must think.  In any event, Poland learned the value of Western promises in 1939 when action was (is?) at best too little, too late. 

Geopolitical whack-a-mole

I've let this languish for a while, but things are getting interesting again, so time to take a closer look.

Things are on "simmer" in the Ukraine with some signs that the Russians have decided that the low-hanging fruit has fallen (Crimea) and Donetsk has hit the point of diminishing returns.  Trends at this point look like Putin has withdrawn support, or at least most of it, from the militias in east Ukraine and will use them as a tacit bargaining chip with the new government.  In the meantime, NATO tries, still, to figure out what to do about the whole thing.

 Could be a good time for another "Reset" button; the US and Canada (especially Canada for some reason) are out of sync with our continental allies (and the French, not part of NATO) in terms of how to deal with Putin and Russia.  My prescription for the situation is to continue with the tripwire reassurance measures we are taking with our eastern NATO members, but cease the "containment" or expansion efforts into what Russia considers its' sphere of interest/near abroad. Russia these days should be a European problem, time for them to step up and shift some assets east.

Just as well that things are off the boil there, as things in both south-east Asia and the Mid-East are getting hotter.  China is really pushing its' egregious claims to the entire South China Sea+ and is not far from a shooting war with Vietnam over that oil rig in the Spratley Islands.  If there is a group who won't knuckle under to China in the region it's Vietnam; they've given their (much) bigger neighbour a bloody nose more than once and that's not the sort of thing China forgets.  That said, Japan remains the only regional power with a navy which can challenge the People's Liberation Army Navy, but only locally.  To really stand up to the PLAN the US Navy is essential to the regional players.

Pivot to Asia?  So far I don't see it or there'd be a couple of carrier groups cruising around the contested areas daring the Chinese to try something.

At this time of course arrives the whirlwind sown by the US when it knocked over Saddam Hussein.  ISIL, the Islamic State in the Levant, Al-Queda's bastard spawn from Syria, has routed the Iraqi army from Mosul, Tikrit and Falluja in the most embarrassing possible way and taken, at least temporarily those cities and some lesser ones beside.  The threatened march on Baghdad will be stopped, by Iran if need be, and this upsets almost every apple cart in the region, but it's an ill wind which doesn't blow anyone some good.  This exception, and the only probable (maybe even only possible) salvation for Mosul and northern Iraq are the Kurds. 

The possibility of apocalyptic (for the region) sectarian civil war is a distinct one, as this could be "warre to the knife" between Sunni and Shia.  The evaporation of the (Shia) Iraqi army in the north has allowed the Peshmerga to roll into and occupy Kirkuk, and it's unlikely that Baghdad will get it back.  The Kurds will likely build their Kurdistan while the Sunni and Shia Arabs kill each other.  If however it is necessary for the US to support a reliable party in the area, the Kurds are the only game in town.

Obama is again talking, but you can't claim that "everything's on the table" and then instantly say that there will be no US troops on the ground.  ISIL has no chance to create a caliphate out of their recent gains, but they have done a lot of damage and won't go down without a fight.  This isn't time for half-measures.  This is time for Green Berets and smart-bombs, with the Peshmerga as the new Northern Alliance; you have problems, I offer solutions.  Now we see what kind of half-assery Obama can come up with for all of these situations.

Token (non) Forces

I'll continue with yesterday's Boko Haram situation by looking at what is happening vs. the options I suggested for effective action.  From Time:

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the team “could provide expertise on intelligence, investigations and hostage negotiations, help facilitate information sharing and provide victim assistance. It would include U.S. military personnel, law-enforcement officials with expertise in investigations and hostage negotiations, as well as officials with expertise in other areas that may be helpful to the Nigerian government in its response.”

Not sounding promising; what else?

White House press secretary Jay Carney said President Obama and Kerry would discuss the ongoing effort to locate the girls in their meeting Tuesday afternoon.
“We are not considering at this point military resources,” Carney said, saying the military personnel being sent are to take on an advisory role for the Nigerian government.
“What I can tell you is that it is certainly Nigeria’s responsibility to maintain the safety and security of its citizens,” Carney added.

Emphasis mine.  The last point about Nigeria being responsible for its' citizens is of course correct, however dismally the government has discharged that responsibility.  I will state that unless things are more than they seem here, precious little will actually be accomplished toward the necessary goal of neutralizing these jihadist assholes.  Getting the girls back is morally imperative but a tactical (bandaid) action.  Smashing the Boko Haram organization (like AQ was smashed in Iraq, and AQIM has been smashed in Mali) is the strategic objective, and only "military resources" can achieve that.

Salafists/jihadists, what-have-you are vermin, and like vermin they can be managed but not exterminated.  There is little to stop the determined lone-wolf terrorist (Boston Marathon bombings as an example), but when they are roaming the countryside in large groups wearing stolen army uniforms with armoured vehicles, the threat has metastasized and requires serious bombs and drones-type action.

The drones are of course a modern tool, guys with infantry weapons and determination have and can still do the job without them. I guess Obama's team figures this gives them a fig leaf to hide behind and say "Look, we did something!", but that's all I see here.  Hostage rescue negotiators? Seriously?

In the slightly-less-useless category we have the ongoing Western response to events in Ukraine.  Canada has sent "several dozen" ground troops to Poland for exercises while six more CF-18s are bound for Romania.  It was confirmed that the planes will not be flying armed, BUT the Chief of Defence Staff was explicit about the weapons being available should the situation change from a "training" one.  That is already more ballsy than the American administration has been; the NATO commander is an American who knows what needs to be done so I won't blame their armed forces.

Things are hotting up in Ukraine and it's already a low-level civil war.  When it gets to the real deal the Russians will move in officially, and then we'll have an actual war to decide what to do about.  Ukraine has decided to fight, and if it comes to it I'm a bit conflicted on if we should help them directly or not.  Geopolitically it should be Europe's problem; that's way above my pay grade, moving into UN Chapter VII territory. 

Proxy confidence building

At the time of my last post, there were two main paths events were likely to follow.  The first was Ukraine and NATO would remain completely supine and allow Putin to do what he wants, and under conditions existing at the time I weighted this course of (in)action at >50%.  The other option was the girding of loins, etc. to put troops in harm's way and tell the Russians that they have gone as far as they are going to go.  I wasn't confident this would happen, mostly due to irresolute Western leadership, and things haven't improved there as much as I'd like, but sometimes it doesn't take much to change conditions significantly.

Ukraine’s military launched assaults to retake rebel-held eastern towns on Thursday in which up to five people were reported killed, a move Russian President Vladimir Putin warned would have “consequences”. …
In Slavyansk, a flashpoint east Ukrainian town held by rebels since mid-April, armoured military vehicles drove past an abandoned roadblock in flames to take up position, AFP reporters saw.
Shots were heard as a helicopter flew overhead, and the pro-Kremlin rebels ordered all civilians out of the town hall to take up defensive positions inside.
“During the clashes, up to five terrorists were eliminated,” and three checkpoints destroyed, the interior ministry said in a statement. Regional medical authorities confirmed one death and one person wounded.
Earlier Thursday, Ukrainian special forces seized back control of the town hall in the southeastern port city of Mariupol with no casualties, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said. Separatist sources confirmed the loss of the building in the port city, whose population is 500,000.

The moral support which makes this possible is redeployment of NATO forces to Poland and the Baltic states.  The Americans didn't land the entire 101st in Estonia or anything, but like in Georgia in 2008, a tripwire of NATO troops tells the Russians that the rules have changed.  There were some Americans who were dismissive of the half-dozen CF-18s Canada deployed to Poland, but it's important to note two things.  First and foremost, the Poles were NOT dismissive of our small contribution. Second, even six obsolescent fighter bombers (and the Americans sent more) with modern smart munitions and the determination to use them are not to be lightly dismissed.

Would Canada commit those planes and crews to a shooting war?  Over Ukraine itself most likely not, but over an invasion/infringement of a NATO ally, most definitely, and that's what's important here.  The Poles in particular have both the experience to know what Russia is capable of and the determination to not let it happen again, so they're the right group to reinforce.  The Balts have motivation to keep the Russians out too, so they need and are getting some help.

Canada has played a leadership role in all of this, and we are putting what "money" we have where our mouth is, both with the (small) military contribution and now election monitors for the upcoming election in Ukraine.  There is some evidence that even the chary Europeans see the election verification as something sufficiently unprovocative to get behind.  At this point it must be obvious to everyone in NATO (looking at you, Germany) that they still need to be able to project military power, even if it's just next door or your own border, but again I await developments as do we all..

Here we go...

SLOVYANSK, Ukraine — Ukrainian special forces moved in Sunday to confront a separatist revolt in eastern Ukraine, engaging in gunfights with armed pro-Russian militants who had stormed a Ukrainian police station here. At least one officer died in the operation and several others were injured, along with four local residents, Ukrainian officials said.

The police station was one of several security centers in the eastern region of Donetsk seized on Saturday by unidentified masked gunmen in a series of coordinated raids that Ukrainian authorities denounced as Russian “aggression.”

This is the sort of thing that Putin or anyone else trying to make a move on contested territory will be prepared to take full advantage of.   The next few days will tell, but unless there is some serious moves to get NATO troops into Ukraine to counter the nearby Russian forces, it looks like the latter will go for it.  "Special forces" in this case means that numbers are still small and the Speznatz greatly outnumber anything the Ukraine can put in the field, so tit-for-tat fights like this will quickly swing Russia's way.

NATO commanders have been trying to get the politicians to take things seriously, but so far only the Poles are doing so, and they mostly in their own legitimate self-interest.  Were I the Ukraine right now, I'd mobilize everything on a full war/tactical footing and get dug in as advantageously as possible.  A stand up fight is the one thing the Russians don't want, as it destroys any semblance of "will of the people".  Watch and (hopefully don't) shoot.

Greater Eurasian Co-Prosperity Sphere

The trigger for me to reactivate this blog was the Crimea crisis, and that is not yet over at time of writing.  A number of people have been impressed by how PM Harper is sticking it to the Russians over this, but I don't see the value of it.  I'm pretty sure Putin realises that this posturing (authentic as the feelings may be) is political in nature, but it doesn't look to have made any difference on the ground whatsoever.

Putin continues to play his cards close to his vest and my appreciation of the Donetsk basin as the next potential flashpoint is still in play.  As the US tries to figure out what Putin plans, I will put out there what I suspect is happening in his head on this.

As stated previously, Russia needs Russians, and there are a lot of them in the eastern Ukraine.  That is the grand plan, recreation of as much of the Russian Empire as they can without getting in a (big) shooting war to do so.  Second factor, Putin has proven himself a highly adept geopolitical opportunist, which plays into the empire building as well as general manoeuvring.  When faced with such inept (America) and beholden (Europe) opposition as Russia is right now, Putin is king of the hill.

Canada is making a principled stand against the annexation of Crimea, but principles are cheap when you have no skin in the game.  Crimea is not going back to Ukraine barring force majure and that's not happening.  It didn't work so well last time either.

My question is whether the Kremlin's threat assessment of international action in case of "assistance" to Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians comes up plus or minus.  If Putin gains more than he loses, he'll probably go for it.  The sanctions we can/will bring to bear are limited in effect on a country as large and endowed with resources as Russia.  Equally important, the Chinese and the Indians, as well as most of Central Asia will continue to trade and otherwise work with Russia, China more so if it discomfits the US.

It has also been said that Ukraine had better show some willingness to fight for its' territory, and I think this an excellent point.  Russia would beat them handily, but just because you will probably lose isn't sufficient reason to not fight in this case.  What does get drowned out in all of this is the political/social mess that Ukraine is, so I have no real faith in their ability to put an effective military force in the field even if they are inclined to do so.

 At this point I think military force is the only credible deterrent to Putin, and even then only when it will actually be used.  An armed, contested invasion of Ukraine is an undeniable act of war and contravention of international law, and that was enough to get people to defend Kuwait 24 years ago.  Ukraine doesn't have the oil of Kuwait, but it does occupy a strategic buffer position in Eurasia, so you'd think the Europeans might take some issue with carving it up.

I suspect that most Europeans consider Ukraine not worth the bones of a single Swabian Panzer Grenadier, so it's up to the Poles and other border countries to stand up and conduct some "exercises" of their own in Ukraine.  An attack on the troops of a NATO member would force NATO to act, and forcing NATO to act is in the "minus" column for Putin.  As a side note, if NATO isn't prepared to act to counter Russian territorial aggrandizement, it might as well pack it in, as that's what it was set up to do!

Putin could over-reach himself, but under current conditions taking the Russian-majority areas of east Ukraine wouldn't be stretching too far, so consider that.   I think the decision on what to do will come in the next few days, and will depend heavily on what the US does.  On past performance, I'll bet on Putin having effectively a free hand, whatever that portends. 

Peninsular Peril

The votes have been cast (by those who didn't boycott the referendum) and Crimea has seceded from Ukraine and wants to go back to Russia. I regard this as a done deal as will any realistic observer, despite the protestations of illegitimacy from Western leaders.

That most people living there would prefer to go with Russia is obvious, even if the fact that Putin continues to gather Russians continues to elude people looking for motivation. It is known that Putin continues to use the immediate recognition of Kosovo after we'd bombed the Serbs out of there as licence to annex his own "self-determining" majority areas back to the Rodina, but not acknowledged by most of the media, let alone Western politicians.

So what? Sure, some people will be unhappy, and Ukraine is out some income from Sevastopol rental to the Russians, but what does that mean to anyone else? Ukraine has had a sequence of corrupt governments since independence from the USSR and I sure as shit don't want to get dragged into another war in Europe. Certainly not over an Anschluss like this, and I see the geopolitical cost to North America to be nil from the Crimea changing hands. The damage from puffing up and making vague threats of sanctions against Russia is potentially great.

A lot of people really didn't like G.W. Bush, but most of them were either lefties for whom realpolitik-clueless Obama can do no wrong, or people GW decided to take some action against, like, say, the late Saddam Hussein. One thing which definitively separates Bush II and Obama is that nobody who counts takes the latter seriously. Even in a no-win situation like the invasion of Georgia by Russia in 2008, Bush made a point of having American assets in the capital (Tbilisi) to present the Russians with an unspoken "red line". It must be noticed that as sub-optimal as things may have turned out for Georgia, the Russians took the hint and pulled most of the way back.

The lost Georgian territory is a lesson to them not to poke the bear, no matter if you're provoked. The lesson to us is (again) Talk - Action = Zero, Action - Talk = >Zero. I don't know what "we" would do if Russia had another crack at Georgia right now, but somebody had better be taking some proactive steps to dissuade Putin from cooking something up in Eastern Ukraine to take that also. After that? Belarus? The Baltic States?

The Balts have less to fear, and more potential European support than Ukraine due to ethnic/national/cultural connections to Europe vice Russia. I may have read The Clash of Civilizations too much, but birds of a feather do flock together and it makes sense to me to draw our lines along those natural fault lines.

I keep talking about action, so what should be done? In practice I don't see a lot of potential for the sort of thing that I think would send the right message, but if Europe still had any armies, it'd be a good time to start scheduling boots-on-the-ground joint exercises with what's left of Ukraine and put some bases in the Baltic States. Physical assets, preferably those which can shoot back, will do the job. Putin doesn't want a war as it's not in his interest to lose more than he'd gain. He will walk into as many places with a Russian majority population as he is permitted to, sanctions be damned.

Whatever. For my money, the next flashpoint is Donetsk, but it's not exactly crystal ball territory to come up with that. This is NOT a fait accompli but if Putin pushes for it he has enough support on the ground to pull it off in some fashion if there is no physical response from "our side". As long as Obama/Kerry are running the US show and the Europeans are beholden to Russia for their heating fuel, it's Putin's geographical and demographic prize to gain, and Ukraine's to lose.

The 11th plague of Egypt?

Holy fuck, here we go:

CTVNews.ca Staff

Date: Sunday Jun. 24, 2012 10:42 AM ET

Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood has defeated former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq in the Egyptian presidential runoff election.

The country's election commission declared Morsi the winner of Egypt's first free elections by a narrow margin over Shafiq, the last prime minister under deposed leader Hosni Mubarak.

The commission said Morsi won with 51.7 per cent of the vote versus 48.3 for Shafiq.

A lot has been said about what will happen with the Arab world's most populous country under the thumb of the Salafists, but I will add my mite to it. I don't have anything original to add to this, but when big bad things happen I should at least acknowledge them.

While I'm here, the mess in Syria is getting more so (messy) especially with them shooting down that Turkish F4 recce plane a few days ago. Turkey is meeting with NATO under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty while the Syrians strenuously deny any hostile intent. This is as well, as the Turks would smash what is left of Assad's military in short order, and it's possible that Turkey is looking for an excuse to do so. It is unlikely that this will go to Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all), but the Turks don't need any help if they decide to go for it.

Lots of fun in the Mediterranean, slightly more than average potential for widespread mayhem in fact. If the Ikwhan manage to implement their entire platform in Egypt, particularly the "kill all the Jews" part there will be a good time had by all. This is facetious of course and possibly misleading, as even a united and motivated Egyptian Army has no chance against Israel and they know it.

As I write this it is still possible that the Egyptian Army will pull an Algeria a la 1991 and say "no, we don't think so" to Islamists running the place. This didn't work so well there (though the gov't/military won in the end) so all bets are off. The only prediction I'm comfortable standing behind right now is that things are unlikely to be boring over there. For the record, "exciting" is not something you want too much of in your life if you're most people, and most people are.

Watch and shoot...

Time to stir the alphabet soup

I have said many times before that NATO (not Nato, BBC!) has outlived its usefulness. It is after all the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and as such should stick to its neighbourhood. Afghanistan is an exception since the 9/11 attacks were an attack on a member nation, and Article 5 covers that quite distinctly.

Rebuilding Afghanistan was never in the agreement and I object to it as a bottomless pit for blood and treasure. Certainly routing al Queda and putting the boot to the Taliban government neutralized the immediate threat (as much as reasonably possible) and could be counted as effective payback under the circumstances. Iraq was most certainly NOT a NATO concern, and has done much to put the USA in the situation where they need to be guilting other Alliance countries into stepping up.

Regional confederations of nations with aligned interests are coming together, which is a good thing for them. America is worse than broke and entirely too beholden to the Chinese holdings of US debt and currency to be counted on in South-East Asia, for example. That said, no combination to be found around the South China Sea can stand up to Chinese strong-arm tactics over its ludicrous claimed Exclusive Economic Zone , assuming that China continues to disregard world opinion about it's blatant expansionism.

One can of course compare what China is doing on it's way up with what the US did, and a lot of it is standard Great Power manoeuvring. The South China Sea stuff however is baldly hegemonic and there is no way to spin that one as anything other than screwing over everyone smaller than them in the neighbourhood.

The world is adjusting to the balance of power, much as it did 20 years ago. China is not quite a Superpower, but it's on its way up as the Americans contract, and this leaves local vacuums that China will happily fill. China however is not a monolith, and the cracks are plastered over at the moment.

So, should NATO get involved in a dispute over the Spratly Islands? Certainly what happens in that part of the world is significant to international trade, but the Europeans are almost as boned as the USA, and in any event shy about shooting at anyone who can shoot back. I don't see Canada getting into that, nor any reason why we should. If the Americans think we should get involved just because they are, I don't see it that way, and I don't think the Canadian government (and certainly not the people) will either. Multiply that by all of the NATO signatories, and you have a problem with Mr. Panetta's position.

Piracy in the Indian Ocean? Sure, that's something that affects almost everyone, and doesn't drag us into geopolitical struggles. Peace support (not Peacekeeping!) in Africa, Company to Battalion scale? That sort of thing also can work, provided the area in question has any reasonable chance of being salvaged.

You may see a trend here: smaller countries like Canada can do the smaller stuff, but we have to have a good reason to do so if it's not part of our treaty obligations. If that's what the Americans want, they might get it, albeit appealing to NATO for it renders completely meaningless the terms of that organization. There is this other thing called the UN that was designed to do this sort of job, but we've seen how well that works. Time for everyone to re-evaluate their national interests and possibly re-combine into more relevant organizations to meet those.

Far called, our NATO slips away

I had part of this earlier in the week with this article about the Visegrad Group, but the link in the title provided the missing bit for my latest installment on the irrelevance of NATO in today's world:

According to Turkish press, as quoted by Ynet, the Turkish air force will be fitting its F-16 fighter jets with new IFF systems, which will not treat the signal from an Israeli IFF transponder as friendly, and will thus facilitate more efficient attack. The F-16’s original IFF system is made to US/NATO specifications, and identifies an Israeli IFF response as friendly.

This would appear to be a basic requirement in a modern alliance: compatibility of all IFF equipment. For my part, it's obvious to me that Turkey's interests and those of the rest of NATO (diverse as they are) have fatally diverged. Turkey is trying to be a big fish in its' part of the world (again) and this is incompatible with playing nice with Israel while Turkey panders to other Muslims. Of course, the "Muslim world" is not a bloc, and playing footsie with one part will alienate others.

Since this is the road that Erdrogan wants to go down, let me speculate a bit about consequences. Turkey has a problem common with Iran, and Iraq for that matter: Kurds. This pulls Ankara into line with Tehran (already happening) and with Iraq's government in Iran's back pocket we have a confluence of interests if not an alliance. Add Syria into the mix as a client of Tehran and you have a real bloc. This last point is unlikely at present, but Assad's regime is still hanging on in the face of massive public disapproval.

Turkey is of course threatening Syria with military action, but I suspect this has more to do with securing their common border than any permanent problem. In the bigger picture, any government which takes over in Syria is unlikely to like Israel, so another confluence of interests. Even more troublesome, if Hezbollah's (and consequently Tehran's) hold on Lebanon is not broken, there's another brick in the bloc.

Turkey will never recover the extent of influence, let alone control of the peak of Ottoman power, but it looks to be moving to become a regional Power, and jumping on the Palestinian bandwagon will give them a lot of the Arab street. Turkey has less skin in the game than the Arabs, but its' recent threat to provide naval escort to break the blockade of Gaza would add it to the group of countries who have lost a fight to Israel and possibly to war. The Israelis have let a lot slide (relatively) of late and this has pissed of the populace, so the odds of the Turkish navy being allowed to do this unmolested in this climate are not good.

If I know this, they know this, so it's likely just a lot of posturing. The IFF thing may or may not physically happen, as announcing it was obviously political, and actually doing it is probably a big no-no in NATO with some sort of consequences. Now if Turkey no longer cares...

Turkey and Greece have hated each other for 4000 years and there is no reason for that to change, always an anomaly within NATO. Israel aligning with Greece and Cyprus is extremely rational, and a partial counterbalance to Erdrogan's neo-Ottomanism. It is also another crack in the peeling facade of NATO, as you now have a NATO country having a "military understanding" with a non-NATO country plainly aimed at another member.

It gets better. I have mentioned the backroom deals Israel has made with the Saudis in relation to Iran, and as things develop it's not out of the question for more co-operation with the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf Cooperation council. Hell, what if Israel can make common cause with the Sunni Arabs, especially as Israel begin to exploit its' hydrocarbon reserves?

Keeping Shia Iran's influence in check is a matter of survival to a lot of ruling families (House of Saud not the least) and viewed objectively Israel is no threat to the Gulf states; there's significant common ground. Way out in left field is the idea of Saudi acting as a "sugar daddy" for Israel to beat up on Hezbollah (modern munitions are expensive...) as a stick in the Mullahs' spokes. Unlikely? Yes, but less so all the time, especially if the Saudis grasp the strategic threat of a new axis of Turkey-Lebanon-Syria-Iraq-Iran.

"A country has no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent Interests". Those interests are not always appreciated by the governments of the day, but something will stand in for them if the real ones aren't sufficiently compelling. Since Western Europe is no longer worried about Russian tanks crossing the Rhine, NATO has lost it's raison d'etre with some of the results evident here, others in Libya, and yet others in Central Europe. For anyone curious about the title of this post, it's inspired by Recessional by Rudyard Kipling:

Far-called our navies melt away—
On dune and headland sinks the fire—
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget

It's rare that empires fall in a vacuum; usually they get tired and replaced by more energetic neighbours (Byzantine) or simply fragment (Habsburg). NATO isn't an empire, but as the defacto American empire which underpinned it from its' foundation shrinks back into the Western Hemisphere the whole thing spins apart. No loss, but it creates local vacuums or at least opportunities for those hungry (or desperate) enough to fill somehow.

The End of The Beginning in Libya

OK, I'm back, and there seems to be some movement on the Libyan front so I'll start there.

The rebels are fighting out in the streets of Tripoli as I write this, and Gaddaffi is nowhere to be seen. Between his own stupidity over the years and the now-standard announcements about sending Col. Gadfly to the International Criminal Court, he has nowhere to run, rumours of him being in Algeria notwithstanding. Nobody really reads Sun Tzu, so of course these guys will fight to the end.

I still hold that NATO has no business involved in any of this, but there we are. We can hope that some good comes of this, as the Gaddaffi clan will not be missed, unless the place pulls a post-Saddam Iraq and degenerates into chaos of course.

Assad in Syria is still misbehaving (arguably much worse than anything Gaddaffi has ever done), so we'll see in the near future how important this "humanitarian" intervention stuff is to our side. Leaving for the moment the whole Axis of Evil business with Iran and Hezbollah, best current public estimates of the civilian death toll in Syria is 2200 since the populace decided it has had enough. Turkey is the only power, regional or otherwise to be making any moves in relation to this, the rest of NATO nowhere to be seen.

Oh well, plus ca change and all. These situations have room to change significantly so I will ease into it. If you're still here, thanks, and I'll be back with more soon.

How Libya helps NATO defeat itself

I suppose the title is misleading; this is not, and never has been a NATO operation. NATO is a defensive alliance, designed to counter the USSR in Central and Northern Europe during the Cold War. It was languishing for the ten years between the collapse of the USSR in 1991 until the 9/11 attacks gave it some fleeting legitimacy again. With that fight past it's best-before date (early 2002 when Al-queda and the Taliban had been smashed and driven from power in Afghanistan) NATO continues to seek to justify it's existence.

Well, face it: the game is up. The action in Libya is actively opposed by several NATO signatories, most notably Germany and Turkey so to call it "a NATO action" is flat-out wrong. What's even worse, it's incoherent and at risk of petering out ignominiously.

The Associated Press

Date: Fri. Apr. 15 2011 5:38 AM ET

TRIPOLI, Libya — From her father's compound, struck by U.S. bombs exactly 25 years ago, Moammar Gadhafi's daughter sent a defiant message early Friday: Libya was not defeated by airstrikes then and won't be defeated now, she told a cheering crowd.

The daughter, Aisha, pumped her right fist as she led the audience in late-night chants from the second-floor balcony of the badly damaged Bab Aziziyah compound, targeted by U.S. warplanes in 1986. "Leave our skies with your bombs," she said, referring to NATO airstrikes that had struck Tripoli just hours earlier.

Gadhafi (this sp this time I guess) has learned that he must hang on at all costs, so that's what he is doing. People and animals are most dangerous when cornered, and that is exactly what the policy and practice of not letting old despots slink away to a comfortable exile leads to. Advantage: Gadhafi.

So as the rump NATO wallows around and begs for more attack planes, Moammar hires mercenaries, adapts to the loss of control of his skies and both digs in and counter attacks. Cyrenaica (eastern Libya these days) is expendable to him as the oil is mostly in the west and south of the country. A cease-fire line that keep most or all of the oil will work quite well for him and would pull the rug from under the humanitarian/self-determination mission the French have cobbled together.

If I must make a prediction, I'll go with that scenario, at least in the short term. Nobody will miss Gadhafi if he's gone, but they'll have to winkle him out and no one who can do it is sufficiently motivated to do so. As a second act, NATO should be dissolved and a new North Atlantic Anglo Alliance (UK, USA, Canada) should be created in the West while the Europeans (Euro Zone) sort themselves into whatever works for them. Not our problem anymore, the Germans can handle it. Who won WWII again?