Sunday, September 18, 2016

I, For One, Welcome Our New Insect Drivers

It is interesting that Uber seems to be using human drivers as necessary meat sacks to test the system until self-driving cars are available:

When Pittsburgh wakes up on Wednesday morning, some residents will have the choice of going about their day in an Uber that drives itself.

The launch of Uber’s self-driving pilot program marks the public unveiling of the company’s secretive work in autonomous vehicles and the first time self-driving cars have been so freely available to the U.S. public.

I begin to wonder how many cars I will own before it is cheaper to just use a service like this?

Tip to Instapundit.

Crazy Kim's Nuclear Bazaar Coming Soon!

North Korea will have the ability to build 6 Nuclear warheads per year soon. How many has Iran committed to purchase?

North Korea has improved facilities that will provide the raw materials for 6 nuclear bombs per year:

That project, believed to have been expanded significantly, is likely the source of up to 150 kilograms (330 pounds) of highly enriched uranium a year, said Siegfried Hecker, a leading expert on the North's nuclear program.

That quantity is enough for roughly six nuclear bombs, Hecker, who toured the North's main Yongbyon nuclear facility in 2010, wrote in a report on the 38 North website of Johns Hopkins University in Washington published on Monday.

Added to an estimated 32- to 54 kilogram plutonium stockpile, the North will have sufficient fissile material for about 20 bombs by the end of 2016, Hecker said.

North Korea doesn't yet have a nuclear warhead design perfected. But they are getting closer.

And broke North Korea I believe will sell some of them to recently enriched Iran.

Have a super sparkly day.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Overcharged, Indeed

Clinton says the new Syria deal will fail or succeed on Russian actions:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said on Thursday the success of the Syrian ceasefire brokered by the United States and Russia depends on whether Moscow decides it is in its interest to follow through with the agreement.

Thank God her diplomatic skills "reset" the Russians, eh?


Otherwise Hillary's judgment on the prospects for the deal would be sobering.

Yeah, that middle finger was no accident by Lavrov, eh?

Mullah Priorities

I honestly don't understand how anyone with a functioning brain stem can believe that the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran will lead to anything but death and destruction. We can't trust the mullahs to behave.

Before the nuclear deal with Iran, our government said that any windfall from lifting sanctions would have to be devoted entirely to domestic rebuilding:

“We gave [our Gulf Arab allies] our best analysis of the enormous needs that Iran has internally and the commitment that Iran has made to its people in terms of shoring up its economy and improving economic growth,” Mr. Obama said at the conclusion of a meeting with leaders of Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain.

No worries!

Well, let's just say that Iran won't "dramatically" increase their funding for aggression:

The [American] officials also claimed that most of the sanctions, including multilateral sanctions, could be snapped back into place if Iran cheated, and they argued that giving Iran tens of billions of dollars in cash won’t dramatically increase Iran’s spending on terrorism and other nefarious activities.

This summer, we find that notwithstanding the enormous internal needs of Iran that Iran has doubled their defense budget:

The government budget did increase 35 percent this year but not a lot of the additional $25 billion went to fostering economic growth. The defense budget nearly doubled, to $19 billion.

I only started out life as a math major, so maybe my skills have atrophied, but doubling the defense budget seems like a lot. Perhaps even "dramatic."

No word on secret funding for mayhem.

Oh, I'm not done yet. Check it out:

According to a September 1st report by Saeed Ghasseminejad of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), when Tehran finalized its 2016-2017 budget in April, they invoked what's known as article 22, "which required the executive branch to transfer to the military the funds it receives from settling legal disputes with foreign countries and companies."

"The following month, a member of the parliament’s presiding board confirmed that the legislature had indeed allocated $1.7 billion from legal settlements to the defense budget."

So the cash we shipped to Iran went entirely to Iran's military.

Say, here's a tour of Iranian adventures, if you are interested.

How the administration expects Iran to become a responsible regional power under the motivation of the soothing balms of hope and change is beyond my grasp of nuance.

Iran will become a regional power, no doubt, with their improved finances. How responsible they will be is not likely to match our president's hopes.

Although I'm sure super genius Kerry will figure 2 out of 3 is pretty darned good.

UPDATE: State Department: The deal is dead. Long live the deal:

Could [State Department Mark] Toner rule out the chance that the nuke agreement “has served as a cause for [Iran's recent] more aggressive posture”?

The spokesman’s unexpectedly candid reply: “I can’t rule that out.” While acknowledging Obama’s hope for change in Iran’s behavior, he admitted, “We’ve not seen that shift to a constructive engagement.”

Of course, after citing incidents that “needlessly escalate tensions” Toner then said it all makes the deal even “more important, because the last thing anyone would want to see in the region is a nuclear-armed Iran.”

So the Iran deal hopes that an infusion of cash brings Iran into the community of nations and that Iran will not even dream of wanting nuclear weapons to support an aggressive foreign policy by the time the deal expires--if Iran obeys the deal or doesn't have a bypass route built through North Korea.

This transformation is key because the deal will only delay--again, at best--Iran's ability to build nukes through the life of the deal's provisions.

But the Iran nuclear deal seems to have made Iran more aggressive, as the State Department seems to think is possible. So Iran is not reformed, has cash to carry out their unreformed aggressive policies, and will at best be prevented from developing nukes for about a decade.

Which the State Department believes indicates the deal is more important than ever.

Have a super sparkly day.

I'm Going to Let This Ride

I usually don't blog politics. It's not my lane really, although I have intense interest in it at the national level. But as polls of the Clinton-Trump race get tighter, grant me that I had this right:

I haven't written much about the polling in the presidential race. Until Labor Day, I think it is rather pointless. Most people have lives and mental health stability, and so don't focus on the election starting 44 months out like the Washington crowd and those who read them (including me, truth be told--but I at least know that it isn't normal). Really, wait until the polls are of likely voters before figuring out the state of the race.

I was going to write about the problem with polling fever and how the race would tighten once polls starting using "likely voters" rather than "registered voters" or--God help us all--"all adults." This article beat me to it.

I'm sure there are reasons to use registered voter polls so far out--it may be too soon to refine models of who is a likely voter, for example.

Or maybe the press just likes to have drama to have a fake closing the gap as polls shift from Democrat-favoring registered voters to more Republican-friendly likely voters.

Anyway, the race will likely tighten a bit as people start to pay attention and answer polls on more than name recognition, and as likely voters are defined.

So I'm going to let this win stay on the table and make another bet: if, at the first debate, neither candidate stumbles and the debate is judged a draw, that Trump will gain in stature simply by standing on the same stage as a woman who is described by our current president as the most qualified candidate for the president ever (regardless of how much you value such an endorsement), and he will gain ground on Clinton (either closing the gap if behind or expanding his lead).

Of course, if there is a figurative or literal stumble by either, that's another story altogether.

Distant Early Warning

Canada does not exercise meaningful sovereignty in their far north. Could Russia try to fill the void by expanding in the Arctic at Canada's expense?

Past indications that Canada would defend their north have come to nothing:

Canada needs to stop pretending that it cares about the North. but it could extend their control in the Arctic at the expense of Canada. Decades of false rhetoric has created expectations among those few who do live up North that someone “has their back.” No one does. They’re on their own and they have been for generations. We tell the world the North is ours, that we are protecting our sovereignty and our vast mineral wealth. But the truth is we aren’t, and those resources are so far from the nearest railhead they may as well be on the moon.

Russia isn't going to reach Hudson Bay, but it could extend their control of the Arctic at Canada's expense. Talk about a "frozen conflict," eh?

I once thought that we could afford to shift NATO's focus to the north, so that NATO's Arctic states were the front line rather than the flank and rear area. But Russian aggression in the east is compelling NATO to keep the east as the main front line.

But while Canada may still be the rear area for the eastern front, for Canada the north could be their front line in the face of Russia's renewed focus on the Arctic where Canada is thin on the ground (and sea and air).

And I still think we could use a Polar Command. Forces that can fight and survive in that environment don't need to be large (and can't be because of logistics challenges) but they do need specialized training and equipment to do more than die of exposure after being sent north.

Friday, September 16, 2016

How Kerry Will Live On After January 2017

I see Russia wants to lock in their latest victory achieved through Kerry's bumbling diplomacy by going through the United Nations:

Russia wants the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution endorsing the deal hammered out between Moscow and Washington to halt fighting in Syria and jointly target Islamist rebels, its ambassador said Thursday.

Recall how well the Kerry-Lavrov deal that "disarmed" Syria of chemical weapons has worked (short answer: the terms of the deal have not been violated (we think), yet Assad still gasses his enemies).

Based on that, what can we expect at best from the Iran nuclear deal, eh?

And now Lavrov will leverage the opening provided by that chemical weapons deal into locking an America-Russian alliance to save Assad into place beyond that fool's tenure.

You won't think less of me if I open a bottle of gin and openly weep for a short time, will you?

A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma

Why yes, people around the world seem eager to protest American military campaigns while ignoring Russian military actions.

But this explanation for that phenomenon is nonsense:

The modern humanitarian conscience is often cited as one of the West’s proudest achievements, but its indifference to Russia’s crimes reveals an underlying ideology that is essentially an artifact of the Cold War. Born in a period in which the fate of the world was being determined by the bipolar contest of the United States and the Soviet Union, the humanitarian critique is configured to accommodate two easily recognizable characters and a straightforward narrative. Its tolerance for ambiguity is correspondingly low. As such, Ukraine’s fragile, corruption-plagued democracy and the bewildering array of Syrian rebels are not the uncomplicated “good guys” the Western imagination demands. [emphasis added]

So the reason that so many American and Europeans protested the Iraq War was because Saddam Hussein was an "uncomplicated good guy?" That monster and his monster sons were what the "Western imagination" demanded to march, chant slogans that require the brain power to count to eight, and make giant papier-mâché puppets?

Maybe the explanation is that communists are often behind organizing the protests and that Russia has inherited the mantle of Soviet immunity to Leftist outrage (note Green Party Candidate Jill Stein's regurgitation of Russian talking points on Ukraine for where the leftist mind--Greens are just socialists who enjoy recycling--naturally gravitates).

Maybe the explanation is that nobody fears President Obama will send thugs to rough them up or kill them with radioactive poison as Putin might.

Maybe the explanation is that too many in the West are bizarrely convinced that the America is uniquely evil and deserving of mistrust or hate despite the great advances in liberty and prosperity that the American-led West has achieved.

But do remember that America intervened in Iraq to destroy a thug Baathist minority regime that used chemical weapons that had destabilized the region through direct military aggression and support for terrorism, replaced it with a fledgling democracy, and then withdrew (however unwisely) without "stealing" the oil; while Russia has seized territory and killed people in sovereign members of the United Nations (Ukraine and Georgia) and intervened to prop up a thug Baathist minority regime that supported terrorism, committed aggression in the region, and has used chemical weapons (Syria).

Yet the "modern humanitarian conscience" was only moved to protest in the streets by America's intervention and not Russia's. Odd, isn't it?

The Wounded Beast

I know it is early, but when you consider that the supporters of the European Union said Britain would be doomed if Britain voted to exit the EU ("Brexit"), this is amusing:

Britain's vote in June to leave the European Union did not have too much of an impact on the labor market in the first month after the decision, official figures showed Wednesday. ...

Though the decision proved a huge surprise to many in the financial markets and prompted a dramatic slide in the value of the pound, the real economy has exhibited a relatively high degree of resilience. Retail sales, house prices and industrial production have all held up — to the surprise of many.

Sure, it is early, so it is too soon to say there will be no bad effects later. But the short-term resilience has surprised the "Remain" experts.

And this is kind of funny (in a "fog in channel, continent cut off" sort of way):

The president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, sought on Wednesday to rally support for the European Union, saying the bloc battered by the UK Brexit referendum was not about to break up despite its existential crisis.

Huh. Britain needs the EU to prosper and survive, the "Remain" backers said. Yet with Britain planning to leave the EU, the EU itself is the entity that feels shaky and vulnerable?

This, however, is not funny:

"The European Union doesn't have enough union," Juncker told the European Parliament in Strasbourg, noting his own executive was limited in its response to problems by division among states that was the worst he had seen in three decades in EU politics.

"There are splits out there and often fragmentation exists," he said. "That is leaving scope for galloping populism."

The EU doesn't have enough "union"--that is, Brussels needs to more thoroughly control the flighty provinces; and fragmentation--the lack of enough "union"--leads to "galloping populism"--that is, free voting by free people against the wishes of the Eurocratic elite.

Juncker probably wears expensive Italian shoes, but don't be fooled: these are the jackboots of the new imperial order that seeks to rule Europe.

Europeans should never say they have not been warned about what the proto-empire in Brussels is all about when they get closer union and less fragmentation, and thus erase the "proto" part of their empire.

Why It Matters--In Bizarro World

The AP pretends that this writer is capable of explaining to me why the Iran nuclear deal matters for a better world? Good Lord.

That guy needs to have his eyes checked, because I don't see it:

Relations between the U.S. and Iran have warmed since the agreement, to the dismay of U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. The once hostile foes are cooperating to end Syria's civil war. [emphasis added]

Our relations haven't warmed--as increased Iranian threats to our forces in the Gulf show. No, it's just that we've backed down in the face of Iran's actions in order to preserve the farcical nuclear deal.

The idea that America and Iran are cooperating to "end" Syria's civil war is a complete distortion of the trend of America increasingly working to support Iran's objective of propping up the Assad regime in Syria by defeating the multi-faction rebellion.

And even this guy admits that in as soon as 7 years, Iran's nuclear weapons path threat domestically re-emerges. Yay Smart Diplomacy!

But while the writer says that the threat of war would return if Iran takes that path, I suspect that by the time that occurs, Iran will have purchased a nuclear deterrent from North Korea. With so much of the West focused on Iranian territory to spot nuclear facilities, why have we assumed the Iranians are too stupid to adapt to that focus?

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Has Kerry Lost His Mind?

John Kerry is aware that he is America's chief diplomat and not Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov's fall semester intern, right?

The agreement that Secretary of State John Kerry announced with Russia to reduce the killing in Syria has widened an increasingly public divide between Mr. Kerry and Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, who has deep reservations about the plan for American and Russian forces to jointly target terrorist groups.

Even the White House seems wary of the deal:

“I think we’d have some reasons to be skeptical that the Russians are able or are willing to implement the arrangement consistent with the way it’s been described,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Monday at a briefing. He added, darkly, “But we’ll see.”

One major worry is letting the Russians see the big board:

Chief among Pentagon concerns is whether sharing targeting information with Russia could reveal how the United States uses intelligence to conduct airstrikes, not just in Syria but in other places, which Moscow could then use for its own advantage in the growing confrontations undersea and in the air around the Baltics and Europe.

Which is what I was worried about when this nonsense was proposed:

Oh, and the Russians will get a nice close look from the inside at how our Air Force conducts combat operations. The Russians won't take notes on that insight, now will they?

Kerry really wants the Russians in our command center?

Oh, and in what is now standard operating procedures for this administration (back to the NYT link), we can't see the deal:

It is a measure of the sensitivity of the agreement — for Washington, for Moscow and for an array of other countries and opposition groups — that the State Department has not released text of the agreement with the Russians, or even a fact sheet summarizing it.

I do not like the deal that Kerry inked with Lavrov that will lead to joint American-Russian air campaign planning.

It is a deal to help Assad survive the civil war.

All Your Humor are Belong to Us

I see the North Korean 5-year plan for humor production is getting a strong start:

The sketch shows the president with a bloodied head and a bandage wrapped around it with the secretary asking if he is alright.

To which the actor depicting Obama replies: 'I smacked my head on the bathroom floor and broke four tiles on it as I was so shocked from the North's hydrogen bomb detonation!

This prompts the secretary to say: 'So Mr President, you were testing the hardness of your skull while the North was testing its hydrogen bomb?', which draws uproars of laughter from the audience.

Egad. Let's hope their nuclear warhead design is of the same quality as their humor.

Maybe our comedians are right about there being nothing funny to make jokes about with President Obama, unlike every other president (especially Republican ones).

Tip to Instapundit.

Friedman Writes What He Knows About

That one-man basket of deplorable, Thomas Friedman, is condemning Trump for his "Putin crush." Are you effing kidding me?

Friedman is famous for his China crush because he thought "reasonably enlightened" despots could order steps to combat global warming without the "problems" of democracy (setting aside the problems of science and policy)!

Funny enough, China got the despotism without the environmental benefits. And has related problems.

Hell, that disgusting specimen of a man thought Ukraine was a worthy sacrifice on the altar of his climate obsession!

No matter that Ukraine was dismembered a little bit this month and faces threats of future dismemberment, Ukraine should be honored to be sacrificed in the name of greater Green energy opportunities! In a "grand bargain!" Isn't dismemberment grand?

Yeah, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

I used to just mock Friedman. I'd write that I'm not saying that you can't drown in a pool of Tom Friedman's wisdom. But you would have to be drunk and face down to do so.

Yes, the man is a fool who pretends to be deep, sustained by the applause of fans who know even less than him and so don't know any better. So he deserves that derision.

But that is too kind. Friedman's long-time Chinese autocrat crush has plumbed new depths and reached the point where he dismisses the fate of Ukraine, which is trying to take its place in the West free of domination by Putin's fledgling empire that looms over their land, and thinks their loss of Crimea is nothing more than a wedge issue to promote solar and wind power.

Now Friedman is visible as a monster dismissive of mere people who stand in the way of his windmills and solar panels. There is no disguising that, even with his usual nonsense.

I'm done with the man. He disgusts me. Friedman can write for the Upper West Side and enjoy their fawning awe.

Face it, if Putin banned plastic bags by decree with a speech about global warming dangers to Mother Russia's beloved tundras, Friedman would be gazing all googly eyed at Putin, too.

And no, I'm not quoting Friedman's article. I hate linking to it. The man is revolting and only the amazing hypocrisy of that man condemning Trump for an autocrat crush got me to lift my personal ban on even criticizing that pompous fool.

UPDATE: Related.

I Am a Glass Half-Full Kind of Guy

So this is what it is like to have Donald Trump as president:

Between rude comments, violent drug crackdowns, and a slew of anti-US rhetoric, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has been keeping the United States on its toes since his election in May.

On Monday, Mr. Duterte called for US special forces to leave the southern Philippine island of Mindanao, where the US military has maintained a presence since 2002. The demand is the latest move by the president to raise questions about the stability of the Philippine-US relationship uncertain.

Duterte, while highly popular in his own country, has been a controversial figure abroad.

It seems odd that the Philippines--in the shadow of Chinese power--would behave this way toward America, who is Manila's most important ally.

Yet note that rather than alienating America, Duterte has been keeping us "on our toes."

And the government in Manila took pains to counter the rhetoric:

The Philippines moved to shore up relations with the United States on Tuesday with guarantees that a treaty between them would be honored and security ties were "rock solid", despite President Rodrigo Duterte's railings against Washington.

So there you go.

Say? Would it really be so bad to see what it is like for other countries to worry about our rhetoric while getting our State Department to reassure allies that we have their back?

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Taking Their Queen Off the Board

If the long-telegraphed Mosul offensive is about to kick off in October (or this month to avoid being tagged an "October surprise"), this operation makes a lot of sense:

A dozen US warplanes destroyed nearly 50 targets at an "Islamic State" chemical weapons production plant in northern Iraq, the Pentagon said on Tuesday.

The barrage of airstrikes near the terrorist group's stronghold of Mosul targeted a converted pharmaceutical manufacturing plant and headquarters.

Wow! You can easily convert a civilian pharmaceutical plant into a poison gas production facility? Which is no shock when you remember that Saddam's lads play a big role in ISIL. Fancy that.

But I digress.

Note that the strike was big. Twelve planes hitting 50 aim points is a big effort compared to what we usually see over Iraq and Syria.

This will help prevent ISIL from unleashing chemical weapons as a last-ditch effort to derail the coming offensive. Without their traditional eagerness to die, what does ISIL have left?

UPDATE: Strategic surprise is surely lost:

The operation to drive so-called Islamic State (IS) from Iraq's second-largest city has been long promised and much delayed.

Rumors are that the offensive begins in October.

If we want to at least get tactical surprise, the most obvious thing we could do is to talk about October and then go in September.

The other way would be to come at Mosul from a different direction. Right now the main push from Iraqi forces will be from the south with a supporting Kurdish offensive from the north and east.

Could a combination of a march through desolate terrain southwest of Mosul and an airmobile assault provide an avenue from the west that would hit ISIL's Mosul defenses from an unexpected direction while isolating Mosul more thoroughly than air interdiction of lines of communication to Syria?

Of course, so far it seems like the Iraqis like to leave their enemy room to retreat in order to reduce casualties (in the short run).

So if I had to bet, I'd say main effort from the south with support from north and east; but that the offensive kicks off this month.

UPDATE: And talk of November or even December would be useful if we plan to go this month.

Of course, I've been looking for signs of an offensive for a year and a half now. So take my hopes for a September offensive with a grain or two of salt.

To be fair, a lot of work was done in Anbar to secure Baghdad a bit more from ISIL terror threats.

And there have been advances toward Mosul to reach the current jumping off points.

So we've had those offensive actions. Perhaps I'm being unfair in complaining that the offensive has been delayed for so long.

But I don't understand why we couldn't have helped push north all the way to Mosul at the same time by now. ISIL isn't ten feet tall, especially when we put them six feet under.

Axis of Evil Versus Basket of Deplorables

Fascinating:

At a fundraiser on Friday night, Hillary Clinton said, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of [Donald] Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.” She then went on to call these people “irredeemable.”

Yeah, and Barack Obama called Hillary's supporters in 2008 "bitter clingers:" people who cling to their Sky God and guns, and who don't like people who don't look like them.

The disdain and even hatred for Americans is amazing.

What I am interested in, however, is the concurrent ability of the Left to see every foreign enemy as a potential friend.

From "reset" with Russia, to understanding why jihadis hate us (it's us and not them, they say), to trying to befriend Castro's Cuba, to trying to make Iran a responsible regional power by providing a path to nukes, to now working with the butcher Assad to fight jihadis, the American Left has an infinite ability to see enemies as friends we just have to try harder to make.

But to the Left, a good chunk of Americans who vote Republican are pretty much evil and irredeemable in their nature.

Or bitter clingers, in a Democratic primary contest.

I think the Democrats need a "reset" and outreach for a large segment of the American people.

UPDATE: Seriously, how often have we heard our Left decry the notion of "with us or against us" as too black and white in foreign policy and how often have we heard them defend talks with enemies by saying "you make peace with your enemies and not your friends, right?" (As if defeating enemies wasn't the objective.)

But when it comes to fellow Americans who disagree with them, these Americans are deplorable and irredeemable to our Left.

UPDATE: Say? Are Hillary's deplorables irredeemable too?

UPDATE: Wait! Is Hillary deplorable or irredeemable for "hating" President Obama?

A Democratic megadonor told Colin Powell that Hillary Clinton “HATES” President Obama for beating her for the 2008 nomination, and she dismissively referred to him as “that man,” according to emails hacked from the general’s account.

Because I've been told for 8 years now that I wouldn't oppose our president's socialistic domestic and weak foreign policy if he looked more like me.

Why should anyone have to resort to race when there is so much to dislike about policy?

Pre-H Hour?

So what are the Russians up to in eastern Ukraine?

Russian special forces today launched a rapid assault on a key border town in eastern Ukraine, shattering the ceasefire agreement signed just two weeks ago.

Is a renewed invasion looming?

UPDATE: So far nothing, but remember that Russia's Spetsnaz made an appearance before the invasion of Crimea became too obvious to ignore.

UPDATE: Russia has manufactured another pretext:

According to the Investigative Committee and Moscow-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, Kyiv has sent a team of seven teenage terrorists into the occupied areas of Donetsk Oblast to carry out acts of sabotage. ...

Just last month, the Kremlin accused Ukraine of sending agent-saboteurs to the annexed Crimean Peninsula to carry out terrorist attacks.

There was no real evidence and the story was so full of holes and contradictions that it quickly fell apart and nobody took it seriously. And this time around, the evidence looks just as flimsy.

And don't think that America can't get fingered in these fantasy crimes.

Here's pro and con on whether Russia is preparing for war.

The con side undermined his case by saying that Russia could overrun Ukraine with ease because Russia has 1 million troops versus 60,000 for Ukraine. So the fact that Russia hasn't done that is proof they have no intention of doing so despite the sabre rattling.

But Russia has a total military of nearly a million spread out from Kaliningrad bordering Poland and Lithuania to territory facing Alaska.

Russia's army is only a few hundred thousand. Sure, add in hundreds of thousands of Interior Ministry troops, but if you count just the decently trained and equipped Russian ground forces, Moscow only has about 100,000. Can Russia afford to put all of their best troops into Ukraine for what would be a prolonged war?

And oddly, the con side just counts Ukraine's army. Double that for the total and then add in what has been mobilized in the National Guard that is doing a good deal of the fighting in the east. And add in interior ministry and border guards for more light infantry useful for garrisons.

Besides, setting the bar for war or no war at invading and occupying all of Ukraine is too high. Russia could easily commit the troops to complete the conquest of the Donbas with what they can scrape together. That's the question in my mind.

UPDATE: Seriously, what are the Russians up to?

The Ukrainian intelligence service claims to have captured Kremlin agents operating deep within territory not embroiled in fighting, as telephone intercepts were published revealing a Moscow plot to seize half the country.

Although the telephone intercepts were from early 2014 when the Russians probably believed Russian-speakers would throw flowers at "little green men" sent in to AstroTurf popular revolts, and not recent.

I can't imagine the Russians think they can really expand the war as much as those agent locations indicate. I assume, if true, that the efforts are to sow chaos in Ukrainian rear areas while the main effort takes place to the east.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Keep Your Enemies Closer

I had been musing about Secretary of State Clinton given that she and President Obama had been such bitter opponents (Clinton's backers started the "birther" junk and Hillary once in an ABC interview hilariously failed to clearly renounce talk of whether Obama was Moslem).

This ties in with why President Obama would let Clinton get away with using a private server. Could it really be he didn't notice? Is that possible?

And given my utter frustration with Secretary Kerry, I can't remember really getting worked up and frustrated over Clinton when she held the office. Sure, our foreign policy bothered me. But I don't recall blaming this on Clinton. Odd, no?

Hillary Clinton seemed like a non-entity despite the miles traveled. I didn't even get worked up about Hillary's role in the immediate response to the 2012 Benghazi attacks given that State Department security people did march to the sound of the guns during the attack.

Then consider that President Obama has famously centralized foreign policy in the White House.

And then I read this, in which an admitted partisan said that Clinton was not taken seriously by foreign leaders.

Do all these things fit together?

Did President Obama not trust Hillary Clinton? Did he make her secretary of state to keep her close and inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in?

And then did President Obama bypass Hillary Clinton by running foreign policy out of the White House while figuring Hillary's time fundraising for the Clinton Foundation was a good bargain?

Did foreign leaders see this cut-out and act accordingly, seeing that the real foreign policy power was nowhere near Herself?

Especially for those abroad reading Hillary's hacked email, this might have been an interesting revelation.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? If so, that was the most intelligent thing President Obama did in foreign policy.

Post-Cold War Survival Tip: Don't Border Russia

Russia's decent into annoying aggressiveness disappoints me. I had hopes that by throwing off communism the Russians could join the West and become a prosperous friend. In that light, obscure events in Belarus matter.

I know there are those on the left--who until Trump came along and embraced Putin--opposed viewing Russia as a hostile force and viewed those who did as being "nostalgic" for the Cold war.

I find that charge insulting. I am not and never have been nostalgic for the so-called simplicity of looming nuclear annihilation.

After we won the Cold War, I had hopes Russia would be friendly given enough time. I certainly expressed that hope 9 years ago in this post (sometimes I find things while looking for other things):

Eventually, I think Russia will be incorporated into the West as Germany, Eastern Europe, Japan and South Korea have been since World War II.

[If writing that now, I'd add Italy to the list, given that I put South Korea in that list then. Their switching sides during the war muddies the water a bit, depending on how I am thinking of the context.]

Although even in that post I was worried about what anti-Western propaganda coming out of Russia could mean.

The Russian attack on Georgia in 2008 changed my mind about the Russians by matching actions to their rhetoric.

But even in 2013, mere months before Russia attacked Ukraine and then really upped their level of threats to the West, I didn't think Russia would try to march west in a Cold War repeat.

I knew that Russia's military wasn't capable of marching west and I thought Russia had resigned themselves to not challenging the loss of their western provinces by using military force. I was wrong about the latter although the former is true (although I was in favor of hedging our bets on that question).

Given Russian trends (that might abate and in the long run make Russia part of the West if the short run doesn't get all bloody), what happens in Belarus is vitally important to NATO and the West.

Belarus held "elections:"

Two opposition candidates have been elected to parliament in ex-Soviet Belarus, the first time since 2008 that critics of strongman president Alexander Lukashenko have made it into the rubber-stamp legislature.

The election of the tiny opposition contingent comes as Lukashenko, once dubbed by the US as Europe's last dictator, tries to burnish his image further with the West after the EU dropped sanctions against Belarus earlier this year.

If any country could prompt a conventional full-blown Russian conventional invasion if a "color revolution" broke out and "threatened" to bring democracy to the country, it is Belarus.

Which is why Lukashenko is never pressed more than lightly by the West for being a dictator.

So Lukashenko remains a dictator to satisfy Russia and makes token gestures to the West on democracy while keeping Russia at arms-length as much as possible (which is a dangerous game itself) to keep links open to the West.

UPDATE: I found a post that nicely summarizes my pre-Ukraine worries about Russia:

Alas, we are keeping our plans to go down to a single paratrooper brigade and a single Stryker brigade in Europe. Those are fine for the initial forces in the arc of crisis, but aren't sufficient for reassuring our new NATO allies in eastern Europe and keeping the Russians quiet as they shift west.

I hope we hedge a bit by putting heavy brigade sets in Poland.

And while I welcome NATO efforts to build small, high quality forces capable of being projected abroad that can work with our forces, I hope that the Europeans don't neglect the capability to regenerate conventional forces by maintaining a core conventional heavy capability backed by reserves and the capacity to build new units if the Russian threat is rebuilt by Moscow.

Look, Russia is a long way from threatening to march to the Rhine. But they are much more close to being able to threaten and bully a small country like any of the Baltic nations, as the 2008 Georgia War demonstrated. Ultimately, if we are reducing our presence in Europe to focus our shrinking military on Asia and the rest of the world, we need NATO Europe capable of holding their own territory without immediate and massive US help.

Ukraine has actually prompted us to reverse the draw down of our Army in Europe and add pre-positioned equipment to bolster European defense efforts which do show signs of reviving.

The Empire Strikes Back

The European Union demonstrates that the British were right to get out of the proto-empire based in Brussels. And shows that the EU is inherently anti-American.

The European Union suppresses heresy in the provinces:

Europe's Competition Directorate commands the shock troops of the EU power structure. Ensconced in its fortress at Place Madou, it can dispatch swat teams on corporate dawn raids across Europe without a search warrant.

It operates outside the normal judicial control that we take for granted in a developed democracy. The US Justice Department could never dream of acting in such a fashion.

Known as 'DG Comp', it acts as judge, jury, and executioner, and can in effect impose fines large enough to constitute criminal sanctions, but without the due process protection of criminal law. It misused evidence so badly in pursuit of the US chipmaker Intel that the company alleged a violation of human rights.

Apple is just the latest of the great US digital companies to face this Star Chamber. It has vowed to appeal the monster €13bn fine handed down from Brussels this week for violation of EU state aid rules, but the only recourse is the European Court of Justice. This is usually a forlorn ritual. The ECJ is a political body, the enforcer of the EU's teleological doctrines. It ratifies executive power.

Apple is ordered to pay $14.5 billion dollars for the crime of negotiating a tax deal with the Irish government, which the Irish government was happy to provide.

But no, the EU disapproves of this exercise in national legislation that benefits an American company. So it is forbidden. Because the imperial government disapproves of the provinces doing what they want.

Just in case the phalanx of lawyers and bureaucrats isn't enough, the EU would like whatever armed forces they get to have an easier time of putting down revolt the old-fashioned way:

Friction between Switzerland and the European Union over the bloc's plans to tighten gun control following a rise in militant attacks could turn into another serious snag in ties already tested by Swiss efforts to curb immigration.

The proposed directive, which applies to non-EU member Switzerland only because it is part of Europe's Schengen open border system, has raised hackles among the Swiss, who resent intervention from Brussels.

Christoph Blocher, a leading voice of the Swiss right and a eurosceptic, says Switzerland should consider abandoning Europe's Schengen system of passport-free travel if the Swiss people rejected the proposed measures in a referendum.

Drafted after militants killed scores in attacks in Paris last year, the EU plans on gun control aimed to curb online weapons sales and impose more restrictions on assault weapons.

But the initial proposal provoked an outcry in Switzerland because it meant a ban on the long Swiss tradition of ex-soldiers keeping their assault rifles.

Terrorists will always have weapons. Being terrorists willing to slaughter people, disobeying firearms laws is a small matter on the road to Paradise.

And governments that want to order their people about will always have weapons.

But law-abiding Europeans will be the ones disarmed--even those in eastern Europe who know better.

So in case the European Union ever gets its own large multinational paramilitary police force (poorly educated migrants have to work somewhere, eh?), the EU won't have to rely on the Competition Directorate for their shock troops for ever closer union.

Remember, the people are always the greatest enemies of multi-ethnic empires in the grip of totalitarian governments:

Bolsheviks were never very good at material inventions, but they excelled at political technology, inventing an entirely new system we call totalitarian. As they say today, it went viral. There is still no vaccine.

Of course, lots of conquering groups have annihilated or enslaved other groups—just think of the Trojan war or Tamerlane’s mountains of skulls—but no form of government had ever been so brutal to those it regarded as its own people. Soviet Russia was far crueler than its tsarist predecessor, which had long been proverbial as “the gendarme of Europe.”

Do read it all. People with absolute power crush those who seem to stand in their way.

A Europe ruled from Brussels will be crueler than any past Europeans hope to escape.