Stratfor's Friedman: Germany is the key

[Musburger1]

He's put quite a few oligarchs out of commission and allowed others to maintain their fiefdoms with the understanding they forfeit any political power. Call it consolidation if you like, but he has the populace behind him. His background is in law first and economics second. I understand that in itself means little considering Obama's background is in law and it apparently doesn't influence the way he governs. If you ever have the time to listen to Putin's speeches or press conferences, he often cites legal precedence for his actions. If Putin lives up to his oration, he'll be considered one hell of a leader. Obama on the other hand, will be considered one hell of a liar.

 

[pasotex]

KGB is law?

Dude, wtf?

 

[Musburger1]

CIA is law?

Dude, wtf?

 

[zork]

Musburger, I had you pegged as a Libertarian when you came on the site but with all this unabashed Putin love, lately, I don't know what to think? Is it hate for Obama such that Putin is preferable somehow or has the Putin/Russia support from your perspective always been preferential to your point of view? I don't get it not that it matters what I think.

Nobody can explain how Kerry/Obama have led the country via the fighting both sides of the Iranian wars/battles/skirmishes.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Just because maybe France or Italy spend less than on their military budgets is not the point. Its the expansion of NATO member countries, the introduction of American backed technology, etc. that causes friction. The fact some of these nations are even in NATO is the problem as far as Russia is concerned. Russia will simply not except Ukraine or Georgia as part of NATO. Russia does not want ABM missiles on their border any more than the US wants Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico. Since 1999, the following countries, all in Eastern Europe, have joined NATO: Check Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Abbania, and Croatia.

I'm not sure how you can dismiss the significance of the military drawdowns that have occurred all over Europe (not just France and Italy). NATO is only as strong as the military strength of its members and its resolve in using that strength if one of its members is threatened. Without that, NATO is nothing more than very uncomfortable toilet paper. NATO's European members have cumulatively cut their defense budgets from 2.5 percent of GDP in the early '90s to 1.6 today. (They're supposed to be spending 2.5 percent.) The US has kept up its levels but not in Europe. We've cut our troop levels there by about 80 percent. It's a very hollow force, and it's baffling that you think that wouldn't or shouldn't factor into how big of a threat NATO is to Russia.

Also, we can't force anybody into NATO. They join on their own accord. Why do you think these Eastern European nations want to be in NATO, and why do you think they'd want ABM's based in their countries, which makes them targets? Are they just a bunch of cowboys wanting to pick a war with the Russians? You're very sensitive and respectful of the fears that Putin claims to have, but you don't seem to care much what the Eastern European leaders' thought processes might be. Would it really be crazy for them to fear Russia and want the economic and military benefits that come with association with the West?

It's not western Europe that Russia is concerned about, but Eastern Europe.

Europe isn't that big, Mus. I'm only about 45 minutes from the French border, and I could get in my car and be in Ukraine by bed time (not that I'd want to do that). Russia cares about Western Europe, because if I can do that, then our military personnel in Germany and Italy can do that (actually much faster). They don't complain about Western Europe, because they know the issue of whether or not Western European nations are in NATO is closed and off the table. That may not be the case for Eastern Europe.

From the US viewpoint it doesn't matter that NATO troops in Albania could not defeat Russia. What the US would hope to do is to stir up trouble in countries such as this, and possibly entice Russia into wars and skirmishes to (a) weaken Russia, and (b) alienate Russia from as much as the global community as possible. NATO enlistments would basically become cannon fodder assuming the war was contained and continued in a low grade manner.

You left out (c), which is that the US would be bound by Article 5 to go intervene in Albania if this occurred. That would be the biggest implication of such skirmishes, since Albania is a NATO member. Even if contained, that would be a colossal mess, and I have a hard time believing we'd provoke that needlessly.

Because the former Soviet States are very much non-homogeneous, like Ukraine, ethnic clashes could develop as they have inside Ukraine and South Ossetia, providing Russia with an incentive to intervene. Russia is happy with the status quo, but as the US presses for NATO expansion and regime changes hostile to Russia, the status quo shifts against Russia and they will feel compelled to react to that. Most of these areas are economic basket cases that Russia does not wish to inherit, Crimea being an exception as an area that has value.

You talk as though the US is invading these countries and forcing them into NATO at gunpoint. They don't have to join NATO or the EU. Those are voluntary organizations. However, maybe these nations don't like being economic basket cases and see that former economic basket cases like East Germany, former Czechoslovakia, and Poland stopped being economic basket cases after they left the Russian sphere of influence and became associated with the West, whether it was by joining NATO, the EU, or both. If that's the case, then why screw them to appease Putin?

(Side note - Putin would probably get a lot more sympathy from the American Left if he was friendlier to the gays.)

 

[pasotex]

I think Putin's problem with the Left is that he is a dictator and an *******. The Crimea thing coupled with Ukraine are my main beefs with him FWIW.

 

[BevoBeef]

Mus1,

It's not western Europe that Russia is concerned about, but Eastern Europe. From the US viewpoint it doesn't matter that NATO troops in Albania could not defeat Russia. What the US would hope to do is to stir up trouble in countries such as this, and possibly entice Russia into wars and skirmishes to (a) weaken Russia, and (b) alienate Russia from as much as the global community as possible. NATO enlistments would basically become cannon fodder assuming the war was contained and continued in a low grade manner.

Because the former Soviet States are very much non-homogeneous, like Ukraine, ethnic clashes could develop as they have inside Ukraine and South Ossetia, providing Russia with an incentive to intervene. Russia is happy with the status quo, but as the US presses for NATO expansion and regime changes hostile to Russia, the status quo shifts against Russia and they will feel compelled to react to that. Most of these areas are economic basket cases that Russia does not wish to inherit, Crimea being an exception as an area that has value.

I could not agree more with this statement except for one key component. I do not see in the future how Germany will be pro-Russian and anti-NATO, Right now German military force is capped by treaties. Watch what happens when the EU gets weaker economically and Germany becomes stronger. A weak EU does not mean that Germany will get weaker in time. Germany will start to argue to expand their military might and succeed by becoming the key defensive component to the real NATO, in which Germany is the central cornerstone. I am not saying that Germany will not maintain key trade agreements with Russia. For Russia and Germany to become good allies, either Russia will join NATO in time or Germany will have to leave NATO. Which do you think will happen? The relationship between the US and Germany will be key to what happens with NATO and Russia. Watch what missile defense systems will be installed by NATO for Europe. Right now, the US, Germany, and, to some extent, Italy have co-developed the MEADS system, which many think will replace the current Patriot defense system. If that decision is made to deploy a cooperative defense system supported by Germany and the USA, in 10-20 years it will be Germany being the key military support mechanism for NATO. The US, if we are smart, will still support NATO but become just a backup military for the key defense of Germany and eastern Europe. We do not have the military forces now to support countries surrounding the western side of Russia and at the same time focus our attention on the Middle East. That is why Germany will become a potent military force in the future. German - US cooperation is key for that. If that cooperation falls apart, then US will be in trouble with Russia. I would lay odds on a bet that future military growth of the NATO forces will be mainly German. AND THEY WILL NOT BE CANON FODDER.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think Putin's problem with the Left is that he is a dictator and an *******. The Crimea thing coupled with Ukraine are my main beefs with him FWIW.

The Left loves plenty of dictators and ******** - always has. You're a moderate Democrat. That isn't the Left.

 

[Musburger1]

I'm not sure how you can dismiss the significance of the military drawdowns that have occurred all over Europe (not just France and Italy). NATO is only as strong as the military strength of its members and its resolve in using that strength if one of its members is threatened. Without that, NATO is nothing more than very uncomfortable toilet paper. NATO's European members have cumulatively cut their defense budgets from 2.5 percent of GDP in the early '90s to 1.6 today. (They're supposed to be spending 2.5 percent.) The US has kept up its levels but not in Europe. We've cut our troop levels there by about 80 percent. It's a very hollow force, and it's baffling that you think that wouldn't or shouldn't factor into how big of a threat NATO is to Russia.

Deez, I think you are saying that NATO is merely a paper tiger with no teeth behind it; that Russia should not view NATO encroachment as any kind of threat, therefore Russia should acquiesce to regime changes that take place in countries surrounding it since their is no chance of NATO invading Russia. If that's part of your argument, I think you've missed my point concerning what the threat to Russia is. The battle is really between the United States and Russia, and its currently being played out both financially and politically with the regions bordering Russia as a major fault line. I'll get back to this again further down, but back to the military aspect. The ABM missiles are a provocation and the US has developed a first strike nuclear strategy - crazy as that sounds - as one of the scenarios for defeating Russia and/or China. Imagine if you will, a country like Iran developing nuclear weapons and then aligning with Mexico and deploying missiles outside of San Diego and El Paso. Would the US shrug that off because the Mexican army poses no military threat in terms of invading the United States? I rather doubt it.

Also, we can't force anybody into NATO. They join on their own accord. Why do you think these Eastern European nations want to be in NATO, and why do you think they'd want ABM's based in their countries, which makes them targets? Are they just a bunch of cowboys wanting to pick a war with the Russians? You're very sensitive and respectful of the fears that Putin claims to have, but you don't seem to care much what the Eastern European leaders' thought processes might be. Would it really be crazy for them to fear Russia and want the economic and military benefits that come with association with the West?

First of all, the countries in question tend to be composed of diverse populations, some of which very much fear Russia and have bad memories dating back to Stalin or earlier. Other people in these same countries are pro-Russian, many having migrated there when the country was integrated under the USSR umbrella. In such cases elections might well determine which way the country goes in terms of policy. And that's where whomever has the greatest political influence, Russia or the US, can swing the elections. Propaganda, bribes and threats play into this, both pre and post election. The US has never been above bribing regimes, offering deals, or making financial threats in order to get what they want. Certainly Russia has similar capabilities, but the US has the world reserve currency, has leverage with the World Bank and IMF, and can project force around the globe. There are other ways to conquer a nation or to control its policies other than bombing them to smithereens. In the case of Ukraine, both Russia and the US have vied for quite a few years to influence and literally pick the regime in charge. Which oligarch will be in power? Ours or theirs? As it turned out, US controlled propaganda (US sponsored NGOs and media owned by Ukraine Oligarchs), natural schisms between East and West, and a corrupt administration fueled the flames for a rebellion. Hatred spilled over after the coup and the Southeastern part of the population wanted no part of it. As this was the area that both Russia and the US were most interested in, the US and the new government refused to allow those people self-determination. Russia naturally refused to have that denied.

You left out (c), which is that the US would be bound by Article 5 to go intervene in Albania if this occurred. That would be the biggest implication of such skirmishes, since Albania is a NATO member. Even if contained, that would be a colossal mess, and I have a hard time believing we'd provoke that needlessly.

I think the hope, from the US perspective, is that the "skirmishes" would follow the template in the Ukraine. That is, the Russians would not directly be involved, therefore NATO would not have to commit forces. Instead, you have a proxy war where the Albanian factions (or whatever country is involved) provides the cannon fodder.

You talk as though the US is invading these countries and forcing them into NATO at gunpoint. They don't have to join NATO or the EU. Those are voluntary organizations. However, maybe these nations don't like being economic basket cases and see that former economic basket cases like East Germany, former Czechoslovakia, and Poland stopped being economic basket cases after they left the Russian sphere of influence and became associated with the West, whether it was by joining NATO, the EU, or both. If that's the case, then why screw them to appease Putin?

(Side note - Putin would probably get a lot more sympathy from the American Left if he was friendlier to the gays.)

I tried to address this in my reply to the second quotation. Elections and political decisions don't have to made at literal gunpoint when bribes and threats are more effective. Although, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, you could argue the road to NATO was accomplished at gunpoint.

As far as Russia's stance on gays, I have no problem with it. They treat them much better than Saudi Arabia does. Russia has a long history of accomplishments in the arts, ballet, etc. Male Russian figure skaters have won medals, and I seriously doubt they are all straight. Russia doesn't have gay pride celebrations as far as I'm aware of and that doesn't bother me in the least. I don't know that Putin cares what the American left thinks.

 

[Musburger1]

I do not understand where the threat by the US to Russia is existing. I tend to ignore the rhetoric coming from Obama and pay attention only to his actions. The Russian sanctions regarding their Ukrainian action is just hot air and amount to pin pricks. Where is this control that is trying to be asserted by this country to the Russian border areas? I have reread the Cohen summary above and do not understand where our aggressiveness to Russia is coming from ---> since the post Soviet era and particulary after 9/11 or 2001 time frame. Again, ignore the words --- where does US action threaten Russian security? The US focus of attention has been on the Middle East and the use of WMD by radical groups.

This from an article today, April 1st.
http://rt.com/news/245765-nato-arms-romania-breedlove/

Two from March 31st
http://abcnews.go.com/International...onvoy-us-troops-tests-skills-bridges-30026242
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...ent-nation-must-deepen-eu-nato-ties/70717496/

Some other articles:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/uk-ukraine-crisis-nato-idUKKBN0L82KG20150205
http://brukselanato.msz.gov.pl/en/news/intensifying_cooperation_on_ballistic_missile_defence__bmd_
http://rt.com/news/244945-prague-anti-nato-protest/

These two reveal some backlash from citizens as the US/NATO arm twist governments
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...d-hungary-veering-off-the-natoeu-reservation/

 

[pasotex]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house?CMP=fb_gu

 

[Seattle Husker]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house?CMP=fb_gu

Yep, these jobs are well known. I'm not saying the US doesn't have their own propaganda machine but it doesn't appear to the scope of that or Russia, especially when aimed internally. Now, let's talk about why Putin's approval ratings are so high? I'll repeat, Putin didn't get rid of the Oligarchs for noble reasons but rather consolidated them for his own power base. He's a dictator in all but title.

 

[BevoBeef]

This from an article today, April 1st.

Two from March 31st
Some other articles:
These two reveal some backlash from citizens as the US/NATO arm twist governments

Mus1, thanks for the links. I understand better your point.

Although I went through these articles quickly, it seems to me that there is a lot of sabre rattling going on in order to reassure current NATO countries in eastern Europe that they do not have to worry about the Ukrainian situation and that their countries are in a different situation. Without really having an understanding of the internal governmental politics occurring in these smaller countries, it is really difficult to understand if this sabre rattling has any real substance and whether it is a direct consequence of what is going on in Ukraine. After tax season is over, I want to study the real NATO deployments and what actual weapon support they are getting and how that is changing. A lot really depends now on what Merkel is negoitiating in regards to the Ukraine situation. I will be looking more carefully at the reports from that country now.

In the next few months there will be some key decision making on the future course of some missile defense directions. Technically it is about Lockheed Martin vs Raytheon positions and their development. However, the decisions will broadly influence the future of NATO ---- particularly in Poland and Germany. What the governments will say will point the way to understanding their intent on the actual defenses in that European region and the time frame of the actual NATO decision making.