Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[OUTLAW 09]

wm---then I am assuming you have never worked OSINT and driven OSINT into the other INTs.

If my math was and is correct at the height of the Cold War the KGB/GRU had over 25,000 personnel focusing just alone on OSINT.

One of the actual clashes verbally and politically between the USW and then SU came from an actual crossing of OSINT articles that led the SU to development first the SS20 and then we developed the cruise missile with deployment abilities inside NATO.

There was a rash of open source articles concerning Russian troops being to close to the border followed by the Kerry/Russian FM telephonic conference followed by reports of the Obama/Putin concerning the same subject then followed by the Interfax statement from the Russian FM that they will not ross the border----all by different sources but all chattering basically the same messages.

Governments often communicate with each other in this fashion so that they intentions are understood.

Back to social media---one has to these days watch it like a hawk---during Iraq we often knew of new insurgent TTPs and weapon systems far faster via their websites long before we saw it on the battlefield---so yes chatter has to be monitored they problem is inherently most Americans feel it is "propaganda".

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---interesting comment and my even more interesting response.

"I don't know what Putin plans, and I don't know his future. Neither do you. Neither does anywhere else here. There's a wide range of skills and knowledge represented here, but clairvoyance and telepathy are not among them."

Dayuhan---it does not take a clairvoyant to read text reporting quoting Putin nor any other Russian political figure these days. It is out there for all to read and understand or maybe not understand.

If you track Interfax on a daily basis you would have seen a reported meeting between Putin and his National Security Council two days ago and high level Duma reps where he gave them the tasking to analyze all of the "color" and "spring" events in order to understand how one must "protect" the Russian population from such neo radical, neo Nazi, Nazi and nationalist influences.

And he noted that whatever changes where to be made concerning Russian law they "should not" interfere with the Russian population's civil liberties.

So again to my point ---he "was not" concerned about the Ukrainian "street's influence" washing over his citizens in the coming years------BUT he was "concerned" enough to give a verbal tasking to his security council AND publicly have that tasking reported via Interfax---come on Dayuhan.

How nice it is of him to would respond to his "protection" of Russian civil liberties.

Secondly---search the web and one will find at least on five occasions since 2005 he has made virtually the same comment ie it was a disaster when the Soviet Union broke apart and it should have been left as a whole unit.

Now is that being clairvoyant or just a good reader when one now looks at actual events and one can place previous comments made by Putin into clear text context?

Dayuhan---now go to this link and tell me what you assume Putin in fact was alluding to---does not take a clairvoyant?

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6936

[davidbfpo]

A short article 'Ukraine: Divvying Up The Breadbasket Of Europe':http://registan.net/2014/03/27/ukrai...egistan.net%29

[OUTLAW 09]

David---interesting article for a number of reasons;

1. Russia has in fact been blockading Ukrainian and even Polish fresh meats and processed foods for now over four weeks---they started the same drills on the Crimea border three days ago.

2. Russia announced via Interfax yesterday that the Crimea will be able to export 2M metric tonnes of grain to Russia this year.

3. The EU in removing all customs on Ukrainian products literally opening the door for the Ukraine to shift their traditional trading markets westwards and not towards Russia and or China ---since there is not for 2014 any customs on any of their products they will be able to earn more than fair market price inside the EU---there is strong EU talk to extend that customs relief well into 2015 as a stabilizing factor.

Wondered why the Chinese yesterday here in Berlin mentioned a number of times that international borders are not to be changed.

My concern is not the trade side but more importantly what will the West "allow" for Russian input into their new government and constitution as the Russians are making strong noises about what has to and what cannot go into the documents (from Interfax today)---will be interesting to see if the US lets the Ukrainians do it on their "own" or with a "little help from friends".

Russian suggested input still follows what they at first "suggested" to the "illegitimate" Ukrainian government as a possible solution at the start of the Crimea event.

[wm]

Russia announced via Interfax yesterday that the Crimea will be able to export 2M metric tonnes of grain to Russia this year.

Compare this with the following 25 March story from ITAR-TASS

Russia’s Agriculture Ministry considers ways of subsidizing seasonal agricultural work in Crimea, a source in the agriculture ministry told Itar-Tass.

Ways of supplying Crimean agricultural workers with farm machinery and fuel for sowing are considered, said the source.

He said the complexity of providing agricultural equipment lies in the fact that in the previous years Crimean agricultural producers received equipment from the south of Ukraine.

Tough to do much grain exporting if the farmers don't even have the equipment and fuel for sowing the grain to be exported in the first place.

[OUTLAW 09]

wm---tells me there is a distinction lack of unified messaging being done between TASS and Interfax which is actually unusual since they are both State controlled and to a large degree State owned.

There is a section that double checks the messaging---probably and I will go out on a limb---the first one is the correcter of the two and the second one is laying blame on the Ukrainians if in the fall the 2M tonnes do not get delivered.

Kind of a preventive act for the fall.

[OUTLAW 09]

wm-----Originally Posted by wm
"The guiding principle of intelligence analysis must always be a healthy dose of skepticism. Analysts must always remember to consider the source, to include the analysts themselves."

Something I have seen in the last 40 years or so of intel work and up to 2013 is one simple fact---not many intel analysts even understand they own personal biases especially military analysts.

Second thing I have learned is that there are just not many intel analysts that speak more than English these days. Especially the languages of eastern Europe.

Third thing I have learned is put 15 analysts in a room with one report and you will 15 varying opinions---even lucky to get a quorum on just one opinion.

In the years preceding the fall of the Wall DLI stopped teaching German and or even French as it was felt the Cold War was over---even Russian went into a slow walk and then after 9/11 it was all Arabic in multiple flavors.

[Firn]

Ukraine exported on average over the last five years roughly 10M tons of grain, according to this paper. 2M tons of grain export out of Crimea seem to be fantasy numbers, perhaps even if they export all the produced grain and import some back. In 2001 they got 1,4M tons according to this this thesis.

With a bit over 4% of the area of Ukraine Crimea produced roughly 3% of it's grain in 2001. Perhaps I will find some more data specific to the occupied territory.

[kaur]

About OSINT. 2 Putin's meetings with FSB officers. He warns about Westerns plans to disturbe his integration projects. In Russian. Moderates feel free to delete

February 2013 http://izvestia.ru/news/544959
December 2013 http://oko-planet.su/politik/politik...opasnosti.html

+ 1 In the beginning of December Russian front organisation of compatriots in Crimea received already tasks about Eurasian Union and future of Ukraine http://www.ruvek.ru/?module=articles...n=view&id=8622

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan---various open reporting tends to discount a lot of what is being throw around by the Russians ie disinformation and outright propaganda.

This article destroys a much published Russian myth at the at beginning of the Crimea event and just after the Maidan demos....

Yes, Russian propaganda is crude, at times almost embarrassing. I guess somebody somewhere falls for it.

Just when Obama gets untracked with the EU, China and especially Merkel ---der Spiegel Online is now carrying a NSA story from today that they collected over 300 reports from her cell.

That will go over like a lead balloon with her and the German public.

Wait a minute... who needs who when it comes to countering Russia? Is it Obama who needs Merkel, or is it Merkel who needs Obama? Who's being threatened here?

Hint: it ain't the US.

Again: the US-centric viewpoint is truly bizarre. This is not the US facing off with Russia and needing to rally European support. Europe is the target of the threat, not the US. Europe has the economic leverage, not the US. Europe has the capacity to contain Russia: this is not the battered Europe of the 1950s that we're talking about, it's a major modern group of states with economic clout that simply dwarfs anything the Russians can bring to bear. I certainly think the US should support Europe as requested, within reason, but why does the discourse here always try to place the US in a center stage role? Is this not just a reflexive reversion to Cold War patterns of thought?

Dayuhan---it does not take a clairvoyant to read text reporting quoting Putin nor any other Russian political figure these days. It is out there for all to read and understand or maybe not understand.

If you track Interfax on a daily basis you would have seen a reported meeting between Putin and his National Security Council two days ago and high level Duma reps where he gave them the tasking to analyze all of the "color" and "spring" events in order to understand how one must "protect" the Russian population from such neo radical, neo Nazi, Nazi and nationalist influences.

And he noted that whatever changes where to be made concerning Russian law they "should not" interfere with the Russian population's civil liberties.

So again to my point ---he "was not" concerned about the Ukrainian "street's influence" washing over his citizens in the coming years------BUT he was "concerned" enough to give a verbal tasking to his security council AND publicly have that tasking reported via Interfax---come on Dayuhan.

How nice it is of him to would respond to his "protection" of Russian civil liberties.

Secondly---search the web and one will find at least on five occasions since 2005 he has made virtually the same comment ie it was a disaster when the Soviet Union broke apart and it should have been left as a whole unit.

Now is that being clairvoyant or just a good reader when one now looks at actual events and one can place previous comments made by Putin into clear text context?

Dayuhan---now go to this link and tell me what you assume Putin in fact was alluding to---does not take a clairvoyant?

The "let us make Russia great again" rhetoric is as predictable as a metronome, and about as interesting. Taking that, adding on an opportunistic grab at a piece of land that was effectively handed over on a silver platter, and concluding that the intent is to re-establish the Soviet Union looks a bit like adding 2 and 2 and getting 10. The data are not sufficient to draw that conclusion, unless of course you really want to draw that conclusion... or if you're starting with that conclusion and working backward to try to support it.

It is never safe to draw conclusions about intentions from public speeches.

Of course Putin is not going to resurrect the Soviet Union, however fondly he dreams of it. He's not getting Central Asia back, among other things. He might, if he's willing to eat the pain and suck up prolonged sanctions, be able to absorb some Russian-dominated enclaves along bordering states. If he did - and again, the key to stopping him lies with Europe, not the US - how would that threaten the US?

It is worth remembering that the threat the Soviet Union posed to the US came from their position as the leader and dominant figure of a genuinely global ideological movement that for a time posed a direct challenge to the US, and for a while made serious inroads in the developing world and even in some developed countries. That ideological aspect of the Soviet threat is something Putin cannot replicate, because he has no ideology beyond Russian Nationalism, and Russian Nationalism can only be sold to Russians. It is not Communism.

We can treat Putin as a challenge, or if we really must as a potential threat, but trying to equate Putin's Russia with the threat posed by the Soviet Union just doesn't hold up. Putin's Russia is not the Soviet Union, this is not a new Cold War, and we'd be fools to treat it as such and let our decisions be shaped by reflexes inherited from a lost and unlamented age.

[Fuchs]

Again: the US-centric viewpoint is truly bizarre. This is not the US facing off with Russia and needing to rally European support. Europe is the target of the threat, not the US. Europe has the economic leverage, not the US. Europe has the capacity to contain Russia: this is not the battered Europe of the 1950s that we're talking about, it's a major modern group of states with economic clout that simply dwarfs anything the Russians can bring to bear. I certainly think the US should support Europe as requested, within reason, but why does the discourse here always try to place the US in a center stage role? Is this not just a reflexive reversion to Cold War patterns of thought?

I largely agree, but I disagree that "Europe" is threatened. And the lack of a real threat is what limits the enthusiasm to wrestle with Russia. Unlike the United States, Europeans are just not that much into the "containment" thing.

A former USSR country in geographic Europe, but outside of EU or NATO had and has its sovereignty violated.
Maybe Europeans are just more defensive; actions are not considered to be equally bad when they violate formal allies or not.
The expectation seems to be that U.S. governments are equally angered by both if only the perpetrator is a designated baddie. South Ossetia should have disproved this ambition in the context of Russia, but apparently it did not.

One or two more such cases and the U.S. might be called a paper tiger, which in turn might lead to another stupid war just to prove something.

[Dayuhan]

I largely agree, but I disagree that "Europe" is threatened.

Ok, that's legitimate... I should have said something like "to the extent that there is a threat, it is Europe that is threatened, not the US".

One or two more such cases and the U.S. might be called a paper tiger, which in turn might lead to another stupid war just to prove something.

It would be a poor sort of nation that got into a fight to avoid being called weak... but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

[davidbfpo]

How this is supposed to do anything but get a headline eludes me:

British troops will take part in wargames in the Baltics in order to reassure Ukraine in the face of a potential Russian invasion, the Defence Secretary said today.

The Ministry of Defence has not yet announced which units, and in what numbers, would take part in the exercises.

There is much, no, sorry, a little more about the UK's defence / military effort being "hollowed out" in the report.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-wargames.html

[Stan]

David,
Nothing new in the article. The aerial policing efforts have been performed and led by nearly every NATO nation for years.

In fact, so much to the point that when a new nation took over, it never made the local press.

Sadly, most of the three Baltic States can barely support the 2 aircraft that are already here.

Best, Stan

How this is supposed to do anything but get a headline eludes me:

There is much, no, sorry, a little more about the UK's defence / military effort being "hollowed out" in the report.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-wargames.html

[JMA]

I largely agree, but I disagree that "Europe" is threatened. And the lack of a real threat is what limits the enthusiasm to wrestle with Russia. Unlike the United States, Europeans are just not that much into the "containment" thing.

Yes this rings a bell...

From Chamberlain and appeasement

As the League of Nations crumbled, politicians turned to a new way to keep the peace - appeasement. This was the policy of giving Hitler what he wanted to stop him from going to war. It was based on the idea that what Hitler wanted was reasonable and, when his reasonable demands had been satisfied, he would stop.

[OUTLAW 09]

We have often written about whether the Russian troops were going to move into the Ukraine or just threaten.

The warning tone of the intel articles being leaked/released has been raising in the last several days as has the number of the Russian troops being counted---what is brothering some analysts is now the spotted Russian field hospital located within 10kms of the Ukrainian border.

Add now the return of the Senior NATO Commander (US) back to NATO this evening due to "the lack of transparency" on the part of the Russian intentions. Interesting as he was in DC for Senate hearings which he cancelled and then suddenly left.

That is a serious signal to Putin that NATO/EU/US are not buying into the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Defense Minster statements that they will not be crossing as the ground reality is telling them something else.

What is also interesting is that in the last two days via Interfax there are more and more press releases concerning violence against proRussians in the Ukraine, more demos for their own elections on whether to leave the Ukraine and naturally more reporting on neo radical, neo Nazi activity along with strong Russian "suggestions" about what they think the Ukrainians should be doing in their new constitution.

[Stan]

What is also interesting is that in the last two days via Interfax there are more and more press releases concerning violence against proRussians in the Ukraine, more demos for their own elections on whether to leave the Ukraine and naturally more reporting on neo radical, neo Nazi activity along with strong Russian "suggestions" about what they think the Ukrainians should be doing in their new constitution.

This entire region has been doing that since 92 and it sadly still takes place here every year.

You are either a Russian or a Nazi despite the fact that today's youth have not a clue and are not even remotely interested in reading about their recent past.

Power vacuums and growing pains. Hardly news, but certainly something Germany is concerned about.

[wm]

Add now the return of the Senior NATO Commander (US) back to NATO this evening due to "the lack of transparency" on the part of the Russian intentions. Interesting as he was in DC for Senate hearings which he cancelled and then suddenly left.

Again one wonders what is your source??? I ask because according to the Senate Armed Services Committee web page, the hearings are still on for April 1st.

By the way your prior post about Breedlove commenting on Russia's ability to sprint across the Ukraine (my poor paraphrase of your post) came to light in an article in the NY Post--not exactly a quality source unless you are looking for scandal and innuendo.

[wm]

wm---come on dude---check CNN both online as well as their ongoing International Desk.

Do you really read anything other than........whatever is your view point. A case in point follows.

I read a lot from all sides and do so quite carefully. One wonders about your ability to quote accurately. A case in point follows.
Youi said:

Add now the return of the Senior NATO Commander (US) back to NATO this evening due to "the lack of transparency" on the part of the Russian intentions. Interesting as he was in DC for Senate hearings which he cancelled and then suddenly left.

Here's the CNN story's excerpt

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the top U.S. commander in Europe back to the continent because of the "growing uncertainty in Ukraine," Pentagon press secretary Rear. Adm. John Kirby said Sunday. Gen. Phil Breedlove was in Washington, where he was supposed to give annual testimony before Congress later this week.

"More broadly, he felt it was important for General Breedlove to continue our efforts to consult with NATO allies, and to discuss specific ways to provide additional reassurance for our NATO allies in Eastern Europe," Kirby said of Hagel's decision to cut short Breedlove's stay in Washington.

"While it does not foreshadow imminent military action in Ukraine, the general's return will allow him more time to confer closely with his staff and our allies and partners, and to better advise senior leaders," Kirby said.

The reason I asked for your source was to see how badly you had distorted the news story you were sourcing. And, not surprisingly, the distortion is pretty apparent. Despite your assertion to the contrary, a US COCOM Commander does not have the prerogative to cancel Congressional hearings. GEN Breedlove did not act on his own initiative. He was told to go back to Europe by the SecDef. And GEN Breedlove could easily be back in DC for the Tuesday hearings.
Having GEN Breedlove back in Europe gives the folks back in DC the right level of clout at NATO to see and report on what the rest of the alliance leadership is thinking. I do not see anything here about a lack of transparency or any of the other fear-mongering stuff you cited previously.

[wm]

From Chamberlain and appeasement

From page three of the above link:

There were many reasons why Chamberlain appeased Hitler, but here are the main ones:
1.The British people wanted peace - they would not have supported a war in 1938.
2.Many of Hitler's complaints appeared reasonable at the time - especially about the Treaty of Versailles.
3.Chamberlain wanted a strong Germany to serve as a barrier against expansion by communist Russia.
4.Britain's armed forces were not ready for a war, and they could not have helped Czechoslovakia anyway.
5.Many people admired Hitler. In 1938, the American magazine 'Time' declared him 'Man of the Year'.
6.Chamberlain remembered the slaughter of the First World War; he thought another war would destroy civilization

How many of these reasons, mutatis mutandis, besides perhaps #4, map to Western European leadership's feelings about Putin and 21st Century Russia?