Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[Stan]

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.

That's where you enter the picture. The analyst back at Bowling can also read interfax or whatever garbage being regurgitated. But, it is then up to folks like us to ensure that the open source being quoted has been sufficiently scrutinized, so that "that" single-language analyst at least knows that the open source being quoted is left from center, Bravo Sierra

You, as a field reporter with 40 years of experience, should know that.

I have also asked that you out of courtesy for others herein, provide links. It's a bit cheesy to fall back on "it's in German" as if you are the only one that speaks more than one language.

[Stan]

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

Hommik ! Ammu pole sind näinudki kodumaal.

Let us know about these press sources so it's clear to the rest just who funds and supports their existence. Seems to me the sources are all government feeds.

Terv, Stan

[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.

[JMA]

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.

Here you go again.

This sounds like a repeat of your comments at the start of the Syrian crisis. You were 100% wrong then and with that track record I remain amazed you have the gall to try to sell your arguments on this thread. You have a very thick skin.

Funny how I read the international press and when you next post see you repeating the same line. You ever have original thoughts?

[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

[OUTLAW 09]

The Daily Beast from today is carrying an extremely detailed article containing photos and they have over 90M of video footage depicting exactly who was behind the killing of civilians via snipers on the Maidan.

Will be interesting to see how the Russians respond to the article, photos and video footage as they have been crying for an investigation and now it looks like the KGB/FSB trained snipers were behind the attacks.

If in fact it was the Ukrainian SBU which is virtually under FSB control it really be interesting to see how the Ukrainian government responds as well.

[OUTLAW 09]

Looks like the Russian did in fact respond but I think their PR came out via Interfax before they knew of The Daily Beast article, videos, and photos.

From Interfax from today---look who is the author ie their Foreign Minister:

03/30 14:12 Moscow has evidence suggesting Right Sector was behind Maidan snipers' shooting - Lavrov

So we have just in the last four days seen a massive amount of disinformation if not blatant lying.

So again why trust FM Lavov when he states the Russian military is not going into the Ukraine if he cannot get his story straight on the snipers.

It is also amazing just how little Russia and Putin thought through their actions in the Crimea and the sanctions are taking multiple different avenues which are actually surprising them---this article in from Interfax show their FM stunned that Crimean's wanting to travel to the EU will have to go Kiev to get their EU visas and show an Ukrainian pass---it is almost like the Russian FM does not even understand the EU visa requirements

From Interfax today:

March 30, 2014 14:39 Moscow not informed about EU plans to issue visas to Crimea residents via Kyiv - Lavrov


MOSCOW. March 30 (Interfax) - No official notification has arrived in Moscow about the European Union's plans to issue Schengen visas to residents of Crimea exclusively through Kyiv, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

"No decision has been made yet, as far as I know. But speculation of this sort has gotten round, in a rather original manner, I would say. Some claim that rules should be introduced, requiring each Crimean applicant for the Schengen visa to travel to Ukraine, visit the consular service and get the visa after producing the Ukrainian passport," Lavrov said in an interview with the Voskresnoye Vremya program on Russia's Channel One.

"Statements are also being made that European Union travelers can visit Ukraine without a visa and that Ukraine has unilaterally offered the visa-free regime to European Union countries. But the visa regime holds for Crimea," he said.

"Such approaches are being discussed publicly and seriously," Lavrov said.

"They are not talking with us, however. They are discussing this within their inner circle, arguing that they will make a decision, which must be enforced. This is unacceptable. It is a crude violation of human rights. People who live in Crimea and who opted to switch to Russian citizenship, have nothing to do with geopolitics. They want to live in a country that matches their cultural and linguistic interests and 'genetic fund.' If the European Union takes such steps we, I am sure, will retaliate in a way that would make it clear to the European Union that these crude violations of human right will not pass," Lavrov said.

NOTE: not sure what they will do as most still have to get a visa to visit Russia so that will be nothing new to the EU.

NOTE: what the heck is "genetic fund" never knew there were specific Russian gene sets---so now does everyone require a DNA test prior to joining the Russian Federation?

Lavrov also said that the discussion of the issue of visas for Russians planning to travel to Ukraine, did not go any further. Asked whether Russia could introduce visas for Ukrainians, he said, "It would be stupid, in my opinion." "I think this idea is no longer alive in Kyiv. It must have been raised in the heat of the debate, but it has been rejected and is of no importance now," Lavrov said

[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

[OUTLAW 09]

Putin has repeatedly stated that he is/was angered by the expansion of NATO which the Russians were supposedly told in 1990 would not happen.

In the German Focus Online today is an article which two Germans close to the conversations during that period stated --- that conversation never occurred as no one in 1990 even envisioned the Soviet Union breaking up as fast as it did when it did.

So has Putin built his "own" version in his mind about the breakup of the Soviet Union?

Genau diesem Geruecht wiederspricht nun allerdings der Ex-Kanzlerberater Horst Teltschik. Diese Zusage gab es nicht. Keiner hat 1990 die Aufloesung der Sowjetunion und des Warschauer Paktes erwartet noch vorausgesehen", sagte Teltschik der Bild-Zeitung vom Montag laut Vorabbericht. Er war mageblich an den deutsch-deutschen Verhandlungen der Wendezeit und der deutschen Wiedervereinigung beteiligt. Auch der fruehere Auenminister Hans-Dietrich-Genscher hatte eine solche Zusage in einer ZDF-Talkshow bestritten.

[Stan]

In the German Focus Online today is an article which two Germans close to the conversations during that period stated ---

Honestly, do you really read this garbage ?

„Tu es nicht mit Russen“ heißt eine Kampagne ukrainischer Aktivistinnen. Ihr Sex-Streik gewinnt zusehends an Aufmerksamkeit. Auf der Facebook-Seite der Ukrainerinnen hat der Protest zwischenmenschlicher Natur bereits Tausende Likes.

A sex boycott against Russians with T-shirt sales proceeds going to the Ukrainian Army

[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.

[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?

[JMA]

From page three of the above link:

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

Are you in denial that appeasement is at the core of the current response to Russian military aggression?

PS: cowards always seek to rationalise their behaviour - to respond to your question

[OUTLAW 09]

This goes to the current nationalism that is driving in some aspects Putin who is riding it.

"I was born in the Soviet Union," wrote Udaltsov on his movement's website, "and it will always be my homeland. Those who destroyed it and their supporters today will always be my political opponents. The rebirth of the Soviet Union in new forms is necessary, crucial and urgent."

Komsomolskaya Pravda journalist Ulyana Skoibeda, whose claim to fame is the scandal last year when she regretted that the ancestors of today's Jewish opposition activists hadn't been killed by the Nazis, was ecstatic over the Crimean annexation.

"As I listened to Putin's speech about Crimea, I hugged my child close and said, 'Look, son. You will remember this for the rest of your life,'" Skoibeda wrote. "Entering a conflict with the whole world to defend your rights and interests — that is the U.S.S.R. And being willing to live in poverty — that is also the Soviet Union. So what if Russia has been kicked out of the Group of Eight? The Soviet Union always lived in isolation. My homeland is back."

A large swath of the Russian population shares Skoibeda's views. Almost everyone who supports using force against Ukraine sees it primarily as a path to resurrecting the Soviet Union. This may be explained by the fact that the majority of these people never lived in the U.S.S.R. and do not remember it. For them, it is just a mythical golden age of a great power that could provide stability to several generations of Russians.

[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.

[Firn]

I just wanted to add that while France and Britain were 'appeasing' Mr. Hitler they were rather heavily gearing up for war.

----

Personally I would welcome a somewhat higher military spending but most importantly a better spending on the Italian and European level. For example in Italy the armed forces have a far too old median age, are too top-heavy, too micro-managed and it's budget far too personnel-centric. One has just to look at the forces as a whole and then compare it to other ones. It is the old song that the pay-checks and privilegi especially towards the top get defended at all costs at the price for the other big two areas training and equipment. The bureaucrats have cut them to the bones and have been considerable harder on the salaries of the lower ranks...


On the issues of the Baltic states: Wouldn't it be helpful to station at least one EU-NATO heavy brigade + support elements in the Baltics? Rotating it a bit like the air-police thing should help to share the burden. The cost of the base, housing and training facilities could be shared by NATO and the three NATO 'hosts'. The idea is to give further credibility that NATO will protect her members, ideally raising the potential costs of any Russian plan to such a level that a war won't go hot there.