Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[Dayuhan]

...he expects Westerners to understand what he sees as an ethnic minority/majority seeking to join their brethren. Just as Westerners feel the need to help fledgling democracies, he feels the need to help repressed Russians. Our SF are designed to go in and help freedom fighters; his are doing the same.

There has been some discussion on SWC over the years of the possibility that borders are often irrationally drawn and need not be sacrosanct, especially when they are poorly aligned with ethnic, tribal, or cultural reality on the ground. What I find interesting is that the reaction to this possibility is generally quite accommodating when the discussion is about Africa, and very much less so when the discussion is about Europe!

[OUTLAW 09]

There has been some discussion on SWC over the years of the possibility that borders are often irrationally drawn and need not be sacrosanct, especially when they are poorly aligned with ethnic, tribal, or cultural reality on the ground. What I find interesting is that the reaction to this possibility is generally quite accommodating when the discussion is about Africa, and very much less so when the discussion is about Europe!

Dayuhan---I would go a step further and state a vast majority of African and ME borders were drawn in the interests of the colonial powers and decisions made in 1919 as to who was responsible for what under the post WW1 decisions and League of Nations decisions.

The current problem for Europe is vastly more complex---the SU before is dissolution was in fact comprised of over 136 different language and ethnic groupings held together by Stalin.

Then the breakup---which followed the more traditional method of if it existed in 1994 then so be it and no attempt was made to correct the boundaries nor were Europeans and Russians of a mindset to actually change them.

Then came along the OCSE (with 53 members) and the INF (US/Russia)coupled with the small thing called the Treaty of Westphalia (the former European colonial powers) which tended to treat borders as final---then along came Kosovo which the Russians now use as their premier example of how the West violated all of the above.

Now we have the Putin doctrine which states that is a single country "feels" that it's cultural, ethnicity, and language brothers in a neighboring country are being "mistreated" well then we as the defenders of the defined faith (as we define it) have with emphasis on the have the ultimate right to acquire our fellow brothers and annex them into the "motherland".

That is a serious change of the entire European area as it calls into question the concept of relative peace/economic development since 1989/1994 as seen by many Europeans.

Now what is really interesting is that the Ukraine threw in the face of Russia ie Putin that he should take care of his own "ethnic" minority rights issues as Russia has the same exact problems within her borders as say the Ukraine.

Now super surprisingly Putin announces today that the Russian government needs to pass laws protecting the rights of ethnic minorities ie Germans, Poles, Tartars or any other minority living inside Russia.

Now the question tap tap do I hear a woodpecker in the forest meaning did Putin realize that his own ethnic nationalism driving what I call the Putin doctrine can come back to haunt him in the far eastern regions of Russian which has a high Chinese Russian speaking/Chinese speaking ethnic majorities in some areas that say China could in theory using the Putin doctrine actually "claim" for China?

But if I am "protecting" them via laws then China cannot claim "protection rights".

Following the Putin doctrine in fact opens the gates to border changes in over 300 current hot spots many of them in Asia and Africa.

That is way Europe is up tight.

By the way an interesting small article from the Moscow Times on ethnicity and language and how Putin is misusing the two.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinio...rs/498581.html

[TheCurmudgeon]

Seems like the Russians are getting what David Maxwell on the blog side calls UW and political warfare.

Title taken from today’s' NYTs

Military Analysis Russia Displays a New Military Prowess in Ukraine’s East

By MICHAEL R. GORDON

Russian forces skillfully employed 21st-century tactics that combined cyberwarfare, an energetic information campaign and the use of highly trained special operation troops in its annexation of Crimea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/wo...etType=nyt_now

They are, and I applaud their use of UW where appropriate, but I think the article makes a number of mistakes imputing Putin's reasoning based on our reaction.

For its intervention in Crimea, the Russians used a so-called snap military exercise to distract attention and hide their preparations.

Was that really a faint, or was it the back-up plan in case additional assistance was required?

While the Kremlin retains the option of mounting a large-scale intervention in eastern Ukraine, the immediate purposes of the air and ground forces massed near Ukraine appears to be to deter the Ukrainian military from cracking down in the east and to dissuade the United States from providing substantial military support.

I believe that is imputing motivation based on the results.

We tend to see what we think is there rather than what is there.

My second point is that, while the UW strategy used was effective, it has limited utility outside of this situation. It would not work in locations without a substantial sympathetic population. The artilce both makes that point and avoids it.

Admiral Stavridis agreed that Russia’s strategy would be most effective when employed against a nation with a large number of sympathizers. But he said that Russia’s deft use of cyberwarfare, special forces and conventional troops was a development that NATO needed to study and factor into its planning.

“In all of those areas they have raised their game, and they have integrated them quite capably,” he said. “And I think that has utility no matter where you are operating in the world.”

UW is a tactic that requires some depth of knowledge about the human domain. So, without an accurate assessment of the sentiment of the local population, something we are not good at, UW should probably not be seen as a magic bullet. That said, it is a very powerful tactic in the right situation.

[Dayuhan]

My second point is that, while the UW strategy used was effective, it has limited utility outside of this situation. It would not work in locations without a substantial sympathetic population. The artilce both makes that point and avoids it.

Is it not also the case that the revolution in the Ukraine provided an exceptional opportunity to put a plan like this into operation? I have no doubt that the Russians have long considered the possibility of agitating ethnic Russians in neighboring countries as an excuse for intervention; that's too obvious a ploy to overlook... but the general breakdown in order and government capability certainly provided an exceptional opportunity to move.

It struck me the other day that if the Ukrainian government believes that a substantial majority in the east wants to remain part of the Ukraine, wouldn't it make sense to preempt the Russians by having their own referendum, with international observers (including Russians) and a real effort to assure that only Ukrainian citizens vote? Obviously the would have to be confidence in the outcome, but if you have the confidence, it could be a useful proactive step.

[TheCurmudgeon]

It struck me the other day that if the Ukrainian government believes that a substantial majority in the east wants to remain part of the Ukraine, wouldn't it make sense to preempt the Russians by having their own referendum, with international observers (including Russians) and a real effort to assure that only Ukrainian citizens vote? Obviously the would have to be confidence in the outcome, but if you have the confidence, it could be a useful proactive step.

It would, which makes me feel that they are not confident of the outcome.

The only way this could work is with a third party (i.e. UN) presence to ensure that the vote is fair (unlike the vote in the Crimea). Still, it is the kind of thing that could buy time and cool down passions … at least until the votes are counted and someone loses.

[wm]

There has been some discussion on SWC over the years of the possibility that borders are often irrationally drawn and need not be sacrosanct, especially when they are poorly aligned with ethnic, tribal, or cultural reality on the ground. What I find interesting is that the reaction to this possibility is generally quite accommodating when the discussion is about Africa, and very much less so when the discussion is about Europe!

The first part of this post goes to point I made recently about the difference between nations and peoples.

[OUTLAW 09]

Outlaw cited NYT.



I'm not very educated in history, but to me Crimea operations reminds this operation in much less favourable environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Es...%A9tat_attempt

Back then the Soviets used communist parties to make trouble, today it seems that they are using Russian nationalist narrative to do the same.

This book seems to be interesting. Price starts from 100 USD!?! :-0

http://books.google.be/books?id=buS6...vedupr&f=false

kaur---by the way you were correct in finding the Russian special ops guy with the beard whose picture was also released by the Ukrainians as having been in the Crimea as well as in Georgia in 2008.

[kaur]

Outlaw, if you look at the beard then you see that those beards are different. GRU Chechen Vostok guy has read beard, Slavyansk guy has grey/black. IMHO this Slavyansk guy is Crimea cossack. During first day they even had cossack hats. Today the specific hats are gone.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-ukraine-slips

[kaur]

This guy on the left was in Slovyansk.

[OUTLAW 09]

This guy on the left was in Slovyansk.

kaur---go back and watch this video posted by the Ukrainian SBU and carried by CNN.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukra...ns-344594.html

Yes you are right the beard is red but then check the black and greying areas of the other photos and then realize that special operations units all work with facial makeup ie either fake beards and or beard coloring which is the case in the red photo---was a bad hair dyeing case of red as it did not blend well with the real black and grey colors---by the way red is an easy color to wash out.

Would tend to go with the SBU's photo ID work.

[kaur]

This read beard is identified as deputy head of "Vostok" unit Hamzat Gairbekov (начальник разведки ныне расформированного батальона ГРУ "Восток" Хамзат Гайрбеков). In Russian internet you can find some additional information about this guy.

from the video

00:39 "CNN can't confirm the authenticity of the images. Some are poor quality"

This is the cossack vs Gairbekov.

[OUTLAW 09]

I have mentioned here a number of times and used a number of times the term ethnic nationalist which seemed to not be well liked by mirhond.

I have also used the concept that Russia foreign policy is really composed of four legs 1) the military, 2) the security services, 3) the oligarchs and 4) the Russian mafia and related gangs.

This weekend I had an opportunity of meeting a number of French think tank guys working in Strasbourg (who had a number of years in both Russia and the Ukraine and were fluent in Russian) that opened my eyes to an overriding layer that sits on top of the four groups.

Namely the Russian Orthodox Church which they claim has far more influence/input that many in the West fully understand especially if one understands the relationship between the Church and Stalin in the dark days as Germany raced towards Moscow---there was an alliance recreated that allowed the Church to grow and actually survive nicely all the years under so called Communist control.

Then today this comes up in a Foreign Policy article that goes in the same direction that the think tank guys were talking about--namely the influence of the Church on Putin and the Russian population in general--they even indicated that one must do a thorough review of the Church and it's relationship to the Soviet Communist Party and how it actually grew in power during those times when the West felt it had been oppressed.

"The Russian Orthodox Church thus comes increasingly to the fore as a symbol and bastion of these traditional values and all that they mean for the new imperialism. Russian Orthodoxy was never an especially evangelical faith, concentrating on survival and purity over expansion, and much the same could be said of Putin's worldview. In Putin's previous presidency, the church was supportive, but just one of many of his allies. Now, though, from the pulpit to television news programs, the church is one of the most consistent and visible supporters of Putin's state-building project. When interviewed on the subject of Crimea, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, one of Putin's cassocked cheerleaders, asserted that the church has long believed that "the Russian people are a divided nation on its historical territory, which has the right to be reunited in a single public body."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...ia_geopolitics