Category Archives: Crimea

Falklands and Crimea: Las Manzanas y Las Naranjas

05 Saturday Apr 2014

Posted by in Crimea, Falkland Islands

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

By Greg Smith

Argentine President Cristina Fernández has used the Russian annexation of Crimea to repeat the tired argument the Falkland Islands, called the Malvinas in Argentina, are rightly part of her country, but using her reasoning a part of Argentina should be Chilean property. This is just another attempt to avoid the subject of her foolish economic policies that are ruining the Argentine economy.

A year ago the Falkland Islanders themselves voted they want to remain a colony of Great Britain. According to Reuters there were three votes “no” against over 1,500 “yes.” Fernández believes they have no say.

“What is the value of a referendum in an overseas colony that is 14,000 kilometers from the United Kingdom?” Fernández said.

It seems that distance should actually make the referendum more relevant. It must be a very important relationship to bridge that divide. If distance is an issue then the southernmost tip of Argentina should be part of Chile. The Straight of Magellan cuts off Argentina’s portion of Tierra del Fuego from the rest of Argentina, but the area is connected to Chile.

“Something that is fundamental for preserving world peace, for respecting international law, is to not have a double standard when it is time to make decisions,” Fernández said. “You can’t be in favor of territorial integrity in Crimea and against territorial integrity with the Malvinas in Argentina.”

If Fernández is actually in favor of territorial integrity Argentina must cede its portion of Tierra del Fuego to Chile. I hate to call her at this hour, so I’ll just assume that’s not going to happen. And perhaps Fernández should consult a map to see the Falklands are 300 miles from Argentina, so territorial integrity is not an issue.

Tierra del Fuego

The Falklands were not even settled by South Americans, but by the French, who were replaced by the Spanish, who were replaced by the British. Argentina claims it acquired title from Spain upon independence. By that argument it could lay claim to other former Spanish possessions in the region. Watch out Chile.

Deciding from a legal standpoint which nation has rightful ownership would be like a probate court attempting to sort out a vague and convoluted 250-year-old will, with the entire estate going to only one of two extremely distant relatives. To argue the islanders’ vote to remain British subjects doesn’t matter is imperialist. Their vote is all that matters. Even if Argentina’s claims were airtight, trying to right all the wrongs from previous centuries would involve putting, if Wikipedia is correct, 97% of Argentines back on boats bound for Europe and turning the nation over to indigenous peoples. Again, I’ll assume that is not in the offing.

Argentina should be alarmed that natives of an island so close would almost unanimously rather be part of a nation nearly 9,000 miles away. Who can blame them given the South American penchant for redistributionist, inflationary policies that cause their leaders to spend half their time cursing non-existent colonialism and the other half asking for bailouts? Given Argentine history, who in their right mind would choose to associate economically and politically with Buenos Aires?

Since Britain has expressed support for the islanders right to self-determination – Argentina refuses to recognize that fundamental international principle — if Fernández would switch to an economic model that values individual rights, freedom and markets, the Argentines would be in a better position in a generation to win the islanders’ consideration. Politicians are not known for their long-term concern.

The United States has abandoned a position of neutrality and has said Britain should hold talks with Argentina on the issue. Britain has correctly said there is no issue to discuss, the islanders, who should enjoy the right of self-determination, made their decision. It would be understandable for the U.S. to ignore its historic relationship with Britain if London was in the wrong, but it is shameful the U.S. is simultaneously ignoring its relationship with Britain as well as the overwhelming sentiment of the Falkland Islanders.   ©

Thoughts, comments or criticism are welcome.

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

 https://betterfatthanfascist.com/2014/03/22/u-s-needs-to-back-u-k-to-head-off-falkland-war-ii/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnography_of_Argentina

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/uk-ukraine-crisis-falklands-idUKBREA2I1H320140319

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tierra+del+Fuego+Province/@-53.0602445,-68.0995855,6z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0xbc4c22cfd9432921:0x80ee54358cf0d88d

Carnac on Putin

01 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Crimea

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

By Greg Smith

If only Johnny Carson were still alive to comment on the Russian annexation of Crimea.

Five weeks after Russia first invaded and two weeks after Russia officially annexed the region, Russia continued to mass troops on the Ukrainian border. With heavy armor and logistics lines in place, the only logical reason in the wake of the uncontested invasion was Russia wanted a bigger piece of the pie. Clearly the West planned no serious response, so why not a second helping? Soviet, uh, I mean Russian President Vladimir Putin may also be using the military buildup as a threat now that Russia is pressuring Ukraine to break itself into a federation of regions, which would make it weaker and more easily manipulated by Moscow.

Given the lack of any response other than words from the West at the original invasion, Russia has nothing to fear, and that is the problem. This is completely the fault of the Obama administration for taking military responses off the table right from the beginning. It made Putin’s calculations much more simple.

The U.S. response of, ‘We can’t do anything about it, so why bother trying,’ is exactly why Russian troops, tanks and aircraft continued to build along the border with Ukraine. Putin had been told point-blank his continued threat would draw no response from the West. The lack of a response is akin to the broken-window theory in criminology. Failure to respond to small problems will only lead to larger ones as criminals face no consequences, reminiscent of New York City in the early 1990s.

For decades the Big Apple had been degrading into a cesspool of poverty, drugs, and crime. During Mayor David Dinkins term from 1990-93 the city began to be called “ungovernable” and was better known for aggressive squeegee men threatening motorists for a few bucks than anything else. But in 1994 Rudy Giuliani took over as mayor and simply enforced the laws. His administration didn’t leave small crimes unpunished, which helped lead to a huge drop in serious crime.

If the U.S. and NATO do not offer a serious challenge to Putin, why shouldn’t he take over another piece of Ukraine, or maybe Poland or the Baltics?

That’s where Johnny Carson comes in because I can just picture The Magnificent Carnac putting the envelope to his head and saying “Vladimir Putin.”

Carnac then opens the envelope and says:

“What do you get when you cross a Bond villain with a squeegee man.”

“What do you get when you cross a Bond villain with a squeegee man.”   ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

 

Is Taiwan the Next Crimea?

20 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in China, Crimea, Foreign Policy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

By Greg Smith

For going on two decades Americans have viewed China as a serious military adversary. While the U.S. could defeat China without breaking a sweat, the global economic fallout of such a war would be severe, so the best strategy is to avoid it in the first place. The Obama administration’s response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea is not helping.

When a Chinese fighter aircraft collided with an American P-3 surveillance plane over international waters south of China in 2001, the U.S. response was surprisingly tame and muted. Since then angst has grown over our place in the world, or at least in Asia. In 2009 U.S. media outlets discovered the existence of China’s DF-21D “carrier-killer” anti-ship ballistic missile. The response in the media and Internet was somewhat hysterical, as if the Navy’s aircraft carriers had never faced a threat from other nations.

If war between the U.S. and China were to occur even in China’s best-case scenario it would be defeated by the U.S. In China’s best-case scenario it quickly defeats any other militaries before the U.S. Navy and Air Force could deploy, and also China’s missiles are able to keep U.S. naval surface forces 1,000 miles from China’s shore. Neither of these is close to certain.

China’s is an export-driven economy with a heavy dependence on imported oil from South America and the Middle East, iron ore and copper from Australia and many other raw materials. In turn, products are shipped by sea around the world. Considering routes from China’s coastline are largely hemmed in by Japan, the Philippines, Australia and the Straights of Malacca, the U.S. would not even need aircraft carriers to effectively blockade commercial shipping from China or petroleum bound for it.

The People’s Liberation Army Navy is not capable of projecting power beyond the range of land-based aircraft. U.S. submarines and aircraft alone would be able to sink any ship departed from China. American forces could asphyxiate the Chinese economy. The U.S. needn’t bomb China back to the Stone Age when it could instead blockade it back to 1999 in economic terms.

The downside is such a blockade would negatively affect much of the world economy – including the U.S. economy — and cause an unnecessary rift between two of the world’s most economically powerful nations. Both nations have too much to lose.

China’s economic maturity should act as a deterrent to recklessness, as her actions have the capacity to cause large drops in stock prices, and more importantly price increases on the raw materials on which her economy depends. Yet Beijing continues aggressive stances toward its maritime neighbors, claiming wide swaths of ocean and training for offensive military operations. Mutual prosperity doesn’t seem to be a certain road to peace.

If U.S. foreign policy makes it appear to Beijing it can act with impunity, China’s actions make it clear it will only be a matter of time before an actual war breaks out. The Obama administration’s “pivot” of a relative handful of military assets to the Pacific is not a replacement for decisive engagement by the U.S.

Considering how the Russian invasion of Crimea was handled the Obama administration should make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that U.S. response to an Asian conflict would be instantaneous and unflinching. To demur is to temp an outcome in which all sides lose.  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com

U.S. Better Have a Strong Plan B in Central Europe

04 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Crimea, Foreign Policy, NATO, Russia, Ukraine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

“Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America – once again – to lead.” Barack Obama, July 15, 2008.

President Obama ran for office on a partial platform of improving U.S. relations with foreign countries but his administration has shown a lack of mastery of international affairs. Over a year into his second term foreign policy is ill-defined, buffeted by events and hamstrung by the secretary of state’s pre-occupation with a diplomat’s equivalent of cold fusion.

John Kerry has spent much of the past year trying to forge a framework for a final settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. In itself that would be fine, but the world is not on hold and there is no indication either government is ready to make the major concessions needed to end possibly the most bitter international dispute in modern history. Lately talk is Kerry has made progress, but it will be easy to tell if a real agreement is within reach: Iran’s proxies will rain missiles on Israel as never before.

The Obama administration may not be at fault for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but President Obama’s responses in Libya, Syria, Iran and North Korea as well as America’s recent diplomatic posture probably gave Vladimir Putin the impression the U.S. would respond to its invasion of Ukraine only with threats of a diplomatic nature.

The president and secretary of state are absolutely at fault for having three months’ notice there was a major problem brewing in one of Central Europe’s fledgling democracies and doing absolutely nothing about it. Given the likelihood of Ukraine joining NATO if Kiev lurched back toward the West, Russia’s reaction to events was quite obvious. Yet the administration had either no plan at all, or worse it had a plan and that’s what we’re seeing play out.

After 9/11 U.S. policy was too predicated on full military responses. But this president has swung even further to the other side of an effective mix of hard and soft power. Worse yet, over five years in and he doesn’t seem to have learned how to deal with trouble spots. Not every other world leader views realpolitik as a bad thing. It’s like we’re playing tennis, but Putin is playing football. The time to make adjustments is before we’re flat on our diplomatic back with a concussion.

Given Europe’s dependence on Russian petroleum exports, America’s initial response of threatening Russia with sanctions and isolation are doomed to fail and America’s partners – as well as their enemies — around the world will see to the extent they can count on us in a pinch. Simply not alienating ourselves from others is not the same as leading.   ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com

American Failure to Act in Ukraine Likely to Have Global Consequences

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Crimea, Foreign Policy, Soft Power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

The Russian incursion into Ukraine is a good time for the U.S. to better explore the use of a softer power – strategy – to shape world events for the better. Washington needs to get this right quickly or it may soon have greater problems with China, Iran and North Korea – and even Saudi Arabia.

The time line of events indicates this was probably not a snap decision by Vladimir Putin. November 30, 2013 saw pro-Western demonstrations in Kiev met with violence by riot police, which has not abated in three months. Two days later Kiev’s city hall was overrun by protesters, and on Feb. 20 government forces began to murder protesters. Russia responded with only words through these events. Putin is well aware that President Carter cancelled American athletes participation in the 1980 Olympics held in Moscow; the last time Russia hosted the games.

Suddenly, Ukraine’s pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych flees to Russia a day and a half before the Olympics end, at which time Putin has a free hand to act without tarnishing his pet project, the Sochi games. The day after the games end Putin’s pool boy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev begins the drumbeat of war by questioning the new government in Kiev. The rest is recent history. It may be coincidence, but who would question whether Putin is willing to orchestrate events to suit his purposes?

President Obama’s response to watching Russian troops rolling into a Central European country is being heavily scrutinized in Beijing, Pyongyang, and Tehran. But the most peril lies in the impression it leaves in Riyadh, Tokyo, Manila, Taipai, Canberra, Paris and London — indeed inside every government that relies on the U.S. — and on whom the U.S. rely — for some level of security cooperation.

As you read there must be arguments in Beijing that there will be no better time to cross the Taiwan Straight, which would back Washington into a choice between a major war or irrelevance.

The best example is the Saudi Arabians, who according to BBC News may have nuclear weapons on order from Pakistan. The Saudis were disappointed to say the least at the Obama administration’s response to and handling of the civil war in Syria and openly questioned whether they could count on the U.S. having the willingness to prevent Iran, the Kingdom’s arch enemy, from acquiring nuclear weapons.

If Saudi leaders had been on the fence, what must they be thinking now, and if they acquire nuclear weapons, will they think twice about using them because they have faith in the U.S.?  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political strategist who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

Naval Blockade Is NATO’s Best Response to Russia’s Crimean Incursion

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Crimea, Foreign Policy, geostrategic

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

If the Obama administration wants a serious, effective response to the Russian intervention in the Crimea, it need only consult a map and a history book.

In 1948 Soviet forces denied the Western Allies access to Berlin in an attempt to force the West into abandoning this thorn in Stalin’s side. The West responded with an airlift, moving massive amounts of supplies essentially over the Iron Curtain. The wisdom of the Berlin Airlift was it allowed the West to maintain West Berlin as an outpost of freedom while forcing the Soviets to make the first move in a war. The Soviets wisely backed down.

Considering the geography and politics of the region, an effective response would be for NATO to announce a naval blockade of the entrance to the Sea of Marmara. Denying Russian access to the Turkish Straights would make the Black Sea a lake and strategically much less important, greatly diminishing the value of Russia’s naval base in the Crimea. This would warn Russia of Western resolve to defend the territorial integrity of Central Europe while forcing the Russians to fire the first shot. They would not dare.

The blockade would need to be held until Russian forces depart Ukrainian occupied territory outside of the base leased to them by Ukraine and publicly agree to respect Ukraine’s independence.

By indirectly intervening the international community would generally look upon this as justifiable and wise use of force, show Washington as a reliable partner, force Russia to think twice before its next incursion and achieve the goal without bloodshed. There is no downside. The world awaits an intelligent response.  ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com.