Tag Archives: Crimea

President Obama, 1938 Called, It Wants Its Foreign Policy Back

25 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Foreign Policy, NATO

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

By Greg Smith

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” President Obama to Mitt Romney during 2012 presidential debate.

The idea the North Atlantic Treaty Organization lost its mission after the fall of the Soviet Union has been proven wrong by Russia’s Crimean annexation, but the fog of peace still hasn’t lifted for NATO members who became pre-occupied doing business with the 800-pound gorilla in the Kremlin. NATO’s mission will continue so long as Russia exists.

For 40 years NATO had a single mission: protect Western Europe from the Soviet threat of invasion. When the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 widespread belief was the threat from Russia had permanently disappeared. That sentiment was probably shared by the Golden Horde in the 1400s. You know, the Mongol empire long ago absorbed by its former vassal state, Russia.

Since the 1200s Russia can be compared to a glacier during a cooling period. It mainly increases in size, engorging and less often disgorging satellite nations and regions. Despite its size – in area Russia is almost twice the size of the second largest nation, Canada – Russia has viewed its neighbors with fear and suspicion, of course with some justification. Adding territory on its margin provided both a greater buffer and control of populations. Russian leaders have proven adept at bargain hunting, snapping up land when the price was right.

The lesson from history for NATO is simple: Make the price Russia pays to take over other countries too high. In the past three weeks there has been discussion of Russian views of Eastern and Central Europe as a sphere of influence, and that Western diplomatic efforts at closer ties with Ukraine, as well as NATO inching closer to Russian borders are cause for alarm in Moscow. Hogwash.

Given its size and resources Russia no longer has any excuse or justification for taking over territory for self defense. European countries have been disarming for decades. Even collectively and including Turkey they pose no real danger to Russia. The U.S. has continued to invest in modern equipment but mainly for unconventional war. The U.S. Army has actually requested production of its main battle tank – the one designed to shred Soviet tanks — be stopped.

Russia’s aggressive stance – particularly using shadowy, unmarked forces who appear more like Klansmen — against Ukraine shows it didn’t get the U.S. State Department’s memo ending 19th Century power politics. Western nations invite greater problems if they treat Russia like a wayward regional power, applying sanctions instead of putting military options on the table. Vladimir Putin may mean it when he says Russia has no designs on Ukraine or any other country, but effective diplomacy is about credible foreign policies that prevent these types of crises before they occur.

Acting as a bulwark against Russian expansion does not require a Cold War posture or attitude. In fact, a credible, sincere defense policy would prevent Russia from actively considering military measures, leaving dialogue as the preferred option. Crimea leaving Ukraine could have been dealt with diplomatically, but Russia chose not to go that route. Why not is the 64,000-ruble question.

So long as Russia exists, NATO will have three core missions: contain Russia, contain Russia, and contain Russia. Whether NATO chooses to fulfill its mission is less clear. ©

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

U.S. Needs to Back U.K. to Head Off Falkland War II

22 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Falkland Islands, Foreign Policy

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

Without alteration to U.S. policy there is a very real possibility of a second invasion of the Falkland Islands in the next two years. The time is at hand for the U.S. to “dance with the one that brung you” and advise Argentina in case of a war, American forces will be offered to serve with or under command of Great Britain.

In 1982 the military junta governing Argentina ordered an invasion of the Falkland Islands as a means of diverting the gaze of Argentines from a bleak economic and political picture. This example of “mover al perro,” or wag the dog, generated a short-lived burst of nationalism for the junta. Argentina has long claimed the islands, which they refer to as the Malvinas.

Today, the Argentine economy is a shambles as yet another left-wing government tries to breath more life into Chavezanomics than Cuban doctors could breath into Chavez himself. Electricity blackouts, rampant inflation, a crushing debt load, consumer good and food shortages have public approval of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez below 30%. Another Falkland invasion would be a good way to get protesters to drop their sandwich boards and wave the flag in nationalistic adulation.

Buenos Aires continues to rattle the saber, recently adding a provision to its constitution on gaining control of the Falklands and announcing a large increase in defense spending, which would allow it to re-take the islands.

Prior to the 1982 Argentine invasion Britain had exercised control of the islands since 1833. The Royal Navy mounted an operation that re-established British control 74 days after Argentina invaded. Today, the Royal Navy is not its former Cold War self, lacking an operational aircraft carrier, without which its ability to defend British sovereignty in the South Atlantic crown colony is minimal at best.

During the 1982 war the U.S. remained officially neutral, though it fed satellite intelligence to the Thatcher government, was rooting for a quick British victory and had a secret plan to loan an amphibious assault ship to the Royal Navy if either of its carriers were sunk. Since taking office President Obama has placed less importance on U.S.-British relations than on his NCAA tournament picks. A web search using the terms “Britain,” “Obama” and “snub” shows British sentiment on its relationship with Washington. After all, they are only the country that stood – even when it was apparent they didn’t want to — “shoulder to shoulder” with the U.S. after 9/11.

The Obama administration has even had the temerity to say London should hold talks with Buenos Aires over what the State Department called “competing claims” to the Falklands, this even after the islanders themselves in March 2013 voted 99.8% to remain British subjects.

Considering U.S. treatment of Britain over the past five years and the lack of any real response to Russian aggression in Central Europe, Argentina could be forgiven for assuming the Obama administration’s response to another Argentine invasion of the Falklands would be handled by the deputy to the assistant deputy undersecretary for who gives a damn. Argentine President Cristina Fernandez has said American and British opposition to Russia’s annexation of Crimea is a double standard, comparing the situation in Crimea with that of the Falklands. This acutely faulty reasoning can only be interpreted as justification of if not necessarily a plan for a second Argentine invasion.

Argentina’s window for an invasion will narrow in January 2017, as a new U.S. president will make repairing the enormous damage to the U.K.-U.S. alliance his or her first international priority. That window will slam shut two years later as the Royal Navy will be getting at least one new aircraft carrier as soon as 2019, at which time the British fleet will completely outclass anything Argentina could muster.

The U.S. relationship with Argentina should not be thrown away lightly, and the U.S. should take pains to soften the diplomatic blow to Buenos Aires, but it is high time for the U.S. government to abandon its neutral policy on the Falkland Islands. Argentina has no legitimate claim to the Falklands. The nation that has legitimate claim also happens to be the closest, most loyal ally the U.S. could have.

Argentine planning for the 1982 invasion included a belief the U.S. would not interfere and possibly even pressure Britain to negotiate a peace. Quietly letting the Argentines know any use of force on their part will trigger an offer of U.S. assistance to Britain will remove any thoughts of an invasion, while showing Great Britain the special relationship is alive and well. God save the Queen.  ©

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10740605/Britain-is-disappointed-with-America-over-Falkland-Islands-finds-Commons-report.html

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

Blockade Forces Putin to Defeat Himself

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in Foreign Policy, NATO, Russia, Soft Power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

By Greg Smith

As previously covered in this blog, the best immediate response for NATO to the Russian invasion of Ukraine is to prevent access for Russian commercial and naval vessels to enter or exit the Black Sea.

One advantage of a naval blockade is it would require very limited air and naval forces, which would still be within striking distance of Iran. The U.S. Navy has grown smaller so a response that does not require a large number of ships would be preferable. The U.S. has F-22s in the region and could quickly have B-1s, which no longer have a nuclear role but can be fitted with anti-ship bombs and missiles. A blockade would be inexpensive, and Russia would not dare seriously test it.

NATO should immediately place a handful of old, expendable ships outside the Turkish Straights to act as a blockade curtain. The Russians may think we won’t risk a billion dollar cruiser in a collision, but the hockey crazy nation will understand the idea of a floating goon.

The best reason for a blockade is strategic: Russian access to the Mediterranean Sea is critical to Russia’s goal of becoming more a power equal to the U.S. Eliminating that access renders the Russian naval base nearly useless, an enormous strategic blow without firing a shot. Russia then has to decide to win a Pyrrhic victory or admit defeat. Russia would be forewarned its actions will seriously impair Vladimir Putin’s desperate desire to globally project military power.

Failure of the U.S. or NATO to act decisively will only invite further aggression, especially as it appears Russia’s incursion is intended to carve a Crimean slice off Ukraine. If the U.S. allows this to happen, which Baltic country is next on the menu?

Russia has used the Black Sea fleet to blockade the sovereign nations of Georgia and now Ukraine, it has no right to complain if another nation blockade’s the Black Sea fleet. A blockade is the best way to diffuse this crisis while preventing another. Why Washington won’t consider an essentially peaceful use of military power is beyond comprehension.  ©

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