| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Where's Waldo? |
| 2018-03-21 |
| From an insightful link and article provided this morning by our own Procopius2k [PJ] There are two ways to find one's bearings in the maze of allegations over Russian collusion in the West. The first is to evaluate each piece of breaking news with respect to the tangled skeins of conspiracy that both sides and hundreds of pundits tirelessly launch. The second approach is to understand Russia's objectives from first principles, and from them evaluate each piece of information in relation to the Kremlin's interests. Unless there's some easy way to find Waldo it's easy to become a victim of disinformation. The quickest way to identify the character is to become familiar with his signature. The unfailing signature of a Putin stooge is he promotes the Kremlin's interests. What are those interests? Common sense suggests Russia's three most immediate priorities are a) keeping its energy industry profitable; b) maintaining a military posture of intimidation in Europe; and c) keeping Assad in Syrian power and evicting the U.S., in cooperation with Iran, from the region. It will be readily apparent that achieving these goals will serve the interests of Putin. Conversely, their defeat or frustration is necessarily a setback for him. Find the man or men who back those goals and you've got Waldo. It may be useful to examine the prospects of each of these Russian goals at the present time. The future of Russian oil isn't very bright under current trends. As CNBC noted in March 2018: "[T]he United States will dominate the oil industry for the next 5 years, International Energy Agency forecasts." If this continues it will beggar Putin, or at least straiten his circumstances. He would certainly welcome a reduction in American oil production. Current American military increases must dampen Russia's military prospects in the European theater. In the words of the Los Angeles Times in February 2018: "Trump Proposes Huge Increase in Military Spending." This can hardly be welcome to Putin: The budget blueprint, combined with a defense boost that Congress approved last week, would increase Pentagon accounts for weapons, troops, training and for nuclear arms programs run by the Energy Department by more than $74 billion, a 10% increase over current spending levels. Trump's budget plan was released weeks after the Pentagon issued a national security strategy that called for a shift away from battling terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State, and retooling the military to deter and, if necessary, fight nuclear-armed adversaries such as Russia, China or North Korea.Russia's position in Syria was recently threatened by national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who "called for further U.S. action against Russia as punishment for crimes in Syria, in a fiery address at an event marking the seventh year of the Syrian Civil War." Only a few days ago, UN ambassador Nikki Haley warned of action unless Russia, Syria and Iran honored a ceasefire in Syria. While some skepticism has been expressed over whether the U.S. can effectively checkmate Russia in Syria, the Washington Post reports the administration lobbying the Saudis in just such an endeavor. But current policies are not a given. There may be political pressure from the Saudis to cut back on U.S. oil production. Developments in Syria may push the administration into withdrawing before Iran and Russia. Whatever the justification, if this ever happens at least there will be an objective yardstick against which to measure Trump's direction of movement, some frame of reference against which to base the suspicion of collusion or the opposite thereof. Given the tangle of theories swirling around the Russia probe, it may ultimately be simpler and more accurate to evaluate actions in the light of the following question: does the development empower Russia's strategic goals? Or does it hinder them? |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #9 Unfortunately the United States has a long history of abandoning allies or friends when the going gets tough. Democracies don't have staying power - Jerry Pournelle. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-03-21 19:13 |
| #8 Ref #7: I recall the difficulties gaining 'Zonie' (US Citizen) support in 1989, in the lead up to Operation Just Cause. They wanted to help, but were fearful of the consequences if dictator Manuel Noriega was not effectively removed. "Look what happened in Vietnam" was a frequent retort. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2018-03-21 18:28 |
| #7 Unfortunately the United States has a long history of abandoning allies or friends when the going gets tough. From the shores of Tripoli c1804 to Vietnam to Libya and Mubarak recently, these actions have damaged us and made others lose faith in us. To abandon the Kurds we have supported in Iraq and Syria or to abandon the government of Afghanistan would be disasters comparable to Obama's ceding our influence in Syria to Russia. It would encourage Iran and North Korea to wait for us to let them have their way. My impression, based on very incomplete information is that the CIA was not very useful in Syria, that is not the issue. The significance of an action has little to do with its direct intent and very much to do with what impression it makes on other actors on the world scene. It is true that Carter's incompetent foreign policy got Sadat to seek direct peace with Israel, but that is insufficient reason to promote incompetence in such matters. |
| Posted by: Daniel 2018-03-21 18:02 |
| #6 Why on Earth are we in Syria? When it comes to intra-Islamic fighting, we should provide arms and information to whichever side is losing. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2018-03-21 14:48 |
| #5 I can't figure that one out, either, grom. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2018-03-21 14:26 |
| #4 Why on Earth are we in Syria? Don't ask me - I still haven't figured why you conquered Kosovo for Islam. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-03-21 14:15 |
| #3 >Why on Earth are we in Syria? To make the CIA staff rich of course. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2018-03-21 12:49 |
| #2 Why on Earth are we in Syria? What possible national interest is served there? You know our "allies" in Syria are groups like al-Nusra, who are Islamist headchoppers, right? Because they are. No good reason and the answer to your second question is "correct." But Ralph Peters, John McCain, Bill Kristol, the Notional Review, Langley, Foggy Bottom and InjunBucket will call you a moron for thinking like that. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2018-03-21 11:11 |
| #1 Why on Earth are we in Syria? What possible national interest is served there? You know our "allies" in Syria are groups like al-Nusra, who are Islamist headchoppers, right? Because they are. |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy7309 2018-03-21 10:42 |