In our understanding the degree to which Russia poses a threat we need to narrow down what meaning this report actually implies by use of this one word. The U.S. Military acknowledges in their recently published report "The National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015" that in regard to Russia and the other familiar suspects Iran, North Korea, and China:
None of these nations are believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies. Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the international community is working to collectively address by way of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action [1]
What "common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action" has the U.S. and the "international community" executed to reduce security concerns posed by their list of borderline-rogue nations? Before anyone reviews these alleged collective actions, it is critical to understand the term "international community" implies any nation supporting the U.S. Look at the combined populations of those nations not working with the U.S. to ease their security concerns. The total figures exceed that of the U.S. "international community." Thus, the U.S. determines whose actions are worthy of membership in the "international community." The term "international community" is more easily understood in this case, but what about understanding the degree to peace and security that Russia poses to us?
Although the U.S. Military states in the report noted above that Russia seeks no direct military conflict with it and its allies, in that same report they use more critical language to describe Russia's actions:
While Russia has contributed in select security areas, such as counternarcotics and counterterrorism, it also has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not respect the sovereignty of its neighbors and it is willing to use force to achieve its goals. Russia’s military actions are undermining regional security directly and through proxy forces. These actions violate numerous agreements that Russia has signed in which it committed to act in accordance with international norms, including the UN Charter, Helsinki Accords, Russia-NATO Founding Act, Budapest Memorandum, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. [2].We could cite many examples of the U.S. violating its agreements made with other nations. This usually leads to debates over semantics. International law supposedly bans the use of torture. But, the U.S. government believes waterboarding isn't torture...its just a form of "enhanced interrogation." Many other examples demonstrate that the U.S. interprets its relative adherence to international agreements using self-serving semantics. I'll leave the parsing the meanings of words like torture and terrorism to lawyers. While lawyers continue to debate the meanings of such words, U.S. Marine commandant General Joseph states Russia poses a threat to the U.S. using more direct and critical words than the U.S. Military did in their report noted above.
General Joseph Dunford stated during a confirmation hearing (for the next U.S. Chairman Joint Chief of Staff) with the U.S. Senate that;
What actions has Russia committed that would be considered both "alarming" and pose an "existential threat to the U.S? General Dunford provides an example of such behavior in a response to a question from Senator John McCain (of course no discussion about the Russian menace would be complete without a cameo appearance by McCain):In Russia we have a nuclear power. Not only one that has the capability to violate the sovereignty of our allies and to do things that are inconsistent with our national interest but they are in the process of doing so. If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I would have to point to Russia and if you look at their behavior, it’s nothing short of alarming. [3].
From a military perspective, I think it’s reasonable that we provide that support to the Ukrainians and frankly without that kind of support they are not going to be able to protect themselves from Russian aggression, [4].The U.S. establishment demonstrates unlimited penchant for promoting delusions when discussing the war in Ukraine. There are many details once reviewed debunk the constant U.S. narrative about Ukraine as a nation mired in bloodshed to defend itself from Russian aggression. The U.S. focus on the degree of Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine obscures and ignores the relevance of the U.S. assisting protestors in the Maidan revolution resulting in the overthrow of former President Victor Yanukovich. Such evidence once heard suggests that the violence in Kiev resulted not from Russian aggression:
This phone conversation reveals many troubling questions for which the U.S empire and its military show little willingness to obtain answers. During this phone conversation between Catherine Ashton, Foreign Affairs Chief of the EU, and Urmas Paet, Foreign Minister of Estonia, the latter discusses his findings that Yanukovich wasn't responsible for the sniper killings that occurred in the Maidan revolution in Kiev. This phone conversation is just one example within a dangerous pattern of staging Russia as reemerging as an evil empire.
Prior to General Dunford's fear-mongering and Russian-demonizing testimony, other U.S. generals have established a precedent of making unverifiable accusations of Russian aggression. For example, NATO Commander General Phillip Breedlove stated to the press in Washington during last March that:
Putin, the 59-year-old said, had once again "upped the ante" in eastern Ukraine -- with "well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery" having been sent to the Donbass. "What is clear," Breedlove said, "is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day." [5].General Breedlove's assessment here did not reflect a consensus with Germany's intelligence agency:
German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn't understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn't the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). [6].German intelligence's assessment of Russian's level of aggression and involvement in Ukraine that directly contradicts General Breedlove's should warrant both sides sharing their information sources in order to more accurately measure the threat Russia poses to Ukraine. General Breedlove's additional comments on this intelligence gap indicate he can smooth out any differences, which should mitigate the concerns of even the most unrepentant russophiles:
Much of the intelligence information I receive comes from information provided by the Allies from a centre staffed by military and civilian experts from 33 NATO member and partner nations. The role of this centre is to gather intelligence from across Alliance sources, analyze the data, and then generate assessments based on the best information available. Our assessments are shared across the Alliance, and individual intelligence services are encouraged to offer alternative analytical views, so it is to be expected that these assessments do not always exactly match the assessments of individual nations. However, the overall conclusions generated by military analysts from NATO and from individual nations share a great deal of common ground. It is normal that not everyone agrees with the assessments that I provide. I believe this openness to different points of view is one of NATO’s key strengths. Different points of view are discussed at both the political and military level before key decisions are made. It is this debate that keeps us true to our values and the founding tenants of this great Alliance. I stand by all the public statements I have made during the Ukraine crisis, and I continue to place the highest level of emphasis on ensuring that the advice and information I deliver to political leaders and the public is as accurate and complete as possible. [7].
Yes wide ranges of intelligence assessments occur which is as General Breedlove gleefully comments that this "is one of NATO's key strengths. But, is this really a "strength" when two major members-the U.S. and Germany-disagree on the factors affecting the war in Ukraine? He avoids such a question by glossing over it with platitudes about debates and discussing differences. If all members express such wide ranges of assessments (as evidenced by the Supreme NATO Commander and German intelligence), why does Breedlove articulate his own view that appears to be the most accusatory of Russia? The Hegemonic power's view of "consensus" means listening to other views but still reserving the privilege of expressing your own as the official Word.
Just recently reports of General Breedlove's hacked emails from his Gmail account show that he aggressively worked to undermine his Commander in Chief's policy preferences in Ukraine. Apparently Breedlove's actions consisted of more than simply assessing the level of the Russian threat to Europe. Apparently his undeclared duties included soliciting academics and retired U.S. Army Generals for their advice on how to convince President Obama to take a more aggressive stance against Putin. The Intercept reports:
In a series of messages in 2014, Breedlove sought meetings with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, asking for advice on how to pressure the Obama administration to take a more aggressive posture toward Russia. [8]And:
Breedlove's communications with General Clark in particular resulted in widening the audience of their email thread:Breedlove attempted to influence the administration through several channels, emailing academics and retired military officials, including former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark, for assistance in building his case for supplying military assistance to Ukrainian forces battling Russian-backed separatists. [9]
“Phil, can’t we get a statement to counteract the Russians on use of force? what can I do to help? If the Ukrainians lose control of the narrative, the Russians will see it as an open door,” wrote retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who forwarded on his messages with Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. He also passed along concerns from the Bulgarian president that Bulgaria might be Russia’s next target. [10]I guess only naive people assume that as NATO commander his reporting directly to the Commander in Chief should preclude such acts of passive insubordination. President Truman fired General MacArthur but perhaps that event is just an exception that is cited in school history textbooks to condition young students to see the U.S. as a well functioning system of civilian leaders exercising control of the military.
While General Breedlove spins and elevates anti-Russian bellicosity into a formal proclamation of Truth, we should heed the warning of U.S. diplomat the late George F. Kennan who stated in an editorial published in the New York Times on February 05, 1997 that:
And perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era. [11]Mr. Kennan if we view the U.S. Empire's rhetoric and actions toward Russia, then, tragically, it is too late to advance your view. Who among the U.S. Empire is listening to your warning? But, Mr. Kennan you thought the end of the Cold War presented an opportunity for a peace based on mutual cooperation and a realistic expectation of what is possible through such efforts, whereas the current U.S. elites believed it meant elevating their Empire into an omnipotent state determining the fate of humanity.
U.S. Generals' expressions lack enough evidence to be trustworthy authorities on Russia's alleged military aggression. Their indulging in their delusional interpretation about events in Ukraine warrant remaining skeptical about their claims of the "existential threat" that Russia poses to us.
Given the weak basis with which the U.S. Military deems Russia as an existential threat to the U.S. ,this report cited above and General Dunford's testimony to the Senate serve to add military cache to the U.S. elite's constant political agenda to demonize Russia. Thus, this report is just military propaganda cooked up as "credible analysis" to lend support to the conditioning of Americans to see war increasingly as inevitable because it is endangered by a relentless threat.
Will those who continue to accuse falsely Russia of military aggression make efforts to stop World War Three? More important, what or who will stop the false accusers?
[1]. The National Military Strategy of the United States of America. "The United States Military's Contribution To National Security June 2015. http://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015_National_Military_Strategy.pdf#viewer.action=download
[2]. Ibid.
[3]. LaGrone, Sam. "Russia Tops Dunford's Threat List, New NATO Deterrence Model 'Needs to be a Priority.'" July 09, 2015. USNI News. http://news.usni.org/2015/07/09/russia-tops-dunfords-threat-list-new-nato-deterrence-model-needs-to-be-a-priority
[4]. Ibid.
[5]. Matthias Gebauer, Christiane Hoffmann, Marc Hujer, Gordon Repinski, Matthias Schepp, Christoph Schult, Holger Stark, and Klaus Wiegrefe. "Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive Stance on Ukraine." Spiegel Online International. March 06, 2015. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. General Phillip Breedlove. Statement about intelligence estimates of Russian involvement in Ukraine. http://video.spiegel.de/producing/spiegel/2015/11/nato/statement_breedlove.html the link to this statement is provided on http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html
[8]. Lee Fang and Zaid Jilani. "Hacked Emails Reveal NATO General Plotting Against Obama on Russia Policy." The Intercept. July 01, 2016. https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/nato-general-emails/
[9]. Ibid.
[10]. Ibid.
[11]. Kennan, George F. "A Fateful Error." New York Times. February 5, 1997. http://web.archive.org/web/19970501051048/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gknato.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment