Trump's stonewalling on impeachment is the top story, snore. Lower down and more important is Trump allowing Turkey to attack the Kurds in Syria with the support of Russia. Even GOP senators do not like this and ISIS fighters may get out. But, heck, those will go to Europe, and unlike the Btis and Canadians, the Kurds did not help us out in Normandy in WW II. And, probably most important, Trump has major business interests in Turkey.
However, much less reported (although covered by David Ignatius in WaPo today), but arguably more important than either is Trump's decision to withdraw from the "Open Skies" agreement with Russia to allow oversight flights by each over the other to test for "doomsday weapons" development, an idea initially proposed by Eisenhower in 1956. This continues an ongoing collapse of nuclear arms control agreements, with Trump having withdrawn from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces agreement last year, much to the consternation of most of Europe, although arguably Russia had been in violation of it for a long time. Back in 2002 Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile agreement, which his people thought was a much more important thing to do than fight al-Qaeda.
As of now there is only one remaining nuclear arms control agreement left between the US and Russia, the New Start of 2010, which puts caps on numbers of weapons. It is due to expire in 2021, and as of now no negotiations are going on between US and Russia, while both seem to be embarking on developing yet new kinds of strategic nuclear weapons. This is a very dangerous situation.
The great irony is that supposedly Trump's friendship with Putin was to have improved world peace by their cooperation. But while Trump continues to defend Putin on almost everything from assassinating journalists to annexing Crimea to letting Turkey invade Northeast Syria, the two are frozen when it comes to arguably the most important issue between the two: controlling nuclear weapons. All I can think is that both are totally under the thumbs of their respective military-industrial complexes.
Barkley Rosser
33 comments:
"Trump allowing Turkey to attack the Kurds in Syria with the support of Russia."
Sorry, Barkley, that is a complete mis-reporting of the Russian position.
For the rest, you're conflating Trump with Putin and directing your hatred on that imaginary couple. It's alright to vent your hatred on each separately, if that makes you feel better, but that doesn't contribute to any rational analysis of the dire situation or the motives and orientations of any involved actors.
Why would Putin want to limit his nuclear arsenal when this provides him yet more geopolitical status? Even if he doesn't have them yet, threatening to develop them adds to his macho image and allows him to swagger. (Don't forget how he mused over the use of nuclear weapons during the Crimean crisis in 2014.) Putin's relations to the VPK are murky, and he needs them not only to produce weapons to keep the military on par with NATO, but also to provide employment. But I don't think this means he is under their thumb. I suspect something similar is true for Trump--and he's too dumb to be under the thumb of our VPK.
For both it is an issue of hypermasculinity, maybe because they are deficient elsewhere.
John,
There are serious reports that Russia has actually provided targeting information to the Turks in connection with this invasion. This may not be true, but it is clear that Assad gains opportunities to reoccupy territory in the northeast as a result of this invasion, including somw oil wells, with Assad doing well in Russia's interests.
A.,
I do not know what Putin's attitude is about the Open Skies agreement. It is Trump that is moving to end it, not Putin, to the best of my knowledge.
The great irony is that supposedly Trump's friendship with Putin was to have improved world peace by their cooperation. But while Trump continues to defend Putin on almost everything from assassinating journalists to annexing Crimea to letting Turkey invade Northeast Syria, the two are frozen when it comes to arguably the most important issue between the two: controlling nuclear weapons....
[ Good grief, what a ridiculous passage. Disdain for the president of Russia should not distort a commentary and analysis. The United States was methodically threatening and trying Russia militarily, moving NATO to the very borders of Russia and there was no way Russia was or is ever going to allow to loss of the naval base in the Crimea. Besides, the Russian population of the Crimea was being directly threatened in the wake of the coup in Ukraine. ]
Also, the United States began breaking arms treaties with Russia in December 2001 during the Bush presidency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
On 13 December 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that required six months' notice before terminating the pact—the first time in recent history that the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty.
A.,
I agree with you regarding the ABM treaty. Nearly mentioned that.
On the Crimea and Ukraine stuff I totally disagree with you. My passage is "ridiculous"? No, your is beyond ridiculous, in a garbage dump of stupidity and ignorance. Russians in Crimea were threated after the Maidan Revolution? Sorry, but no. This is ridiculous, and Russia's hold on its naval base was not remotely threatened.
In 1991 when Ukraine became independent there was a referendum in Crimea on whom to go with. It was not overwhelming, but it was 54-46 to stay in Ukraine, where they were. Support for moving to Russia rose because its economy performed better than Ukraine's and pensioneers wanted to get the higher Russian pensions, which they got. That it has cost so much is why Putin has made no move to annex the Luhansk and Donetsk "republics."
In 1994 Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons to Russia in the Budapest Accord, in which Russia agreed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, with the US and UK also signing on. YOu are justifying the violation of this?
As for NATO, well Russia has invaded several of its neighbors that are not in NATO, including besides Ukraine, also Moldova and Georgia. Are not places like the Baltic states and Poland fully justified in wanting to be protected from Russian aggression, which has been clearly manifested on numerous occasions?
Yes, as always you are completely right and I am completely wrong. I forgot that Russia invaded Georgia. How foolish of me to forget such a thing. There is the proper context, and that is what matters.
Sorry, you are careful and right as always. I was careless, and should have immediately remembered Georgia.
Thank you so much for the proper context.
Barkley:
The Russian military maintains real time deconfliction contacts with the Turkish military (as hopefully they still do with the U.S. military).
As for Russian aims in Syria, they have been pretty clear and consistent. They want to re-unify the country as a sovereign entity with full territorial integrity. So most of all they want the U.S. out, (since the U.S. has no standing under international law to be in Syria, except perhaps to defeat Daesh) and then later the Turks. When the Turks threatened to invade Afrin, the Russians went to the Kurds and said that if the allowed Syrian government troops in and accepted Syrian gov. sovereignty, then they would block off any Syrian invasion, ( since Russia has considerable leverage over Erdogan and the Turks, as witness when the Turks ambushed 2 Russian fighter jets with the loss of 2 airmen, and the Russians immediately yanked Erdogan's chains with sharp economic measures.) The Kurds refused, so the Russians allowed the offensive to proceed. The Syrian army aloowed safe passage to Afrin by the YPG, since the SYrian army and the Kurds haven't actually fought each other and have implicitly been fighting common enemies, but they were no match for the air power and heavy artillery of the Turkish army and could only evacuate some 300,000 Kurds in the area. You'd think the Kurds might have learned a lessen, but no, last spring they negotiated with Damascus and posed maximalist demands, for a recognized autonomous state that nonetheless would be subsidized by central government revenues. when the Damascus position is that they don't want any federal system, since that would freeze in place the divisions caused by the civil war. But I believe that the Kurds did send an observer delegation to the Astana process and have some stake in proposed negotiations for a new constitution which the Russians have been pushing both there and in Geneva. despite some resistance from Assad. SO the Kurds have largely screwed up their own chances for some increased degree of local governance and the maintenance of their forces under ostensible gov. command, but with effective force since the SYrian gov. would need their support as much as they would need gov. supplies and reenforcement. The Kurds didn't even build up a drone swarm capacity like the Houthis in Yemen, which at least would have given the some counter against Turkish superiority in armor and artillery. SO now their are going to be overrun and have to revert to weak guerrilla tactics in the face of another obvious betrayal by the Americans, who remain in Syria for their own neo-con purposes, which have nothing to do with Kurdish leftist aspirations. They could have avoided this outcome had they been more flexible, while now they appeal too late for Syrian and implicitly Russian support.
Blaming the Russians and Putin (over-personalizing in the manner of Trump's self-aggrandizement) as if they could readily be conflated with Trump is an analysis that is beneath contempt.
Also, the reason I never thought of Moldava was that Russian engagement or invasion occurred between 1990 and 1992. Georgia was the critical reminder for me.
Again, thank you. I learned a great deal from this.
"Trump allowing Turkey to attack the Kurds in Syria with the support of Russia."
Sorry, Barkley, that is a complete mis-reporting of the Russian position.
This assertion of Mr. Halasz still strikes me as correct however, since I can as yet find no Russian support for the Turkish invasion of Syria. Please tell us of a counter reference.
To John and A., let me retract my suggestion that possibly Russia was providing intel for site bombing in the invasion by Turkey of Syria now. It is clear that most of my discussion is correct aside from that. Russia supports this invasion.
To John, you present a long and detalied discussion of the various goings back and forth of various Kuridsh factions and the Turkish government. But in the end does all that make morally corrrect the current Turkish invasion of Syria that is killing Kurds who helped the world defeat the most dangerous terrorist organization on the planet, and has in fact led to Turkish forces actually attacking US troops in Syria?
A., I oversteted the degree of suppoert by Putin of this invasion. But indeed he does support it as it improves his interests in the region for reasons I laid out in my post.
More seriously to both John and A and anybody else reading this who thinks they are making sense, Vladimir Putin is a world historical criminal, reportedly worth in the neighborhood of $40 billion gained by massive corruption that is involved with Donald Trump. He is a murderer, who has numerous journalists and opponents murdered on the streets of Moscow, with Donald Trump praising him for being "strong" when asked about these unequivocal facts.
VV Putin had his most serious opponent, Boris Nemtsvov, murdered on the very spot where I and my wife realized we would be married. He is utter moral scum.
I think that "A" is free from this. But, John C.H., be very careful about any future defenses you make for VV. Putin. You may find yourself some time down the road having to defend yourself from a much more widely held moral judgment than is now in place, given the current corruption of the US political system influenced by Putin's money and intel schemes.
Again, I appreciate the response. To be clear though, I never mentioned the name of the current president of Russia and this was by intent. Russia as a country, the Russian people as a whole, have interests beyond any current president just as America has interests beyond the current president.
I have never and would never defend the current president of Russia and made clear that I was thinking beyond the particular president of Russia. Also, when Russia went to war with Georgia there was a different president and when Russia had troops in Moldava there was a different president than the current one.
I never mentioned the name of the current president of Russia and there was no need to caution me about ever doing so as I never have nor would.
"I think that 'A' is free from this. But, ---- ----, be very careful about any future defenses you make for -- -----..."
I, of course, defended no person. I, of course, have never defended or even mentioned and would never defend nor even mention the current president of Russia. However, this caution reads like a threat and Barkley Rosser might wish to use more temperate language. Threatening people about what they might say on a political matter in future, is unfortunate.
"I think that 'A' is free from this. But, ---- ----, be very careful about any future defenses you make for -- -----..."
This sort of caution really strikes me as uncalled for, but I assume the language was just careless. Please though be careful about using such language.
I note that I was wrong about Putin supporting the invasion. This morning's WaPo reports that he has criticized Turkish President Erdogan for it on the grounds that it might lead to ISIS/Daesh prisoners to "just flee" due to a breakdown of the Kurds guarding them, which may happened at a prison in Qamishli after the Turks bombed the prison. Russia has suffered from a number deadly attacks by extremist Muslim terrorists, and fear of this apparently outweighs any gains for Assas that Russian leaders might approve of.
A.,
Russia has invaded Georgia twice now, with Putin in charge during at least one of those.
John,
On this matter of setting Russia off the hook for invading neighbors and annexing their territory because the US broke a promise not to let nations east of Germany join NATO, let me note that makes as much sense as saying it would bee OK for the US to invade Canada and annex New Brunswick because Russia was violating the INF treaty against its word, which the US and Europeans have accused it of doing before the US formally withdrew from the treaty, although the Russians have denied that they did break the treaty.
I would also note that NATO has never invaded nor even threatened to invade any Warsww Pact nation nor former part of the USSR and is not remotely threatning to do so. All of this argument about NATO has frankly been a giant pile of crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
The Russo-Georgian War was a war between Georgia, Russia and the Russian-backed self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The war took place in August 2008 following a period of worsening relations between Russia and Georgia, both formerly constituent republics of the Soviet Union. The fighting took place in the strategically important Transcaucasia region. It was regarded as the first European war of the 21st century.
[ The current president of Russia, who as usual I will not name, was not the president when this war occurred.
I can find no instance of Russia, led by the current president of Russia, attacking Georgia. What am I missing? ]
Russia has invaded Georgia twice now, with Putin in charge during at least one of those.
[ Wikipedia only lists the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia and that war occurred under a different president than the current president. Please do explain when there was another war that the current president of Russia presided over. I am aware of only the short-lived 2008 war.
Please explain when there was a second "invasion." ]
Remember, the current president of Russia was not president in 2008 when the single war Wikipedia lists for Georgia and Russia occurred.
Notice also what is being said here by the Kurds about Russia:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/12/politics/syrian-kurds-us-turkey-military-operation/index.html?no-st=1570913363
Since the American administration will not stop the onslaught, the Kurds want to make a deal with Russia to stop the onslaught but the American administration does not want that. I am aghast.
Note that I have corrected my remarks on Putin and the Kurds, and that he is criticizing the Turkish invasion.
On this other matter, google "Georgia Ossetia conflict." There was a war in 1991-92, certainly long before Putin was in. But there were also conflicts in 2004 and 2066, not too intense, but with some Russian forces involved, and with VVP president. The bigger war in 2008 was three months after he became prime minister rather than president, but it has long been widely accepted that he was really in charge of things during that period as well, if more indirectly.
Thank you so much, I have now read the entire Wikipedia entry on Russia and Georgia. However the short-lived war in which Russia entered Georgia was in 2008 and Russia quickly withdrew from Georgia. Georgia had attacked South Ossetia and Russia with peacekeeping troops there responded. The need for Russia was to stop Georgia which was accomplished.
However you are surely right about the current Russian president. My point is only that the course of a country may be beyond a president to determine. Russia in 2008 had to respond to Georgia and the then president did so.
Do keep in mind that South Ossetia and also Abkhaxia are both still recognized by most nations as being parts of Georgia. That there is a bit of hypeocisy by the Russian leadership on this, note that North Ossetia ia part of Ruaaia and not a semi-independent state or united with South Ossetia ss such.
Another reason I find this wholw business of people whining about NATO expansion as a justification for Russia annexing Crimea is the matter of the Kaliningrad salient. This is officially a part of Russia, but completely disconnected from the rest of it. Surrounded by Poland and Lithuania and on the Baltic Sea, it was part of Geermany prior to the end of WW II, with the city now known as Kaliningrad being known as Konigsberg, the hometown of Immanuel Kant. IIt was never a part of Russia, whose historical claim to it is a big fat zero, dar weaker than Ukraine's claim to Crimea, which is a complicated historical matter. What marks Kaliningrad is that has several major military baees, with military largely on an offensive posture reportedly, and with offensive naval exercises done in the Baltic out of it. This piece of territory that Russia really does not deserve to own is an offensive threat to several of these nations that have joined NATO. Again, and this ia a hard bottom line, none of these nations are remotely offensive threats to Russia, but Russia is clearly ans offensive threat to them, and its recent record of invading neighbors is clear on this.
Those defending the annexation of Crimea do not have a leg to stand on and should be ashamed of themselves. This is really indefensible.
Narkley:
I'm not "defending" Putin. I.m analyzing the situation, as it were, amorally, to see what outcomes might be likely. You, on the contrary, seem to have imbibed a good deal of propaganda from the likes of the Bezos Post and are absurdly and fallaciously personalizing complex states of affairs and attempting to moralize "great power" politics. But all big league politicians and leaders are basically just power hungry sociopaths, bad actors who leave a trail of destruction in their wake, whatever fig-leaves they might wear to adorn their nakedness, which applies to the Clintons, the Bushes, Obama. Blair, as well as Putin, Assad, or Xi Jinping. Trunp is the exception only in that he has ripped of the mask and exposes the sheer Id of power, which others are more disciplined and careful to maintain, whatever their sophistries.
So it's not a question of good vs. bad actors, but whether under some descriptive framework, in terms of goals, intentions, and motives, a given bad actor could be judged rational or not. And like it or not Putin (and Lavrov), i.e. the Russians,. partly because they conduct actual diplomacy, rather than coercive bullying, have proven to be very adept tactical operators and currently maintain relations with all the actors in the ME, (including the Israelis and the Saudis), and thus hold the most cards in attempting the resolve the U.S. caused mess.
Given my priors, I tend to be highly sympathetic to the Rojava Kurds, but it doesn't absolve them of having played their limited cards poorly. Yes, it's a tragedy, but who remembers the Melians?
"Again, and this is a hard bottom line, none of these nations are remotely offensive threats to Russia, but Russia is clearly an offensive threat to them, and its recent record of invading neighbors is clear on this."
Of course, you are so right, Russia is surely a threat to every bordering or even near European nation. What is necessary is to border Russia along the European side with NATO forces, especially with NATO missiles.
I understand properly now.
So, as suggested as the only recourse, the Kurds have appealed to the Syrian government for assistance and the assistance will be given with Russia being asked for assistance in turn and agreeing to establish a defense zone to protect the Kurds and Syrian government forces.
This action will hopefully save the Kurds.
Adding: The reports of Syrian government and Russian assistance to the Kurds while appearing on selected internet sites is not in the New York Times or Washington Post, so my relaying the supposed information may prove incorrect.
The sources I used are French language, now including AFP.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-10/14/c_138469118.htm
October 14, 2019
Putin urges U.S. to support extending nuclear arms reduction treaty
[ Will there be an extension of the last arms treaty, START? The president of Russia is calling for just that and has done so formally. ]
What should I make of this column on the short-lived war with Georgia by Mr. Gorbachev? Is Gorbachev incorrect?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20gorbachev.html?ref=opinion
August 20, 2008
Russia Never Wanted a War
By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
Moscow
John,
Sorry, but I do not see relevance of ancient Melians to this situaion. They tried to be neutral in a war and did not do well. What exactly have the Rojava Kurds done wrong aside from being allied to a nation whose president has large amounts of business interests in Istanbul that appear to have led him to have suddenly decided without any input from advisers to undo the alliance and send the Turks in to slaughter the Kurds.
A.,
Mikhail Gorbachev has been extremely unpopular in Russia since the end of the end of USSR and has had no official position. He is welcome to his opinion.
"Mikhail Gorbachev has been extremely unpopular in Russia since the end of the end of USSR and has had no official position. He is welcome to his opinion."
I know, I know, you are always right and I am as always wrong because you are the rightest. I keep thinking that as an academic you might be interested in a variety of informed writings, but I am always wrong about that. I do appreciate for the disdainful dismissal of the observations and analysis of Mr. Gorbachev who is surely unpopular everywhere.
Thank you for always but always helping me understand how ignorant I am. I need the lessons in humility.
Remember, I never ever mentioned the current president of Russia so please do refrain from threatening again unless mentioning Mr. Gorbachev is worth a threat.
It's almost as if Trump has no concept of the consequences of even a limited nuclear exchange. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed both cities and killed, immediately,45.000 in Hiroshima and another 40,000 immediately (and 40.000 more within months) in Nagasaki. The chart here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield) shows how much more potentially destructive today's nuclear weapons are. Any nuclear exchange would kill hundreds of thousands and devastate large areas. So his apparent indifference to this possibility is beyond my comprehension.
(For Tom Lehrer's take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw)
Post a Comment