The West should tell Russia: 'We don't need you'

There's a chilling, little-known factoid about Putin at the end.  This one's worth reading in full! 

Fortunately, the White House has said publicly that any Russian incursion into Ukraine, even for "humanitarian" or "peacekeeping" purposes, without the formal, express consent and authorization of the Ukraine government would be "unacceptable and a violation of international law."

Why Vladimir Putin isn't going to make peace

By Yuri Yarim-Agaev

August 7, 2014 | CNN

The killing of 298 innocent people on board Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was a crime, a consequence of the war against Ukraine that Vladimir Putin started, and which he supplies, directs and controls. The Russian President bears full responsibility for this war, including the downing of the Malaysian airliner.

The main problem with our reaction to Russian aggression is not even the mildness of our sanctions, but the lack of clarity of their purpose. Our message to Putin is very confused. Do we want him completely out of Ukraine, or do we want his help in dealing with that country? They are two very different requests.

Despite Putin's offenses, Western leaders apparently still want him to play an active role in securing peace and stability. According to the White House, on July 17, "President Obama called on President Putin to take concrete steps to de-escalate the situation, including pressing separatists to agree to a cease-fire."

After the Malaysian airliner was shot down, German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Putin to use his influence with the rebels to ensure a cease-fire. In recent appearances on several TV shows, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry asked Putin to take "immediate and clear action to reduce tensions in Ukraine," "to step up and make a difference," and "to use all his influence."

Despite their harsh words for Putin, leaders of the West still want his help. British Prime Minister David Cameron summed it up best when he said: "We sometimes behave as if we need Russia more than Russia needs us."

Putin is only too glad to put on sheep's clothing and assume the role of peacemaker that he has pretended to be throughout the war that he himself started. According to him, annexing Crimea, shooting down airplanes and supporting separatists has only one purpose: to protect the Ukrainian people from alleged right-wing extremists.

If you want Putin's help, beware of what you are asking. He would be glad to broker a "diplomatic solution" with the separatists, thus legitimizing his terrorists and entrenching them on Ukrainian territory.  If that option doesn't work, we can imagine the following completely different scenario: Russian tanks roll over Donetsk. Instead of supporting the separatists, Putin arrests leaders of the Donetsk republic and persecutes them for terrorizing the local population. Blaming the Ukrainian government for its inability to protect people from the terrorists, he establishes full control over the territory, and leaves Russian troops there to secure law, order and tranquility.

[Putin is just devilish enough to try this! - J]

How would the world react to such a "peacekeeping mission"? Would the Ukrainian army fight Russian troops? Would Western political leaders accept this as a plausible option? I do not know. But what is more important, Putin doesn't know either. We should make very clear that we would not accept Putin as a peacekeeper and we want him out of Ukraine.

Western governments should not implicitly accept the aggressive doctrine called the "Russian World," which was endorsed by Putin, and which gives him the right to intervene into the affairs of virtually any sovereign nation, as he did in Ukraine, using the pretext of protecting Russian-speaking citizens.

The major concern of Western leaders is that by taking a strong stand against Putin, we may lose him as a useful partner in the world arena. We shouldn't worry about that. History clearly demonstrates that in all major international trouble spots in which we accepted Putin as our partner, Russia has always taken the side of the West's enemy. Such has been the case with Iraq, North Korea, Syria and Iran.

It was only natural for Putin to use any invitation on our part as an opportunity to damage us. One should not expect anything different from a person with the background of a KGB officer, for whom America always has been enemy No. 1, and for whom anti-Americanism is a pillar of his power.

If America is Russia's enemy, Putin's Russia cannot be our ally. Whether we like it or not, such relations are reciprocal. And from an enemy we do not need help. We need only check its aggression. For that purpose we should take the following steps:

1. Publicly recognize that Putin is not our ally or partner, but rather our foe, and make this position clear to him and to the rest of the world.

2. Ensure that our demands to Russia be absolutely clear. Stop supporting separatists in Ukraine. We do not need Putin as a broker or peacemaker. Putin must completely get out of Ukrainian territory and Ukrainian politics.

3. Make clear that Putin's help is not needed in any other part of the world. Exclude Russia as our partner or as a mediator from any international arrangements and negotiations.

4. Reiterate our position of not accepting the annexation of Crimea. Demand that it be returned to Ukraine.

5. Stop propagating Putin's propaganda. Instead, counter it with all the power of America's media. Expand broadcasts by Radio Liberty and other radio stations.

6. Make it clear that we consider the "Russian World" policy a threat to world peace and stability. Insist that Russia officially renounce that doctrine and repeal supporting legislation as necessary conditions for Russia's readmission to the community of civilized nations.

7. To stop aggression against Ukraine and to prevent aggressions against other countries, make Russia pay a high price by introducing sector and other serious economic sanctions. Be ready to accept the cost of those sanctions.

8. Take immediate steps to reduce that cost and any dependence on Russia. Develop new energy sources and transportation systems in America and Europe.

9. Provide help, including military assistance, to those who are under immediate attack or potential aggression by Russia.

10. Revisit communism, an ideology that remains important in Russia as well as other countries. Educate new generations about its atrocities and bankrupt ideology.

Opponents of strong action against an aggressor wrongly equate political confrontation with war. They believe that admitting that the second largest nuclear power is our enemy would usher in another Cold War and make the situation much more dangerous.

History teaches us, however, that to ignore reality and appease our enemy is a more dangerous approach than to clearly articulate our principles and disagreements.

When in 1983 the Soviets shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Ronald Reagan denounced them as enemies of the United States and the entire world. Reagan's strong stand against the Soviet communism that threatened us for decades with nuclear war helped stop its expansion and eventually led to its complete capitulation. If we could stand against the mighty Soviet Union, we can manage Putin's much weaker Russia.

In February 2000, only two months into his presidency, Vladimir Putin presented one of his first state awards to Air Force Gen. Anatoly Kornukov. In 1983, Kornukov was commander of Sokol Airbase in Sakhalin. His order to the fighter pilot was: "Destroy the target!"

The target was Korean Air Lines Flight 007.

Amb. Taylor to Congress: Russia is 'greatest threat to peace in Europe'

Hon. William Taylor, now of the U.S. Institute of Peace, had this to say to Congress on July 29 about Russia's war in Ukraine [emphasis mine]:

In my view we must confront the Russian war against Ukraine.  This aggression started with the quiet invasion of Crimea last spring.  A sham, at-the-end-of-a-rifle referendum was followed by an illegal annexation.  The international community should not allow that annexation to stand.  Until that situation is resolved to the satisfaction of Ukraine, the Russiarn government should pay serious penalties to Ukraine for the temporary loss of income and illegally confiscated assets that would have come to Ukraine from Crimea.

The international community did not confront the Kremlin over Crimea.  As a consequence, the Russians continued their aggression in Donetsk and Luhansk.  The leaders of the separatist movement have become almost exclusively Russian, and Russian equipment flows across the border unimpeded.  This equipment—including sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons—shot down the Malaysian airliner killing 298 people.  No matter what individual separatist pushed the button to fire the weapon—let’s be clear, Mr. Chairman-- the tragedy is Russian responsibility.

So Taylor is the second former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (after John Herbst) to exhort the United States to aid Ukraine militarily, among other means:

[T]he international community, led by the United States, should provide Ukraine with the means to eliminate the separatist forces in their country.  This means weapons, military advice, intelligence, and financial support to pay and equip their soldiers.

Ambassador Taylor: Russia is 'the single greatest threat to peace in Europe'

July 31, 2014 | Kyiv Post

URL: http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ambassador-taylor-russia-is-the-single-greatest-threat-to-peace-in-europe-358718.html

U.S. offers up 'war reserves' to rearm Israel's killing machine

From the standpoint of U.S. security against terrorism, this is the stupidest policy imaginable: supplying the Israelis with "emergency" munitions to help them finish their slaughter of Palestinian civilians (over 1,300 and counting... meanwhile Israel has lost 3 civilians).

The Arab-Muslim world sees Israel's crimes in Gaza and it outrages them.  Meanwhile, the U.S. does not stand innocently apart from this killing; and we're not an honest broker. We are an accessory before the fact to Israel's murder and violation of international laws and norms (such as demolishing crowded schools and shelling street markets).

If my American friends -- especially conservatives -- could do the mental heavy-lifting to put themselves in an Arab's shoes for a minute, then perhaps they would understand why $ billions of U.S. military aid to Israel is nowadays an awfully dangerous (not to mention immoral) policy for America.

The blowback potential is enormous. Right now, Uncle Sam is recruiting hundreds if not thousands of soldiers for al Qaeda and other Islamist groups.

UPDATE (31.07.2014): Here's another Reuters article that shows the desperation of Palestinian civilians that have nothing to do with Hamas or attacks on Israel, yet they are being targeted by Israel's military: "Under fire and out of cash, U.N. overwhelmed by Gaza crisis." Meanwhile, UN officials are in tears, powerless to help them all.

U.S. resupplies Israel with munitions as Gaza offensive rages

By Phil Stewart and Patricia Zengerle

July 30, 2014 | Reuters

URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0FZ2EY20140730

Amb. Herbst: As desperate Putin ups ante, West must aid Ukraine

I agree with Ambassador Herbst's analysis 100%.  Putin's decision to make Russia's military intervention in Ukraine more open is an act of desperation in reaction to the great gains by the Ukrainian military in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions against Russian mercenaries, irregulars and undercover soldiers and spies.

His recommendation is also correct: Western military aid and intelligence for Ukraine's military to balance the scales against more powerful Russia.

Here’s Why Russia’s Military Is Now Directly Attacking Ukraine

By John E. Herbst

July 27, 2014 | Atlantic Council

The war in Ukraine has heated up significantly in the ten days since the Russian-led and supplied insurgents shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. Ukrainian forces retook the city of Lysychansk from the rebels late last week and have established control over most of their border with Russia. They are advancing on the city of Horlivka, a stronghold of the rebels and a gateway to Donetsk, the principal city of the Donbas region.

The Ukrainians’ steady advance, and the prospect that they might seal the border and cut insurgent supply lines, have led the government of President Vladimir Putin to again escalate its intervention in Ukraine. In addition to keeping up a steady flow of armored vehicles, missile systems and fighters to its agents in southeastern Ukraine, the Kremlin has sent heavy artillery. Russian forces along the Ukrainian border are directly attacking the Ukrainian military with artillery fire. In some locations, Ukrainian forces are under fire by the separatists to their west and the Russians to their east.

For Moscow, Ukrainian gains could not have come at a worse time. The European public’s fury at the destruction of MH17 only grew due to the spectacle at the crash site of an obstructed investigation, the looting of the remains and the carting off of evidence. This is driving ever-cautious European politicians to consider, for the first time, serious sanctions. 

Kremlin Assault: No Longer Covert

Frustrated at European reluctance to consider serious sanctions, the United States has begun to publicize details from its intelligence reporting on the extraordinary Kremlin effort to keep the insurgency viable. This includes the supply of advanced weaponry and the maintenance of a major supply depot for the separatists in Rostov. The State Department today released its most detailed evidence yet, including satellite images, showing Russia’s artillery attacks on Ukraine.

In short, the mask has come off Moscow’s “covert” aggression in Ukraine.

What has become clear over the past several weeks is that, despite years of corrupt leadership and Russian subversion, Ukraine’s security forces have the will and the means to defeat a Kremlin assault that seeks the political cover of pretending to be a local, Ukrainian insurgency. Until this point, Mr. Putin has preferred this notionally “covert” campaign, which lets him issue the formal denials that minimize the risk of Europe imposing major sanctions. But the Ukrainian military gains have forced him into the risky decision to attack Ukraine directly, with his own artillery forces.

The West Must Respond

Moscow will watch carefully to see how the West reacts to this latest crossed red line. If Europe does not join the US now in introducing truly punishing sanctions, Mr. Putin will draw the conclusion that he can get away with the next logical escalation: the introduction of Russian aircraft to take control of eastern Ukraine’s skies, or of more sophisticated tanks.

With Russia’s escalation, it has grown urgent (and already is long past time) for the U.S. and/or NATO to provide the basically defensive military equipment that offsets the armament Moscow has introduced into the conflict.  That should include anti-armor, anti-aircraft, and anti-missile weapons.  Ukraine also desperately needs Western intelligence support. With the right combination of major sanctions and military equipment, the West will help Kyiv defeat Mr. Putin’s dangerous adventure. Anything less invites trouble, not just in Ukraine, but elsewhere on Russia’s periphery where Russian speakers happen to reside.

John E. Herbst is director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council. He served as the US ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006.

U.S. State Dept.: Russia firing artillery over border at Ukraine's military

Anybody who thought that "worldwide condemnation" for shooting down flight MH-17 was going to alter Putin's plans should think again.

Russia's President Putin respects only one thing: force.  Or the economic equivalent of getting punched in the nose. That's why US-EU sectoral sanctions against Russia must be put in place now. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. should start sending fuel, supplies, and defensive ammunition and weapons to Ukraine's military.  A good sign: ateam of U.S. military advisers is being sent to Ukraine to assess what kind of U.S. assistance they need. But Obama must accelerate the pace.

U.S. says Russia firing artillery across border at Ukrainian military

By David Storey

July 24, 2014 | Reuters

URL: http://www.trust.org/item/20140724180345-xplag/

U.S. must use leverage on Egypt's military

Every American who cares about foreign policy and what's happening now in Egypt should read this cool-headed analysis of America's 33-year patronage of Egypt's military.

That relationship has cost the U.S. about $66 billion in military aid since the signing of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, including about 1,000 tanks and 220 fighter jets.

To Bishara's analysis I would add one remark that Gary "The War Nerd" Brecher often makes when discussing war and conflict in countries like Egypt, Syria, etc.: these countries don't maintain a robust military to protect or fight against foreign enemies; they keep armies to control their own populations. 

And U.S. military aid helps them to do that.  Are we cool with that?

Generals and patrons: The American-Egyptian military

By Marwan Bishara

August 15, 2013 | Al Jazeera

URL: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/2013814212819564477.html