Tag Archives: russia

Operation Atlantic Resolve

Leave a reply

We hear that the U.S. is mobilizing about 3,000 reservists for deployment to Europe. I wondered how troop levels now compare to the past. Here are a few facts and figures:

  • In the late 1950s, the U.S. had about 450,000 troops in Europe. (from The Week)
  • For “most of the Cold War”, the U.S. had around 330,000 and NATO as a whole around 900,000. The Warsaw Pact had around 1.2 million. (same source as above)
  • After 1991, U.S. troops were reduced to around 66,000. (same source as above)
  • In 2018, it was around 65,000. This is a bit surprising to me – so even though “Operation Atlantic Resolve” started when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, troop levels were still maintained around where they were during the supposedly peaceful 1990s.
  • Currently in 2023, the U.S. has around 100,000 troops in Europe. (Politico)
  • I tried to figure out how many troops Russia has in Ukraine, but I found this number elusive. CNN says around 500 battalions, and just from random web searching a battalion varies but could be something like 500 soldiers. So multiply these very rough numbers you get 250,000 troops.

So the headline about 3,000 reservists seems like a pretty small number in the grand scheme. What are the troops in Europe actually doing. Going back to the The Week article (from 2022):

The US will establish a permanent headquarters of the US 5th Army Corps in Poland, acting as a forward command post and army garrison headquarters. There will be an additional brigade stationed in Romania to enhance Nato forces across the eastern flank, alongside other manoeuvrable US army units. The US will also increase deployments of special operations forces, armoured vehicles, aviation and air defence to strengthen the security of the region.

The emphasis is on combined operations with other Nato allies, using forces that have enhanced flexibility and combat readiness. The US will also deploy two additional F-35 fighter bomber squadrons to the UK and two additional destroyers at Rota naval base in Spain.

The Week

yes, the CIA mucks about in other countries’ elections

Leave a reply

The CIA has always mucked around in other countries’ elections. This is from Monthly Review, a self-described Marxist magazine based in New York, so you be the judge of its credibility. But anyway, this is about Mexico around the late 1970s or so.

The documents, most of which are related to a CIA probe into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, contains a memo from a meeting of CIA agents held on November 29, 1976. In said meeting, U.S. intelligence official Bill Sturbitts said to his colleagues that “Mexico will soon have a new president, a man who has had control of Liaison for a number of years…”

López Portillo was not the only former president of Mexico to have been on the payroll of the CIA. Three other presidents who preceded him, namely, Adolfo López Mateos (1958-1964), Gustavo Díaz Ordaz (1964-1970), and Luis Echeverría (1970-1976) were also revealed to be CIA assets in earlier declassification of official U.S. documents. All these former presidents committed acts of grave human rights violations and crimes against humanity against the people of their own country, but that did not stop the United States, the self-proclaimed champion of “human rights,” from cultivating close relations with them.

Cultivating national leaders was not the only interventionist act that the CIA did in Mexico. Declassified documents over the years have revealed a range of illegal activities of U.S. intelligence in Mexico, including spying on Soviet and Chinese embassies in Mexico City; financing extreme right groups; supporting and coordinating the Mexican armed forces; and infiltrating and subverting left-wing students’ organizations and social movements all over Mexico, in COINTELPRO style, often with fatal consequences for the Mexican people.

Monthly Review

That was quite awhile ago, but fast forward to Russia claiming that the 2014 election in Ukraine was a “coup” orchestrated by the United States. It is certainly not implausible to ask if politicians in Ukraine were CIA “assets” at the time (I am not making claims or claiming to have evidence about specific people), if the CIA was spying on say the Russian and Chinese embassies, financing Ukrainian-nationalist anti-Russian groups without asking too many questions about their politics, training and supporting the armed forces (completely in the open on this one). These are dirty tricks, and Russia is certainly not above engaging in any of these dirty tricks itself. I am not claiming any of these dirty tricks would justify Russia invading its sovereign neighbor, but I can put myself in Russian shoes and consider why they might feel a bit paranoid.

what happened in Ukraine?

Leave a reply

I’ve been puzzled by the seeming irrationality of the Russian invasion ever since it happened. We are being buffeted by propaganda from both sides, so it is hard to tell what is true, but we can probably assume the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes. I can’t independently verify the information in this Courthouse News Service (which I had never heard of before…) article, but it at least tells a story that passes the logic test for me. Here’s my attempt to summarize their story:

  • Ukraine had a really rough time in the 1990s and early 2000s following the end of the Soviet Union. It was ruled mostly by ex-Soviet cronies – the economy was in freefall, corruption and assassinations of politicians, journalists and activists were rampant, and they lost a big chunk of their population as many people who could move elsewhere in Europe or Russia chose to do so. Some people went so far as to call it a failed state.
  • There were major protests (the “Orange Revolution”) against corruption and political violence in 2004. Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian politician, was elected shortly afterward in an election widely believed by international observers to be rigged and interfered with by Russia. This is also when his opponent, pro-EU and anti-Russian Viktor Yushchenko, was poisoned, most likely by Russian or pro-Russian agents. Courts ordered a run-off election and Yushchenko was elected. [Part of the problem is these names sound very similar to western ears. Imagine a U.S. election where the candidates were named something like Thomas and Thompson.]
  • Russians and pro-Russian elements in Ukraine saw these events as U.S. interference in their political affairs, and feared that the same tactics could be tried in Russia itself. [I can’t argue pro or con, but the U.S. certainly doesn’t refrain from openly lobbying to try to influence other country’s elections, and we do know that the CIA has repeatedly tried to interfere in elections around the world in the past, typically in developing and middle income countries.]
  • Yushchenko turned out not to be all that anti-corruption or pro-western, at least not effectively so. In 2010, he ran against an even more anti-Russian and Ukrainian-nationalist politician, Yulia Tymoshenko. In this election, Yanukovych was re-elected in an election that international observers deemed fair.
  • The economy was extremely poor during this period, and Yanukovych accepted a bailout from Russia in exchange for abandoning plans to deepen trade and travel ties with the EU.
  • This caused public protests and street violence to break out again, with a neo-Nazi element in evidence. The presidential palace was stormed (this is sometimes called an “insurrection”), Yanukovych fled to Russia, and an anti-Russian, Ukrainian nationalist element took over.
  • The Russian government (“Putin”, “the Kremlin”) saw this as a coup orchestrated by the U.S. They believed this justified a military takeover of Crimea, which the largely pro-Russian population of Crimea seemed to support. This was an invasion and occupation in all but name – un-uniformed Russian soldiers basically fanned out from their bases already in Crimea and took over the government more or less opposed unopposed. A referendum was held in which the people voted to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia.
  • Pro-Russian elements then launched an armed rebellion in other eastern provinces of Ukraine.
  • Partly because Crimea and rebel-held areas of Ukraine did not participate in elections, an anti-Russian president (Poroshenko) was elected next. Russia believed U.S. interference was involved again. Ugly communist and fascist symbols and language was used by both sides, such as “decommunization” and “denazification”.
  • Ugly warfare between the Ukrainian army and the pro-Russian eastern rebels continued. Russia may have believed U.S. and “western” forces were involved in this warfare and that Ukraine was becoming increasingly likely to join NATO and/or the EU. [and who knows? some or all of this may be true.]
  • The current president, Zelenskyy, was elected in 2019 on a platform of negotiating a peaceful agreement to end the fighting. He used to play the president on TV. [This is exactly why the U.S. Democrats should have run either Harrison Ford or that guy who played the President in the first couple seasons of 24.]
  • The “Minsk Accords” were an attempt to end the warfare with a political solution, most likely some form of partial autonomy for the eastern provinces while remaining part of Ukraine. This was not successful. Zelenskyy became more hard-line anti-Russia and pro-resistance as the conflict dragged on.
  • Russia chose to invade in 2022. In my view, this was still a sovereign UN member state choosing to invade another sovereign member state’s recognized international borders, with the intention to occupy it indefinitely. I do not think there is any excuse for this. I do however think it is a useful exercise to try to put myself in the Russian shoes and try to understand what the thought process may have been. And when I do that, I can see a plausible case that they thought the U.S. and NATO were actively interfering in Ukrainian elections and supporting the Ukrainian military in suppression and atrocities against ethnic Russian civilians. They may have also thought the loss of Ukraine to NATO and the EU was only a matter of time until the U.S. was able to get a compliant regime in place that would allow it.

It seems like a move toward some form of autonomy for the eastern provinces and Crimea is the logical outcome here, under nominal Ukrainian rule within its original borders except that some big chunk of Crimea can just be considered a big Russian military base (like Guantanomo Bay). It could be demilitarized with a beefy UN peacekeeping force for an agreed period of time, and Ukraine could agree not to be eligible even for consideration to join the EU or NATO for some agreed period of time.

Chomsky on the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine

Leave a reply

People are wondering why Russia is manufacturing an acute crisis where one does not seem to be necessary. It seems to me that Vladimir Putin has chosen to bring a simmering 30-year issue to a head. There may be no particular reason for the timing, other than Putin getting older and a largely hostile U.S. administration in place. I think there is also the case of a poor, weak but historically powerful country pouring a lot of money into its military to look tough to a domestic audience. Noam Chomsky explains some of the history:

For obvious reasons, German reunification within a hostile military alliance is no small matter for Russia. Nevertheless, Gorbachev agreed to it, with a quid pro quo: No expansion to the East. President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker agreed. In their words to Gorbachev: “Not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well, it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction…”

President H.W. Bush pretty much lived up to these commitments. So did President Bill Clinton at first, until 1999, the 50th anniversary of NATO; with an eye on the Polish vote in the upcoming election, some have speculated. He admitted Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO. President George W. Bush — the lovable goofy grandpa who was celebrated in the press on the 20th anniversary of his invasion of Afghanistan — let down all the bars. He brought in the Baltic states and others. In 2008, he invited Ukraine to join NATO, poking the bear in the eye. Ukraine is Russia’s geostrategic heartland, apart from intimate historic relations and a large Russia-oriented population. Germany and France vetoed Bush’s reckless invitation, but it’s still on the table. No Russian leader would accept that, surely not Gorbachev, as he made clear.

As in the case of deployment of offensive weapons on the Russian border, there is a straightforward answer. Ukraine can have the same status as Austria and two Nordic countries throughout the whole Cold War: neutral, but tightly linked to the West and quite secure, part of the European Union to the extent they chose to be.

truthout.org

The U.S. has effectively told Russia it will not defend Ukraine militarily unless there is an attack on a neighboring NATO country, and saying there will be “severe consequences” in the form of economic sanctions only. It’s hard for the U.S. to back off any further in the midst of the acute crisis. After the crisis passes however, we could slowly back off and just choose to be less threatening. Move troops and weapons away, pull “trainers” and covert operatives out of Ukraine, and eventually make an announcement that NATO expansion is definitively over. Putin won’t live forever, neither will the Clintobushobamabiden dynasty, and if we are lucky maybe the stars will align at some point with leadership on both sides willing to make peace.

It’s 1984 in Russia

Leave a reply

I like these explainer type articles in The Week. This one makes two interesting claims about Russia and Putin, the first of which I had kind of arrive at myself and the second of which I don’t recall ever hearing before, although it seems important.

First, Russia is a desperately poor country and Putin is diverting its extremely limited resources to military adventures in an attempt to look strong to the domestic population.

Putin has sought to bolster Russia’s power against the encroachment of the West, picking fights with nearby Georgia and Ukraine and intervening in Syria as a show of strength. His proud nationalism has made him very popular among Russians, although the international sanctions brought on by his seizure of Crimea — combined with a sharp downturn in oil prices — have badly damaged Russia’s fragile economy. Russia’s gross domestic product tumbled from $2.2 trillion in 2013 to $1.3 trillion in 2015 — lower than that of Italy, Brazil, or Canada. Only 27 percent of Russians have any savings at all, and the average Russian now spends half his or her money on food. Few Russians, however, complain.

Second, Putin, who is a KGB agent trained in East Germany, came to power through a KGB-orchestrated false flag operation that killed hundreds of Russian citizens and was used to justify a war.

How did he come to power?
Through the work of the FSB, successor to the Soviet KGB. Putin was an unknown FSB operative when the agency strong-armed an ailing President Boris Yeltsin into picking him as prime minister in August 1999. Putin had spent five years as a spy in East Germany. Just a month after he took office, a series of apartment bombings shattered Moscow, killing about 300 people. The FSB blamed Chechen extremists, although there is strong evidence the spy agency planted the bombs itself; the carnage served as pretext for a second ruthless war to put down the restive Muslim province of Chechnya. Putin became the face of the battle, vowing in his characteristically crude language to eliminate all the terrorists, “wherever they hide, even on the crapper.” By the end of the year, Chechnya had been laid waste, thousands of Chechen civilians were dead, and Yeltsin had named the now popular Putin as his successor as president…

Alexander Litvinenko, an FSB whistleblower who described how the agency staged the Moscow bombings to bring Putin to power, was poisoned with polonium in London; a British inquiry found that Putin likely personally ordered the hit.

The Cold War Resumes?

Leave a reply

I for one have really been enjoying the thaw in the Cold War over the last 25 years. From NPR:

Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., speaking at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: “Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security. … If you look at their behavior, it’s nothing short of alarming.”

Dunford, 59, said it would be “reasonable” to send lethal weapons to Ukraine to help it battle Russian-backed rebels. “Frankly, without that kind of support, they are not going to be able to defend themselves against Russian aggression,” he said.

“[If] you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia,” he told senators.