Sanity Sunday - Weekly Review (August 6-12) and Nomadic Playlist 5

by Nomad

Paleobiologist, J. William Schopf, once pointed out that "for four-fifths of our history, our planet was populated by pond scum." Looking back over the last week, it's hard to see much sign that things- at least in the noxious world of politics-  have evolved all that much. Despite Trump's campaign promise to drain the swamp, the week proved that the levels of scum are not receding in the slightest. 
So it's time to put on our hip waders and take our weekly march into the muck. 


Trump Tweets about Secret Meeting
On Monday, President Trump admitted in a tweet something which will, legal experts said, be extraordinarily problematic for his defense against the charge of Russian collusion.

Sanity Sunday - Week in Review (July 30 - August 5) and Nomadic Playlist 4

by Nomad

This edition of Weekly Review covers a lot of ground. While the last seven days weren't particularly dramatic, there were quite a few noteworthy events.  

Russia Brags About Infiltration

The week started off with a mysterious remark from Russia's top diplomat, Sergey Lavrov,  On Monday, Lavrov claimed  Russia now has access to insider information about U.S. military plans. Addressing the Terra Scientia on Klyazma River National Educational Youth Forum, he explained that Moscow would be

"provided with information about the schemes harbored by the militaries of both the U.S. and other Western countries against the Russian Federation."

The State Department declined to comment on Lavrov's remarks. However, the Defense Secretary, James Mattis put his own spin on the Russian admission, saying that it was "most important that we talk with those countries we have the largest disagreements with."
This is the man in charge of overseeing the defense of our nation.

NATO Confronts the Article 5 Trigger in the Age of Cyber Warfare

by Nomad

In the face of Russian cyber attacks, the 29 members of the NATO are searching for solutions and answers. How can the alliance maintain its policy of collective defense against this new type of warfare? What is the appropriate response to Russian asymmetrical warfare without the potential for a runaway scenario? And most importantly, will the American president be willing to provide the kind of leadership that is needed to deal with this threat?

Hybrid Warfare: NATO Investigates Putin's Troll War against the West 3/3

by Nomad

Part One
Part Two

In the third and final installment in this series, we finish up with a look at what NATO learned by studying Russian trolling activities in the Baltic nation of Latvia before 2015. How can we apply these findings to what went on in the US a year later?

So Why Latvia?

Back in 2015, NATO had several good reasons for choosing the tiny Baltic nation of Latvia to study how hybrid trolling operated.

When it comes to vulnerability, the nation has many unique characteristics. For one thing, Latvia and Russia share a 214 km border as well as a long and often contentious history. Even today, it is very much in the shadow of the Russian bear.

It is also a divided nation.
Demographically, ethnic Latvians form 61% of the population while a full 25.6% are ethnic Russians. There are other divisions as well. Latvia is historically predominantly Protestant Lutheran yet its ethnic Russians population is Eastern Orthodox Christians. Despite the fact that the sole official language of Latvia is Latvian, Russian, widely spoken during the Soviet occupation, is still the most widely used minority language.

It is also one of the limited club of NATO members that was once a member of the rival Warsaw Pact 1955–1991 and a part of the Soviet Union. Latvia regained its independence in August 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed.  For that reason, Latvia will probably always be a politically divided nation.
For these and other reasons, Latvia is in many ways a perfect target for outside tampering by Russians.

Hybrid Warfare: NATO Investigates Putin's Troll War against the West 2/3

 by Nomad

In Part One of this series, we took a look at the basic principles of Russia's hybrid warfare campaign on social media based on a 2015 NATO report. In this segment, let's take a look at how these techniques have been used in practice. In addition, we will look at the role that Russian hybrid warfare played in the 2016 campaign.

That's a puzzle that's still missing quite a few pieces.

Early Warnings

I don’t think anybody knows that it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia—I don't, maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay? - Donald Trump, September 26, 2016

This remark by candidate Trump in last months of the campaign must have struck many informed observers as extremely peculiar. His denial of Russian hacking didn't fit into the established timeline.

Only a few months earlier, on July 27, in the heat of the campaign, Trump had invited Russian hackers to find the 30,000 Hillary Clinton's emails. 

And a month before that, June 15, 2016, a hacker calling himself Guccifer 2.0 explain he had given the hacked emails to WikiLeaks. The emails reportedly came complete with telltale Russian-language formatting errors. Yet, Trump was still inexplicably denying what was already obvious.

A Superpower in Crisis and the Disgrace of Mr. Trump

 by Nomad

Win or lose tomorrow, Donald Trump has achieved one thing from his campaign. He has justified unspoken international concerns that the US is no longer a dependable ally.

Doubts and Worries about Donald

Even at a superficial glance, this year's election has been a fairly pathetic spectacle. There really haven't been any high moments. Only a dismal record of low points, which somehow defied expectations of how low the presidential race could actually go. 

Much of the blame for that must rest on the sloping shoulders of one man, Donald Trump.

Whether he beats the odds and becomes the next president or not, Mr. Trump has accomplished something quite out of the ordinary. Through his bombast and his vulgarity, through his extremely volatile populist rhetoric (accompanied by a remarkable ignorance about all things), this unlikely candidate has accomplished something that no other American candidate has done before.  

Trump, his history, and his manner of politics all have created a sense of doubt and suspicion amongst even our oldest allies. 

A “hate preacher” was how German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier described Trump. French President François Hollande said  that Trump’s “excesses” had produced “a retching feeling.” Members of the Britain’s Parliament have had an opportunity to exercise their wit at Trump's expense, referring to the businessman-turned-candidate as  a" “demagogue,” and a “buffoon.” 

And that's just the opinion of our closest allies.

NATO: Trump's America-First Mercenaries vs. Eisenhower's "Strength Through Unity"

by Nomad

Trump's past comments on NATO suggest that he would like to radically restructure the organization into something like a private security business. His critics say this is the worst time for such a dangerous power-play. On the other hand, nothing could make Russian president happier.

Back in 2013, Donald J.Trump -the tireless tweeter- appropriated Eisenhower's quote for his own obscure purposes.

“A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2013

It was, of course, before his announcement to run for president. Back before, he began to win primary after primary and, with the soul of Republican Party on the auction block, before the nomination of his party.

The Trump of 2013 wasn't much different than the Trump we see today. This tweet can, therefore, be written off as yet another pathetic example of Trump's absolute lack of circumspection.

After all, what person could better represent the arrogance of privilege than the billionaire business who can tell an audience (with a straight face) that a paternal loan of a million dollars was a "small loan?"
Is there a better man to represent the privilege of white male culture than Trump? And has there ever been a presidential candidate who so openly and so blithely put his business interests above all other principles?

As we reach the end of what has been a bizarre election, (to say the least) it's hard to point to any principles that Trump values. He has defiantly trashed any pretense that he is a principled type the moment he stepped onto the national stage.

The Power to Discern Right From Wrong

Quoting a respected Republican president like Eisenhower is actually a dangerous thing for Trump to do. It naturally invites comparison.

Mass Exodus as Political Weapon: NATO thinks Putin Using the Refuge Crisis to Destroy Europe

by Nomad

A recent statement by a high ranking NATO official claims that the migrant-refugee crisis is a Russian conspiracy. The aim? To destroy the European Union.

Matthew Holehouse of the UK Telegraph reports that the Supreme Allied Commander -Europe and the head of the US European Command has a theory about what's actually happening with the refugee crisis in Europe. 

Four-star General Philip Mark Breedlove told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Putin has intentionally created this crisis in an attempt to "overwhelm" and "break" Europe.

He explained:

"Together, Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponising migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve."

Describing fleeing migrants as a "weaponized" migration is certainly one way to make victims into the enemy though I don't believe Breedlove meant it that way. He told the Senators:

"These indiscriminate weapons used by both Bashar al-Assad, and the non-precision use of weapons by the Russian forces, I can't find any other reason for them other than to cause refugees to be on the move and make them someone else's problem.".

The Telegraph article, oddly, finds confirmation of Breedlove's remarks in the statements made by the Russian ambassador to London, Alexander Yakovenko. Yakovenko said that the ceasefire in Syria involving Russian forces “will help alleviate the migration crisis in the EU.” 

A link is not an example of causation. 

Turkish President Erdogan Vows to Disobey Constitutional Court's Decision on Press Freedom

by Nomad

The Turkish president sends an unmistakable signal about his feelings on the Constitutional Court's ruling about freedom of the press.

In what would appear to be the clearest sign yet of leadership problems in NATO-member Turkey. the nation's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has publicly declared his opposition to a ruling by the Constitutional Court.

The high court's decision- which functions as a Turkish Supreme Court- was related to two well-known journalists who were arrested in November. They were charged with publicizing top secret information about arms shipments to rebels in Northern Syria. 

The journalists, independent newspaper Cumhuriyet's editor-in-chief Can Dündar and Ankara bureau chief Erdem Gül were accused of revealing state secrets "for espionage purposes” and for seeking to “violently” overthrow the Turkish government. They were also charged with aiding an “armed terrorist organization.” 

A UK Guardian report noted that both Erdoğan and the head of the National Intelligence Organisation (MIT), Hakan Fidan were named as plaintiffs in the 473-page indictment. Turkish government prosecutors had demanded life terms, "penal servitude for life" for the two men. 

Suffice to say, these were very serious charges indeed.

The Heavy Price of Reporting News in Turkey

The timing of the Cumhuriyet news reports could hardly have been more unwelcome, coming just 10 days before the June 7 elections. 

The stakes of the elections were high. Held in all 85 electoral districts of Turkey, the elections were to decide the party composition of the 550 members to the Grand National Assembly. The ruling party, the AK, had had a majority in parliament for years, effectively allowing the president to rule by decree. 

The news proved to be a major embarrassment for the administration who at the time were denying all existence of arms shipments.

Crimean Chess: The Six Unintended Effects of Putin's Ukrainian Miscalculation

by Nomad

By miscalculation, Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to have painted himself into a corner since his decision to back the Ukrainian separatists.
At least that's what one expert on the Russian economy and foreign policy believes. 

The Crimean Move

In the chess game  of international diplomacy, Putin's decisions in Ukraine have been more blunderful than wonderful. His supporters have said it was a bold act of defiance to the West but others say it reflects that the Soviet mentality is still very much alive in Mother Russia.

In a recent article, Chatham House's John Lough observes that Vladimir Putin and his advisers may have been correct about how easy it was to undermine Kiev’s control of the strategically important area, Putin seems to have "gravely underestimated the consequences."

Lough is a associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia program and vice president with BGR Gabara Ltd, a public affairs and strategic consulting company. 

The Crimean move, Lough implies, was not Putin's finest hour.
 He writes:

An easy tactical victory has triggered the prospect of long-term confrontation with the West that spells potential strategic disaster.

It is easy to mistake Putin's decision in Ukraine as an offensive strategy. However, it's probably a misreading of the Russian pyche. One of Russia's historical fears has always been its border security.

NATO: A Closer Look at Mitt Romney’s Two Percent Solution

by Nomad

A

s any businessman or lawyer will confirm, the art of deception often involves things are not said, rather than the things that are actually specified. Mitt Romney's recent foreign policy speech the other day, entitled "The Mantle of Leadership, delivered at  Virginia Military Institute, definitely fits this profile. 

Here's an interesting statement from that speech.

And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.

Compared to both the United Kingdom and the United States, the rest of the NATO-member countries spend noticeably less of their GDP on defense. Therein lies the Republican complaint. According to a journalist for CQ Press:

European NATO members also spend a smaller percentage of their income on defense than the United States. Although under NATO rules all members vow to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, most European members now treat the 2 percent minimum as a ceiling instead, spending about 1.4 percent of their GDPs on defense. The United States spends about 4 percent of its GDP on defense.

American critics of NATO say that with a productive population of 445 million and a combined GDP of about $11 trillion, Europeans can afford to look after themselves militarily. But by spending less on defense — and refusing to pool their resources on most joint projects — the Europeans create resentment across the Atlantic about the unfair financial burden borne by the United States. The situation also undermines efforts to create a common defense policy within the military organization.

This has been an ongoing gripe by the Republican warhawks since the Bush administration. Certainly they have a point. Michael Cohen, writing for The Century Foundation, a progressive non-partisan think tank, points out:

Why should the United States be responsible for underwriting European security (and in turn the European welfare state), especially when European countries face not a single legitimate military threat to their well-being? Moreover, if Europeans don't think it's important enough to spend their own money on their own security, why should America? Now granted, the Europeans are a little short on cash these days, but then so is the United States. But of course as the House of Representatives reminded us recently—as they eviscerated key social safety net programs to restore cuts made to the defense budget—you can't put a price tag on a huge American military that does little to keep America safe and underwrites the security of other countries.

As unfair as the situation appears to be to some Americans, it cannot be overstated that NATO is not an American organization. Although the United States comprises the largest military force within the organization, NATO is voluntary organization, a working alliance of many nations, all with shared interests, all of them treaty-bound for mutual defense. It's not a company. If you own 51% of the hardware, you still don't have controlling shares or anything like that.