Finally, a cause for European Union.

Talking with Baddboy this morning about the Georgian conflict with Mother Russia made me think about something.

At what point in recent (last 100 years) history have our allies in Europe been MORE capable of defending themselves than today, right now?

Baddboy was lamenting our (U.S. military) depleted European presence against a determined and belligerent Russia when it came to me. I mean seriously, I'm asking a historical question now. When from 1908 to 2008 was the last time Western Europe wasn't flat out naked?

My response was pre-Sudetenland annexation 1930's Europe. France, as one may recall, had a superb armor corps and a larger military than the Nazis. They also had an anchor called the Maginot Line and no concept of mobile warfare or how to break a meeting engagement. But horrible tactics and strategic thinking aside, they were capable. Far from naked.

Think about German, French and English armor versus even top of the line Russian armor and air. Not an American bullet, plane or tank to be seen and I STILL think it's better than 70% advantage Western Europe.

Thoughts?

The devil you don't know.

Having sent my various family members home, I am back, namely to referee what seems to be a brewing source of antagonism between Titus and badboy. To overly simplify in my summation of the situation: badboy hates all things Russian, including its "people"; whereas Titus adores all things Russian, excluding its government.

Now, as I have no real dog in this hunt - I respect the storied history of Russia (at least more then Napoleon did) while being very skeptical of their new"democracy" - I will put on my research cap as to the current government's actions and what has lead us this point.

First the external actions, namely in Ossettia and Georgia, are meaningless without understanding the internal politics (or lack thereof) which have been in motion since the fall of the Soviet Union. Few people realize what occurred soon after the reigns of power were passed to Boris Yeltsin. As he went about democratizing his nation a funny thing happened, he became somewhat unpopular. The transition to democracy, as all are, was messy. Unemployment, organized crime, prostitution, and less then "honest" capitalists took advantage of the chaos. And just prior to the first election of a head of state in Russia's history (and I mean literally the first, as Titus knows) the media - perhaps the most obvious beneficiary of a newly free state - had to make a choice. Elements of the communist Party, still legal and operating like any other at that time (store front offices and the sort) were making grounds in the polling. Not enough to retake the government mind you, but to win enough seats in Parliament so as to turn the chaos towards their advantage. You might wonder how any Russian might support the communist party, given a choice, but think about what I wrote a moment ago - prostitution, unemployment, organized crime, this "messy" business of democracy, "we can make it all go away while maintaining your new freedoms in this NEW communist Party" they promised. This might seem appealing to poor or victimized Russians, or those not sharing in the new ventures into capitalism. So, the media made its choice - collectively the major newspapers and television outlets undertook the mission of ensuring Yeltsin's victory in the upcoming elections. No more shots of him looking drunk. No more stumbles on the tarmac were to be aired. No more missteps in speak (namely less then sober mumbling) aired. Glorious ceremonies in which he looked "presidential" were broad casted -Yeltsin waiving to thousands of gathered supporters. Yeltsin in hospitals visiting sick children; at plant and industrial grand openings. They made him look as if he was making zero mistakes and ushering Russia into a new age of prosperity. And this is certainly not a critical commentary on my part. They were merely doing their bit to ensure the survival of this weak democracy as it crawled out of its infancy. So, Yeltsin wins, and big. However, not long subsequent to his election (he wasn't reelected because his first post during the transition was self/Pulpit bureau appointed) his health began to fade and quite frankly he was getting old. Knowing that the new Russian democracy was still fragile he (and his inner circle) decided to hand over power - an endorsement from the newly popular Yeltsin, backed by the media, was tantamount to naming the next president - to a younger, bright, and strong Vladimir Putin. He had been loyal to Boris during the transition and as a former Colonel in the KGB he seemed like the perfect pick - a man whom had embraced democratization AND knew where all the bodies were buried (quite literally I would imagine). So the pro-Yeltsin media naturally became the pro-Putin media. Putin, having then won his own landslide, undertook a single mission - ensure the future prosperity of the Russian democracy ... even if that means behaving undemocratic at times, wink, wink. Putin's Kremlin then went about making pro-government media coverage a defacto policy. If you wanted high ranking government officials on your program; if you wanted to be granted (eventually lucrative) government operating permits for your broadcasts and towers; if you wanted to be "successful" as a news or general television station, radio or newspaper outlet, then the pro-Yeltsin, now pro-Putin coverage would continue. In other words he didn't pass a law demanding submission, he simply created the conditions so as to get the CEO's to voluntarily comply ... which they have. The most extreme example probably occurred about 6 months ago. I read this article in USA Today on my way back from NEPA, at O'Hare airport. It seems that the most popular news/debate program (their equivalent to an O'Reilly but with a panel) made the hasty choice to have on an anti-Putin political science professor. And as is practice, representatives of Putin were allowed to view the taped broadcast prior to its airing. And surprise, surprise, they objected to the poly-sci gent's criticisms. The problem is there wasn't sufficient time to re tape the broadcast before air time. What to do? The show's producer, in a hurry to comply with the "defacto policy", directed his engineers to digitally erase the anti-Putin panelist, and edit out his audio. And they did. However, they didn't do it well. During the entire broadcast a human hand sat on the arm of an otherwise empty chair, occasionally moving and gesturing about ... an oddity noticed by the audience to say the least. When questioned by foreign Western journalists as to just why they digitally erased the man at all, "I mean aren't you guys a democracy now?" was the thrust, the producer responded (and with a straight face), "He didn't have anything interesting to say anyway."

So, in warding off the resurgence of elements within the Communist Party - the devil they did know - they have unwittingly fallen under the direction of the devil they didn't, Putin. So what does that mean politically for Vladimir? Well, if there is zero opposition press, then how you operate domestically is lets say, "less hindered." When a recent oil magnate - whom surfaced with the capital to purchase lucrative oil contracts as natural resources were "de-nationalized" during the transition to democracy - got a little big for his britches (read: he got very wealthy and decided he might want to run for president, and financially backed candidates of opposing parties) he was suddenly under investigation by the Russian version of the FBI for the ominous accusation of "corruption." His assets seized, he was imprisoned, and his oil contracts and pipe lines dispersed to his competitors. Message sent. With no opposition press and any opposition politicians of serious note successfully intimidated, Putin has been free to "more easily" plod along with his mission - ensuring a return to Russian preeminence in the world. And to keep up appearances that an actual democracy is underway, Putin both created and assumed the post of Prime Minister and "allowed" Medvedev to ascend to the presidency, making it look to the glancing eye as if a peaceful transition of power had occurred. One thing however - Putin never stopped running the government. In eerily similar Bismarkian/Hitler fashion (Bismark being the German President during first Von Papen then Hitler's Prime Ministries, until Bismark's death when Adolf combined the two posts) Putin has created a scenario in which the traditionally ceremonial position of "Head of Sate" was retained by his lackey, while his new Prime Ministry is tasked as "the head of government." Putin hasn't gone anywhere my friends.

That leads us to Georgia. Now think about this if you're Putin - the only real opponent you have in the world is the US, and they are fighting a war on two fronts already. You have no domestic media opposition. No real political opponents. And to certify the reach of your own power you have, without batting an eye, created a post out of whole cloth which ensures your continued presence indefinitely as the head of government all while personally naming your "mini me" (good one Titus) to succeed you in the now largely ceremonial role as president. Under those circumstances do you give any hesitation to now reintroducing the world to Russian military might? I find it ironic that as dozens of nations are gathered in Beijing to show the world what they do best, Russia is in Georgia showing the world what they do best - namely intimidate their neighbors into submission. We could discuss the various geopolitical assumptions being made as to why this conflict arose, there are varying theories: Ossetia (southern Georgia) is 90% Russian, has always been pro-Russian (as opposed to pro-Georgian) and has long had separatists leanings. Russia can claim it's simply "liberating" her brothers and sisters. Also Georgia has rich fossil fuel deposits and they share the coast of the Black Sea, which gives Western Europe access to those deposits. Some say that Russia wants to further control just how much energy the West receives. Another theory involves Iran. Georgia enjoys a border with Turkey. And in any conflict with Iran the US would almost certainly need to utilize Turkish air bases. If Russia controls the Georgian border with Turkey it would serve to only extend its influence with that nation - namely pressuring them to slam the door shut on us prior to any Iranian conflict. Another reason may be Chechnya. Chechen fighters are (and accurately so) considered terrorists to the Russian Federation. If you look at a map Russia controls about 3/4 of the square mileage around the Chechnyan enclave. Guess whose border sits on the remaining 1/4? Georgia. And it has infuriated Russia to no end that although Georgia does concur that elements of terrorism exists in Chechnya, they (Georgia) has been known to negotiate with Chechen political representatives. And add this - if you are a "Red-fella" (Russian mafia) gun runner, and you supply Chechen rebels, then your best bet is to smuggle down into Georgia, then hook back up into Cechnya - avoiding that 3/4 of Russian military patrolled territory. And this almost certainly occurs (especially if you ask a Russian). But each and every reason I've just listed is a micro issue subordinate to the macro - as the Russian economy leaps forward (due to very low taxes and rich natural resources) Putin has decided to let the other shoe drop in terms of resurfacing as a world superpower - demonstrating the Russian military can, and more importantly will, act if they feel it's in their national interests.

For the US the bottom line is this: regardless of what Clinton and Bush should or shouldn't have been doing in the interim, after over a decade's break, the West's geopolitical game of chess with the Russians is again engaged. And the American electorate should note, that's a game the Russians are very adept at. We will need our best man to sit down at that playing board across from them ... and to further torture the metaphor, I wouldn't trust Obama at a game of checkers. Putin has just announced "knight to rook's pawn."

It's our move ....


(sources: globalsecurity.org, stratfor.com, various USA Today archives, and the world map in my office)

In addition...

I just wanted to add a few things:

1) Russia is currently the 7th largest economy on the face of the earth, but it is the 3rd FASTEST GROWING (behind China and India). To put that into perspective... the US is still the largest economy on the earth, but it is only projecting a 1.7% rate of economic growth right now (2008), compared to Russia's 8.7% rate of growth LAST YEAR! With crude, gas and diesel still at record highs, no one I have seen is projecting a slow-down on the Russian economy anytime soon.

2) Russia is currently ranked 8th in the total number of troops available for combat, right behind the US at 7th... but if one removes the ultra-reservist categories like the US Coast Guard Aux. and the Civil Air Patrol, the US and Russia are very closely matched, soldier-to-soldier, with the Russkies having about a 5% edge on us (they still maintain about a 30% conscription rate).

3) While much of Russia's military might relies on questionable technology (especially within their Strategic Rocket Forces and their submersible and surface Naval Forces), the bulk of their air force and infantry/armor capacity is just as functional now as it was in 1991. No one that I know of is questioning the capabilities of the AK-74, or the MiG-29, or the T-90 MBT as weapons that can do the job in most 2nd and 3rd World theaters of operation.

I bring up these points so that there is no question about my position in regards to Russia: They pose a real and measurable threat to US interests globally, as long as they are willing to use military means to gain their OWN interests and objectives. From the first Chechnyan conflict of 1994 to the current "dust-up" in Georgia, Russia has not stopped eyeing the possibility of expanding its influence, both internally, regionally (within the borders of the former USSR and Warsaw Pact states) and internationally. This is something NO US President can afford to forget... and Mac won't, but Obama already has.

Of course, I haven't mentioned the 1,900+ thermo-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles that the nation still maintains as a "defensive deterrent" to outside aggression... but I assume this is taken for granted.

I'm back...

...and what do I find?

Another complete misinterpretation of my stated position!

If those who question do not recall (ahem), I CALLED this kind of resurgent aggression back when the Russkies were "laying claim" to the North Pole. Putin and his "minnie me" Medvedev have one goal in mind for the former Soviet Union (and Russia in particular), and that is a second-chance at superpower status.

Since 1994, the Russian Army (a tattered remnant of the former Red Army) had its ass handed to it on a nightly basis by as few as 3,500 organized and armed Chechen rebels. Terror was rampant in a society that had not known "terror" (at least of the new breed) before the fall of the USSR. No substantial innovations or developments have been made in Russian military technology since '91 (and we know now that much of THAT technology was over-rated).

So, what has changed since 1999?

Russia has developed into the 2nd largest exporter of crude oil and the largest exporter of natural gas and diesel fuel on the face of the planet... right at a time when the gross cost of these commodities rose at a very conservative rate of about 100% every quarter for nearly two years. Russia accounts for the LARGEST national mineral and metal deposits on Earth... nearly HALF of all the coal on earth is in Russia, and 45% of all untapped natural gas is here, as well. There is more copper in Russia RIGHT NOW than has ever been mined in all of North America since 1795 (the oldest records kept).

Moscow has "stood up" to the US in regards to anti-missile system deployments, NATO expansion, and near-Asian alliances rather successfully. Cities like St Petersburg, Moscow, Suzdal, Novosibirsk, Volgograd and Yekaterinberg are drawing thousands of new commercial and industrial ventures each year due largely to generaous infrastructure allocations that more established economies can't deliver.

In the last four years, Russia has put two new fighters, two new tanks, and a dozen new (if small) naval vessels into service that have "shored up" their weakened ability to project force globally, while still maintaining the massive stockpiles of traditional (and effective) infantry, armor and artillery materials left from the USSR.

THIS is the NEW Russia... working to extend it's sphere of influence as far and as wide as it can, especially since the US is slow (and God forbid) reducing it's sphere. The opportunity to partner with this "potential" superpower is fast fading... but the threat remains, regardless of where we see ourselves in relation to Russia (or, more specifically... the Kremlin).

I "admire" the Russian PEOPLE. They are a culture that recognizes the gains they have made throughout history, and refuse to forget them. I do NOT admire or condone the actions of the current regime (nor of any others dating as far back as at least 1901) at the Kremlin. These are a people that WILL NOT be defeated... and REFUSE to forget the price they have been forced to pay for their nation and their liberties. There is no more patriotic, nationalistic society on earth than the Russian People... and they have a lot to teach us about "national will" and its impact on government.

Here we go again...man I hate the Russians

This is in Fox News today. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,400841,00.html Those good for nothing scum bags are intentionally hitting civilians to force a withdrawal of Georgian troops from a former unrecognized territory. The Georgians withdraw and they start hitting Georgia, well behind the lines of dispute. Then they have the balls to blame it on the US because we trained the Georgian troops and they want to be a member of NATO.

The part that really kills me is that Titus actually admires these freaks and sympathizes with them. The whole friggin place is corupt and immoral. Their leadership has delusions of grandeur and they need to get over themselves.

THIS IS IT! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Ryan, your package goes out tomorrow AM. I'm sorry this has taken nearly three months. Mostly I'm sick of looking at these skinny clothes in my closet of fat apparel!

"It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood ..."

Just get ready for scores of this racial nonsense as the first black legitimate candidate for president goes into the final 90 days. Every MAC offensive will be responded to by calling him a racist. Its nauseating. This from FOX News:

The McCain campaign is accusing Sen. Obama of playing the “race card” for stating yesterday that the presumptive Republican nominee was engaging in fear tactics and xenophobia.

“Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong,” said McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis Thursday, citing multiple statements by Obama yesterday.

“So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making,” Obama told supporters in Springfield, MO Wednesday in response to the tv spot McCain released yesterday.

In the new ad, McCain compares his Democratic rival to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in an attempt to paint him as an empty suit and a vapid celebrity who lacks the experience and skills for the White House.

By the way, I've seen the commercial comparing Obama to Hilton and Spears, race is not a component whatsoever. And the point is valid and clever - they're using his celebrity status and crowds, his strength, against him ... Sun Tzu would be proud. And FYI Barry ol' buddy, telling Americans to better inflate their tires and get tune-ups as part of your "energy plan" is as EMPTY as they come - you might as well borrow Jimmy Carter's Mr. Rogers sweater and tell us all to turn down the thermostat this winter. America has seen this act ... they aren't buying.