Dempsey pushes back against war fever – Harper

Martindempsey-300x225
General Martin Dempsey, U.S. Chairman of the

 Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a lengthy interview to Judy Woodruff
 on Friday night's PBS News Hour and delivered a carefully balanced
 picture of how the U.S. military is managing the unfolding
 Ukraine crisis, both reassuring European NATO allies that treaty
 obligations will be honored, while maintaining constant
 communications with Russian counterparts, to assure there are no
 miscalculations leading to conflict. Gen. Dempsey, clearly aware
 of the boundaries between military advice and political
 decision-making, did not attempt to under-play the danger of
 conflict, particularly given the occupant of the White House.

 



 

Asked by an aggressive Woodruff what kind of message the
 U.S. is trying to send to Russia, Gen. Dempsey calmly replied
 that “We're clearly trying to send a message to Russia, almost
 exclusively through diplomatic channels, so that I do have an
 open line with my Russian counterpart that I have used twice the
 last two days.


 “But we're trying to tell them not to escalate this thing
 further into Eastern Ukraine and allow the conditions to be set
 for some kind of resolution in the Crimea. But the message we are
 sending militarily is to our NATO allies.


 “So, one of our responsibilities at times like this is to
 reassure our allies. And so the deployments you mentioned into
 the Baltic air policing mission, into the aviation detachment in
 Poland, the deployment of the ship, are really intended to
 reassure our allies… Well, don't forget, we have actually, we
 have NATO treaty obligations under Article 5 for collective
 defense. And, so, when they ask us for reassurance or they ask
 us to for contingency planning, we respond, and we do have
 obligations with NATO.''


 Pressed again on the possibility of a direct military
 conflict, Dempsey remained focused on the diplomacy: “Well,
 that's why we're seeking aggressively to resolve this
 diplomatically, before we would reach the point where there could
 be a miscalculation.''


 Asked again about the Russian claims that the present
 government in Ukraine is illegal, Dempsey reiterated, “Of course
 they are. And they're trying to roll back to the February 21
 agreement, and we're trying to suggest that, really, the clock
 started on February 24.


 “Those are matters of diplomacy. Our role, as the military,
 is to seek ways to influence this without it being escalatory.
 And, by the way, I do have this open line with my Russian
 counterpart. So, everything that we have done, I tell him, here's
 what were doing. Here's why were doing it. We disagree
 fundamentally about your claim of legitimacy, but, as militaries,
 let's try to avoid escalating this thing.''


 Dempsey concluded by acknowledging that there is a chance of
 escalation to military conflict and that the U.S. is constantly
 re-evaluating the changing status: “Well, that's a question
 that I think deserves to be assessed and reassessed and refreshed
 as this thing evolves. But, remember, we do have treaty
 obligations with our NATO allies. And I have assured them that,
 if that treaty obligation is triggered, we would respond.''
 Military sources who carefully studied the Dempsey interview
 emphasized that Dempsey went as far as any Chairman could go in
 pressing for a diplomatic resolution and avoidance of conflict.


 It is most fortunate that, at a time when the President of the United States repeatedly demonstrates his lack of diplomatic patience and experience, that there is a military chairman who has the diplomatic and military skills that the Commander-in-Chief so sorely lacks.  This is reassuring, but is no guarantee that the President's continuing flight-foward, including his latest declaration of a National Emergency over the Ukraine crisis, is not going to land us in a senseless and potentially devastating strategic confrontation.  

This entry was posted in Harper. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Dempsey pushes back against war fever – Harper

  1. patrick lang says:

    All
    Sorry about the formatting. Harper posted this in .doc and I can’t seem to fix it. pl

  2. b says:

    Obama thinks this all about him
    http://theswoop.net/ln_english/index.php
    /quote/
    However, the perception is rising in the White House that, rightly or wrongly, the crisis has become a personal contest which can only be settled between Obama and President Putin. NSC officials tell us that this is both an advantage in that it lends weight to the exchanges between the two men and a drawback in that it involves Obama more intensively in the management of the crisis than he would otherwise wish.

    As an NSC official commented to us: “Against all the odds, Obama continues to believe that he can do a deal with Putin. His telephone exchanges lead him to conclude that Putin is intent on building a position of strength from which he will then negotiate.” From talking to other high-level contacts in Washington, our sense is that Obama’s conviction that a deal is doable is not widely shared. Even in the State Department there are senior officials who are much less optimistic that Putin is interested in negotiating.
    /endquote/
    Putin already made his negotiation offer. Back to the February 21 deal or the Crimea is gone.
    Obama is free to take that. If not, well, then the Crimea is gone.

  3. crf says:

    I wish the US would appoint Henry Kissinger as an envoy to handle this dimplomatically. He wrote a very astute article which has been published in several major newspapers worldwide.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html
    The Russian have repeatedly said they are not invading Crimea. The media in the West have not properly analyzed why the Russians might be saying this. They insinuate Putin is crazy, since it is obvious that soldiers are there. But not acknowledging their presence officially means the Russians could end the military occupation of Crimea, while saving face as they would not have to admit a withdrawal.
    The (totally bonkers, by the way) Referendum question could also be shelved indefinitely with one phone call from Lavrov or Putin to the Crimean Parliament.
    Everything still suggests that a diplomatic solution to this aspect of the crisis is very much available for the taking. The US really needs to avoid making moves that amount to baiting and humiliating Russia. And NATO needs to taking a breather: the comparisons by several leaders of western democracies of Putin to Hitler are just madness. NATO right now isn’t speaking with one voice. There needs to be a breather on talk of sanctions are worldwide repercussions. This benefits nobody.
    Absolutely nothing good will come with seeing this crisis escalate. And for once, Israel ought to be reining in the US’s statements. The way the rhetoric is going, Kerry is going to be sanctioning Isreal and indicting Netanyahu for allowing Israeli settlers in Golan to cast ballots in Israeli elections (not to mention the occupied territories, which, I suppose, Kerry would now say must be given immediately to Jordan and Egypt).
    Most everyone, even the Palestinians thinks negotiations are the way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian-Golan problem. All Nato partners say the same thing. Nobody in that conflict is routinely trying to escalate to the speed and degree things are escalating in the Ukraine-Russia-Crimea conflict.
    This is complete madness.

  4. No nation has ever invaded another that possessed nuclear weapons (border skirmishes between India an Pakistan don’t count).
    I think Ukraine now wishes they had kept their nukes. At one time the were the 3rd largest nuclear power in the world.

  5. Fred says:

    crf,
    “Kerry is going to be sanctioning Isreal and indicting Netanyahu for allowing Israeli settlers in Golan to cast ballots in Israeli elections (not to mention the occupied territories, which, I suppose, Kerry would now say must be given immediately to Jordan and Egypt).
    Most everyone, even the Palestinians thinks negotiations are the way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian-Golan problem.”
    That is very humorous as I don’t think anyone really thinks negotiations with Israel are going to solve a damn thing other than buy time for more settlements, ‘facts on the ground’ and more ethnic cleansing of occupied territories. The Golan Heights were captured in a war. Do you now think Golan should be recognized as sovereign Israeli territory? If so we should scrap the UN now – or expel Israel – as wars of conquest are against the UN charter.

  6. Fred says:

    RA,
    yes, then the current government could ethnically cleanse Ukraine of all the Russians, and as General Dempsey points out in the interview, the 400,000 Rumanians; and that’s just a start. Of course we would have a right – or an obligation according to the Obama administration – to protect those minorities, wouldn’t we?

  7. VietnamVet says:

    Harper,
    The points made here on SST about the neo-cons/neo-liberals are excellent and true; arrogant ideologues. They don’t give a damn about anyone except themselves.
    There is an additional characteristic, entrepreneurship, risk taking greed. They get a rush taking risks to make money. Since the oligarchs seized power in the West, at the beginning of this century, not one has gone to jail for their looting.
    Together they are rushing the world to a war between two nuclear powers in Ukraine that will destroy mankind.
    Only General Martin Dempsey stands between them and us.

  8. crf says:

    Argentina (which may have had a bomb program at the time) invaded the Falkland Islands (Britain: a nuclear power).
    Maybe some people in Ukraine wish they had nukes. I’m sure virtually everyone else at the time thought that unleashing a whole bunch of Ex-Soviet republics with such weapons would be total madness.

  9. nick b says:

    Before anyone flips out:
    http://dailycurrant.com/about/

  10. JohnH says:

    I wish Woodruff had asked Dempsey how he would react to having to fulfill NATO’s obligations once the Ukraine joins NATO, which like other Soviet Republics (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) is what the R2P and Neocon crowds are all salivating over.
    Can this president resist, given his generally weak character and his lack of anything to show on the foreign policy front after five years in office?

  11. Valissa says:

    That was hilarious, thanks!
    Suspiciously, over at The Onion I couldn’t find any satirical posts on the Crimea or Ukraine.
    Then I found this over at The People’s Cube 🙂
    Putin alleges Tea Partiers in Ukraine, wins over US media http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/putin-alleges-tea-partiers-in-ukraine-wins-over-us-media-t13277.html

  12. tv says:

    KGB Colonel or community organizer/career politician?
    Who you gonna bet on?

  13. Dubhaltach says:

    Everyone:
    I think it is worth emphasising that neither the USA nor NATO have treaty obligations to Ukraine. None.
    The: Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Budapest Memorandum) is just that – a memorandum. It is NOT a treaty, and does not impose any legal obligations on the signatories.
    I think it utterly unlikely that the Russians will attack any NATO member which is what would trigger treaty obligations.
    I also think it utterly unlikely that the Russians permit Ukraine to become a NATO member.
    Du

  14. Fred says:

    crf,
    Argentina has claimed those Islands for a couple of hundred years. The Argentine government had not been subject to removal by a $5 billion dollar effort of the US government. Those who thought leaving nuclear weapons through out many former members of the USSR was madness were correct.

  15. Haralambos says:

    Dear Col. Lang,
    I think I might have fixed the Harper formatting issues (fingers crossed); I did not correct the several typos I notice but removed several extra spaces and line-breaks. Thank you for your platform:
    General Martin Dempsey, U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a lengthy interview to Judy Woodruff on Friday night’s PBS News Hour and delivered a carefully balanced picture of how the U.S. military is managing the unfolding Ukraine crisis, both reassuring European NATO allies that treaty obligations will be honored, while maintaining constant communications with Russian counterparts, to assure there are no miscalculations leading to conflict. Gen. Dempsey, clearly aware of the boundaries between military advice and political decision-making, did not attempt to under-play the danger of conflict, particularly given the occupant of the White House.
    Asked by an aggressive Woodruff what kind of message the U.S. is trying to send to Russia, Gen. Dempsey calmly replied that “We’re clearly trying to send a message to Russia, almost exclusively through diplomatic channels, so that I do hae an open line with my Russian counterpart that I have used twice the last two days.
    “But we’re trying to tell them not to escalate this thing
    further into Eastern Ukraine and allow the conditions to be set for some kind of resolution in the Crimea. But the message we are sending militarily is to our NATO allies.
    “So, one of our responsibilities at times like this is to
    reassure our allies. And so the deployments you mentioned into the Baltic air policing mission, into the aviation detachment in Poland, the deployment of the ship, are really intended to reassure our allies… Well, don’t forget, we have actually, we have NATO treaty obligations under Article 5 for collective defense. And, so, when they ask us for reassurance or they ask us to for contingency planning, we respond, and we do have obligations with NATO.”
    Pressed again on the possibility of a direct military
    conflict, Dempsey remained focused on the diplomacy: “Well, that’s why we’re seeking aggressively to resolve this diplomatically, before we would reach the point where there could be a miscalculation.”
    Asked again about the Russian claims that the present
    government in Ukraine is illegal, Dempsey reiterated, “Of course they are. And they’re trying to roll back to the February 21 agreement, and we’re trying to suggest that, really, the clock started on February 24.
    “Those are matters of diplomacy. Our role, as the military, is to seek ways to influence this without it being escalatory. And, by the way, I do have this open line with my Russian counterpart. So, everything that we have done, I tell him, here’s what were doing. Here’s why were doing it. We disagree fundamentally about your claim of legitimacy, but, as militaries, let’s try to avoid escalating this thing.”
    Dempsey concluded by acknowledging that there is a chance of escalation to military conflict and that the U.S. is constantly
    re-evaluating the changing status: “Well, that’s a question that I think deserves to be assessed and reassessed and refreshed as this thing evolves. But, remember, we do have treaty obligations with our NATO allies. And I have assured them that, if that treaty obligation is triggered, we would respond.” Military sources who carefully studied the Dempsey interview emphasized that Dempsey went as far as any Chairman could go in pressing for a diplomatic resolution and avoidance of conflict.
    It is most fortunate that, at a time when the President of the United States repeatedly demonstrates his lack of diplomatic patience and experience, that there is a military chairman who has the diplomatic and military skills that the Commander-in-Chief so sorely lacks. This is reassuring, but is no guarantee that the President’s continuing flight-foward, including his latest declaration of a National Emergency over the Ukraine crisis, is not going to land us in a senseless and potentially devastating strategic confrontation.

  16. turcopolier says:

    haralambos
    thanks but it is not fixed. He was in a hurry, posted it wrong and left town. I have asked him to fix it when he can. pl

  17. turcopolier says:

    dubhaltach
    you are not concerned? That’s nice but the rest of us are. pl

  18. turcopolier says:

    haralambos
    “Thank you for your platform” That’s kind of you. I occasionally write something here myself. As for Dempsey’s interview, did you think we were not aware of it? pl

  19. JohnH says:

    “Neither the USA nor NATO have treaty obligations to Ukraine. None.”
    Yet. What makes you think that the chicken hawks in charge of US foreign policy don’t intend to bring Ukraine into NATO ASAP?

  20. Tyler says:

    If that’s the same article about the situation I read by Kissinger, I thought he had one or two good points but the rest seemed to hand wave the importance to Russia of the Black Sea Fleet and not having NATO kicking up its heels on Russia’s border.
    He seemed to continue to think this was just Putin messin’ around for shits & gigs and not a break or be broken situation for Russia.

  21. Tyler says:

    Good grief the weight on GEN Dempsey’s shoulders. He’s got a spineless Secretary over him who’s more interested in turning the military into a social petri dish and a detached community organizer in chief on top of THAT guy.
    “No easy days”, indeed.

  22. Dubhaltach says:

    In response to turcopolier 09 March 2014 at 07:59 PM.
    Sir, I made no mention of my concerns one way or the other. I said that I thought two things to be utterly unlikely the first of which was that the Russians would attack any NATO member thereby triggering treaty obligations. The second was that I thought it utterly unlikely that the Russians would permit Ukraine to become a NATO member.
    On the basis of past performance I don’t expect the Russians to be the ones to initiate hostilities. I am far more concerned that some NATO member will concoct a pack of lies which they will then wave around the place like a Secretary of State waves a test tube full of clear liquid at a UN General Assembly. I am very concerned about that.
    Dubhaltach.

  23. robt willmann says:

    In the interview on the PBS Newshour, Gen. Martin Dempsey was carefully couching his words about military action in terms of Article 5 of the NATO agreement. Articles 5 and 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty (1949) say–
    “Article 5:
    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
    Article 6:
    For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
    -on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France [no longer applicable], on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
    -on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-1433BE44-A3A48266/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
    After adding Turkey and Greece in 1951, Germany in 1954, and Spain in 1981, all was stable up to and through the collapse of the Soviet Union, which should have been the end of NATO. But, as you can see on the right side of the web page, beginning in 1997 through 1 April 2009, 12 more countries were added to NATO: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Croatia, and Albania.
    When we look at our friend the map, what do we see along the western side of Ukraine? NATO.
    http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/countries/ukraine-map/
    Squeezed in between part of Romania and southwestern Ukraine is Moldova, which I think has a significant and vocal Russian population. If eastern and southern Ukraine move to secede, Moldova could become a hot spot. Plus, if southern Ukraine all the way across past Odessa secedes, then what will be left of western Ukraine for its “nationalists” will be landlocked, because Ukraine’s southern border is the Black Sea.
    Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly gave Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Saturday, 8 March, a “diplomatic ultimatum”, in that, “He made clear that continued military escalation and provocation in Crimea or elsewhere in Ukraine, along with steps to annex Crimea to Russia would close any available space for diplomacy, and he urged utmost restraint,” the official said.
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/08/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html
    What does Kerry mean, “… would close any available space for diplomacy,” we might ask?
    If the space for diplomacy is closed, then what? Kerry’s alleged threat is not based on Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which means he and Gen. Dempsey are saying very different things.

  24. CK says:

    The term is for two years renewable. Dempsey is on his second term. Only one chair has served more than two terms Earle Wheeler served three terms through the Vietnam war.

  25. Haralambos says:

    Colonel,
    I apologize or not being clearer in my comment. What I pasted in my initial comment was my correction of the Harper piece; I thought you might be able to copy that and replace the original. Best wishes.

  26. Fred says:

    Robt,
    “After adding Turkey and Greece in 1951, Germany in 1954, and Spain in 1981, all was stable up to and through the collapse of the Soviet Union, which should have been the end of NATO.”
    Yes, NATO fulfilled its purpose and the US should re-evalutae what is in the national interest of the United States. Fighting for Estonian/Albania or any other country is probably not it.
    As to Kerry, he’s proving once again that if the flip-flop fits, wear it. In this case he shoved them right in that big mouth of his.

  27. Bill H says:

    Like most here, I am an admirer of General Dempsey and consider him to be a valuable voice of reason, but isn’t it a bit inappropriate for a military person to be assuring that “we will honor treaties” and such language? It seems to me that he is entering into the arena of politics, which military is not supposed to do.

  28. Dubhaltach says:

    In reply to JohnH 09 March 2014 at 06:09 PM
    Russia is no longer in a state of collapse. They have competent military forces around 70% per cent of whom as our host has pointed out are professionals rather conscripts. They can strangle Ukraine economically and ensure that a large proportion of its population quite literally freezes to death next winter. Added to all of those is the fact that the Ukraine has a substantial Russian population. Then there’s the damage they can do to Western Europe simply by shutting off the Gas and halting or delaying payment on imports. Doing so would bring the German economy and thus the rest of the EU crashing to a halt.
    In the light of all the above I don’t give a tinker’s curse what the ‘chicken hawks in charge of US foreign policy’ – as you so aptly put it, intend. There is a difference between having an intent or desire if you prefer that word and having the wherewithal to achieve your desires.
    Du

  29. turcopolier says:

    Bill H
    IMO Dempsey wishes to remind the Russians that an attack on a NATO country would be an attack on the US. A treaty signed by the US and ratified y the senate is US law. it is not a matter of policy to know that such law must be honored. therefore, IMO Dempsey is well within his duty to mention his. pl

  30. Fred says:

    Dubhaltach,
    “They can strangle Ukraine economically and ensure that a large proportion of its population quite literally freezes to death next winter.”
    I wouldn’t worry too much about them freezing to death. They can travel to the Mediterranean coast of EU member states Italy, France, Spain and Greece. It’s warm there in the winter and after all aren’t those nations’ EU leaders pledging the lives of their citizens in the defense of freedom in the Ukraine? A couple of million refugees who want a better life in the EU will surely be greeted with open arms by their fellow Europeans.

  31. SAC Brat says:

    The Ukraine is covered on the http://www.duffelblog.com

  32. nick b says:

    SAC Brat,
    That site is howler! Thanks for the laughs and the link.

  33. Anna-Marina says:

    Where is Dershowitz when we need him?
    Excerpts from an article about the illustrious colleagues of “Yatz, the important Ukrainian visitor to White House:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/10/ukraine-the-sovereignty-argument-and-the-real-problem-of-fascism/
    Neo-fascists in Cabinet Posts
    “In 2010 the official Svoboda (a party supported by the US) website carried a statement reading in part: “To create a truly Ukrainian Ukraine in the cities of the East and South, only one lustration will not be enough, we will need to cancel parliamentarism, ban all political parties, nationalize the entire industry, all media, prohibit the importation of any literature to Ukraine from Russia… completely replace the leaders of the civil service, education management, military (especially in the East), physically liquidate all Russian-speaking intellectuals and all Ukrainophobes (fast, without a trial shot. Registering Ukrainophobes can be done here by any member of Svoboda), execute all members of the anti-Ukrainian political parties…”
    There is more:
    Tyanhybok (a member of Ukrainian Parliament and supporter of Yatsenko) calls for the liberation of Ukraine from the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia.” He “visited Germany in 2010 to stand in solidarity with John Damanjuk, the Ukrainian-American convicted of abetting mass murder in death camps in Poland. Around that time close aide Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn established a think tank originally called “the Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center.”…
    “Tyahnybok has appeared at a public rally with U.S. Sen. John McCain, and had a cordial meeting last month with U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs Victoria Nuland.”
    (Nulan is Jewish and she is obviously quite comfortable with this vicious judophob since his activities advance her career).
    “As the Soviet leadership faced the profound humiliation of the collapse of the alliance, George W. Bush (commander in chief during the first Persian Gulf War, who proclaimed “a New World Order”) assured Mikhail Gorbachev that following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact the U.S. would not expand eastwards. But during the Bill Clinton era, the U.S. did precisely that.”
    The events in Ukraine represent the “attempts to implement the official Pentagon strategy of “full-spectrum dominance” and the “ultimate expulsion of the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol.”
    “the U.S. has over 700 military bases outside its borders… The Russians have a dozen bases outside Russian territory, all on the periphery of the country. No one in his or her right mind (this excludes the hysterical hawks in Congress and the neocons who help shape their views) would suggest that Russia poses a gathering threat to U.S. “national security.” But rational Russians might well question why NATO wants to encircle them. Russia’s been invaded from the west innumerable times (including 1610-12, 1708, 1812, 1941-45)….Its people no doubt feel consternation at the tightening of the NATO noose.”
    And a cherry on a pie:
    “here has been a credible report, based on a leaked phone conversation between EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton and Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, that the sniper fire that occurred in Maidan Square, attributed by the opposition to Yanukovich’s security forces in order justify the coup, was actually arranged by neo-fascist forces. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov demands an investigation. But this report has not been mentioned prominently in the U.S. press, which wants to keep things simple.”

  34. Fred says:

    Col.
    As I recall from the interview Dempsey stated he has a line to his counterparts and has spoken to them at least twice in the past few days. I think that will acomplish more to prevent a military escallation than John Kerry’s statements.

  35. Anna-Marina says:

    Colonel, do you have any insight on the papers on question?
    http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2014/03/09/ukraines-shadow-on-central-asian-steppes/

  36. Bill H says:

    Fair enough, I see the point. Thanks. Maybe I’m just too touchy after the likes of Gen. Petraeus.

  37. Thomas says:

    “Russia is increasingly left with no choice but to ‘declassify’ the privileged information in its possession regarding the western intelligence operation that forced the power grab in Kiev. It is extraordinary that Russia handed over to the UN Security Council the information with the request to hold an impartial international investigation.
    Of course, any such move for impartial investigation will be vetoed by the United States. Russia knows it, too, but then, there is also an information war going on today regarding the situation around Ukraine and from Moscow’s point of view, as tensions keep rising, it has become imperative to expose the US’ narrative to be sheer baloney.”
    This is the card I have been expecting Russia to play. No one in the West will address the question of why would Yanukovich (whose friends say he has the spine of a jellyfish) use deadly force after signing an agreement for a transitional government?

  38. turcopolier says:

    Thomas
    Who are you quoting? pl

  39. Thomas says:

    M K Bhadrakumar in the article posted by Anna-Marina.
    The way Neocons operate with no discretion or discipline, I figured Russia had all the evidence they needed to make a public case of international meddling.

  40. different clue says:

    If it becomes clear that the UNSC will do nothing with or about this information, might the Russian government give parts or all of it to Wikileaks in order to expose and discredit the targeted agencies so thoroughly as to make future such operations actually harder for them?

  41. Norbert M Salamon says:

    with respect, Sir, in the years of the present and just past President the principle of constitutional action [be it as [per Amendment or as per Senate ratified treaty] is/was applicable only at the pleasure of the President.
    This observation does not mean to contradict your statement about the applicability of NATO Treaty as part of the Constitution of USA, and as such applicable in theory at least if a NATO member is attacked by a foreign state’s armed forces.

  42. Thomas says:

    different clue,
    The first step would be to show all the members the bs of the western narrative. Second is to present to China, India and others the facts of the crisis. Third would be for other press outlets in the world using the file to expose the operations as you conclude (as M K Bhadrakumar has done). The precedent was set when Russia made public the private conversation with Bandar, so I was waiting for them to make public their intel info. What truly bothers me about this crisis is the question of what is becoming of the United States. If we are going to be an Empire, then eventually the Imperial Court will want to quash all criticism, and criticizers.
    An interesting aside, since the fall of 11, I watch CCTV for news and only turn MSM news when a crisis like Ukraine breaks. Yesterday my daily paper had a story that the Administration was going to get China on their side in this diplomatic conflict. CCTV uses breaks in programs to advertise tourist spots and investment zones. A new addition this week is an advertisement for the city of Manzhouli, the convergence of Russia and China. Those Ivy league lunkheads have their answer.

  43. turcopolier says:

    eakens
    Do you think this e-mail is really from this assistant army attache? pl

  44. Fred says:

    eakens,
    Why would a military attache be using social media from a work work computer? Why’s he on linked in unless he’s job hunting?

Comments are closed.