RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 27 MAY 2021

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

IN A WORD. Some time ago – Munich speech? Libya? Ivanov’s re-assignment? – the Putin Team decided that NATO wanted war and Russia had better get its defensive power up. They have decided that they have done so. That’s why the rhetoric has toughened. NATO’s window of opportunity has closed but it will take a while before the dullards in Washington and NATO get this. Moscow will knock their teeth out and add their gewgaws to the world’s largest collection of nazi banners and French cannons. Only a fool thinks it’s a threat and not a promise.

MILITARY. Shoygu says combat robot mass production has started. He doesn’t say which ones but these were shown on Victory Day. Putin says tests of the S-500 are almost complete and that 85% of commanders of “of large military formations and regiments” have received combat experience in Syria.

BOMBERS. Some strategic bombers have arrived at the Russian base in Syria; for exercises, we’re told.

NUKES. According to Moscow, as of 1 March, Russia had 517 ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers with a total of 1456 warheads and the USA had 651 with 1357 warheads. I seem to remember a study years ago that said that something like 400 would be more than enough for each; here’s one that says 100 is the number. Anyway, you can see that with these two having these numbers why Beijing (with a few hundred) is not interested in three-way talks until Russia and the USA come way down.

NORDSTREAM. Washington has lifted sanctions on German companies involved with the pipeline but imposed new ones on Russian entities. What are we to make of this? A realisation that Berlin is determined on completion combined with face-saving meaningless toughness. Amusingly Biden’s now being called “Putin’s $5 million man” (because of the supposed payout by the pipeline to the supposed Russian supposed hackers). Nordstream was a “key Putin goal“, giving power to Putin, what does he have on him? Hilarious, isn’t it? Biden loved it then: here he is calling Trump Putin’s puppy.

SWIFT. An official of the Central Bank of Russia says she sees no risk in using SWIFT now, but that Russia can easily switch to its own system: the Financial Messaging System of the Bank of Russia.

POLLS. In Levada’s presidential stakes Putin is well out in front as usual, most of the rest (especially Navalniy) are in the margin of error. Maybe Zhirinovskiy has edged out Zyuganov for a distant second (both of them were around in 1996!).

MINSK AND RYANAIR PLANE. The story gets fishier by the minute. First the simulated and hypocritical outrage when Minsk is accused of following the example of the keeper and guardian of the Rules-Based International Order (suspiciously rapid and uniform). Calling this coup specialist a “journalist” is pretty creative: yes he did fight with the nazis; more on Protasevich and more still. There has been a sustained – and unsuccessful – anti-Lukashenka operation for some time, is this the next try? The real key to the story is the fake bomb threat: who did it and when? If it did come, as Lukashenka says, from some source in Switzerland (don’t be fooled by the time stamp – they are in different time zones), then everything took place as it should have and the rules required the pilot to land in Minsk; and the threat did say the bomb would be set off in Vilnius. Incidentally, this is the third time (!) a Ryanair plane has been forced to land by armed fighters after a bomb hoax: 2017 and 2020. Fighter interception is normal behaviour. The people who stayed in Minsk were not sinister operatives but people headed there anyway. Did the Belarusan authorities only know he was on board because of this tweet as Petri Krohn wonders (see comment 6)? Maybe we’ll read about it years later in the WaPo – remember Ukraine’s Joan of Arc? So, the question that they should be asking is: who originated the bomb threat? Answer that and you’ll know whether it was another anti-Lukashenka provocation (vide Vovan and Lexus) or something Lukashenka did to get Protasevich. But, anyway, it’s time for Lukashenka to get closer to Moscow; maybe he will.

MACRON says sanctions against Russia aren’t working and “I think that we are at a moment of truth in our relationship with Russia, which should lead us to rethink the terms of the tension that we decide to put in place.” Every now and again he says the unsayable, but nothing happens afterwards.

FAKE NEWS. Don’t toss your NYT subscription! Eventually the news will fit. Steele dossier is junk!

RUSSIA/CHINA. It’s only an opinion, but the Global Times carries weight: “So Beijing and Moscow must keep close coordination to handle the upcoming situation, including how to establish a new order to replace the US-dominated one once the latter gets totally dysfunctional, Yang Jin said.”

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Canada Russia Observer

PUTIN-BIDEN MEETING

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn THE WORLD IS CHANGING, WORLD POWER RELATIONSHIPS

(Answer to question from Sputnik)

I can’t see any reason for Putin bothering unless it be curiosity to see for himself Biden’s state of mind. I do not expect anything to change — the Biden/Harris Administration is packed full of the people who fully embrace the numerous Russia conspiracy theories, invented many of them and who made US-Russia relations impossible.

As to Nordstream, Washington was trying to placate Berlin; it’s still trying to stop the pipeline.

Biden wants to show himself statesmanlike, important and in charge; Putin doesn’t have to.

The only possible interest is to bet whether Putin walks out when Biden starts up with the customary accusations.

WHY MOSCOW DOESN’T JUST KNOCK HIM OVER

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn HISTORY, WORLD POWER RELATIONSHIPS

First published Strategic Culture Foundation

Every time – and we’ve just had an illustration – someone in Kiev makes trouble for Russia, the Internet is full of people crying on Putin to just go in and knock them over. A sub-variant of this is that Moscow should have invaded after the Maidan coup, arrested all the nazis and put Yanukovych back to serve out the rest of his term under the now-forgotten agreement hammered out by the EU.

But there’s actually a good reason why Moscow, in Ukraine or earlier in Georgia, did not invade and knock Zelensky or Saakashvili over and why it doesn’t forcefully deal with other irritations. And that reason is a very simple one: it’s not that it couldn’t have done it – there was nothing between Russian power and Tbilisi in 2008 or between it and Kiev in 2021 – but, simply, experience. Both Moscow’s experience and its observation of others’ experiences.

We will start with others’ experience. The Royal Navy began to switch to oil fuel just before the First World War and that made assured oil sources vitally important to it and, by extension, to Britain and other naval powers. Iran (Persia) was a major source and Britain made a rather one-sided agreement after the war giving a British company excessive rights to oil sources in Iran. Iran was heavily influenced by Britain from that point on, to the growing resentment of the Iranians who saw themselves getting little out of the arrangement. In 1951 Mohammed Mosaddegh became Prime Minister and nationalised the oil company. A pause should be made here – later experience has shown that such nationalisations are very far from catastrophic: the oil has to be sold to somebody, the price isn’t set by the selling country and, in the end, it’s actually a business matter that can be settled by business methods. The Suez Canal functions and so does the Panama Canal despite local control; state-owned companies sell their oil and life goes on. But such was not considered acceptable – fear of communism or the Soviet Union gaining control or just amour-propre – and, in the end, it was decided to solve the problem by getting rid of him. Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup organised by London and Washington but mostly carried out by the CIA. And so the problem was solved. Officially denied by London and Washington for years, the CIA’s involvement was confirmed in 2000 and more documents were released in 2017. But the Iranians always knew who did it and the coup greatly contributed to their dislike of the USA and was a strong motivation in the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. Today Iran is perceived in Washington as a “daily threat” and its extensive armoury of missiles “a significant threat“. Several decades of neocon/PNAC/exceptionalist harebrained machinations against the “Iranian threat” has made it more powerful, more influential and more determined than before. It is now a very significant obstacle to American ambitions to control the MENA. So, in retrospect, the overthrow of Mosaddegh was not so successful after all and sixty years later the problem is very far from “solved”. Doing business with Mosaddegh, in the long run, would have been the better response and Iran might even be well-disposed towards the USA and its allies or at least indifferent today. Knocking Mosaddegh over worked at first, but the effect didn’t last.

This was then-new CIA’s first known venture into “knocking him over” although Washington was well-practised in the custom – perhaps the first was the coup that overthrew Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii in 1893 – but there were to be many more. Diem in Vietnam; but that didn’t work either and the Vietnam War just got worse until the USA retired in defeat. For years Washington has proceeded under the delusion that it’s just one person that stands in its way and with him removed the road will be smooth. It never is, but Washington never stops trying. Washington has overthrown many governments in Latin America without, it appears, bringing stability or friendship any more genuine than the passing dependency of the current beneficiary. Even Newsweek ran a piece concluding: “As it stands, however, the only evidence we have of anyone interfering with any election or government implicates the U.S. — not Russia. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story.” Seventy-two attempts during the Cold War calculated the Washington Post. Knocking him over is very much the American style of diplomacy.

The resentment of the outsider’s interference never goes away. And, as the case of the Shah illustrates, any excesses the puppet commits are attributed to the puppet-master. Americans are very offended with the “Great Satan” chants and flag-burnings but – typically – they cannot understand the why of it: Iranians blame Washington for everything bad between the overthrow of Mosaddegh and the departure of the Shah and continual hostility thereafter. And, from the arming of Saddam Hussein, the naval battle and the civilian plane in 1988 to the killing of Solomeini last year, they can enumerate examples. Far better from Washington’s perspective if Mosaddegh had been left in power.

Another disastrous CIA enterprise was the subversion of Soviet-supported governments in Afghanistan especially the post-Soviet one of Najibullah. In doing so, Washington built up the very elements that would, after an involvement that more than doubled the Soviet stay, send it and its allies home in defeat. There is no doubt that Washington would be happier with a Najibullah in Kabul than with what will be there in a year.

Speaking of Afghanistan, we now turn to Moscow’s direct experience of failure. In 1978 the local communist party pulled off a coup in Kabul no doubt with some involvement from Moscow. But the Afghan communist party was deeply split and the government was too hasty in communisation; dissatisfaction grew and the communist government trembled. This could not be tolerated under the so-called Brezhnev Doctrine and Moscow decided to end the problem by knocking him over; it invaded, the present leader was killed and replaced by Babrak Karmal from the rival faction. Karmal eased off on the communisation but it was too late; the revolt expanded, the Soviets got bogged down and finally left the, in Gorbachev’s words, “bleeding sore” in 1989.

In Hungary in 1956, Imre Nagy, a long-time communist, spoke in favour of a “new course” reform after Khrushchev’s condemnation of Stalin’s “cult of personality”. This led to revolution and a Soviet invasion which deposed Nagy and later tried and executed him. A similar attempt in Czechoslovakia under Alexander Dubček of “Socialism with a human face” in 1968 was similarly crushed by an invasion and deposition of Dubček. He at least was spared to live to see the end of the Soviet Union.

So Moscow can remember three cases in which, under previous management, it just “knocked the guy over”: Nagy, Dubček and Hafizullah Amin. In no case was there any profit except in the short run. Hungary and Czechoslovakia dropped the Warsaw Pact, the USSR and communism as soon as they possibly could and the resentment carried them into NATO. The Afghanistan War limped on until Moscow admitted defeat and handed it, as you might say, off to Washington so it could be defeated there in its turn. (Speaking of cunning schemes that have disastrous results for the schemer, the case can be made that it all began with Brzezinski.)

Had Washington and London left Mosaddegh alone they would both be happier today and, in all likelihood the price of oil would be the same and the supply just as assured. Admittedly it’s hindsight but hindsight is supposed to produce foresight. Washington’s endless interventions in Latin America have brought only short-term benefits and have left a legacy of hatred that will, one day, boil up. Washington would have been wiser to have left Afghanistan as it was just as Moscow would have been. Overthrowing Nagy and Dubček brought short-term gain and laid the ground for longer term problems – especially as Prague has become a Tabaqui thinking itself safe between Shere Khan’s paws.

In short, the lesson of history is that, in almost every case, “knocking him over” gives a geopolitical quick sugar hit that will be paid for later. Moscow knows this because it is smart enough to learn from its own and Washington’s failures. I can never stress too often that Moscow was once an exceptionalist power: for seven decades it was the capital of the leading and guiding light of history as the “world’s first socialist state”, the standard-bearer for the “bright future of mankind”, producer of a new type of human being and that exceptionalism brought it neither friends nor prosperity. Putin himself called it “a road to a blind alley“. But Washington is still in its exceptionalist phase and thinks that doing the same thing again this time will succeed.

And sometimes there isn’t even the quick sugar hit: for each in Afghanistan the hangover began within a few weeks. If Moscow had driven into Tbilisi and sent Saakashvili running – Shere Khan would not have come to Tabaqui’s defence then or in Ukraine – Moscow would then have to do something to create a Georgia more to its liking. Conceivably Russian intervention could have kept Yanukovych surviving under the EU-brokered agreement but it is highly probable that the next election would have brought the Maidan people to power and the situation would be much as it is today as far as Moscow is concerned. As for a swift drive on Kiev last month, there is no doubt Moscow had the military might to do it, but then what? As Bismarck observed, one can do anything with bayonets except sit on them.

And Moscow has enough experience in the USSR days of trying to sit on bayonets and can watch Washington’s failures.

In short, Moscow knows what Washington has not yet learnt: it’s not just one guy, it’s a whole country and sugar hits don’t last.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 13 MAY 2021

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

VICTORY DAY. Parade. Putin speech. “Unfortunately, attempts are made to deploy a large part of Nazi ideology and the ideas of those who were obsessed with the delusional theory of their own supremacy.” Not, apparently, visible to Blinken; I guess he wasn’t in Lviv. But at least someone in the USA notices.

RUSSIA-CHINA: THEIR VIEW. In 1995 48% of Russians thought relations with China were good, now 75% do. Beijing is becoming more blunt: “The combined power of China and Russia is far greater than that of the former Soviet Union-Eastern Europe bloc… If anyone tries to ride roughshod over this fact and pushes China and Russia to join forces in a desperate fight, that must be its nightmare,”

RUSSIA-CHINA: US VIEW. China and Russia’s Dangerous Convergence. The authors’ solution: “We instead suggest a far more modest and incremental approach designed to demonstrate to the people around Putin the benefits of a more balanced and independent Russian foreign policy.” Washington hair pullers are some of history’s dumbest strategists: they think a few soft words will change reality.

HISTORY. Russia’s history under the communists was extensively re-written and re-re-written. (Another crossover parallel in this post Cold War world?) The official line today is, I think, the rational and truthful one of admitting everything. Paul Robinson has a piece on a monument just opened in Sevastopol (where the defeated Whites evacuated in 1920) of Mother Russia and both of her sons – White and Red.

“BANKRUPT” RUSSIA. Getting on for 600 billion USD in the kitty.

EASTER. Service at the new Armed Forces Main Church.

VACCINE. Sputnik Light, a single-dose vaccine against COVID-19, has been registered.

MH-17. A dispassionate discussion of the improbabilities of the standard story and the Dutch investigation. But propaganda works by leaving an impression after the details have been forgotten.

FAKE NEWS: NAVALNIY. His doctor disappears!!! Murdered!!! Hit Squad!!! Found safe and sound.

FAKE NEWS: VACCINE. Is Russia’s Covid vaccine anything more than a political weapon? (The begging bit at the end tells us: “Since 1821, tens of millions have placed their trust in our quality reporting, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope.”)

FAKE NEWS: PIPELINE. Federal agencies order pipeline to repair its many leaks, saying that, given its “failure history” continued operation would pose an “integrity risk to public safety” in March. Reported that a cyberattack forces it to shut down in May. FBI blames a hacker group. Biden says no evidence that Russia was involved but “there’s evidence that the actors’ ransomware is in Russia [and] They have some responsibility to deal with this”. And we all know the US “intelligence community” is a reliable source. (PS, the last “Russian” group was actually from Ukraine). Ah well, easier to blame Russia than take responsibility for your rotting infrastructure. Will Bellingcat find his GRU couple visited here?

FAKE NEWS: SYRIA. “The result: The letter was never sent, MPs were never informed of the known corruption, and Dutch taxpayers were not able to learn that Mayday mishandled enormous sums of money it received from numerous donor governments, including their own.” So I guess the money that didn’t go to guns for jihadists, or spiffy never-used coveralls, was stolen at source. Le Mesurier admitted fraud and then was (auto?) defenestrated.

PORTENTS OF THE END. International poll with much to chew on. The USA is seen as a greater threat to democracy than Russia or China. There’s less satisfaction in the West than we’re told. Compare USA and Russia – numbers a lot closer than the Western media would have you believe. Rather amazed that most people think their governments handled COVID-19 well, though. Meanwhile ex military in France and USA don’t like the way things are going and who’s doing it.

NATO EXERCISE. Big NATO exercise is underway. Usual boasting and chest-thumping from Washington – defensive, transparent, interoperable. (Not the least of the delights of the present US Administration is the return of old favourites.) While it may not prove to be the farce that Scott Ritter expects it to be, no one who just witnessed what Russia can mass without months of pre-preparation will be impressed. (Something tells me though, that Ritter’s right in drawing our attention to Albania – bet there won’t be much transparency about something with such a chance of being a Charlie Foxtrot.)

USA-UKRAINE. I agree with Diesen here: Washington just told Kiev that it won’t back it. Another example of what you might call the Kurdish Lesson: Washington won’t be there at the ultimate moment. Escobar has more exciting things that he’s heard.

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Canada Russia Observer

RUSSIA, RUSSIA, EVER FAILING

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, WAR ON RUSSIA, WORLD POWER RELATIONSHIPS

First published Strategic Culture Foundation

One of the favourite delusions of the people Scott Ritter calls the “Putin whisperers” is that Russia or Putin – to them the two are synonymous – are always on the point of collapse and one more push will bring them down. To the sane, observing the development of Russia from 1991 to 2021, this conviction is crazy: Russia has endured and prospered. But, as I have said elsewhere, these people fit Einstein’s definition of insanity and forever repeat their failures: Ritter calls them “intellectually lazy”. They’re not Russia experts, they’re wrongness experts and constant practice has made them quite good at being wrong.

A recent example is a BBC documentary which I haven’t bothered to watch. I haven’t bothered because, after forty years in the business, I don’t have to: I know full well that BBC+Russia=clichés: bears, snow, unchanging horribleness and the confirmation of everything the BBC told you earlier. Bryan MacDonald has watched it and is especially amused by this line: “(However), some things in Russia change, like the seasons.” Paul Robinson describes the methodology: “talk to a few people, and then draw some sweeping conclusions“. In other words, just another piece of propaganda reinforcement typical of the species. Russia is always Russia: bad, smelly, stunted and vicious. Whether it’s spring, summer, fall or winter. As a Putin whisperer said in 1997

It is not prudent to deny or forget a thousand years of Russian history. It is replete with wars of imperial aggrandizement, the Russification of ethnic minorities, and absolutist, authoritarian, and totalitarian rule.

(This is from yet another screed on how to deal with Russia; compare it with Nuland’s a quarter century later: same old stuff – we’ve been too soft but if we add a withered carrot to the big stick, we’ll get them to do what we want. But at least Nuland recognises Russia’s military strength. Which, I guess, should be welcomed as some recognition of reality.)

One of my favourites, from twenty years ago, is Russia is Finished. But never mind what mere reporters write in newspapers and magazines – venues that in the pre-Internet days would have been forgotten after their final appearance as garbage wrap; the Russia is Finished delusion has taken root in more consequential soils. A senior member of the American apparat believes: “Inside the country, low oil prices, the coronavirus pandemic, and Russians’ growing sense of malaise all bring new costs and risks for the Kremlin.” She, or somebody of like opinion, is behind this statement from White House Press Secretary Psaki: “Well, I think the President’s view is that Russia is on the outside of the global community in many respects… What the President is offering is a bridge back. And so, certainly, he believes it’s in their interests to take him up on that offer.” Well, as to “outside”, in the first two weeks of April, Putin spoke with the leaders of Libya, Lebanon, Belarus, Finland, USA, Philippines, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Germany, Armenia, Brazil, Argentina, Vietnam, Mongolia and Saudi Arabia. Official Washington is as condescending as it is ill-informed.

A compendium of doom from the “experts”: Russia will fail in 1992, finished in 2001, failed in 2006, failed in 2008, failing in 2010, “rapid deteriorating economy” in 2014, failed or declining in 2015, failing in 2017, negligible economy and “rusted out” military in 2017 (“Russia’s coming attack on Canada” is an exceptional fount of worthless analysis: hardly a correct statement anywhere, starting with the sub-head), falling behind in 2018; headed for trouble in 2019. Russia’s isolation, ancient weapons, instability. A gas station masquerading as a country. Doomed to fail in Syria and losing influence even in its neighbourhood in 2020. One “expert” repeats himself as if the intervening decade had not passed.

But they repeat themselves because that’s what they do. They have one thing to say and they say it over and over again. Michael McFaul is an exemplar; read what he predicts and bet against it. “If Russia’s economy continues to grow at anemic rates, we should expect these anxieties about Putin’s current foreign policy course to grow” (2018); Russia could have been “strong and great” if only it had “integrated” with the West (2015); “a confident Putin and a confident Russia is no more” (2014). Anders Åslund is an ever-fresh source of wrongness: “The only person who needs a war with Ukraine is Putin. He presumably hopes to boost his minimal popularity through another war.” (2021). “Russia faces a serious – and intensifying – financial crisis. But the country’s biggest problem remains President Vladimir Putin, who continues to deny reality while pursuing policies that will only make the situation worse.” (2015) and, twenty years young: “Russia’s Collapse” from 1999. Mark Chapman gives more “glittering examples of Aslund reasoning“. This past, present and future failing is, of course, fatal for Putin. He is a killer without a soul and losing the battle for Russia’s future in 2021, a “weak strongman” in 2020, a “thug, bully and a murderer” in 2016, weak and terrified of losing control in 2015, a “virtual Lt. Col. Kije” in 2001 and a moral idiot in 2000.

The Wrongness Experts tell us it’s a big failure but, in the real world, he and his team have achieved quite a lot. His approval rating has not fallen below 60% in twenty years; the BBC tells us that Russia is heading for catastrophe but Russians tell us it’s “heading in the right direction“. (That’s, incidentally, about three times Americans’ assessment of their own future). The simple fact – impossible to get into the heads of the Putin whisperers – is that the Putin Team has done a good job and enjoys steady support. You’d agree too, if you lived in a country that was actually improving: just compare any Western country in 2000 with today and then do the same for Russia; it’s not hard to see. If you permit yourself to see, that is.

Even these dullards understand that a direct military confrontation might not be a good idea (I hope I’m not being premature: after all, in today’s White House, in one room they’re trying to get out of Afghanistan and in another they’re trying to get into more adventures near Russia.) So they recommend sanctions. We’re supposed to believe that each round of sanctions is a response to something Moscow did but the truth is that it’s not what Moscow does, it’s what Moscow is that’s the cause: the very day – 14 December 2012 – the Jackson-Vanik sanctions were lifted, the Magnitskiy sanctions were imposed. That is: from 3 January 1975 to today, for completely different ostensible reasons, Washington has been sanctioning Moscow.

Then after Crimea, more sanctions: Åslund misses the target again: “My view is that the sanctions are so severe that it’s simply not necessary to reinforce them further.” George Soros joined the Wrongness Experts when he confidently predicted Sanctions would bring “bankruptcy” by 2017. Nope: more sanctions, no bankruptcy.

In fact, sanctions, overall, have strengthened Russia because its intelligent government maximised substitution. As a small example, Canada used to have a pretty reliable half billion dollar market for pork in Russia, now Russia exports pork and Canada’s market is gone forever. In the 1990s, it was commonly estimated that Russia imported about half its food; now it is self-sufficient and earns more from food exports than from arms exports. That might have happened eventually, but it happened now because Moscow’s clever reaction was to ban most food imports and support its own farmers. (Remember when cheese was going to bring Putin down?) Europe’s – and Canada’s – loss became Russia’s gain. Washington, it should be noted, is careful never to ban imports that it wants like oil and rocket engines; sauce for the European goose is not sauce for the American gander. But the Putin whisperers, ever willing to reinforce failure, keep piling on the sanctions.

All these “experts” getting it wrong year after year is good for a laugh. But they always pop back up on the TV talk shows spouting the same old tripe. No one ever asks: Mr Expert, you’ve been wrong for twenty years, why should anybody take you seriously now? (Well once – check it out.) On and on it goes – being an Official Russia Expert is the easiest hornswoggle there is. But the Wrongness Experts don’t just clutter up the talk shows, they infest Washington, the White House, the Pentagon, K Street, the universities and the think tanks. They shape policy. We can laugh as we watch them fail again, but their under-estimation of Russia is very dangerous. We have just had an example. Ukraine President Zelensky, egged on by them, confident that mighty NATO had his back and that Russia was feeble, started moving troops and in March pompously decreed the “de-occupation of Crimea“. Within a couple of weeks Moscow had concentrated more soldiers and weapons in less time than NATO ever could anywhere. It was tense for a while but Moscow appears to have made its point and Zelensky is now begging for talks. Not so fragile; wrong again.

But the danger is that they will go too far. Scott Ritter thinks that the Putin whisperers have reached their high water level with the recent sanctions, Belarus coup attempt and tensions in Ukraine. I hope he’s right but I suspect that there is still more to come: they’ve made an easy living at this grift and they can’t change now. And it’s depressingly unlikely that they will be replaced by people who can see reality.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 29 APRIL 2021

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

PUTIN SPEECH. Eng. Rus. Mostly domestic as usual but the foreign bits were memorable – in short: we’ve had enough. We will respond as and when we chose and we’ll do whatever we think we have to. And we’ll decide where the “red lines” are. I don’t think I’ve ever heard Putin make a threat before.

GEOPOLITICAL TECTONIC PLATES. They shifted quite a bit lately, haven’t they? In February Kiev starts moving heavy weapons east; next month Zelensky signs a pompous decree to “de-occupy” Crimea. Moscow moves more men and equipment in less time than NATO could dream of doing anywhere on the planet and makes it clear that it will use it. Wiser heads reflect; they back down. Zelensky now wants to talk. (Silly claims of victory from deluded parties in the West, but let them dream). So that’s it for now: Moscow has shown the world that Washington will fight to the last Ukrainian or Pole and that Moscow can and will respond with whatever violence is necessary. (I repeat my argument that Russia could certainly conquer Ukraine but doesn’t want to – speaking of “red lines”, note my last sentence.) Then there’s a coup attempt revealed in Belarus. The colour revolution was a flop so the next stage: assassination, power outages and cyber attacks on Victory Day followed by the usual appeals, interventions, fake governments and the rest. Except the security forces had it all on tape and the suspects are singing. (We can be confident Moscow and Minsk are telling the truth because of the silence in the West). The bounties story collapsed. Which raises the interesting question of why US intelligence would debunk it just as Biden had referred to it in his latest sanctions. (For your amusement a supercut of TV hairstyles – and Biden/Harris – pushing the story). Prague announces the sudden discovery that the Russians were responsible for an accident in 2014 at a weapons storage facility. On cue Bellingcat provides the “evidence” that the only two operatives the GRU apparently has dunnit. But neither the past nor present Czech President had heard of it – and you’d think they would have. (We already wonder who’s in charge in Washington and now must wonder who’s in charge in Prague.) Merkel insists Nordstream will be finished, Atlantic Council panics – time is running out. Is Washington trying to stop people using the Russian vaccine? There are indications of serious pressure being brought on Germany and Brazil at least (Czechia too?) – can’t let those pesky Russians “sow division” or gain a “propaganda coup”, can we? The neocons struck and they struck out. They haven’t given up because they can’t – that’s who they are – but I smell increasing desperation. Time is running out.

MOSCOW RESPONSE. We’ve already seen the reaction to Kiev’s moves – two corps (armies in Russian terminology) and several airborne units (and Russian airborne troops are not light infantry like the West’s) appear on the spot in a couple of weeks together with lots of air defence, division- and corps-level artillery, missile boats from the Caspian, landing craft, warships, submarines and aircraft. They’ve gone back to base now – some of them – but you may be certain that they can be back, thanks to the practice, even more quickly. (Why tell us about dummy weapons? To mess with NATO’s mind?) Moscow is about to declare some countries as “unfriendly” (Five Eyes for sure but who else?) and will cripple the operation of their Embassies by restricting (or blocking) their chance to employ locals (pretty essential to many operations). I don’t think Russian Embassies hire locals. There will be movement restrictions as well – no more chummy meetings with the “democratic opposition”. And as for the Tabaquis – the Czech Embassy has been reduced to almost no one. Moscow has lost its sense of humour.

BEIJING CLEARS ITS THROAT. Beijing is well aware that it’s on the hit list too and that if Moscow goes down it will be next. Not a formal alliance but “China and Russia will support each other in matters of protecting state sovereignty“. History note: France and Britain did not have a formal military alliance in 1914, but London was committed anyway.

PAPER PUSSYCAT. Pleased to see the GAO agrees with me: “Nearly 2 decades of conflict has degraded U.S. military readiness.” And the same applies to its allies. They spend the bucks but they don’t get the results. We just saw real warfighting capability in the host of Russian weaponry videoed on its way to the frontier. We can only hope that there are serious people in NATO who can see reality. And, further proof, from Israel, that the West does not have adequate air defence.

NUGGETS FROM THE STUPIDITY MINE. MI6 Chief says Russia is an “objectively declining power“.

MORE NONSENSE. Bulgaria imitates Czechia. Putin weaponises Syrian crickets.

UKRAINE. The non-existent nazis hold a parade. If you don’t recognise the symbol, look it up.

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Canada Russia Observer

COMMENTS FROM THE LOCKED WARD

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, QUOTATIONS

(Miscellaneous comments from pieces dealing with Russia I’ve collected. Most of them anonymous or with pseudonyms. They are chosen to illustrate either rabid hostility to everything Russian or stone-dead ignorance of present reality. I post from time to time when I have enough, spelling mistakes and all.)

“Russia is an objectively declining power economically and demographically,” Moore, the leader of the British foreign intelligence service, said in a rare The Sunday Times U.K. interview. “It is an extremely challenged place.”

I guess all that we can say is that intelligence isn’t. 25 April 2021

RUSSIA THE ETERNAL ENEMY QUOTATIONS

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, QUOTATIONS, WAR ON RUSSIA

This is a classic: make up any old crap, when the Russians deny it, it’s proof.

Attributing such attacks, however, is imprecise, an ambiguity that Moscow takes advantage of in denying responsibility, as it did Thursday.

NYT on a story whose any old crap that particular time was how Russia was trying to steal vaccine information from other countries. 16 July 2020.

SUNBEAMS FROM CUCUMBERS: THE VIEW FROM THE KHANATE OF KAGANSTAN

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, PUTIN DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, WAR ON RUSSIA, WORLD POWER RELATIONSHIPS

First published Strategic Culture Foundation

We now have the complete set, so to speak. The Kakhans of the Khanate of Kaganstan have both spoken. The husband in A Superpower, Like It or Not and the wife in Pinning Down Putin: How a Confident America Should Deal With Russia; he, so to speak, is the theorist and she the practitioner. She, Victoria Nuland, is back in power as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. She is, of course, infamous for the leaked phonecall during the Maidan putsch. He, Robert Kagan, is one of the founders of the – what now has to be seen as ill-named – Project for the New American Century.

I mentioned Kagan’s piece in an earlier essay and found it remarkable for two things – the flat learning curve it displays and its atmosphere of desperation. PNAC was started in a time of optimism about American power: it was the hyperpower and nothing was impossible for it. Its role in the world should be, Kagan confidently wrote in 1996, “Benevolent global hegemony”. Washington should be the world HQ:

superpower, love it!

A quarter century later his message is:

superpower, endure it.

Quite a difference. Today “there is no escape from global responsibility… the task of maintaining a world order is unending and fraught with costs but preferable to the alternative”.

Kagan is at a loss to explain his difference in tone, or, more likely, he’s unaware of it. The reason, however, is quite easy to understand – failure. Washington followed the neocons’ advice into disaster: it’s been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for two decades and it’s losing. The forever wars have come home: its economy is fading, its politics are shattered, its debt load is stunning, its social harmony is eroding. It’s not at the top of the hill any more. Brzezinski warned that a Russia-China alliance would be the greatest threat to US predominance but thought it could be averted by skilful diplomacy. Well, as it turned out, US actions (the word “diplomacy” is hardly applicable) drove Moscow and Beijing together and the strong domestic base that they all took for granted is crumbling. And, to a large extent, it has been the neocons, the wars they encouraged, the exceptionalism they displayed, the arrogance they embodied, that has created this state of affairs. Kagan should look in the mirror if he wants to know why Americans’ perception of superpower status changed from exultant opportunity to dreary duty.

With this background, we turn our attention to Nuland’s views about what should be done about Russia (“Putin’s Russia” of course – these people personalise everything). Her piece entertainingly marries stunning ignorance about Russia to stunning naïvety about prescriptions. There is no point in boring the reader by trudging through her nonsense, so I will just pick a few things.

Those three are enough – Victoria Nuland, for all that she pretends to superior knowledge, is absurdly unaware of the real situation in Russia. And it’s not as if it’s all that hidden, either: all the sources I mention above are in English and easy to find. In her world, Russia is guilty of everything Rachel Maddow says it is, including using cyberweapons against electrical grids.

What are her prescriptions? And, again, for someone who poses as an expert on Russia, they’re laughable. Her general theme is that Washington and its allies have let Putin get away with too much for too long and it’s time to take back control:

Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War and continued to yield results for many years after. That strategy required consistent U.S. leadership at the presidential level, unity with democratic allies and partners, and a shared resolve to deter and roll back dangerous behavior by the Kremlin. It also included incentives for Moscow to cooperate and, at times, direct appeals to the Russian people about the benefits of a better relationship. Yet that approach has fallen into disuse, even as Russia’s threat to the liberal world has grown.

Whoever wins the U.S. presidential election this coming fall will—and should—try again with Putin. The first order of business, however, must be to mount a more unified and robust defense of U.S. and allied security interests wherever Moscow challenges them. From that position of strength, Washington and its allies can offer Moscow cooperation when it is possible. They should also resist Putin’s attempts to cut off his population from the outside world and speak directly to the Russian people about the benefits of working together and the price they have paid for Putin’s hard turn away from liberalism.

In short: reassert “leadership”, “resolve”, “position of strength”; the now familiar PNAC “strategy” that has failed for twenty-five years.

A few gems stick out.

  • “No matter how hard Washington and its allies tried to persuade Moscow that NATO was a purely defensive alliance that posed no threat to Russia, it continued to serve Putin’s agenda to see Europe in zero-sum terms.” No comment necessary or possible: this is just as solipsistic as describing a Russian military exercise in Russia as “Russia’s Military Drills Near NATO Border Raise Fears of Aggression“.
  • The US and its allies should continue “maintaining robust defense budgets”. As if they weren’t already hugely outspending Moscow. She knows they aren’t keeping up because she goes on to say they must spend more to “protect against Russia’s new weapons systems”. Perhaps the West’s behaviour has something to do with this? Perhaps a lot of the Western spending is a waste? No, too much for her: she can sometimes glimpse reality but her exceptionalism prevents her from seeing it.
  • “The one lesson Putin appears to have learned from the Cold War is that U.S. President Ronald Reagan successfully bankrupted the Soviet Union by forcing a nuclear arms race”. No, the lesson that Putin learned is that enough is enough and too much is too much. Brezhnev & Co didn’t get that. It’s the US that will bankrupt itself chasing down “full-spectrum dominance”.

But the most ridiculous suggestion is surely this:

With appropriate security screening, the United States and others could permit visa-free travel for Russians between the ages of 16 and 22, allowing them to form their own opinions before their life paths are set. Western states should also consider doubling the number of government-supported educational programs at the college and graduate levels for Russians to study abroad and granting more flexible work visas to those who graduate.

She seems to think that its 1990-something. But, in the real world it’s 2021. Russians have been to the West; Russians know about it; they travel; all over the place. If Nuland ever left her bubble she would see that every European tourist spot has Russian-language guidebooks. I read through her screed with growing contempt but that really sealed it for me: Victoria Nuland hasn’t got a clue. The truth is, that the more Russians see of the West, the less impressed they are. Just ask Mariya Butina.

Again a bit of reality leaks through, from time to time, but she is incapable of reflection:

The first order of business is to restore the unity and confidence of U.S. alliances in Europe and Asia and end the fratricidal rhetoric, punitive trade policies, and unilateralism of recent years. The United States can set a global example for democratic renewal by investing in public health, innovation, infrastructure, green technologies, and job retraining while reducing barriers to trade.

Actually, doing all this is quite a big job; a very big job; too big a job in fact. And, even if Washington were to seriously start “investing in public health, innovation, infrastructure, green technologies, and job retraining while reducing barriers to trade”, remedying the numerous deficiencies would take many years.

Another thing that she dimly perceives is the gap between Russian and American weapons capabilities. Of course she can’t see any connection between that and US/NATO behaviour or Washington’s forever wars: it’s just another nasty thing done by that nasty man in the Kremlin. However, it is actually encouraging that she knows, however dimly; it creates the possibility that she understands that an actual war with Russia would be a bad idea. So that’s something, anyway.

***********************************

However, enough consideration of this ill-informed, complacent, unrealistic sunbeam. If this were a comparative treatise on the American extraction of sunbeams from cucumbers as contrasted with the failed attempts of the so-called savants of Laputa it would be amusing, but the author of this footling effort is a few arm’s lengths away from The Nuclear Button. It is not a joke.

The fading Imperium Americanum is influenced by dangerous ignoramuses like Nuland and her husband. Everything they have suggested has failed: they start in complacency, add to it ignorance and learn nothing; but they’re still there. It’s very frightening.

***********************************

Speaking of “Putin’s information stranglehold”, Nuland’s essay is available at INOSMI translated into Russian and so is her husband’s. Russians can read this stuff and form their own opinions. “Putin’s disinformation campaigns” are so clever that they use real information.

We won’t tell you that they’re dangerous idiots;

we’ll let them tell you that they’re dangerous idiots.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 15 APRIL 2021

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

UKRAINE-RUSSIA WAR. Lots of heavy stuff moving in Russia; especially big artillery systems: 2S4 heavy mortars, 2S7 long-range guns and Iskanders. (Powerful counter-battery fire would be both effective and semi-deniable). Stockpiles of equipment near Voronezh. Two armies (corps) plus airborne formations (probably more than NATO could field anywhere in real life; certainly never as quickly). What most impressed me were ships from the Caspian Sea Flotilla being transferred via the Volga-Don Canal. Never forget that the really important stuff is not visible – the Russians are the best at operational-level deception. A Ukrainian convoy by comparison – pathetic mix of civilian vehicles and elderly APCs. (Incredibly, despite all the genuine videos, CNN still fakes it.) NATO huffs and puffs; Blinken ditto; Berlin throws some cold water on Kiev. Ritter calls Kiev’s “NATO fantasy” a “suicide pill”.

AND THEN AGAIN, MAYBE NOT. Just reported that the two US warships will not enter the Black Sea; they are presently moored in Crete. Kiev changes its tune. Maybe the war hawks got the message: Moscow is determined, willing and more than capable.

BIDEN-PUTIN. At the US request, a phone call: White House take, Kremlin take. Biden talked tough (Ukraine, “cyber intrusions and election interference”), Putin mentioned Minsk agreement. No mention of Navalniy; I guess he’s passed his best-before date. Biden proposed a face-to-face meeting in a third country; I can’t believe that he will dare meet with Putin: look at his carefully scripted press conference. Probably won’t happen any way after this “national emergency” stuff.

INCOHERENCE. Killer, no soul but “stable and predictable relationship with Russia“; more sanctions (love the election tampering charge – they’re not even trying to make sense now) but mostly rational DNI report. Now a “national emergency“. The self-delusion in Washington is stunning: “Freedom and justice for all”. Who’s in charge? Whoever it is, Washington is not agreement-capable.

HOW TO FIX UKRAINE. My idea. Dmitry Orlov’s more interesting suggestion.

SPACE STATION. The ISS is coming to the end and Putin has signed off on plans to build a new one. I’ll bet China signs on.

ARCTIC. CNN excitedly discovers “huge Russian military buildup in the Arctic“; amusingly says “The Russian build-up has been matched by NATO and US troop and equipment movements.” Nope: Russia is far, far ahead of all the others: other than nuclear submarines, none has anything to compare.

SILENCE. Will be the sound that we hear in response to Lavrov’s call for a treaty banning weapons in space. (Not presumably to include the many communications and geo-locating satellites Russia and others already have up there. Bit of hypocrisy there: not weapons as such but necessary for many.)

HYPERSONIC. US test failure. The game of catch-up continues.

COVID. The EU’s vaccine rollout has been a dud and many countries are trying to obtain the Russian vaccine. CNN, for once, covers the issue reasonably evenly: reactions range from a welcome solution to the problem to those pesky Russians trying to divide us again. A German news outlet says Washington is trying to pressure Berlin and Korybko speculates that the tension in Ukraine may be related. One watches, somewhat dumbfounded – more evidence of things falling apart.

RUSSIA-TURKEY. I guess it’s time to teach Ankara another lesson: flights to Turkey have been severely restricted. Because of COVID; nothing to do with Ankara’s fiddling around in Syria or Ukraine. They say. Russian tourism is a big part of Turkey’s GDP. Moscow’s last shutdown brought results.

USA/AFGHANISTAN. Starting 1 May, all US troops to be out by 11 September. NATO’s too. Some questions: what about contractors, advisors, air power; but the biggest is how patient will Taliban be? – that’s another deadline passed. Neocons – Bolton, Haas, Boot – protest. The Pentagon too? We’ll see. Whether it happens then or later, the Afghans have defeated another mighty empire.

PUTIN DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. 111 things Putin weaponised. Where does he find the time?

STASIS. We get closer to what Scott Adams foresaw: Biden in the White House, belief that the election was rigged. Rassmussen poll: “A majority (51%) of voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.” What happens if that number grows to, say, two-thirds?

UKRAINE/USA. Foreign interventions have a nasty habit of coming home. “Far-right extremists see the war zone there as a laboratory where they can gain actual combat experience to bring back home.”

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Canada Russia Observer