What, exactly IS the "Russian Challenge?"

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter told an audience recently that the US now faces five defense challenges:  Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorism.  In accordance with apparent Obamanite policy he did not say Islamic terrorism but that is what he meant.

That is quite a list.

China - They are acting poorly over their little island bases.  They make the neighbors fretful.  They implicitly state that they care not for the US Navy's sacrosanct freedom of navigation as an article of faith.  There are a lot of them Chinese.  They are really bad polluters.  They eat dogs in south China. OK,  I get this one.

Iran - The Israelis don't like them.  The Supreme Leader has a big mouth and he makes people nervous.  OK.  I get this one also.

North Korea - These characters with the funny military caps are actually trying to develop a nuclear armed ballistic missile force.  OK.  I get it.

(Islamic) Terrorism - Yes, it is true.  These medieval fanatics yearn for martyrdom and are  a significant threat to humans wherever they gather including in the USA.  OK This one for sure.

Russia - What?  Most of the people on SST believe that Russia is not engaged with its own forces in eastern Ukraine, Advisors - Probably.   Equipment - Some.  Russia has not invaded Ukraine.  Crimea - Khrushchev made an arbitrary decision to "annex" Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR.  It had previously been considered Russian.  Khrushchev probably thought it made administrative sense in the context of the USSR as one country and the propinquity of the two places.  OK, taking the Crimea back was naughty.  Russia might invade one or more NATO countries?  Is there any real evidence that they intend or even desire to do that?  Russia intervened quite effectively in Syria, thereby frustrating "The Plan"  to bring down the Syrian government.  In the course of doing their thing in Syria they have made a hash of US and Gulfie efforts to organize guerrilla forces that would finish off the Syrian government.  No - I don't get it.  Why is US policy so hostile to Russia?

Is this merely a case of nostalgia for the good old days when the USSR was so convenient as an easy justification for budgets?  Is this a juvenile case of schoolyard territorial rivalry?    As Patrick Armstrong wrote here on SST recently, the US is pushing Russia into a position in which it has no choice but organize itself for combat against the West.   Is that really what we want?  pl

http://www.executivegov.com/2016/03/ashton-carter-joseph-dunford-dod-needs-to-avoid-sequestration-to-address-5-strategic-challenges/

Comments

[The Twisted Genius]

I do believe the Pentagon and especially the Borg Hegemony is still wedded to the idea of full spectrum dominance. Any challenge to this mythical dominance is seen as an unwarranted threat. Russia has stymied our plans for Ukraine. Sevastopol was supposed to be ours. Russia's success in Syria is also a direct threat to our full spectrum domination of whatever we seek to dominate. Humility is such a dirty, dirty word to the Borg.

[different clue]

Its not what we here want. But I think it is what the OverClass governators want for us. A "credible" threat of "deadly Russian danger" can be used to browbeat the majority of citizens into a sullen grudging acquiescence to a brand new multi-decades Cold War . . . Cold War 2.0

Cold War 2.0 can be used to discipline and discourage citizens out of pursuing improvements in our public lives and society . . . for example the sort of modest New Deal Revival measures which Sanders is scaring people by calling "democratic socialism".

No Democratic Socialism for you! We're at Cold War 2.0 with Russia the deadly danger and its evil Crimea-conquering Assad-supporting evil thug strongman not-a-nice-guy Putin, remember?

[turcopolier]

different clue

I tried to find a way to work in a title like "The Borg Strikes Back" but couldn't quite manage it. pl

[turcopolier]

TTG

Really like the "Borg Hegemony" phrase. pl

[tjfxh]

Holdover from Mackinder-Spykman-Zbig?

For unchallenged global dominance iaw Wolfowitz doctrine, the US needs to control Eurasia, and a Russo-Chinese strategic alliance threatens that. Adding Iran would complicate matters even more.

So from the geopolitical and geostrategic POV, Russia, China and Iran are pivotal. Taking out NK would put the alliance on China's border, just as bringing the former Soviet states into NATO wrt Russia.

Looks like a pretty straightforward plan of encirclement. Probably began under Clinton with his decision to advance NATO toward Russia., as well as the US discussion to continue to pursue Reagan's SDI, dubbed Star Wars.

Is this just an extension of existing policy, possibly owing to things going wrong wrt to Russia, e.g., in Georgia and now Ukraine and Syria, and also the recent emergence of China onto the global stage from "hibernation." The projected economic union from Shanghai to Lisbon featuring hi-speed rail would shake Anglo-American financial and economic supremacy as the (neo-British Empire) with control of the sea (and air).

So I can see how US policy makers could see this as threat. The problem is that they seem to think it strategically worthwhile to risk a multiple front war in Eurasia against China, Russia and Iran. That's s huge chunk to bite off.

Or maybe just an excuse to ramp up military spending as an other gift to the military-industrial complex that along with finance powers the US economy. And the military would love the new toys, too.

[Kooshy]

Colonel LANG, firstly I must reiterate, that I have a lot of respect for SST, your opinions and this community. Secondly with regards to Borg, I have three questions if you care to reply. One is, that if Borg is the same as what others call deep state, and if not what's the difference. My second question is if in your opinion the Borg controls and is in control of the federal bureaucracy. And my third question is: assuming a president is (can be) elected outside of the Borg dominance/influence, if so IY opinion/experience would he be able to direct and control the federal bureaucracy outside of Borg' influence including policy, inelegance and information operations.
Lastly can you please expand on this "I tried to find a way to work in a title like "The Borg Strikes Back" but couldn't quite manage it. pl"

[Mishkilji]

The situation is similar to Rome and Carthage.

Somehow we cannot accept their defeat in the Cold War and integration into the neoliberal world. Like the Romans we cannot accept the fact that we won; their existence offends the Borg.

But Russia is not the broken power that Carthage was after the second Punic War. Russia has fight left in it and a smart realist in charge.

[turcopolier]

kooshy

With regard to the last thing, I was attempting a possibly amusing reference to one of the Star Wars movies. IMO "Borg" roughly equates to what Obama seems to have meant when in his interview given to Goldberg he referred to the "foreign policy establishment." For me the Borg collectivity is essentially academic and journalistic in nature. the consensus of these groups concerning the world extends into think tanks and the media. "Deep State?" I don't know what that is. In the US the professional in government whether civilian or military obey the elected government. Occasionally someone will attempt to resist the policy of the elected government, but this rarely lasts long. All of these people are subject to dismissal by the elected government and they know how risky resistance is. Government people 9what you disrespectfully call bureaucrats typically live on the their pay. they have mortgages, children to educate and depend on the government for support in retirement. they rarely form dissident groups, very rarely. This is not a banana republic. we criticize policy a lot on SST but that does not mean we think the "bureaucracy" is deficient in its devotion to duty. pl

[Kooshy]

"the US is pushing Russia into a position in which it has no choice but organize itself for combat against the West. Is that really what we want"

IMO, yes sir you are right, our choices is that, or voting in Trump or Bernie Sanders ( out side of establishment = Borg?). Colonel, may god help us with this election, if not we should be ready for a big one whatever the Borg thinks that maybe.

[Harry]

Once you see the Star Trek movie in question, what our host means becomes very clear. I recommend it to you.

[Kooshy]

Colonel as always, thank you for your reply, I must say I didn't mean (and I never had) any disrespect for the federal bureaucracy/employees.

[Tigermoth]

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is not mentioned too much in MSM if at all, but it is Wolfowitz's worst nightmare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

"The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is an international alliance that consists of 6 member states and 5 observers from Eurasia. It was established on 26 April 1996 as Shanghai Five. Of the 6 member states and 5 observers, SCO currently also have 3 dialogue partners and 3 guest attendance entries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

"is a Eurasian political, economic and military organisation which was founded in 2001 in Shanghai by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. These countries, except for Uzbekistan had been members of the Shanghai Five, founded in 1996; after the inclusion of Uzbekistan in 2001, the members renamed the organisation. On July 10, 2015, the SCO decided to admit India and Pakistan as full members, and they are expected to join by 2016"

Notice it is also "military". The first link gives a table of the observers which could apply for membership (Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran, Mongolia, India, Pakistan).

"Observers India and Pakistan have been approved for membership, and are expected to join by 2016. Observer Iran has also submitted an application for full membership. Meanwhile, in 2012 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka applied for observer status within the organization. Egypt and Syria has also submitted an application for observer status, while Egypt, Maldives and Ukraine have applied for dialogue partner status."

Turkey is also a dialogue partner.

When one looks at all of these countries grouped on a on a single map, the West should be trying to make friends here instead of pissing them off.

"The United States applied for observer status in the SCO, but was rejected in 2005"

[turcopolier]

kooshy

I just read the "Deep State" wiki. The idea is of a state within a state. Nothing like that exists in the US. pl

[Bill Herschel]

After the 9/11 attack, George Bush told the American people that any nation that harbors terrorists is at war with the United States. Thus was born the War on Terror, the war in Afghanistan (the longest war in the history of the United States), and the justification for all the subsequent military actions our country has initiated since then.

Today, there are about half a million people in the United States addicted to heroin and at least 8,000 overdose deaths a year from heroin. Most of the addiction and deaths are in young people. 90% of the world's heroin supply comes from Afghanistan. The United States does not lift a finger to destroy the poppy fields producing this fiendish epidemic, despite the fact that we still have troops, NATO still has troops, in Afghanistan. The reason given is COIN: it would hurt the feelings of poppy farmers.

In other words, more people die in six months each year (and the number is skyrocketing) than died in 9/11 and we do nothing.

In a few months, without a single boot on the ground, the U.S. could interdict the entire heroin export from Afghanistan, probably most easily by issuing a warning to the farmers that they would be bombed and killed if they were discovered farming poppies.

Russia, Afghanistan's neighbor, would cooperate in this project. They know what addiction is.

But all that will not be. Young people will continue to die and bloviators like Carter will continue to spew nonsense. Afghanistan's poppy fields are a far greater threat to the United States than any of the countries on his list.

[Trey N]

One of the factors not considered so far in all of the excellent comments: much of the Borg consists of neocons, most of the neocons are Jews, and many of these Jewish neocons have ancestral roots going back into Tsarist Russia, where their families suffered under periodic pogroms. An article I had bookmarked, "Why the Jewish Neocons Hate Russia," delved into this topic; unfortunately, it seems to have disappeared down the memory hole of the internet.

This subset of the Borg has a deep, personal, visceral antipathy towards Russia outside of all other considerations, which goes a long way towards explaining why Russia remains #1 on the list of US enemies.

[charly]

Taking out NK would lead to an SK that is only nominal an ally. Only a fool would do that.

[Brunswick]

https://www.amazon.ca/The-Deep-State-Constitution-Government/dp/0525428348

As you yourself have noted, there is an absence of actual Russian Experts in all branches of the US Government, instead, analysis is dominated by the same shallow, Americentric Group Think.

The Russian Experts probably did not all decide that once the wall came down, that their jobs and careers were now redundant, and elect to all take early retirement.

One aspect of the idea of the "Deep State", is that the Group Think at the top, becomes mirrored downwards through the whole organization. If you don't mirror the Group Think, you don't get hired, you don't get promoted, your reports don't get read, and you get pushed out of the organization.

We have seen a lot of this over the past few decades, mostly in the form of prominant Experts either resigning in disgust or frustration, or being forced out.

[Dubhaltach]

In reply to The Twisted Genius 08 April 2016 at 02:55 PM

Humility? Daaaaaamn you're ambitious. I'd settle for some realism.

Like our host I like your "Borg Hegemony" phrase.

du

[VietnamVet]

Colonel,

You are correct. The American Empire is trying to destabilize Eurasia. Baiting nuclear armed Russia and China to benefit a very few is incredibly risky. Not to mention this has caused refugees to flood Europe from the proxy wars and the blowback attacks.

Government has stopped serving the people. As a result, Americans can be divided into three camps. Those who want a restoration of good government, others who want to destroy its remnants and the crony corrupters. I am in the first group. I need my government pension to survive.

The Public Health System is collapsing. Child care is deteriorating. Poor Whites are dying at an earlier age.

Without a restoration of the power of the state to serve the people;
1) future generations of Americans will not be as tall as their parents:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/08/how-the-scandinavians-made-themselves-among-the-tallest-people-in-the-world/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_wonk
and 2) sea level rise will force millions to migrate and destroy trillions of dollars of infrastructure:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/map-top-cities-billion-dollar-floods

[Babak Makkinejad]

There has never ever been a universal state let alone a universal civilization.

Even though the Great King made strides in the direction of the Universal Empire, that project has always failed - never lasting more than 200 years - it seems to me.

What is amusingly destructive about the Borg is its claim to the universality of the Western Diocletian Civilization.

From that belief follows everything else.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Nixon warned against this: "They are down but not out." and "We need to treat them with respect."

[Chris Chuba]

1. Islamic terrorism - yes.
2. Korea - Unpredictable guy with nukes developing ICBMS's - yes.

3. Iran - we should keep our eye on them but not hyperventilate. A U.S. judge recently awarded $10B to families and insurance companies because of 9/11 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/iran-told-to-pay-10-5-billion-to-sept-11-kin-insurers I guess we are now competing with them for sham legal decisions. We seem to have two settings, either a country is our best friend or the second coming of Nazi Germany, there is no in between with us.

4. China - China isn't denying commercial navigation, just getting bent out of shape when we send a warship within 12 nautical miles of an island claim we don't recognize. Yeah, I know they built some of them but freedom of navigation does not require being able to sail over rocky shoals. The Kingman reef is named after a wreck. We might end up pushing China into an alliance with Russia and create the enemy we fear, alternate currency the whole package. Iran would jump in to get out of U.S. dollars and they would all try to take as many countries with them as possible.

Sure, China is being a bully to Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. but these are uninhabited islands. I don't know who should get them; don't want to borrow money from China just to keep carrier group on top of them. This is not a military problem. If China actually does get out of hand trade sanctions would bring them to heel, they are export dependent.

5. Russia - I'm trying to decide which color I want for my Putin T-shirt. Not using Russia as an ally to take care of #1 is a huge blunder.

[scott s.]

IMHO the US, or at least the Borgian aspect of it, seems to see itself as protector of Poland-Lithuania. That inevitably moves us towards conflict with Russia.

[BraveNewWorld]

In my opinion, be it ever so humble there are at least 3 things going on.

1. Like a super tanker gov.us is just to big to change course quickly. Heck it is just waking up to Cuba.

2. Boogie man Russia is just the ticket to badger NATO into spending more money on military kit. Then once they have bought the kit we need to find a reason to use it other wise it is just wasted. This is called the "Buy American" plan.

3. Some folks is just dumb.

[Tel]

"Is this merely a case of nostalgia for the good old days when the USSR was so convenient as an easy justification for budgets?"

In my opinion, yes indeed that's exactly the point of it. North Korea also falls into that category, really they have no capability to do anything and if they tried anything, the South Koreans could storm all of North Korea in about three days (it would be a disaster, but they could do it).

Even Iran don't have a whole lot of opportunity to get nuclear weapons, although they probably would want them if they could do it. The real danger of Iran for the USA is that Iran would impose a Shiite dominated stability to the Middle East, annoy Saudi Arabia, and block future US meddling.

The USA is out there looking for enemies... for that matter so is China.