Why Do I Like Putin?

The title of this post was the question I was asked on Facebook recently. Let me reword the question in this way: "Which world leader would I like to have a beer with?" There is Putin and then there is ... there is ... well, I can't think of a second one. I do like the Russian beer Baltika, Baltika 4 in particular, so that's a plus. One beer should not cause me to have a gout episode, it would be worth it. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. This one-eyed man is Putin. 

But the question really is along the lines of another question. "Why do you hate America so much?" I don't. But I am not blind to the policies of the US. I saw a bumper sticker that I agree with, so I know I am right. It said.  "Support the troops." Who could disagree with that? But above this caption was a Star Wars figure, a storm trooper. Is this fair? Not entirely. But look at the numbers--how many Iraqis have died directly and indirectly to US war-making? The answer is at least one million. How many have died as a result of Putin's adventures in Ukraine? The answer is less than ten thousand. I have heard the argument that "Sure America is bad, but other countries are worse." I am not sure the math supports this argument. 

What do I mean about the blindness of the American leadership? The proposal for a "no-fly zone" in Syria is a good example. There aren't that many candidates that are against it. Rand, O'Malley, and Sanders are against it. Clinton is in favor of such a zone. Apparently Trump and Cruz do not have an opinion. I had thought that Trump was against and Cruz in favor, but the research I did says otherwise.  (One of Trump's advantages is that the voter reads their own ideas onto Trump, "He is my candidate.") All other candidates are in favor. One candidate, who out of kindness I will not name, proposed to "punch the Russians in the nose." 

What is a "no-fly zone"? From Wikipedia: 

A no-fly zone (or no-flight zone) (NFZ) is a territory or an area over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in a military context, somewhat like a demilitarized zone in the sky, and usually prohibit military aircraft of a belligerent power from operating in the region. Aircraft that break the no-fly zone may be shot down, depending on the terms of the NFZ.

The previous incarnation of this policy in Libya was approved by the UN. This will not happen in Syria due to an obvious Russian veto. This means that the zone would be illegal under international law. The "red meat" Republicans, and Hillary Clinton, don't seem to care. 

To understand how catastrophic this policy would be we need to look at the civil war in Ukraine. Ukraine could either join the Russian free trade block, with whom they did most of their trading, or the European trade block, the EU. Ukraine could not join both. If they joined the EU then Russian tariffs would kick in, and visa-versa.  They had to choose. Ukraine was ready to join the EU, but a last-minute increase in the Russian offer led Prime Minister Yanukovych to change his mind. Riots ensued. While there was obvious anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine, the riots were funded by the West. How do we know this? Victoria Nuland admitted it. 

The US spent 5 billion dollars to get Ukraine "into" Europe and it is not going to let a little thing like an elected Ukrainian government get in the way!  

The US basically selected the new Ukrainian government. How do we know this? Victoria Nuland admitted it. 

Of course the US was quite miffed that the Russians were able to intercept this phone call. While the US did not get everything it wanted, this call shows the large measure of control that the State Department has over Ukrainian governmental decisions. As the saying goes, "He who pays the piper, decides the tune." 

Why was Russia so concerned about the Ukraine joining the EU? One reason was that all EU countries have mutual defense agreements. While Ukraine's entry into the EU would not technically be an entry into NATO, in a de facto way it would be. In addition to the obvious NATO plan to encircle Russia, this would leave Russia's most important warm-water naval base eventually in NATO control. As an artifact of the dissolving of the Soviet Union, these naval facilities, even though they had been Russian for 150 years, were inside the new Ukraine. Russia leased these facilities from Ukraine. These leases were due to expire in 2042. It would be unacceptable to any Russian leader for these bases to be NATO bases, as they would have been eventually. To give you a time frame for how long Crimea was a part of Russia, this is about as long as California has been a part of the United States. How fond are Americans of California? No leader of the Russian Federation is going to allow these ports to leave Russian control. War would be preferable to them. 

The idea that Putin is being provocative is just not an adequate read on the situation. For a longish article on why Putin is doing what he is doing, click here.  

Putin is like a circus juggler. He has to keep the balls of Russian interests in the air while dodging the balls Victoria Nuland throws at him. So far he hasn't dropped anything-- not even the spinning plates on a stick. You have to admire his skill. 

Since I still think Hillary Clinton will be the next President, and she favors a no-fly zone, aka war with Russia, one can only hope for the best. Do I "like" Putin? I do not see the question as important or even interesting. I hope he does well with his juggling. If Putin "drops the ball," we are all dead. 

"had to be pre planned"

Was the Turkish downing of the Russian SU-24 planned in  advance?

The video below discusses the downing of the Russian bomber. While the host cutting the General McInerney short was probably due to hard commercial breaks, I did find it of interest that the most damning part of the interview was cut short. McInerney was basically saying that the incident had to have been pre planned. Since we know that the Russians had provided the US with its flight plans, the Turkish F-16 may have been laying-in-wait for just such an opportunity. I have been considering this for several days and have been reluctant to conclude this was the case. 

I suggest that the words of an expert might be of interest. 

Here is how the Washington Blog described McInerney. 

McInerney served as:

• Commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad) – the military agency responsible for protecting the United States and Canada from foreign jet attacks – for the Alaska region

• Commander of the Alaskan Air Command

• Commander of 11th Air Force in Alaska

• Commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing, Clark Air Base, Philippines

• Commander of the 313th Air Division, Kadena Air Base, Japan

• Commander of 3rd Air Force, Royal Air Force Station Mildenhall, England

• Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force
• A command pilot with more than 4,100 flying hours, including 407 combat missions

The Turkish government must think this will help them domestically, but it seems really dumb to me.

Tricolor Facebook?

Maybe I am jaded, but the various memes on facebook are somewhat selective. They fit into certain preset patterns that are predictable. One of these was to show "support" for France by overlaying your profile picture with the three colors of the French flag. Yes ISIS attacked French people going about their own business. With that in mind, let's talk about another attack by ISIS on those minding their own business. 

From Reuters:  

President Vladimir Putin vowed to hunt down those responsible for blowing up a Russian airliner over Egypt and intensify air strikes against Islamists in Syria, after the Kremlin concluded a bomb had destroyed the plane last month, killing 224 people. 

So can I conclude that I will be overwhelmed with the number of people announcing they are "supporting" Russia by changing their Facebook profiles with an overlay of the Russian flag? It is the same colors, so no work is necessary for those who already have supported France.

I won't hold my breath.

The Empire Marches On

What? I thought that the recent Russian Airline crash in the Sinai was mechanical failure and that the claim by Isis for responsibility was bragging. But now it is reported in the Wall Street Journal that the US may soon be supplying "moderates" with hand-held surface-to-air missles to "keep the Russians at bay" as the article puts it. Here is the "money quote": 

"Mr. Obama has long rebuffed such proposals, citing the risk to civilian aircraft and fears they could end up in the hands of terrorists. To reduce those dangers, U.S. allies have proposed retrofitting the equipment to add so-called kill switches and specialized software that would prevent the operator from using the weapon outside a designated area, said officials in the region briefed on the option." 

What this means is that if this happens then any downing of Russian aircraft will be assumed to have been done by proxies of the US Government. The next paragraph says this: "U.S. intelligence agencies are concerned that a few older Manpads may already have been smuggled into Syria through supply channels the CIA doesn’t control." Thus it seems obvious that when, not if, this happens, the Russian government will assume the US is responsible. 

I do not post a link since the WSJ is subscription only. But one can google the title  "U.S., Allies to Boost Aid to Syria Rebels" to see the article. You need to do so.  

Most of these hand-held weapons, called Manpads, cannot reach the altitude needed to down a commercial aircraft except at take off,  but apparently some can.  So since these US made weapons, the ones with the altitude needed, are in the region, the crash of the Russian civilian airline could be laid at the US' feet.  (Note I am not saying that such a weapon was used, the altititude seems too high. We still do not know what happened, and we may never know.)

I would have thought that this was a false report, but this is the Wall Street Journal. The usual "meme" is the supposed "liberalness" of the Obama administration. I would say the opposite: It doesn't matter who is elected, the empire marches on.  

Ron Paul on Syria