Monday, May 30, 2016
The Mediterranean : Testing Ground for Russia, the US and NATO
Russia Direct -- an online site of government-funded Russia Beyond the Headlines media -- last week called the Russia-NATO relationship a return to Cold War confrontation. In a May 25 RD interview, Russia's NATO Ambassador Alexander Grushko said the downtrend in relations will continue as long as European security is viewed in Cold War terms. RD outlined recent NATO-Russia meetings -- in April, the first Russia-NATO Council meeting since NATO suspended relations with Russia in 2014 because of the Ukraine crisis; a May discussion of Russia relations at a NATO foreign ministers meeting; and, new moves concerning Russia on the agenda at the July NATO Warsaw summit. RD says while these moves suggest Russia and NATO are seeking common ground concerning European security, policy measures taken by both sides in the past two years have hardened positions, creating an increased risk of military confrontation. Grushko told RD : "The main problem today is not whether meetings take place or not, but that NATO has suspended all cooperation with Russia. We used to work together on a whole range of projects that strengthened in real terms the security of the countries involved. Today we have no positive agenda and I do not see that NATO would be ready to reconsider its current policy." Or Russia, we might add. ~~~~~ At the same time, Russia has spun a PR story about its military expansion. Last week, National Interest -- a Reaganite realist journal founded by Irving Kristol that favors working with Russia when possible -- said Russian military buildup is more hype than reality : "Undoubtedly, the Russian Armed Forces are making progress...due to the increased...state investment in the modernization program; [Defense Minister] Shoigu repeatedly offers this message...Russian analysts and [media] are less inclined to focus on the manifold weaknesses and challenges...and the message from the top brass [to] the Russian media is often simply regurgitated in Western coverage. The results are...dangerous....serving United States generals [are] calling for increased spending or plans to deal with the 'Russian threat,' without sufficient strategic planning." NI says the 'Russian threat' is discussed as "highly advanced forces with assets and approaches to warfare that render the US and NATO vulnerable....Western governments need to avoid overreaction to advances in Russia’s military capability and to assess this process soberly." ~~~~~ NATO commentary doesn't reflect vulnerability. At the May NATO foreign ministers meeting, Secretary General Stoltenberg said they would review NATO relations with Russia and assistance to eastern partners : “Our policy is clear. The two pillars of our engagement with Russia are defense and dialogue. Especially in times of tension, it is important to keep lines of dialogue open, and seek more transparency.” ~~~~~ But, another view is offered by Admiral Mark Ferguson, Commander, US Naval Forces Europe, who told CNN in April that Russia is deploying ballistic missiles and attack submarines in numbers, range and aggression not seen in two decades : “The submarines...are much more stealthy....[with] more advanced weapons systems, missile systems that can attack land at long ranges, and...operating proficiency is getting better as they range farther from home waters." Russia is deploying new submarines harder for US naval forces to track and detect, the result of years and billions invested. But consider this. Russia has 1 aircraft carrier. The US has 10. Russia says it won't take its carrier into the Mediterranean. However, carriers aren't stealthy. ~~~~~ So, dear readers, NATO organized anti-submarine DYNAMIC MANTA-16 exercises for submarines, surface ships and maritime aircraft of France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Turkey, UK and US. The goal was to enhance naval force fighting skills in multinational and multi-threat environments. But, it was also surely a US signal to Russia to consult before moving cruise missile submarines to the Mediterranean, where Russia is determined to show its power. Tomorrow, Europe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I watched a furious debate on CNN about Trump’s infidelities. It was clear, they said, a man like that could not be trusted in the White House. No issues were raised. Nothing on the 80 percent of Americans whose income has collapsed to 1970s levels? There is nothing on the drift toward war.
ReplyDeletePart of Casey Pops question here is centered on the Mediterranean. Is Obama drawing yet another line in the ocean? One he doesn’t plan on backing up? The Med for the most part is international waters. The United States is there, England, France. How about Russia telling all us to get out? Same logic isn’t it?
Obama is as the closing days of his adventure on the World Stage worried about his “legacy”. Just as Bill Clinton was when he bombed an aspirin factory, knowing full well it was an aspirin factory and not a war machine of terrorists.
A third of the countries of the United Nations have felt Washington’s boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
Is the only answer to give every nation on the planet their very own ‘nuclear arsenal’ and then sit back and watch a Nuclear Winter set in?
Or is as Bob Dylan wrote and Peter, Paul, and Mary sang …”The Answer is Blowin’ in the Wind” and not with the Internationalists?
A second ‘Cold War’ was inevitable. After all we hailed the dismantling of the old USSR by President Reagan as finality, not a rest period.
ReplyDeleteReagan manipulated Russia into believing that we were well on the road to have a “Star Wars” workable, in-place defense/offense missile program. And as hard as the old USSR tried, and spent them into near bankruptcy they couldn’t match what was not true to start with.
Enters Putin in the world scene to save the Russian pride and power base via military expansion, then along comes Obama, a narcissistic egomaniac to start with fanning the winds of confrontation and the result – Cold War II.
Was it predictable – certainly? Is it controllable – doubtful? This is “Pinky and the Brain” cartoon in real life.
Question: Are defense treaties like NATO & SEATO given the compactness of the globe today worth their expense? Or would it be more beneficial (financially & personnel) for nations such as the United States, England, France to have units that are on a ‘strike’ readiness status at a moment’s notice to be to be headed anywhere?
ReplyDeleteAlone the United States has come to the immediate defense treaties with nearly 90 nations. The world has changed and yet I question the modernization of NATO, SEATO, and all the other defense dependent treaties.
Troop transports from Fort ABC in State XYZ can be in the air within 2 hours and at a destination in another 4-5. NATO troops from say Germany requires the same time frame, plus a lot of added expenses that are duplicated from those that already exists here in the United States.
Just a thought, it’s logical, but is it practical???