Category Archives: defense policy

Overcomplexifying

Posted on by
Reply

European pundits are doing that vis-à-vis US-Ukraine relations, if Deutsche Welle is any example.  SecState Mike Pompeo is headed to Ukraine to discuss a number of items centered on how we can extend our support for and of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, and this is supposed to be an especially complicated visit.

Analysts say Ukraine has become “toxic” for the US [based on the current impeachment/trial process of President Donald Trump], and that contacts at various levels have become more difficult and more restrained.

Leave aside the question of what analysts—these are carefully unnamed—and the question of who in either administration are saying contacts are more difficult and restrained, and there’s nothing left in this claim. There’s only the fact that our head diplomat after the President is headed there, just a few short months after the last contact between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that it extends beyond just government officials. Two former prosecutor generals in Ukraine, Viktor Shokin and Yuri Lutsenko, both discussed the Biden case with Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani….

Not further complicated at all by this. This bit is wholly irrelevant to Pompeo’s trip; the complication exists only in the minds of those anonymous analysts.

The posts of Special Envoy to Ukraine and Ambassador to Ukraine remaining vacant is hardly a complication, either. The Special Envoy isn’t required (and never was), and the embassy is ably handled by the deputy ambassador and the ambassadorial staff in Kyev. Sure, it would be useful to fill the Ambassador slot, but nothing is held up by its being empty.

Even the disagreement between Pompeo and a newsperson is being held up by these pundits as a complicating factor. Never mind that that is a purely domestic matter or that members of this administration—and prior ones—are involved in disagreements with our press as a matter of routine.

There’s this, too:

The Minsk peace accords are bound to be one of the central issues during Pompeo’s visit to Kyiv. At a summit in Paris in December 2019, Washington praised Zelenskiy’s efforts to restart the faltering peace process. In the coming weeks, Ukraine will implement political agreements concerning the special status of the separatist areas around the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, and prepare for local elections scheduled for the fall. In the past, people took to the streets to protest the agreements, calling the accord a “surrender” to Russia.

Minsk is, indeed, Merkel’s betrayal of Ukraine and at best a partial surrender by Ukraine to Russia.  What should govern the situation is the prior Budapest Memorandum, a collection of three agreements in which the US, Russia, and the UK guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity if the latter gave up the nuclear weapons the Soviet Union had stationed there prior to its collapse and disappearance. Ukraine did, bringing the guarantee into effect. That Germany was not a signatory does not make Merkel’s betrayal any less; that only made it easier.

Russia subsequently welched and invaded Ukraine, partitioning and occupying Crimea and two eastern oblasts.  The Obama administration then betrayed Ukraine by refusing to answer Russia’s invasion and further by refusing to give/lease/sell/transfer in any way the weaponry Ukraine needed to resist the Russian invasion and defeat it.

This is the situation Trump and Pompeo are trying to repair.  None of those pseudo-complications have anything to do with any of this.

Foolish Risks

Posted on by
Reply

Great Britain has decided to let the People’s Republic of China’s Huawei—which by PRC law must cooperate with the PRC government whenever that government requires it—to play a role in Britain’s development and deployment of its 5G telecommunications network.

Great Britain says Huawei role will be limited, but in a computer network, such limits lie somewhere between chimera and pipe dream.

The Brits say that Huawei, and “high risk vendors” generally, would be excluded from the network “core.”

The Brits say they are

taking steps that would allow it “to mitigate the potential risk posed by the supply chain and to combat the range of threats, whether cybercriminals, or state-sponsored attacks.”

And that

high-risk vendors would be subject to a 35% cap on access to even non-sensitive parts of the network.

Thirty-five per cent. That’s a broad penetration of a network’s “non-sensitive parts,” a network’s periphery.

This is foolish.

Mitigating risks is not the same as preventing them. This isn’t a matter of the Internet going down for a bit, and our not being able to post our blog articles or do a Bing search for this or that. It’s not a matter of losing a cable connection so we can’t watch TV for a few minutes or an hour, nor is it a matter of a temporary drop of cell phone access.  This is a matter of national security, and the difference between mitigation and prevention is critical.

It takes only a single opening in a network’s outlying accesses to enable a nefarious entity to insert malware into the network. Once inserted, that malware can proliferate on its own, even penetrate the core, and then that malware is positioned to allow the entity to engage in cybercrime, cyberespionage, cyber-triggered sabotage of other infrastructure.

Even were the core adequately protected, malware in the periphery still can render the core impotent by isolating it from the periphery—much as biological damage can isolate a body’s core, its brain, from the body.

“Credible Military Capabilities”

Posted on by
Reply

The European Union needs some, says Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission President.

In order to respond to crises, the EU needs “credible military capabilities,” the leader of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen said at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday.
The bloc has already “set up the building blocks of a European defense union,” the former German defense minister said in her speech.
“It is complementary to NATO and it is different,” she added. “There is a European way to foreign policy and foreign security policy where hard power is an important tool […] but it is never the only one.”

Well, NSS.

This is much of what President Donald Trump has been saying since he began campaigning for office in 2015. It’s part of his long push (which is beginning to have some success) for NATO’s European member nations to quit freeloading off our treasure and blood and actually honor their NATO commitments with more of their own money and blood.

It’s also a clear indication that those nations, whose prosperity appeared and grew under American protection, can—and have been able to for a long time—do more for NATO than they have been. After all, it will cost much more to develop an additional defense establishment with the building blocks of a European defense union that is complementary to NATO and…is different.”

Von der Leyen says the EU can afford both.

Empty Rhetoric

Posted on by
Reply

More of it, this time from European signatories of the failed-at-birth Iran nuclear weapons deal. Iran has announced that it’s going to disregard entirely the deal’s limits on Iran’s production of weapons grade uranium, and in response, Britain, France, and Germany have said they’re going to trigger the dispute resolution mechanism that’s written into the deal.  That mechanism, on a finding of serious violation, involves getting the UN Security Council to reimpose UN-originated sanctions on Iran.

Of course, Britain, France, and Germany know full well that two other members of the Security Council, Russia and the People’s Republic of China, will veto any meaningful resolution, making the three’s decision meaningless chit-chat, intended for nothing more than dishonest virtue signaling (excuse the redundancy). The three also said, in the same statement, that

they weren’t joining Washington’s “campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran.”

And so the three continue to duck away from meaningful action against a nation that attacks its own people, funds and instigates terrorism around the Middle East and Europe, and is bent on getting a nuclear weapon with which to “wipe Israel from the map.”

Hmm….

Contradictions?

Posted on by
Reply

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D, MN) condemns our sanctions against Iran—sanctions against that nation’s government, various members of that government, and against that government’s oil sales and other business’ international activities.

calling them “crippling” and asserting they would “starve the Iranian people.”

Of course, the crippling nature of the sanctions is the point of them: to convince the men of the Iranian government to change their ways, to in President Donald Trump’s words, stop trying to kill Americans, stop trying to kill our friends and allies, and to stop trying to get nuclear weapons. If sanctions were not crippling, they’d have no effect. Omar knows this.

And, no, the sanctions won’t starve the Iranian people. Iran produces most of its own food, and food trade is not sanctioned. Omar knows this.

And this:

First he canceled our best shot at avoiding armed conflict—the Iran nuclear deal.

The Iran nuclear deal, on the contrary, transferred $150 billion in lifted sanctions and unfrozen assets to the Iranian government, and it transferred billions of dollars—$400 million of it in cold cash in the dead of night—to the Iranian government—money which went directly to funding Iran’s terrorism-by-proxy efforts throughout the Middle East.  The Iran nuclear deal, further to the point, had no hope of avoiding armed conflict—it actually guaranteed it. This “deal” codified Iran’s “right” to have nuclear weapons after a very few years’ delay, and Iran, true to its word, would have used them to destroy Israel. Omar knows this.

Omar also actively supports the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which designed to destroy the Israeli economy and to starve that nation into submission. Which submission would bring about Israel’s extinction at the hands of enemies sworn to effect that destruction: Hamas and Hesbollah, Iranian terrorist satraps, and Iran itself, which wants to wipe Israel from the map—a major aspect of Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons.  Omar knows this.

Omar also claimed

Since he [Trump] got into office, the president of the United States has been goading Iran into war….

Because objecting to Iran’s terrorist activities throughout the Middle East and in western Europe is goading Iran.

Because objecting to Iran’s attacks on oil tankers in the Arabian Gulf is goading Iran. Because objecting to Iran’s shoot-down of a drone in international airspace is goading.

Because objecting to Iran’s seizure of a US Navy small craft that, with engine failure had drifted a small way into Iranian water, and humiliating the sailors on board is goading Iran.

Because objecting to Iran having its Popular Mobilization Forces militia in Iraq assault and vandalize our embassy in Baghdad is goading.

Omar knows better.

And this:

Sanctions are economic warfare[.]

Of course they are. Would she prefer a shooting war?

No, not contradictive at all.  This is the face of the Progressive-Democratic Party.