Tag Archives: Russia

Atak USA na Syrię 7 kwietnia 2017, jako rozgrywka geopolityczna

Od razu zastrzegam, że nie mam pojęcia kto użył broni chemicznej w Syrii, być może to się wyjaśni, a może nie. Wszystkie przypadki użycia tego typu broni w Syrii po 2011 roku były, są i będą przedmiotem sporu co do ich autorstwa. Chcę krótko zająć się grą geo-politytczną między USA a Rosją w kontekście tego ataku, ponieważ od tego będzie zależał dalszy los Syryjczyków, a w konsekwencji także reszty świata. 

Niewątpliwie po niepowodzeniu zacieśnienia współpracy między USA a Rosją, nowy prezydent Stanów Zjednoczonych szukał innych możliwości dla uczynienia “America great again” także na polu międzynarodowym. Gdy odsunął gen Michaela Flynna, a w jego miejsce powołał gen. McMastera, jasne się stało, że w jego obozie zaczynają dominować zwolennicy tradycyjnej polityki USA, nakierowanej na budowanie sojuszy, ale w taki sposób by zagwarantować utrzymywanie dominującej roli USA.

W międzyczasie doszło do fatalnej operacji w Jemenie, która uświadomiła prezydentowi, że musi słuchać doradców i nie działać pochopnie i impulsywnie. Atak na bazę Syryjską został właśnie tak zaplanowany.

Biały Dom poinformował Rosję o planowanym ataku, ale na tyle późno, by ta nie zdążyła przygotować ewakuacji bazy syryjskiej. Stąd Rosja raz potwierdza, a raz zaprzecza, że taką informację od USA otrzymała. Rosja wielokrotnie wcześniej wyraźnie sugerowała, że wszelkie działania względem Syrii, nie tylko wymagają negocjacji z Kremlem, ale nawet jego akceptacji. Konferencja w Astanie była tego jasnym świadectwem, gdy USA zostały tam zaproszone do udziału (niejako w roli obserwatora), a nie jako współorganizator. Trump musiał odmówić. O pozostałych sygnałach z Rosji świadczących o chęci względnej dominacji Rosji w “sojuszu” z USA pisałem już 26 styczni br.: “Trzy wydarzenia okresu przejsciowego, istotne dla nowej administracji USA” 

Trump zrozumiał wówczas, że podział wpływów na Bliskim Wschodzie może być tylko efektem twardej gry geopolitycznej i politycznej, a nie “biznesowej” współpracy z Rosją.  Stąd odsunięcie Flynna oraz żądanie zwrotu Krymu. Oba te ruchy raczej wzbudzały rozbawienie na Kremlu. Jednak Putin chyba nie przewidział, że to tylko zapowiedź kolejnych kroków. Dzisiejszy atak w Syrii o tym świadczy. Odpowiedzią Rosji obecnie, będzie zapewne wzmożenie ataków przeciw rebeliantom popieranym przez USA, znów przemieści Iskandery M do Kaliningradu (nie wiem który już raz), dokona jakiejś liczby lotów “patrolowych” strategicznymi bombowcami w pobliżu terytorium NATO. Niebezpieczne byłoby natomiast gdyby Rosja postanowiła uaktywnić tzw. “rebeliantów” w Donbasie.

Osoby, które znały Trumpa zanim został prezydentem przestrzegały, że jeśli deal między Rosją i USA się nie powiedzie, to Trump stanie się dla Kremla bardzo twardym graczem. Myślę, że ten moment właśnie nastąpił. Atak w Syrii pokazał, że USA prawdopodobnie opracowały nową strategię bezpieczeństwa (lub przynajmniej zarys) , której autorami mogą być gen Mattis wraz z gen McMasterem. Zapewne Rex Tillerson ją akceptował, a Trump przyjął do realizacji. USA posiadają też tzw. Wielką strategię (choć za czasów Obamy chyba była mocno zaniedbana), która ma wpływać na mechanizmy geo-polityczne.

Problemem jednak jest to kto po Asadzie mógłby rządzić Syrią. Sam Trump w kampanii twierdził że w Syrii nie ma rebelii, którą USA mogłyby popierać. Teraz jego administracja żąda odsunięcia Asada. Kto więc miałby tam przejąć władzę? Budowanie rządu jedności narodowej od zera jest to proces na dekady. Amerykanie to wiedzą przynajmniej od 2003 roku. Wie o tym na pewno gen Mattis, z którym dokładnie o tym rozmawiałem. Na wiele pytań brak jest dziś odpowiedzi.

Być może więc powstająca strategia polega na tym, że USA za pomocą operacji takich jak dziś przyciskają Asada “do ściany”, demonstrują, że sprawy już nie wrócą do stanu z czasów Obamy, po czym proponują mu pozostanie na stanowisku w zamian za marginalizację Rosji i Iranu. Jednocześnie zmuszają opozycję do negocjacji a tych którzy nie przystąpią do współpracy traktują jak terrorystów. Scenariusz niebezpieczny i trudny, ale możliwy.

USA będą starały się ograniczyć gwałtowny wzrost wpływów Iranu na Bliskim Wschodzie oraz mniejszy, ale istotny Rosji. Syria to oba te cele naraz. Oczywiście Syria jest też państwem tranzytowym dla przesyłu surowców energetycznych, a więc ma także znaczenie geo-ekonomiczne. Dlatego też Syria jest dziś tak ważnym miejscem. Stała się ważnym “sworzniem” geopolitycznym dla państw kluczowych. Od 6 lat na tej walce o wpływy cierpią głównie cywile.

Oczywiście można głosić konieczność pojednania w imię dobra ludzkości, ale takie hasła nie działają gdy funkcjonuje “geopolityczne urządzenie mechaniczne”. Dlatego trzeba rozpatrywać wydarzenia pod kątem realnych scenariuszy, acz nie można rezygnować z wzywania do przestrzegania zasad etyki, humanitaryzmu, i wartości.

Jak zwykle postuluję idealizm, ale oparty o na realizmie.

Trzy wydarzenia okresu przejsciowego, istotne dla nowej administracji USA

Warto analizować wydarzenia do jakich dochodzi w momencie w okresie przejsciowym w USA. Gdy odchodzący prezydent już faktycznie nie sprawuje wladzy, a nowa administracja dopiero obejmuje stanowiska, powstaje w grze geopolitycznej swoisty moment “dekoncentracji” jednej strony, który stwarza pole do bardzo aktywnych działań drugiej. Wszystko co się dzieje obecnie będzie miało ogromny wpływ na politykę nowej administracji USA.

323bcbd6-d6f4-11e6-bbb7-6a43a6f882fe_660x385

Dzień po wyborach pisałem o  nowej rzeczywistości, bowiem zwycięstwo Donalda Trumpa trzeba postrzegać nie tylko w kategoriach sukcesu republikanów nad demokratami w USA, ale jako konsekwencję przemian społecznych w całym świecie zachodnim („Nowa rzeczywistość po zwycięstwie Trumpa”  https://mmilczanowski.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/nowa-rzeczywistosc-po-zwyciestwie-trumpa/).

Ta nowa rzeczywistość to wbrew jednak najczarniejszym wizjom roztaczanym przez ośrodki sprzyjające demokratom w USA, w mojej opinii nie będzie politycznym trzęsieniem ziemi. Oczywiście będzie starał się przeforsować w jakiejś formie nawet tak kontrowersyjne postulaty jak budowa muru na granicy z Meksykiem, ale zapewne okaże się, że po kilku działaniach (bardziej PRowych) skończy się utrzymaniem status quo w relacjach z Meksykiem. Donald Trump nie ma możliwości przeprowadzenia zmian tak, jak sam by tego chciał. Potężna machina polityczna USA generuje wiele różnych uwarunkowań uniemożliwiających działanie niezależne prezydentowi. Prezydent nie jest bowiem niezależnym człowiekiem, ale przedstawicielem całego narodu włączając w to opozycję. Właśnie dlatego uwarunkowania wewnętrzne muszą wpływać na linię polityczną lidera w każdym kraju. Jeśli tych mechanizmów kontrolnych ze strony instytucji, jak i społeczeństwa brak, jak dzieje się to często w młodych demokracjach, wówczas system pod przykrywką demokracji może przesuwać się w stronę dyktatury.

W przypadku nowej administracji USA i samego Donalda Trumpa, pojawia się też szereg sygnałów świadczących o tym, że Donald Trump powoli otrzymuje stosowną porcję wiedzy (by nie powiedzieć lekcję) na temat geopolityki ze strony samego Władymira Putina. Na pewno można już „rozczytać” trzy wyraźne sygnały pokazujące wyrafinowaną grę Rosji i przeliczenie się, a czasem bezradność nowej administracji USA (oby tylko doraźną – wynikającą z okresu transformacji a być może z błędnych założeń samego nowego prezydenta).

Informacje o wizytach D. Trumpa w Rosji

Pierwszym sygnałem było upublicznienie informacji o rzekomych materiałach, świadczących nie tylko o zażyłych relacjach Trumpa z wpływowymi Rosjanami, ale też kwestiach obyczajowych związanych z rzekomymi (znowu) wizytami biznesmena w Rosji. Te doniesienia nie znajdowały się w rękach wywiadu USA w trakcie kampanii, bo z pewnością ta czy inna frakcja w środowisku wywiadowczym umożliwiłaby wykorzystane ich przez obóz demokratów. Także moment ich upublicznienia nie wydaje się przypadkowy. A więc doszło do nich już po wyborach, gdy nie mogły zagrozić objęciu prezydentury przez Trumpa, a jednocześnie podkopywały jego pozycję jeszcze zanim został zaprzysiężony. Niewątpliwie stawiało go to w trudnej sytuacji, eskalując konflikty obozu prezydenta elekta z mediami w USA i narażając na ostre ataki polityczne oraz wzrost nieufności w Europie. Jednocześnie łatwo sobie wyobrazić, że obecnemu już prezydentowi musi bardzo zależeć, by jeśli takie materiały faktycznie istnieją, nie zostały jednak upublicznione w postaci twardych dowodów. Może być też tak, że takich dowodów zupełnie nie ma, a wszystko jest tylko elementem gry. Jakkolwiek jest, to wydarzenie powinno być wyraźnym sygnałem ostrzegawczym dla nowego prezydenta.

Wydanie Snowdena w prezencie

Drugą bardzo ważną kwestią, choć nieco przemilczaną przez media, było krótkie zamieszanie wokół Edwarda Snowdena. Mogłoby się wydawać, że jest zupełnym przypadkiem, iż pozwolenie na pobyt w Rosji upływa Snowdenowi akurat w okresie poprzedzającym zaprzysiężenie nowego prezydenta w USA. Jednak wiemy, że Rosja prowadzi grę geopolityczną w sposób znacznie bardziej przemyślany i rozsądny niż rozbite wewnętrznie i skłócone państwa zachodnie. Nie mam najmniejszych wątpliwości, że termin ten był tak zaplanowany by Snowden mógł odegrać jakąś rolę w tym właśnie momencie. Pamiętamy przedłużanie pobytu Snowdena na lotnisku w Rosji, gdy komentatorzy przywoływali słynny film z 2004 roku „Terminal” jako ilustrację tego zdarzenia. W sumie spędził na tym lotnisku ponad miesiąc, by w dniu 16 lipca 2013 roku otrzymać pozwolenie na pobyt w Rosji na rok.

Sugestia wydania Snowdena niejako w prezencie nowemu prezydentowi, padła z ust byłego dyrektora CIA (“Edward Snowden może zostać w Rosji na dłużej” – Wiadomości – WP.PL http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1356,title,Edward-Snowden-moze-zostac-w-Rosji-na-dluzej,wid,18678031,wiadomosc.html ), niewątpliwie jednak taka publiczna wypowiedź była częścią gry na ocieplenie stosunków z Rosją, co potwierdziłoby zasadność stanowiska Trumpa z okresu kampanii wyborczej w tej kwestii. Odpowiedź Kremla była twarda i dosadna – jasno pokazując, że gra nie jest tak prosta, jak mógł sobie wcześniej wyobrażać Trump. To gra na znacznie wyższym poziomie – geopolitycznym, gdzie wszystkie chwyty są możliwe. Odpowiedź zawierała dwa stwierdzenie i oba były pozornie równie absurdalne (musiały wywołać uśmiech nawet na twarzach tych, którzy pozytywnie postrzegają wszystkie działania Rosji w ostatnich latach).

Mianowicie, po oświadczeniu, że Snowden otrzymuje pozwolenie na pobyt w Rosji na kolejne dwa lata, stwierdzono, że po pierwsze: przebywa tam z powodów humanitarnych, a po drugie, że nie kontaktuje się z żadną agencją wywiadowczą. Stwierdzenia te urągałyby inteligencji każdego obserwatora, gdyby nie wynikały właśnie z gry geopolitycznej. Pierwsze z nich miało pokazać nie tylko, że USA działają niehumanitarnie (stały motyw propagandowy Rosji pokazujący, że polityka USA jest zdegenerowana, a rosyjska ma być wzorem do naśladowania (sic!)), ale też, że nowy prezydent nie różni się w tej kwestii od poprzednika. Druga część oświadczenia Kremla może być różnie odbierana w kontekście sugestii CIA o tym, jakoby Snowden jeszcze przed ucieczką z USA miał mieć kontakty z wywiadem rosyjskim.

Konferencja w Astanie bez USA

Trzecim mocnym sygnałem z Kremla była konferencja w Astanie, zorganizowana przez Rosję, Turcję i Iran. Bardzo istotne jest miejsce tej konferencji – czyli stolica Kazachstanu, który jest bliskim sojusznikiem Rosji (polecam rozmowę na ten temat dr Zofii Sawickiej z moim udziałem u red Adama Głaczyńskiego w Polskim Radiu Rzeszów: „Konflikt w Syrii – jak wpływa na światową politykę?” http://www.radio.rzeszow.pl/dyskusyjny-klub-radiowy-aud/52843/konflikt-w-syrii-jak-wplywa-na-swiatowa-polityke).

Podobnie konferencje dotyczące Ukraniny odbywały się w Białorusi, której także w żadnym wypadku nie można nazwać neutralnym terytorium. To bardzo interesujące w jaki sposób zorganizowano przekaz do mediów na ten temat. To Rosja, Turcja i Iran organizują konferencję, na którą zaproszono ONZ i USA – w takiej właśnie kolejności (mówił o tym Sergey Ławrow). Nowa administracja USA dopiero się w tym momencie tworzyła. Daje to szereg możliwości Rosji, a niewiele USA. Trump przyjmując zaproszenie uznałby rolę USA jako aktora poza kręgiem decyzyjnym – gościa konferencji. Jako że administracja USA jest w fazie transformacji istniało duże prawdopodobieństwo, że wobec wyżej wymienionego niebezpieczeństwa USA zaproszenie odrzuci, co znów było na korzyść Rosji.

Pamiętajmy że zwalczanie ISIS jest dziś jednym z najważniejszych haseł polityki zagranicznej nowej administracji USA. Walka ta miała się toczyć na nowych zasadach  – współpracy USA z Rosją. Tymczasem Rosja wspólnie z Turcją i Iranem (których rola jest też złożona w rejonie Bliskiego Wschodu) razem rozwiązują konflikt w Syrii gdzie ISIS ma pozycję najmocniejszą, pozostawiając USA rolę obserwatora.

Trzy sygnały powinny teraz posłużyć samemu Trumpowi do rewizji jego założeń realizacji polityki międzynarodowej i skłonić go do zaufania nowemu sekretarzowi obrony („Gen Jim Mattis prywatnie, półtora roku przed mianowaniem na Sekretarza Obrony USA” https://mmilczanowski.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/gen-jim-mattis-prywatnie-i-oficjalnie-poltora-roku-przed-mianowaniem-na-sekretarza-obrony-usa/), oraz nowemu sekretarzowi stanu.

Dlatego też Trump mimo fatalnych wpadek (jak rozmowa z prezydent Tajwanu) stara się nie zaostrzać relacji z Chinami. Wydaje się, że i w tej kwestii jego retoryka wyborcza pozostanie tylko retoryką wyborczą. W mojej ocenie pomijając kwestię wiarygodności polityków (opisaną w tekście „Dekadencja demokracji i jak jej przeciwdziałać” https://mmilczanowski.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/dekadencja-demokracji-i-jak-jej-przeciwdzialac/) to dobrze, że zmienił w tej sprawie zdanie, bowiem polityka USA nie może dziś być wymierzona przeciw jednemu zagrożeniu ignorując pozostałe.

W mechanizmach geopolitycznych sympatie i antypatie mogą odgrywać jakąś rolę, ale trzeba sobie zdawać sprawę, że działają tam bezwzględne mechanizmy i albo potrafi się grać albo nie – a wówczas konsekwencje dla przegrywającego zawsze poważne.  Dlatego gra na poziomie geopolitycznym wymaga posiadania wielopoziomowej i rzetelnie zbudowanej koncepcji geostrategicznej. Musi ona opierać się na realizmie, aby dopiero na takiej podstawie budować założenia idealistyczne. Idealizm bez rozumienia realistycznych uwarunkowań jest bajką, która może uczynić wiele szkody. Tyczy się to nie tylko USA, mniejsze państwa także muszą umieć „czytać” geopolitykę, by w tej grze w jakiejś (nawet niewielkiej) roli uczestniczyć, ale też by nie dać się tym potężnym mechanizmom znieść (jak stało się z Irakiem, Libią, Syrią, Jemenem, wcześniej Somalią i wieloma innymi państwami w Afryce, częściowo Ukrainą i Gruzją, Czeczenią i innymi a historycznie i Polska boleśnie doświadczyła tego efektu). Polityka USA jest dla Polski bardzo ważna, ale właśnie dlatego nie można jej analizować tylko i wyłącznie z perspektywy naszych interesów. Aby nasze interesy osiągać, musimy rozumieć interesy i założenia geostrategiczne mocarstw – i to realistycznie.

Referendum and territorial claims as a justification of annexation : Crimea casus.

Many people justify annexation of Crimea by the Russian president because of the historical reasons. They say, that Crimea was always Russian and that people who lived there speak and feel Russians. All of those claims is partially truth. Fact is that in some moment of history Crimea was Russian. Also people there speaks Russian and many of them feel that they are in fact Russians…

BUT

Even if Crimeans feel like being Russians, they do not necessarily wanted to become part of Russia. Despite the calls that “Ukrainian Nazists” persecute Crimean Russians vast majority of them in a year before the war, wanted to stay in Ukraine. There is even more – the tendency in two years period was showing decreasing number of those who wanted to join Russia – from 33 to 23 percent. In the same time for autonomy, but still in the Ukraine, voted over half of the people in the peninsula.

MqTzqRq

We could believe that the people in Crimea were persuaded by the Russian propaganda, but we have polls which shows that even in March and April of 2014 the number of people who wanted to join Russia was really small. Despite the radical propaganda actions, large majority of Crimeans knew that Russia doesn’t mean prosperity and success.

2014-april-24-survey-of-residents-of-ukraine-april-3-12-2014-16-638

In this case it is obvious that the “referendum” was fake in at least three simple ways:

1. With use of Russian soldiers, leaving their barracks or transported by see few days before, who voted like they were inhabitants of Crimea.

2. Counting the votes. There was no supervision of any international commission or Ukrainian authorities. Numbers were sometimes extraordinary high – even higher then all inhabitants of the cities.Of course there were politicians of “scientists” from the European countries… even prom Poland, but by money You can always buy some sort of people. Those who were there from Poland are very well known here for being open to bribery and with no moral backbone.

Bi7bTswCEAABEOg.jpg large

3. Armed Russian soldiers were all around. If that’s not the breach of the referendum rules, then what is then?

So the claims of the threatened Crimeans because of the Russians were fabricated, same as the referendum. Putin created the situation with no return. After annexation of Crimea, nationalism in Russia raised fast. So called hawks in Kremlin wanted more. People felt like the Tzar and Emperor appeared. Those moves make Putin famous in many countries which are far from Russian border. In the same time Finnlans, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland were terrify. Like always such actions are exiting for people who are not in danger by it. Peoples life has not great value when those peoples are far away.

But even in the western Europe, Egypt or Venezuela, people want to pretend they are honest and balanced. That’s why they say that there are historical reasons why Russia have to “take back” Crimea. Russia in fact owned the Crimea and gave it to Ukraine after II World War because Ukraine was a part of USSR, so this fact really doesn’t matter.

If we would like to be so honest and give back all the territories which used to belong to someone else, such attitude could be very dangerous for today’s world. Or even explosive! But most problems in that case would have… Russia it self. So depending what time in history we consider, Russia should give back most of it’s lands:

mcd_mwh2005_0618377115_p176_f01

In the XXI century, the world refused to use territorial claims and stated to deterring the meaning of the borders. Poles didn’t call for return of Vilnius and Lviv, Ukrainians in vast majority didn’t call to get back Przemysl, Germans did not use their advantage over Poland to get back Wroclaw or Szczecin. Also Cyprus is not causing the war between Turkey and Greece even if there is still enmity. Romanians and Hungarians once bordering with Poland do not claim to go north again to get back what was their. What about Austria, It was really powerful empire, but it is peaceful now. North Ireland stayed with Great Britain and Scotland tried referendum but also there majority wanted to not divide. Even if Scots would vote to go alone, we can bet, it would cause no war with British. World, despite it’s problems, wrong policies, bad expeditions, got more civilised. But Russia stayed in the beginning of the XX century in a aspect of mentality, domestic policy, expectations for the country leader. Those Russians who care of the fighting the war in Ukraine, are the parents of the soldiers sent to mess in the other country order. They are afraid of losing their children and if they do, they know that this loss was useless.

Russia vs Ukraine on maps from July 2014 to March 2015

The analysis of the conflict between the Russia and Ukraine with use of the maps issued by the Ukrainian Security and Defence Council gives very interesting conclusions. We can see there the situation from the July 2014, when Ukrainian defence was very chaotic. Ukrainian Armed Forces, thanks to former president Janukovych were in very poor condition and influenced by Russians very much. In such conditions it is surprise that there was any Ukrainian organized defence in the East. Nevertheless we can see very reasonable plans of operations starting in July and developed in August. Pushing Russian and pro-russian troops from the Ukr-Rus border to cut the support lines from the Russia and operations aimed in  separating of the areas occupied by the enemy showed the basic tactical skills of the Ukrainian commanders. It was just enough for a relatively small number of Russian proxies (composed of Russian units and Ukrainians). Slajd1 Slajd2

From the middle of August to the end of that month there was massive supply of the Russian/pro-russian side by Kremlin. Even then Ukrainians had some progress but generally the front got stabilized. Slajd3 Slajd4 Slajd5

Fierceness of the change at the end of the August shows that it was much more than just another “separatists” offensive. Those actions were very well organized, strongly supported by artillery and attacked with use of very carefully prepared plan. That situation proves that through at least half of August, Russians prepared a massive offensive against Ukrainian forces. It was put into action with the last days of August. For the fresh, well trained and best equipped Russian organized units it was an easy fight. Ukrainian army was chaotically composed (filled with not trained volunteers), economical crisis and still high level of corruption as well as very poor command & control system caused that very tired Ukrainian army could not be a match for Russian first line troops. Thus the situation got much worse for Ukrainians. Slajd6 Slajd7

The progress of the Russians was extraordinary fast. Ukrainians, even defending their own country, couldn’t stop them in open fight. That why the defence of the Donieck airport was a really heroic stunt. Unfortunately surrounded and shelled constantly by Russian artillery the so called “Cyborgs” were killed or just a few captured. Humiliation of those Ukrainian brave fighters showed once again how savage and ruthless Russians still are. It was stated by the Polish General Skrzypczak that he as the soldier was ashamed what Russian soldiers did – even as for a war situation. Always drunk and drugged Russian soldiers tortured and killed many of their prisoners. Some of them were mutilated before the exchange of the  prisoners. Finally after Donieck, also Debaltzeve was taken by the Russian troops even when seas-fire was announced. It was another show-off how Russians are still mentally in the beginning of the XX century with no care of any rules of war an filled with some illusionary imperialistic imaginations. Time has stopped in Russia and they still worship a leader who “conquers the world”.  Slajd8

The next point for Russians and Ukrainians is Mariupol. Russians for proceeding with their plan of taking the whole south coast line of the Black See, have to take the city. If they succeed it will be much easier then to connect with the Crimea. Also Ukrainians, now equipped and trained by the US forces and also trained by the Polish and British instructors, knows, they have to stop Russian progress in Mariupol. The city seems crucial for further situation. We can be sure, that Kremlin right now calculates how many Russian soldiers will die, or rather, if it comes to Russia, then more important question is how many pieces of equipment will they lose there. The submarine Kursk sinking 15 years ago proved that for Russian leaders equipment and some illusory military secrets are estimated much higher than Russian soldiers lives (it’s a very sad ascertainment for me as a former soldier). To accomplish the plan showed on the map below, there is a need of open war in my opinion. It will be difficult to use proxy war for so large scale of conflict and especially, that it will be proceeded in much more hostile environment than previously. Slajd9

For Ukrainians, to prevent this plan, they have to use not only military! They have to start the information war against enemy! There can be discussion in Poland of the limit of free speech liberty. But in the war conditions like it is now in our eastern neighbour it is completely different. Ukrainians needs to jam or disconnect Russian propaganda TV or Radio stations, ban internet propaganda pages. Influence society with their own war propaganda. They should spent a lot of money for that, because it can be more important than Polish or British instructors in Kiev. Ukrainians have the full right to do all of that, because they defend their own land.

In the same time there is no excuse for Russians invading Ukraine. All those who support Putin should know, that in European history there are many arguments for territorial claims. Poles have it for Lithuania and Ukraine, Ukraine and Germans have the same for Poland, Hungary could fight Slovakia because of such claims. But also Mongolia, Kazakhstan, China and Japan could start a war against Russia because of the claims which would be much more legitimized then annexation of Crimea by Russia.

Russian “imperial” politics and economy on graph

Slajd1The last news about Russia falling economy and also disorder in the closest allies are the signs of growing problems of Vladimir Putin. One of the most interesting comments was made by his closest ally, Alexander Lukaszenka, who have said: “If Crimea is Russian, than Russia need to give back it’s territories to Mongolia” http://www.rp.pl/artykul/1147800.html. In Ukraine, Poland or Baltic states many people repeated such words very often, but between the highest ranked politicians it haven’t been said until now. In the interview, Lukaszenka says that not only Mongolia could have the historical claims on the Russian lands but also Kazakhstan. Such words have to be hurtful for president Putin as they underline exactly the hypocrisy of the Kremlin policy in the Ukraine, but also send message to Kremlin that both it’s closest allies deeply oppose it’s policy in Ukraine. So the problems of lowering of the Rouble and oil prizes – two largest concerns of Kremlin are getting now even more complicated, because of the growing discontent of the Belarus. Also Kazakhstan tries to distance itself from Kremlin policy. Few weeks ago president Putin, during his visit in this Large Asiatic country have questioned the nationality and by this, the rights to be self-dependent of the Kazakhs people. It was a strong signal that he will use all means to shape this coalition in the direction which only Moscow decide. Some understood it, as the strengthening of the Russian control of it’s area of influences. But after Lukaszenka words, it could be seen also as a desperate move, to frightened Kremlin allies who are very unstable in this so called Euro-asia Union. Graph shows the two most destructive trends for the Russian politics. It shows situation at the end of November but month later situation get dramatic. Russia worsen it’s situation in all spheres as a international player. Annexations, military operations in the neighbouring countries, weak try of rebuilding the imperial policy  led to the vast sanctions and econo-political operations, most probably prepared by USA and Gulf countries in the frames of OPEC – (“Why the oil price is falling”, The Economist, Dec 8th 2014, http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-4?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/why_the_oil_price_is_falling), which caused Russian real loses and great weakening it’s next year total military budget. Even EU is much more united because of Russian continuous aggression and repeated obvious lies of it’s president. Now it’s time for Kremlin to get back to it’s more reasonable politics. Although the consequences will be long lasting for sure.

Midterm elections in USA: optimistic approach to the last two years of Obama presidency

Image-for-Midterm-Recap-PostMidterm elections in USA showed a huge win of Republicans Party. In both: U.S. House of Representatives and in Senate, Republicans, after elections have majority and can halt every presidential initiative which have to be passed by those two bodies. Even if this majority is not enough to reject the President’s veto, it is still huge change in US political scene. In such situation almost all analysts predicts, that President Barack Obama decision making process will be paralysed and this president will stay inactive, up to the end of 2016 when his presidency will terminate. But there is also another possibility, which in #MyPointOfView is more plausible.

Just after the results became undeniable, President of the USA issued such statement:
“Yesterday, millions of Americans cast their ballots. Republicans had a good night, and I congratulate all the candidates who won. But what stands out to me is that the message Americans sent yesterday is one you’ve sent for several elections in a row now. You expect the people you elect to work as hard as you do. You expect us to focus on your ambitions — not ours — and you want us to get the job done. Period. I plan on spending every moment of the next two years rolling up my sleeves and working as hard as I can for the American people.”
We can see it with ambiguity. From one point of view it could be understood as President admitting, he did nothing, or at least not much, until now and just from this moment he will roll-up his sleeves to get to work. Such view is expressed by his opponents, which are obviously in great majority in the US. Those opponents most often say, president will stay inactive next two years, because he his party is not strong enough to pass his projects. Another point here is that president will use his vetoes which even more deepen the paralyze of the country. It will be correct if president will be just a democratic party member, and not the head of the mightiest county in the world – above particularly interest.
Looking for the options President has now in his disposal, there is also possibility of increase of the advantageous presidential activity. President Obama has a great chance of much better outcome of the last two years of his presidency, ignited by the midterm elections, than his opponents expect. He need to use the core values of the democracy, we all perceive as the best known system. If voters pointed out that US policy have to be more in line with republican ideals, President need to use those suggestions. He can be than more active than before that moment.
As far as international affairs are concerned, President Obama failed in his most important and most obvious tasks he announced, when he entered the White House. In general, it was providing the peace and stability to the world. He promised to negotiate and search of the common understanding with Middle Eastern partners, instead of forcing western solutions. This was meant to improve US appearance and it’s relations with other international actors. He planned to shift US focus to east Asia, because in Europe as well as in the Middle East it was planned to stay peaceful. Libya after the of 2011 was meant to be example of good crisis management made by new administration. Less democratic but still successful was meant to be leaving Iraq in Shia led government of PM Nouri al-Maliki. US with allies were meant to be successful in defeating Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and weakening it in Pakistan, Yemen and other parts of the region. US drone warfare and intelligence surveillance was meant to keep in control those places and regions, where are possible new threats.
Unfortunately the situation in all aspects and all dangerous regions was much more complicated (http://wp.me/p4y6QP-2h). The use of just an interim policy, with a guiding idea of Soft Power and military solutions used unofficially produced a lot of contradictions. But first of all this policy was lacking a comprehensive strategy, rooted deep in the scientifically approach to the regions of greatest threat – or great interest. Iraq under control of Shiites fall in the sphere of Iran policy and it’s control. Most of the Syrian rebels from the beginning were cooperating with extremists, simply because many of them revolted because of their anti-secular approach (http://theworldoutline.com/2013/04/make-peace-not-war-for-syria/). In the north of Iraq and Syria, abandoned Sunni people, with no representation in the governments, became more and more frustrated and some of them violent. Many of them searched for a chance for normal life in this piece of hell, but also many joined Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra or rebels in Syria. There was no clear solution of Kurdish question. Nobody started any serious negotiations between Turkey and Kurds. Turkish policy of zero problems with the neighbours, was somehow successful. Their agreement with Abdullah Ocalan and Turkish Kurds, should be just the first step to establish a better relations with Iraqi and Syrian Kurds. To achieve that (if possible at all), influential party, as a mediator, would be of great help. It should be no surprise, that when ISIS started it’s terror spreading actions, and focused on fighting the only force which was defending – Kurds, Turks were not willing to support people, they perceived as a greatest enemy. Turkish government was encouraged to support Kurds, by the many officials in the whole world, but encouraging is one thing, yet giving a good example and sending the “boots on the ground” is something completely another. No one should deny Kurds right in their struggle for their country. They show remarkable spirit, even sending their women to the battle ground. They proved they deserve their piece of land for many times. But just criticizing Turks by the people who armed and trained Syrian rebels, of whom many became IS fighter now, is great hypocrisy. Despite US efforts, Libya became another failed country and it’s masses of stored weapons after Kaddafi regime flown through the Sahara desert and the Gaza, into the Syria. Now it is used by the rebels and IS fighters in Syria and Iraq as well. This was another reason of fast growth of the ISIS and again Turkey was just the one of the last pieces of puzzle. In Libya almost next day after the Kaddafi regime fall, begun the war of the tribes and the strongest force was there Al-Qaeda of Maghreb and other extremist organizations. For a long time US tried to keep the false picture of Libyan transformation as a model, but it was not based on facts, but rather strong propaganda. In all those situations there was much more US president could have done or not done (as in the case of Libya intervention which should never happen at all). Of course it is impossible to see if he would be more successful, but many of the results could be easily predicted. Middle East did not change after president Obama’s Novruz message to Iran and Iranians. Destroyed country security structures in Iraq after 2003 and leaving this country alone in 2011 had to enforce Iran influence or even decisive role in that country. President Obama outrage on Israeli settlements in the West Bank didn’t stop Benjamin Netanyahu from his further actions of taking the Palestinian lands. The policy toward Iran is not decreasing this regime support for Hamas, aimed only in attacking Israel.
We could observe progressive change in the president Obama policy. He sent planes to bombers IS, even if he promised, he will not start any war again. He introduced sanctions against Russia even tougher than EU and supported Ukrainians with intelligence and most probably much more. He also did not resign using the sanctions against Iran, despite the growing pressure of his party to make Iran an example of the US peaceful policy success. Another symptom of more comprehensive policy was a great move by the Obama administration with agreement made with Saudi Arabia on lowering of the oil prizes. It created another leverage in both cases, most dangerous from geopolitical point of view: Iran and Russia. Both suffer very much from that move and this is a very good example, of how Smart Policy could be used. There are in the US people like John McCain who see everything possible using the military means only and Ron Paul who claims that US should withdraw from all its military activities in the world at all. President Obama pressured by the republicans can make his two final years as a moderate successful being in the middle, but using also both extremities if it would be strategically favourable.
Midterm elections will enforce that course of Obamas presidency. If he wish to live a better impression after his presidency, he could combine his views of the US role in the world and republicans, which in fact is somehow possible. It could imply coming back of the idea, which was meant to be the sole basis of his presidency: the concept of the Smart Power (http://wp.me/p4y6QP-2I). Until now he was oppressed by the “not Bush” image. Now if he wants to be active under new circumstances, he has to be “more Bush” than he imagined in 2008. He has to use much more direct military actions in the cases where it can be effective. ISIS is the example where direct military actions are expected, but using his negotiation abilities first of all he need to cut of the supplies for those extremists. Cutting of the supplies is the first rule of all military actions and art of war in general. We can easily enumerate few sources of ISIS power. Improving Turkey-Kurds relations would stop some source of ISIS support for sure. Saudi Arabia could be much better partner in fighting ISIS if there would be no threat of growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. So control of the Iraq seems to be a good plan also. New PM in that country makes some hopes, but Iranian regime becomes the rival and not ally in this case. It has many ways of activating or calming down its relations with Iraqi authorities if needed. Egypt can be a very important US ally or could be another Syria also if the military wouldn’t keep it’s supervision over the political transition process. As far as military in Egypt has so strong support of Egyptian people, criticizing president Abd al-Fattah as Sisi for being too cruel seems pointless. Egyptian president has many strong and extremely radical opponents in his country – and not only in Sinai. There is also a great issue in fighting Asad regime. Until now it produced only disaster for Syria and the region. US president should assess who will rule the Syria after Asad’s house. Using Iraqi example we should expect growing chaos and influences of Sunni monarchies but most accurate are those who predict, that falling of Asad will make t much better for the extremists. President Obama under republican pressure can be much more active in the Europe too. Rebuilding the NATO plans gives him a great opportunity to take the decisive role in situation of permanent Russian aggression in Ukraine and Russian show of force against Europe and US.
There is plenty of tools under his disposal and he and his Secretary of State in 2008, Hillary Clinton, enumerated them in general. Just it was no will of use part of them and there was not any great plan of combining them and preparation for different circumstances. As Zbigniew Brzezinski say, there was no comprehensive strategy for US role in the world. There was no contingency plans in case when the actual actions would go wrong or new threats emerge. All this can be good from two perspectives. One – it will improve his image and all democrats, whose voice is very important in the US internal debate and they should be not pushed out of scene too far. Second it could be a good starting point and preparation for a next – most probably – republican president starting in 2017. Both reasons are very important not only for president Obama, but for USA image in the world, which radicalises itself and gets more and more anti-american and anti-western.

Putin’s ambitions, Hitler and the NATO summit

It seems that President Putin has made a similar mistake as Hitler did in the years prior to and at the beginning of the World War II. Hitler believed that western countries are too used to living in comfort and too pacifistic after what happened during World War I, or even too lazy to fight wars. He thought that his eagerness and cruelty, putting nations in front of facts rather than negotiations or diplomacy, will create a situation that will facilitate his plans. Diplomacy used before the conflict an element of war strategy and was meant to give Hitler an idea of European and world leader’s willingness to fight him. His idea was that he would frighten whole world so much that no one would have enough courage to stand against him. In fact at the beginning he was quite right. But at some point he just couldn’t win because too many strong opponents were against him, and they were determined to fight to the end.
Now Putin has made pretty much the same efforts of assessing how Europe and the World view his activity in Ukraine. His clash with Georgia gave him impression that Europe and US are not ready to confront him. The Crimean Anschluss was the next move which gave him the confidence that he is the strong one and master of the situation. Sanctions were the minimum of what the world could do, and for Putin it had to look like just a smokescreen to do nothing. The best proof for it was that sanctions were announced just for a short time, and always just to the moment when Russia deescalates its activities in Ukraine. For those who knows the conflict theories it is obvious that it is not a good approach to negotiations if we at the beginning stat those measurements are just temporary. The Russians know they are doing wrong, and a weak response just strengthens the impression that the west is trying to say sorry for applying the sanctions against the Russian establishment.
I believe Putin considered letting the Donbas area go and waiting for another good moment to act. Putin’s plan seems to be easy to predict. He wants to keep Ukraine’s eastern provinces autonomous from the rest of the state. Then for a few years he can use propaganda like in the Crimea, place regular units there, invited by the autonomous government of those territories and finally hold a fake referendum like in Crimea, or otherwise take the region. The plan could work if Ukraine stays poor and divided.
But the Ukrainians are more and more against Putin because of those pro-Russian separatists which often are just ruthless mercenaries conducting war on their territory. After the Russian aggression, it seems that Ukraine is much closer to joining the EU, and most of the oligarchs escaped or are not siding with Russia now. It appears to be a good path for Ukraine to develop and improve quickly. Then there would be none who would like to join Russia and Putin would not have any occasion to play his strongest card – propaganda. The last point which is very important for Putin for his decision to invade eastern Ukraine was preparation of new elections by President Poroshenko who wanted to get rid of the Kremlin supporters and obvious Russian spies.
The false image of a divided and lazy Europe, a weak and undecided Obama and a mobilizing Ukraine, pushed Putin to the decision that there can be no better time for invading east Ukraine. He decided to invade with an unknown the number of soldiers, but reliable sources claim it is from 7 to 15 thousands of well trained experienced and well equipped soldiers. From the start they were attacking newly formed, totally inexperienced Ukrainian units surrounding Donieck. The results were obvious. The Ukrainian government was fully right giving the order of full retreat. Losing Ukrainian soldiers – many very young boys (perhaps some of my former students), was pointless. At this moment Putin claimed that he could seize Kiev in few days, Warsaw in a week and I suppose he believes that Berlin and Brussels would fall in month. What Putin did and is still is doing in Ukraine has to be enough to be a wake up call for the West. Everything done until now was based on high ambitions of one leader surrounding himself with ideologists most probably having deep antisocial personality disorder. Leader embraced with totally wrong impressions of Russian might and western weakness or inability to organize, who makes decision individually and independently ignoring opinions of people thinking otherwise. All this makes Putin similar to Hitler, although it is not enough to compare those two figures.
The ongoing NATO summit in Wales shows that Putin went too far, just like Hitler. Fortunately, post-World War II – “too far”, doesn’t mean that half of Europe has to be in flames and filled with death camps for “subhumans”.The decision of building quick reactions forces with infrastructure organized in Poland and some initial battle units, four thousand soldiers strong, ready to react in the NATO member countries, seems like a first sign of a really strong and reasonable response to Putin’s activity. We have to add, those units will not operate separately but with the national armies of attacked states. There is much more the west can do to contain Putin, and this progressive direction of NATO is inevitable now, when none have any illusions about him and his mafia state’s ambitions.

I want to thank to Nick Siekierski @ResearchTeacher for correcting of this text.