Russian Anti-American Sentiment Grows

When the Cold War ended, the US enjoyed good relations with Russia and the Russian people generally looked at the US favorably. The Soviet government was so reviled that the majority of Russians saw its fall as a positive event. Now, most of that good will is gone. America is seen as an adversary, with the majority of Russians holding a negative opinion of the US. Russia's military guidance documents identify NATO (in other words, the US) as their primary threat. Should the US be concerned?

Russian attitudes towards the US have gone up and down over the years. This is not surprising. The Russians, in general, don't like the US taking actions in what they see as their sphere of influence. In this case, our actions in response to aggression in Ukraine - as well as belief that the US is responsible for the crash of the ruble - are combining with Russian nationalism and economic decline to stoke fears (and resentment) of America.

While something to keep an eye on, there's not much the United States can do about this, assuming the country still wants to put its interests ahead of those of its competitors. The Russians are not our friends. The Russians don't have to be our enemies - the world does not function in a binary state - but they have their interests which often don't coincide with ours. We saw that during the 1990s, in our differing policies in Yugoslavian conflicts and the war in Chechnya. We see that in deference matters, such as Russia's fears of limited missile defenses in Europe. The Russian public did not support our invasion of Iraq, while having few problems with their own invasions of Georgia or Ukraine.

None of this is surprising. What is surprising is the notion that the Russians and the US are natural friends. We've never had that kind of relationship. During the 20th Century we drifted from ideological enemies to allies of convenience. The post-Cold War environment might have been an opportunity to change this framework - of two Great Powers engaged in traditional power politics - but that didn't happen.

In addition to historical tensions, Russia also has a worldview that is not integrative and a vast difference between ambitions and means. Historically, the Russian core (European Russian) has been invaded from every direction. In the last century, the Russians fought three major wars (World War One, The Russian Civil War and World War Two) on their territory. The idea of creating buffer zones between the Russian core and the rest of EurAsia is central to Russian foreign policy. Russia is experiencing general military and economic weakness, is too reliant on energy exports as the keystone of its economy and is engaged in a certain amount of psychological projection of what Russia would do if they had the power of the US. Russians see almost any policy of the US and its allies that does not conform to Russian interests as a threat. Add Putin to the mix - an autocratic ruler who has learned that one way to deflect attention from problems at home is to blame them on another country - and the recipe for an adversarial relationship is complete.

There is little we can do about this. Even recognizing a Russian sphere of influence that would encompass Ukraine and the rest of the Near Abroad (less the Baltic States, which are NATO members) would only address some of Russia's concerns. Unless we are willing to cede Eastern Europe to Russia, not contest control of the resources in the Arctic, dissolve NATO and provide Russia with massive amounts of money to support their economy - not to mention supporting arms deals to counties that are hostile to us - then we will always have problems with them. America's image in Russia will be volatile, based on whatever the current crisis - or lack of one - is. We should not expect Great Powers to like each other; we can only work to ensure that natural competition doesn't lead to armed conflict.

Sources: New York Observer, The Moscow Times, ABC News, The Diplomat, Pew Research Center

The Future of Defence - GhostSwimmer

The idea of military drones - remotely controlled or autonomous vehicles and weapons - is nothing new. As early as the First World War, attempts were made to mate up the new technologies of aircraft and radio to create remotely piloted bombs. In the interwar period, remotely piloted aircraft were used for target practice. The Second World War saw the dawn of the cruise missile, with the German V-1, as well as remotely controlled ground vehicles (the German Goliath demolition vehicle) and aircraft for offensive purposes, such as Operation Aphrodite, in which the US experimented with retrofitting worn out bombers as remotely piloted bombs. None of these programs were very successful, diverting resources that could have been used more profitably on less "cutting edge' technologies. However, they did point the way to the future.

During the Cold War, a whole host of remote vehicles were developed, including cruise missiles (e.g., the Tomahawk), recon drones like the Vietnam-era Lightning Bug, remotely operated underwater vehicles for training, mine clearance and recovery operations, remotely operated bomb disposal robots and other, similar systems. With the exception of cruise missiles, what distinguished these systems was their non-lethal usage.

This changed with the advent of systems like the Predator and Reaper. As computer technology has advanced, there has been an increasing amount of interest in autonomous systems as opposed to remotely operated vehicles (although many questions have been raised about the wisdom and ethics of this; check the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots for some of the arguments against). Finally, work is being done a wide variety of body types, from insect sized (and inspired) microbots to aquatic systems that take their design from fish and sharks. One of these is the GhostSwimmer.

The drone uses the streamlined shape of a shark and propels itself with its tail. The GhostSwimmer can operate either tethered to a laptop or autonomously, receiving mission updates wirelessly. Assuming it moves forward from the testing phase to some sort of future production model, it will join other aquatic drones to replace the dolphins and other marine animals the US Navy has used for mine clearance and harbor protection. Also, unlike the marine animals which require significant amounts of care and can only be deployed by specialized units, UUVs (Unmanned Underwater Vehicles) can be used by any ship. Also, unlike marine animals, UUVs can be programed (or controlled) to distinguish between friendly and hostile forces, turning drones like the GhostSwimmer into potent weapons. We could soon see a Navy consisting of a small number of large, manned platforms (i.e., ships) serving as hosts to hundreds of drones, used in the air, on the surface, and underwater. This may also help us get past the increasing expense of manned platforms, allowing us to concentrate on a few highly survivable ships using swarms of drones for offensive and defensive operations.

This is the future of the US military; an arsenal of robots, precision strike weapons and a comparative small number of battle managers and special forces operators for environments where you need a person with a gun.

Source: Wired, Naval-Technology.com

Opening Up To Cuba

The White House has announced a radical reassessment of our relations with Cuba, including lifting of some economic sanctions, relaxation of travel restrictions and establishing full diplomatic relations. To which I say...about time.

Our limited relations with Cuba during the Cold War, in which we isolated a hostile Soviet client state, made perfect sense. With the end of that conflict, this policy became increasingly anachronistic, although it was still useful as Cuba supported disruptive elements around the world. At this point, however, while being fully aware that Cuba still has an oppressive government, it makes sense to reconnect with Cuba. We can do far more good with normal relations, allowing the Cuban people to stop seeing us as enemies, to learn the value of American democracy and capitalism and to, eventually, get rid of the Castro regime (hopefully, through peaceful means).

When a policy - in this case, decades of isolation - fails to have a meaningful effect and the original reason for it - to constrain a client of a hostile power - is gone, it is time to re-examine that policy. And, for those who say we shouldn't have relations with authoritarian states that abuse human rights, I assume you are willing to carry that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion and advocate for cutting ties with countries that have worse records, like China and Russia.

You can have relations with adversaries. We have done this in the past, we do it now, and we will do so in the future. You can have relations with states that do not uphold your values. You do these things for a variety of reasons. They may have resources we need (e.g., oil). They may have a useful geostrategic position (e.g., supporting South Korea before it became a democracy). You might do it just so that you can talk to an adversary, to keep tensions from boiling over (e.g., having diplomatic relations, cultural exchanges and trade with the USSR). And, you can do it because those ties can lead to social and political change in the adversarial state.

More details still need to be released about exactly what the new relationship will be like. We'll have to see how the White House deals with the legal restrictions in place. They should work with the new Congress to get the controlling laws changed, not act by fiat. We also need to be watchful of how the Cuban government responds to steps on our part to open up, adopting a policy of relaxing sanctions in a staged fashion. If they respond by addressing human rights abuses and truly opening up the political process - creating a true democracy - then we can continue to remove sanctions, until we have fully normal relations with them. This should only happen at the end of a process, in which we are satisfied that Cuba can become a democratic partner.

Sources: CNN, Statement of the President

The Continuing Crisis In West Africa

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization is predicting a massive food crisis in the Ebola ravaged countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone unless sweeping measures are enacted to guarantee food access. The reasons behind this crisis are completely understandable. Border closing, bans on hunting, quarantine measures and other measures taken to control the spread of the disease - as well as isolation steps taken by individuals and communities - have causes massive disruptions in the food production and distribution networks. UNFAO is looking at up to 1 million people with lack of secure food access by March 2015; and this is in countries where food security can be problematic in the best of times.

"The outbreak has revealed the vulnerability of current food production systems and value chains in the worst Ebola-affected countries", said FAO Assistant Director-General and Regional Representative for Africa, Bukar Tijani. "FAO and partners need to act urgently to overcome the agriculture and market disruptions and their immediate impact on livelihoods which could result in a food security crisis. With timely support, we can prevent the outbreak from having a severe and long-lasting impact on rural communities," he added.

"The outbreak of Ebola in West Africa has been a wake-up call for the world", said WFP Emergency Response Coordinator Denise Brown in Dakar. "The virus is having a terrible impact on the three worst-hit countries and will continue to affect many people's access to food for the foreseeable future. While working with partners to make things better, we must be prepared for them to get worse," she said.

Here are some of the numbers:

• Guinea - 230,000 people currently severely food insecure because of Ebola, rising to 470,000 by March 2015.
• Liberia - 170,000 people currently severely food insecure because of Ebola, rising to 300,000 by March 2015.
• Sierra Leone - 120,000 people currently severely food insecure because of Ebola, rising to 280,000 by March 2015.

All three countries are also seeing disruption in crop output.

All of this shows how a massive, disruptive event like Ebola has a cascade effect, particularly when they impact trans-national trade and internal production and supply chains. In the case of a larger, global event, we need to ask how would a cessation of global trade, as well as internal disruptions, effect countries like the United States? In the case of West Africa, at least there is a rich, functional world that can send in aid. What if that were not the case? In the event of a global pandemic (or similar crisis) who is going to "come to the rescue" of the United States, China, Japan, or Europe?

These are questions that we should be asking ourselves as we observe the ongoing crisis in West Africa from the illusory comfort of our homes.

Source: ReliefWeb

Nightmare In Pakistan

A Taliban attack on a school in Pakistan has left at least 135 dead, mostly children. Here are some details from the BBC;

Militants from the Pakistani Taliban have attacked an army-run school in Peshawar, leaving at least 135 people dead, most of them children.

All six attackers are said by officials to have been killed but the security forces are still checking for bombs they may have left.

[...]

The BBC's Shahzeb Jillani in Karachi says the militants appear to have been intent on killing as many students as possible - rather than taking hostages, as initially thought.

[...]

More than 100 of the dead are children, a local official told Reuters news agency, although other sources say the number may be slightly smaller.

[...]

Children who escaped from the school say the militants went from one classroom to another, shooting indiscriminately.

[...]

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who has arrived in Peshawar, described the attack as a "national tragedy". Pakistani opposition leader and former cricket captain Imran Khan condemned it as "utter barbarism".

A Taliban spokesman was quoted by Reuters as saying the school had been attacked because the "government is targeting our families and females".

For years, Pakistan supported the Taliban and, it is widely accepted, elements of the government continue to do so. Maybe this atrocity will finally convince them that you can;t make deals with or otherwise control this barbarians. You can only fight them, until the last one is dead and their horrific ideology consigned to the scrapheap of history.

This attack should also call into question any notion that the the US and its allies can negotiate with the Taliban. These people are not human, at least in any meaningful way. Anyway who can go into a building full of children and mercilessly kill them has forfeited their claims to humanity. Our attempts to negotiate with the Taliban - including our capitulation to their demands on Bowe Bergdahl - have obviously not produced any positive results. Nor will they.

Possessed of a ideology that they think was given to them by a god, one that sees the rest of the human race as infidels to be converted, enslaved or killed, the Islamists will never agree to peaceful coexistence. Regardless of what we do, short of complete capitulation and conversion, the Islamists will continue to wage war against the civilized world. The only option is to destroy them and their noxious belief-system.

Sources: BBC, Al Jazeera

The Siege in Sydney

As I write this, Australia police have stormed the Lindt cafe that Iranian cleric, political refugee and violent offender Man Haron Monis seized yesterday. Early reports are that there have been two fatalities, one hostage and the terrorist. One thing to watch for; the inevitable effort to distance the terrorist from Islam.

First, what is terrorism? It is an attempt to use violence to obtain some sort of political end by non-state actors, usually targeting civilian targets using means and methods designed to maximize casualties and spread fear in the target population.

Does this attack qualify as terrorism? Yes, it does. It doesn't matter if Monis is a "lone wolf" who was acting without the support or guidance of an organization. He chose a soft, civilian target. His attack had a definite political goal - he had the hostages display an Islamist flag and was demanding that the banner of ISIS be delivered to him. It remains to be seen what other demands he had; however, it is clear that he represented some brand of Islamist ideology. Finally, he chose a target that would maximize visibility and have the potential for generating mass civilian casualties.

We'll see how things fall out in the next few days. However, it is imperative that we do not let apologists for the Islamists distract us from the fact that this man was a) motivated by Islam and b) there are many Muslims who support these kinds of attacks. Certainly, the barbarians who make up ISIS will herald this as another attack on their behalf, demonstrating their global reach. Will the media and the governments of the West accurately describe this man as a jihadist, one motivated by Islamic thought? I doubt it. We've had attacks in this country (like the Oklahoma beheading) that have been buried. And many people have created an auto-hypnotic state for themselves, in which they mindlessly repeat "Islam is not the problem" when it clearly is clearly central to our ongoing struggle. Frankly, this is is equivalent to saying "National Socialism isn't a problem, only individual Nazis." Some belief systems are incompatible. This is the case with the centuries old war between Islam and the West. These two civilizations have gotten even less compatible as the West has slowly moved towards more liberal humanist societies and Islam has descended into a collection of totalitarian states.

The West cannot hope to win this conflict if it refuses to understand the nature of the enemy and the true scope of the threat.

Sources: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, BBC News, News.com.au, USA Today.