General: 'We Don’t Truly Understand' Russia's Plans in Syria

     Weekend remarks concerning Russia's current activities in Syria by Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of U.S. European Command and NATO's supreme allied commander, are far from reassuring. Speaking to reporters after NATO's Military Committee Conference in Istanbul on Saturday, Breedlove acknowledged, "We don’t truly understand yet what it is that Russia is going to do in Syria." (via EuroNews) He went on to say:

We have heard everything from humanitarian operations to combat operations, so it remains to be seen what this will be in the end," Breedlove said. "What we are most concerned about is any operations that would continue to support the Assad regime and its terrible actions against its own people.

     Breedlove's comments follow reports that Russia has plans to establish an air base in the Syrian coastal city of Latakia, which is still under the control of the Assad regime. Russia's path to Syria has also been the cause of some concern and contention involving airspace permission from area countries for Russian aircraft on their way to Syria.
     Gen. Breedlove connected the concerns regarding Syria with Russia's incursions into and occupation of parts of Ukraine. "The issue of a revanchist Russia, which is now changing borders in Europe by force, has sort of brought everybody's attention," he said. However, Breedlove expressed confidence that Russian president Vladimir Putin recognized that violating a NATO border was far different from "crossing those international borders":

Clearly, Mr. Putin has made decisions and they have used force to invade and now occupy Ukraine's Crimea and they have used force to invade and now occupy portions of the Donbas, but I think that crossing those international borders is clearly different than crossing a NATO border.

     Earlier in September, Vice President Joe Biden said the Obama administration deserves credit for spurring NATO and European nations to take action against Russia in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine:

Were we not leading that effort, it would have been another example in this generation of a transgression that is impermissible without the international community responding, leading to more transgressions.  And if this aggression continues, the costs for Russia will continue to climb.

     So far the actions taken against Russia amount largely to economic sanctions and the beefing up of NATO deployments in central and eastern Europe. It is unclear what additional actions might be taken by the United States and its allies should Russian activities in Syria cross the line, and indeed it is unclear what exactly that line might be.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Feds Spend $150K to 'Embed' Russian Journalists in U.S. Newsrooms

     Even as diplomatic relations between the US and Russia remain decidedly chilly over the Ukrainian conflict, the State Department is reaching out to "up-and-coming" Russian journalists. A recent $150,000 grant offering from the US Embassy in Moscow seeks to establish a program to give Russian journalists an "intensive professional exchange experience in American newsrooms," plus "cultural experiences that allow them to learn more about the United States in general."
     Although the program is tentatively named the "Russian Journalist Exchange Program," it involves only the placement of Russian journalists in American newsrooms and not vice versa. Although the State Department wishes to focus on relatively new journalists who are "showing promise" in their careers, grant recipients are reminded that "[e]very effort should be made to attract a large and diverse participant pool, including persons with disabilities, minorities, a balanced mix of male and female participants, etc." Grant recipients will carry out recruitment, but the US Embassy in Moscow reserves the right of final approval of all participants, as well as approval of the US newsrooms where the visiting journalists will be working.
     In addition to being "embedded" for a minimum a two-weeks in "reputable American newsrooms," participants are to be housed with American families to enhance their cultural experiences. While the Russians are expected to "work alongside American reporters" and interact with host families to get "a first-hand view of American family life with all its diversity," the State Department doesn't want the visitors to get too comfortable. Grant recipients are reminded they are not only responsible for arranging an American work, cultural, and family-life experience for the journalists, but also for "ensuring their return to Russia." All participating journalists must "[c]ommit to returning to Russian Federation after completion of the program."
     However, the State Department has plans for a continuing relationship with the Russian journalists who participate in the program. One of the elements required of grant recipients is to "plan for post-program participant engagement that includes an outline of any proposed follow-on activities or initiatives and an articulated plan for utilizing Department of State and other alumni tools and social media outlets to provide continued support to program alumni." [emphasis added] A post-program evaluation is also desired using a now-familiar State Department metric: "The more that outcomes are “SMART” (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and placed in a reasonable timeframe, the easier it will be to conduct the evaluation."
     Development of the program, recruitment of participants (both Russian journalists and American news organizations), and selection of host families is expected to take until March 2016. The actual exchange experiences are then to take place from March through August 2016.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

State Department: 'Russian Military Has a Significant Presence in Ukraine'

    Ever since March 2014 when President Obama referred to Russian aggression against Ukraine as an "invasion", administration officials have avoided that word in conjunction with the ongoing conflict. In fact, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt's declared on April 29, 2014, that "Russian troops crossing Ukraine's borders would be a major escalation, and would draw an inevitable, sharp reaction from the United States," implying that, President Obama's March remarks notwithstanding, no Russian troops had "invaded".
    Evan as recently as this week, Ambassador Samantha Power at the United Nations charged Russia with training, supplying, aiding, and arming separatists in Ukraine, but stopped short of saying that Russian troops were engaged across the border in Ukraine. And Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, in Kyiv for a meeting with Ukrainian Finance Minister Jaresko referred to the "ongoing military offensive... being carried out by Russia-backed separatists," but made no mention of Russian forces.
    Today, however, when asked to comment on remarks by a US army general that suggested Russian special operations forces are playing an active role in the conflict, a state department spokesperson replied:

We cannot confirm specific numbers, but the Russian military has a significant presence in Ukraine.  In late December, Russia transferred more than one hundred additional pieces of Russian military equipment and material to pro-Russia separatists.  The latest transfer complements the previous transfer of hundreds of pieces of Russian military equipment provided to pro-Russia separatists since the September 5 Minsk ceasefire agreement, including tanks, armored personnel carriers, heavy artillery pieces, and other military vehicles. 

There are several sites near the Ukraine border, which serve as staging points before transporting Russian military equipment to pro-Russia separatists in Ukraine. Russian combat forces remain deployed near the Ukraine border, and Russian military forces still operate in eastern Ukraine, where they play a coordinating role and provide ongoing tactical support to pro-Russia separatists.

    The US Department of Defense (DOD) has been more vocal about Russian military activity in eastern Ukraine beyond simply supplying and training separatists. In remarks Tuesday at the National Defense Industrial Association’s Special Operations and Low-intensity Conflict Symposium, Army Gen. Joseph L. Votel suggested that Russian special operations forces are active in the conflict:

[A] resurgent Russia is now employing coercive techniques against its neighbor using [special operations] forces, other clandestine capabilities, information operations, other cyber operations and groupings of ethnic proxies and surrogates to drive wedges into our key allies in East Europe.

    General Votel seemed to distinguish between the activities of Russian forces and "groupings of ethnic proxies and surrogates," presumably the separatist forces in Ukraine that have been fighting Ukrainian forces in the eastern part of that country since early 2014. When asked for comment, a DOD spokesperson said, "The general referred to the use of Special Operations Forces and Information Operations. In the US military, Special Operations Forces is an umbrella term for all special operations units to include units that conduct  Military Information Support Operations or MISO. MISO, also referred to as Psychological Operations, is a subset of Information Operations‎ and has nothing to do forces on the ground."
    A second DOD spokesperson's comments mirrored those of the state department, and also called on Russia to fulfill the Minsk agreement by "withdrawing all troops and weapons from eastern Ukraine":

[W]e've been saying out of the DoD for quite a while now [that] we cannot confirm specific numbers, but the Russian military has a significant presence in Ukraine.  We call on Russia to de-escalate this conflict by fulfilling the commitments they signed up to in Minsk, including by withdrawing all troops and weapons from eastern Ukraine, establishing effective international monitoring of the international border and returning control of Ukraine’s side of that border to the government in Kyiv, freeing all hostages, and working towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

    President Obama himself addressed the Ukrainian situation with Chancellor Merkel of Germany in a phone call on Tuesday, but the readout of the call made no mention of Russian forces in Ukraine. Rather, the president and Chancellor Merkel decried "Russia’s materiel support for the separatists and its failure to fulfill its commitment under the Minsk Agreement."


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

State Dept: U.S. Nukes Down 85%, From 31,255 to 4,804

    The state department's Rose Gottemoeller, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, spoke at the Brookings Institution Thursday where she reaffirmed the United States' "unassailable" commitment to putting the nuclear weapons genie back in the bottle. Gottemoeller told the attendees at the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative-sponsored event that "the U.S. commitment to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons is unassailable." She went on to note that the nation's stockpile of active weapons is down 85% from maximum cold war levels, falling to 4,804 in 2013 from a high of 31,255. But, she said, "We still have more work to do.":

As you all might know, I have been traveling quite a bit lately and was just recently in the Czech Republic for a conference on the Prague Agenda. I reminded people at that conference that when President Obama laid out his vision for the peace and security of a world free of nuclear weapons, he made it clear that it was not a desirable, but unattainable dream. The Prague Agenda is an achievable long-term goal and one worth fighting for. I will say here what I said in Prague. There should be no doubt: the U.S. commitment to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons is unassailable. We continue to pursue nuclear disarmament and we will keep faith with our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitments, prominent among them, Article VI. Our responsible approach to disarmament has borne fruit in the form of major reductions in nuclear weapons, fissile material stocks and infrastructure. These efforts have led us to reduce our nuclear arsenal by approximately 85% from its Cold War heights. In real numbers, that means we have gone from 31,255 nuclear weapons in our active stockpile in 1967 to 4,804 in 2013. We know we still have more work to do.

    According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which is put out by the Federation of American Scientists, Russia has about the same number of active weapons now as the US, and both countries have several thousand more warheads awaiting deactivation. Though due to security concerns governments are reluctant to divulge exact numbers, most of the older nuclear powers (US, Russia, the UK and France) stockpiles have been gradually declining. Israel, never publicly acknowledging its possession of nuclear weapons, is believed to be holding steady on its stockpile. China, India and Pakistan are all still believed to be gradually increasing their numbers. The exact status of North Korea's nuclear program and stockpile of weapons remains unknown.
    Not only is China's stockpile of nuclear weapons believed to still be on the increase, but this week the Washington Free Beacon reported that China is continuing to develop delivery systems. This past Saturday, China conducted a test of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering multiple warheads. A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the report.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry: 'Hopeful That We Can Avoid ... Another Cold War' With Russia

    While some in Congress have warned that Russian involvement in Ukraine portends a "looming" new cold war, Obama administration officials have for the most part brushed off the comparison. The president himself said in July in response to a reporter's question regarding the Ukrainian situation, "No, it’s not a new Cold War." But in Germany for a remembrance of the fall of the Berlin Wall on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry seemed less sanguine about the outcome of the current conflict with Russia. While he did say that "we are very hopeful that we can avoid" a new Cold War, he left the door open to the possibility [emphasis added]:

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I wondered if I could ask: You’re here 25 years after the Berlin Wall came down. How confident are you that you can avoid a new Cold War growing over Ukraine? What are the prospects at the moment for the talks there? 

KERRY: ...On the subject of the Cold War, Frank and I talked about that last night and we actually talked about it with the kids this morning right over here by the wall. One of the kids asked us, “Do you think we’re going to be heading towards another Cold War?” And the question itself, frankly, is a question I wish I didn’t have to hear. None of us want another generation growing up with the foreboding sense of a Cold War. None of us want to see another generation see the resources and the efforts of nations diverted from building governments and societies and providing opportunity, and diverted into the mutual action and reaction that comes with a Cold War. 

So we are very, very hopeful – and that is why Germany and the United States and others have been engaged in such robust diplomacy – we are very hopeful that we can avoid that. And it’s certainly our primary mission to try to do so.

    As mentioned above, when directly asked about a new Cold War back in July, President Obama was unequivocal in his response:

Q    Is this a new Cold War, sir? 

THE PRESIDENT:  No, it’s not a new Cold War.  What it is, is a very specific issue related to Russia’s unwillingness to recognize that Ukraine can chart its own path.

    Earlier in the conflict as sanctions against Russia were being weighed, the president brought up the subject himself in remarks in a March press conference during a visit to Rome, saying that "we’re not looking at a possible return to the Cold War" with Russia:

None of [the snactions], to have a powerful impact on Russia, are going to have zero impact on us, because Russia is part of the world economy. This is part of the reason why I said yesterday we’re not looking at a possible return to the Cold War. The economies have changed, the politics have changed. Russia is not leading an ideological bloc that’s opposed to the world economy.

    The prior remarks the president referred to were made to a gathering of European Youth in Belgium on the day preceding his words in Rome [emphasis added]:

[T]he United States and our allies will continue to support the government of Ukraine as they chart a democratic course.  Together, we are going to provide a significant package of assistance that can help stabilize the Ukrainian economy, and meet the basic needs of the people.  Make no mistake:  Neither the United States, nor Europe has any interest in controlling Ukraine.  We have sent no troops there.  What we want is for the Ukrainian people to make their own decisions, just like other free people around the world. 

Understand, as well, this is not another Cold War that we’re entering into.  After all, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology.  The United States and NATO do not seek any conflict with Russia.  In fact, for more than 60 years, we have come together in NATO -- not to claim other lands, but to keep nations free.  What we will do -- always -- is uphold our solemn obligation, our Article 5 duty to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our allies.  And in that promise we will never waver; NATO nations never stand alone.

    Kerry's full remarks in Germany, including video, are found here.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

The Non-Invasion of Ukraine: Foreign Policy by Syntax

    Obama administration officials, with a temporary early August lapse by Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Powers, have studiously avoided calling Russia's current actions in eastern Ukraine an "invasion." State department spokesperson Jen Psaki, after referring to the Russian "incursion", was then asked if she agreed that "there is actually a Russian invasion of Ukraine." However, Psaki demurred, saying, "I think I’m going to leave it as I said[.]" A reporter questioned Josh Earnest twice at a press briefing last week about whether or not an invasion was taking place, but Earnest avoided the word to the point that the reporter followed up with: "But doesn’t the language matter in this case?  Is there something that is -- you are reluctant to use those words to describe what appears to be happening in front of everyone’s eyes in Ukraine?" Earnest replied that the administration had been "very clear" and "pretty candid", but still avoided the word.

     The president himself was also directly confronted last week with the invasion question. While continuing to avoid pronouncing the word, the president answered:

I consider the actions that we’ve seen in the last week a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now.  As I said in my opening statement, there is no doubt that this is not a homegrown, indigenous uprising in eastern Ukraine.  The separatists are backed, trained, armed, financed by Russia.  Throughout this process, we’ve seen deep Russian involvement in everything that they’ve done.  

    But Russia's presence in Ukraine extends further back than the current activity in eastern Ukraine. The slow-motion takeover of the Crimean peninsula (with comparatively little violence) was unequivocally termed an "invasion" by none other than President Obama himself in a speech at the end of March. In remarks to European youths in Belgium in late March, the president used "the invasion of Crimea" and "Russia’s invasion of Ukraine" interchangeably. As recently as Wednesday, President Obama has continued to condemn Russia's "occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea," and yet it is as if there has been an invasion reset. It's not that Russia is threatening to invade Ukraine; Putin is threatening re-invasion, or further invading that "sovereign and independent European nation," in the president's words.
    The question then becomes, why has "invasion" been dropped from the administration's foreign policy lexicon when discussing Russia and Ukraine? The answer again lies in the words of President Obama, this time at an August 6 press conference. The president was asked what it would take to see "lethal aid" provided to the government of Ukraine. His reply was arguably yet another "red line" [emphasis added]:

Q    The troops that are massing on the border are more highly trained.  They seem to have more sophisticated weaponry, according to intelligence.  Does that make you reconsider -- as a few Democrats have suggested -- providing lethal aid to Ukraine, given those troop movements? 

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, keep in mind that the Russian army is a lot bigger than the Ukrainian army.  So the issue here is not whether the Ukrainian army has some additional weaponry.  At least up until this point, they’ve been fighting a group of separatists who have engaged in some terrible violence but who can’t match the Ukrainian army. 

Now, if you start seeing an invasion by Russia, that’s obviously a different set of questions.  We’re not there yet.  What we have been doing is providing a whole host of assistance packages to the Ukrainian government and to their military, and we will continue to work with them to evaluate on a day-by-day, week-by-week basis what exactly they need in order to be able to defend their country and to deal with the separatist elements that currently are being armed by Russia.

But the best thing we can do for Ukraine is to try to get back on a political track.

    With the Obama administration so invested in the persuasive power of sanctions, the president and his team appeared to be actively avoiding that "different set of questions" that would be raised by an "invasion." And with conflicts erupting around the world and even Democrats calling for increased military action against ISIL in Iraq and perhaps Syria, the president seems to wish to maintain his flexibility where Russia is concerned. And so an "invasion" in March becomes an "incursion" in September, and the people of Ukraine must wait for help, hostages of syntax.

State Dept.: Russia/Ukraine 'Most Severe Challenge to European Security Since End of Cold War'

    Less than a week before President Obama and other NATO leaders gather in Wales for a two day summit, NATO is accusing Russia having "well over 1,000 troops" in Ukraine where Russian-backed separatists continue to skirmish with Ukrainian forces. This latest development underlines a statement on the state department's blog Thursday, which refers to "Russia’s illegal aggression" as "the most severe challenge to European security since the end of the Cold War."
    The blog post, entitled "NATO Wales Summit: A Family of Nations Committed to Peace and Freedom", cites four themes NATO will focus on at the upcoming gathering: Afghanistan, "challenges on NATO’s periphery", capabilities, and partnerships. The Russia-Ukraine conflict falls under the "challenges on NATO’s periphery" heading along with "Syria and Iraq, as well as persistent instability in North Africa, especially Libya." Here's the entire paragraph:

NATO leaders will meet with Ukrainian President Poroshenko to discuss the crisis caused by Russia’s illegal aggression, the most severe challenge to European security since the end of the Cold War.  All 28 Allies today contribute to reassurance measures in the air, on the land and at sea among the eastern Allies, signaling NATO’s unity and resolve.  At the Summit, we’ll address additional reassurance measures and further adaptations to NATO’s posture in response to this challenge.  Leaders will also discuss the rapidly evolving situations in Syria and Iraq, as well as persistent instability in North Africa, especially Libya.

    So far, President Obama had expressed confidence than sanctions will be sufficient to force Russia into a political settlement with Ukraine.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

State Dept. Spends $435K on Security Fencing for Ukraine-Crimean Border

    As part of the U.S. Crisis Support Package for Ukraine announced by the White House in April, the State Department awarded a $435,000 contract to B.K. Engineering System in Kyiv for razor wire to help"defend the newly imposed borders between Ukraine's mainland and the Crimean peninsula." The contract was awarded on June 12, but was just posted online this week.

     An $8 million "non-lethal assistance" package was announced at the same time as a larger $50 million aid package for Ukraine to "help Ukraine pursue political and economic reform and strengthen the partnership between the United States and Ukraine." The razor wire (Concertina) is included under "[e]ngineering equipment, communications equipment, vehicles, and non-lethal individual tactical gear for Ukraine’s Border Guard Service" that was spelled out in the April Fact Sheet. The contract notice posted online says:

[T]his order is for the delivery of 2,500 spools of Concertina wire for the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine referenced in the Office of the Vice President's Fact Sheet entitled "U.S. Crisis Support Package for Ukraine" dated 22 April 2014. This Fact Sheet includes Security Assistance in which the Office of the Vice President announced the provision of urgently needed non-lethal assistance to the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine to fulfill its core security mission.

    More recently, according to a report in the Daily Beast, the eastern Russian-Ukrainian border has been under greater threat than the Crimean border. President Obama spoke to Ukrainian president Poroshenko on Monday to discuss recent events and reiterate that "any Russian intervention in Ukraine without the formal, express consent and authorization of the Ukraine government would be unacceptable and a violation of international law." President Obama last spoke with Russian president Vladimir Putin on August 1 where he "reiterated his deep concerns about Russia’s increased support for the separatists in Ukraine" and "about Russia’s compliance with its obligations under the INF Treaty."

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

U.S. Ambassador: Sanctions Against Russia Are '21st Century Use Of Force'

    Given the lack of foreign policy success with "red line" threats of military force, the Obama administration has apparently broadened the definition of "use of force" to include financial threats of red ink against Russia for recent actions in Ukraine.  U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. Matthew Barzun wrote an editorial on May 10 for the U.K. Daily Mail newspaper where he refers to sanctions on Russia by the US, Britain and EU as a "21st Century use of force," and said that Russia is in danger of "profound economic costs."  The ambassador insists the mockery and criticism of the sanctions overlooks their "potency":

The reaction of the US, Britain and the EU to Moscow’s malign interventions in Ukraine has been to introduce calibrated, comprehensive and co-ordinated sanctions. We are raising the economic costs on Russia. 

And this week, John Kerry will be in London to discuss with William Hague and their EU counterparts what appropriate next steps might be. Were Putin to take steps that hinder or attempt to prevent the elections, he will bring more costs on Russia. 

There has, however, been criticism of our response. One British paper belittled it by depicting a shirtless Putin on board a tank driving past a sign which said: ‘Stop. Or the West will put you on the naughty step.’ 

This characterisation of our approach ignores the potency of this 21st Century use of force. No longer is the choice between hand grenades or hand-wringing.

    The shirtless Putin in the tank appeared on the cover of the March 22, 2014 issue of The Economist shortly after the first sanctions were put in place in response to the Crimean crisis but before the more recent aggressive actions by Russia and pro-Russian separatists in other areas of eastern Ukraine. Nonetheless, Barzun asserts the sanctions are exacting a "steep price":

Sanctions are making Russia pay a steep price for its actions. Its credit rating has been downgraded to one step above ‘junk’ status, stock prices and economic growth are weakening, and the central bank has spent close to $30 billion (£18 billion) to prop up the rouble.

    Ambassador Barzun closes his editorial with unequivocal confidence that ultimately the sanctions, or, in his words, the "21st Century use of force," will have the desired effect once Russia's "current nationalistic fever" breaks:

Unless Putin changes course, the current nationalistic fever in Russia will soon break. When it does, it will give way to a cold realisation of the profound economic costs of his policies. 

This crisis is one of his own choosing. Now he faces another choice: to leave Ukraine in peace and work with us to create a strong Ukraine – one that is not a buffer between East and West, but a bridge to both.

    An email to the State Department seeking further explanation of the ambassador's words has not yet been returned.

UPDATE: After this post ran at The Weekly Standard, the State Department press office replied: "We don’t have anything on this."


NOTE: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Biden In Ukraine: "Thank You For Making Me Feel Relevant Again"

    Vice President Biden addressed Ukrainian legislators Tuesday in a committee room of the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, where he began his remarks by thanking the legislators for "making me feel relevant again." Biden is in Ukraine to show support for the Ukrainian government as that country faces continued pressure and threats from Russia.  Biden's "relevant" comments were a reference to his time as a legislator in the United States:

I want to thank my colleagues for bringing me back home. For 36 years I sat in our legislature, and I used to actually have this seat in our -- I was the chairman of our committee. Thank you for making me feel relevant again, back in a legislative body.

He went on to encourage the Ukrainians to continue to strive for energy independence with the goal of being able to tell Russia to "keep your gas":

And as you attempt to pursue energy security, there’s no reason why you cannot be energy secure. I mean there isn’t. It will take time. It takes some difficult decisions, but it’s collectively within your power and the power of Europe and the United States. And we stand ready to assist you in reaching that. Imagine where you’d be today if you were able to tell Russia: Keep your gas. It would be a very different world you’d be facing today. It’s within our power to alter that.

Biden is well known for his colorful comments throughout his career in public service, and his remarks to the Ukrainians are no exception.  Some additional excerpts:

I signed the book in the hotel as I was leaving today. The management asked me to sign their book, and I signed, “Ukraine united, Joe Biden.” 

I’ve been around, literally met every major leader in the world in the last 40 years... 

[A]n expert is anyone from out of town with a briefcase. Well, I don't have a briefcase, and I’m not an expert. 

I have an expression I use as I’ve gone around the world through my career is you never tell another man or woman what’s in their interest. 

Also to be very blunt about it, and this is a delicate thing to say to a group of leaders in their house of parliament, but you have to fight the cancer of corruption that is endemic in your system right now. It’s not just the United States. You need a court system that not only you and your people, but the rest of the world assumes can actually adjudicate fairly disputes among people. But you have a chance. You have a chance. 

And you may have different traditions. It’s not quite the same, but we understand different traditions in our country -- not as deeply as you do, but we are the most heterogeneous democracy in the world. We’re soon going to get the point where over 50 percent of the United States of America is made up of people of non-European stock; the majority of the American people are not of European origin in 2020. We understand. We have millions of Muslims. We have hundreds -- but it’s not quite the same. We’re not up against a border. We’re not sitting against a border of another powerful nation.

    The Vice President's complete comments are available here.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Top Spy: Intelligence on Ukraine 'Not a Failure By Any Stretch'

    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is disputing the conventional wisdom on Russian incursion into the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine.  In an interview with WTOP Radio that is also posted on the DNI's website, Clapper insisted that the intelligence communities reading of the situation prior to Russia's military intervention was "not a failure by any stretch":

"I have lived through some genuine intelligence failures in my career and this was not a failure by any stretch," Clapper said. "We tracked (the situation in Ukraine) pretty carefully and portrayed what the possibilities were and certainly portrayed the difficulties we'd have, because of the movements of Russian troops and provided anticipatory warning of their incursion into Crimea," Clapper added.  

During an expansive interview in his office, Clapper pointed out that, "We were following closely the political and economic developments in Ukraine. We spoke to it in our statement for the record at the time and as the situation unfolded with the Russians."

     On February 27, Secretary of State John Kerry was publicly expressing optimism that calm would prevail.  The following day, the day of Russia's invasion of Crimea (as the State Department would later refer to it,) State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked about Russia's military intentions towards Crimea:

QUESTION: So talking about reports – sorry. Do you have any independent confirmation yourselves within the Administration that there is yet any Russian intervention in [Crimea]?... 

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything – any more details to share with you. We’re concerned about the same reports that you have seen, and obviously, we’re closely watching this internally as well. 

QUESTION: So nothing – no independent knowledge of any Russian intervention in Crimea? 

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any independent information to share with you.

     The WTOP report notes that "[d]uring a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday, McCain, a Republican, said it was a "massive failure" that the U.S. intelligence agencies did not predict Russia's activities."


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Obama White House Refers to "G-7 Leaders" For First Time in Presidency; Excludes Russia

    Perhaps as a sign of how deep the rift between Russia and the western powers has become over Ukraine, the White House put out a statement from the "G-7 Leaders" for the first time since President Obama was elected.  In the past five years, there are dozens of references on the White House website to "G-8 Leaders" and "G8 Leaders", but no comparable references to "G-7."  The G-8 includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, plus Russia since 1998.
    The statement itself makes clear that Russia is not yet being officially excluded from the group, but puts that country on notice that the original seven members, plus the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission, are suspending participation in the preparations for the next scheduled G-8 summit.  Preparations will remain suspended until the "environment" is more conducive to "meaningful discussion".  The summit happens to be planned for the Russian city put on the map by the recent Olympics, Sochi:

We note that Russia’s actions in Ukraine also contravene the principles and values on which the G-7 and the G-8 operate.  As such, we have decided for the time being to suspend our participation in activities associated with the preparation of the scheduled G-8 Summit in Sochi in June, until the environment comes back where the G-8 is able to have meaningful discussion.

    The Obama White House has often been criticized for valuing words more than actions, but the words in this case, if not yet the actions, seem to go further than the administration has seen fit to go before in rebuking the Vladimir Putin's Russia.

U.S. Responds to Human Rights Concerns From Russia Over Gitmo Hunger Strike

    Thursday, at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Gary Robbins delivered another response to the "many concerns" expressed by Russia about the ongoing hunger strike by many of the terrorist detainees at the Guantánamo Bay facility:

Last Thursday, President Obama reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to closing the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO), and proposed a series of steps to achieve that end, including his intention to lift the Presidential moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen. The President also called on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from Guantánamo, which the Administration has long maintained impede its ability to close the detention facility. To the extent possible, the United States will transfer those detainees who have been designated for transfer, and where appropriate, will prosecute others in our courts and military justice system. While it will take some time to fully close the detention facility in Guantánamo, all U.S. detention operations will continue to be carried out in accordance with international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, and all other applicable international and domestic laws. 

In the meantime, the Department of Defense is committed to ensuring the health and safety of the detainees who remain at the facility. 

Moreover, the United States remains committed to transparency about the facility and the military commissions. As we have previously noted, we are working with ODIHR to accommodate a visit Guantánamo and observe military commission proceedings. We have also offered to host the visit of a Russian delegation to Guantánamo, given the many concerns that the Russian Federation has expressed about the facility. That invitation remains open.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    One of President Obama's first acts in office in 2009 was an executive order to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility. The president has blamed Congress for its continued operation.


Note: This article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

In Spite of Sequester: $63K for Russian Walrus Skin Biopsies

    While Vice President Biden's limo and hotel costs certainly attracted a lot of attention a few weeks ago after my Weekly Standard posts, those expenses arguably served national security purposes.  But while Drudge is currently headlining "Bagpipes for Homeland Security," my current personal favorite sequester-busting government spending example involves the Fish and Wildlife Service's latest contract award:

    Although the description is a little different, the bid solicitation a few months back explained a little more about the need to sample the skin of the large marine mammal:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a requirement procuring all necessary permits and working with our Russian partners to coordinate all Russian logistics associated with conducting a biopsy sampling program in the Bering and Chukchi Sea in the spring and summer of 2013.

    I'm not a marine biologist so I do not know how large a sample is taken from a walrus for a biopsy.  But it's a safe bet that most taxpayers won't believe a pound of flesh from a walrus is worth a pound of theirs.

Flexibility

    From ABC News:  This exchange between Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and President Obama caught by a hot mic this weekend in South Korea is likely to end up on a campaign T-shirt like Joe Biden's Obamacare hot-mic comment from two years ago, but this time for the Republicans and not the President:

At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
The exchange:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

If the Republicans have anything to say about it, President Obama will have more flexibility after January 20, 2013 than he knows what to do with.