|
The Russia-U.S. Talks In Geneva Are Likely To Fail
Like Scott Ritter I am deeply skeptical that today's talks between the U.S. and Russia in Geneva will have any results:
If ever a critical diplomatic negotiation was doomed to fail from the start, the discussions between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine and Russian security guarantees is it.
The two sides can’t even agree on an agenda.
From the Russian perspective, the situation is clear: “The Russian side came here [to Geneva] with a clear position that contains a number of elements that, to my mind, are understandable and have been so clearly formulated—including at a high level—that deviating from our approaches simply is not possible,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the press after a pre-meeting dinner on Sunday hosted by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who is leading the U.S. delegation.
…
All the U.S. has been willing to do, it seems, is to remind Russia of so-called “serious consequences” should Russia invade Ukraine, something the U.S. and NATO fear is imminent, given the scope and scale of recent Russian military exercises in the region involving tens of thousands of troops. This threat was made by Biden to Putin on several occasions, including a phone call initiated by Putin last week to help frame the upcoming talks.
The U.S. continues with its false claim that Russia is ready to invade the Ukraine:
In a move that has aggravated already tense relations between Washington and the Kremlin, Russia has mobilized more than 100,000 troops near its border with Ukraine. The United States has disclosed intelligence showing that Russia has a war plan envisioning an invasion force of 175,000 troops that Ukraine’s military, despite U.S.-provided equipment and training, would have little ability to stop.
On Friday, the NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, warned that “the risk of conflict is real.”
There are no 100,000 Russian troops near its border with Ukraine. In early December U.S. intelligence claimed only 70,000 troops:
While Ukrainian assessments have said Russia has approximately 94,000 troops near the border, the U.S. map puts the number at 70,000 — but it predicts a buildup to as many as 175,000 and describes extensive movement of battalion tactical groups to and from the border “to obfuscate intentions and to create uncertainty.”
The extra 100,000 the U.S. intelligence mentioned were supposed to come from a Russian reservist force (BARS) which does not yet exist but is only planned for. The number is thus fake. The U.S. intelligence numbers were published on December 3. Three weeks later Russia announced that 10,000 of those 70,000 troops were removed:
Ten thousand Russian military servicemen are reportedly returning to their "permanent deployment points" from field training on the border with neighboring Ukraine, according to Interfax news, which quoted statements from the Russian military.
It means that there are currently only 60,000 troops in Russia's west mostly stationed in their normal quarters with some units undergoing rotational training as all military do.
The media also claims that Russia has threatened to attack the Ukraine. Russia has no plans to do that unless the Ukraine tries to attack its rebellious eastern provinces of Luhanzk and Donetzk. The Ukrainian leadership knows that it can not do that.
However the Russian security demands are serious. Either the U.S. and NATO retreat from their anti-Russian posture or Russia will take 'military-technical measures' to counter them.
These MAY(!) include a sudden and swift neutralization of Ukrainian military capabilities:
Russia will not get involved in a military misadventure in Ukraine that has the potential of dragging on and on, like the U.S. experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia has studied an earlier U.S. military campaign—Operation Desert Storm, of Gulf War I—and has taken to heart the lessons of that conflict.
One does not need to occupy the territory of a foe in order to destroy it. A strategic air campaign designed to nullify specific aspects of a nations’ capability, whether it be economic, political, military, or all the above, coupled with a focused ground campaign designed to destroy an enemy’s army as opposed to occupy its territory, is the likely course of action.
Given the overwhelming supremacy Russia has both in terms of the ability to project air power backed by precision missile attacks, a strategic air campaign against Ukraine would accomplish in days what the U.S. took more than a month to do against Iraq in 1991.
My hunch is that Russia will not do even that but that the 'military-technical measures' it says it will take should the talks fail will create a new threat to the U.S. itself. A repeat of the Cuban missile crisis by other means.
The Cuban crisis led to the elimination of U.S. nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey and Italy and aimed at Moscow. A similar crisis today could likewise lead to a U.S. and NATO retreat from eastern Europe.
Russia has won real and hybrid wars in South Ossetia, Crimea, Syria, Armenia, Belarus and now in its soft underbelly Kazakhstan after those countries came under attack. Leaders of the last four countries, all multi-vector politicians who were trying to play with the 'west' and Russia, have found out that Russia is their best and only friend and have decisively moved into its camp:
Remember, the PSYOP narrative was that Putin is either stupid, or weak or sold out to the West, yet when we look at the “before and after” thingie, we see that while the West “almost” (or so they think) “got” Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan and, now, Kazakhstan, the reality is that in each case it appears that the narcissistic megalomaniacs running the West have confidently waltzed into a carefully laid Russian trap which, far from giving the Empire the control of the countries it “almost” acquired, made them lose them for the foreseeable future.
Russia has done this with little cost and to great effect. Meanwhile the U.S. and NATO have lost their wars, most recently in Afghanistan.
It is time for the U.S. and NATO to acknowledge that.
As mentioned yesterday, the CSTO held a sitrep meeting today, the transcript of which is in Russian. Kazah President Kirill Tokayev called what occured a “terrorist attack”:
“Having a complete picture of events, I can responsibly state that all events since the beginning of this year are links in one chain. They are subject to a single destructive plan, the preparation of which has been going on for a long time. How long this preparation has been going on – a year, two, three – will be shown by the investigation….
“The main goal became obvious – the undermining of the constitutional order, the destruction of governing institutions, and the seizure of power. We are talking about an attempted coup d’état. It is now obvious that all these hostilities were coordinated from one center, a carefully planned operation has entered a decisive phase.
“This is evidenced by the synchronous, I emphasize, synchronous attacks on the buildings of regional authorities, law enforcement agencies, on pre-trial detention centers, strategic facilities, banks, tv towers and TV channels. Airports were seized, roads and railways were blocked, the work of ambulances and firefighters was blocked….
“I speak with confidence about the direct participation of terrorists, including foreign militants, in the aggression against Kazakhstan. It is no coincidence that the bandits attacked morgues at night, took and took away the bodies of their dead accomplices. They also took the bodies of the militants directly from the battlefield. This is the practice of international terrorists of known origin: this is how they cover their tracks. There is a plan to form a zone of chaos on our territory with the subsequent seizure of power.” [My Emphasis]
This short paragraph is aimed at the ultimate underwriter of the terrorist attack and was delivered by President Tokayev:
“Meanwhile, the Charter of the United Nations recognizes the inalienable right of every state to individual, I emphasize, or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack from the outside.” [My Emphasis Also]
Here’s Lukashenko:
“Analysis of the events in Kazakhstan shows the presence, of course, of an external factor. Their scenario is recognizable, as the President of Kazakhstan just said. There is no need to look far for analogies: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan, not so long ago Belarus experienced a similar combined onslaught.
“Of course, these countries had their own characteristics, but the general handwriting is visible. Yes, we are talking a lot now about external interference, and the President of Kazakhstan is right: it will take a little time, the names, surnames, addresses, passwords, appearances of these figures will be named.
“But we must understand one thing: only the external factor will never be the only one – behind all external factors it is necessary to see the internal ones. This is the lesson we have learned from the events in Belarus. We must understand that too many people have accumulated around the people and the state of Kazakhstan close to us who want to blow up the situation around the Central Asian post-Soviet republics. More recently, Afghanistan has been added to this….
“As we see it, I am absolutely convinced of this, that the closest peoples of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan should jointly try to solve the serious problems that have been inherited and that we have already created in the post-Soviet period – namely Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. The lessons that have been talked about here must be learned – forgive me for that – and above all by Uzbekistan. If these lessons are not learned, according to our information – and you can already see this there, on the ground – their views will also be cast on Uzbekistan.
“But the main thing is the lessons. The lessons that Kazakhstan’s leadership is engaged in today: external ones, which have already been mentioned, will draw the appropriate conclusions in the near future, but also internal reasons. Analyzing the situation in Belarus, we proceed from the fact that in addition to external reasons – they were clearly visible in our country, but not so much in Kazakhstan now – the President of Kazakhstan is trying to get to the bottom of it. I’m sure he will. But we, based on what happened in Belarus, do not forget that there were internal reasons. It’s the same in other republics. We need to clearly internalize this. If we do not understand this and blame only the external factor, then we can get a repetition of events.” [My Emphasis]
Perhaps the most important point raised by Lukashenko:
“It is obvious that the introduction of the CSTO Collective Peacekeeping Forces violated the plans of the customers and executors of the provoked conflict. This once again confirms the correctness of our decision.”
Putin’s words have bearing on the negotiations:
“We understand that the threat to Kazakhstan’s statehood is caused not by spontaneous protests over fuel prices, but by the fact that destructive internal and external forces took advantage of the situation. Those people who spoke for the situation on the gas market are some people and they have the same goals, and those who took up arms and attacked the state are completely different people and they have different goals.
“At the same time, the elements of power and information support for the protests inherent in the ‘Maidan’ technologies were actively used. Well-organized and well-managed groups of militants were used, as President Tokayev has just said, including those who had obviously been trained in terrorist camps abroad, and, as Kassym-Jomart Kemelevich noted, their attack on Kazakhstan – and in fact this attack on the country, on Kazakhstan – was in fact an act of aggression. I completely agree with that….
“… we are witnessing the aggression of international terrorism: where did these gangs of armed people, trained in foreign centers and clearly having experience of combat operations in hot spots of the planet, come from?…
“Of course, we understand that the events in Kazakhstan are not the first and far from the last attempt by the outside to interfere in the internal affairs of our states, I agree with Alexander Grigoryevich here. And the measures taken by the CSTO have clearly shown that we will not allow the situation to be destabilized at home and will not allow the scenarios of the so-called color revolutions to be implemented.
“And everyone knows that through the use of Internet communications and social networks, attempts continue to be made to involve our citizens in protest actions that are the forerunner and terrorist attacks, which was clearly and quite specifically described today by the President of Kazakhstan – this is a chronology of events that took place in Kazakhstan. It’s obvious, we’ve all seen it. Moreover, the experience of recent events in Kazakhstan confirms that certain forces do not shy away from using cyberspace and social networks in recruiting extremists and terrorists, creating ‘sleeper cells’ of militants. [My Emphasis]
Of course, I omitted much, trying to touch on those points that relate to the current security negotiations. Do note the specific rhetoric used–act of aggressive war–for they are important. Also note the messages sent to the ultimate perpetrator, the Outlaw US Empire. Uzbekistan was mentioned above and by Martyanov, so a closer look there is warranted. Furthermore, the need to deploy a “security belt” around Afghanistan was noted. I look for the CSTO to be bolstered and add more members. Turkmenistan wasn’t mentioned but I suspect it will be heavily lobbied to end its neutrality and become a CIS and CSTO member if it wants to partake of BRI and EAEU opportunities.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 10 2022 22:50 utc | 75
|
