UK Tells Ukraine to Pivot Towards Crimea

March 19, 2024 — bunkerville

Amazing that the Europeans are advancing the entanglement of a full scale war with Russia with zero capability of sustaining the effort. The British seem to think Crimea and their long range missiles are the way to go. No doubt because they are running out of humans to put into the meat grinder. More on what we are not being told regarding Ukraine.

This post follows yesterday’s post:

Here is the latest from Zero Hedge:

British military officials advised that Ukraine should focus on defense in its ground fight against Russia in the east while focusing on targeted strikes against Crimea and Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, The Sunday Times reported.

…

“This will allow the Ukrainians to focus their efforts on the Black Sea and Crimea, where their forces, with the help of Western long-range missiles, have landed significant blows over the past six months,” the report said.

A recording of a conversation between German military officers that was recently published by Russian media revealed that the UK has soldiers “on the ground” in Ukraine helping Ukrainian forces use Storm Shadow missiles, which have a range of 155 miles, making them capable of hitting targets throughout Crimea.

Attacks on Crimea have always been considered a red line for Russian President Vladimir Putin. But the risk of escalation hasn’t stopped Ukraine’s Western backers from assisting with such strikes, as Storm Shadows have been reported to be used in multiple Ukrainian attacks on Crimea.

The UK has also helped Ukraine strike Russian ships in the Black Sea. Another recent report from the Times credited Radakin with helping “the Ukrainians with the strategy to destroy Russian ships and open up the Black Sea.”

Poland’s foreign minister earlier this month: NATO troops are already in Ukraine.

300,000 NATO troops are ready to enter Poland to fight Russia

A good read if you have the time – all the details :The Sunday Times 

The best of the swamp.

Posted in Military. Tags: , , , . 30 Comments »

Crimean War and the “The Charge of the Light Brigade”

April 1, 2022 — bunkerville

History repeats itself so they say. In this case the issue is Crimea and including what is now known as the surrounding Ukraine. Europe has been warring for centuries. A brief look at the Crimean War as a reminder of the absurdity of it all. A snap shot of what Europe has been about. Let’s see if it sounds familiar, and then the video and narrative poem “The Charge of the Light Brigade.”

The Crimean War[e] was a military conflict fought from October 1853 to February 1856[4] in which Russia lost to an alliance of France, the Ottoman Empire, the United Kingdom and Piedmont-Sardinia.

The basic cause of the Crimean War was the continuing decline of Turkey and its Ottoman Empire, and the fear by Austria, Britain and France that Russia would use this as an opportunity to increase its power in the Black Sea and the Balkans. Catherine the Great had gained a foothold on the north coast of the Black Sea in 1774 (G3a), and taken over the Crimea nine years later. In the Balkans, the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829 had given the Russians some control over Moldavia and Walachia, and in 1833 the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi had virtually put the Ottoman Empire under Russian protection.

THE CRIMEAN WAR 1853 - 1856 (Va)

The immediate cause of the war involved the rights of Christian minorities in Palestine, which was part of the Ottoman Empire. The French promoted the rights of Roman Catholics, and Russia promoted those of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Longer-term causes involved the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the expansion of the Russian Empire in the preceding Russo-Turkish Wars, and the British and French preference to preserve the Ottoman Empire to maintain the balance of power in the Concert of Europe. It has widely been noted that the causes, in one case involving an argument over a key,[5] had never revealed a “greater confusion of purpose” but led to a war that stood out for its “notoriously incompetent international butchery”.[6]

….The Crimean War marked a turning point for the Russian Empire. The war weakened the Imperial Russian Army, drained the treasury and undermined Russia’s influence in Europe. The empire would take decades to recover. Russia’s humiliation forced its educated elites to identify its problems and to recognize the need for fundamental reforms.

More from Wikipedia

The poem “The Charge of the Light Brigade.”

The Charge of the Light Brigade was a failed military action involving the British light cavalry led by Lord Cardigan against Russian forces during the Battle of Balaclava on 25 October 1854 in the Crimean War. Lord Raglan had intended to send the Light Brigade to prevent the Russians from removing captured guns from overrun Turkish positions, a task for which the light cavalry were well-suited. However, there was miscommunication in the chain of command and the Light Brigade was instead sent on a frontal assault against a different artillery battery, one well-prepared with excellent fields of defensive fire. The Light Brigade reached the battery under withering direct fire and scattered some of the gunners, but they were forced to retreat immediately, and the assault ended with very high British casualties and no decisive gains.

The events were the subject of Alfred, Lord Tennyson‘s narrative poem “The Charge of the Light Brigade” (1854), published just six weeks after the event. Its lines emphasise the valour of the cavalry in bravely carrying out their orders, regardless of the nearly inevitable outcome. Responsibility for the miscommunication has remained controversial, as the order was vague and Captain Louis Nolan delivered the written orders with some verbal interpretation, then died in the first minute of the assault.

“The Charge of the Light Brigade” is an 1854 narrative poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson about the Charge of the Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava during the Crimean War. He was the Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom at the time he wrote the poem. (source: Wikipedia)

“Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die” is a line that stays with me.

I suggest that it is watched in full screen.

Our prayers go out to the people of Ukraine.

Posted in Military. Tags: , , , . 21 Comments »

Vladimir Putin – A Remarkable Success Story

March 17, 2022 — bunkerville

by Mustang

Vladimir Putin is a remarkable success story — one that began when President Boris Yeltsin first selected Putin to serve as an aide and later when he chose Putin to be his heir apparent.  He was the rising star of the Russias.  But now, we must pause to consider what that expression means: All the Russias.

The Rus were early medieval eastern Europe, modern Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian.  Great Russia corresponds to modern European Russia.  White Russia is Belarus (which translated means white Russia), and Little Russia is now the central region of Ukraine.  These three Russias are what the Tsar of Russia referred to when said to be the ruler of all the Russias.  But there are other Russias, as well.  Red Russia is Western Ukraine, a little-known region called Galicia, and Black Russia constitutes the Northwestern part of Belarus that extends along the Memel River.

Why is the preceding information relevant?  In July 2021, Vladimir Putin published a 500-word essay titled, “On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians.”  In this essay, Mr. Putin asserts that Ukrainians and Russians are one people — a precursor to and in defense of the Ukraine invasion.  The fact is that there is no Ukrainian history before 1918. 

It is a country today, but it was not a country in 1917.  Ukraine’s history is part of a realm known as Kievan Rus (862-1242), a loose federation located in modern-day Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia.  In this context, was Vladimir Putin lying?  No.  Does Vladimir Putin have an interest in maintaining Russian unity?  You have to put on Putin’s shoes to answer that question — and then, you be the judge.

When President Boris Yeltsin recruited Vladimir Putin to serve as his aide, the young Putin was regarded as a rising star in a new Russia.  Putin was from St. Petersburg — a city constructed by French and Italian architects, for Peter the Great … the great westernizing influence in Russia.  Mr. Putin was nothing, if not enthusiastic about the new path for Russia, and he immediately sought to establish closer ties with Western leaders — notably, U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Vladimir Putin - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009“Vladimir Putin – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009” by World Economic Forum 

This was when Bush looked into Putin’s soul and determined that he was a good man.  Putin did seem like a natural among the international elite.  He coordinated policy with Western powers on several key issues — including a place for China in global trade, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and Islamic terror.  At the end of the first decade, Putin realized that the Western powers were leading Russia, his beloved country, down the primrose path. 

While glad-handing Putin, the NATO alliance was converting former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact members to weapons platforms.  Putin did not — and could not — respond well to the West meddling in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine.

At the time, Putin had limited options available to address the problem.  At the time, as the West was looking elsewhere (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen), Putin was making a whirlwind world tour forging new alliances — with Iran, Turkey, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, China, Japan, North Korea, and South Korea.

But Vladimir Putin had to rise to many challenges at home, and none of these were suitable for a bull in a china shop.  No, taming domestic Russia would require intelligence, guts, wisdom, and ruthlessness.  Putin had to consolidate his power; he did that by organizing a vertical structure, and while he may have admired the political systems in America and the United Kingdom, neither would be suitable for his homeland. 

Moreover, tackling challenges at home would demand a hands-on management style.  He needed to put together a system that would allow him to do whatever he wanted to do or needed to do with minimum interference from those who didn’t want to comply.  Step one, avoid financial crises.  Step two seize control of every aspect of Russian politics and society — including the labor wonks, criminals, civil servants, and oligarchs.  Putin did this, and none of what he accomplished would have been possible for a merely average Russian politician.

Putin’s economic policy involved four distinct periods: the reform period (1998-2003), the statist period (2004-2008), The War Period (2009-2014), and the global period (2014-present).  In the first eight years in office, either as president or prime minister, Putin’s policies increased the income of the average Russian by a factor of five (as measured against the U.S. dollar).  Industry increased, along with production, construction, real income, credit, and the middle class. 

By 2005, Putin’s economy had paid off all Soviet Union’s debt.  Seven years later, Russia joined the World Trade Organization.  By 2014, Russia had signed a deal with China to provide 38-billion cubic meters of natural gas (per year); Russia’s net from this one deal alone is estimated to exceed $400 billion over the next 30 years.

Finally, as recently reported at Bunkerville, Vladimir Putin has masterminded the Eurasian Economic Union, which presently consists of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Cuba, Moldova, Uzbekistan, and potentially in the next few years, several East Asian countries and Iran. 

To assist him in these efforts, Barack Obama implemented one of his key policy goals: to limit U.S. economic power in Russia’s sphere of influence.  One may recall that hot mike comment Obama made to then Russian President Medvedev: “Tell Vladimir I’ll get back to him after the election.”  Spoken in Russian as fortochka Obama, Putin’s arrangement with Obama was a window of opportunity.

At the time, Beijing realized that its economy depended more on its relationships with the Americans than the Russians … but that has since changed.  Since 2017, the common enemy of Russia, China, and Iran has become the United States: under Trump, dangerously adversarial, and under Biden foolishly weak and exploitive.

Putin is a chess player.  Biden plays with Barbie dolls.  Putin can see that China is coming around to his way of thinking, and since about 2015, Russia and Iran have developed very close ties — such that what is suitable for one of them is equally good for the other.  And Iran realizes that it need not rattle its sword vis-à-vis nuclear weapons.  Iran, Russia, and the Eurasian Economic Union now posture themselves to challenge Western economies in several areas.  As a body, EAEU deeply resents Western sanctions, and some argue that Biden’s insistence on sanctions strengthens the Eurasian alliances.

How close is the Russian-Iranian alliance?  Close enough to allow Russia to provide Iran with its S-400 missile system and sufficient to assist Iran in its support of Syria.  Moscow and Tehran are also well on the way to modernizing Syrian ports for use by both Russian and Iranian navies.

Now, Vladimir Putin has involved himself in what he terms “a special military operation” (SMO).  Any Russian journalist who uses the words “invasion” or “war” is subject to arrest, the charge becoming “misinformation,” which does sound eerily similar to American Democrats’ efforts to limit free speech inside the United States.  But on 24 February, Mr. Putin explained that Russia could not feel safe because of threats made toward Russia from modern Ukraine — one of the former Russias.  The Western press claims that Putin’s justification for the SMO is irrational — but is it?”

T-90S

“T-90S” by Dmitry Terekhov 

The West may easily regard Putin’s SMO as irrational, particularly in terms of the words and phrases Mr. Putin uses to describe his principle issues with Ukraine, especially since there is no evidence of genocide or bullying against ethnic Russians in Ukraine.  Such charges are amazingly similar to those Putin levied against Georgians when that country signaled an interest in joining the North Atlantic Treaty. 

World leaders must wonder, how far will Putin go inside Ukraine?  My guess is that Mr. Putin is conducting a demonstration aimed at more than Ukraine — and if that is true, then Putin’s SMO may not be irrational from his point of view.

To whom else is Mr. Putin speaking?  I think he’s sending messages to his economic and trading partners, offering assurances that Russia is, and will remain, a world power.  Mr. Putin is offering reminders to the former Warsaw Pact countries.  He is also sending a clear message to the EU, which imports between 60-75% of their energy sources.

Note: In the long-term, Russia’s behavior in Ukraine may harm its oil and gas industry by forcing the EU to accelerate its conversion from fossil to renewable energy sources.  But the question remains, how far will Putin go in Ukraine?  My guess is — far enough to convince Ukrainians that it does not serve their interests to be at loggerheads with their Russian brothers.  What Putin must want to avoid is a prolonged insurgency.  That trap may spell his doom because it will most assuredly hurt the Russian economy.  It won’t be sanctions imposed by the west that hurt Russia most; it will be the cost of the Ukrainian conflict — which the Ukrainians themselves can prolong almost indefinitely.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Posted in Foreign Policy. Tags: , , , , , , . 77 Comments »

American Voters: Making Vladimir Putin’s Job Easier Every Day

March 3, 2022 — bunkerville

by Mustang

At least one thing is true —

Which is: the American people never tired of having to re-learn lessons from the past … and I’m talking about the very recent past.  For example, the American people MAY have imagined that they learned a valuable lesson from the incompetence of President George W. Bush, as illustrated any number of ways beyond the Middle Eastern Wars and the Russo-Georgian War (2008), which (in the minds of some voters) may have justified hiring Barack Obama to replace him (2009).

File:2008 South Ossetia war en.svg“File:2008 South Ossetia war en.svg” by Andrei nacu at English Wikipedia

But then, apparently, by hiring Barak Obama, the American voter only made planet Earth a worse place to live — particularly if one happened to live in Ukraine or anywhere on the Crimean Peninsula (2014).  Possibly, you don’t remember.  Here’s a refresher —

  1. Mr. Putin, as writer Peggy Noonan reminded us back in 2014, behaves a certain way for his own reasons, which are entirely independent of anything an American president might do or say.  Vladimir Putin moved against Georgia in August 2008 when he sensed (correctly) that George W. Bush was a weak and ineffective president of the United States.  All Putin had to do was observe Mr. Bush’s unwon wars, his terrible ratings at the polls, and the spiraling U.S. economy (which presented itself in September 2008).
  1. Ms. Noonan also reminded us that Mr. Putin never moved against Ukraine or Crimea because of anything Barack Obama said or failed to say.  He did it because Putin correctly took the measure of Obama during the Syrian crisis, judged him as weak, and correctly guessed that Mr. Obama was, more than anything else in the world, in love with his own negro voice.

Then the American people hired Donald J. Trump to replace Obama.  Suddenly, Mr. Putin had to contend with an unknown factor.  Trump was no politician; he was a businessman — and he was unpredictable.  Did Vladimir Putin ever challenge Trump to a game of international chess?  No.

Donald Trump“Donald Trump” by Gage Skidmore

And then Vladimir Putin discovered that the American people, long ago having lost their spines, did not much appreciate Mr. Trump’s mean-tweeting and that he, Mr. Trump, would have to go.  Vladimir no doubt guessed that one of two people would become Trump’s presidential replacement: it would either be Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Both were incompetent; both firmly believe that they are smarter, wiser, shrewder than they actually are, and both could be taken advantage of by a wilier person, such as Mr. Putin. Either one would be a bonus to Russian foreign policy.

In 2014, Peggy Noonan predicted three things:

(1) Vladimir Putin would, in the future, use his big lies to confuse American and NATO diplomats — and that they’d fall for it.  Mr. Putin did this when he recognized the so-called Breakaway Republics in Eastern Ukraine.  It was a repeat performance of Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014).  In 2022, Ms. Noonan was proved correct.

(2) Mr. Putin would use “military invasion” to cause everyone in the U.S. State Department to pee their pants and everyone in NATO and the E.U. to stop breathing for a few days.  She was right about that, too.  And she was right about claiming that despite all the silly accusations bandied about in the press and on blogs, Vladimir Putin is not Satan, is not possessed by demons, is not a communist, and is not a madman.

Vladimir Putin knows exactly what he is doing.

(3) The world would enter into a new kind of warfare.  Putin learned a lot from the Middle Eastern actors.  By dressing his soldiers in civilian clothing, Putin planted the seeds of doubt in the minds of U.S. and NATO war planners about who they were dealing with.  It is war by stealth, a situation where no one claimed responsibility, and everyone (except Putin) hesitated.

In 2014, Peggy Noonan offered this pearl: What is our (America’s) foreign policy?  Disliking global warming?  Ms. Noonan was just being silly, of course.  She knows that we (Americans) don’t have any foreign policies.  All we have is an empty suit leading a cabinet room of other empty suits, and who once each year steps behind a microphone during joint sessions of Congress to promise things, never with any intention of delivering them, and convincing our potential enemies that they have nothing at all to fear from us.

In 2020, the American people demonstrated their keen sense of history when they elected Joe Biden as their president.  They did this deed even though Joe Biden has nothing to recommend him to such a level of responsibility.  They made this selection despite every possibility that their poorly rendered choice would result in the death of innocents numbering in the hundreds or thousands.  Elections have consequences: Joe Biden’s certainly did.  American voters do not seem to care if they send their own sons and daughters off to die in foreign wars; why should they care about a bunch of Ukrainians?

American voters: making Vladimir Putin’s job easier every day. By the way, the preceding is not just my opinion; it is also the opinion of the one man whom all of Europe fears more than anyone else: Vladimir Putin.  And he came up with this opinion after taking full measure of the American president and everyone who elected him.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Posted in Military. Tags: , , , , , . 25 Comments »

Another Crimean War?

January 24, 2022 — bunkerville

by Mustang

The background:

Most people today did not experience the tragedy and trauma of the last world war.  Less than half remember the dangers of the Cold War when two superpowers threatened one another with nuclear annihilation.  But even then, the American people seemed incapable of demonstrating wisdom in choosing their national leaders.

This matters because the president makes the final decision in foreign and domestic policies.  The question often asked is this: are we, as a people, better off today than we were in, say, 1945?  If we are honest with ourselves, the answer must be “no.”

Our honest answer has less to do with political parties than the utter ignorance of the people who choose their president.  Since 1945, we have had two bloody wars (Korea and Vietnam) and a series of smaller but more costly conflicts in the Middle East.  There was no American victory in either Korea or Vietnam, and we cannot say the U.S.-led coalition accomplished much toward preserving our true national interests in the Middle East, either.

We cannot lay our inept foreign policies at the feet of the American voter.  They do not influence the president’s choice of cabinet officers.  But we can criticize the American voter for choosing inept presidents who select their cabinet and whose “final say” makes us either more secure or less so.

President Joe Biden’s recent marathon presser revealed to the world what a horrible choice American voters made when they elected him president.  But Biden announced more than his incompetence.  He revealed that today’s world is as dangerous as ever.  Without much notice by anyone, Joe Biden has moved us closer to yet another major (regional) conflict.

Some Background

After a long period of domination by Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, and Russia, we did not see a fully independent Ukraine until late in the last century.  In size, Ukraine is second only to Russia on the European continent.  Between 1921-1991, Ukraine was part of the U.S.S.R.  Today, around one-quarter of the people living in Ukraine are ethnic Russians — and this matters because Russia and Ukraine are in a state of war.Image preview

The issue confronting these two countries today has historical roots.  In 1783, Catherine the Great of Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula to secure warm-water access to the Russian heartland.  Control of the Crimean Peninsula and most present-day Ukraine (once known as “New Russia”) has served Russia in two fundamental ways.  First, the Black Sea area provides Russia with access to maritime trade with the countries surrounding the Black Sea and access to the Mediterranean Sea.  Second, Ukraine and Crimea provide a defense shield to the Russian heartland.

In 1990, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) involved fifteen countries of Eastern Europe comprising more than 8.6 million square miles.  The largest of these was Russia.  The next largest Soviet Republic was Ukraine.  When the U.S.S.R. collapsed in 1991, its fifteen separate republics declared their independence, and Russia lost most of its regional influence, particularly in the area of the Black Sea.

Bulgaria and Romania not only became independent nations, but they also joined the alliance of western European states known as NATO.  Worse for Russia, Georgia and Ukraine announced their intent to follow suit, and Turkey began to cultivate relationships with former Soviet republics, mainly Moslem and Turkic speaking countries, including Ukraine and Crimea (an autonomous state of Ukraine).

Within two decades, Russia began to feel the pressure of encroaching NATO states in the area of the Black Sea, significant because 15 buffer states no longer protected the Russian heartland.  When Georgia attempted to join the NATO alliance in 2008, Russia engineered a breakaway effort among ethnic Ossetians and then used those disturbances as a pretense for military intervention.

Similarly, Russia had no intention of allowing Ukraine to join the NATO alliance or control its access to the Black Sea region.  Consequently, in 2014, Russia invaded portions of Ukraine and seized and annexed the Crimean Peninsula for the second time.

Russia’s aggressive behavior toward both Georgia and Ukraine demonstrates its willingness to use military force to safeguard its interests in the Black Sea area.  It is also remarkably consistent with the behavior exhibited by the United States during the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis.

Today

The Crimean Peninsula has once more become a springboard of Russian power and influence in the Black Sea area and the Mediterranean region.  Turkey’s control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles (a choke point that might deny Russia’s access to the Mediterranean) explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been working to create a closer relationship with Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  It works to Russia’s advantage that President Erdogan has become frustrated with the NATO alliance.

For Russia, homeland security and its ability to project its power and influence top all other considerations because Russia has a substantial economic interest in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.  The Black Sea is an important trade and transportation artery, and the port of Novorossiysk is vital to both Russia and Central Asian countries to export grain and oil.

Russia is investing in new infrastructure to protect its Black Sea trade corridor and create alternative routes to skirt Ukraine.  Experts believe that a series of oil and gas pipelines through Turkey will buttress Russian-Turkish ties, improve Russia’s leverage with Turkey, and provide Moscow with new export routes bypassing Ukraine.

What’s more, Russia is expanding its energy ties with Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Serbia, giving Moscow a geopolitical weapon to undercut NATO influence in the Balkans.  Russia’s energy pipelines do generate revenues, but more than this, they are part of Moscow’s regional defense strategy.

The Russian economy is not Moscow’s only concern.  After viewing the accompanying linguistic/ethnic map, “civil disturbances” within Russian-speaking Ukrainian communities could “justify” further Russian military intervention (as in Georgia).  Should that happen, what could the NATO countries do about it?

Image preview

Today, Russia views Ukraine’s growing ties with NATO as a threat to its physical and economic security.  In the past, Russia has demonstrated no hesitance in using its military to defend its interests.  With that in mind, was President Biden wise to threaten Moscow with severe economic sanctions?

Cornered animals are dangerous.  Perhaps the situation would be less dangerous if the west was dealing with less pig-headed Russians and Ukrainians, and maybe it would help if there were adults sitting at the negotiating table.  Adversarial relations only keep everyone tense.  People who are tense shouldn’t have their hands on atomic triggers.

The attitudes reflected by NATO and Russian diplomats does not bode well for future relations between East and West, but as a practical matter, how should the west expect Moscow to react to NATO missiles in the Ukraine and other former Soviet republics?  What could possibly result from Russian/Ukrainian intransigence, NATO poking Russia with a stick, and Joe Biden’s incompetence?

Posted in Military. Tags: , , , , , . 35 Comments »

Will the U.S. defend Europe once again?

March 26, 2014 — bunkerville

If anyone thinks that Putin will stop with Crimea, good luck with that. If I were living in Europe I would be sweating bullets. But no doubt most think we will be around to save their sorry you know what. With the feckless policies of Hillary Clinton, Obama and no doubt the Rasputin like Valerie Jarrett who is pulling most of the strings, just how prepared is Nato? Let us go down memory lane. Of course, the memory lane would not be complete without a clip of Chamberlain and his excitement over his appeasement with Hitler.

Back in October, 2011, I posted this U.S. is concerned by UK and Europe Defense Cuts

With the defence negotiations in near deadlock over about £1bn of cuts, the heads of all three armed services met the prime minister in Downing Street on Thursday to raise the alarm over the dangers of such a tight settlement.

Their warnings were amplified by Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, and Robert Gates, US defence secretary, who made public their worries over cuts across Nato.

Members of the organization are asked to spend 2 per cent of national income on defence.

Mr Gates expressed his fear that the US would be called upon more often to cover Nato capability gaps. “As nations deal with their economic problems, we must guard against the hollowing out of alliance military capability by spending reductions that cut too far into muscle,” he said.How psychic was that! More at CNBC

Simply amazing as I look back on my post on October 2011. Both Clinton and Gates knew that the NATO members were slashing budgets, yet as well knew that a $1.38 Billion headquarters was about to begin construction. Read the whole thing over at the Spectator if you have the stomach for all of this weird stuff.

“It is somewhat ironic that NATO breaks ground on its new headquarters at the same time the fundamental sinews binding the alliance together are coming apart,” says Marko Papic, a senior analyst at Stratfor, a global intelligence analysis firm based in Austin.

New $1.3 Billion headquarters just beginning construction

With policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic slashing public spending and searching for ways to reduce military budgets, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has just begun construction of a splendiferous new $1.38 billion headquarters on a 100-acre site in Brussels. Designed by Chicago architects Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, renowned for luxurious commercial buildings including the tallest in the world, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the futuristic new NATO offices will feature eight sweeping wings covering 2.7 million square feet. Glass-walled elevators overlooking cavernous atriums showering natural light. Ecologically correct grass growing on the roof. Seventeen conference rooms. A range of amenities from cafeterias, restaurants, and banks, to shopping, sport, and leisure facilities. Pentagon staffers, eat your hearts out.

How did this all go down with Hitler? Sound familiar?

 

Posted in Liberal Loonies. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 12 Comments »