In a confrontation against the U.S. in Syria, Russia would
have a disadvantage of long supply lines for its military, and an incentive to
save face by having Assad stay at the table, at least in name only, with a
negotiated settlement. Russia’s logistics problem in Syria, goes Gates’s
narrative, is in a sharp contrast to its short supply lines in Ukraine – where
the West would have logistic problems in war against Russia.
Not mentioned in his take is a much bigger problem the U.S.
would have not only in Ukraine, but in all of Europe in case of war against
Russia: the West has no army in Europe that is ready to fight. Ironically,
Poland is the only country, besides Ukraine, that could put up some resistance.
At U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Oct. 21,
Gates also urged the Senate to give the Pentagon enough money “to end years of
budget cutting.”
Money, however, is the least of Pentagon’s or America’s problems.
It is the spending that has been mind-boggling. U.S. budget cutting is pure
fiction, a figure of political speechmaking in the last 60 years. The defense
budget was cut only during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Defense spending has doubled (in inflation-adjusted
dollars) in 10 years between 2001 and 2011, from $354 billion to $721 billion.
It was reduced in the last three years, to $657 billion in 2015.
These defense dollar figures are official base numbers from
the Office of Management and Budget. They do not include defense-related
spending, such as (e.g. for year 2013) nukes arsenal maintenance ($18 billion),
homeland security activities ($50 billion), international affairs including military
training and peacekeeping ($24 billion), veterans assistance ($138 billion), and more, adding
up to $931 billion for year 2013.
These numbers are
about 10 times larger than Russia’s military spending. A good question is what
is the United States buying with its defense spending. A powerful NATO force
perhaps? Not even in theory.
Eric Margolis, a Vietnam veteran and later an international
journalist for the Toronto Sun over many years (who is often right and
occasionally wrong) was projecting it as follows on his website on February
2013 in “America’s Next War?”:
“The choice facing the Pentagon is to plan and equip for
more colonial-style energy wars in the Muslim world, or to get ready to
confront China in the Pacific”.
Confronting Russia is in nobody’s cards after “the end of
history” was envisioned in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Middle
East has become a magnified focus of attention for the West after the 9/11
attack in New York, while the resurgent Russia, with its nationalist fervor
fanned by Putin’s regime, is gaining strength and influence in London’s capital
markets as well as in its military posture.
Failure of “the Arab spring” across the board (except in
Tunisia) was a negative game-changer for the West, especially in Syria with its
“moderate opposition” losing ground to Islamist extremists.
The moderates probably would be squeezed between the Assad
state and Islamic Jihadists even if given American weapons in 2012, Obama’s
“red line” year. Unfortunately, the prevailing norm for Mideast states, from
Algeria to Iraq, is either the autocratic rule, military junta, or a reign of
chaos.
The following observations came from former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in The
Wall Street Journal (Oct. 17): “The destruction of ISIS is more urgent than
the overthrow of Bashir Assad, who has already lost over half of the area he
once controlled……. The reconquered territories should be restored to the local
Sunni rule that existed there before the disintegration of both Iraqi and
Syrian sovereignty.” Notice, there is no clear indication how to go towards
achieving these goals. Nevertheless, an impression is conveyed that the Mideast
remains the center of universe.
Notions of that kind is what brought Russian forces into
Syria, after the US has not paid much attention to all the damage Mr. Putin has
been inflicting on Ukraine and Europe in his drive to rebuild the Russian
empire. It is the notions of that kind that made NATO toothless.
Coming back to West’s putative logistic disadvantage in
Ukraine, a real military force would have no such hurdle. The German army
walked through Ukraine in the first three months of war in 1941 and took over three million prisoners, mostly because Soviet soldiers had no desire to fight for
the Soviet system — while knowing next to nothing about the
Reich’s intentions in conquered
territories. Soviet media credibility
about anything was next to zero. Access to real world information sources did
not exist.
The fact that Ukraine today fights for freedom with its own
armed forces makes a huge difference in the strategic equation of any confrontation
between West and Russia. Disingenuous explanations from the White House and Berlin for refusing
to provide substantive military defensive assistance are entirely transparent.
They carry tragic and entirely logical consequences for the West — perhaps with poetic justice — in this case
by tearing apart the European Union with discord over massive migration from
Asia, connected to the destruction of Syria with weapons made in Russia and
placed in the hands of Assad’s regime.
Writes the Financial Times (“Merkel stands between triumph and
failure,” Oct. 22): If her refugee policy fails, she could find she has
presided over the disintegration of the European project.
As the fighting in Syria escalates with Russia actively
involved, the refugee problem will grow, not diminish. After meeting with
Turkish President Recep Erdogan, Chancellor Angela Merkel offered $3 billion to
Turkey (along with other sweeteners) to become a “holding pen” for more
refugees, in addition to 2 million refugees already in Turkey.
Some risk-taking in Ukraine would have been preferable to
this mess. Yes, the U.S. would have to provide weapons for Ukraine, and yes,
major air support in case of a large invasion from Putin’s armada. A clear
warning of more US involvement (instead of “No military solution’’ invocation)
would have stopped Putin in his tracks. And for the money-conscious American
taxpayers: At least they would see some results from defense dollar, something
that has been missing in the last 15 years.
