Negotiating with a liar (Putin's dog is a cat)

In any peace negotiation, such as those in Minsk in 2014 and 2015, Russia insists it belongs on the side of the peacemakers and that by no means is Russia a combatant. In fact, according to this logic, Russian troops should be used to maintain the peace. In fact, Ukrainian analysts fear that Russia will cite “humanitarian concerns” to justify the permanent occupation of eastern Ukraine.

And Blinken enters the negotiation bereft of the biggest weapon of all — the threatened use of U.S. or NATO troops. That option is already off the table. Blinken can either wait to be caught off-kilter by the next blow from Putin or to set up truly crushing sanctions to be applied in the case Russia violates a red line (which we appear not to have established). Among these sanctions would clearly be the end of Russia's Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project, personal sanctions on Putin’s inner circle, removal of Russia from the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), or the sanctioning of Russia’s central bank — the ultimate weapon.

go to The Hill 

Biden No Match for Putin

 

The December 7 virtual summit between President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin proved (as expected) an uneven match. According to the short White House readout, Biden threatened Russia with “strong economic and other measures” in the event of military escalation and reiterated his support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. (There was no mention of sanctions for Russia’s use of soft power to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine).  In contrast, the virtual summit format gave Putin free reign to mount an uninterrupted 700-word full-throated attack on the West. Putin’s “frank” indictment of Ukraine, NATO, and the US was meant for his domestic audience and for those many in the West ambivalent towards Ukraine.  At no time in the two-hour discussion did Biden attempt to rebut any of Putin’s charges, no matter how outrageous.  With the attention of the world focused on the Russian build up on the Ukrainian border, Biden passed on the opportunity to present a clear account of his side of the case. Perhaps Biden is unclear as to what his “side” really is.

The two sides disagreed even on why the virtual summit was called. Per Biden, the summit was called to address the Russian threat to Ukraine. Putin claimed the main topics were the “the internal Ukrainian crisis and the lack of progress in the implementation of the Minsk agreements… which are the uncontested basis for a peaceful settlement.” Putin proceeded to complain about “the destructive line of Kiev, aimed at completely dismantling the Minsk agreements.” He also condemned “Kiev's provocative actions against Donbass." So Ukraine is the real threat not the 100,000 troops poised on Ukraine’s border. It would not be hard for Biden to have rebutted this claim.

So we learn from Putin’s summit monologue that the true aggressors are NATO and the United States. Ukraine is merely a puppet, but a dangerous one that has no claim to legitimacy. Given the alleged imminent threat facing Russia, Putin contends that the West should offer guarantees that would rule out NATO expansion to the east. (I guess the Swedish and Dutch armies should stand down with no invasion of Russia in the works.)

The Russian press release briefly mentions Biden’s "allegedly" threatening "nature of the movements of Russian troops near the Ukrainian borders and outlined sanctions measures that the United States and its allies would be ready to apply in case of further escalation of the situation.” Putin’s response is that NATO is the threat in its “dangerous attempts to conquer Ukrainian territory and building up its military potential at our borders.”

The Russian Interfax release characterized the conversation as “frank and businesslike" Both presidents agreed to instruct their representatives to enter into substantive consultations on these sensitive issues. Good luck.

After the summit’s conclusion, Biden sent out spokespersons to clarify that he meant business. The new sanctions could include the newly-completed Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The Kremlin meanwhile took advantage of Biden’s ambiguity by claiming that both presidents agreed to negotiate the status of Ukraine and that NATO's growing ties with Ukraine and the possibility of the alliance deploying missiles targeted against Russia there represent a "red line" that cannot be crossed.

The key takeaways from the December 7 summit are: First, we must recognize that the two sides are separated by a Grand-Canyon-like chasm. Second, the differences are too great for a political solution, unless the West decides to capitulate. Third, even in the case of capitulation, the Russian side cannot be counted on to live up to its side of the agreement.  (If it is agreed that Ukraine must remain neutral, Russia will proceed to destroy all politically neutral forces in Ukraine). Fourth, we cannot afford to have summits that allow Putin free reign to tell his version of truth unrebutted. We now see that Biden is clearly not up to the task. Let’s hope he gives up on the idea of personal diplomacy.

Why should Putin invade, when Ukraine can be destroyed from within — with help from its 'friends'?

When Biden zooms with Putin on Tuesday, he will see that Putin holds all the cards — and he only a pair of deuces, in the form of sending enough lethal military equipment to Ukraine to raise the cost to Putin of a military invasion.

 go to The Hill

Putin Already Playing Nuclear Poker With Trump

“The Russian Federation reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons in response to the utilization of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat. The decision to utilize nuclear weapons is made by the president of the Russian Federation.”


go to Forbes.com

An Unbeholden President Trump Takes The Measure of Vladimir Putin

Trump has a clear mandate for domestic policy. His views on international affairs are in the process of being formed. His most immediate challenge will be dealing with Vladimir Putin. If he understands what makes Putin tick, we, NATO, Ukraine and other regions threatened by Russia will be OK. He must resist the advice of the many “experts” in the west who peddle the Russian line that we are to blame for everything that is wrong in our relations. The hysterical reaction of some that Trump will be Putin’s puppet will prove as wrong as Tuesday evening’s polls. If not, Trump loses the right to call himself a master of the art of the deal.



go to Forbes.com

Obama Lets Putin Get Away With Anything Except Attacking Democrats

It remains to be seen whether Obama, Clinton, and their followers will make an exception in this case and take measures that cause Putin and his Kremlin gang real pain? I have a long list: Obama’s treasury can leak the details of Putin’s hidden wealth and that of his inner circle. Obama can use the Congressional approval he already has in his pocket to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine. He can propose increases in defense spending and the bucking up of NATO. How about rejuvenating Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty to counter his propaganda to the Russian people?


go oto forbes.com

Trump’s First Principles: The Foreign Policy Speech Was a Good Start

I am no fan of Donald Trump. I have taken him to task for his foolhardy comments on Vladimir Putin and his dismissive remarks on NATO and Ukraine. In the one area where economists agree, Trump takes a dangerous anti-trade mercantilist position. (We can only hope that Trump is simply trolling for populist votes.) In off-the-cuff remarks and sit-down interviews, Trump has been off-balance, displaying a lack of  knowledge of international affairs, and making contradictory statements. The press gives him free press time in the hopes of capturing on camera his latest outrage. These and other events explain the legitimate deep-seated concern among many voters concerning the Trump candidacy.

As Trump assumes the role of presumptive nominee, voters must decide whether, behind his entertainer, insult-master façade, there resides a serious Trump, who harbors first principles that will forge his political actions as president. Trump’s major foreign policy address, delivered in Washington on April 27, was billed as the first of several policy statements that lay out the candidate’s views. Candidate Trump uncharacteristically delivered the speech via a teleprompter. If he did not write it, he must at least have approved of its contents. As such, the speech deserved careful attention and analysis.

Instead, Trump’s foreign policy speech was dismissed by many in the mainstream media as a pseudo-event, baffling, inconsistent, a jumble, and as “drawing negative reactions across the political spectrum.”  Abroad, the speech was said to be met by amusement and befuddlement. Critics nagged that the speech was short on details. In its condescending editorial, the New York Times huffed:  “Mr. Trump did not display any willingness to learn or to correct his past errors. For someone who claims he is ready to lead the free world that is inexcusable.” What “past errors” does the Times mean for someone who has never held public office?

Respected Wall Street Journal opinion writers lined up on different sides on the merits of Trump’s foreign policy address: Bret Stephens, in his GOP Gets What It Deserves, took issue with Trump’s “America First” slogan.  Stephens concludes that Trump either chose “America first” “through a dense fog of historical ignorance” (about the isolationist America First Committee of the 1930s and 1940s) or that he is “resurrecting the most disastrous and discredited strain of American foreign policy for a new generation of American ignoramuses.” (I’d welcome a survey of Congress to see how many were familiar with the American First Committee).

Peggy Noonan in her more measured Simple Patriotism Trumps Ideology gives Trump a pass “on his lack of experience in elective office and the daily realities of national politics.” She concludes America is ready for Trump’s disinterest in ideology. What they find important is that “he is on America’s side” and appreciate his unabashed “I’m about America, end of story.” 

Given the generally negative media reaction, I conducted my own small sample of conservative friends and colleagues – none Trump supporters – on what they thought of the Trump foreign policy speech. The common reaction was the same. With the exception of trade bashing, they found little with which to disagree.

As I interpret Trump’s “Put America first,” it is not a call to isolationism, but, to use his words, a pledge that his “foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else. It has to be first.” I would argue that thoughtful people would label this as a rational principle of foreign policy. Why give up US interests for the benefit of others, some of whom may be our enemies? Of course, we cannot know how Trump will define American interests, and that may be the rub. He may decide emasculating NATO or abandoning Ukraine to Putin is in America’s interest. Elections are about choosing who will make decisions such as these. They are often a crap shoot.

Trump’s “Let’s Put America first” seems to me to be a statement of first principles. Despite the many flubs, gaffes, and miscues of the Trump campaign, putting the interests of the American people and American security above all else has been a constant themes of his campaign. Let us hope that Trump is struggling, to use Noonan’s words, “to blend into a coherent whole what he’s previously said when popping off on the hustings. He was trying to establish that there’s a theme….to reassure potential supporters that he is actually serious.”

Trump’s  “Let’s put America first” stands in stark contrast to Barack Obama’s “America as a member of the community of nations” theme enunciated at about the same phase of the 2008 election campaign. In retrospect, we understand that Obama’s presentation of himself as a fellow citizen of the world was not empty rhetoric. His eight years have seen deference to international organizations and practices, preference for multi-national negotiations, and rejection of any go-it-alone in international dealings. Trump’s pledge to “put the American people and American security first” is a declaration that such thinking will not be tolerated in his administration. And I agree with Noonan that he has the American people on his side on this point. America has had enough of UN-based climate treaties and Iranian negotiations that give Russia and China oversized roles.

We have learned from Barack Obama’s “Hope and Change” that slogans matter. Obama has indeed given us “change” but by coercive executive action. America should be paying attention to Trump’s “make America great again.” More likely than not, he believes it.

Trump’s most dismissive critics neglect to note that his call for a foreign policy dictated by American interests falls within the mainstream of centuries-old Realpolitik. As we have learned over the past eight years, Obama’s reliance on and deference to international institutions (such as the often anti-American United Nations) represents an aberration that will likely not outlive his administration. Trump’s critics have no choice but to slur over the mainstream nature of Trump’s guiding principle by attempting to conflate it with pure isolationism.

I would urge a more sober analysis when Trump releases his next policy papers. The public will not read them. They are meant for the domestic and international punditry. If they are to be automatically trashed and not vetted for good and bad points, Trump might as well stick with his mass rallies and leave us in the dark about where he stands on the serious issues of the day.

Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Plan Would Give Putin Exactly What He Wants

Trump is selling himself to American voters as one of the world’s best negotiators who knows how to begin by asking more than he’ll settle for. We now move Trump to the stage of grand global policy and it appears as if he is conceding before the negotiation even begins to a better negotiator who understands how to frighten even a “strong man” like Trump purports to be. As it now stands, Trump is proposing to give Putin his most sacred dream of U.S. disengagement from NATO and Ukraine without getting anything in return. Quite a negotiating feat.




go to Forbes.com

Russia cooks its defense books Moscow says it spends less than it does so that NATO will cut back too.

Reports that Russia is limiting military spending to a 1 percent (nominal) increase in 2016 may be timed to deflate NATO’s initiative to raise defense spending to the target 2 percent for each member country. Russia is playing a dual role. On the one hand, it exults in its military power on prominent display in Syria. On the other, it plays the role of impoverished cousin — too poor to keep up military spending. Russia cannot have it both ways.

go to Politico.eu

What If Ukraine Decides To Stop Fighting?

Putin’s goal is the destruction of NATO. While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an integral part of this strategy, it is only a sideshow to the main event. If Ukraine decides to stop fighting, NATO, Europe and the United States are all on their own. Ukraine’s “friends” must decide: Do we want Ukraine to fight for us or are we prepared to fight for ourselves? To avoid this choice, they must give Ukraine the means to defend itself.

go to Forbes.com

2015: 2015. Mr. Putin's No Good Rotten Year

I have a strong feeling that the tables have turned. Ukraine has a real chance but Russia does not as long as Putin remains at the top of his power vertical. Will 2015 be another year of “anyone but Putin”?

go to Forbes.com

Berlin and Washington: The Political Battles That Could Decide Ukraine’s Fate

Ukraine’s fate may depend upon the battle within Germany’s ruling coalition over its policy towards Putin’s Russia. In the United States, the new Republican Senate will battle the Obama administration over weapons for Ukraine. Powerful factions in each country believe that concessions to Putin will bring a diplomatic solution. They ignore the adage: Peace through strength. Putin will agree to a real diplomatic solution only if Ukraine is able to defend itself. In the meantime, Ukraine is justified in concluding that it has been abandoned by those allies whose battle it is fighting without their assistance.

go to forbes.com

Sham Election Proves Putin Does Not Want A Peaceful Solution In Ukraine

Sunday’s sham elections in Donetsk and Luhansk prove Putin does not want a peaceful solution for the Ukraine conflict. Rather, his goal is the defeat and humiliation of NATO and the U.S. Putin is prepared to risk new sanctions and world opprobrium, and a clear understanding of his intentions may wake up NATO and the U.S. Minsk peace process is dead, and Europe and the United States understand they must either fight back or capitulate.

go to Forbes.com

The Letter That Obama Should Write To Putin On Ukraine--But Won't

President Obama’s failed reset and his weak response to Putin’s War Against Ukraine stuck him with a reputation of indecisiveness and naïveté, reinforced by cumulating foreign policy failures. Obama, unlike Angela Merkel, members of Congress of both parties, and, lately, Hillary Clinton, still appears to be late to understand Putin’s global threat and his goal to destroy NATO. With one intense bill-of-particulars against Putin, Obama coukd outline his plan to stop Putin’s expansionism before it is too late. Such a move could save the last two years of Obama’s presidency. Here is what Obama should say.

go to Forbes.com

Ukraine is fighting on its own with little or no help from its feckless allies. Those who stand next in the line of victims understand the urgency of the situation. Others do not, if Obama’s remark at a recent fund raiser is accurate: “Geopolitically…what happens in Ukraine does not pose a threat to us.” That remark may go down in history along with Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” statement.


go to Forbes,com

Putin's Failing Ukraine Scorecard

My scorecard for the half year of hostilities shows that Putin is losing not only the battle for Ukraine but also his drive for the restoration of Russian empire. Unless the West pulls Putin’s chestnuts from the fire with itsincessant demands for a cease fire, the Ukrainian theater will go from bad to worse for Putin.


go to forbes.com

Putin Plays Peacemaker, But His Act Is Getting Old

Do not get excited about prospects for peace. What I wrote two weeks ago still holds. Russia and Ukraine remain miles apart and no peace is in sight. If anything, Poroshenko’s 14 point plan and Putin’s between-the-lines response leave the two sides, if anything, further apart.

go to Forbes.com

Miles Apart And No Peace In Sight

Putin and Poroshenko start from negotiating positions that are miles apart. As a successful businessman operating in a tough business climate, Poroshenko is accustomed to tough negotiations with obstinate partners. Whether he can stand up to Putin remains to be seen. Much depends on the cards he holds. If the West gives him the means for Ukraine to defend itself, he might just pull it off. Without that, he stands little chance.

go to Forbes.com