Thoughts on Dunkirk

Dunkirk during evacuation. Image source: Imperial War Museum.

I went to see Dunkirk last night, and it reminded me of why I support international cooperation, including things like NATO and the UN, and why the statements of Trump and others are so offensive to me.

World War II bound much of the planet together in blood. Over 60 million people died, including over 400,000 Americans. That war altered our history as a species. The efforts and lives of so many, including the lives of a full 13% of Soviet citizens and over half of all European Jews, went in to fighting against fascism, genocide, and territorial expansion at the point of a gun. It's easy to gloss over statistics, but those aren't just numbers. They represent individual lives. Individual acts of courage, fights for survival, countless children, and tales of horror and humanity.

The evacuation at Dunkirk, to me, represents more than a defeat that actually ended up saving the United Kingdom. It was allies fighting to save one another. At the end of the battle, it was the French - historically the arch rival of the English - who sacrificed many of their men after the battle was lost to ensure that at least some of the British troops could evacuate to carry on against tyranny.

And before the light of Western Civilization was snuffed out, the near unlimited might of the United States entered the conflict. We weren't just trying to save our British cousins, or the French to whom we owe much for our own successful Revolution. As we discovered, too, we weren't just trying to vanquish Japan for their attack on Pearl Harbor, either.

We soon learned that the Allied cause was the salvation of the enormous progress gained after ages of struggle against evil and small-minded men who would seek world domination or the obliteration of a people based on race or religion.

From small towns in Tunisia to the ancient capitals of Europe, from little known islands in the Pacific to the never-ending steppes of Russia, from defending New York Harbor against U-Boat attacks to sending a life line to the Chinese as millions were killed in cold blood. We all fought together, Americans and Russians, British and French, Nationalist and Communist Chinese, Muslims and Hindu. The new world that emerged (which included the end of colonialism and the independence of dozens of nations) is not something we should easily discard because the Germans or the Mexicans or the pesky French "stole" our industry -- and yet we have grown ever richer and more powerful.

For all the faults and rightful criticisms of organizations like the UN and NATO, the last 75 or so years since the end of the war have been the most peaceful in Europe since the days of Rome, and the most prosperous and innovative period in human history.

But for some reason, a relative few dollars is too high a price to help maintain that order? The relationships that were forged in blood and fire, and honed over generations should be discarded? There are real current and growing threats that we're all going to have to confront. Pretending like they don't exist or thinking we can achieve victory piecemeal or all alone is to ignore the lessons taught by those 60 million lives. It’s a pity the abundance of knowledge history affords us is forgotten so easily.

--Jacob Bogle, 8/4/17

JacobBogle.com

Facebook.com/JacobBogle

Twitter.com/JacobBogle

Trump, NATO, and Nuclear Proliferation

Let Them Have Nukes!

Once again Donald Trump has sparked debate and controversy over his policy ideas. A few days ago Trump suggested that NATO was obsolete in its current form and needed to be reorganized in a way that better suited the threats of today. And that other countries need to take care of their own defense without America paying for it, and besides Europe, he mentioned Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.

And while there is some truth to his assertions, as usual, he went a bit too far and ignored some key facts. He continued by suggesting that Japan, South Korea, and anyone else should be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons. What makes this kind of talk even more worrisome is the fact that Trump wasn’t aware of what our own nuclear triad even was (our ability to project our nuclear forces via land, air, and sea).

First, I’d like to take on the subject of joint security treaties and funding.

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was founded in 1949 on the heels of World War II and in the face of a growingly aggressive Soviet Union. Today it has 28 member states between North America and in Europe. NATO was founded to ensure peace in the North Atlantic region and is a joint-security organization. The main stipulation of the NATO agreement is Article 5 which states that, if any one NATO member is attacked by a non-NATO country, all of the other NATO countries will come to the defense of the other.

Trump has said that NATO is out of date, particularly when it comes to dealing with international terrorism, and he’s practically blamed them for not stopping the attack in Brussels. His criticism continues, saying that the United States is basically subsidizing the defense of the other NATO countries, which hurts our economy.

For the record, NATO is not some internal police force. It doesn’t have the authority to search homes, bust up gangs, and arrest people – that’s what law enforcement does. NATO, like every other military organization in the world, was founded to defend against invasions by another state. Of course, like any other military force, it also needs to adapt to become useful against terrorism. But it must do so within an existing foundation. NATO came about after two shattering world wars, and the lessons of a militarized “police” force and even letting the regular army engage in domestic matters, those lessons that we learned after the terror of fascism need to be remembered.

NATO has been involved in the fight against terror since 9/11. NATO even led the 42-nation coalition in the War in Afghanistan. At its height, NATO commanded 130,000 soldiers in that theater. It’s true that NATO needs to be modernized and intelligence sharing definitely needs to be increased, but ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (which is not a NATO member), the organization has been doing these things.

The only thought about NATO that Trump had that might have some validity was on funding.

The US contributes around 22% of NATO’s operational budget. Combined, the UK, Germany, and France contribute another 39%. And while these figures may sound like America is paying too much, when you look at our economy and the amount of money we spend each year on our own military, we far exceed the capabilities of the other countries. When you take all NATO members combined, America accounts for 35% of the total population, 48% of total GPD, and over 65% of military spending.

The US spends around $700 million on NATO, that equals 0.003% of our GDP, or 0.11% of our national defense budget. If you were to insist that each of the 28 member states paid an equal share, for a country like Albania, that would consume 1.6% of their GDP or a whopping 200% of their defense budget – JUST for NATO! And if you wanted to make things truly proportional, America would have to double or triple the amount we send to NATO.

Look, it’s certain that some countries can and should pay more, but NATO helps America too. The US received $3.2 billion in NATO funded projects during the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO has also funded hundreds of millions in military base expansions and improvements throughout Europe; bases the United States use.

Organizations like NATO are incredibly important. These types of cost-sharing and security guaranteeing organizations help to maintain over-all peace. Believe it or not, the world is far more peaceful today than it was in the past. NATO helped save West Germany from Soviet occupation, allowed the former European states of the Soviet Union to keep their independence, and, despite what Trump says, has played a role in defeating terrorism.

So while the US may pay more, we also spend more on our own military than any other country, we make more money than any other country, and we get stuff in return. The European Union accounts for $700 billion in annual trade for America, keeping Europe stable IS a great deal.

Next, I want to look at security arrangements with Japan and South Korea.

Trump makes it sound like all America does is give those countries money, men, and machines, while we get nothing in return.

The origins of all of this goes back to World War II and the Korean War. During WWII we had to occupy Japan and had a moral obligation to keep the civilians safe until a new, stable government could be formed. And since we occupied southern Korea after WWII, we needed to help keep them safe too, particularly since the Soviet Union was keen on taking all of Korea.

Then a little thing called the Korean War happened which resulted in the deaths of over 2 million civilians, and 128,000 American casualties. The southern half of the Korean Peninsula, the Republic of Korea, was our ally in that war and was nearly destroyed by the Soviet and Chinese backed Democratic Republic of Korea – otherwise known as North Korea.

Today, South Korea has a numerically smaller army than North Korea, and North Korea tests nuclear weapons every few years. North Korea has also violated the terms of the 1953 Armistice hundreds of times over years, including two separate attempts to assassinate presidents of South Korea.

Japan is also a mortal enemy of North Korea. And while Japan was definitely the aggressor during the early 20^th Century, Japan lost the war and has tried to make many reparations to both North & South Korea. Japan also has territorial disputes with Russia and China. And in accordance with their surrender after World War II, Japan doesn’t have a normal military capability, only a small self-defense force. So, the US helps to provide some additional backbone for these two countries.

We maintain 50,000 soldiers in Japan and 28,000 in South Korea. It’s important to remember, just like with Europe, that American trade with Japan and South Korea equals nearly $310 billion annually.

North Korea’s primary reason, they claim, for developing nuclear weapons is because South Korea is under America’s “nuclear umbrella”. However, North Korea’s nuclear program dates back to the founding of the country and has become an integral part of the country’s identity.

Trump seems to think that America is just handing over everything to South Korea. That’s simply wrong. In 2014 South Korea agreed to pay us $866 million to help maintain our presence. That was 5.8% more than 2013 and it’s on track to grow by 4% each year. This doesn’t pay the full bill, but it’s definitely more than “practically nothing” as Trump claims. Additionally, the size of America’s military presence in South Korea has remained quite stable since 2006 and the number of soldiers stationed there is at its lowest level since the Korean War – 63 years ago.

As I stated earlier, North Korea has attacked the South many times and regularly threatens to destroy their capital, Seoul, which has a population of 10 million. In fact, North Korea has thousands of artillery pieces aimed at South Korea and has hundreds of thousands of soldiers deployed along the border. North Korea has even dug three massive tunnels into the South to enable a rapid invasion if war broke out. There is no doubt that having a defense treaty with South Korea has saved many lives and help to avert war.

I want to tie this in with Japan, which has territory within 350 miles of North Korea. North Korea regularly fires short and medium range rockets into the sea, and this activity has been increasing under Kim Jong Un. Many of these launches are aimed in the direction of Japan. North Korea has 3 types of missile that could reach Japan if launched from the Korean Peninsula. North Korea also has a submarine fleet that could help extend the range of other rockets and missiles. Regarding cost, just like every other country, Japan pays America – for the last 5 years Japan agreed to pay us $2 billion annually.

Besides North Korea, which remains the most pressing threat to the two countries, there are also continuing concerns when you look at China and Russia. It’s definitely in America’s interest to maintain our alliances and trade status. Both Russia and China have sought to extend their influence around the world and neither country is afraid to simply take territory. But having a strong and stable American presence acts as a very real deterrent and buffer.

The specific figures of how much we get paid is always up for renegotiation, but Trump continues to say that we need to be ready to “walk away” from anyone if they don’t do what we want. If Trump is such a business and economic expert, he should understand very well that even sending signals – regardless of how real they are – can send the markets crashing. Likewise, with foreign policy, when we tell our closest allies that we’d be willing to leave, even if we really aren’t going to, but by putting that out there we risk severely damaging our alliances.

Let’s not forget that both South Korea and Japan are not only our trading partners and allies against North Korea, but they’re also our allies when it comes to dealing with Russia and China. Telling them it’s possible we’d break our relationship with them, only serves to get them to reconsider their relations with other countries, like China, and drive them closer to our enemies.

Finally, I want to address the nuclear question. Trump’s suggestion that nuclear weapons should be spread to even more countries really blows my mind.

One of the problems with igniting an arms race is that neither country involved ends up better off – both countries have increased their military ability and have spent huge sums of money, so neither has gained a tangible advantage over the other. The goal is to come to a mutual agreement that leaves both countries in a better position and stops the weapons buildup. And promoting nuclear proliferation would create an arms race far more dangerous than the one between the US and the Soviet Union.

For many years the key tenant of global nuclear policy has been and is disarmament. From a high of 68,000 nuclear warheads in 1985, there has been an 83% decrease in the number of weapons today. The only people who want more weapons, or who think it might be a good idea, are those who have never seen their devastation. Even nuclear testing causes harm to people, never mind dropping a bomb on a city and killing a million lives.

America just finished a contentious agreement with Iran to prevent them from developing atomic bombs and we have been struggling to slow down North Korea’s weapons program for decades. Every few years, tensions rise between India and Pakistan, both of whom have nuclear weapons but aren’t members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why would anyone suggest other countries should get their own bomb?

Donald Trump likes to give ideas. He likes to use all of those great words he knows, but he rarely seems to think about their impact or the broader implications of such policies. So, allow me to elucidate what the likely outcome of his idea would be.

If South Korea developed their own bomb, North Korea would be compelled to put every last resource they had into expanding their own program. They would also improve their delivery systems and finally produce a miniaturized warhead that could not only hit South Korea, but the United States mainland. ‘The Donald’ seems to have forgotten that South Korea is Kim Jong Un’s arch enemy and it would verify every bit of Communist propaganda that they have been force feeding their population for half a century. This would lead to an arms race very similar to the one between America and the Soviets. But unlike having a Kennedy or even a Khrushchev in power, we have Kim Jong Un. Is Trump really willing to bet the lives of millions that this trajectory would not lead to an actual war?

The ability to restrain oneself, even in the face of possible annihilation, is paramount when it comes to being a good leader, as is the ability to say “no” to advisers who urge you to push the big red button. The Soviets considered using nukes to kick us out of Germany during the Cold War. And even some American generals during the Korean War debated using nuclear bombs to create a radioactive wasteland along the Chinese-Korean border to knock China out of the war. I praise God cooler heads prevailed.

The point of that history lesson is that even after being responsible for and witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even some American generals decided to go full crazy and propose using them again. Therefore, can we be certain that others who have no direct knowledge of the destruction these weapons can cause, and who talk about genocide as a matter of national priority, can we really be certain that these rogue regimes wouldn’t use this incredibly powerful weapon to accomplish whatever twisted goals they might have?

A South Korea with a bomb would also make Japan less than comfortable. And if both Japan and South Korea had them, China would feel it absolutely necessary to further expand their nuclear arsenal. Once China did that, India would feel compelled to do the same because India and China have territorial disputes and they have had three major military conflicts since India’s independence. 

You also have to consider that India is wary of China’s relations with Pakistan, and that Pakistan, another nuclear armed country, has had very strained ties with India since the creation of the modern Pakistani state.

Obviously, with India growing their own nuclear abilities, Pakistan would do the same. By the way, India and Pakistan have also fought 3 wars since independence. And unlike the US, Russia, or even China, both India and Pakistan have had widespread troubles with home-grown terrorism. Hell, Pakistan has even admitted to helping the Taliban! (Check out this interesting article about India & Pakistan.)

So now we would have North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, India, and Pakistan in an ever spreading arms race. The nuclear genie would never be able to be contained. Russia would be forced to adjust its military strategy to prepare for possible conflicts with Japan, China, South Korea, and India. Iran could then demand nuclear weapons for legitimate national security reasons. That in turn would mean Saudi Arabia would have to get the bomb. Israel might very well attack Iran in that case, leading to the largest conflagration since World War II.

And it’s not just these major countries either. Burma, also known as Myanmar, has been suspected of wanting nuclear weapons for many years. Burma has had nuclear conversations with Russia and has helped North Korea avoid sanctions as well as assisted them with arms and drug trading. Then there’s also groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda who have made their intentions clear. Trump even said in the same debate in which he made it clear he didn’t know what the nuclear triad was that, “The biggest problem this world has today…is nuclear – nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon. That's in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now.”

You see, this is one area where controlling proliferation would become all but impossible. The more countries that have atomic weapons and the more places involved in manufacturing, transporting, and storing nuclear materials means that you have that many more potential places for security failure. It becomes far easier for a terrorist group to steal or buy needed materials, or for some disgruntled scientist to walk away with technology and products and have it windup in the marketplace.

Donald Trump’s suggestions do not make America secure, they make us far less safe – they make the planet less safe.

NATO is the linchpin of our strategy in Europe and it’s a cornerstone that enables trade, security, and stability on the continent. It has served as a bulwark against Russian aggression toward Finland and in the Baltic. Our treaties with Japan and South Korea have kept North Korea contained and has kept the seas open across the Asian-Pacific region. It has also served to stand against Chinese, as well as Russian, incursions, and has been key toward sustaining our relationships with other partners like the Philippines and Taiwan. We need a Commander-in-Chief who understands this. 

--Jacob Bogle, 4/4/2016

JacobBogle.com

Facebook.com/JacobBogle

Twitter.com/JacobBogle

Looking at the World Today

As we approach the 13th anniversary of the first September 11th terrorist attack and the 2nd anniversary of the Benghazi attack, I thought it would be worth taking a brief look at eight issues facing millions around the world today.

Scottish Independence

The Scottish people have a long history of being independent. Whether it was the thousand year existence of the Kingdom of Scotland, or their struggles to maintain a separate identity after the final union of Scotland and England in 1707 and the travails of the Highland Clearances, the Scots have always sought to keep some level of independence, be it cultural or political. Since the 1850s, the "Home rule" movement tried to re-assert Scottish control over Scotland, and between the 1930s and 50s Scotland won several concessions including the moving of the Scottish Office to Edinburgh and the return of the Stone of Scone - which had been in English control for 700 years.

Then, in 1997, the Scottish devolution referendum led to the creation (or re-establishment) of the Scottish Parliament, granting Scotland a devolved government. However, the desire by many for a fully independent Scotland has only deepened over the years and on Sept. 18, 2014, the people of Scotland will have a chance to vote to either remain in the UK or to become an independent nation.

The issues facing Scotland as it pertains to independence are numerous and there remains a very large segment of the population who desires to keep the status quo, but no matter which way this new referendum swings, it is absolute proof that peaceful self-determination is possible and that the spirit of William Wallace is alive and well, even 709 years after his death. This will be one vote for the history books.

US Border crisis

The US has had a large illegal immigration problem for decades and since the 1990s the number of illegals coming into the country has outnumbered the number of legal immigrants. This has led to 11 to 15 million illegal immigrants now living in the country, which costs tens of billions each year in services, law enforcement, loss tax revenue etc.

Starting in 2008, the country extended the rights and protections given to unaccompanied children (UAC) who cross the border, and we saw an increase in the number of these children each year. Indeed, the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied children coming to the US from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras increased 430% between 2011 and 2013, while the number of UACs (from all of Central & S. America) entering the US rose literally 1,000% in 2014 compared to 2013. This explosion of refugees reached crisis level in 2014, when tens of thousands of refugees and illegal migrants from these countries crossed into the United States; primarily into Texas.

This has overwhelmed our immigration system and prompted President Obama to ask for $3.7 billion in emergency funds. According to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, crime rates have also surged and he ordered 1,000 Texas National Guard troops to the border to help stem the tide in the absence of federal assistance. Many of these children (which include teenagers) have been sent to facilities across the country, at times without the knowledge of the governors of affected states.

With little in the way of meaningful legislation or promises to enforce federal law, and with Obama announcing that he would not use executive actions (which aren't the same as an executive order) to address the issue of illegal immigrants already here, only time will tell if this crisis will get worse before it gets better.

Ebola outbreak

(Click for larger view)

Ebola is by far one of the most horrific diseases known to man. Historically it has had a death rate of around 90% and the deaths themselves can be incredibly painful and graphic. Ebola has been known since 1976 and the few outbreaks that occurred prior to the current West Africa epidemic were, thankfully, short and contained. This latest outbreak however has been anything but short and contained.

What began as a single case in Dec. 2013 in a small Guinean village has morphed into a regional epidemic with potential global ramifications. Unlike the flu or SARS, Ebola isn't an airborne disease, it can only be spread through contact with the bodily fluids of infected persons. That said, with this outbreak moving rapidly into its eleventh month and 4,030th case, like the evolution of SARS, it is possible that the virus could mutate and become more virulent. The longer any outbreak lasts, the greater likelihood of the virus hoping onto an international flight (since a person can be infected for several days before showing symptoms) and causing the worst case scenario.

Of course it would be very difficult for an Ebola outbreak to occur in the United States or Europe since our medical facilities and protocols are geared to contain such things - and are far better than anything in West Africa. Still, the risk is there for it to spread within Africa and possibly the Middle East, creating a situation that would require the full weight of global medicine to stop it. 

Presently, the outbreak is the worst in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, with cases also present in Nigeria (the most populated country in Africa) and Senegal - there's also a separate outbreak happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire). There have been 4,026 cases and 2,137 deaths due to the virus, a death rate of 53%. The death rate has so far been considerably lower than in previous outbreaks, but with little in the way of treatment, anyone who becomes ill is going to be in for a very rough time. Back in August, the UN estimated that upwards of 20,000 people would contract the disease, unfortunately, the infection rate has increased; meaning that estimate could well be surpassed. 

This outbreak is unlike any other in a number of ways. Only a strong and concerted effort will win the day. To quote CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden, “The bottom line with Ebola is we know how to stop it: traditional public health. Find patients, isolate and care for them; find their contacts; educate people; and strictly follow infection control in hospitals. Do those things with meticulous care and Ebola goes away.”

Ukraine-Russia Conflict

Russia has a penchant for invading countries and stealing land. This is abundantly evident from their history. Their most recent conquest was Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in February of this year. Under the pretense of protecting ethnic Russians from persecution (this from the ones who committed genocide in Ukraine) the Russian military, ever so subtly (sarcasm), built up a mass of thousands of soldiers, tanks, and aircraft along the Russia-Ukraine border in Ukraine's Donbas region (the area embroiled in a regional civil war, with pro-Russian militants seeking secession). After months of troop build ups and partial withdrawals, over a thousand Russian soldiers marched into Ukraine in late August and bombed the area around Novoazovsk.

At first, Russia denied they had invaded the country, but when faced with clear satellite imagery and other evidence (like captured soldiers), they said the men had accidentally entered Ukraine. 

The proposed reason for the invasion has been to give Russia a land bridge to Crimea, since the only way to get to it via land is to go through Ukraine. To accomplish this, the Russians would need to carve out a strip of land roughly 180 miles long, and in doing so, would take away Ukraine's access to the shallow Sea of Azov. Of course official Russian territory is a mere 3 miles from the eastern edge of Crimea at the Strait of Kerch. My advice to Russia? Build a bridge instead of plunging Europe into war just to steal one! 

At the moment there is a ceasefire under the "Minsk Agreement." In part, the agreement lays out that all Russian troops are to leave the Donbas region, as well as the illegal militias, and the areas in question are to receive a greater level of autonomy. With respect to autonomy, in my mind this only pushes the eventuality of Russian annexation down the road, it won't prevent it. 

On a side note, there has been an increase in the number of Russian nuclear bombers violating the air-defense perimeter of the United States. While this isn't technically violating sovereign airspace, it's not something countries take lightly. And it's just another provocation by Russia which shows their disregard for the rule of law and the notion of a "community" of nations. 

North Korea

The situation on the Korean Peninsula continues to be a ticking time bomb, particularly due to the actions and provocations of North Korea (more properly, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea). In a continuation of its 2013 activities, North Korea has fired several rounds of short and medium range missiles, and they have announced the trial of yet another American. However, unlike Jeffery Fowle and Kenneth Bae (who are being held for being Christian missionaries), or Merrill Newman (held for being a Korean War vet and then released after "apologizing"), Matthew Miller reportedly tore up his passport at the Pyongyang Airport and shouted that he was seeking asylum in North Korea. He was arrested for "rash behavior" and will be placed on trial on Sept. 14.   

The most recent barrage of missiles came on Sept. 9, when the North fired three short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan. Previously, the DPRK fired missiles during Pope Francis' visit to Seoul, South Korea (which DPRK officials deny there being any relation to the two events), and there were several other tests earlier in the year. It is believed that the most recent launches were an attempt to test a new, slightly longer range tactical missile similar to the KN-2. 

Since coming to power in 2011, Kim Jong-un has been very provocative, with multiple missile tests, a nuclear test, and a satellite launch; not to mention the major 2013 crisis. Some of this behavior has been, no doubt, to help him consolidate power and gain legitimacy. (He has no formal military training and is still fairly young at the age of 31 - a leader in a heavily militarized society and one in which age and wisdom go hand-in-hand.) I also feel it's an attempt by North Korea to try to close the technology gap with South Korea, especially since Kim Jong-un is keenly aware of how disadvantaged his country is in every way. 

These reasons and more can add up to a potentially very dangerous young man. A man eager to prove himself, to fulfill the promises of his father and grandfather, and to retain absolute control in country whose populace is no longer as docile and obedient as it once was.

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) began in 1999 as 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq'. Thanks to the completely inept leadership of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, and the Syrian Civil War, ISIS began to flourish and forge its own identity outside of Al-Qaeda, with the two organizations officially splitting in 2014 (reportedly ISIS was too cruel and brutal, even to Al-Qaeda). Though it was established in Iraq, many of their fighters went to Syria and becoming battle hardened, and then burst onto the scene in Iraq as a more invigorated group.

Unlike other terrorist organizations, ISIS has a clear goal that includes the establishment of a new country - the Islamic State, also known as a caliphate. They have been able to seize large tracts of territory in both Iraq and Syria and in the process they have stolen hundreds of millions in cash, gold, and natural resources like oil. They are largely self-financed because of this (which is very unusual for terrorist groups and creates additional difficulties as we attempt to deal with them) and earn an estimated $2 million a day from selling oil on the black market. 

Beginning in June 2014, the US has been carrying out targeted airstrikes against ISIS and has sent nearly 2,000 troops into Iraq as advisers and embassy security. The UK and other countries have begun to send personnel to Iraq as well in a growing coalition against ISIS. With the murder of two American journalists, the domestic support for intervention has grown dramatically. Although President Obama's initial rhetoric toward ISIS was fairly weak and indecisive, the Obama administration has now been calling for the complete destruction of ISIS, and they have proposed that to achieve that goal, we will need a three-year military operation. 

Congress has likewise had a mixed reaction to the ISIS threat, and with mid-term elections right around the corner, it's difficult to say what, if anything, Congress will do to thwart ISIS in the short-term. One thing is very clear, the President does not have the authority to go after ISIS unilaterally as they do not yet pose an immediate threat to the American Homeland (despite the tragic deaths of James Foley and Steven Sotloff); he must get Congressional approval, not merely "advise" them. That said, even if ISIS were a direct threat, any conflict longer than six months would still require a Congressional vote. Though, given the self-inflicted 
emasculated state of Congress, if Obama wants to do something I'm pretty sure he'll get it - even at the expense of law (and even if the motives are well-intentioned). These things notwithstanding, it is clear that ISIS must be dealt with, and we will need all of our allies to step up to the plate, especially those in the region.

Syrian Civil War

Despite no longer being on the front page news each day, the Syrian Civil War is still raging. What began as protests in 2011 quickly turned into a devastating civil war that has cost 200,000 lives and created millions of refugees. Early on it seemed like the opposition might win, especially after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons; an action that promptly saw many Western nations recognizing the opposition Syrian National Coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Unfortunately, lack luster international support in terms of financing, arming, and training the Free Syrian Army helped to slow momentum. The growing divisions within the opposition itself (moderates against Islamic extremists) and renewed government offensives have led to what may be an irreversible tide change in favor of Assad's regime, 

With ISIS having a stronghold in Syria and recently helping to push the opposition out of Aleppo, a key opposition city which the anti-Assad forces have mostly held since 2013, a new dynamic may arise in which Western forces must align themselves with Assad in order to defeat ISIS. And while President Obama has said that we will work with the Free Syrian Army (and provide greater support to them), you cannot hope to destroy ISIS without Assad's help. And that may create a situation in which the opposition is further weakened because we are also, by default, helping Assad. 

If Aleppo is re-taken by Assad, he can cut the last supply lines from Turkey to the opposition. And coupled with the recent deaths of dozens of top opposition leaders in Idlib, we may yet see Assad triumph, with the United States and the West having the major headache of being forced to deal with an Assad Syria after marking out so many red lines. 

Israel-Gaza Conflict

A factory burns after rocket attack.

Israel has been in conflict with Hamas since 1987, and Israel has practically been in a constant state of war (be it against invasions or terrorists) since gaining independence in 1948. The current conflict (aka "Operation Protective Edge") against Hamas in the Gaza Strip roughly began on May 1, 2014 when Hamas started firing rockets into Israel in retaliation for "Operation Brother's Keeper." The conflict has resulted in 72 Israeli deaths (66 soldiers and 6 civilians) and 530 injuries, as well as around 2,150 Gazan's killed and 11,000 injured. 

Hamas has built up a collection of tens of thousands of rockets, including the Qassam (which cost less than $1,500 each and are easily produced), Khaibar, and Fajr rockets. The Khaibar and Fajr rockets can both reach Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. After enduring years of sporadic (thought at times very intense) rocket attacks, Israel developed the Iron Dome missile defense system, and during this latest conflict it has been successful in intercepting 90% of the rockets it targeted. However, Hamas also built a very 
sophisticated network of tunnels to reach into Israeli territory to launch attacks, engage in smuggling, etc.

After launching several air offensives and sending in waves of soldiers to deal with the threats, the tunnels have been destroyed and there were a number of brief ceasefires (primarily for humanitarian reasons). The current ceasefire seems to be holding, but there are a number of issues placing strain on it coming from within and outside of Israel and the Palestinian areas. This uneasy momentary peace could hold, but it could easily be shattered as we have seen before. As we watch and wait there remains little real hope of a lasting peace.

On the Question of Crimea

Since Ukrainian independence from the former USSR in 1991, the country has struggled to reclaim its identity and maintain some semblance of national independence from its former Soviet master. This is a struggle common to many of the former soviet republics and a situation made worse given the decades of forced population migrations, the suppression of indigenous cultures, and all the other issues which went along with the Russianization of occupied lands.

Despite many people trying to oversimplify the situation - trying to suggest it is predominantly due to the gas pipelines that run through Ukraine, or the historical claims Russia has over Crimea - the tangled relationships within this region go back over a thousand years and have been made all the more complicated by the rise and fall of the Soviet Union.

The recent crisis facing Ukraine and Crimea are at once distinct separate issues and part of a larger unified problem simultaneously. I will attempt to explain the history, reasons, and possible outcomes of this crisis.


First, some history.

The first known organized and powerful Eastern Slavic state to arise was the Kievan Rus' federation of states whose capital was the city of Kiev (which had already existed as a major trading center for 300 years). The Kievan Rus' lasted over 400 years from 882 AD to 1283. The countries of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine all claim Kievan Rus' as their heritage and cultural inheritance. At its height the various principalities stretched from the Black Sea in the south (including the territory of Crimea) to the White Sea in the far north, some 1,400 miles apart.

After a period of decline and splintering, what was left of Kievan Rus' was finally conquered by Mongol invasions. Several of the remaining states slowly fell under the control of Moscow, but others, like the region surrounding Kiev and Crimea, became their own nations. Crimea was eventually subsumed into the Mongol "Golden Hord", but later gained a level of independence and became the longest surviving Khanate. The Crimean Khanate lasted from 1441 to 1783, and was primarily aligned with the Ottoman Empire. But over time, they too were slowly turned into Moscow's orbit, despite once invading and capturing Moscow themselves in 1571. Eventually, and after war, Crimea was incorporated into the Russian Empire in 1783 - the same fate befell much of Eastern Europe.

Despite continued invasions, periods of peace & independence, and the ever shifting sands of empire, the people of the Crimea, as well as the wider Ukrainian territory, maintained their own unique and diverse cultures (including a sizable Muslim population). It is important to note that much of modern eastern Ukraine had actually been taken over by the Polish-Lithuanian Union.

Let's skip forward to the Soviet Union.

As we've seen, the Russian dominance of both Ukraine and Crimea is a relatively new event. Ukraine was organized into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919 and Crimea was a territorial part of the Ukrainian SSR. During the early Soviet years (1922-1931), the original ideals of communism were actually beneficial to the region based on the concept of korenizatsiya (indigenization). This led to a revival of the Ukrainian language and culture. However, as Stalin began to implement harsher and more irrational agricultural programs the "Ukrainian Holocaust" (the Holodomor) eventually claimed the lives of 10 million Ukrainians. That, along with the costs of World War II (1.6 million Ukrainian troops killed), caused a severe depopulation of the region. The notorious purges of Stalin also meant the death or imprisonment of many leading figures of Ukrainian nationalism. By some estimates, 3/4ths of Ukraine's cultural elite, intellectuals, artists, etc. were killed or imprisoned. Korenizatsiya was ended and Russification began. Russification meant the harsh subjugation of all cultures, languages, and heritages of the many constituent Soviet "Republics" to that of Moscow and the authoritarian Russian way of life.

During the post-war years, the Ukrainian SSR was actually granted special legal privileges. For example, while it was a fully integrated part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it was also allowed to join the United Nations as a semi-separate nation. During the remaining Soviet era, Ukraine became one of the USSR's primary military and scientific regions. But, thanks to Russification, the Ukrainian language was not taught as the primary language of the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian culture took a back seat to Russian culture. Over time this lead to two countries within one. The western parts of Ukraine still maintained a somewhat separate identity, but the east (and Crimea) became more and more Russianized. The effects of this can still be seen today.

As the USSR began to crumble, over 300,000 Ukrainians protested in 1990 in Kiev for Ukrainian independence. Then on Aug. 21, 1991, the Ukrainian parliament passed an act declaring the country independent and a later referendum was overwhelmingly passed by the people of Ukraine to become a free and sovereign nation. The national vote was 92.3% in favor, including a solid majority of the people living in Crimea. Tellingly, Ukraine was not a signatory to the Alma-Ata Protocol  in Dec. 1991, which established the Commonwealth of Independent States (a brotherhood of former Soviet Republics), and even today it's not a full member of the CIS. After the collapse of the USSR, the new Russian Federation and Ukrainian Republic tried to maintain strong and friendly ties. After all, their histories have been interwoven for centuries. But there should be no mistake, Ukraine was and is a fully sovereign nation. In 1994 the US, Russia, UK, and Ukraine signed the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances". The document assures the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and the signatories agreed "to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind." This economic provision was also part of the Helsinki Accords.

Over the years, there has been a great level of economic cooperation between the two countries, although, Ukraine has also tightened relations with the West and isn't a member of many of the Russian-led trade/cultural/inter-governmental associations which have been established since the fall of the USSR. Ukraine has been one of the primary transit points for the vast amounts of Russian oil & gas to reach the European Union (80% of Russian natural gas exported to the EU move through Ukraine).

The issue of gas transportation has caused several disputes since the 1990s, and often it was Ukraine itself causing the problems. That being said, there is no real evidence that the issue of energy has played a leading role in the current crisis, which began in November 2013, and many of the pipelines themselves date to back to the Soviet era. Although, the value of the natural gas that Russia exports annually (all NG exports) is roughly $50-70 billion (export prices vary) plus a further $14 billion in other fees coming from Ukraine. So maintaining some level of control over the system is obviously a motivation to ensure Ukraine's allegiance.


And now on to recent events.

There remains a strong and evident division within Ukrainian society and a tug-of-war has existed since independence: on one side there are those who support closer ties to the West, membership in the European Union, and NATO inclusion. On the other side, are the substantial ethnic Russian minority who want to strengthen ties with Russia and remain solidly in the "Russosphere". These divisions are most evident when you look at the country's 2010 presidential election and a map of the country when comparing predominately Russian vs. Ukrainian language speakers.

(2010 election results map)

The results of the election show a clear division within the country. Those who supported Yulia Tymoshenko are shown in red & yellow, and those who voted for Viktor Yanukovych are shown in blues. Yanukovych won the election by a 3.5% margin and his "Party of Regions" has a strong history of pro-Russian support. However, the Party of Regions' primary demographic base of support are with those who grew up during the Soviet period. Tymoshenko's "Fatherland" party is pro-European Union. Despite the victory of PoR, the overriding popular desire was to improve ties with the EU and, in time, become a full EU member.

The map below shows the country divided along city/village councils and shows which language is spoken by a majority of the people.

(Click to enlarge)

In order to become an EU member, Ukraine had to undergo several major reforms and Yanukovych had initially been in favor of fulfilling the obligations and acceding to the EU. Both the EU and Russia offered various loans and economic assistance to try and win support for their own particular causes, though Russia's economic support was much greater than the EU was willing to provide. And, Russia wasn't demanding that Ukraine root out corruption and take the necessary measures to bring their financial system into stricter alignment with international norms as the EU had demanded. After winning the election, Yanukovych's government also signed a controversial agreement renewing a lease for a military base in Sevastapol (the largest city in Crimea) to Russia until 2042 in exchange for better energy prices. The agreement was an extension of a similar treaty signed in 1997. The 1997 treaty was part of a military division agreement to help deal with the question of the old Soviet bases & military units left within Ukraine. It needs to be said that the 2010 naval treaty does not give the Russian military the authority to leave their bases, let alone run over the entire peninsula which is slightly larger than the US state of Vermont. It also seems to violate the national constitution's provision on hosting foreign bases.

In November 2014, the government suspended their preparations for a free trade agreement with the EU and the plan to proceed with the signing of the EU Association Agreement. This was done after the government agreed to further these objectives which were a major factor in Yanukovych winning the election 2010. Thus, Euromaidan began. Since then there have been nation-wide protests involving hundreds of thousands of people (at times upward of a million), most notably in Kiev.

Because of the enormous opposition, Yanukovych was ousted from power with the support of 73% of Ukraine's parliament. It was at this point that unmarked men in military garb and carrying weapons started appearing in Crimea. The Geneva Convention explicitly forbids this type of action. Then Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, said that they were only there to protect the Russian speaking people from dangerous mobs, though I haven't found any evidence of large scale violence or threats against anyone in Crimea (he also later claimed there were no troops at all there). From there, a steady stream of marked and unmarked Russian troops began taking over parts of Crimea, preventing Ukrainian soldiers from entering their own bases, and, eventually ended up taking over the entire peninsula. Such actions by Russia violate the UN Charter.

On March 11, the Supreme Councils of Crimea and Sevastopol (which is its own separate political entity) issued a joint "Declaration of Independence" which also laid out their intentions to hold a referendum to allow the people of Crimea to decide the question of secession. The concept of unilateral independence is a very controversial one in international law and most cases result in some kind of war. The international norm is that each party (parent country and separatist region) sits down and negotiates the terms of independence, often with international mediation.

The legality of unilateral separation can be addressed by the Constitution of Ukraine.

Article 17 of the Ukrainian constitution mentions the "territorial indivisibility of Ukraine" and prohibits any "armed formations not envisaged by law". Article 73 states: "Issues of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum." An "All-Ukrainian referendum" can be called for by popular initiative, however the initiative must be supported by no less than 3 million citizens. The population of Crimea is only 1.9 million - and of those approx. 500,000 are ethnically Ukrainian. Furthermore, the initiative must have at least 100,000 signatures from each of Ukraine's 25 political divisions. Such an initiative must then be approved by the Verkhova Rada (Ukraine's supreme council or parliament).

Article 85 also makes it clear that the autonomous powers of Crimea (and whatever laws passed) are subject to the approval of the national parliament. Chapters IX and X deal exclusively with Crimea and in case there was any doubt, explicitly states that Crimea is an inseparable part of Ukraine. The constitution was agreed upon by the people of Crimea.

On the issue of dual citizenship, it is true that there are dual citizens within Ukraine (as with most countries), but, the law itself does not recognize dual citizenship. A person who holds dual citizenship while within the territory of Ukraine are considered only a citizen of Ukraine.


The referendum has been criticized by several members of the Party of Regions and by the Crimean Tartar ethnic minority who make up 12% of Crimea's population. The Tartars had made up nearly 36% of Crimea's population prior to being forcibly deported by the Soviet Union.

Prior to the actual referendum in Crimea, the leadership of three additional oblasts (provinces), which have a substantial Russian speaking population, stated their interests in having a similar vote and joining Russia as well. The map below shows Crimea in dark red, the three "supportive" oblasts are in light red. There are two other Russian-speaking majority oblasts in Ukraine as well which actually share a border with Russia. Continued unrest could lead to the fracturing of those oblasts and potentially a civil war, either low intensity or otherwise. Such violence may cause Russia to move their troops stationed along the Ukrainian border into the country under the guise of "protecting" ethnic Russians, despite the fact that it is the ethnic Russians themselves causing the problem.

(Click to enlarge)

Given the continual movements of Russian troops and Russia's past involvement in Georgia, one can only speculate that if the people of these areas showed any kind of support for joining Russia, that Putin would try to "reclaim" these areas. There are several ways by which Russia can exert control over the old Soviet territories (or as some have suggested an attempt to reclaim the old Russian Empire). There is direct invasion/annexation which would clearly be a violation of international law, there is economic annexation (simply controlling the economies of the areas), and there's de facto annexation - such as the case with Abkhazi in Georgia, which also contained a large naval port. De facto annexation means that Russia nominally controls the territory and extends a military defensive shield while not having legitimate control (with the territory still being claimed by its parent nation) and not being recognized by the international community.

What I find curious is that Russia is more than willing to support illegal referendums being held, to accept their results, and to work to gain new territory, but will ignore attempts at sovereignty movements within Russia's borders and will even engage in violent military actions to suppress such attempts. 

As the referendum votes were counted it became clear that the referendum would pass. But, as I've shown, the referendum itself is not legitimate. And while a 95% approval vote may sound convincing, it's important to remember that it's not 95% of Crimea's population, but only 95% of those who've vote; remembering that a sizable number of native Crimean's have rejected the entire process itself. And most damning, the questions on the referendum did NOT include a direct option to vote against joining Russia! Instead, the "dissenting" option was actually two questions in one: to revert the Crimean Constitution back to an older 1992 version (which Crimea alone has no power to do either) and remain part of Ukraine. The second option carries with it an additional complication. Not only were there were two constitutions passed in 1992, but the option doesn't actually prevent the general government of Crimea itself from seeking to join Russia.

There have been comparisons with America's secession from Great Britain during the American Revolution. However, the comparison is flawed because it assumes that the Ukrainian government would not allow Crimea's independence at all. Crimea, while having a close history with the rest of Ukraine also has a strong history of attempting to be independent itself. Ukraine isn't in a position to forcibly keep Crimea apart of it. The problem has never been that Crimea shouldn't become independent and join Russia if they desired to, but that Russia itself took the opportunity to aggravate a tense nation-wide crisis by stoking pro-Russian regional dissent and then forcing the matter of independence at the point of a gun - possibly precluding any chance of peaceful, lawful, and amicable separation. 

There are three main possible outcomes: military conflict, allowing secession, or refusing secession but granting a greater level of autonomy to Crimea which could eventually result in independence.

Russia's military along with pro-Russian militias not only occupy Crimea, but also have thousands of troops (accompanied by tanks and aircraft) stationed on Ukraine's border and have recently moved troops out of Crimea and into other areas deeper within Ukraine. At the same time, Ukraine has mobilized its military and has called up tens of thousands of reserve personnel. As the crisis has evolved there have been instances of violence between protesters and members of the militias, this could easily spark a wider conflict. Unfortunately, Ukraine alone would lose a war against Russian conquest and there would be little the international community could really do. 

Sanctions against Russia would have a minor effect on its economy. The EU, and their substantial dependence on Russian energy, isn't in a position to engage in full scale sanctions. And even if they attempted them, Russia could easily sanction the EU by cutting off gas supplies. Even with the US, Russia could sanction America, and though we wouldn't really be hurt by it, the resulting American push back could cause greater and greater rounds of pressure (Russia vs US, US vs Russia, in a spiral).  

Crimea is already an autonomous republic which gives them a greater level of freedom, especially regarding culture, education, and the management of property (though not total control and not independence). I have little doubt that if Ukraine were to be left alone that there would be an independent Crimea. There could be a greater level of devolution, similar to the relationship of Scotland and the UK, and the Crimeans would be more than capable of joining the Unrepresented Peoples and Nations Organization (UNPO) which has had a good track record of helping separatist regions gain full independence. And they may even be granted observer status by the UN itself fairly quickly. Then, after independence, they could petition to join the Russian Federation if they so desired. As I have said, the biggest problem with this whole issue is that it is being decided by outside forces at the point of a gun. The sovereignty and integrity of not only Ukraine, but the Crimean people themselves, is being violated. Given the history of this region, and the fact that more often than not the affairs of Crimea & Ukraine have been dictated to them, I cannot see how this referendum or Russia's involvement could possibly be considered fair or just. 

Further reading:

The UNPO's statement on Crimea and the Crimean Tartars