Colin Powell 1937-2021

General Colin Powell passed away today.  It is a great loss for the nation, and for the world.  I didn't know him personally, but I knew a great deal about him, and respected him immensely. 

The only time I ever saw him in person was in 1992, at the National War College, where I was a student. He gave the most impressive speech of the year (at the time, he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).  He spoke before the entire faculty and classes of the NWC and ICAF at George C. Marshall Hall, a relatively new facility on the grounds of Fort McNair.  Powell spoke eloquently, and directly.  He didn’t duck questions, and he engaged with everyone in his uniquely charismatic way.  It was obvious that he was extremely popular with the troops, and for good reason.  

In later years, when he became Secretary of State, I knew exactly what to expect, and I was not disappointed.  His very first speech at the State Department, given on the day of his arrival, was attended by thousands of State employees who spontaneously assembled at the C Street entrance to welcome him.  He was one of the few Secretaries in recent history to actually care about his troops and look out for their welfare during his frequent visits to the Hill, and because of this, he won the loyalty of the working stiffs in the Department to a greater degree than anyone since George Shultz.

I may not have known him personally when he was Secretary of State, but in a way, he knew me.  He was reportedly a fan of the E-Grams I did from Vladivostok and Moscow 2001-2002, and once commented favorably on them in a staff meeting. He paid attention.

General Powell will be missed by all who knew him. We all benefited from his wise and humane policies.

 

On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians // Vladimir Putin.

Об историческом единстве русских и украинцев // автор Владимир Владимирович Путин

"The Great Game" Special post-Summit edition: June 16, 2021

 

Summary: "Talks took place between Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden in Geneva on June 16. First, there was a small group meeting, and then a large group meeting in which the delegations participated. What can be agreed upon when there is no trust? Or is there? Have the two sides stepped back from a dangerous point, or have tensions in relations only increased, as they did following the Putin-Trump meeting in 2018? The first results of the Summit are discussed on “The Great Game.”

Introductory Comment: The general tenor of the discussion among the main guests and moderators on "Bolshaya Igra" was much more optimistic than I had anticipated. This optimism was probably unjustified, but it shows the desire of the commentariat elite, which “The Great Game” represents, for better relations with the US, and their relief that things seemed to go well. Overall, the contrasts between the style of the Moscow pro-Putin media and Washiington pro-Biden media were almost a case of the "blind men and the elephant." Where Moscow media saw a victory for Putin (though not as great as that over Trump at Helsinki), and focused on the set-piece statements of the Putin press conference, but not the gotcha questions from the pro-Biden Washington media and Putin's whataboutism, the pro-Biden Washington media drew the opposite conclusions, hailing the Summit as a victory for Biden. Moscow saw Putin as gaining stature and status, while Washington saw Biden as delivering important messages to Putin for the first time. Both views are true in their own way, but it shows just how far apart the sides really are. End Comment.

Moderator Dmitri Simes began the program by stating that it was obvious that the Summit had achieved positive results, even though they were not particularly large. Federation Council Deputy Chairman Konstantin Kosachev agreed. On the eve of the meeting, there were many dark predictions. It is true that most of the meetings were taken up with an exchange of complaints, but there were also positive results: an agreement to return Ambassadors to their posts, and an agreement to begin a dialogue on strategic stability, as well as cybersecurity, and the Arctic. That was enough for him to conclude that the Summit was productive.

Co-moderator Vyacheslav Nikonov groused that the only source for Russians on the Summit was President Putin, since President Biden had not agreed to take questions from Russian reporters. Putin, did, however, give a positive evaluation of the talks (the big board then played a clip of the press conference in which Putin said there was no hostility and the meetings were constructive -- the Biden press conference had not yet begun).

Konstantin Remchukov, Editor, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, perhaps getting a little carried away, gave very high marks to the Geneva meeting. President Biden had characterized the meeting as between “two great powers,” going against the Obama administration’s evaluation that Russia was a great power only in terms of nuclear arms. Biden refused to demonize Putin, calling him a worthy opponent. Biden seemed to be talking about “peaceful coexistence,” rather than confrontation.

Nikonov noted Putin’s very important statement on strategic stability lauding Biden’s decision to extend New START II (SNV-III). Simes also stressed the importance of an agreement to talk about cybersecurity. Kosachev said that the return of Ambassadors to their posts was a hopeful sign. (the big board played Putin’s statement that MFA and State would meet to discuss problems on the “diplomatic track,” i.e., the current problems with diplomatic staffing). Kosachev noted specifically the problem of diplomatic ceilings and third-country personnel (a US concern) and the “arrest of properties (a Russian concern). (The big board then showed a video of the site where President Biden would soon give his press conference).

Nikonov then referred to the agreement to begin talks about cybersecurity issues, noting that Putin had pointed out that most cyberattacks occurred in the US, and that attacks originating from Russia were small in number (Comment: this is a willful misunderstanding of how cyber attacks work, and how foreigners use US servers to conceal their activities from US intelligence agencies). Putin also pointed out that there was much work to be done on cybersecurity, since Russian complaints had not been answered. Simes called the agreement to begin a dialogue on this issue as an achievement of Russian diplomacy, but conceded that while beginning a dialogue was a great success, the dialogue itself would be very difficult.

Nikonov raised the issue of Ukraine, which was touched on briefly in the Putin press conference. Kosachev commented that the Ukrainians must be disappointed that Biden was not giving them a free ticket into NATO, and that the Minsk process was recognized as valid by the Americans (at least according to Putin and pro-Putin media).

Simes then introduced former State Department official and current Fox News commentator Chris Wighton.  Wighton (speaking in rather loud English dubbed over in Russian), behaved like a good little Quisling. He took only a few seconds to get around to his main point that Putin had gotten more out of the Summit. Biden was at the end of a very busy trip, but he did well too. Before the trip, Biden was saying very aggressive things about Ukraine and cybersecurity retaliation, but it seemed that some red lines had disappeared. The surprising thing was that the Summit did not fall apart. It was bad timing to put it at the end of such a long trip, where Biden would be saying many negative things about Russia. (Comment: Needless to say, my opinion of the quality of Fox commentators is once again confirmed).

“The Great Game” then paused so everyone could watch the first five minutes of President Biden’s press conference, and then cut away for more commentary.

Kosachev complained that American correspondents were less interested in what happened at the talks and more interested in trapping Putin with trick questions (this refers in particular to the question where ABC reporter Rachel Scott asked why all of Putin’s opponents seemed to die or go to prison – what was he afraid of?).

Earlier, Nikonov had advanced the rather astonishing idea that Russia was a more democratic state than the US. After a commercial break, the big board showed Putin’s outrageous “whataboutism” comparison of Russia’s human rights record (being careful not to mention Navalny by name) with the killing of George Floyd (whom he also did not name) and the entirely unrelated January 6 riots. Dmitriy Suslov, Deputy Director at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies, then piled on with the unsurprising opinion that Nikonov was correct and that the US was a much bigger violator of human rights. Guantanamo and CIA secret prisons came up, among other things.

Simes said that he would not be bothered by a continued exchange of contrary opinions between the Americans and Russians on human rights. As with Nixon and Kissinger, these subjects could be segregated from other questions. He noted, however, that Ambassador Michael McFaul had said that the US could walk and chew gum at the same time and take up human rights simultaneously with other questions. Kosachev said he would like to see no linkage, but he didn’t see this happening under Biden. At present, Congress had created a large number of linkages through sanctions (Magnitsky Act, etc.).

The group then listened to the latter part of President Biden’s press conference, where he talked about the importance of China, and the fact that Putin did not want a Cold War. Remchukov commented Biden wanted a meeting with Putin primarily because of concerns about China. No one wanted Russia to add its strength to that of China.

Nikonov concluded with one of his typical propaganda end pieces, noting that the United States continued to battle for global hegemony and was trying to drag its allies into a new Cold War, but that Putin had no illusions, as he said at his press conference, and because of this the world was a little safer today.

https://www.1tv.ru/shows/big-game/vypuski/bolshaya-igra-specialnyy-vypusk-ot-16-06-2021 

“The Great Game.” June 10, 2021

 

“Bolshaya Igra” Summary: Why has NATO conducted exercises near the Russian border on the eve of the meeting between the Presidents of Russia and the USA? Two generals will debate: Col.-Gen.Vladimir Shamanov, Chairman of the Duma Defense Committee, and US Embassy Moscow Defense Attache (2012-2014) Brig. Gen. Peter Zwack.

 

Topics actually covered:

(1) American encirclement of Russia/ global military exercises

(2) Biden’s aggressive approach to the Geneva Summit

(3) Putin’s June 9 statement outlining why NATO in Ukraine was a red line [pretty scary stuff] and

(4) What would be necessary for the Geneva Summit to be a success

 

Experts:

Aleksey Pushkov, Federation Council committee chairman

Col-Gen. Vladimir Shamanov

BG Peter Zwack, Defense Attache, US Embassy Moscow 2012-2014

 

Moderator Dmitri Simes began the program by describing the panoply of American and allied military maneuvers around Russia in the run-up to the Geneva Summit, including exercises in Alaska, the Arctic, the Black Sea, the Baltic States, etc. These maneuvers were unlike Russian military maneuvers which took place on Russian territory (or in Belarus, he hastily added) and were happening closer to St. Petersburg and Moscow than Western capitals.

 

Co-moderator Vyacheslav Nikonov noted that only six days remained until the Geneva Summit, and preparations were proceeding apace to prepare the Villa LaGrange for the meeting, and while Vladimir Putin was coming to the meeting with a constructive approach, Biden was adopting a position of strength, as his statement on arrival in the UK at a US military base (RAF Mildenhall) indicated (the key points of Biden’s speech were played on the big screen, along with a picture of an angry-looking Biden and a solemn-looking Putin). Nikonov noted Biden’s statement that “We’re back,” asking rhetorically where were they are back from – Mars?

Pushkov explained that Biden was adopting the position that under Trump the US had withdrawn from world affairs, and so now the US was back, but in fact what he was really doing was renewing a claim of US hegemony. The US was telling everyone that it would not tolerate dissenting views. Biden’s message was that he wanted to dictate the conditions of the talks in Geneva.  He would tell Putin what he should know. Perhaps Biden even wanted to engage in a monologue, but Putin would not stand for this. Nikonov added that Putin had never allowed anyone to speak to him in this way.

 

Shamanov then contrasted what he characterized as years of Russian reasonableness and willingness to talk with American intransigence, starting with the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002, ending with the usual description of how the US and its allies were surrounding Russia.

 

BG (ret) Zwack responded (in English dubbed over in Russian) that he was speaking as a private citizen, and not as a USG representative. He stressed that no one wanted any sort of conflict with Russia – period.  How could we find our way out of the current dead end in our relations? He was not optimistic that there would be major progress at the Summit, but at the least we needed to lower the temperature of our relations. Russia spoke of being encircled, but our allies spoke of their fears as well.

 

Nikonov said that nonetheless Russia felt surrounded, The US and its allies had 400 military bases surrounding Russia.  Russia had no such bases surrounding the US.

 

After the commercial break, Simes complimented Zwack on the fact that he said the same thing to both sides and did not tailor his remarks for his audience. That said, America did have significant forces surrounding Russia. Simes was sure that the US did not intend to attack Russia, but you would have to admit that Russian military figures like General Shamanov would have to view these forces with concern (the big board then showed the forces arrayed in Sea Breeze 2021 and Steadfast Defender 2021, as well as other exercises in Scandinavia and Alaska).

 

Zwack said that the forces described were defensive in nature under the meaning of NATO Article Five, and the forces were limited in size.

 

Nikonov grimaced and disputed this point, pointing out that some of the forces (Estonia, Black Sea) were strategic and offensive in nature. He then turned to Putin’s “very important statement” drawing a red line on Ukraine. [the big board then played Putin’s June 9 statement, in which he discussed how the military situation would change if Ukraine became a NATO member. The flight time for a rocket from Dnepropetrovsk or Kharkov to Moscow would be 7-10 minutes. Putin compared that to the flight time to Washington when Russian missiles were stationed in Cuba (15 minutes). To get a flight time of 7-10 minutes, Russian rockets would have to be stationed on the US-Canada border. Would the US consider that to be a red line or not?]. Then the big board showed a June 8 statement by Secretary of State Blinken supporting NATO membership for Ukraine.

Comment: Putin's statement uses dangerous and self-serving logic. Putin of course omits to mention that Russia could put its missiles within five minutes of Washington anytime simply by stationing subs off the U.S. coast.  It's all a part of Russia's perpetual "we are surrounded" mantra which they hope distracts from their own transgressions and promotes popular support. This is not to say, of course, that Putin does not believe his own propaganda.  It may be that he does. 

Comment continued: Similarly, by changing the overall message to "Biden is aggressive, Putin is not," Russians seek to distract attention from issues that they would prefer never to raise at all, such as human rights and political freedoms. This is much more effective than the old Soviet "Everybody Does It" whataboutism defense, where the Soviets would seek to falsely equate their human rights abuses with criminal proceedings occurring in America (January 6 insurrection, et al). End Comment.

 

Pushkov noted that US strategic bombers were already flying in Ukraine, even though Ukraine was not a NATO member. President Biden had said in 2015 that Crimea would be an excellent spot to deploy American troops. This is not defensive. Isn’t this an attempt to cross a red line, he asked?

 

Zwack said that Washington well understood the complexities of this question. Ukraine had the right to territorial integrity and to determine its own future. Biden’s statement that “America is back” meant that America has returned not just to Europe but to the entire international arena, including Russia. This did not mean that we cannot have normal relations with Russia, including mil-to-mil talks.

 

Pushkov expressed discontent with this answer. Ukraine was the key question. How could there be cooperation with Russia through a policy of intimidation? In response to Simes’ question, Pushkov said that Biden’s current tone could indeed affect the Summit. He was attempting to make up for the US loss of influence by adopting a more aggressive tone, as if we were still in the 20^th Century, by attempting to dictate what was said at the talks, presenting complaints, and insisting on preconditions.

 

Nikonov then asserted incorrectly that the Ukrainian people were against NATO membership, even though most of the leadership was for it, because they knew they would just be cannon fodder, and everyone recognized that they would be run by the United States (Nikonov has a unique way of looking at alliances as if they were all the Warsaw Pact). Shamanov added that NATO could not admit Ukraine as long as the Donbas problem (LNR/DNR) remained unresolved.

 

Nikonov then asked what would be necessary for the Geneva Summit to be pronounced a success? Simes talked about his time as a CBS correspondent 35 years ago when Reagan and Gorbachev met in Geneva at their first summit. Reagan took his responsibilities seriously.  He tried to learn all he could about Russian thought and culture, from Suzanne Massie, among others.  He came to Geneva ready to work hard.  He was an “iron man” who was not interested in making concessions, but he wanted the summit to be a success and he knew what he should not say, since it would interfere with progress at the summit and what he should say.  If Biden approaches Geneva in a similar spirit, there will be success.

 

Nikonov propounded the dubious theory that the US was most interested in agreements only when they were most disturbed about the current state of affairs.  The US was disturbed about Russian qualitative superiority in strategic arms, and they were also disturbed about the cuts in Embassy/Consulate staff, so there would probably be progress on those two issues.  As for the rest, probably there would be no progress. Still, if the dialogue were not toxic, that would be progress in and of itself. 

TV1 link to this program: https://www.1tv.ru/shows/big-game/vypuski/bolshaya-igra-vypusk-ot-10-06-2021

Note: The next "Great Game" will be a special broadcast just after the conclusion of the June 16 Summit  

“The Great Game.” June 3, 2021

 

“Bolshaya Igra” Summary: “The American big brother surveils European leaders. A major blow to Washington’s reputation in the old world a week before the official visit of Joe Biden to the NATO Summit. What does this scandal mean for Russia?”

This was something of a wasted hour. Rather than concentrating on the upcoming Biden-Putin summit, moderators Dmitriy Simes, Vyacheslav Nikonov and guests opened with a lengthy discussion of a “scandal” that was nearly a week old and had completely escaped my notice. It was a revival of allegations by Edward Snowden that NSA had spied on European leaders a decade ago. The new wrinkle: Denmark helped. The news was broken over the last weekend by a Danish news agency. I suspect the news tip was most likely received from Russian sources, all in an attempt to sow discord before the upcoming NATO Summit and to put President Biden off his stride.

Much of the rest of the hour was devoted to an interview with MFA Spokesperson Mariya Zakharova, who flacked for the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and repeated predictable talking points on the latest “scandal,” the Ryanair hijacking, the JBS Meats hacking and other subjects.

The end of the program was devoted to a discussion of President Biden’s May 30 statement that only America was founded on an idea (democracy) and he would press Putin on human rights issues. This was met with raised eyebrows by the panel, and MGIMO professor Andranik Migranyan described it as a “gaffe” to claim that only America was founded on an idea. This was the signal for everyone else to pile on with their own recitation of reasons why Biden’s claim that America was exceptional was hypocritical. Simes concluded the discussion by commenting that Biden had also recently associated himself in Tulsa with “Black Lives Matter,” which was based on the idea that U.S. history began in 1619 and the beginning of slavery. Wasn’t that also an idea?

Simes summed up the discussion by noting that the summit would soon be upon us, and the predictions of the mass media did not inspire optimism. But he cautioned that the professionals were working “quite seriously,” and he wished both Presidents success. Nikonov, in a classic case of projection, concluded that the summit was not doomed to failure because Putin had never failed at any summit, Biden would never admit that he had failed, and the mainstream U.S. media, who viewed Biden as above reproach, would support him.

https://www.1tv.ru/shows/big-game/vypuski/bolshaya-igra-vypusk-ot-03-06-2021

"The Great Game" 27.05.2021 (1) Prospects for Biden-Putin Summit; (2) Ryanair Hijacking & Lukashenko's Turn to the East

 

In contrast to the somewhat hysterical tone adopted by much of the Russian state media toward the United States this week, Thursday night’s “Great Game” stuck to a much more sober and conciliatory tone as moderators and guests talked mainly about the upcoming June 16 Biden-Putin Summit and Nord Stream 2. The middle of the hour was consumed by an aimless discussion of EU politics, which was then followed  at the end by a rather short consideration of the Ryanair hijacking and Lukashenko’s apparent decision to junk his multi-vector foreign policy in favor of becoming a “Farpost” of Eurasia, something that had moderator Vyacheslav Nikonov smacking his lips in anticipation of greater things to come.

 

Nikonov lead off the hour by summarizing the agenda of the upcoming Geneva Summit as he saw it: (1) Strategic stability, against the background of the complete destabilization of the international system, (2) Arms control, against the background of the end of the Open Skies Treaty, (3) Ukraine, against the background of an intensifying civil confrontation in that country, and (4) Belarus, against the background of a major turn in European politics as Belarus “landed” the Ryanair flight, the EU imposed sanctions, and Lukashenko talked of becoming a “Farpost” of Eurasia. Over the past three days, the United States had said nothing bad about Russia, and had refrained from calling Russia an enemy.  He then asked moderator Dmitri Simes: “Why is this?”

Simes responded with a laugh, “the Summit.” They are now concentrating on ways to prevent the Summit from being disrupted. A decision had been taken to moderate rhetoric, and for this Biden deserved credit. Simes then contrasted the roles played by Trump and Biden in relations with Russia, noting that while both were personally involved in the US-Russian relationship, the Trump administration was often not ready to act and was not motivated by Trump to act, whereas under Biden it was different (there was much to-ing and fro-ing in Simes remarks, but the sense was that Trump was incompetent and Biden wasn’t).

Simes then asked Federation Council Committee Chairman Aleksey Pushkov if he thought this change in tone would help lead to some specific results at the Summit. Pushkov replied that Biden did have an advantage over Trump.  Like Nixon and Reagan, he started from a hardline anti-Soviet/anti-Russian position. He therefore had an “alibi” that would enable him to neutralize hardline critics.  But the fact was that there was little to agree on at the Summit. For example, it is hard to see what progress could be made on issues around Ukraine or Syria. On Iran, it was more what the US and Iran could agree on, not Russia. On sanctions, Biden had said he would not lift them, so no progress would be likely there.

 

Simes interrupted to remind that Biden had waived some Nord Stream 2 sanctions, but Nikonov argued this affected Germany, not Russia, at which point Biden was shown on the big screen saying that the sanctions had been waived because NS2 was almost completed anyway and this was done out of consideration for relations with Europe. Pushkov conceded that Russia also benefited from the waiving of sanctions, but that 75 major sanctions remained which were aimed at smothering the Russian economy. Pushkov went on to say that the “field for agreement” was rather narrow. The main thing would be whether the climate of the relationship improved as a result of the Summit. For example, if there could be a relaxation of tensions, if our Ambassadors returned to their Embassies, if we could agree not to create problems for our diplomatic missions, if there could be renewed consultations on Afghanistan, if we could agree on ways to fight global warming, if we could create a working group on cyber-security, etc. In other words, if we could place ourselves on a positive course, not one that leads to another crisis like the Cuban missile crisis.

 

Nikonov added that no one in Congress would speak in favor of improving relations (“except for Rand Paul,” interjected Dmitriy Suslov, Higher School of Economics, “or Tulsi Gabbard,” added Pushkov, until reminded she was no longer in Congress). Nikonov asked Suslov if he agreed with Pushkov.  Suslov said his views coincided with those of Pushkov, although he might be a little more pessimistic. Domestic politics were highly polarized.  Republicans had heavily criticized Biden on Nord Stream 2, for example. The Summit can stabilize and control the relationship, but probably not improve it. The Biden administration does not want a worsening of relations with Russia, as its main concern is the “Chinese factor.” The US is mobilizing its allies against China. Also, in contrast to the Trump administration, the Biden administration is very much in favor of arms control and avoiding an arms race with Russia. New strategic stability talks could be one result of the Summit.

 

Simes commented that the possibilities for new talks were much wider than that, because, in contrast to the Trump administration, under Biden the role of the “spetssluzhb” was much larger. Professionals would play a greater role than before. Simes sounded much more optimistic, noting that there might be no progress on sanctions at the Summit, but reducing the possibility of a new nuclear crisis like the Cuban missile crisis is hardly unimportant.

 

Simes then called on one of his deputies in Washington, Mark Episkopos, a National Security reporter at the National Interest, to evaluate the situation there. Episkopos said that very few among the elite in Washington thought it possible that there would be major results from the Summit, but supporters believed that it would be a symbolic step that would add predictability and stability to the relationship. There were some specific subjects, however, for a serious dialogue, including Afghanistan, North Korea, climate and arms control. Under Trump, Democrats had objected to the very idea of a Putin-Trump meeting in Helsinki.  Now it was Republicans who were criticizing Biden for meeting with Putin, including Senator Ben Sasse and Ambassador Michael McFaul (Amb. McFaul will be surprised to learn that he is now a Republican). Note: Episkopos spoke good Russian, at least for an American. He did mix up the words “partizanskiy” with “partiyniy,” which caused merriment in Moscow, but other than that he was fine.

 

There was little of further interest in the program until the very end, when the subject finally turned to the Ryanair hijacking.  The panelists’ commentary was interesting in that it covered almost none of the matters that created outrage and concern in the West, focusing instead on the only good news for Moscow, which was that Lukashenko appeared to be orienting himself toward the East. In particular, Nikonov singled out what was most important for him: Lukashenko’s May 26 speech in which he said that Belarus would look elsewhere for its economic opportunities if the West did not want it.  Belarus would become the “Farpost” of Eurasia. Suslov commented that the extreme reaction of the West was caused by despair, because “potentially” it was losing Belarus. There was no possibility that Lukashenko would orient himself toward the West, or that there would be a color revolution in Minsk. All of the panelists, with the exception of Simes, commented on the double standard adopted by the West.  They could arrest planes, but Belarus couldn’t. Pushkov concluded that Lukashenko’s dubious and contradictory multi-vector foreign policy had perished, and it was time for Belarus to recognize that Crimea is a part of the Russian Federation.

https://www.1tv.ru/shows/big-game/vypuski/bolshaya-igra-vypusk-ot-27-05-2021