So, how DO you take over a neighboring country without firing a shot? Simple, you take a page from the Nazi Playbook of 1938 in Czechoslovakia, with a small updated twist, and you’re in business. Yesterday evening, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov met with Secretary of State Kerry in Paris. It wasn’t a particularly productive meeting, and it ended with an agreement that the crisis needs to end in negotiation. So, what was the Russian position? 

The upshot of the Russian position is that Russia will not pull back the troops massed on the border, but they will accept the concept of a “Federal” Ukraine. Now on the surface that sounds almost reasonable (at least reasonable as defined in Russia), until you think through what the word “Federal” means in this case. Here Federal means that Ukraine needs to break itself up into semi-autonomous regions that will then make their own decisions regarding social, religious, and language issues. In other words, let’s set these regions up for Crimean-type take over, with phony referendums, and the chance to send in young “masked men” to help organize things like elections. This is a pretty good deal if you want to break the Ukraine apart slowly, and with what Putin will argue is legitimacy from the locals who vote to secede and join Russia. 

In fact, today, just to sweeten the pot a little, Putin decreed that Crimea is a “Special Economic Zone” which entitles the residents to special tax breaks and other perks. Now he can point to any potential eastern breakaway regions, that might have larger Russian populations, and say, “See, what coming to Mother Russia can do for you?!” It is insidious, but it has the option of getting the Russians what they want, without having to use the first combat soldier or the force of arms. The result will be the same, and we’ll be watching as Secretary Kerry will leap from the plane, waving a piece of paper in the air, while at the same time declaring that we now have “Peace in our time.” ~ Michael S. Pauley 

I had hoped to keep it lighter, but for some reason the News of the World just hasn’t lent itself to lighter moments. Looking at the massing of Russian forces along the Ukraine Border, seeing “little Kim” launching more rockets/missiles, and hearing each day about “objects” being sighted in the waters of the Indian Ocean just doesn’t lend itself to much humor. THEN, much to my surprise, I run across a little story about “Ratzilla!” Apparently, this beastie is a rather HUGE 15 inch long rat, and that is not counting the tail, that “had family members jumping on chairs and terrorized the cat for a week.” The family called in an exterminator, and finally the monster was eliminated. Honestly, the pictures are quite impressive; however, the most impressive thing was the smallest child in the family. When interviewed, he said it was a “Putin Rat.” When asked why he referred to the monster as a “Putin” Rat, the child explained that it was not for his looks, but because he had “invaded their home.” What is amazing is that a child from Stockholm, Sweden, gets it, even if some of us don’t. ~ Michael S. Pauley 

God forbid I should sound like Bill O’Reilly, since frankly he irritates the hell out of me, but recently his vitriol about the media coverage of the missing Malaysian Airline Boeing 777 was pretty much on point. Of course, the humor of this tirade was that he was covering the media that was covering the missing airliner, and complaining about everyone’s overcoverage of the one story. In other words, by complaining, he was doing the same thing they were doing, which was devoting a large portion of air time to only one story. While the loss of the many souls onboard is tragic and horrible, it was NOT the only news story over the last few weeks. Simply put, if that airplane had crashed in front of everyone, the coverage would have lasted maybe two or three days. 

     So, what made this such a focus for the press? It was simply the “missing” or “without a trace” element that captivated the media’s attention. In the absence of facts, they were able to spin their own web of ideas. These countless theories and speculations were fascinating, but honestly they were an insult to my intelligence. For example, the question of the “color” of the black box was asked at least a dozen times, all by one reporter over a several day period. Every time she was on, she would ask yet another expert, “what color is the black box?” “Is it black or some more vivid color?” Seriously? A more vivid color? What the hell is a more vivid color than international orange? I guess the real question is: How many times do you ask the same question, over the course of several consecutive days, to the same or similar experts? Did she think someone was going to run out and repaint the damn things since yesterday? If this is real journalism, then I posit to you that we’re in a small draft water conveyance, without propulsion, traveling upstream in a river made from very deep excrement.

      Face it, I write science fiction, which means I’m under no illusions or constraints in my writing about events. Yet, looking back over my blog posts of the past few weeks, at least you’ll find real news, as opposed to theories of the bizarre. You’ll read about events in Egypt, Korea, Ukraine, and even about the antics of Vladimir Putin and his cronies, toadies, and minions. You might even get a little back ground and history related to these current events. So the real irony is that the science fiction writer is reporting the news, while the media is reporting fiction, and in one case, science fiction, (e.g., a black hole may have taken down the airliner). Makes you wonder what have we become? Oh, and for the record, I’m not blaming the Gomers, but I did hear a rumor about Godzilla. ~ Michael S. Pauley 

The current situation in the Ukraine can best be described with one word, “fluid.” As of this writing, the Russians have successfully cut off, or subsumed, every Ukrainian military installation on Crimea. The Ukrainian Navy is either blocked off, or in some instances been “captured.” The Russian forces have built up dramatically along the eastern border between Ukraine and Russia, and as I noted last week, the breakaway Provence of Transdnesitria, in Moldova, appears to be asking for “Russian” assistance. The politicians in this Country appear to be fighting to a stalemate over the best way to deal with the issue, while President Putin continues to advance his agenda at the expense of his neighbors. 
     Perhaps, along with fluid, another great descriptive term would be "abyss." While many are distracted by missing airliners, rampant speculation, and aviation mysteries, it would seem that several countries are pushing all of us ever closer to the abyss. Egypt, in a move that astounds many, today has given the death penalty to more than 500 people for political opposition. Granted it is best described as Islamist opposition, but this heavy handed behavior hardly seems to be a viable course in today’s modern age. Then there is “Little Kim” or Kim Jong Un, who is enjoying the firing of dozens of short range missiles from his eastern coastline. Is he testing them? Nope, he is merely showing “force” as a means of protesting the ongoing military exercises being conducted by the United States and South Korean forces. Then there are the multitude of rockets into Israel, Turkey banning Twitter and shooting down Syrian aircraft, Syrians attacking neighbors along with their own populations, and collapses of governments in South America. All news that most are either ignoring, or aren’t hearing about on a daily basis, because the media has decided that we as Americans prefer to see "the shiny things."
      Regardless of your political bent, or your stance on domestic policy, I think we can agree that the world isn’t getting more enlightened as we advance into the Twenty First Century. Consequently, we are now being drug to the precipice of an abyss, where if the trend around the world is allowed to continue, we might very well be looking at the kind of thing we’ve grown up hoping to avoid. Sadly, many of us will be surprised to see us suddenly on that abyss, when in fact, we've been creeping in that direction for quite a while. ~ Michael S. Pauley 

Moldova, Transdniestria, and the Russian Government are now eyeing one more, in what will likely be another, interesting event.  On March 18, 2014, the Parliament of the break away region of Moldova, Transdniestria, announced that it too was seeking annexation into Russia.  Located along the southwestern border of Ukraine is the region known as Transdniestria, (spellings differ, depending on the source), which was initially a region of Moldova after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The history of Moldova dates back to the 1300s, and the Region of Transdniestria and the interaction with Moldova is complicated relationship to say the least.  Their history runs through the Ottoman Empire, until eventually they were a part of the Soviet Union.  During this journey the ethnic changes became complex, and with the long term presence of Russian Forces in Transdniestria, the overall relationship is equally complex.  

Transdniestria’s desire to be absorbed into Russia comes as no surprise, just as the desires of Moldova itself seem to be leaning toward a reunification with Romania.  While these shifts are interesting, the real question comes more in the form of “why now?”  This breakaway region, with Russian forces on their soil and a large Russian population, has only been able to ask for this for the last 20 years.  More to the point, they’ve had the opportunity to play this card since at least 2008, or even earlier in 1992, when the region signed an armistice with Moldova after a relatively brief but bitter conflict.  While technically part of Moldova, it is a region that has been left alone to govern itself since 1992, and this again begs the question of timing.

One of the recognized options for Russia, during this crisis in Ukraine and in the reformation and expansion of the former empire, has been thought to be the exploitation of the “periphery” of Ukraine and the other Baltic states.  Using these “breakaway” regions, or states, it is felt by some in the intelligence community that the large populations of former Russian people would serve as the basis for the reincorporation of the region under the auspices of Russia.  So, in answer to the earlier question, why now?  Well, in my opinion, it is because the Russians are on a roll, and so far, nobody has discouraged this behavior with any really painful sanctions against Putin or Russia.  The EU has too many economic ties to Russia, while the US is simply too distant to these issues to provide much comfort in places like Ukraine or Moldova.  At some point, though, there will be a line drawn.  Hopefully it won’t be too little or too late, otherwise, we’ll be back to doing the same business we did from 1946 until 1991, or worse, dealing with the same issues as those arising in 1939 and ending in 1945.  Either of these options is unsettling, and therefore, our current events have that eery feeling of being a harbinger of more bad things to come. ~ Michael S. Pauley

Propaganda, misinformation, and old prejudices go hand in hand.  The most recent example comes to us from Russia’s version of the world in their recent hostile takeover of Crimea.  When Putin’s protégée in the Ukraine, the former President Viktor Yanukovych, (leader of what some would argue was a corrupt“Quisling-esque” government), was ousted, the Russian Press went into high gear.  The “Fascists” had taken over and were now behind the new Ukrainian Government.  Fascists?  Here is a word you don’t hear every day, unless you are whipping fear and old prejudices into a frenzy.  The mere mention of the word is designed to remind the Russian people of the Nazi Fascists that had invaded their country in World War II.  Now, with most things related to Propaganda, misinformation, and old prejudices, there will be some element of truth.  Note that I said “element,” as opposed to actual or the complete truth.  

Let me explain.  In the old Soviet Empire, Stalin cut a deal with Hitler to allow for Soviet forces to take over places like eastern Poland.  (We won’t get into the mass murders there, which even made the Nazi Regime recoil when they finally took over the rest of Poland.)  In fact, avid historians will note that Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and even members of the military staff, was constantly walking a very thin tight rope in their dealings with Joseph Stalin.  Now the point of my digression is simply this: The oppressive nature of Stalin was ever bit as horrific as what would come from the Nazis in occupied territory throughout Europe and the Soviet Union.  Noting this oppression is what sets the stage for what happened in several areas of the former Soviet Union during World War II.  Places like Ukraine had many folks who were delighted to have the Nazi in town, at least at first, and some even sided with the Nazis in their fight against Russian Soviet Union.  This is the principle of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Did some adopt those fascist ideals?  Sure they did!  Was there a great loss of life, especially in the Jewish Communities?  Absolutely.  These were horrible times, and they made for some rather evil bed fellows, all in an attempt to save their collective arses from oppression.  So, were there fascists in Ukraine?  Yes, and it is a charge that will haunt many countries, not the least of which would be Germany.  Still, these charges are now being taken way out of context, and are about 70 years too late.

Now is Germany fascist today?  No, and neither is Ukraine, but this won’t stop the use of terminology to spread fear in Russia.  Sure, you’ll find some who are fascist in their leanings, but they sure aren’t limited to Europe.  Ask anyone in Venezuela.  Still when you want to rally the Russian populace, one of the first words you toss out will be the “fascist” word, since it will strike fear that the events that took place in Russia during their last encounter with fascists, will take place yet again.  This plays into old hatred, prejudice, and more importantly, it creates the “us vs. them” mentality.  This type of fervor plays well with the masses, since they can only think of the dreaded “wolves in the night.”  All good stuff, if your goal is to control that same group, and set yourself up as the “defender” of the people.  Putin knows exactly what he is doing, and he is operating off that same plan that was used with some success in the last century by his distant predecessor, Stalin.  If I lived in Eastern Europe right now, I’d be worried.  Actually, I would be damn worried, since it seems that we have an unbridled expansionist at the helm of a large and dangerously misled and misguided nation.  As a student of history, I have seen this movie before, and the ending simply isn’t pretty. ~ Michael S. Pauley

My posting last week about pocket knives garnered some lively debate among several of my friends. One friend made a good point about how despite our penchant to engage in human nature, he was holding out hope that we could achieve a greater consciousness that did not include such behavior. Now that is a gross paraphrase of his statement, but here was my response: 

Hope does little to stop aggression, and while we can always hope for peace, you’d better have something more than hope to back you up. If you denude your defense capability, then you lose the option of using something other than a nuclear weapon as your only back up option. I think my point is that if you reduce your conventional forces, in the hope of finding that utopian global society, or worse yet, leveraging your defense ability to pay for enabling social programs, then you are more likely than not going to have some stone age SOB in your face with a knife. Trust me, I’ve been shot at more than once, and there is nothing romantic about it. Instead, I just think that Theodore Roosevelt had the right idea, “walk softly and carry a big stick.” My concern is that we’re giving away our stick, while we cling to the hope that people won’t behave like people. Right now, Putin is just such a person, but he isn’t the really the point, since there will always be a Putin, or a Kim Jong Un, or a Stalin, or a Hitler, or a Pol Pot, etc. I am an advocate of a strong defense as a deterrent, and you have to maintain it, otherwise, the other guy will hit you when you’re unable to fight back. Russia and China both have increased modernization and funding for defense, and while they haven’t caught up to our technology yet, their sheer numbers are enough of a threat to offset most if not all of the latest technology. So, while we downsize, they are moving in the other direction. 

Not included in that response is my simple belief that it is the lesson that comes from a “zero tolerance” policy. Just as we now have “zero tolerance” in schools, with the inclusion of nuclear weapons into the “warfare” equation, we have eliminated the simple, more basic options that we as humans will naturally gravitate toward. Against this backdrop, everyone immediately assumes that with zero tolerance, there will be no fights, and therefore nothing to escalate into greater violence. I think the last 20 years of that social experiment has shown that it “ain’t working.” Now we just have people bringing larger items to the table, in order to inflict a greater harm, that is basically spawned from the suppression of human nature. An old adage in the Army was that “Stress is created from the suppression of the desire to choke the living *&#$! out of the person who is annoying you.” When we aren’t allowed to express our anger, then it becomes a bottled up rage, and rage never leads to anything good. Granted this is at the base individual level, but it begs the question of how nations will act or react in a given situation. 

With the advent of Nuclear Weapons, Nation States are now relegated into a “zero tolerance” position. If backed into a corner, can any nation that possesses them not actually use them for their basic survival? Sure, the smarter nations know that such use would ultimately destroy themselves, and thus the argument would be that even if survival was on the line, then why use them? This is great, except that we can’t always count on that concept. The days of Mutually Assured Destruction are now gone, and were gone the second that a rogue state or potential non-state actor might now be part of the mix. Having said this, there is more to the story. 

Just as the individual suppresses his anger, the normal nationalistic divides among nations, as well as the usual ethnic, religious, and other factors, can all create a “national rage.” We’re seeing it around the globe, and it is a dangerous path, since such actions can bleed into everyone’s national and personal interests in a blink of an eye. We are playing with fire, which is why it is necessary that we keep our powder dry and secure. The deterrence through strength is about the only option we have left, since the alternative is that one nation will back another one into a corner, from which they will then bring their “gun” to school. I’m pretty sure that any alleged parity among nations will be far more dangerous for that very reason. Just food for thought, as we draw down our military to a strength level consistent with 1940. (Which, by the way, wasn’t a very good year for any nation state.) ~ Michael S. Pauley 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there are other things falling apart around the world.  The mysterious crash of a Malaysian Airline is but one of these things.  Here the questions surround how a Boeing 777 can just disappear from 35,000 feet, or how passengers use stolen passports to get on board the ill-fated airliner.  What does it mean?  Right after the event, several nations joined in the search, to include a rather large Chinese Naval unit.  This is a rare projection of such naval power into the South China Sea, and even out of the humanitarian mission, suspicions still abound.  

Another aviation incident in that region also sparked a little Chinese controversy.  Seems that the DPRK or North Korea, did a missile test on March 6, 2014.  They fired their missiles from their coastline out to sea; however, these missiles crossed the flight path of a Chinese Airliner heading from Tokyo to Beijing.  This prompted China to send a rather strongly worded message to Pyongyang to the effect that the Chinese government was drawing a bright red line in the sand.  In other words, “You need to knock this crap off!  We will not tolerate any such behavior on the Korean peninsula!”    

Venezuela is also having severe issues.  There the government, which took the place of their now deceased dictator, is having a lot of trouble holding on, amid the crumbling of their already shoddy infrastructure.  This nation is going through some serious internal issues that have a very real danger of spilling over into the rest of the region.  Last Sunday, the government of Libya authorized the use of force against a North Korean Tanker, and even sent boats out to stop the tanker, ostensibly because the tanker was obtaining oil from Libyan separatists who were controlling an oil terminal.  Then last week, Israel intercepted a shipload of Iranian missiles and other munitions headed to Gaza.  Of course, taking full advantage of the world’s distraction, Syria, through the infamous Assad, is acting even more heinous than usual toward its own people.

Against all this, we Americans tend to be focused on the shiny thing that is closest to our feet.  We go through life blissfully unaware of the things that are out there that can bite us, which on one hand is a good thing.  I would prefer that we didn’t have to focus on these things, and instead to enjoy our way of life, our families, and the latest sporting event or fad.  Having said this, just remember that the world is full of issues, and we need people who will handle or deal with this stuff.  We need people who aren’t afraid to wade in, and who at a moment’s notice, aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty.  So, by all means, enjoy your lives and the little things, but don’t cut the funds to those who are dealing with the really ugly ones.  The notion that we need to cut down our military end strength, so we can fund some program for the social development of _____________________, (fill in the blank with your least favorite special interest group, since there are too many to be specific), is ludicrous and damn short-sighted. ~ Michael S. Pauley

Czars, Soviet Premiers, and Federation Presidents all have one thing in common.  In each instance, they had total authoritarian control over their citizens.  When the “Revolution” (actually there were several) overthrew the Czar for the worker, they merely swapped one evil for another one.  The shift was from pogroms to five year plans, with about the same results and outcomes.  They went from the crazed behavior of mad monks to someone like Stalin, whose oppressions and behavior were legend.  When Communism fell, a Federation was born.  Using terms that sounded of democracy, they held elections and got themselves a President and Prime Minister.  Yes, they swapped the Presidency between Medvedev and Putin, like a revolving door, we saw them merely pass the jobs back and forth.  The net result is the same.  Russia has authoritarian rule, and in essence their own new and improved Stalinist.  The conduct of Russia’s control over their media, and the control of information to their own public, is a large indicator of where this is going.  I’m not here to debate the question of “why?”  Pundits have already opined that such a huge country needs this type of leadership, or that this is all they’ve ever known, or it is a simple factor of diversity or geography.  Simply put, I don’t really give a damn why, instead, I DO care about the impact it will have on the rest of the world.  Right now, the same old games are being played, and Russia’s neighbors are now very concerned.  Putin is playing with economic and military fire, and is rolling the dice at his neighbors’ expense. ~ Michael S. Pauley

The past week I’ve read a number of editorials, opinion pieces, and a veritable ton of reasoned academic analysis that has all stated that the “Cold War” ended, and that while what is going on with Russian in the Ukraine is horrible, it simply is not the “Cold War” anymore.  While I hate to stand out on a limb, I have to say that in my opinion, all this reasoned analysis is missing a vital point.  Sure, this variant of our relations with Russia may have some significant differences, and there can be little debate that the pieces are not the same, but the fundamental truth is that Vladimir Putin doesn’t think it is over.  Out of all of the chatter and thumbing of noses, one reality jumped out at me.  Whether we think it is over or not is immaterial.  This past week, in response to our potential imposition of sanctions, Vladimir Putin was quoted in a number of sources as saying, “The unfounded threats towards Russia from the United States and NATO over its policy on Ukraine are seen by us as an unfriendly gesture that allows the declaration of force majeure circumstances."  So, what does this mean?  It means they are threatening to renounce every treaty in place between Russia and others, related to the build up of forces and nuclear weapons, and kick things back into high gear.  This is precisely the excuse that Putin has been wanting to get things back to his “comfort zone.”  Regardless of whether we think the “Cold War” ended or not, in his mind, and of those in his controlling Oligarchy, it is anything but over.  They were just taking a break, and now they’re back.

I will agree that our original view of the Cold War dynamic, with the original weapons races and posturing, took a time out for a few years.  Then again, Germany took a time out after World War I, but it didn’t stop them from coming back with a vengeance in 1936.  I also agree that the “Wall” came down and social change was made in Russia, but regardless of this, the Soviet mind set is well entrenched with many, to include Vladimir Putin.  His actions are completely consistent with that mind set, and they reflect the man himself, and the long authoritarian history of his country.  Make no mistake, he is determined to turn back the clock, and regardless of our view of whether the “Cold War” is over or not, to them we’re still in it.  This factor alone makes me think that the question of whether this is a “Cold War” or not, is actually moot.  One thing that is sure, this is not a “debate” as one pundit stated on Fox News.  Are you kidding?  Debate implies civilized discourse. When you start using troops to enforce your will on another nation, then debate is not what I would call it.  

I will concede that the Russians see themselves as having to take a break after the collapse of the USSR.  To me though, this break was simply to change their tactics based on the reality on the ground.  The underlying distrust and hostility is still there, and isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.  Brace yourself, because we’re in for a long road with this one.  The pattern was set shortly after Putin took control, and has continued through the 2008 invasion of Georgia, and now into Crimea.  What’s next?  Perhaps all of the Ukraine, or maybe moves into various of the Baltic states.  This of course is less likely now, based on the NATO agreements, but is that something that is really going to stop them?  Regardless, Putin wants a buffer from the West, and he will take whatever action he deems as necessary to rebuild that buffer and control more turf.  In other words, to believe that he isn’t trying to rebuild the empire, because you’ve done a “reset” or saw his soul through his eyes, is pure delusion.  Make no mistake, this guy is a danger, and history would seem to be trying to tell us something.  We aren’t in a debate, and this has nothing to do with what we say it does.  Instead, we just need to take off the blinders, and see things without our rose colored glasses.  Putin is imposing his will and rebuilding empires.  Whether you like the semantics or not, he thinks it is the “Cold War” and so should we, for to think otherwise is ignoring the obvious. ~ Michael S. Pauley