At its 70th birthday, NATO is militarily America’s fifth wheel

As the 70th anniversary of the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization approaches on April 4th, Belgium’s Royal Higher Institute of Defense has published an article which will bring little cheer to staff at the luxurious NATO headquarters situated on the outskirts of Brussels, 15 kilometers away from my home office downtown.

The birthday present in question is entitled “NATO and American technological superiority: a risk for Euro-Atlantic solidarity,” e-Note 26, 18 March 2019.  Coming from the pen of an associate of the Institute, Alain De Neve, this article in French has been researched and set out with high professionalism. It merits wide circulation in the English-speaking world which I alone cannot assure, but let us start the ball rolling here and now.

In this brief essay, I will summarize the reasoning of the author. Why this is worth your reading time comes down to the two main points which follow from what he is saying:

  1. That ‘America First’ is not a policy that began with Donald Trump’s inauguration in office. It was long the underlying principle of US military and foreign policy, only it was generally concealed under the ideological coating of Liberalism within the political dimension of the Alliance that was puffed up in the 1990s to justify its role as provider of stability to the swathe of Central Europe of the former Warsaw Pact countries. NATO was first and foremost the platform for shared values of democracy and rule of law.


Trump, as we know, has no patience either with the values jargon, or with the soft power, political dimension of multilateral institutions like NATO, preferring to stick to the military and Realpolitik side of things. And so America’s naked and selfish pursuit of its interests, always present in the past, is now laid bare.


America First has been the guiding hand in the new military doctrine for the United States called the Third Offset Strategy which Barack Obama authorized in 2014.  De facto it dispensed with the need for America to have allies, their being only encumbrances for reasons we shall see momentarily.


  1. That the spending gap, the inability and/or unwillingness of America’s European allies to reach the minimum spend of 2% of GDP on NATO is not the real issue separating the two sides of the Atlantic.  The shortfall in European spending on defense was the stick used by the Obama administration to bully Europe. It has served the same purpose under President Trump.  But it is only a diversion from the real shortfall of the Allies, and an insignificant one at that.


The real gap is a technological gap which the United States has opened up and continues to widen at present, leaving the Europeans to understand that they all are nothing more than a “fifth wheel” militarily, or, at best, a tool kit to be used to pick up additional competences in variable geography alliances to confront challenges that the United States defines unilaterally and without consultation. This is so, because the cutting edge technologies which the United States is developing for its war machine are so far ahead of anything Europe has or will have that the underlying military principle of the Alliance these past 70 years, interoperability of the forces from the various national entities, is no longer feasible across the board.


* * * *

What is the ‘Third Offset Strategy’ that Alain De Neve says has left the European allies in the dust?  It is the latest overarching concept of the United States for ‘offsetting’ the perceived threats from those it has identified as its principal adversary or adversaries.

The first ‘offset’ strategy dates back to the 1960s and ‘70s when the United States and its NATO allies confronted the Warsaw Pact which had numerical superiority in terms of men under arms, tanks and other materiel for conventional warfare. The United States then developed a nuclear arsenal for deployment in Europe that one might otherwise call an equalizer.

The second great strategy came in the 1980s and ‘90s with the advent of smart munitions, precision guided missiles and cruise missiles.  This was given the name “Revolution in Military Affairs” and had as its salient features to establish domination wherever and whenever necessary, to shore up American global hegemony. The United States would clear the skies of its prey, followed by the destruction of any opponent’s air defenses and then of all his military and logistical infrastructure.  When this “Revolution” was implemented in the First Gulf War in 1991, the shock and awe effect was as pronounced among the NATO allies as it was among the Iraqis.

Then came the aerial bombardment of Serbia in the Kosovo war of 1999. At this point the inability of European armed forces to deploy effective forces in remote war theaters became obvious. Europe planned to meet this shortcoming. It took steps to transform its armed forces to the doctrinal and technological standards of the US.  However, the operational constraints linked to the contingencies in Afghanistan and Iraq (2003) remained. The technologies resulting from the Revolution in Military Affairs generated new frictions in carrying out operations that were not anticipated well.

De Neve tells us that the “Third Offset Strategy” approved in 2014 was conceived to counter what the US has now identified as its new main adversaries, ‘resurgent Russia’ and ‘emerging China’.  Both have installed access denial systems to frustrate US airpower. Both are powerhouses of military technology.  Both have military capabilities that outmatch anything Europe has on its own.

The “Third Offset Strategy” entails creation of overwhelming US technological superiority across a broad spectrum of innovative and mutually enhancing weapons systems that are generations ahead of anything Europe has.  These systems should revise the global military balance.

Here is how De Neve sums up the program:

“The objective is to distance itself from any international actor, whether friend or enemy or partner on the technological plane in numerous sectors of innovation, including robotics, laser weapons, drone systems, hypersonic and hypervelocity arms, nanotechnologies, 3-D printing, biotechnologies and artificial intelligence. Put in other terms, the ambition expressed by the USA is not only to maintain technological military superiority but to succeed in ensuring unchallenged supremacy of all the critical domains of modern and future warfare.”

In the meantime, the NATO states have experienced a tangible erosion of their own capabilities in Research and Development in the defense sphere. There are many reasons for this. The first is the lower rate of growth of the defense budgets of the European allies while the rest of the world is seeing geometric growth. A second reason comes from the combined civil and commercial nature of most of the innovations which interest defense planners. Finally, a third element is that the innovation is now more costly and happens much faster.

The US is investing in large scale programs favoring technologies that not only safeguard military personnel but keep their options open in all sorts of crisis configurations.  One of the breakthrough technologies is naval sleeper forces ready to be reactivated if needed in a crisis. They can launch their ballistic missiles and drones. They can be kept well hidden until needed. They can strike quickly against the Anti-Access/Area Denial of the adversary. Then there are robotics for crisis deployment. These systems have very brief alert times that are contrary to the notion of consultation with allies and partners. And contrary to an alliance with a geographic specificity, the US wants to be able to prioritize many theaters of action simultaneously.

The Europeans cannot yet figure out the strategic objectives they would like to attain. When they tried to put forward a Global Strategy in 2016, the US responded negatively.

“A big problem is at the operational level. There is too big a gap. As one US Rear Admiral remarked back in 1998, if a friend or ally is operating without the specific tactical communications link, they get in the way and may be shot down by friendly fire.”

Today that remark is very relevant to the deployment of newest American warplane, the F-35, which has its own communications system, the latest generation Multifunctional Advanced Data Link (MADL). By equipping the F-35 with the MADL, the USA sent a clear message to all nations which would want to continue operations in coalition with the USA but hesitate to opt for the F-35 to replace their combat aircraft.”

Europe’s latest answer to the Third Offset Strategy came in 2017 with the creation of a European Defense Fund. It comprises an R&D budget for collaborative work on innovative technologies and products for defense:  advanced electronics, encrypted software and robotics. The second element is development and procurement.  However, the European Defense Fund is not really a broad response to the Third Offset Strategy.

“There is the tendency of the USA now to set as the entrance ticket for coalitions on one or another defense mission ownership of specific weapons systems.”

Thus, by choice, the United States is itself directly undermining the otherwise still weak and failing European defense industry and giving itself a major argument for Europe’s being just a ‘fifth wheel.’

* * * *

The old joke about NATO is that it was devised to keep the United States in Europe, to keep the Germans down and to keep the Soviets out.  One might say that little has changed over 70 years.  Only for “Germans” read today “the Europeans” and for “Soviets,” read “the Russians.” However, even old jokes do die. In effect, the centrality of the European theater in any possible future war has changed.

We are in the age of Great Power politics, when there are only three Sovereign States in the world capable of conducting independent foreign and military policies, namely the United States, Russia and China. On their own, and even in combination with the United States,  the European member states of NATO count for nothing.  It is interesting to see that here in Belgium at the very heart of the NATO organization that reality is now spoken about in public by professionals who know the score.

And so, if the political dimension of NATO has been scrapped by the US administration, if the military dimension is compromised by an unbridgeable technological gap and loss of interoperability, then what is left of NATO at age 70 besides the name and a billion dollar plus headquarters building near the Brussels airport?


©Gilbert Doctorow, 2019

Donald Trump: the guy at the next bar stool speaks to CPAC

Surely Donald Trump is the least “presidential” Chief Executive of the United States we have ever known. And that, above all, may explain why he is likely to be re-elected in 2020 against the united opposition of Democrats and all mass media, indeed over the opposition of all “respectable” society who shudder at the sight and sound of him.

His merits were fully on display yesterday in his rambling, self-indulgent two hour address to the CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, at a hotel venue outside Washington, D.C.

The speech was carried live on by several pro-Trump organizations that promised viewers an uncut, fly-on-the-wall experience without intermediation by hostile mainstream newscasters. He reached American and global audiences that may have numbered in the millions.  Like his daily Tweets to his political base, Trump is using the power of social networks and live streaming to run circles around old-technology, print and television broadcasters that are arrayed against him.

One commentator noted that Trump used in his speech a “very unpresidential word” – “bullshit” – when characterizing the oversight role of the Democratic House of Representatives. But the bigger point is that  Trump’s choice of words throughout, his very prolixity and his demeanor at the lectern were all un-presidential.

What we saw was that when he lets himself go Trump has the “common touch.”  Not by stooping down but by just being himself.  We can put aside all the glitter surrounding the Trump fortune, all the gilt on the taps of his bathroom faucets. Trump is common in all senses of the word, including vulgar, crass, a braggard. He is in every way what your typical intellectual or other Establishment stuffed shirt will shun.

But at the same time, his being on a level with, and perhaps beneath the level of the broad public makes him loveable.  The audience at the CPAC yesterday was enthralled. He was interrupted repeatedly by rhythmic chanting of “Four More Years.”

In the Obama days, the media played up the President’s education and supposed sophistication ( a cultivated myth). He was asked his opinion about absolutely everything and, fool that he is. he responded,  never pleading ignorance, going well beyond any possible comfort zone or personal information base.

This does not happen with Trump. No one mistakes him for the Father of the Nation. He is the guy on the next bar stool with whom you can share a locker-room joke.

Trump’s speech had been announced as taking an hour. In fact, it went double that because so much of it was “off script,” ignoring the teleprompter and speaking what was on his mind, not on the mind of his handlers. As he observed, with good reason, he had won the 2016 election precisely by going off script.  “There were 16 Republicans running for President plus me.” Aptly put, not just as a lead-in to his primary identity as a conservative and not just another Republican party card-holder.

Watching him in action yesterday raised issues not only about the present but about the distant past and whether such vicious in-fighting is a new development or an old feature of American democracy and the struggle for power, both on the way to Washington and in DC to retain power once on top.  This was clear from Trump’s mocking Jeff Sessions, his Attorney General who recused himself on the investigation into Russian collusion during the 2016 election. In doing so, Sessions removed the main justification for his having been appointed:  to ring-wall, to protect Trump against the oncoming witch-hunt that was intended to destroy his presidency.

Had he fulfilled the duties Trump intended for him, Sessions would have drawn upon himself all the wrath of Congress and tarnished his own reputation forever.  Instead, he defended his own integrity at the expense of the President’s political fortunes.  One more back-stabber, from Trump’s perspective.

Then as Trump went on to say yesterday, Mueller was installed, Mueller who was a buddy of….FBI chief James Comey. And there you have the real collusion, that of the intel bosses out to get Trump.

These seemingly offhand remarks by the President to his adoring supporters were not material for gossip columns. They are his insider description of the networking or collusion that makes Washington  the treacherous swamp it is. If there is a Deep State, it is in what Trump was describing yesterday.

All of the connections around Trump’s mention of Jeff Sessions bring to mind something long forgotten:  Jack Kennedy’s appointment of his brother Bobby to be Attorney General.  At the time, the appointment was criticized as smacking of nepotism and dynastic ambitions of the Kennedys.  But in retrospect, seeing what Trump has been undergoing at the orders of the “sleaze” whom he rightly says have been in charge of the FBI, it makes perfect sense that Jack appointed his brother precisely to ring-wall himself against the black-mailing sleaze-bag of his own day, J. Edgar Hoover.  And these associations necessarily resuscitate the conspiracy theories that surrounded the Kennedy assassination, with red lines going back to the CIA.

But to return to the vivid and memorable present…

Watching Trump deliver the impromptu half or more of his CPAC appearance changed my understanding of his speaking abilities which was first formed during the televised presidential debates.  I gave him low marks at the time. Not being a lawyer by training, not being a politician till he reached for the nation’s highest office, he clearly had no experience in political thrust and parry. He resorted to verbal aggression with all the subtlety of a cudgel.

Now it was clear that he is indeed an effective public speaker, but coming from a very different genre: the stand-up comedian of a Las Vegas casino show.  His “throw away lines” yesterday were incredibly good politics. They were picked up and disseminated even by his enemies in the media because they were so well targeted and invoked unforgettable images that you just want to share with the first person you meet.

The top pick came early in his speech, when he talked about how he hoped the Democrats would keep their present infatuation with environmentalism, climate change and run their 2020 campaign on that plarform:

“I think the new green deal, or whatever the hell they call it The Green New Deal, right?  I encourage it. I think it’s really something they should promote.

“No planes, No energy.  When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric. ‘Let’s hurry up. Darling, darling, is the wind blowing today? I’d like to watch television, darling.”

In a situation where Trump’s every word is picked over for possible use in litigation against him, he has become a master of sarcasm and double entendre, language habits which belie the notion of mental laziness or, to borrow from the barrel of insults hurled his way, ‘low IQ.’


Thus, we heard yesterday from him about the “collusion delusions”  of those “sick, sick” Democrats, who, upon realizing that the Mueller report will give them nothing to table a motion of impeachment in the House, turned on a dime and started demanding documents from his past dealings in private business hoping to find dirt there.

As for FBI director James Comey, the very bad cop, Trump  made a short story long. He regaled us with  his (surely imaginary) conversation with The First Lady on the day of the firing.  He had told Melania that here, at last, he would find full bipartisan support. After all, Senator Schumer of New York and other Democratic leaders had been calling for Comey’s scalp ever since the days just prior to the November 2016 election when Comey briefly publicly considered reopening the investigation of her misuse of a private computer server to conduct State business,

Then, with reference to the line of questioning directed at his former private attorney Michael Cohen this past week during a Congressional hearing, Trump ripped into his enemies.  “They say Trump was begging the Russians to give him Hillary’s emails.  Begging the Russians!” Here again, his words were dripping sarcasm, as well they might.

* * * *



The CPAC is by definition all about politics.  But the policy side of politics was absent in Trump’s speech yesterday. He spoke about partisan warfare, about a struggle to stay in power and survive the determined, vicious attack on his presidency being waged by the Democrats.

In that sense, it corresponds to the main point in an essay published by Pat Buchanan a couple of days ago,

Current American political life is extraordinarily vituperous and self-destructive.  At the same time it is a menace to the world outside the country.

It is an old and true observation that for any given country, foreign policy often is just an extension of domestic policy.  In the United States today, the Rest of the World has no reality in and of itself. It is merely a prop to be used at will in the struggle for power with political opponents.

The current US attempt at regime change in Venezuela is a case in point.  Many critics of US foreign policy have spoken of the oil wealth of Venezuela as the factor driving American support for the self-proclaimed president Juan Guaido. No, with production booming at home, the United States gunboat diplomacy is no longer shaped by oil.  The driving force is domestic voting patterns and how to lock in crucial states by identification with the issues that count there.

We are only four months past the midterm elections and all eyes are already focused on 2020.  In the Venezuela play of the Trump administration, we see the issue on which he clearly hopes to win the State of Florida, with its very large Latino, particularly Cuban population.  The fact that the US economic blockade of Venezuela, its seizure of Venezuelan assets may be causing enormous harm to the civilian population, may precipitate a bloody civil war there: that is all just collateral damage for the Trump administration.  Moreover, the recent appointment of the veteran planner of the Iran-Contra policies under Reagan,  Elliott Abrams has brought into play that old scenario, with Ukraine now starring as the chosen implementer of dirty work against Venezuela in the days ahead.

In the cynical use of a foreign policy issue, namely Venezuela, for the sake of political advantage in the domestic power struggle in Washington, Trump is no better than his Democratic opponents who have used Russia in the same way, as a cudgel against him. If there is any difference here, it is that the Democrats are raising the risks of Armageddon with the world’s other nuclear superpower for the sake of seizing power at home. Reality, truth about Putin’s Russia is not only irrelevant but stands in the way of scenarios dreamed up by the sophomoric political scientist hacks they employ in their assault on Trump.

In closing, let us take one more look at Trump’s successes as a public speaker dating from a couple of weeks ago when he was using all his rhetorical strength to promote The Wall.  I have in mind his rally in El Paso, Texas, on the very border with Mexico.

In advance of that event, on the face of it Trump’s appearance in that city, with its heavily Latino (Mexican) demographics, given its symbiotic relationship with Ciudad Juares on the other side in a shared metropolitan area, should have seemed a losing proposition. All the more so, given that an up and coming, local charismatic Democratic star, Beto O’Rourke, was organizing a counter demonstration.

However, as reported by Dave Eggers in the Left-leaning and otherwise viscerally anti-Trump Guardian newspaper, Trump’s rally was an enormous success.  Indeed a large part of the pro-Trump audience was Latino and people of color, a third of them under the age of 30. Meanwhile, O’Rourke’s counter-demo was pitiful failure.


It is perfectly clear from Eggers’ report that it is not just the “common touch” that Donald Trump has going for him, important as that may be. It is also economic figures that convey a reality of highest ever employment for disadvantaged America, in particular Latinos and Blacks.

The title of the article says it all.  Yes, Trump may indeed win a second term whatever the Democrats try and whomever they put forward.  The paramount question for those of us who hope to survive the Age of Trump is when will he finally act on the one pre-election promise that he has so far been unable to deliver:  normalize relations with Russia and take us back from the brink of nuclear war.


©Gilbert Doctorow, 2019

Immigration! A review of Theo Francken, “Continent sans frontière”

Continent sans frontière [Continent Without a Border] directs a powerful spotlight on one of the central issues in current political life in Europe and the United States:  immigration policy.

Ever since the tidal wave of over one million unprocessed, illegal migrants hit European shores in the summer and early autumn of 2015, the questions surrounding the EU’s “open borders” policy practiced at that time under the welcoming slogan of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel “wir schaffen das” [we can handle it] have changed the political landscape on the Old Continent.

The author argues that this unprecedented flood of immigrants was a major contributing factor to the decision of the British to leave the European Union during their June 2016 referendum (Brexit). This wave aggravated a pre-existing resistance to newcomers in Britain resulting from the settlement of more than a million Poles and others from Eastern Europe since their accession to the Union in 2004, with the accompanying depressing effect on wages and housing conditions for native Britons.

He also argues that the 2015 wave of illegal arrivals consolidated opposition to Brussels in the Central European Member States known as the Vysehrad Four, raising the possibility of a further disintegration of the Union if the underlying differences over immigration and multiculturalism are not resolved. And, of course, it gave impetus to protests against the ruling elites that we now know as the “populist” parties on the right and left extremes of the political spectrum, which may unseat the centrist majority in the European Parliament in the May 2019 elections. Across the pond, border control has been one of the main issues used by Donald Trump to take and hold the presidency. In a word, the issues confronted in this book are of primary importance in the world’s leading democracies.


Who is the author?

Theo Francken is uniquely qualified to present the subject. From 2014 until the fall of the coalition government in which his party, the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) was the power behind the throne, Francken was the State Secretary for Asylum and Immigration.

As a central figure in the controversial immigration affairs, he was a highly visible member of a party that until its grudging acceptance into a coalition government formed under pressure of financial crisis had been dealt with at arms’ length by polite Belgian society. It was precisely disagreement over his dossier, immigration policy, that pitted the N-VA against the Center-Left Prime Minister Charles Michel in December 2018 and brought down the Government. The point of contention was N-VA opposition to Belgian participation in the intergovernmental conference to adopt a global compact on migration backed by the United Nations and held in Marrakesh earlier in the month.

In his official capacity, all during his tenure Francken participated not only in Belgian internal wrangling over the immigration issue but in talks at the European level where he represented the respective meetings of the European Council.  In this book, he explains the dynamics of the European tug-of-war over immigration from his insider perspective.

As one of the younger members of government who made his share of gaffes along the way, Francken has been the object of vituperous attack not only from opponents in other political parties but from the Belgian mainstream media, academics and NGOs as a moral reprobate, a man without a heart.  He has been labeled a xenophobe, a fascist. Thus, it is no accident that in this book the author goes out of his way to show us his utter reasonableness and lawyer’s training in presenting carefully researched and argued positions. Unlike his detractors, Francken claims the high ground of intellectual debate and does not engage in ad hominem attacks which are the bane of modern political life.  This makes the book all the more extraordinary and much more valuable than one normally expects from political memoirs.

* * * *

In Continent sans frontière, Theo Francken covers his subject comprehensively, from many angles, past, present and future. In this segment, I will call out the subjects and to a limited extent the argumentation of the sequence of chapters.

Francken opens by introducing us to the misrepresentation of the migrant crisis from the get-go that made it possible for the well-intentioned European public to accept an influx it might never have tolerated had it known the facts.

In September 2015, the migrants were by official account and by unanimous media coverage described as being largely Syrian refugees, often well-educated folk, fleeing the bombs of Bashir Assad and the terror imposed by ISIL.  However, from the information available in Belgium’s Office of Foreigners, the reality appeared to be quite different: less than 20% of those who applied to settle in Belgium in the period from September to December 2015 were of Syrian origin. Most were young Afghan and Iraqi males, and they came not from war-torn parts of their countries but from the capitals, Kabul and Baghdad, which were relatively stable at the time. By his estimation, these were strictly economic migrants seeking their fortunes in Europe and having no right to consideration for asylum or to entry without advance processing and issuance of visas. Moreover, the majority of even those who claimed to be Syrians when reporting to authorities across Europe had not come directly from Syria, but from UN-administered camps or from the major cities of Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan, where they had taken temporary residence. That is to say, they faced no threats to their lives prior to entering Europe.

Francken insists that these facts were all accessible to the media, but that they chose instead to present an entirely false image of pretty young female and child asylum seekers or of young men with artistic ambitions. In this effort, the media were backed up by progressive politicians who took liberties with the facts, all for the sake of a good cause.  The shared objective was to elicit sympathy from the broad population while blackening the reputation of politicians of the Right, of realists, who called for shutting the borders and pushing back the migrants.

Francken then asks what was the driver of the migration if it was not war. This he identifies as the Eldorado principle, the hopes for a better life among the lower middle classes of Northern and Western Africa as well as from the extended Middle East who could find the several thousand dollars to pay smugglers the passage to Europe as clandestines.

He asks why it was precisely these geographic areas that have generated the millions of candidate migrants to Europe, and in the end, concludes that it is the very high birth rates in the source countries which exceeds any sustainable economic growth and produces each year a surplus of young and dispossessed males who form the legions of migrants if given a chance.  The heightened fertility comes back to a cultural factor in common:  Islam.

Francken turns next to the question of why millions of people living in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa are drawn to Europe. Prosperity, stability, liberty are all factors. But why Europe? Why not to Japan, to Indonesia, to Australia, where the same positive attractions beckon? The reason is that Europe’s frontiers have been left unprotected, whereas the other possible destinations firmly protect their borders and push back would be arrivals.

This brings us to the question of how and why Europe’s borders are open. One is that European society and countries are divided in their thinking about migration, with the left of the political spectrum expressing considerable sympathy. They draw on Christian ethical teachings, charitable impulses and feelings of guilt over our own good fortune, which is deemed to be arbitrary. The result is a mentality that “the world belongs to all.” The notion of “illegal” immigrants is rejected on principle. Those reasoning in this way go on to claim that migrations have existed in every epoch and that there is nothing that can prevent them.

Francken also finds many apologists for mass migration among business elites. The influx of immigrants will provide new consumers and workers, rejuvenating Old Europe and providing a net benefit for the economy.  He patiently walks us through the facts, showing that yes, immigration can bring benefits, but only if it is controlled, if the candidates are vetted in advance to match their skills with the needs of the economy in the country of arrival. Thus, there has indeed been benefit to the economy in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, where such screening is done. However, chaotic arrivals and passive immigration based on the principle of family reunification give no such positive proofs. On the contrary, they indicate net losses from financial assistance to the majority who are not placed in jobs within four years of arrival.  Studies in Germany already in October 2015 indicated that the majority of arrivals in the country were illiterate or had very little education. And the final bill to Germany for its open arms to illegal migrants in 2015 was a whopping 50 billion euros annualized.


Francken moves on to explore how it was that Europe was politically powerless to control its borders and push back against the illegal flows of migrants in 2015.  Here he walks us through a sequence of judicial decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg starting in 1989 with an extradition case which expanded the provisions of the 1950 Convention on Human Rights, Article 3, prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment beyond any semblance of the limited intentions of the framers and original signatories of the Convention. The Court effectively curtailed sharply the options of government authorities across Europe to refuse entry and to forcibly eject illegal immigrants and unprocessed asylum seekers. What we are shown is the judiciary at the European level encroaching on the legislative powers and violating the principle of separation of powers.

One consequence was to render inoperable the provisions of the compromise framework of Member States on handling immigrants known as the Dublin Agreement. That governed return of immigrants to the Member State where they first entered the EU. These problems were aggravated by follow-on court rulings at the national level.  The end result is that when the hundreds of thousands of migrants arrived in Greece in 2015 from Turkey and elsewhere, they no longer could be kept in place or returned to Greece if they moved further into the Schengen area, and Greece became just a transit country.

The courts also exerted a decisive and baneful influence on Europe’s options for controlling arrivals from the sea.  The European navies were denied the right to turn back migrants at sea. The result is that very quickly the passage to Europe on chartered boats destined for European ports hundreds of kilometers away morphed into passage on unseaworthy small rubber dinghies dispatched from the Libyan coast and sailing to international waters just beyond the 12 mile limit, where they could be met and “rescued” by mercy ships made available by European NGOs promoting immigration who conveyed them to Europe.

Further decisions at the European level, in this case the Dublin Agreement itself, shaped and encouraged yet another outstanding feature of the migrant influx of autumn 2015: the arrival of nearly 90,000 undocumented, unaccompanied minors. The well-circulated fact that such minors would be given freedom to choose their country of asylum within Schengen, whereas adult migrants had no such right, encouraged parents in West Africa, in the extended Middle East to forcibly send children on their way to the hazards of passage to Europe in the expectation that once they arrived they would establish residence, being untouchable till they reached 18 and in the meantime would file on behalf of their parents and siblings on the principle of “family reunification.”

Francken goes on to explain that whereas Belgium and The Netherlands used radiographic techniques to establish the true age of self-declared undocumented “minors,” Germany, the biggest destination for the “children’s crusade” did nothing whatsoever to verify ages and by ignorance or deception granted asylum to persons who were de facto adults.  The knock-on effect was that such young adults were placed in schools where they were several years older than their native-born peers. The most egregious such cases were recorded in Sweden, which of all European countries was the most zealous to take in “refugees” and demonstrated the most suffocating conformism in denying the realities of those who were arriving at its processing centers.

Theo Francken takes his time walking us through these developments precedent setting case by case.

Although, as I said at the outset, the author does not engage in character assassination when discussing his political opponents, he does name names and bring out inconsistencies and prevarication. This is particularly the case in his indictment of European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, whose unqualified position in favor of open doors and unrestricted immigration was made clear at the height of the crisis in September 2015 and in his determination thereafter to force Member States to accept quotas of immigrants, notwithstanding the strong resistance of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia (Vysehrad Four). Thus, he finds that Juncker has done serious damage to EU solidarity and credibility.

Finally, Theo Francken looks at how other industrialized countries have managed to stay on the right side of international law, while enforcing a robust defense of their borders against illegal migration.  He sees the practices of Australia as exemplary in this regard and discusses them at some length. His point is that given the political will, Europe can also implement a rational and at the same time humane immigration policy.




* * * *

Continent sans frontière was first published by the author in his native Flemish. The French language edition was put out very soon afterwards. At his book presentation in a French-speaking literary club in Brussels in mid-December, that is about a month after publication, where Francken spoke very good French and established rapport with his audience, he proudly announced that more than 10,000 copies in French had already been sold.  Given the small scale of the book trade in this country, given the curses sent his way by the press, this achievement was quite remarkable.

It is a great pity that so far no English language edition has yet appeared or been promised. The issues addressed in this book have relevance far beyond the state of Belgium,

Finally, I note that this book has value as a chronicle of our times in a wholly different dimension. Throughout, Francken shows how the ruling elites in Belgium, in a manner undistinguishable from counterparts in the United States, in Germany and elsewhere, link arms with mainstream media, with universities, think tanks and NGO’s to dictate what our values should be and what can and cannot be the proper subject of public discussion.

Exactly the same phenomenon occurs with respect to a couple of other major issues which are the defining moments of our day:  climate change and relations with Putin’s Russia.


Suppression of free debate on immigration may lead to the break-up of the EU, which we will all survive even if we have deep regrets.  Suppression of free debate on climate change may lead to economic slowdown that serves no useful purpose, to much higher energy costs for the public and industry, to power blackouts due to the irregularity and shortfalls of renewable sources. We can also survive that.  However, suppression of free debate on relations with Russia is something we may not survive. Our present policies, which are uninformed by public discussion and face no challenge thanks to blacklisting of anyone putting a question to our complacent Establishment, are leading us directly into nuclear confrontation and possible Armageddon.

In this book, Theo Francken wears his politics on his sleeve. He is a proud Rightist, and he denounces at every turn the uninformed and lazy idealism of the Left, of “progressive humanity” and “constructive media” for the bad policies on immigration handed down and enforced by our courts, by our legislators and by the executive arm of government at the national and supranational levels. He makes a compelling argument.

However, in our democracies with their alternation in power, the vices of enforced conformism can and do attach themselves to Right as well as Left over a period of decades, The greater principle is that muzzling or denigration of political opponents impoverishes our thinking processes. Destructive policies are not required to prove themselves in an open marketplace of ideas. Political correctness of all stripes curtails pluralism, which is the precondition for a vital democracy.



©Gilbert Doctorow, 2019

The Kremlin’s Military Posture Re-considered: strategic military parity with the U.S. or absolute military superiority over the U.S.


To the vast majority of Americans, including the foreign policy establishment, the question posed in the title may seem something of a joke. After all, absolute military superiority over Russia and other potential rivals for global influence has been the objective of US military policy for the last twenty-five years or more, at vast budgetary expense. One instrument for its achievement has been the roll-out of a system known as the global missile defense, which in effect encircles Russia and China, posing the threat of massive simultaneous missile strikes that could overwhelm any defenses.  To intelligence specialists at the Pentagon, who likely have been watching, as I have done, what the Kremlin disseminated earlier today in Russian only versions so far, the question of Moscow turning the tables is entirely serious and shocking.

When Vladimir Putin first publicly described Russia’s latest state-of-the-art weapons systems in development and deployment one year ago, during his 1 March 2018 Address to the bicameral legislature, he said these systems would ensure the re-establishment of full strategic parity with the United States. Western media sniggered. US politicians, with a very few exceptions, chose to ignore what they considered to be just domestic electioneering during a presidential campaign that Putin was expected to win handily. It was all a bluff, they said.

In his annual Address this past Wednesday, 22 February, President Putin expanded on those developments in armaments, reported which systems were now entering active service. He made it clear one of them is the planned Russian response to a likely consequence of US withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: the stationing by the U.S. of nuclear armed cruise missiles like the Tomahawk on land and directed against Russia, all of which would reduce the warning time of incoming attack in Moscow to just 10 – 12 minutes and constitute an existential risk.

Putin, being Putin, did not spell out the threats implicit in the prospective deployment of the new Russian weapons systems. He remained always polite and open to discussion in his speech.  But as we saw earlier today, he entrusted the task of dotting i’s to  a member of his close entourage, Dmitry Kiselyov who is the chief administrator of all news programs on Russian state television while also serving as the anchor of the widely watched News of the Week, a summary newscast shown on two federal channels on Sunday evenings. To expand the circulation still more beyond the News of the Week audience, the segment dealing with Putin’s Address and the new arms systems was released as a separate 10 minute video on early in the afternoon.

And a summary of the information in the television broadcast was distributed still earlier today by the associated news agency, RIA Novosti.

The central point of the television broadcast was summarized in one paragraph by RIA Novosti and bears repeating here. It makes reference to the threat of shortened warning times of incoming American missiles and to the Russian “mirror like” response. Putin claimed that Russia now has the means to respond immediately and with full confidence of success. Such counter measures would be directed not only at countries hosting the American missiles but at the “decision making centers” authorizing use of these missiles, meaning in the United States.

With more than a dollop of sarcasm, Putin had said in his speech that the Americans surely can still count. He urged them to consider the speed and the range of the new missile system that will be arrayed against them before taking any decision on deploying land-based Tomahawks and similar t in Europe.

We were told today that the Russian missile system that Putin had in mind as his counter measure is the Zircon, a hypersonic missile capable of traveling at 11,000 km/hour and having a range of 1,000 km. It can be installed in submarines that already carry the Kalibr cruise missile which was used to great effect in the Syrian campaign.

Kiselyov’s people now did the calculations for us on what the Zircon will mean for US security. I quote from RIA Novosti:

“If we [Russians], without violating anything or disturbing anyone, should simply locate in the oceans our submarines equipped with launchers of the Zircon missiles – each carrying 40 pieces, – then in the operational zone of the Russian hypersonic weapons we find the very centers of decision making about which Putin spoke. Our vessels are situated beyond the boundaries of the exclusive economic zone of the USA which extends 200 miles from the coast.  Two hundred miles is 370 kilometers. We can calmly position ourselves at 400 km from the coast. All these centers of decision making are also not so far from the coast. Let’s say they are an additional 400 km. Thus, a total of 800 km. The Zircon flies with a speed of 11,000 km/h.  Thus to cover the 800 km the Zircon spends a bit less than five minutes. This is a problem that third grade school children can solve. There you have it, the flight time.”

And which decision-making centers in the United States will the Russians be targeting? On the East Coast, they are the Pentagon, Camp David and Fort Ritchie in Maryland.  On the West Coast:  McClellan Air Force base in California and Jim Creek [Naval Radio Station] in the state of Washington.  What Kiselyov was talking about might be called a “decapitating strike” or a “first strike capability” against all of US strategic command and control over its nuclear forces that would leave the US unable to respond in a coordinated manner.

After setting out these facts, Dmitry Kiselyov turned over the reporting to a journalist team who described in some detail the other major new weapons systems that Vladimir Putin first mentioned one year ago and spoke of in passing on the 22nd, bringing us up to date on the state of their testing and or introduction in the active armed forces. However, there is no need for us to deal with them, because they reflect the vast potential for attack on the United States that the Russians would enjoy following the decapitating strike of the Zircon systems. Or perhaps it would be better to say that these duplicative systems operate in parallel with Zircon since several are fully capable of penetrating and evading US anti missile systems on their own.

There was however, one especially noteworthy point from their report, a statement by Minister of Defense Shoigu underlining the high efficiency of the Russian arms development, which, he said, costs hundreds of times less than the systems being developed by the US for use against Russia. Plus the minute or so of additional video which they took from Putin’s speech closing out the discussion of weapons and foreign policy. The Russian President remarked that he was ready at all times to negotiate with the United States over arms limitation whenever the States are ready to do so on an equitable basis. And he continues to seek full-bodied, mutually beneficial and friendly relations with America.

* * * *

How can we characterize this Russian broadcast?  Is it a threat, pure and simple? Or is there something else that the Kremlin has in mind?

One might say that the intention was to warn the US to come to its senses and reconsider its withdrawal from the INF Treaty.  Failing that, it is a warning not even to think about stationing cruise missiles in Europe, lest the Russians proceed with the Zircon deployment.

However, it is also possible to see the Kremlin announcement as presaging Russia’s taking absolute strategic military superiority over the United States, i.e., appropriating to itself what it accuses the United States of having tried to achieve vis-à-vis Russia with encirclement and the move of NATO to Russian borders.

In this connection, it is worth paying attention to one other broadcast on Russian television this past week, on Thursday, 23 February, that is the day after Putin’s speech. This was  a lengthy interview with Yakov Kedmi,  an Israeli political scientist and intelligence expert speaking by video link from Tel Aviv to Russia’s most authoritative political  talk show, Evening with Vladimir Solovyov. See

Kedmi is a frequent guest on the Solovyov show, both in person and on video link. He is a colorful personality with unusual insights into military and foreign policy of Russia and in the Middle East. A  former Soviet citizen, a Jewish “refusenik” who was long denied emigration rights but finally did leave for Israel, he made a career in one of the Israeli intelligence agencies and was declared persona non grata in Russia. Then about five or six years ago his right to travel to Russia was restored and he has been making appearances on Russian television ever since.

In his analysis of Putin’s speech and of the new security posture of Russia, Kedmi argued that thanks to its latest weapons systems the country is well positioned to establish absolute strategic superiority over the United States. To respond to the challenge of these weapons in kind, the US will have to make enormous new investments that it will not be able to afford unless it cuts back on its global network of military bases.

Perhaps Kedmi’s most interesting and relevant observation is on the novelty of the Russian response to the whole challenge of American encirclement. He noted that for the past 200 or more years the United States considered itself secure from enemies given the protection of the oceans. However, in the new Russian military threat, the oceans will now become the most vulnerable point in American defenses, from which the decapitating strike can come.

Now the ball is in the American court.  Much will depend on how Washington responds to the Russian challenge and whether the Russian red lines over installation of cruise missiles in Europe are crossed.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2019

Shinzo Abe in cloud cuckoo land: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the chances for a Japanese-Russian peace treaty

Sundays in Russia, like Sundays in most of the Western world, are usually not news generating days. However, today Moscow broke that rule and provided Russia-watchers with a couple of very weighty international affairs developments that I will analyze in this article on Japan and in another article later today on what the termination of the INF Treaty will mean for Russian military doctrine, namely reaching for the Holy Grail of a first strike, a decapitating strike capability against the United States in the foreseeable future.

What these two developments today have in common is how the very harsh messages are being delivered: not by the head of state, Vladimir Putin, but by members of his inner circle, his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for the knock-out blow on Japanese expectations of a peace treaty so long as Shinzo Abe is prime minister, and the head of news on Russian broadcasting, Dmitry Kiselyov, as regards the detailed explanation of Russian plans for arms deployment following the end of the INF Treaty.

I have said a number of times that the USA and Europe have been lulled into disbelieving war is possible because of Putin’s very gentlemanly demeanor and mild language when speaking to us, even as we impose potentially crippling sanctions on his country and wage an information war against him personally and against his country. Just a couple of weeks ago, I urged him to bang the table from time to time in the manner of his Soviet predecessor, Nikita Khrushchev, to get our proper attention so that we might bestir ourselves and demand that our mass media and political classes correct course before our current policies lead to nuclear confrontation with Moscow.

True, in his recent appearance before the bicameral Russian legislature for his annual state-of-the nation address, Vladimir Putin delivered a tougher line, but without spelling out his intentions in detail.  He remains a practitioner of Teddy Roosevelt’s maxim:  “speak softly but carry a big stick.”

What Putin has done, however, is to empower people in his close circle to say what he cannot allow himself as head of state.

In that connection, I call attention here to Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister.  Lavrov has always taken his marching orders from the boss.  When he reported directly to Putin in the first two terms of office, he took a tough stance.  When he reported to Dmitry Medvedev during the interim presidency, Lavrov was very accommodating to the West.  And now, especially in the past couple of weeks, Lavrov has shown his teeth to the West.  We saw that during his Q&A at the Munich Security Conference a week ago, when the MSC director Ischinger pitched to him a typically snide “question” from a Washington Post journalist congratulating Russia for taking charge in Syria and asking how the Kremlin intended to prevent Assad from perpetrating further massacres against his people.  Lavrov did not hesitate for a minute: he brushed off the question, saying he had no reason to respond since the journalist would write what he wanted regardless of what Lavrov said.  That particular exchange delighted viewers back in Moscow and was the main item on the MSC reported in the Russian media for the next two days. The frosty exchange between US Vice President Pence and Chancellor Angela Merkel was deemed less significant by the Russians, who were simply pleased to see their government hit back at Western verbal aggression.

Today’s  news from Sergei Lavrov is effectively a put-down of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has thoroughly exhausted the patience of the Russians over his insistence that a peace treaty with Russia is just within reach. Listening to Abe, one would assume that his friend Vladimir just needed a bit more coaxing, yet another glass of sake at friendly one-on-one summits to be brought to sign on the dotted line a draft peace treaty that returns the South Kurile Islands to Japan. Per Tokyo, the Russians should be happy they were not seeking reparations for the occupation of the islands since 1945.

In an article on Abe’s presentation as honored guest of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok last autumn, I explained that the Japanese Prime Minister was odd-man-out, that he alone among the key speakers described cooperation with Russia in terms harking back to the 1970s and ‘80s, when Japan was a technological and economic powerhouse and Russia (the Soviet Union) was stagnating and poor. South Korea, China, Mongolia all delivered presentations highlighting the mutuality of their bilateral relations with Russia serving both parties equally. Moreover, Abe did not in any way address the existential concern of the Russians that conceding the Kuriles to Japan would compromise their national security given that the US military alliance with Tokyo would be used to station American bases there and further extend their encirclement of Russia by the global missile defense system.


Lavrov’s remarks on Japanese-Russian relations today came at the very end of a lengthy television interview which began with Russian-Vietnamese relations, but also addressed more broadly  relations with Asian countries, this ahead of his planned visit to Hanoi, followed by a trip to China for a joint meeting with the foreign ministers of China and India.  The interview went on to cover a whole range of issues, US-Russian relations figuring prominently and taking up perhaps a third of the time. It ended, as I say, with Japanese-Russian relations.

In all subjects covered, including and particularly, the issue of Japan and a peace treaty, Lavrov spoke with lapidary clarity, without any diplomatic evasiveness. I offer below my translation of the transcript issued in Russian today on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.

Interview of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with “Vietnam Television” and with the Chinese television channels CTV and Phoenix,  24 February 2019

Question: The Japanese side has expressed the hope that during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to Japan this June both sides will sign a frame agreement about a peace treaty. Do you believe that this plan can be realized? Moreover, Japan’s plans for the installation of the US missile defense are one of the important problems for the Russian side. Do you think that diplomatic efforts can remove this threat?

Lavrov: As regards the announcement by the Japanese side that they have plans with respect to the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to Japan for participation in the summit of the G-20 and for holding the next regular meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Abe, I leave that to their consciences. No such agreements have been reached, nor could any have been reached, because we never are parties to any artificial deadlines relating to any problems whatsoever. We have repeatedly explained this to our Japanese colleagues. The last time I did was not so long ago in Munich, when I met with my colleague, Minister of Foreign Affairs Kono.  Moreover, no one ever has seen any draft frame agreements. I don’t know what our Japanese neighbors have in mind.

Secondly, our position is very simple. In order to solve complex issues, you have to ensure not just a suitable atmosphere but also real content of relations in economics, politics, international affairs. If we look at the real situation, PM Abe appears before his Parliament and says that he is absolutely planning to solve the question of a peace treaty on Japanese terms. Honestly, I don’t know how he arrived at this conviction. Neither Russian President Vladimir Putin nor I, nor anyone else from among those participating in the Russian-Japanese consultations provided our Japanese colleagues with any basis for statements like this. The fact that in Singapore, at the sidelines of the Summit meeting of the G—20, Vladimir Putin and Shinzo Abe said that it was necessary to speed up work on a peace treaty on the  basis of the 1956 Declaration tells you the opposite: we are conducting the dialogue not on Japanese conditions but on the conditions of this document  There it is clearly stated: first conclude a peace treaty. And this, as I have said many times, means the need for our Japanese neighbors to acknowledge the results of the Second World War in their entirely, including the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over all the Kurile Islands. It is rather strange that our Japanese colleagues do not want to agree with the results of the Second World War in the form in which they are set down in the UN Charter. The Charter states that everything which was done by the Victorious Powers is not open to discussion. Even if the Japanese have their own interpretation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and of other documents concerning this region, they ratified the UN Charter. It is not proper to revoke your ratification. That will not work.

Speaking more broadly, there was an agreement first of all to create a new quality of relations. Japan has joined in perhaps not all but in a whole range of sanctions against the Russian Federation. This can hardly be considered to be a friendly position. In the UN, Japan votes in solidarity with the USA on all resolutions directed against Russia. It comes out against or abstains from voting on drafts proposed by the Russian Federation. In general, it coordinates its position in the UN with Washington. We do not oppose Japan’s cooperating with other countries, but the USA has called Russia its main enemy, naturally together with China.

Question: Is American influence on Japan felt?

Lavrov: I don’t know to what extent such influence exists but surely this is being discussed. Recently it was announced that at the end of May US President Donald Trump intends to visit Japan. One of the topics for negotiation will be the issues of a peace treaty with the Russian Federation. If the lack of independence of Japan is demonstrated to such a degree, then there is nothing for me to add. The fact that the Japanese have a military alliance with the USA is also a major factor. The Americans have the right to locate their armed forces wherever they like in Japan and already are installing there their missile defense system, which creates risks both for Russia and for the Chinese People’s Republic (we have repeatedly spoken about this). I repeat: this is happening under conditions when the USA declares us to be its main enemy. It would be very wrong if we did not see that instead of the stated objective this does not improve but greatly worsens the quality of our relations.

We are ready to continue our dialogue with our neighbor. We see  a lot that is promising. We have very good cultural and humanitarian cooperation: the “Russian Seasons,” the Festival of Russian Culture enjoy great popularity in Japan. We have some pretty good joint economic projects. But this is by no means a favor to the Russian Federation. These are projects  in which Japanese business is interested. It would be even more interested in the Russian economy but, as I understand, it is being held back by the official line. From time to time we get signals that as soon as a peace treaty is signed on Japanese terms, they will send us manna from heaven in the form of Japanese investments. That is not what we have agreed.

And lastly: among the agreements on how we need to improve the quality of relations there is a point about the need to create in public opinion a positive image of one another. As was set down in Russian-Japanese agreements in years gone by, the decision on a peace treaty should be such that it is supported by the peoples of both countries.  However, when in Japan we see that the terms “Northern territories” and “illegal occupation” are included not only in school textbooks but in many government documents which underpin the activity of ministries and departments – this is precisely working in the opposite direction.

Recently, as you know, the Japanese government is speaking a lot publicly about the idea that it is nearly achieving its desired result. If you follow the reaction this elicits in Russia, you know that polls of public opinion show how wrong it is to act the way our Japanese colleagues are doing, trying to impose their view of this solution on us. And to add insult to injury, they promise not to seek reparations.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin has said in his address this year to the Federal Assembly on 20 February, we will continue our detailed work and achieve an outcome in agreements which allow us to create conditions for such a solution of the problem of a peace treaty which will be acceptable to the peoples of both countries. In the meantime we see that these conditions are totally absent


©Gilbert Doctorow, 2019


More on Vladimir Putin’s State-of-the-Nation Address: Guns and Butter?

In the past couple of months, as the date of possible US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty approached and then arrived, the viscerally anti-Russian editorial board of The New York Times,  which I shall take as a marker for mainstream US media generally on the given country, found itself in the awkward position of defending continuation of an arms limitation treaty with their favorite punching bag country. Yes, The Times told us, allegations of Russian violations used by the Trump administration to press ahead with cancellation were likely true. But the treaty’s life should not be ended pending negotiations on successful resolution of the differences of the parties over its observance.

This position was stated succinctly in an editorial of 18 December 2018 entitled “Don’t Tear Up This Treaty.”  But this was weak tea.  The paper did not rely on its also habitual Trump-bashing to question the decision to withdraw from the Treaty.  It even conceded that “Mr. Trump is justified in his concern about Russia’s noncompliance with the I.N.F.” Nor did it dare to venture into discussion of any specific downsides to withdrawal relating to the possible military preparedness of Russia for such an eventuality and any existential threats posed by their new weapons systems still not deployed but claimed to exceed the performance of US arms. Those new weapons had been largely dismissed as empty bragging by our media when they were showcased last March by President Putin in his 2018 annual state-of-the-nation address to the joint chambers of Russia’s parliament.

That is to say, the two strongest potential arguments against dismantling decades old arms limitation treaties, incompetence or stupidity of the sitting US administration and risks to our very existence by calling the Russians’ bluff, were not invoked by the newspaper.

Things had become so confused or desperate at The New York Times that a couple of days ago they broke with their longstanding blacklisting of “Putin stooges” and other loose cannon on the deck and published an essay by professor emeritus of MIT Theodore Postol, a specialist on strategic weapons systems who had advised the U.S. military in decades past. The headline title assigned to Postol’s essay sounds uncontroversial enough: “Are Trump and Putin Opening a Pandora’s Box?” However, the follow-on subtitle tells us that the Russians also have claims of U.S. violations that merit discussion: “Contention over the I.N.F. missile control treaty is complicated by suspicions on both sides that the other has broken its rules” This is the kind of openness we have not seen in The Times for many a year. To be sure, the essay appeared only in the NYT’s online edition, not in the more prestigious and for-the-record print version.

This confusion at the NYT over how to play the INF Treaty story continued today into the newspaper’s coverage of President Putin’s address to his bicameral legislature.

As I mentioned in my analysis of Putin’s speech yesterday, the Russian President spent nearly all of his time at the lectern discussing domestic policy issues, in   particular immediate release of new funds to pensioners, to families with two or more children, and other targeted measures to tackle the problem of low purchasing power of the working population, not to mention the endemic poverty of vulnerable layers of society, who number about 15% in total, or 19 million citizens.

But the last 12 minutes were devoted precisely to how Russia is responding to the American withdrawal from the Treaty: with more guns.

In today’s article devoted to the Russian President’s speech, The New York Times has chosen to put in question his ability to deliver on both military security and domestic social commitments going forward. See “Threatening U.S., Putin Promises Both Missiles and Butter” by Neil MacFarquhar.

Apart from the usual dose of sniggering over quality of life and governance in Russia, the article is notable for several perspectives that bear on how American ruling elites brush off Putin’s threats so as to avoid reconsideration of current defense and foreign policies as they relate to Russia:

  1. Disparagement of Russian military hardware, actual and projected. Per MacFarquhar, the new weapons systems are just “claims” even as he acknowledges that two of the more awesome among them are now entering active service. Moreover, the journalist says that this year Putin “mentioned just a few” of the systems from last year. Either the journalist misplaced his glasses or got lost in the text, because in fact Vladimir Putin yesterday enumerated each and every new weapons system first mentioned in 2018, stated which of them are in final testing stages and which are being deployed this year or further on. For good measure, he added a couple of new shock and awe systems that were still under wraps a year ago.


  1. Disparagement of the Russian economy, and the assumption that there are no financial resources available for both greatly increased social spending and an arms race with the United States. I quote:


“In promising both butter and missiles,…Mr. Putin did not explain how the troubled Russian economy could pay for it all. As always with his addresses focused on domestic issues, there was a certain gap between the Russia he was describing and the reality.”


The related but unstated assumption is that the Kremlin will have to prioritize the social spending, because the President’s poll ratings have dropped from 80% in the two years following the reunification with Crimea to 60% or less today due to declining real wages and the unpopular decision last year to raise the retirement age in order to cover potential shortfalls in the pension system.


  1. The assumption that the Russians are at the starting point in an arms race, given Putin’s use of the words “create” and “produce” new weapons systems if the United States proceeds with installation of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles in Europe.


Yes, those words were in Putin’s text.  But the advanced weapons systems being introduced into the Russian armed forces this year are already a powerful deterrent to any thoughts of a first strike that American military planners might be harboring. And several of the projected new missiles now ready for serial production could be launched from existing multi-functional launchers without additional expenditures.


MacFarquhar fails to understand that to a large extent, the Russians have been engaged in a new arms race with the United States that began more than a decade ago when the Americans concluded agreements with the Polish and Romanian governments to build what were called missile defense bases. These were immediately seen by the Russians as dual purpose, serving also to launch offensive cruise missiles in the direction of Moscow if necessary. The Russians set out their plans for counter measures back then and today the arms race is largely over for them.


  1. Finally, MacFarquhar repeats the stale story on how the Soviet Union came crashing down because of the last arms race: “a costly arms race in the 1980s, combined with sinking oil prices, contributed to the collapse…”  In light of the foregoing points, however true it may or may not have been that Reagan’s Star Wars broke the back of the Soviets, this tale has little relevance to where we are today.  Indeed, for reasons I will set out in a moment, the warning signs on overspending and excessive financial strain might be better placed before the American leadership with its current $22 trillion federal debt rather than before Russia, which has close to zero net federal debt.

I leave it to others who have the relevant expertise to deal with the question of “guns,” i.e. to try to evaluate the effectiveness of the new Russian weapons systems as deterrents, as reestablishing Russia’s full strategic parity with the United States.  I would only venture to say that my long time observations of Mr. Putin suggest that he is a cautious politician, not one to risk the survival of the country he loves on an empty bluff.

In what follows here, I propose to deal with the “butter” side of the equation. And for this purpose, I shall rely on some expert testimony from Russia’s senior legislators representing all the political parties seated in the Duma: the ruling United Russia, the Communist Party, the nationalist LDPR and the left of center A Just Russia party. They were panelists in the country’s most serious and respected political talk show, Evening with Vladimir Solovyov in a discussion dedicated to analysis of the President’s address earlier in the day.

The question of affordability of Putin’s social programs was precisely the topic they first discussed.

The consensus was that Russia possesses the cash on hand to cover all of the social allocations detailed by the President. Cash reserves had been building up over the past several years but were not touched because of uncertainty over the stability of the economy under the stress of sanctions.  That feeling of crisis is now past. The economy is growing again and is considered to be fairly secure against headwinds of possible new sanctions. Net federal debt is close to zero. Holdings of U.S. Treasuries have been drastically cut back. Accordingly, the government has confidence that it can assume long term commitments to alleviate poverty and improve living standards for  those of its citizens who have been left behind. Putin came to the legislature not with generalities but with very specific proposals that had been costed with great care.

Perhaps the most authoritative voice on the talk show was Andrei Makarov, United Russia deputy and Chairman of the Duma Committee on Budget and Taxes. He confirmed that the 200 billion rubles needed to fulfill all of the President’s new social programs each year is presently available so that implementation could begin at once for many of these measures. Others would require several months to initiate because they required reworking of laws. Amending the current budget law to enable all of the requested allocations could be achieved within the statutory deadlines of May – June.

One other panelist worthy of special mention was Oleg Morozov, member of the Federation Council Committee on Foreign relations.  He noted that the country had indeed emerged from crisis and could now tackle social issues.  In 2018, he explained, Russia had its largest ever export figures, exceeding by 100 billion dollars the previous high set in 2013, i.e. before the Crimean Spring and onset of sanctions. And the foreign trade balance was strongly positive. Moreover, there was strong growth in non-raw materials exports, setting a record on that too in 2018.

These gentlemen and their colleagues will be answerable for fulfillment of the “butter” program. We may trust their judgment on feasibility well above the hostile speculations of Mr. MacFarquhar and his editors at The New York Times.


©Gilbert Doctorow, 2019

Vladimir Putin on national defense in his Annual Address to a joint session of the Russian parliament: threats or a bid to negotiate on arms control?

As he stated at the outset, Vladimir Putin’s annual state of the nation address today before a joint session of the nation’s bicameral legislature was devoted preponderantly to domestic policy. He was expanding on the practical implications for the Russian population of the policy priorities for his current six-year term that he set out in decrees of May 2018. These have in the meantime taken the form of national projects organized around support to families to encourage child-bearing and stabilize the national demographics; housing construction and financing; roads, ports and other transport infrastructure development; improved health services; upgrading public education; encouragement to business innovation and export; and the like.

This material was delivered with a human touch, drawing on many experiences of contact with people from all walks of life that the President has gathered in specially organized meetings focused on these national projects at various cities around his vast country. He cited in particular his time in Kazan last week talking about housing.

For most political observers outside of Russia, myself included, the domestic policy story was marginal to our interests, though we did sit up and pay close attention to his brief remarks on one achievement illustrating the strides the country is making in state of the art applied sciences. This was his description of the breakthrough represented by the design and production of the hypersonic Avangard missile system. He likened it to the launch into orbit of the first Sputnik and he promised spill-over of the science into the civilian economy.

Otherwise, we foreigners had to wait until the very end of his speech to hear what brought us to watch this annual ritual in the first place. The raisins in our cake came when the President finally turned to international affairs. And there, after a rather cursory summary of Russia’s foreign policy priorities, his discourse shifted to defense issues raised by the recently announced American withdrawal from the Intermediate- Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty. Indeed, notwithstanding the mention a few moments before of the key importance of bilateral ties with China and also with India, Putin’s focus on Washington and the way the whole Russian defense industry is directed to meeting threats from the USA, highlights the centrality of that one country in Russian thinking. Thus, Putin allowed himself to mock Europe as US “satellites.” Further to the point, he went on to use folksy language that Nikita Khrushchev would surely a have approved to describe the Europeans as so many little piglets oinking their assent to Washington’s allegations of Russian INF violations. The audience in the hall turned to smiles and applauded enthusiastically.

Western mainstream media have been quick to note the direct threat by Putin in his speech to respond to any US placement of nuclear armed cruise missiles in Europe by targeting not only the European host countries of such installations but the decision-making centers authorizing their use, meaning Washington. By its new hypersonic weapon systems, Russia would be able to reach targeted American cities within the same 10 – 12 minutes that the Americans would enjoy by lobbing their slower cruise missiles at Moscow from perches in Poland and Romania.

This is tough talk over basic issues that suggest not so much a revisiting of the US-Russian Cold War confrontation over European based Pershings versus Soviet medium range SS20s targeting Western Europe in the 1980s, as a revisiting of the issues underlying the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. At that time, US missiles secretly based in Turkey brought a mirror image response from Russia (the Soviet Union) in the form of missiles positioned just off the American coast and having comparable flying times to hit the American heartland.

Surely, as I have remarked in recent essays, the highly polished Putin is no Khrushchev, and he is careful to avoid appearing to issue threats. But the toughness is there under the velvet glove in speeches like today’s.

To allow readers to draw their own conclusions, I offer below my translation of the complete text of the speech relating to the United States.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2019


Source of Russian text:

Excerpt – the final 12 minutes devoted to foreign and defense policy of a speech that ran approximately 90 minutes.


The most acute and discussed issue today in Russian-American relations is the unilateral withdrawal of the USA from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Therefore, I am simply compelled to dwell on this in some detail. Yes, to be sure, from the moment of the conclusion of this Treaty in 1987 there have been serious changes in the world. Many countries have developed and continue to develop this form of weapons, whereas Russia and the USA do not. We voluntarily have restricted ourselves in this matter. Such a situation, of course, can raise questions; that is understandable. That is what our American partners should have said, honestly, and without using fabricated accusations against Russia to justify their unilateral withdrawal from the Treaty. It would have been better if, as in 2002, when they left the ABM Treaty, they had been open and honest about it. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another matter. I believe it is bad. But they did so and that’s it.  Here they should have acted honestly. How are they themselves acting in fact? They are violating everything and then seek justification and designate guilty parties. And still more, they mobilize their satellites:  they are very cautious, but still like piglets they oink their assent on this question. At first, they began development and application of medium range missiles, seeking to divert attention by calling them “target missiles” for their missile defense system.  Then they began installing in Europe the MK-41 multi-purpose launchers which make it possible to perform combat use of the medium range Tomahawk cruise missiles.

I am talking about this and taking your time with it only because we are compelled to respond to the accusations which we hear directed against us. But having done everything that I have just said, the USA openly disregarded and demonstratively ignored the whole set of provisions stipulated by articles 4 and 6 of the INF Treaty. In particular, according to point 1, article 4 of the Treaty, (and I quote) “each of the parties liquidates its medium range missiles and launch installations for such missiles so that neither of the parties has such missiles and such launchers.” In article 6, point 1, we see (I am reading word for word): “after this Treaty comes into force and thereafter neither of the parties will produce any medium range missiles or carry out flight tests of such missiles, nor produce any stages of such missiles or any launch installations of such missiles.”  End of citation.

By launching medium range target-missiles and by installing in Romania and Poland launchers suitable for use with Tomahawk cruise missiles, the USA directly and crudely violated these requirements of the Treaty. Well, they did this already long ago.  In Romania these launch installations are already standing, and nothing, or seemingly nothing is happening. Strange, you might say. We see nothing strange. But people should see this and understand.

How do we evaluate the situation in this regard.  I have already said and want to repeat:  Russia does not intend – and this is very important, I repeat it especially – Russia does not intend to be the first to locate such missiles in Europe. If they really will be produced and placed on the European Continent, and the USA has such plans, in any case we have not heard contrary statements, then this will greatly exacerbate the situation in the sphere of international security; it will create serious threats for Russia. After all, the flying time to Moscow of certain categories of such missiles can amount to 10 – 12 minutes.  This is a very serious threat for us. In this case, we will be compelled, and I want to underline, precisely compelled, to take mirror-image and asymmetrical actions.  What does this mean?

I will say right now directly and openly what I am talking about so that no one will rebuke us later, and so that everything is clear in advance. Russia will be forced to create and deploy forms of weapons which can be used not only with respect to those territories from which the respective direct threat arises, but also with respect to those territories where are located the centers for taking decisions about using the missile complexes threatening us.

What is important in this connection: here there is a lot that is new. By their tactical and technical characteristics, including flight time to the indicated management centers, these weapons will fully match the threats which are being directed against Russia.

We know how to do this and we will carry out these plans immediately, as soon as the respective threats to us become real. I do not think that the international situation today is such that it needs additional and irresponsible exacerbation. We do not want this

What do I want to add here? Our American colleagues have already tried to achieve absolute military superiority with the help of their global missile defense system. They must put such illusions aside. The response from our side will always be powerful and effective.

Work on the promising models and systems of arms about which I spoke in my Address a year ago is continuing – at an even pace, without interruptions, according to plan.  We have begun serial production of the Avangard complex about which I already spoke today. This year, as was planned, the first regiment of the Strategic Missile Troops will be supplied with it. We are in production and carrying out the cycle of tests on the heavy, intercontinental missile Sarmat which has unprecedented power.  The Peresvet laser installations and air force complexes equipped with the hypersonic Kinzhal missiles have confirmed their unique specifications in test and battle duty; the personnel have gained experience operating them.  In December of this year all the Peresvety units delivered to the Armed Forces will be put on combat duty. We are continuing work to extend the infrastructure for hosting MiG-31 planes equipped with Kinzhal missiles. The tests are going well on our unlimited range cruise missile powered by the Burevestnik nuclear engine, as well as on the Poseidon, our underwater drone with unlimited range.

In this connection, I want to make a very important remark.  We didn’t talk about this previously, but today I can say this: already in the spring of this year we will put out to sea our first atomic submarine carrying this drone complex. The work is proceeding according to plan.

Today, I consider it possible also to officially inform you about still one more promising new unit. Remember that last time I said: there is something additional to talk about, but it is a bit early. Now, calmly we will tell you what we have held in the vaults. It is one more promising innovation, work on which is going successfully, with completion certain to occur within the planned timeline. Namely, I want to speak about the hypersonic Zircon missile, having a speed in flight of around Mach 9 and a range greater than one thousand kilometers, capable of destroying targets both on land and at sea. Its use is foreseen on naval carriers, serial produced surface ships and submarines, including those already produced or under construction  and fitted with the high precision Kalibr missile complexes. That is to say, all of this will not incur extra costs for us.

In this connection, I want to emphasize that for the defense of the national interests of Russia, we will turn over to the Russian Navy two – three years earlier than scheduled seven new multifunctional submarines, and in the near future we will begin construction of five surface ships for global service, while a further 16 ships of this class will be introduced into the fleet by 2027.

In closing out the subject of the unilateral withdrawal of the USA from the INF Treaty, I would like to say the following.  In the past few years, the USA has been conducting towards Russia a policy which one could hardly call friendly. They ignore the lawful interests of Russia. They are constantly organizing various kinds of anti-Russian campaigns which are absolutely unprovoked, and I emphasize this, from our side. They introduce more and more new sanctions which are illegal from the standpoint of international law. They are dismantling unilaterally practically all the treaties and legal basis of international security that developed over recent decades, and at the same time they just about call Russia the main threat to the USA.

I will say directly that this is untrue.  Russia wants to have full-bodied, equitable and friendly relations with the USA.  Russia is not threatening anyone. All of our actions in the sphere of security bear an exclusively reactive, meaning defensive character. We are not interested in a confrontation and do not want it, least of all with such a global power as the United States of America. But it would appear that our partners are not noticing how and with what speed the world is changing, where it is headed.  They continue their destructive and clearly erroneous policy.  It hardly corresponds to the interests of the USA itself. But that is not for us to decide.

We see that we are dealing with business-like, very talented people. However, among the ruling class there are many of those who are excessively captivated by the idea of their exceptionalism and their superiority over the rest of the world. It stands to reason that they have the right to think so if they wish.  But do they know how to count? Surely they do. Let them calculate the range and speed of our upcoming weapons systems. We only ask one thing:  let them first do their calculations, and only after that take decisions which can create serious threats for our country, understandably leading to actions in response from the Russian side to reliably ensure our security.

Moreover, I already spoke about this and want to repeat it:  we are ready for negotiations on disarmament, but we will no longer knock at a closed door. We will wait until our partners mature, come to understand the need for equitable dialogue on this subject.

We will continue to develop our Armed Forces, to raise the intensity and quality of combat preparation, including our taking into account our experience from the anti-terrorist operation in Syria. And this was received by practically all the commanders of the major units of our Ground Troops, our special operations forces and military police, navy crews, army, tactical operations, strategic and military transport aviation.

I want to emphasize the following: for steady and long-term development we need peace. All of our work to raise our defense capability has only one objective: it is directed towards ensuring the security of the country and of our citizens, so that no one will not only not think about committing aggression against Russia but will not try to use the methods of forcible pressure against our country.


Full video of the Address to the joint houses of the Russian parliament: