But because their masters in Moscow wanted to hear there
was potential for a first-strike, to please their bosses,
that’s what the spies delivered.
“These people were close to the West, they lived in the
West and knew there were no plans for a first strike but
they reported what they were told to report,” Jones
explains.
[...]
It was a dangerously vicious circle. “It’s a failure of
the Soviet system,” says Jones, “Soviet intelligence did
not act rationally.”
Modern western governments will do precisely the same thing; the politicians ask for a dossier saying Iraq has weapons of mass destruction they can launch in 45 minutes? Then that's what they get.
I always assumed this was seen as a feature rather than a bug - i.e. that politicians choose and instruct spy agency bosses to be politically compliant, rather than to produce reports that are unbiased and strictly factual.
No, most of the Western governments don't do that. The reason "coalition of the willing" was so thin is that aside the US and the UK few bought that. France have threatened veto in the UN, so it was not put to the vote… that's also how the whole "freedom fries" idiocy took off. And the rest of continental Europe was immensely sceptical.
France had no problem supporting the conflicts in Libya and Syria that sought to accomplish similar outcomes as in Iraq (remove & replace Gaddafi and al-Assad). In fact, France has routinely urged Trump and the US to remain engaged in the Syria conflict.
"Emmanuel Macron to urge Donald Trump to keep US in Syria during White House talks"
> France had no problem supporting the conflicts in Libya and Syria that sought to accomplish similar outcomes as in Iraq (remove & replace Gaddafi and al-Assad).
And if the US had argued for invading Iraq on that basis, maybe we'd've supported it. But of course we're going to oppose an invasion when its proponents are basing their arguments on a blatant lie like the 45 minute claim.
(If the US/UK thought there was a good case for invasion on genuine grounds, why did they feel the need to lie?)
Indeed, if we look back France committed 18,000 troops for the first Gulf War that was widely considered a just cause. Similarly most of the NATO allies supported the USA in Afghanistan.
But that going into a war on a false pretext is morally corrupt, and fortunately most Western governments were above that.
Not to mention that the French total had a cosy relationship with Saddam Hussein's government after they negotiated in 1997 for access. It was really not in the interest of France to have a war in Irak
Khaddaffi (not sure about spelling) was a friend of France just a few years before he got killed. He was even invited to put his tent in the gardens of the Élysée by newly elected president Sarkozy, four years before. And back then, Khaddaffi was not especially a benevolent dictator.
And there are tons of counter examples. For example, Eritrea is recognized as one of the worst dictatorship in the world, and we have no troops over here to free the people of Eritrea.
I think there were two things that made a difference in Libya:
* Khaddafi ordered his soldiers to shoot non-violent protesters
* There was (as a result) an active rebellion against him that could use some support
There was no invasion by western forces, and I think the air support was mostly to stop Khaddafi from massacring his own people. I don't think western forces ever assisted in an attack; it was fairly limited and mostly denied Khaddafi the advantage of his air force.
A thumb on the scale to tip the balance between Khaddafi and the rebels, basically.
And in fact, Syria is not so different, although the involvement is on a much larger scale. It's still mostly various rebel factions that do the actual fighting. Iraq, by contrast, was a full scale invasion, and one based on a lie.
I'm not saying that makes Libya and Syria completely justified, but it's clearly a different case than Iraq, and much easier to justify, if you accept the legitimacy of the rebels.
Both in Syria and Lybia you had quite a few special forces on the ground and some of the war lords / Kurdish militia got equipment and funding through western intelligence agencies. In the case of the Syrian civil war you could follow the factions and who they were supported by in real time on a google map somewhere.
He did weed out people he considered his enemies, but he did give people free education, a banking system that was more client friendly (in terms of loans etc) and I understand free utilities.
I was of the understanding that the invasion was to increase France's political clout in North Africa, to avoid Ghaddafi's plan of unifying Africa under a gold standard (Gold Dinar) and most importantly to sell oil under the aforementioned currency.
Given his name isn’t really written in the Latin alphabet (“معمر محمد أبو منيار القذافي”, according to Wikipedia), all these variations are equally [in]correct.
The reports that Ghaddafi was massacring people were rumors and were widely publicised when Genevieve Garrigos (Head of Amnesty International) appeared on French TV to report it.
6 months later, the same head of Amnesty International claimed that they had sent in investigators between Feb and July, and those investigators found no evidence that Ghaddafi had hired mercenaries to attack civilians.
Of course that was too late. The French/UK/US operation had already begun well before the investigation took place, and they weren't interested in evidence.
There are a couple dozen vile governments all over the world doing terrible things to their people at any given time. That alone doesn't explain why France is so aggressively interested in keeping the US in the Syria conflict. That same exact justification that you just mentioned applied equally to Iraq, Saddam had massacred and brutalized his own people for a long time.
You don't see France egging on the US to get militarily involved in Venezuela for example. What's going on there is a human disaster of a similar scale as Syria, with the Maduro dictatorship brutalizing and starving the people, and millions fleeing the country. There is rarely a shortage of civil wars and other assorted internal conflicts to get involved in around the world. So why is France specifically so amped up to keep the US in Syria?
Iraq wasn't in the state of unrest at the time of invasion, although yes, in principle Saddam was as murderous dictator as the other two. Arab spring would most decidedly have flared up his Iraq as well.
Venezuela crisis is not anywhere on the scale of outright war in Syria and Libya. It is also well outside the reach of feasible French force projection. France however is involved in a number of conflicts elsewhere in francophone Africa, relatively low profile as the interventions have stabilizing effect.
With Libya and Syria we also had as close to A/B test in history as we get. What if we interfere in a massacre, and what if we watch from the sidelines in exchange for deal with Iran? The answer is apparently two orders of magnitude more deaths, displacement and human suffering.
It's about the refugees. Many EU countries lack basic decency and risk to destroy EU because of Syrian refugees.
Solving the crisis there is indirectly one of the interests of the EU. The current situation also strengthens the position of Russia in the Middle East which is not in European interest.
Disclaimer: I'm from Germany. We have a shift to the right in most EU countries. One of the reasons the Britains left the EU was the refugee crisis - populists used this to scare the voters. This concept was also very successful to get votes in Germany with AfD (alternative party for Germany, right-wing).
Would love to hear other opinions instead of getting downvotes.
The countries most upset by refugees, are those who have the least. This has also been the case in the UK (communities who hate immigrants and want less don’t have any) and from what I’ve seen of German voting patterns in recent elections.
The fear of them has been amplified, but I don’t believe the actual refugees are the problem.
And, in case you’re wondering about me mixing up refugees and migrants, part of the problem in the UK is that angry people can’t tell them apart, so I don’t actually know which they’re really objecting to.
> I don’t believe the actual refugees are the problem.
I don't think so, too. The underlying problem is growing inequality of wealth and opportunities. The very far right-wing people fear that the refugees will worsen their situation (and many are simply xenophobic, too).
I think it's a shame that there is no differentiation between these problems of inequality and helping people who get attacked by their own government. It seems that many people here in Europe don't understand that it's our duty to help people who get killed in their home countries (by our own moral standards).
- - -
France (and other European nations) care about the Syrian conflict because of the fear that more refugees will seek shelter in the EU (most European countries could handle this, but they won't do it because they aren't humanitarian which is pretty sad to see). Bringing peace to Syria is therefore a critical part of EU's solution to this (another wave of refugees would seriously risk the EU because the people here seem to have lost their connection to humanism - we could easily handle it if we want to). I have a hunch that I got downvotes because people interpreted my opinion as being contra refugees, but I'm actually telling the opposite. The problem is that many European countries (i.e. people) have decided that it's not their problem when people are in life-threatening situations and die while trying to get into those countries.
Not sure why you've been downvoted there. Regarding Syria, the same thing happened as with Iraq.
In Iraq, the US and UK said "Saddam has mass destruction weapons, we must attack him", and the French said "okay, just show us the proof, and we'll be on your side". USA said they had a proof but didn't want to show it. France did not support the attack.
In Syria, USA, UK and France said "Bachar use chemical weapons on his population, we must attack him", and Russia said "okay, just show us the proof, and we'll be on your side". France said they had a proof but didn't want to show it. Russia did not support the attack.
OPCW has provided the proof of multiple incidents perpetrated by Syrian government. That you decide to support Assad is a matter of conscience, not absence of facts.
First, let's not call each other names. I certaninly don't support Assad, just as the fact you (or I) don't support Assad certainly doesn't mean you (or I) support ISIS. Our ennemies' ennemies are not always our friends.
Now, I just reported the fact that France said back then "we have evidence", but didn't show it at that time. Then they published an official report [1] a few days later, basically saying "oh, we have good reasons to think it's true, with a high degree of confidence" (haut degré de confiance). Basically, that document says
1- there was probably a chemical attack a few days ago
2- it would be strategically a good idea for Assad to use chemical weapons.
3- we have not heard about rebels acquiring chemical weapons.
4- therefore, Assad is responsible.
That's what happened at that time. Now, if you have a document from April 2018 giving factual proofs, and not just mentioning a "high degree of confidence", I'd be glad to revise my knowledge of the situation.
I wanted to know what happened so I read the report.
I have to say that the "details" are scarce in the report. The investigator not even went to place where the attack happened (because of the danger).
The conclusions are also interesting, because they accuse ISIL, and not Assad. While sometimes ISIL and Assad have shared interests in the ongoing war, that doesn't mean they are the same. After all, we have seen some USA/Iran cooperation in the area too.
So, I find your accusation to the grandparent of "provide leeway for murderers " when he is just saying that the facts are not clear dishonest.
> On the basis of the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017.
You are right, unwisely I commented before finishing it (it's a long document). I offer my excuses.
I found specially damaging for the Syrian version the point 24 and 26 in the annex II:
"The Syrian Arab Republic informed the Mechanism that the pilot had later been shot down and was missing in action. "
"During a briefing given by the Syrian Arab Republic to the Mechanism in Damascus, a representative of the Syrian Arab Air Force stated that no aircraft of the Air Force had attacked Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. This contradicted the public statement made by the Government [..]"
Thanks a lot, I'll have to read that. It's from 2017, though, I was especially talking about what happened in April 2018 in the great-grandparent-or-something post.
I'm talking about the 7th of april to 16th of april, between the moment an attack happened and France/US/UK decided to attack because they had proof Assad was the author of this precise attack. If you could point me to one of these reports, I'd be grateful.
> And the rest of continental Europe was immensely sceptical.
You mean: sat by and did nothing.
Everyone's wailing about US <> Saudi relations with regard to Khashoggi. Was anyone suggesting trade relations with the US should be dropped due to their war on Iraq, which, by all accounts, killed more than one person.
The highest level politicians that took us into Iraq knew there were no WMD. They merely needed a good enough excuse to do it.
We've got four star general - US Presidential candidate, and NATO Supreme Allied Commander right before 9/11 - Wesley Clark admitting it in public on YouTube. I'll never understand why the most important policy admission of the last 30 years is intentionally ignored in all discussion of what the West is doing in Iraq, Syria, Libya, et al. This is the Western powers - led by the US - looking to strip Russia's power out of the Middle East (or at least break it). According to Clark, particularly before China completes its rise to power (which would present a demand to dilute focus, weakening the ability to challenge Russia's strategic goals). These proxy conflicts haven't stopped for a single day since WW2. Don't take my word for it, or Clark's for that matter, just look at the powers in Syria wrestling over who gets to keep or acquire influence (the US/West v Russia).
The idea of 'doing something' about Iraq was a lot older.
9/11 was just the excuse. When you read about the subject it's interesting to realize how many people in Washington was against that war, including the Pentagon and the State Department, but powerful interest prevailed.
"Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. Still, it's not all that simple, Friedman retracts [..]"
I agree, definitely not random - it was sitting on the shelf waiting for someone to find an excuse to "do" it:
"Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable."
They did Iraq right with Afghanistan because they had the war machine out of the box and the population revved up to allow it. If they had waited, the public and Congress would have been against it. Obama tested the waters for doing a larger war with Syria in 2013 (which would have attempted to ensure the removal of al-Assad), too much time had passed since 9/11 and people were very war weary by then. With almost no support for more big wars Congress shot it down and Obama abruptly backed down.
Sept 2013: "Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria"
> But because their masters in Moscow wanted to hear there was potential for a first-strike, to please their bosses, that’s what the spies delivered.
> “These people were close to the West, they lived in the West and knew there were no plans for a first strike but they reported what they were told to report,” Jones explains.
> [...]
> It was a dangerously vicious circle. “It’s a failure of the Soviet system,” says Jones, “Soviet intelligence did not act rationally.”
While that may be true in many cases the example of Iraq and WMDs is more nuanced than most realize. The CIA was not reaching the conclusions that the Bush administration wanted and so Bush and co. created the Office of Special plans in order to deliberately stovepipe (misinterpret) the intelligence.
And then there was Reagan's "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."[0] I was in Moscow when that went public. The Soviet government was not amused.
Removed from that quote is context of course, which is extremely relevant, but that didn't stop the media from making sure they induced a profiteering panic among the people that subscribed to them despite the outcome being possible nuclear death.
Well, of course, he was joking. Just a sound check.
I have no clue who leaked it, in what order. From a reprint of contemporaneous coverage, I gather that many technicians heard the remark.[0] And eventual news coverage mainly served to put rumors at rest.
There's some interesting videos on YouTube from people who used satellite dishes to grab unencrypted transmissions that weren't intended for the public (although I don't know if that was the case here). Things like reporters talking shit about guests during a commercial break (since commercials were spliced in later on), Bill Clinton getting his makeup done, etc. There's an interesting documentary/compilation at [1] although in my opinion it's a little overly dramatic.
I really enjoyed that too. I was a teenager then and although in the UK I was very aware of the military and world situation. That series was a very good reminder of what the world felt like then.
We still have the chance - minor Ukraine/Russia navy conflict yesterday so far resulted in nation wide martial law in Ukraine triggered on today. I'd not put it past Putin to not let the crisis go waste and for example "solve" the Ukraine/Russia Azov sea issues by making the Azov sea outright into an internal Russian sea which would naturally raise the tensions with the NATO/Europe/US and others. (Also, given the extremely low rating (barely above 10% on a good day) of the current Ukraine President just 4 months ahead of the elections, the escalation of the situation with the associated rise of the nationalistic populism is in his political interests too.)
I don't see how an incursion on Ukraine would result in a war with NATO. Ukraine's problem is precisely that it's a formerly neutral party and not part of NATO. In fact, from a Russian POV the reason for the annexation of the Crimean peninsula were fears fueled by Ukraine moving closer to NATO and the EU, violating its neutrality and jeopardising Russian military operations within Ukraine.
I'm not justifying the annexation -- it was clearly illegal and the circumstances of the (also illegal) vote suggest fraud -- but Ukraine is not part of NATO and even an all-out undeniable Russian invasion wouldn't trigger a war with NATO.
Is it in NATO's interests if Russia fully invades or goes to war with Ukraine? No, of course not. Is it a violation of international law? Most likely so. But would this trigger any international treaties that would result in WW3? Hell no.
WW1 and WW2 weren't just escalated because The Good Guys were unhappy with the aggressors. They were escalated because of international treaties forcing nations to declare war in retaliation to the aggressors.
In WW2 the invasion of Poland triggered the defensive pact with Britain and France who declared war after setting an ultimatum. As for WW1, I think most people have heard of the complete clusterfuck of international alliances and naivety that resulted in that escalation[1].
Ukraine is not part of the EU. Ukraine is not part of NATO. Strategic position aside, there's little reason for NATO to get involved as long as Russia has no intentions of moving further westwards. Even if the US invaded directly and declared war on Russia this wouldn't trigger NATO as NATO is a defensive pact, not an aggressive pact. It would of course result in a lot of diplomatic tensions with so many US military bases being located in the EU.
While a war might not be triggered in a WW1-esque "if X then Y" sense it may very well happen anyway. Ukraine is as entitled to it's sovereignty as any other nation. Just letting the Russians steamroll Ukraine is not exactly a good solution either. Germany, France, England, etc. are going to (rightfully) have a very, very hard time tolerating (i.e. not coming to the aid of Ukraine) that kind of belligerent behavior in Europe. If there were Russian tanks in Kiev the NATO states east of Germany would all but demand a military reaction because of the dangerous to them precedent that allowing an invasion (even if the invaded nation is not a NATO member) to go unopposed would set.
What gives you the idea any military intervention is ever based on protecting a random country's sovereignty? What incentive would NATO or the EU have to join Ukraine if this escalates to a direct military confrontation between Ukraine and Russia?
Yeah, having Ukraine be annexed by Russia would be a pity but if history has taught us anything a) Russia is too clever to do this without some level of deniability (see the "secession" of the Crimean prior to its annexation) and b) other countries are reluctant to get involved as long as the situation is "self-contained" (i.e. as long as it's just Ukraine and similar post-Soviet states with no direct ties to NATO members or the EU).
While not required in a legal sense they certainly might do so anyway. Ukraine is as entitled to it's sovereignty as any other nation. Just letting the Russians steamroll Ukraine is equally irresponsible. Germany, France, etc are going to (rightfully) have a very, very hard time tolerating (i.e. not coming to the aid of Ukraine) that kind of belligerent behavior in Europe.
Ukraine is not part of Europe as far as "Germany, France, etc" are concerned. These countries are concerned about the interests of the EU. Also, most of the EU has strong trade relationships with Russia (e.g. via Gazprom).
As long as Russia does not pose a direct threat to the EU, there's very little incentive to jeopardize trade relationships to uphold ideals in foreign countries.
I was specifically addressing the Budapest Memorandum. It often gets brought up under the mistaken belief that it requires the signatories to defend Ukraine, and thus that the other signatories are in violation for not defending Ukraine against Russia.
No country is entitled to sovereignty. Sovereignty isn't given, it's taken by force. What Russia did by invading Ukraine was terrible, but the Ukrainians essentially let their own country disintegrate and failed to maintain even the slightest deterrent. Coming to their rescue now would create a huge moral hazard: other countries in the region might think they no longer have to defend themselves against Russian aggression because if they get into trouble them NATO will ride in to save them.
Not mentioned in the article, and almost certainly not known to NATO authorities at the time, but Able Archer 83 came a few weeks after the "1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident"[0]. See also "Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet officer who averted nuclear war, has died"[1].
I find calling the potential deployment of nuclear missiles at this point ”world war three” slightly misleading. A war has a beginning and an end. There is no end other than the end of the world as we know it on the other side of such strikes.
As the exercise concluded in the article, ”Most of the world was destroyed. Billions were dead. Civilisation ended.”
This is misleading nonsense. In a real war most targets would be barraged by MIRVs, some of which would be ground bursts specifically designed to maximise the effects of fall out plumes across otherwise survivable areas.
One way or another, your initial duck-and-cover survival won't last long.
It's also misleading because it's talking about a bomb 1/10th the size of the Hiroshima nuclear detonation, while today, even just India and Pakistan alone have nuclear capabilities that are a hundred times beyond that. The implications not just from the initial strikes but the infrastructural devastation that would follow are impossible to estimate.
I suspect the kind of civil defence training described on that page would probably help with a small scale terrorist level attack. However, I don't think it would achieve very much in a full scale attack and certainly not the scale of attacks likely during the 1980s and on densely populated areas of Europe.
Where I sit now in Scotland is within range of about 5 different high value Cold War targets - I don't think Duck and Cover would achieve very much.
If you'd left it at the first sentence I'd have read it as nicely pitched sarcasm.
If it's a single Hiroshima scale device, sure, it'll probably help some. If countries are exchanging their deterrent missiles, no, you're not going to avoid 90% of the deaths.
1983. The screaiming height of the nuclear scare. I remember it all to well. A very clear and present danger, a daily threat we lived under, some of us aware, most people probably not really.
I saw The Day After in a Copenhagen cinema at what I believe was its European premiere, also exactly 35 years ago one of these days. Going home, my young impressionable self was even more spooked than usual: The thing was real, might happen any time, would presumably be worse than film, worse than imaginable.
To this day, I actually shiver when I read of Able Archer and realize how closely the shit flew past the fan the very same week.
If you want to relive the terror I suggest reading the Pulitzer Prize winner "The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy". While its focus is on the Cold War it's still relevant today.
Mutually assured destruction makes sense if humans and information is perfect .... but it's not so it seems more like it is just a matter of time until it happens.
It is interesting to see how this plays out as the start of an exercise. I remember growing up in North Dakota and when the air force bases would run drills the sky would be filled with planes flying in formation .... no way you could tell if it was real or not (other than there not being any launches from the local ICBMs...).
>Mutually assured destruction makes sense if humans and information is perfect .... but it's not so it seems more like it is just a matter of time until it happens.
Or not. If it is chance that prevents our self-destruction then you would expect it to already have happened. Seems like there is 'something' (for lack of a better word) to prevent it. Whatever it is, it seems to work and we're still here.
I'm not sure the lack of self destruction in a short time frame means much, the events that have occurred were one decision away from the destruction part.
My takeaway from this is that governments do not always act rationally, and therefore MAD doctrine, which assumes that the actors are rational, is a dangerous nonsense.
On a smaller scale, that is, like michaelt pointed out, party of every government that has authoritarian figures in it. When you reel the people around you with fear, you will get inaccurate information. That is one of the reasons why, if you don't build an extensive surveillance state that works really well, such governments usually don't last long.
> Later that day, the Nato commanders left their building and went home, congratulating themselves on another successful – albeit sobering – exercise. What Western governments only discovered later is that Able Archer 83 came perilously close to instigating a real nuclear war.
You'd think that NATO was just having their quiet simulation and those silly Soviets misinterpreted, right?
"Psychological operations (PSYOP) by the United States began in mid-February 1981 and continued intermittently until 1983. These included a series of clandestine naval operations that stealthily accessed waters near the Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, and the Barents, Norwegian, Black, and Baltic seas, demonstrating how close NATO ships could get to critical Soviet military bases. American bombers also flew directly towards Soviet airspace, peeling off at the last moment, sometimes several times per week. These near-penetrations were designed to test Soviet radar vulnerability as well as demonstrate US capabilities in a nuclear war"
I always assumed this was seen as a feature rather than a bug - i.e. that politicians choose and instruct spy agency bosses to be politically compliant, rather than to produce reports that are unbiased and strictly factual.