Russia: No Illusions, But Few Insights

 

In discussing Ukraine and Russia’s territory grab,  the media has been drawn into the usual memes of “what next?” and “what if?” Speculations, like impressions–whether in paintings or columns–only look good from a distance. Up close, their views dissolve into indistinguishable smears of light and dark without definition. So. many look at Russia and American policy with the long lens to hide the paucity of details replaced by appearances and hints.

Hint: name Russia’s largest importer, its top three consumer-produced goods, the number of billionaires in its parliament, two countries it has feuded with over gas pricing, the size of its army or any random or relevant fact we have learned about Russia since it began dominating the foreign slot of the news cycle. We know more about the Malaysian pilot than we do the Russian minister of foreign affairs. And have we heard from China?

All of the above are empty blanks–explained as our “cheerful solipsistic way.” We are being warned: take the blinders off; but look in the wrong direction.

There were policy makers, long before this cycle’s invasion, who warned of dangers and got it right without illusions.

Strobe Talbott, for one. President of the Brookings Institution, former Time magazine reporter and Deputy Secretary of State under Clinton, prize winner (important to some!) for diplomatic reporting, Search his C-SPAN appearances; his insights are wise and profound.

His nuances don’t fit into comment space. But he brings light and sense without starting from illusions.

The Technology And Attitudes of Cyber-War

New leaks in the news from Edward Snowden about US security hacking China’s systems, especially China’s large corporate electronic maker, Huawei, its military, and by proxy, other companies and countries who use Huawei’s systems, of course, denied by the US, but sourced by the New York Times to documents, parts of which are online. /wr

The policy issues here are as complicated as the codes the Chinese and American governments seek to crack. Can we agree both sides are out of control?

China, for its bash disregard for intellectual property and its persistent efforts to crack US security for military, political, and commercial targets. (Notice Putin and the Russians are largely non-players in cyber-warfare, preferring old fashioned boots, bullets, and bluster.)

The US for continuing the Hoover (J. Edgar) doctrine of turning every hostile act into a DefCon 1 threat and retaliating aggressively without improving cyber defenses, adding to an escalating cycle while claiming only to be protecting national interests–when it’s clear NSA actions are offensive, pre-planned, targeted far into the future–and leave US systems vulnerable.

In this intense, almost invisible warfare, it’s easy to get priorities and legalities confused and fly into the breach. Add that all sides are duplicitous; all have home corporations willingly to pass secrets for money (the State Dept has a bunch of prosecutions for this!)’ all turn a blind eye to their own transgressions. All have banks ready to transfer large sums in payment. All play on fears.

But is cyber-security just a mano-a-mano exercise between officials in the looking glass zone? Is it more important than the movement to privatize the world’s water–a far more vital resource than chips? Is food security a greater leverage for global domination than a ghost app?