September 03, 2014
MORANDUM
FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO
We the undersigned are long-time veterans of U.S.
intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing
this open letter to you to ensure that you have an
opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the
NATO summit on Sept. 4-5.
You need to know, for example, that accusations of a
major Russian “invasion” of Ukraine appear not to be
supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the
“intelligence” seems to be of the same dubious,
politically “fixed” kind used 12 years ago to
“justify” the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible
evidence of a Russian invasion now. Twelve years
ago, former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, mindful of
the flimsiness of the evidence on Iraqi WMD, refused
to join in the attack on Iraq. In our view, you
should be appropriately suspicious of charges made
by the U.S. State Department and NATO officials
alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
President Barack Obama tried on Aug. 29 to cool the
rhetoric of his own senior diplomats and the
corporate media, when he publicly described recent
activity in the Ukraine, as “a continuation of
what’s been taking place for months now … it’s not
really a shift.”
Obama, however, has only tenuous control over the
policymakers in his administration – who, sadly,
lack much sense of history, know little of war, and
substitute anti-Russian invective for a policy. One
year ago, hawkish State Department officials and
their friends in the media very nearly got Mr. Obama
to launch a major attack on Syria based, once again,
on “intelligence” that was dubious, at best.
Largely because of the growing prominence of, and
apparent reliance on, intelligence we believe to be
spurious, we think the possibility of hostilities
escalating beyond the borders of Ukraine has
increased significantly over the past several days.
More important, we believe that this likelihood can
be avoided, depending on the degree of judicious
skepticism you and other European leaders bring to
the NATO summit next week.
Experience With Untruth
Hopefully, your advisers have reminded you of NATO
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s checkered
record for credibility. It appears to us that
Rasmussen’s speeches continue to be drafted by
Washington. This was abundantly clear on the day
before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when, as Danish
Prime Minister, he told his Parliament: “Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction. This is not something
we just believe. We know.”
Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also
deceive. We have considerable experience collecting,
analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of satellite
and other imagery, as well as other kinds of
intelligence. Suffice it to say that the images
released by NATO on Aug. 28 provide a very flimsy
basis on which to charge Russia with invading
Ukraine. Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to
the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on Feb.
5, 2003, that, likewise, proved nothing.
That same day, we warned President Bush that our
former colleague analysts were “increasingly
distressed at the politicization of intelligence”
and told him flatly, “Powell’s presentation does not
come close” to justifying war. We urged Mr. Bush to
“widen the discussion … beyond the circle of those
advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no
compelling reason and from which we believe the
unintended consequences are likely to be
catastrophic.”
Consider Iraq today. Worse than catastrophic.
Although President Vladimir Putin has until now
showed considerable reserve on the conflict in the
Ukraine, it behooves us to remember that Russia,
too, can “shock and awe.” In our view, if there is
the slightest chance of that kind of thing
eventually happening to Europe because of Ukraine,
sober-minded leaders need to think this through very
carefully.
If the photos that NATO and the U.S. have released
represent the best available “proof” of an invasion
from Russia, our suspicions increase that a major
effort is under way to fortify arguments for the
NATO summit to approve actions that Russia is sure
to regard as provocative. Caveat emptor is an
expression with which you are no doubt familiar.
Suffice it to add that one should be very cautious
regarding what Mr. Rasmussen, or even Secretary of
State John Kerry, are peddling.
We trust that your advisers have kept you informed
regarding the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning
of 2014, and how the possibility that Ukraine would
become a member of NATO is anathema to the Kremlin.
According to a Feb. 1, 2008 cable (published by
WikiLeaks) from the U.S. embassy in Moscow to
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Ambassador
William Burns was called in by Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov, who explained Russia’s strong
opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine.
Lavrov warned pointedly of “fears that the issue
could potentially split the country in two, leading
to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which
would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.”
Burns gave his cable the unusual title, “NYET MEANS
NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES,” and sent
it off to Washington with IMMEDIATE precedence. Two
months later, at their summit in Bucharest NATO
leaders issued a formal declaration that “Georgia
and Ukraine will be in NATO.”
On Aug. 29, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny
Yatsenyuk used his Facebook page to claim that, with
the approval of Parliament that he has requested,
the path to NATO membership is open. Yatsenyuk, of
course, was Washington’s favorite pick to become
prime minister after the Feb. 22 coup d’etat in
Kiev.
“Yats is the guy,” said Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland a few weeks before the coup, in an
intercepted telephone conversation with U.S.
Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. You may recall
that this is the same conversation in which Nuland
said, “Fuck the EU.”
Timing of the Russian “Invasion”
The conventional wisdom promoted by Kiev just a few
weeks ago was that Ukrainian forces had the upper
hand in fighting the anti-coup federalists in
southeastern Ukraine, in what was largely portrayed
as a mop-up operation. But that picture of the
offensive originated almost solely from official
government sources in Kiev. There were very few
reports coming from the ground in southeastern
Ukraine. There was one, however, quoting Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko, that raised doubt about
the reliability of the government’s portrayal.
According to the “press service of the President of
Ukraine” on Aug. 18, Poroshenko called for a
“regrouping of Ukrainian military units involved in
the operation of power in the East of the country. …
Today we need to do the rearrangement of forces that
will defend our territory and continued army
offensives,” said Poroshenko, adding, “we need to
consider a new military operation in the new
circumstances.”
If the “new circumstances” meant successful advances
by Ukrainian government forces, why would it be
necessary to “regroup,” to “rearrange” the forces?
At about this time, sources on the ground began to
report a string of successful attacks by the
anti-coup federalists against government forces.
According to these sources, it was the government
army that was starting to take heavy casualties and
lose ground, largely because of ineptitude and poor
leadership.
Ten days later, as they became encircled and/or
retreated, a ready-made excuse for this was to be
found in the “Russian invasion.” That is precisely
when the fuzzy photos were released by NATO and
reporters like the New York Times’ Michael Gordon
were set loose to spread the word that “the Russians
are coming.” (Michael Gordon was one of the most
egregious propagandists promoting the war on Iraq.)
No Invasion – But Plenty Other Russian Support
The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine
enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result
of government artillery strikes on major population
centers. And we believe that Russian support
probably has been pouring across the border and
includes, significantly, excellent battlefield
intelligence. But it is far from clear that this
support includes tanks and artillery at this point –
mostly because the federalists have been better led
and surprisingly successful in pinning down
government forces.
At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and
when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks
will come.
This is precisely why the situation demands a
concerted effort for a ceasefire, which you know
Kiev has so far been delaying. What is to be done at
this point? In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk
need to be told flat-out that membership in NATO is
not in the cards – and that NATO has no intention of
waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not
in support of the rag-tag army of Ukraine. Other
members of NATO need to be told the same thing.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World
Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder,
SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council
(ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence
officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence
Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI
(ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service
Officer (resigned)
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment