Who’s in Charge?

 

At his confirmation hearing on Thursday, General James Mattis, warning that the nations of the north Atlantic were “under the biggest attack since World War II” and described Russia as the “principal threat” facing the United States. He called NATO “the most successful military alliance probably in modern history, maybe ever.”

After giving a full-throated defense of NATO, Mattis said he supported the European Reassurance Initiative, which right now is pouring troops and heavy equipment into eastern Europe to protect it against Russia. “Since Yalta,” Mattis said,

… we have a long list of times we’ve tried to engage positively with Russia. We have a relatively short list of successes in that regard.

I’m all for engagement but we also have to recognize reality and what Russia is up to and there’s decreasing number of areas where we can engage cooperatively and increasing number of areas where we’re going to have to confront Russia … I have very modest expectations about areas of cooperation with Mr. Putin.

He also said, “If we did not have NATO today we would need to create it.”

He described it as urgently important to take coordinated action to shore up the alliance against Russia:

I think right now the most important thing is that we recognize the reality of what we deal with Mr. Putin and we recognize that he is trying to break the North Atlantic alliance and that we take the steps — the integrated steps, diplomatic, economic, military and the alliance steps, the working with our allies to defend ourselves where we must.

In a written questionnaire, he wrote that he believes the alliance “must harness renewed political will to confront and walk back aggressive Russian actions and other threats to the security of its members.”

Congressman Mike Pompeo, Trump’s pick to lead the CIA, accused the Russian leadership of “aggressive action” in meddling in the US elections, “asserting itself aggressively” by occupying part of Ukraine and of doing “doing nearly nothing” to destroy Islamic State. Of Russian hacking, he said, “It’s going to require an incredibly robust American response.”

Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson (who, oddly, said he hadn’t ever discussed Russia with Trump) said he favored maintaining U.S. sanctions against Russia; he also averred that NATO allies were right to be alarmed by Moscow’s growing aggression. He blamed an “absence of American leadership” for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and said the United States should have taken stronger actions to deter this.

General John Kelly, nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security, agreed “with high confidence” with the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian hacking.

So I was thinking, “Okay, perhaps this won’t be so bad. There’s clearly a big difference between what Trump says and what he means. These appointments suggest he’s not utterly clueless.”

But this morning, I look at the news and see that Trump has gone out of his way to cause panic in Europe. “Asked whom he trusted more, Merkel, a longtime US ally, or Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump called it a draw — at least for now. ‘I start off trusting both, but let’s see how long that lasts,’ he said. ‘May not last long at all.'”

Bloomberg reports:

The Times quoted Trump as saying he was interested in making “good deals with Russia,” floating the idea of lifting sanctions that were imposed as the U.S. has sought to punish the Kremlin for its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and military support of the Syrian government.

“They have sanctions on Russia — let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia,’’ Trump said, according to the Times. “For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it.’’ …

Repeating a criticism of NATO he made during his campaign, Trump said that while trans-Atlantic military alliance is important, it “has problems.”

“It’s obsolete, first because it was designed many, many years ago,” Trump said in the Bild version of the interview. “Secondly, countries aren’t paying what they should” and NATO “didn’t deal with terrorism.” The Times quoted Trump saying that only five NATO members are paying their fair share.

I have a few questions. First, why did he nominate a cabinet full of men who are (in my view) quite realistic about Russia if he’s really of the opinion that Russia is ready to make “good deals?” Does he really think that NATO doesn’t “deal with terrorism?” By “obsolete,” does he mean that he believes Russia no longer poses a serious threat?

Is he aware that the US Army 4th Infantry Division’s 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team just arrived in Poland, and that General Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, described this as “a significant moment in European deterrence and defense,” specifically noting that this “enables our force to rapidly be ready and postured should they need to deter Russian aggression?”

What’s the point of doing this if the Commander-in-Chief believes NATO is “obsolete,” and is ready to “make some deals” with Russia?

Is it some sort of good-cop, bad-cop routine? Can you really blame people for finding the idea that he’s being blackmailed by Putin plausible? If Americans can’t make sense of this — or at least, this American can’t — how can we expect adversaries to make sense of it? I truly don’t know whether we’re committed to NATO, or to any of our allies. I don’t think it’s possible to know, given how strange and mixed our signals are.

How do you understand this? How do you think the Kremlin understands it? Iran? North Korea?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 138 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    ctlaw (View Comment):
    Your stats really highlights the distinction between purchasing power parity (ppp) where Russia is $3.7 trillion and Italy $2.3 and nominal where Italy is $1.9 and Russia $1.3

    Which do you think is the more accurate metric for this purpose?

    • #31
  2. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    DialMforMurder (View Comment):

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:But this morning, I look at the news and see that Trump has gone out of his way to cause panic in Europe. “Asked whom he trusted more, Merkel, a longtime US ally, or Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump called it a draw — at least for now. ‘I start off trusting both, but let see how long that lasts,’ he said. ‘May not last long at all.’”

    Trump is being much kinder than I would be to Merkel here. Putin is many things but at least he’s not a traitor to his own people.

    Also it’s sooooooo nice of Obama to start caring about NATO and the defence of Eastern Europe all of a sudden 5 days before he leaves office. He didn’t seem so concerned when he scrapped the Son Of Star Wars program back in his first year in the job.

    Not a traitor to his own people!? How, can you type that with a straight face? Putin has betrayed the Russian people in the most fundamental way possible. He has made them all surfs to his criminal empire, which is now in the process of sucking the very marrow from their bones. Merkle does not murder her political rivals, which makes her an infinitely superior leader.

    • #32
  3. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    The purpose of repositioning troops and equipment to Eastern Europe is to adjust the conflict calculus — to make annexing the Baltic States cost far more than they are worth.

    An alliance isn’t judged solely by how well it fights. Avoiding war by being too strong for your adversaries to contemplate it is a considerable benefit.

    Si vis pacem para bellum.

    • #33
  4. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Trump has said NATO is obsolete and others should carry a larger share of the burden.  He has said he’d like to work with Putin.  These are the right postures with which to begin as is Mattis’ strong support for NATO.  NATO was a trip wire for the US nuclear deterrent.  Now it must continue to evolve toward an alliance where members carry larger burdens toward some purpose which has to be redefined and agreed on.   The cold war is over.  The Russia/Trump nexus story has been fostered by our media based on quips and tweets and brief comments. What we know we see in his appointments not campaign tweets.   Foreign policy was a distraction for Obama as he set about to transform the US and play golf.   Clearly it is  not going to be a distraction for Trump but he has a lot to learn and unlike Obama he probably can and will.  Reality and events will set the agenda as it always does and Trump has people in place who appear capable to figuring out what must be figured out as it occurs but the basic direction will have to be set early in his administration.  Vision is necessary.  Unlike Obama Trump will not be interpreting the world through a stale sophomoric ideology which his inexperienced advisors shared.   Exactly how he resolves cabinet disputes, through what personal prism is unknown, but again we’re getting glimpses of it through his appointments and a few basic attitudes.

    • #34
  5. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    iWe (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):
    Your stats really highlights the distinction between purchasing power parity (ppp) where Russia is $3.7 trillion and Italy $2.3 and nominal where Italy is $1.9 and Russia $1.3

    Which do you think is the more accurate metric for this purpose?

    Probably PPP.

    I am concerned about the number of bombs, etc. Russia can make, not what it spends on them.

    • #35
  6. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    There is one thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet which I believe to be very important. Trust. I have a difficult time trusting the Democrat opposition when they start applying their war paint over Russia. Everything they do is political. Trump, I am hoping, will not fall for their bait. We can most surely bet that as soon as things get difficult/bloody the Democrat politicians will start blaming Trump and the Republicans and do everything their media pals can do to place blame and to run from responsibility. This is their M.O.

    • #36
  7. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    cdor (View Comment):
    As @genferei showed by quoting Trump’s actual words, rather than paraphrasing with intent to misconstrue, he sounds quite sensible to me.

    I must have missed @genferei on this, but it’s good advice.

    • #37
  8. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    This is no longer the case. Donald Trump could be caught in a hotel room with conjoined twin prostitutes, one of who was female and deceased, the other of whom was male and alive

    I’m pretty sure this is biologically impossible, but nice visual.

    • #38
  9. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    genferei (View Comment):
    According to the Speccy (I won’t register with The Times), DT said:

    “I took such heat when I said Nato was obsolete. It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat, for two days. And then they started saying: Trump is right And the other thing is the countries aren’t paying their fair share so we’re supposed to protect countries. But a lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States. With that being said, Nato is very important to me. There’s five countries that are paying what they’re supposed to. Five. It’s not much.”

    I’m not panicking.

    Me either.

    • #39
  10. Tim H. Inactive
    Tim H.
    @TimH

    To answer @mikerapkoch‘s question about the purpose of a military build-up, I’d say the question is phrased wrong.  It’s not that we’re poised to invade Russia if Putin doesn’t do X.  It’s that we need a credible deterrent force at the Eastern end of NATO in case Putin does something—namely, invade one of them.

    The tanks and armored vehicles arriving in Poland are going to fan out for exercises with the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and Germany.  The presence of American troops in and near the countries Putin is liable to invade, and the attitude that we’re willing to commit them to a fight if he does, will surely deter Russian aggression there.

    We are getting the first half of this formula done, but I don’t trust that our leadership is willing or able to pull off the second half.  While I want our European allies to take some more initiative and responsibility for the defense of Europe, I want America to maintain the leadership role, because that allows us more flexibility to have things our way in foreign policy in many other situations.

    Furthermore, I think that the worst time to cut back on America’s defense and foreign policy leadership is when there is a growing threat to our allies.  This is not the time to pull back.

    • #40
  11. Pugshot Inactive
    Pugshot
    @Pugshot

    The bottom line here is that if Trump were truly being “blackmailed” by Putin, he would not have appointed Mattis et al to their positions; he would have appointed John Kerry clones instead. I tend (at this point) to take the view that it’s a “good cop/bad cop” scenario. Trump can tell Putin: “Vlad, you know me; I like you; we can work together! But my cabinet members, Oy Vey – you’d better give me something so I can calm them down! They’re all anxious to increase the sanctions, station troops in eastern Poland and those piss-ant Baltic countries, bring back Star Wars to the Czech Republic! Work with me here, Vlad, or I won’t be able to control those guys!” Now whether such a posture will work, who knows? And with respect to NATO, most of the members have never taken their responsibilities under the treaty seriously. It’s far better to have somebody like Mattis telling NATO: “Look, you’ve heard my boss. He doesn’t think you’re serious about your responsibilities and, frankly, you know he’s not wrong. I’m in your corner, but if you want us to continue to provide the major part of your defense, you’re going to have to step up to the plate – at least with your share of the funding.” Whether this approach will work remains to be seen. But the Obama approach clearly wasn’t.

    • #41
  12. Tim H. Inactive
    Tim H.
    @TimH

    Percival (View Comment):
    The purpose of repositioning troops and equipment to Eastern Europe is to adjust the conflict calculus — to make annexing the Baltic States cost far more than they are worth.

    An alliance isn’t judged solely by how well it fights. Avoiding war by being too strong for your adversaries to contemplate it is a considerable benefit.

    Si vis pacem para bellum.

    Amen!

    • #42
  13. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    TKC1101 (View Comment):
    A good executive surrounds himself with good people who have different viewpoints.

    This.  Since the election, it is this factor that has given me the most comfort.  It is almost as if he intends to staff his administration with strong executives who will work within a general game plan, and then draw fire by sending out outrageous tweets to distract the commentariat while Mattis, Tillerson, et al, are executing flanking attacks into the liberal states rear.

    He has made so many good cabinet choices that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the others.  (I know the Treasury is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, but really?)

    • #43
  14. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    Tim H. (View Comment):
    To answer @mikerapkoch‘s question about the purpose of a military build-up, I’d say the question is phrased wrong. It’s not that we’re poised to invade Russia if Putin doesn’t do X. It’s that we need a credible deterrent force at the Eastern end of NATO in case Putin does something—namely, invade one of them.

    Yup.

    • #44
  15. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Claire Berlinski, Ed. (View Comment):

    I don’t think so. I can’t reliably predict how every actor in the world will react, but my best guess is that we really do have huge, massive policy disagreement between the cabinet and the president. I don’t know whether to believe that he really didn’t discuss issues this significant with his nominees.

    But I could see drawing many other conclusions. Some of the people who will be drawing conclusions don’t think the way we do — they may react in ways that don’t seem rational to us. I can’t predict the consequences of this, but bad signalling about what a nation is and isn’t prepared to defend has historically led to war. If it is a good-cop-bad-cop act, it’s one where the potential payoff is vastly outweighed by the risk.

    The next place Russia’s going to pop up is Libya, which will prompt a fresh flow of refugees and more pressure on the EU. How we react to that will be a pretty important gauge of what we really intend.

    Stop taking Trump literally. He says stuff like this as a part of the “art of the deal”.  There is no “massive policy disagreement” in his cabinet.

    Yes, I know you don’t like this answer for the POTUS. DJT is a product of our current culture and its fault. If you wish noble personal character in the WH, change the culture.

    • #45
  16. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    To answer the larger question, “Who’s in charge?” that would be Barack Obama. At least until Friday, Noon ET. He’s the one who yanked Poland’s missile defense and replaced it with boots-on-the-ground US Army troops. And it was Barack Obama who just dropped 300 Marines from Camp Lejeune into Norway this morning.

    During the transition process I doubt Mr. Trump and his nominees are in daily contact with each other and I think it’s a stretch to try to label this as the standard at which they’ll govern. There are not enough hours in the day to prepare for hearings, take security briefings and staff a cabinet level position and still talk to PEOTUS every day about policy.

    I’m not saying Russia doesn’t need checked. Any nation with 7,000 nuclear weapons needs to be kept in check. But right now, Putin & Co. are being used big time as a boogie man in our domestic politics by a bitter lame duck president and an increasingly unhinged minority party in Congress. The nominees have to tap dance around these grandstanders in committee and PEOTUS has to soothe Putin at the same time. Meanwhile, the press is doing what they do best: wringing  their hands and fretting. Anything that deviates from the box of standard operating procedures sets everyone all atwitter.

    And, yes, this is a different world than 1945. Or even 1965. Or even 1985. As far as Western Europe is concerned there are no longer Soviet troops on their doorstep. Germany is reunited. The British Navy is no longer functioning. (The U.K. currently has no carriers and the new Elizabeth Class carrier expected this year may not be delivered due to bad wiring. Her aging sub fleet may be out of the water by 2035.) There is talk of an EU Army with no indication of exactly who will be in charge of deploying it, especially in an increasingly Islamicized Europe. That means NATO will be, basically, us.

     

    • #46
  17. PCT Atlas Inactive
    PCT Atlas
    @PCTAtlas

    Good cop:   Trump

    Bad cop:      Cabinet

    • #47
  18. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):
    Your stats really highlights the distinction between purchasing power parity (ppp) where Russia is $3.7 trillion and Italy $2.3 and nominal where Italy is $1.9 and Russia $1.3

    Which do you think is the more accurate metric for this purpose?

    Probably PPP.

    I am concerned about the number of bombs, etc. Russia can make, not what it spends on them.

    Fair enough. Though clearly the Russians are so poor that most of their military hardware does not actually work. Even their public displays are embarrassing.

     

    and

     

    • #48
  19. ToryWarWriter Coolidge
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    True story.

    Someone asked the head of the German air forces training command, “Do you allow Red Force to win?”

     

    In professional wargaming the friendly side is blue force and the enemy side is red force. In general terms.

     

    The response from the German officer. “If I suggest to my superiors something along those lines, their right hand would reach for their gun, and the left hand would reach for their phone.  The gun would be used to put me under arrest and the phone would put me in the insane asylum.”

     

    That is what the German army has been reduced to.

     

    NATO is obsolete. When it’s a crime for off duty German soldiers to appear in public in uniform that’s a decline of civilization.

     

    As to Trump, he will countenance Putin as long as Putin does what he wants. The moment Putin does something to make Trump look weak, Trump will crush him.  So it was with the Sun King.

    • #49
  20. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    It is this kind of stuff that makes it hard for me to take Russian military might seriously.

    • #50
  21. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Joseph Eagar (View Comment):
    I’m curious now. Would there be a strategic advantage if Trump was playing good cop/bad cop?

    Good Cop/Bad Cop was exactly what I was thinking, too. Which certainly would have the effect of keeping our enemies guessing. That seems like a valid apporach.

    ‘I start off trusting both, but let see how long that lasts,’ he said. ‘May not last long at all.’”

    Or, to put it in Reagan’s terms: “Trust, but verify.”

    • #51
  22. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    EJHill (View Comment):
    There is talk of an EU Army with no indication of exactly who will be in charge of deploying it, especially in an increasingly Islamicized Europe. That means NATO will be, basically, us.

    That, with the exception of the increased Islamification, is how it has been for a while. Europe has been talking about its “rapid reaction force” for decades.

    • #52
  23. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    In spite of all the big issues of day it appears that at least the Polish people seemed happy to see US troops on Polish soil. They have been invaded by far worse than Americans I suppose, and they probably have good reason to believe that Vlad the Shirtless does not have their best interests in mind.

     

    • #53
  24. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    What will make Europe, and the world, safe from Putin (and his ilk) is not calling him names (even deserved names); it is not saying sweet words to giant economies who won’t invest in their own defence; it is the tough love of making (for which one needs sticks as well as carrots) Germany maintain three proper divisions, France two, and so on. Treaties don’t have tanks and helicopter gunships. Neither do summits. (Or tweets.) Armies do. But not current European armies. At least, not nearly enough.

    • #54
  25. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    iWe (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):
    Your stats really highlights the distinction between purchasing power parity (ppp) where Russia is $3.7 trillion and Italy $2.3 and nominal where Italy is $1.9 and Russia $1.3

    Which do you think is the more accurate metric for this purpose?

    Probably PPP.

    I am concerned about the number of bombs, etc. Russia can make, not what it spends on them.

    Fair enough. Though clearly the Russians are so poor that most of their military hardware does not actually work. Even their public displays are embarrassing.

    and

    Then Europe should have nothing to worry about us leaving them to their own devices.

    • #55
  26. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    iWe (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):
    Your stats really highlights the distinction between purchasing power parity (ppp) where Russia is $3.7 trillion and Italy $2.3 and nominal where Italy is $1.9 and Russia $1.3

    Which do you think is the more accurate metric for this purpose?

    Probably PPP.

    I am concerned about the number of bombs, etc. Russia can make, not what it spends on them.

    Fair enough. Though clearly the Russians are so poor that most of their military hardware does not actually work. Even their public displays are embarrassing.

    and

    I would not base my foreign policy or military plans on the trope that our potential foes are incapable or foolish.

    • #56
  27. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    iWe (View Comment):
    It is this kind of stuff that makes it hard for me to take Russian military might seriously.

    They were pretty pathetic lot when Hitler invaded too.

    In comparing their political will with ours, I’d say were are overmatched. Badly.

    We couldn’t even defeat an insurgency in Iraq, due to our lack of unity, due to Democrat/media opposition. Do you think for a moment this won’t happen again?

    Go ahead and laugh. I’m sure enough of their weapons work to cause millions of deaths here and elsewhere. Ha ha.

    • #57
  28. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    iWeEven their public displays are embarrassing.

    Don’t kid yourself. The only difference between Russia’s military maintenance problems and our own is that we don’t parade it.

    Because of the disaster that is the F-35, we’re keeping other airframes running beyond their expected lifetimes. Deferred maintenance of the Navy is getting out of control. Sequester anyone?

    • #58
  29. Tim H. Inactive
    Tim H.
    @TimH

    Another thought, on the leadership vacuum.

    Some have pointed out the Democrats’ unprincipled switch on Russia, away from a blase attitude at best and at worst an outright capitulation.  Now they’re full-throated russophobes, largely because they think Putin intervened on Trump’s behalf.  Obama has given us eight years of weak leadership in foreign policy.  He started off early by pulling the rug out from underneath Poland, the Czech Republic, and other eastern NATO allies on missile defense, because he wanted to make nice with Russia.  He has welcomed Russia in on the Syrian civil war because he didn’t want America to lead.

    International power abhors a vacuum, and Russia has gladly filled the void Obama created.  No, many of our European allies don’t show  initiative in foreign affairs.  But the solution is not for us to withdraw further from our decades-long leadership role, as Trump seems to want, because that encourages the aggression of Russia, who has expansionist dreams across the region.

    I’m glad that Trump has a clearer view of China’s expansionism, and his approach to Taiwan might be a change for the better.  But even if you believe that China is a bigger threat (I don’t see much difference), that is not a reason to downplay the threat from Russia.  Neither is a direct threat to us.  But both are threats to our regional allies, and their expansion, their confidence, and their initiative will constrain our freedom of action.

    • #59
  30. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Claire,

    This isn’t really all that surprising if you grasp the “art of the deal” as expressed by Teddy Roosevelt. He said, “Talk softly but carry a big stick.” Trump’s rhetoric for the moment is to talk softly to Putin. However, General Mattis and the rearming of NATO is the big stick.

    As I’ve always said, park 50 A10s at the Kiev airport and it will have a wonderful effect on Putin’s whole outlook on life (OK, OK, with some F22s to cover them from advanced fighter attack). I’m just a little ray of sunshine.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.