Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Germany Abandons Investigation Into NSA Spying on Chancellor Merkel

Posted by timothy on from the hans-off-investigation dept.

After the purported eavesdropping by the NSA on German chancellor Angela Merkel's telephone commnunications, the German government opened an investigation. However, writes Bruce66423: A lack of evidence means that the investigation has now ended. Our congratulations to the NSA for covering their tracks so well. Note that it was announced on a Friday evening, which is universally recognised as the time to release the news you don't want to get attention. Also at The Guardian and the BBC; from the Guardian's version: The investigation came after Der Spiegel reported in October 2013 that the NSA had a database containing Merkel’s personal phone number. Merkel publicly expressed outrage and dispatched a team of senior German intelligence officers to Washington, supposedly to extract a ”no spy” agreement. When the row was its height, the chancellor said: “The charges are grave and have to be cleared up.” ... The White House, responding to the Der Spiegel story in 2013, said it was not spying on Merkel at present and nor would it in the future, but refused to say whether it had in the past, which was interpreted by some as an admission of guilt.

59 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. Missleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The german government did not open an investigation. It was the attorney general who finally couldn't avoid to open an "investigation". Of course they didn't do a real investigation since they don't really care. There is a still ongoing investigation by a so called "Untersuchungsausschuss" of the parlament which is hindered by the government and the fucking guys of the BND which are more loyal to the NSA then to their own country and parlament.

    1. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That was in fact the specific reason why they ended the investigation. They found strong circumstantial evidence, but because of lack of cooperation from NSA, they could not get any direct evidence. So the case was closed, as NSA was unlikely to change its stance.

      Considering the BND scandal, it's pretty likely that no political pressure was put on NSA to compromise. They were simply going to sweep this under the rug.

    2. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never understood the point of the investigation. Germany does not have jurisdiction over the spy agencies of foreign countries, which means that they can't charge the NSA with a crime. That's how sovereignty works. In terms of non-criminal penalties they don't need an investigation to say "we think you did a bad thing to us, therefore we are retaliating by banning travel from this dude, withdrawing from this agreement you really wanted, and freezing negotiations on this other agreement you really want." That is also how sovereignty works.

      It seemed mostly a way for Merkel to tell people she was doing something about the NSA so they'd shut up and stop arguing for effective action.

    3. Re:Missleading by sphealey · · Score: 1

      = = = [Nation V] does not have jurisdiction over the spy agencies of foreign countries, which means that they can't charge [nation S's intelligence agency] with a crime.

      Quite a few spies who have been jailed and/or executed will be surprised to learn that.

      Nation S will undoubtedly refuse to honor extradition agreements with Nation V for prosecution of S's spies, even if V is an ally, but V is certainly entitled to arrest, prosecute, and punish spies of all nations caught within its borders (and if the theories of John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales are accepted, V is entitled to abduct or just murder S's agents anywhere in the world outside V's own borders).

    4. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that every single one of those had unusual circumstances. Two nations, at peace, who recognize each-other's sovereignty, will almost never charge official (and open) agents of each-other with any crime for their official actions, and if they try it's likely to not to work very well (as the Italians have found out in their so-far fruitless attempts to try a CIA guy for an extraordinary rendition).

      There are a few exceptions, but in general when V finds out a registered Agent of S has been spying on it the worst it can do is throw that guy out of the country by declaring him persona non grata.

    5. Re:Missleading by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      In that specific case of the NSA spying on Merkel's cellphone, there isn't any spy within the borders involved. To execute one or jail one, you have to prove him/her guilty, which cannot be done. In fact, there is no physical presence within Germany's borders needed here. We already know the cellphone was not physically hijacked by NSA otherwise evidence for a trial would have been found by the Germans. So, further investigation is useless in the context of a trial against someone unknown and unidentifiable. The most that could happen is what NicBenjamin said. Some kind of sanction from Germany against the USA based on evidence which links NSA to some kind of provable hack on Merkel's cellphone. Even in that case, some kind of proof must be made, otherwise accordingly to international treaties, Germany is exposing itself to legitimate retaliation from the USA.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    6. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The problem being that Germany is one of the key nerve hubs of most of electronic spying activity in Europe and Middle East as many of the recent leaks have shown.

      While relevant people may or may not be there, they could search the relevant hardware which is in fact on their soil.

    7. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      And then what?

      That little question is the problem I have with all these investigations. They know it happened. Everybody knows it happened. If they want to respond using their sovereign rights, the whole point of sovereign rights is that you don't have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt before you use the damn things. You're sovereign, you're pissed off, that's enough. They can't really respond with their Court system because the actual NSA is nowhere near their jurisdiction. They don't have the military power to kidnap NSA Agents from the streets of DC and make it stick. The only possible result of this investigation is to use up time.

      The fact that they apparently could have gotten some evidence, and didn't bother, just confirms my original impression.

    8. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      And then you use that as leverage to force NSA to give relevant people up. It really isn't hard on state level. US does this kind of "soft blackmail" all the time, as do other large states. Freeze key assets in "investigation" and require extensive cooperation from target state to expedite unfreezing.

      It's not that I don't agree with your assessment for most part. I am just pointing out that if there was a political will to get to the bottom of this, Germany does have legal means to do so. I.e. the part of your argument of it "being too hard to do under current legal framework" being not true. Means are there, and they are genuinely not that hard if there is a will.

      In this case, it just appears that there was no will. They didn't even really want to open the investigation in the first place after revelations came to light and it required the media uprising to get the ball going. So it indeed is not terribly surprising that when any kind of significant action was required to obtain a stronger case, this was used as an excuse to drop the case instead.

    9. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Gee, I thought I made a long response to this. I guess I forgot that Slashdot requires you preview and then submit.

      But the gist was that Germany doesn't have the power to do that effectively They're not a finance hub, so there aren';t a lot of assets to freeze, and if you tried it's likely Obama would just Congress to authorize buying different assets in Belgium. The entire EU does have the authority to make that kind of strategy work, but much of the EU is not gonna antagonize the US Security state while Putin is acting aggressive, particularly the Poles, Balts, and Finns and those countries natural allies in Scandinavia. And Germany probably can't get something through the entire EU over the opposition of all those countries.

      One of the first rules they teach you in international relations 101 is that power isn't fungible. Power in one domain simply does not transfer to another. Germany's wealth can't make up for the fact that it's air force is comparable or worse to the much smaller and poorer Italy (89 German Eurofighters and 87 tornadoes vs. Italy's 64 and 70 plus 43 ground attack aircraft and 60 F-35s on order), that 80 million Germans have a Navy with 11 frigates and 5 million Norwegians have 5, that Germany's extremely good tanks (price tank $1-2 million) are useless to anyone else because the Germans refuse to buy an aircraft that could transport them (price tag: $250 millionish), etc.

      Which is probably the reason that they didn't do anything until the people complained to high heaven, and then what they did was mostly designed to shut the people up until said people got bored and moved onto some other issue.

    10. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about current security situation in Eastern Europe, and as a Finn, I find your attempt to pretend we're allied with hysterical extremely right wing Poland distasteful at best. Pretty much the only ones we can see ourselves allied with and are in actual talks with on the topic is Sweden. We're not in NATO, not feeling threatened by Russia and mostly worried about the fact that worsening security situation is going to squeeze our finances even further.

      Germany on the other hand houses the single most important part of US assets in Europe. They are home to intelligence nerve centres of most military and spying activities. Those are directly related to current spying situation. Then there's the recent scandal with satellite controls of US killer drones in Middle East, and in fact there has been an active discussion in Germany that it should act to investigate, as many activities revealed are either illegal or clearly attempting to circumvent German legislation. Attempt was strong enough for US to start making plans for alternative facilities in Italy. But building secure high end connections, radomes and so on in sufficient numbers takes a lot of time. So right now, they apparently managed to put a lid on the discussion through arguing that US breaking laws in Germany is not as important as Germany's relationship with US.

      Which may be partially correct in the current security situation, but most certainly does remind Germans that ones acting most aggressively against their state come from the other side of Atlantic, nor from the East.

      And that stuff is cumulating right now. Even Ukrainian poison pill given to Europe is starting to not be poisonous enough to make public overlook all the problems coming from other side of Atlantic. And that is not good for cohesion among the states that go under the umbrella of "Western states".

      Which at the time of real issue, that of the fact that US is diminishing as world hegemon is very dangerous for all parties involved.

    11. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you were allied with anybody. I said you had a strategic interest in appeasing the Poles (or at least in ensuring the Poles remain appeased). And you do. Whether it's filtered down to the level of the populace at large or not, your government and military knows that it's much better off if there's a strong US Security presence in Europe to counter-balance Putin and is therefore unlikely to support anything that reduces that presence. Moreover you've also got a pretty strong interest in placating the Poles, because if they come to the conclusion the Western alliance won't keep Putin out, then their least stupid move is to ally with Putin, which kinda fucks over the other states you actually consider yourselves allied with in the Baltic region.

      Plenty of countries in the world have such interests without being considered "allied" in any real sense of the word. The Iranians, and Saudis, for example are all aligned against ISIS while simultaneously being sworn enemies in almost every other respect. The whole Mideast is a morass of such tactical, short-term "alliances."

      Don't get me wrong. If the Germans went after the US on NSA snooping on individuals it's possible the Finnish electorate would decide their personal interest in not being spied upon would super-cede the national interest in having a strategic counter-balance to the Russian; but OTOH I have no fucking clue what Finnish popular opinion is on the issue. My impression is that the Germans are near-apoplectic, and the rest of the continent is like "I don't like it, but they're America, what the fuck you expect?" but I haven't even talked to the Göteborg cousins in years so I don't actually know this.

      As for US military facilities in Germany, these aren't as hard to set up as you'd think. We spend a half-trillion Euros on defense every year, so even a $100 Billion bill would sail through Congress on wings of anti-German rage. And (as you mentioned) the Poles would be over-joyed to have every facility we've got in Germany moved to Warsaw.

    12. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Considering the recent treatment Polish gastarbeiters got, or the fact that we have long standing conflict with them that had to be sorted out on governmental level about their waste issues in Gulf of Finland, I'm extremely confused where you got that idea.

      Finland has a long standing history of neutrality, similar to Switzerland. We have no fight with Russians, and Russians are desperate enough to get us on their good side that they are willing to sell us cheap technology just to keep us neutral. Last news is that Rosatom is making an extremely good offer on third Loviisa reactor if we don't get any closer to joining NATO. We also recently opened new electric interconnects which allow us to sell surplus electricity to Russia. We have zero gas-related problems with Russia as we don't have any third party causing problems in between us, and we had no security issues on our border either. It's literally the calmest and most secure border they have, and they very much appreciate it.

      As a point to make, when they recently opened a base to secure Murmansk and Arctic Ocean near our borders, region on the other side of the border invited personnel of the new base and their families to visit. That is how afraid of Russian military folks that have to live right next to Russian bases are here in Finland. Good business, calm border.

      Suggesting that we are somehow pro-NATO in this conflict beyond the mandatory participation in EU sanctions is absurd. If anything, the current Polish line is considered damaging to regional security here in Finland - something our foreign minister of outgoing government made no qualms about voicing every once in a while. Not beneficial and certainly nothing to be supportive of.

      As for the rest, I don't think you quite understand the problem. On one hand, you don't want to put your mission critical bases into politically unstable states. Poland still has serious stability issues, as we have seen with their conservative religious right wingers suddenly getting electable again on the platform of fear of Europe.
      On the other hand there are issues of infrastructure. Poland is far less developed than Germany is. And moving bases is expensive, but getting new infrastructure that can support them installed is far more expensive. That is why current plans are to move to Northern Italy, rather than Poland according to leaks.

    13. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I got the idea that you guys are not entirely cool with Russia from Finnish history. Last time I checked Karelia and Petsamo were ex-Finnish territory.

      And none of the things you mention change the strategic calculation: Finland is peaceful with Russia today partly because it can play the US off of Russia (as you point out, your nuclear deal is dependent entirely on not joining NATO, which implies that if NATO was significantly weakened the Russians would have no reason to offer you a good price). It has historically been the Russian-leaning neutral in the Northern Baltic (whereas the Swedes are US-leaning), but if the Germans screw up their relationship with the US and the US Military pulls out then Finland has a capital-P Problem.

      This is especially true if the US is forced to go to Northern Italy, because it's much harder to play NATO and Putin off of each-other if Putin knows that to protect you NATO's actual combat troops (ie: not the Germans) have to cross two countries, one neutral Austria and the other an angry-at-America Germany, and the Baltic. At a minimum Putin would have no reason to keep playing nice in terms of energy prices, or nuclear reactors. Since Finnish policy-makers do not want to find out Putin's stretch goals in that scenario they're likely to humor their Baltic neighbors (which, BTW, includes quite a few countries that are not Poland) and oppose any EU action against the US.

      OTOH, if the US can just move it's bases to Warsaw that helps the Finnish position because Putin really needs that northern flank to be secure. Which is one reason the US is laking that it doesn't want to upgrade the infrastructure around Warsaw.

    14. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You seem to think we are a part of NATO, or that we are relying on NATO to defend us.

      This argument is straight up idiotic. We are neutral, overwhelmingly anti-NATO in stance, and we maintain a huge reserve and universal conscription for all men, with army branches that specialize in both frontal warfare and guerrilla warfare. We specifically geared the entire military for fight against something like Soviet or NATO assault where we would get little to no outside help. Country is awash in weapons, most of which are buried in cashes.

      We even have huge anti-nuclear bunkers designed specifically to withstand NATO tactical nukes in all major cities because NATO basically informed our leaders back in 1970s that in event of USSR attack, they would drop tactical nukes on our main cities to deny Soviets infrastructure and every large building is mandated to come with bomb shelter. They're used as storage facilities, saunas and so on during peace time. Hard to get all touchy feely about "nice NATO that wants to defend you" when you visit that huge tactical nuclear bomb shelter when you want to take a swim or get some skating time in the summer.

      In case you want to make a suggestion that these are against Russian nukes, I would simply remind you that their second largest city is well within fallout range and their main cause for both wars with us so far has been security of that very city.

      As a result, your suggestion that NATO base locations in Eastern Europe create security, rather than insecurity for us is quite absurd. To us, NATO approaching Russian borders is a huge cause for concern because it forces Russia to militarise its Western borders and Gulf of Finland, which destabilizes the region.

      As for "stretch goals", may I remind you of degree of Russian military success in Finland before this day, and the fact that they have huge problems essentially on all borders except those in Middle Asia and on our border. Are you really here suggesting that they would want to destabilize their most stable borders and would be willing to invest massive amount of military force needed to actually do something meaningful to us instead of addressing the actually problematic parts of their borders?

      Because if you genuinely believe them to be that stupid, why are you worried about them at all? They will lose everywhere shortly if they're that stupid, simply through investing their forces in all the wrong places and getting overrun elsewhere and will get cut to small, manageable pieces as per doctrine of certain think tanks back in the 1990s.

    15. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      To quote myself:
        (as you point out, your nuclear deal is dependent entirely on not joining NATO, which implies that if NATO was significantly weakened the Russians would have no reason to offer you a good price)

      So I'm perfectly aware you're not in NATO. I'm aware that during the 60s and 70s you were so anti-NATO that most US policy-makers thought you were de facto Russian puppets. Thus the assumption that if the Soviets vaporized 100 million+ Americans with nukes we'd need to take out Helsinki same as Warsaw or Bucharest.

      And I know that the big change since then isn't in Finland's foreign policy stance, but in the international strength of the Russians. And I also know this situation has not resulted in any problems for your country since WW2.

      My argument is that a big part of the reason for no problems is that the Russians knew if they caused problems Finland could join NATO. Your grand strategy is playing NATO (and thus the US) off the Russians. You actually confirmed that Finland uses this strategy when you said:
      "Last news is that Rosatom is making an extremely good offer on third Loviisa reactor if we don't get any closer to joining NATO."

      As for your comment on moving NATO troops destabilizing the region, you do realize that by contesting the minor point of which NATO country would be the best place for Finland after Germany you've conceded the main one? Getting US Troops out of Germany makes Europe as a whole significantly less stable, which hurts Finland. It also makes Finland's Grand Strategy of playing the Russians and NATO against each-other much more dangerous.

      Therefore Finnish policy-makers response to a German proposal to throw the Americans out is not gonna be positive.

    16. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      An interesting but understandable angle. I would however point out the counterpoint as to why this would actually be overwhelmingly positive for us.

      We have been among the few nations calling for European, rather than Atlantic defence forces. Essentially none of the "project force in far away lands to help with US foreign policy" and full focus on securing Europe itself. Due to heavy presence of NATO in Europe, the only support so far came from Sweden. The rest are too invested in NATO at the moment.

      If Germany was to actually start distancing itself from NATO, that would mean a significant increase in the argument of pan European defence force to replace it as security guarantor in Europe. As a result, this would be an overwhelmingly positive change from our perspective in medium and long term.

      Short term would likely be negative due to potential for creation of security vacuum as you mention. That and the fact that regardless of everything else, the umbrella of "Western world" is very important in the world where Asian "know who over rule of law" style culture is rising through both China and Russia. After the Snowden's revelations, already having driven a significant wedge between the two, Europe had to be given Ukrainian poison pill to push it back to US. If split were to become even more significant, US would have to compensate even harder to reel Europe back in, because it needs Europe to maintain its world wide hegemony, which is already in decline.

      And hegemons in decline are very dangerous. Especially in modern world with modern weaponry. So sudden movements from Germans to distance themselves from NATO and US would indeed cause some very dangerous ripples through world security.

    17. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      That's a mighty high-risk strategy. OTOH, if Putin actually invaded Finland after a split between the EU and the US it's likely the EU would swallow it's pride and beg the US to come back.

      If it worked it'd be great. But the problems are two-fold:

      1) The people of Europe are extreme cheap-skates militarily. The Germans are probably the worst, apparently they are too cheap to let their troops fire off multiple rounds because it has an extreme overheating problem they didn't notice for 17 years. In case you're not a gun-owner, every time you fire a weapon the barrel heats up a lot, so they can't have been doing very much target practice. When I ask a German why his life would suck if his country spent 2 cents per Euro on defense instead of 1.3 he responds that that would be insane US-level-spending and he likes Germany. We spend 4 cents per dollar. It actually reminds me of a passage from Mannerheim's Memoirs -- he asked a pol for an actual military budget prior to the Winter War, and the guy looked him straight in the eye and said "Why would we do that when there will be no more wars?"

      2. Europeans really do not think of themselves as one nation. They elect a bunch of EU Politicians who make decisions, and then complain that the decisions aren't Democratic because the guy elected at the level below (generally a Prime Minister, but frequently a President) didn't have a say. They totally freak out at the idea of spending money on other EU states (note: in the US everyone in New York pays a significant amount of taxes to support Mississippi, and the only people who bitch about it are Mississippians).

      But good luck. As it is with the rise of Indonesia/Brazil/etc. EU states are simply too small to have much influence. Even Tony Blair, whose military was arguably the best in Europe (France would be the only competition) was punching above weight when he became Dubya's poodle.

    18. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You seem to be unable to answer this question: Why would "Putin" invade Finland (in more rational minds, it's usually countries, not leaders that invade)? What is the strategic reason for this action? Because right now, it's literally the dumbest move Russia could make in terms of offensive actions - all other borders are far more dangerous to defend and most are far easier to attack.

      Yet you keep insisting he would. Why? Countries don't invade without strategic reasons. Even US military policy, as nuts as it seems at times always follows strategic interests.

      On your points:
      1. The reason why US needs the current budget is because it's a worldwide hegemon. As such, it needs little defensive force and massive ability to project force far away from its borders. That is why its military costs trump the rest of the world combined - force projection is massively more expensive than national defence and projection capability within immediate vicinity of one's borders. No other country in the world is in the same situation, as they have to actually have at least some, and in case of Europe most of their strategic worries focused on territorial defence and force projection in immediate vicinity.
      2. I never claimed Europeans see themselves as one nation, because we certainly do not. Implying that someone suggests that implies assumption of severe ignorance of reality on that person's part. I do not believe I said anything to merit this kind of assumption so far. I merely pointed out that it would be a natural extension of current integration drive in EU to also synchronise defence. NATO tries to just that, and it usually half way fails simply because it's way of doing things is too much about dictation. It would be much more acceptable to population and national leadership if it wasn't a US-lead organisation that didn't have a single defensive campaign in its history and mainly focuses on ensuring that US conquests across the world have European military and logistics support. But instead a pan-European organisation designed specifically to secure Europe's borders would be far more acceptable to population and politicians, as they would have far greater control over organisation's strategic goals. Considering the current immigrant crisis in Mediterranean, we could really use such a force that could just deploy heavier hardware on porous outside borders of Greece, and start blockading Libya at sea. Border organisations are simply not designed for that sort of action.

      On your last point, you are probably correct, but you're really missing the reason why this is so. Europe actually came dangerously close to being able to politically disconnect from US's foreign policy umbilical cord a few years ago. We've seen many individual states openly refuse to participate in US attacks on other countries and even freezing of TTIP negotiations after Snowden's revelations that EU negotiation position was completely exposed to US negotiator through spying. This was something unheard of a couple of decades ago, and almost impossible to imagine in current climate of FUD.

      It's likely one of the main reasons why Ukrainian poison pill was activated when it was activated to put a political wedge between EU and Russia. It needed to be done before the enough of the fears between the two were put to rest and cooperation between the two became extensive enough to make activating said poison pill unworkable. And in current climate, it is indeed impossible for NATO EU states to disconnect from US foreign policy, no matter how brutal it becomes. At least for foreseeable future.

    19. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      So you're creating a Defense Union of European Democratic states tight on Putin's border, Russia is clearly not gonna be a member of the club, and even if it was asked to join it wouldn't be important enough to dominate the club, and he's not gonna try to stop that shit? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying invasion would be inevitable, or that you guys would lose. But even a 10% chance of an invasion that cost you as much as the Winter War did is the kind of risk Finns don't take very often. And to be honest with you, I wish we were smart enough to avoid that kind of risk more often.

      1. If you're Europe's size you need some force projection. You need enough ships to keep the other guy from landing on your massive coastline. You need strategic transport aircraft or your tanks based in Estonia are no use to counter threats to Greece or Portugal. You probably don't need our budget (which is, IIRC a full 4% of GDP) partly because your overall economy is bigger and partly because you don't need to project force to Guam, but OTOH Germany's 1.3% ain't doing it and the French (at 2%) hitch an awful lot of rides on the US Air Force.

      2. I didn't say you implied that. I said that for your idea to work that Europeans need to think of defending each-other as really important. Important enough to pay a fairly significant tax (and this is gonna be at least couple points of VAT, even if the EU Force has German-levels of spending) even when their local national leadership thinks the war is a dumb idea. For example, I sincerely doubt the Finns Party would be happy paying a 3% VAT to defend Italy. And they're in government.

      As for Ukraine, this is actually an issue that illustrates point #2. For the Pole Euromaiden was a core national interest. Several other fairly large countries agreed, and just about everybody thought that something should be done. Which means any EU-Alliance would probably have been extremely aggressive, because the only country with a national interest in keeping Putin happy and no national interest in keeping the Russian-bloc-border with the EU-bloc closer to the Azov then the Danube is Finland.

      BTW, if the US actually had the capability to create that crises we'd have done it in Moscow. Obama's been trying to "Pivot to Asia" for years, and conflicts involving the Middle East and Putin just keep distracting him.

    20. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Again, you suggest the arbitrary percentage of attack. And again, I go back to asking you: what is the Russia's strategic interest in such an attack? Why would it want to effectively surrender all its NATO borders and its extremely difficult Chinese borders to engage all of its military in a single northern campaign against a neutral state that has shown remarkable resilience to that kind of attack in the past. And even if such a campaign were to be successful, what is the benefit to Russia and why would it outweigh all the problems caused by this attack?

      As in, how did you derive that 10% number?

      1. Again, no we do not. The reason you need that huge budget is because you need to project intercontinental conventional force. I recall math being done on your nuclear carriers alone - you need six-seven of them to keep one stationed in a region permanently. That is why you have as many as you do.

      Europe's needs are the security of Mediterranean and Eastern borders, plus maintenance of Arctic. That means minimal force projection. In addition to this specific states need minor intercontinental force projection. that is French and their African client states, Brits and Falklands/Malvinas, but as we have seen recently with French, they have no significant problems with their current spending. UK is currently more questionable, though the deterrent they achieved in previous war added with financial problems of Argentinian state suggest that Falklands are safe for now.

      2. They would be happy to spend money to defend entire Europe however, if that was indeed a pan European defence. Our current defence minister who comes from that party has openly stated that he favours alliance with Sweden (which they are currently working on by the way) and previously stated that it would be a very good idea to have a pan-European defence initiative.

      Since in Italy this initiative would be used to turn illegal immigrants away, that would sit very well with the party. They love those kinds of things, as do their constituents.

      On your last point, may I remind you that Europe has been successful in almost all its containment of Polish extremism so far? We successfully defused their attempts to destroy EU's secularity, we effectively forced their right wing anti EU party (which currently holds presidency again) to conform to European standards and even establish significant trade relations with Russia in spite of a lot of their teeth grinding and the fact that their former president still routinely accuses Russia of killing his brother. This in spite of us knowing from the cockpit recordings that it was his brother's drunk defence minister that forced pilots to try to land aircraft when airport told him in no uncertain terms that it wasn't equipped for landing in that kind of bad weather.

      The problem is that US is very skilled in using both its image as "protector" as well as manipulating what is effectively it's client states in EU, that being Poland, Baltics and UK to push EU in desired direction. That is why they are afraid of UK exit so much - without it, their influence within EU would be cut at its knees, as Poles and Balts alone are far to weak to be able to influence EU in the way they need it to.

      P.S. I'm not saying they "created" the crisis. I'm saying they took the current situation, and acted to make it to suit their needs. Just like they did with 9/11. It's pretty irrelevant if the crisis is natural or created in that sense - what matters is how you use it.
      In a few years, that kind of uprising would no longer be supportable in the same way because of geopolitical balance shift from competition between EU and Russia to cooperation between EU and Russia. That would mean that the last second deal would not have been breached as it was, and we wouldn't be in a mess like we are in now because president representing people the of Eastern Ukraine would not have been overthrown and have Western Ukrainian leadership installed in his place. Instead we'd have had peaceful transition as was the deal and maybe some sort of actually good deal for Ukraine instead of current status quo where it has no future.

    21. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Your scenario is that NATO is so weakened European states think they need to band together to replace it. Under those circumstances Russia is likely to consider NATO weakened, and also has an interest in ensuring nothing replaces it, or that what replaces it is more analogous to the Warsaw pact then the EU. If the Finns are trying to start a new EU Alliance the Russians have a clear interest in stopping them, and the ability to do so because there's no NATO. The 10% number is a guess that's supposed to reflect that's it's actually possible, but not particularly likely.

      1. Let's say the EU Alliance decided to get German tanks to Ukraine. How would they do that quickly without fairly significant strategic airlift capability? BTW, the French needed a ride from the US Strategic Airlift command to get to Mali because they don't have C-17 Globemasters of their own. They also borrowed one from Sweden's contribution to the NATO Heavy Airlift Wing. I'm not saying you'd need to spend 4%, but 2% would be a minimum.

      2. This is the Finns Party you're talking about. They say they'll pay taxes, and send Finns into harm's way, to keep African immigrants from making it to the UK, but I don't believe them. They have no economic interest in keeping Muslims out of London, and they remind too much of the Tea Party for me to conclude they'll ever agree to spend money on anyone but themselves.

      As for the Poles, there's a few mistakes in your post. The Presidential twin died in the plane crash. The Prime Ministerial one is the guy who blames Putin for his brother's death. And you're ignoring much of Europe's policy towards Russia. For example, without the Poles and Balts it's likely a German and French-dominated EU lets Putin crush Euromaiden.

      As for the US Role in that fight, non-Americans really do not seem to understand that pretty much the entire fucking point of becoming a hegemon is you don't have to manipulate anybody. Everybody is trying to manipulate you into doing what they want, so you mostly sit on your fat ass, and your manipulation is limited to nodding sagely when one of their plots would advance your interests. Take this case.

      We don't have to play up anybody's fear of Russia, because the Poles, Estonians, Czechs, etc. are all doing it for us. They are doing a better job then we ever could because nobody thinks that a Pole who grew up under Communism is being a Machievellan asshole when he says he doesn't trust Russia and explains why.

      In this case we probably didn't even want to do that much, because our President (whose father-figure was an Indonesian, and whose Indonesian half-sister is the only living relative he treats as a relative) really wants Europe to stabilize the fuck up so he can weave an alliance-structure in Asia that will protect Democracy, free trade, and the American Way.

      In other words, he's like almost every other President whose been dragged into a deeply complex linguistical-legalistical-political-sociological-bullshitical dispute on the continent. He wants Euromaiden to work because he's stuck with the Poles, Germans, etc. and they all prefer a world where Ukraine's protesters create a new Democratic EU member to a world where everyone in the square gets crushed by Red Army tanks. Thus all plots presented to him (as hegemon) oppose the Russians, and he's got to support one that will likely not start a nuclear fucking war.

    22. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That is a massively convoluted logic. "If this multinational organisation collapses and this single small state attempts to replace it with large multinational organisation".

      Do you realise just how self-contradictory your suggestion is? Alliances among smaller states by their nature are not started by single small states, but by collaboration between them. This is because alliances need significant political force behind them to be pushed through, and unlike large hegemonic states, smaller states do not wield political power to have this amount of political force.

      I'm guessing you're so locked into imperialist line of thinking that you are unable to comprehend the difference between a hegemonic and non-hegemonic state, attributing hegemonic traits to everything. This is a major flaw when thinking on macropolitical level.

      1. Strategic airlift capacity exists in Europe. It's simply under NATO umbrella right now. US was cheapest to get the lease from, and US needed French to stabilize without having them get involved. Suggesting that French would have been unable to airlift relevant hardware without US aircraft is ignorant to the extreme.
      2. Then you do not know their political agenda. Consider that much of international coverage of party has been for shock sales value, and as a result is quite a far cry from values they actually represent. Also consider that I actually am a citizen of this state, and have significant amount of insider information that you are unlikely to be in possession of.
      That sort of force is something they not only desire, but are actively trying to drive. They are very much pro-defence forces and pro-military to the point where they effectively demanded (and got) defence minister post in current government. This is typically a post that is reasonably light in Finland, and often went to small "helper parties", like ~5% polling Swedish party in last government, so actively gunning for it was fairly unusual for a high level politician. Yet Ville Niinistö is probably the most qualified defence minister we had in a long time - he has PhD in military history and an active participant in voluntary country defence movements.
      And with knowledge of military history comes the responsibility of understanding why it's important to stop the current threat to Europe on the southern borders.

      3. That was my point. Euromaidan's militant movement was utterly unacceptable by normal democratic standards. It was a militant and unconstitutional overthrow of elected government. As a point of comparison when similar movement was attempted in US in the wake of 2007 crash but with far less militant attitude (with largely similar agenda of topping corrupt system that enabled it), it was brutally crushed by far greater application of force.
      The main reason for overwhelming support it received in the West was importance of Ukraine for US as a part of its encirclement of Russia. The "overthrowing of democratically elected government in spite of all agreements and last minute deals" and the sheer violence of the movement is typically whitewashed in Western media by focusing on peaceful part of it. Interestingly the exact opposite approach was practised by the same media toward Occupy movement. Consider the reasons why.

      The rest of your argument is just silly talk with no content. The reason for "pivot to Asia" is because China is rising to challenge US force projection capability in the region, and starting to be actually able to do so in its immediate vicinity. South China Sea issue is a great example of this, if this was just about marine resources, parties would have likely come to an agreement already. But freedom of being able to navigate military armadas through shipping lanes that are critical to strategic survival of China is non-negotiable for US. Losing this right would cripple it's ability to blockade China without impacting the rest of the region when needed, and as a result significant diminish its hegemonic grasp.

      The point of becoming hegemon has nothing to do

    23. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      On the odds of Russia attacking Finland, the issue isn't about what you think or what I think. It's what Putin thinks. And Putin does not think of himself as leader of a small unimportant state that has to take the hand it's dealt by the world. If the US declines, and Finland starts talks with lots of other European states to form a defensive alliance, he could very well try to take it out.

      1. It's pitiful. The Airbus 400M is a glorified tactical transport, and it's not in service. Your EU Defense Force would need to develop a real strategic transport, and buy roughly 50 of them, to actually have a chance of getting troops where they needed to be in anything like a timely manner.

      2. Like I said I'll believe it when I see it. They're populists, and populist voters are not known for keeping their heads when their leader tries to tell them to be flexible just this one time and spend money on somebody else. When you're the only country in Europe that demands Greece put up collateral, you lose a lot of credibility in my book; and the Finns Party is the reason you guys lost that credibility.

      3. There was no attempt to overthrow the US government in September of '08, which is when the economic troubles hit here, largely because the election was in November. The Occupy Wall Street protests were tolerated until they petered out, largely they had no concrete goal to organize around. Literally one hundred Euromaiden protesters died in various clashes with Yanukovych's police.

      Don't get me wrong, when you call it unconstitutional and illegal I agree. But most European leaders faced with massive street protests would not respond with snipers. When any state is using it's legal powers to suppress protests against it's political leadership arguments based on that state's legal powers lose most of their moral force. As their ally we had to act against our own interests and support the revolt.

      The South China Sea is similar. If the Chinese had made a sober decision to deny us the area they could have negotiated a treaty with the other states in the region allowing them the lion's share of it, and then bullied the hold-outs.

      On the South China Sea, if the Chinese were likely to actually negotiate their boundary don't you think they would have told somebody else what they thought the boundary should be? They've got a poorly drawn map, at a very large scale, which is not a fruitful point for starting territorial negotiations. Thus a group of states that are not particularly well-disposed to the US Military (the Vietnamese famously threw us out, the Filipinos also did so but less dramatically) want a US presence to balance the Chinese presence.

      Your analysis of America's rise to hegemony is quite Eurocentric. From our point of view we have no realistic reason to fear for the survival of the US. Haven't since 1867 brought the end of British North America. Thus our foreign policy is not tinged by the hint of desperation that affects damn near everyone else. We have a huge country, and our economy is one of the best in human history. If you want our help (ie: you're Indonesia facing down China, or the poor Koreans) we'll be happy to help. If you don't (ie: you're Iraq under Maliki) we'll be somewhat pissed but we'll leave the country and won't engage in any particularly Machiavellian skullduggery against you.

      For us the point of being a hegemon is that a) it allows us to engage in our hobby of promoting US-Style Democracy, and b) it allows us to force free trade agreements on all the little states that are dependent on us for their security. Admittedly, it's mostly b)*. We've actually been trying to encourage you Euros to form a second hegemon since WW2, but you're all so wedded to the idea of individual nation-states associated with each tiny-little language and veto-power over every-damn-thing that it doesn't work too well.

      Like I said, good luck succeeding where FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, that

    24. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Again, your first suggestion is absurd. How would Finland pose a strategic threat to Russia that would be greater than that of China in the South-East, or NATO in the West? Do you have any idea what kind of a tectonic shift in security climate this kind of shift would require?

      This is not 10%. This is not even 0.1%. We're talking about likelihood like that of a comet wiping out humanity. Even Stalin didn't see Finland as important enough to take back in the days of USSR being extremely powerful. All he needed from strategic standpoint was to secure the vicinity of former Leningrad as well as supply lines to Murmansk. Both were of significant strategic importance and held in WW2.
      Beyond that, the only strategic importance that Finland holds to Russia is as direct ground access to Sweden and Norway.

      Putin has shown himself to be an extremely astute strategist so far. What you are suggesting on the other hand would require insanity on levels of Caligula combined with strategic stupidity of Bush Jr.

      Rest of your points:
      1. Several European states operate strategic airlifter aircraft. Most of them US in origin. These can be leased if necessary, the issue was that US simply offered a better rate because it had direct interest in French pacifying the region ASAP.
      2. But they are not populists. That's the entire point. The party has been around for well over 20 years now, and all head figures are long term politicians with significant amount of experience. The only reason that international media paints them as "populist" is because that's the umbrella under which all anti-EU parties are generally shoved across Europe.
      In reality, their main platform is about re-empowering older male workers, mainly those in heavy industry. Those have seen a significant squeeze for a while now as automation pushes on while investment is going to cheap labour countries. Their anti-immigration wing is actually fairly small and mainly headed by a fairly level-headed MEP who didn't even run for Finnish parliamentary election.
      That is why party enjoys heavy support mainly among male demographic of working age that is typically working blue collar or lower level white collar jobs, with limited support among higher white collar workers, and very little support among female voters.
      3. Maidan didn't start as a movement to overthrow the government either. I recommend rehashing on its history. The overthrow only happened after it was not heavily suppressed like Occupy was, and instead was allowed to grow for a very long time under minimal suppression and eventually received paramilitary support from the outside forces.
      That's what happens to popular movement. They start as one thing, and end up as something entirely different. If you want another example, I recommend looking at Syria. That's an even more extreme example of foreign support transforming movement from something that starts as a largely peaceful demonstration to demand change in people's lives into a violent movement that aims to topple government and causes a civil war.

      That is why response wasn't snipers. It was underequipped security forces with no lethal weapons. For months. Under a shower of deadly weapons ranging from molotovs to pipe bombs laced with nails. After the end game phase, the guys doing it were proudly showing off their weapons. Makeshift, and very much deadly. Guys on the other side were filmed a lot, and until the final days were using standard riot gear - shields, armour, batons. And complaining to everyone who would listen that they are not allowed to use sufficient force to end the protests.

      That is likely what resulted in escalation. They were allowed to use just enough force to piss people off, and not enough to actually end the protests. In US on the other hand, already militarized police and far more brutal justice system (by European standards) suppressed protests very rapidly through overwhelming force. That is before it got out of control and people started arming themselves.

      It is fairly telling that you

    25. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Why would Russia need to worry about the Chinese? China has no territorial ambitions in North Asia, and their territorial ambitions in the South China Sea don;t threaten Russia. Moreover, why would Russia's response to a new threat in the West be "oh shit, we can't do anything about it or we'll be weak in the East," and not "let's kill this sucker fast?"

      And I think you're under-stating the magnitude of the strategic shift if the US was thrown out of Germany and Europe responded by beginning to form an EUDF. In that case instead of being neutral (and thus a useful venue for Russia and buffer to St. Petersburg) Finland becomes the front line. And a guy who got his start as Deputy Mayor of St. Petersburg definitely cares whether that front line is Lapland or Karelia.

      As for Putin's skill, I think we'll have to wait a bit to see how that plays out. From my point of view he fucked up his Eurasian Union, managed to get a consolation prize in Crimea, which provoked an unprecedented degree of European unity, and set up a bloody DonBass rebellion that he could not turn off if he wanted to. I can't quite figure out how it advances his interests. in particular he can;t expect the Russophiles to win a new Ukrainian election unless the Donbbass votes, which means the Ukraine-Russia-unity dream is dead.

      He's a survivor, and he could easily see something I don't, but I'm actually more impressed with Merkel (and Obama, altho he hasn't taken the lead so she gets the credit) then Putin. He doesn't seem to have had a backup plan to Yanukovych, and his cobbled-together rebellions seem more aimed at making Ukraine pay for disobeying then advancing his long-term interests.

      1. It seems like this has been argued out.

      2. The US has plenty of pols who appeal to working-class males who have been screwed by the new economy. Quite a few have been around for a long time. They're still populists. Scott Walker is one of them.

      3. I lived through Occupy. It spent months pampered by the Administration because their goals and framing ("the 99% vs. the 1%", characterizing the GOP position on the debt ceiling as immoral, etc.) were pretty much what Obama wanted. They only had problems when they tried to leave the park on protest marches without a permit. If it had been suppressed at all there would have been violence in several parts of the country, particularly the West Coast, which has an active anarchist community that likes to hijack random protests and turn them into violent rioting.

      It petered out largely because a movement run on consensus, with no concrete goals, tends not to survive very long when the powers-that-be swear up and down they support it's goals.

      3. If Yanukovych'd sent in the tanks on day one he'd probably have won. Did you mean to imply that he wasn't responsible for the snipers? Because it beggers belief that someone could have snipers running around Kiev for months, killing 100 people, without the police figuring the plot out; unless the police were the snipers. And Yanukovych himself recently said ""But the members of the security forces fulfilled their duties according to existing laws. They had the right to use weapons."

      I was unclear when I used the phrase "allies," I wasn't referring to the protesters. They don't have that legal status, and probably never will. I was referring to our NATO Allies, who were kinda freaked out by the gunfire at protesters who just wanted to join the EU.

      On the Chinese, in some ways you're right. but they did burn those fleets, and if you let every country go back in time and fight a war to restore what they lost in the 1525 things become problematic. For example, how many countries could claim you as a province? Moreover it wasn't the Filipinos who mistreated the Chinese in the late 19th century. There's a reason the UN is expressly designed to make China's current actions illegal.

      What the US is looking

    26. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      On your last note, which I just realized I forgot to respond to, I have to say conversations like this are one of the reasons I stay on Slashdot.http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7546871&cid=49982255#

    27. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      There are multiple extremely serious reasons why Russia is extremely worried about China. First there's the territorial dispute that they more or less settled in 2004 over islands on Amur river. Russia was effectively forced to cede a significant chunk of territory to Chinese.

      Second is the general state of border regions. I've read some studies that suggest they are now around 90% ethnic Han and 10% everyone else. That is on Russian side. Once you look at the region as a whole, you start seeing the severe strategic threat. It's a very difficult region, mostly taiga forests with very difficult logistics and little populace. And just a bit south you have China that has huge population density and distinct interest in the Siberian resources.

      It's pretty easy to see the threat if you look at it from Russian side.

      On your point #2, you have to remember that we have in fact ceded territory to Russia back when it was part of USSR, specifically because Stalin saw it of strategic importance to secure Leningrad. Right now, the main threat to Leningrad (modern St. Petersburg) is no longer from us - we are quite far away and the region is swampy, making it very difficult to advance over.
      On the other hand Estonia is close and has a far better ground. They are far more dangerous to Russia from this angle.

      Our strategic importance to Russia lies mostly in three aspects:
      a. We are one of the two sides of the Gulf of Finland that can enable complete naval blockade of St. Petersburg. During WW2 not a single Russian sub succeeded in penetrating this blockade.
      b. Our closeness to their Arctic supply lines, specifically Murmansk.
      c. Ahvenanmaa/Åland islands and their strategic location in Baltic Sea.

      On point a. Russia already has almost no submarine presence in the region. They have only two diesel attack subs total. Even Sweden has more than twice that. They learned their lesson from WW2.
      On point b. Nazi Germany attacking from Finnish soil never succeeded in severing the supply lines to Murmansk during WW2. There's also the fact that far more dangerous Norway also has significant presence in the same region, which again reduces our priority.
      Point c. is directly linked to point a.

      As for Putin, I think you're too focused on looking at it from our side. Looking at the issues from his side, the logic becomes obvious. He wanted to uplift his country which was left in shambles by Yeltsin, and largely succeeded. Having learned from chaos of 1990s, he moved to secure Russia from next potential bout of West effectively raiding Russia (which let's be frank is an apt description of what was done to Russia in 1990s, even according to very people who were behind the plans to transition Russia to Western style economy) by bolstering nationalism and rebuilding links with former allies.
      During this time his leadership clearly considered many deals made with the West to be made in good faith, even after they were breached one after another, mostly unilateral action from Western parties (i.e. agreement on conventional forces in Europe, enlargement of NATO, etc). Diplomatic sources appear to mostly confirm that Russian side made it very clear that any Ukraine was their "red line", for understandable reasons - Crimea is their main warm water port, and Ukraine was their chief military supplier.
      Then the EU deal basically forced Ukraine to choose either Russia or EU. Yanukovich was apparently dithering and even willing to accept the EU side until Russians basically outlined the consequences that deal would unleash on Ukraine, like end of preferential income tariffs from Russian side as to avoid EU companies would simply use Ukraine to bypass Russian tariffs. Yanukovich balked, young Ukrainians thinking they could become like Poles and just migrate to UK/France/Germany to work if deal went through saw this as a vote for status quo instead of modernisation. This was the image that was clearly sold to many on Maidan. Months of protests followed.

      The "weapon usage" part you're talking ab

    28. Re:Missleading by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      On the China border, you're still thinking like a Finn. Large Central and Eastern European states afraid of invasion from the East typically act more aggressively on their western border in hopes that will convince everyone to leave them alone. remember: the Kaiser was worried about Russia, so he invaded Belgium in hopes of knocking out the French. If an anti-Russian alliance was developing there's a real chance they'd deal with it pre-emptively, particularly if they were worried about the Chinese in the East.

      After all, you won't be in NATO, which has been weakened anyway (thus sparking the EU Defense Initiative that started this whole scenario), and if knocking you out of that reduces the threat in the West they can cut a deal with the Chinese in the short term and be better prepared for the long term.

      Which means your strategic value to the Russians in this scenario wouldn't be geographic. They wouldn't be asking for bases or territory. It would be political. NATO couldn't protect a rich neutral, the ED-Defense Initiative couldn't protect it. Therefore the Balts and Ukrainians better deal with Russia. OTOH it's high risk, because it could also force NATO and the ED-DI together into an anti-Russian alliance. So it would be a very interesting strategic problem. The kind of interesting that you do not want to face in real life.

      I understand Putin's position. While it is my contention his actions and political position are evil, that does not mean they are inherently irrational or not understandable. And I think he did quite well prior to this last crisis. But the last crisis is just such a high-risk/low-reward strategy that I suspect he was acting more out of desperation to be seen doing something then his strategic best interests. And I suspect that he under-estimated both the pull of the EU Schengen policy to the Ukrainian people (which is understandable: everybody but Kiev's protesters did this bit) and the ability/desire of Western leaders to keep promises requiring them to screw the Euromaiden protesters.

      BTW, Militarized police were not the problem for Occupy Wall Street. Those guys are white. The cops are a huge problem in the black community, particularly the working-class bits where nobody can afford a lawyer, but it's very difficult to find cases where a cop screwed a white guy and the white guy did not deserve it. In this case Occupy weren't asking for the permits every other protest in the US has to get from the local government, which meant their marches got turned back a lot.

      On the snipers, as Yanukovych said he admitted some his forces used their weapons. And it went on for a month. If somebody's running around my capital for a month, knocking out 100 protestors, and I can't figure out who it is; then I probably shouldn't be in charge anymore. Even our Beltway sniper only managed three weeks and a dozen or two killed.

      On US hegemony, I often compare it to that famous quote about Democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others. I suspect a European co-hegemon would be good, because we'd have broadly compatible goals, very little to fight about militarily, and the odds you guys and our President all have the same dumb idea at once are pretty low. A non-Democratic co-hegemon would be bad, because there would be more military competition. There's a reason we supported lots of coups and un-Democratic governments in Latin America while the Soviet Union still stood, but it's gotten much better since they fell. So a Chinese Hegemon would suck.

    29. Re:Missleading by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I think I didn't make my point, because your answer appears to suggest a different problem.

      Russia has a serious medium to long term problem on its south-eastern border. As in a problem that is liable to blow in its face in a decade or two. This is not an immediate threat, nor is there a potential for "anti Russian alliance". This would be a Sino-Russian event. I will readily agree that there is no immediate threat there after 2004 solution. Both Russia and China have other problems in short term to deal with on other borders that they would prefer to stick to.

      Considering their mutual history, any Russian leader worth his salt should and would be very worried.

      I am once again confused how "knocking us out" would improve Russia's positions on its other borders. Military theory suggests the exact opposite - it would have to commit a significant chunk of its military and political power to first conquest, then pacification and containment for decades afterwards. All to grab a large part of one of the least inhabited countries in the world that has minimal strategic value.

      I would understand your suggestion if we were talking something like Lithuania, which offers more direct access to European mainland as well as Russian mainland and is fairly containable in terms of size. But Finland? That's just not a strategically sound conclusion in my eyes.

      I want to clarify this point: Finland's security has been carried on two key elements:
      1. Very believable defence and promise of extremely difficult containment after potential loss.
      2. Low strategic value.

      On your next point, we are largely in agreement on your assessment of Ukrainian crisis. My only point of contention is that it wasn't that he chose this path, but he was forced on it because that last round of expansion simply offered him no real alternatives. I've heard quite a few European diplomatic bureaucrats give interviews on smaller media sites like vice news weeks after the overthrow and Russia's reaction that "honestly, we fucked it up, because in retrospect it was obvious that we pushed Russia too far into the corner, as they have indeed warned us about this for several years".

      You can probably still find relevant coverage, through with all the noise on the issue it would be time consuming.

      As for weapon usage, it was actually well known that his troops were using things like riot shotguns. Those are basically standard pump action shotguns but with holes in the sides of barrels which enable them to fire rubber bullets at low velocity. There were some reports of police having to contain armed looters in the city (and there was video footage of this at times) where they faced well armed criminals. But that was typically armed police surrounding a single building. We have a lot of footage of the actual large crowd events, and those don't show these weapons being used.

      Infamous snipers only appeared in final days, when Yanukovich was no longer in control of the city, and miraculously didn't hit a single important person of Maidan movement. Most of whom were in the open on the streets. All they killed was about a hundred of nobodies. Which just continued the line of "just enough to rile the crowd, nowhere near enough to contain it". Which is frankly odd for snipers who are specifically trained to take out VIPs in the crowd, not shoot at the nobodies in crowd.

      As a point of comparison, Beltway sniper was operating in a peaceful environment where there was no large scale civil uprising that effectively paralysed all policing activity just to contain it.

      And I just wanted to point out that militarization of police is a separate issue from racial tensions in US. SWAT killing innocent people by accident and police using significant force suppressing demonstrations happens regardless of race. It just so happens that latest bout of demonstrations happen to feature overwhelmingly black crowds.

      Occupy was anything but and it met even more brutal of a fate, because direct news coverage was largely limit

  2. *slowly sliding a pen and paper across the table* by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    "Well then Chancellor, who do you think we should be listening to?" *looking up and whistling*

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  3. Lack of evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A lack of evidence means that the investigation has now ended. Our congratulations to the NSA for covering their tracks so well.

    "The NSA covered its tracks too well" is one theory.

    Another theory is that maybe the investigation learned that Germany's own intelligence services were complicit in the "NSA" spying,, possible to the extent that they participated in the operation against their own Chancellor, and they shut the investigation down to save face.

    I have, of course, no evidence that this in fact was the case, but it's hardly implausible.

    P.S. God bless the NSA for making pretty much any nutty theory "hardly implausible."

    1. Re:Lack of evidence? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they just bought the information from the Chinese.
      They have all our spy information now anyway, probably cheaper and definitely more reliable.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  4. Re:Good on Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I got news for you, nobody is stopping Russian, Chinese, or Iranian spying either. Western Europe is full of their spies, and more and more nations of in danger of having their territory taken by them. The US has been a significant factor in resisting that. The biggest dick I see here is you.

  5. They are hiding the truth... by bogaboga · · Score: 2

    A lack of evidence means that the investigation has now ended.

    I find it hard if not impossible to believe the Germans could not find any evidence. Heck, we aren't talking about some banana republic here. Or are we?

    The more plausible reason is that they, (the Germans), didin't want what they have done displayed out in the open for all to see. Think of this as the "discovery phase" in a US court trial.

    What sometimes toubles me is the we (read the USA), then attribute henious, undemocratic, autocratic, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic behaoiurs to "those other regimes" around the world.

    1. Re:They are hiding the truth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The timing of this is curious. Right after Merkel and Obama were talking at the G7.

    2. Re:They are hiding the truth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Although Germany is not member of the 5 Eyes, the US are the most important partner of Germany's secret service. Merkel cannot risk losing that partnership, so she must avoid any accusations. It's in her interest to quietly suspend all ongoing investigations. And it seems like she gets through with it, since a lot of debates end with "think about who the good guys are". Yes, the Germans still believe in you!

    3. Re:They are hiding the truth... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Heck, we aren't talking about some banana republic here. Or are we?

      I see you're not up to date with current german politics. We are.

      Merkel doesn't give a flying fuck because she really doesn't give a fuck about anything. She was trained very well how to get into and stay in power, and that's the only thing she's doing. Every move of her makes sense if you analyze it from that perspective. This is no different - big trouble with the USA is not a career-improving path, but the people of Germany are too forgiving and will let her and her party get away with all this shit.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:They are hiding the truth... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I think the whole thing was a distraction.

      Germany is an important country. It will be spied upon. Period. End of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Spying on Germany means spying on their Head of Government. Period. they can complain about it, and as a sovereign state even respond, but even military action wouldn't stop the spying it would only make the spies much more careful.

      She knows this, she's pretty sure she's convinced Obama to stop spying on her personally, all things considered she'd actually rather be spied upon by the US then Russia (remember: she grew up in Communist East Germany); so there was an investigation to shut people up. Now she'll move on.

  6. Other fish to fry by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Angela Merkel's phone was being listened in on by FIVE foreign powers

    If your spooks aren't tapping Merkel, you should fire them really

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Other fish to fry by aralin · · Score: 1

      Next version of iPhone adds a feature that will allow up to 10 foreign powers to listen to your phone calls at the same time.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  7. Re:G7 Merkel-Obama bench brawl by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    remember not so long ago when Russia deported a student because they suspected her of spying, and the ensuing diplomatic ruckus that caused? Sure, you do. She was supposedly researching early 20th Century history, but I can see that being turned into 21st Century military deployments and other locally-gathered coffeeshop intelligence...

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  8. The NSA didn't spy. by alexhs · · Score: 1

    The BND did the spying, and the NSA legally got from them everything they cared about. That's completely different :)

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  9. Bigfoot Sights UFO. by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However, writes Bruce66423: "A lack of evidence means that the investigation has now ended. Our congratulations to the NSA for covering their tracks so well."

    I am old-school enough to prefer fact-based news to snark and innuendo. Tell me what you can prove, not what you think I want to hear.

  10. Re:Germany should start by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Troll

    If?

    Europeans shiver as Russia cuts gas shipments - updated 1/7/2009

    Russia shut off all gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine on Wednesday — leaving more than a dozen countries scrambling to cope during a winter cold snap. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin publicly endorsed the move and urged that international observers be brought into the energy dispute. ....

    As of Wednesday, nations including Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey all reported a halt in Russian gas shipments. Others — including Austria, France, Germany, Hungary and Poland — reported substantial drops in supplies.

    You may recall that Putin is a former KGB officer. It was his job to be a bastard. He doesn't seem to be able to fully shake the habit.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  11. It's also possible that Der Spiegel was wrong by tomhath · · Score: 2

    As I read it, the only "evidence" of any spying was a story in Der Spiegel the the NSA had Merkel's cell number. Everything else, well actually everything including that story, is a conspiracy theory.

    1. Re:It's also possible that Der Spiegel was wrong by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      They didn't just "have" her number, it was on a list of numbers being tapped.

      Also, the US admitted it and then said they weren't doing it anymore. That's kind of odd - normally a public admission backed by documentary evidence would be sufficient for a criminal prosecution, no? Certainly it often happens with less (like almost any rape case).

      Sounds more like the powers that be didn't want to disturb the intelligence agencies cosy little setup. And let's face it, the BND were not exactly going to co-operate with any investigation.

    2. Re:It's also possible that Der Spiegel was wrong by swillden · · Score: 1

      Also, the US admitted it and then said they weren't doing it anymore. That's kind of odd - normally a public admission backed by documentary evidence would be sufficient for a criminal prosecution, no?

      No the US never admitted it. The White House said it wasn't being done at present (in 2013) and wouldn't do it in the future, but refused to comment on whether it had been done in the past.

      Also, it's not a crime for countries to spy on other countries. More precisely, there is no international law making it illegal. Countries have laws against spying, but German courts can't usefully prosecute the the United States. Germany could prosecute the specific people who installed the taps, assuming they could identify and get hold of them (the US obviously wouldn't honor an extradition request).

      The whole notion of "crime" is simply irrelevant here. This is a question of international relations, where countries punish those they believe do them ill by other mechanisms, ranging from subtle snubs to nuclear war, with lots and lots of gradations in between.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  12. NWO by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    What's a little national sovereignty between friends? Why get all bent out of shape because of a little spying?

    Don't think Angela Merkel isn't wetting her beak a little bit in the NSA's sweet sweet data pool. Next time they're all in a conga line up in Davos, I hope a meteor wipes the whole place out.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:NWO by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      When you punch holes in computers system to enable spying, you have punched holes in the security of those system. When you use those tools against perceived enemies, you inevitably gives those tools to them and of course if you used that tool against pretend friends, those perceived enemies now have those tools to use against pretend friends. It is a criminal act that requires a custodial sentence. They often use criminal organisation in target countries to facilitate spying and work to protect those criminal organisations for future use. It is common to seek extortion material in target countries in order to use those assets to gain further access in secured systems, the crimes used as a basis of extortion not only go unreported, they are allowed to continue. Industrial and commercial espionage represent more and more of the activity, this to gain advantage and in reality are a direct attack of the economy of the targeted nation and impact all of it's citizens. Extortion extends into the political sphere to get corrupt politicians into enacting legislation that goes against the interests of it's citizens and for example where universal health care is the target to be replaced by dysfunctional for profit private health insurance, tens of thousands of citizens will suffer and die early.

      So what should be done to foreign espionage agents when caught who have been actively involved in corruptive acts, life imprisonment seems very reasonable, together with major economic penalties, these penalties to be actively applied to corporations from the countries generating revenue in the target country, those corporations can then seek reimbursement from their criminal country. Want to wage economic and political ware through espionage than your economy and all of it's members should be made to suffer, it isn't a fucking game.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  13. Re:Germany should start by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    interesting that you missed out the part where Putin demanded the presence of international observers to the cutoff and to the negotiating table to mediate between the two parties. Was that a politically motivated decision?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  14. Re:Good on Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do you mean those chinese peasants from the biggest economy in the world, whose government recently hacked yours and retrieved the personal details of 4 million public employees, including the clearance data of thousands of american intelligence agents abroad, many of whom are presumably going to die very soon as a result of that? Are those the peasants that you're talking about? Because those peasants appear to have ridiculously outsmarted your country and made it a worldwide laughing stock. If they are peasants, you're a donkey.

  15. Re:Germany should start by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Redundant

    LOL .... no, I didn't miss that. Did they cut off the shipments? Yes. The "presence of international observers" would report the same thing - they cut off shipments. How do you think that makes a difference? "It was reported today that Russia cut off shipments of gas to Europe. International observers confirm the cut off." Yep, they really weren't getting gas. Was there doubt? We people without gas less cold because of the international observers?

    There were diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation, but I don't see anything about those observers "mediating" the crisis.

    Your defense of Putin's cutoff - is that a politically motivated decision? Or just a job? Or maybe an adverse reaction to being called?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  16. Re:Germany should start by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    Here, let me explain why no one will sell them oil in Euros:

    https://www.google.com/search?...

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  17. Re:Germany should start by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    Putin.

    Pfft.

    Andropov, now HE was a KGB officer.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  18. NSA is Like the Stasi .. by nickweller · · Score: 1

    'In an angry conversation, recently reelected German Chancellor Angela Merkel (shown) told President Obama that the surveillance tapping of her cellphone by the National Security Agency (NSA) was “like the Stasi,” the infamous East German secret police.'

    'The exchange, as reported by the New York Times December 16, occurred after reports surfaced of the NSA’s nearly decade-long surveillance of Merkel’s cellphone' ref."

    Of course the real story is that the NSA is also spying on Obama, purely in his defence, it's not as if they would leak against him, if he didn't do what he was told ..

  19. Re:Yes - it is time to move on by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

    I loved the segment on, what was it again? Either the Daily Show or John Oliver's bit, where they were quoting a CIA report about the effectiveness of their operations. The only place where they reported a success was in arming the Mujahadeen against the Russians in Afghanistan. Great job, until the Mujahadeen transformed into the Taliban and gave Al Qaida a safe haven. I think we should indeed chill, and get rid of the spooks. Their track record is appalling.

  20. Re:Good on Germany by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

    You know what they say; if you owe the bank $1,815, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $18,152,778,985,959 you own the bank...

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  21. Case dismissed... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    So let's examine what Special Ed has done that's "wrong"?: 1) Theft 2) False credentials 3) Tampering with national security 4) Placing all Americans at risk 5) International flight 6) Traveling on a voided passport 7) Bartering with items/information he doesn't legally own nor has personally created 8) Terroristic threats 9) Unethical treatment toward his employer 10) Misrepresentation 11) Perjury/breach of oath 12) Dereliction of duty 13) Failure to follow orders. 14) Impersonation of known government officials/identity theft. He's also flirting with, in fact, trying to set up the two main offenses: A) Assisting foreign powers B) Aiding the enemy. Sure, the Constitution guarantees the freedom to share more information in the public, and the right to free speech is great... but NOT when it will cause a danger to National Security. The info Snowjob likely possesses is probably EXACTLY the kind of stuff al Qaeda wants leaked out so they can learn better of how to successfully find ways to kill Americans at will. Not to mention, maybe names and locations of counter-terrorism spies that the U.S. has out in the field infiltrating the ranks of those would-be murderers. People want to complain about the NSA and alleged "spying", but then they'll also complain about not feeling the government is doing enough to protect them from al Qaeda! The NSA is not "hiding" anything, but they'll be truly ineffective if EVERYONE knows what they're working on. They're not interested is photos of your baby or mom's recipes. Has NOBODY stopped for a moment and asked "why" the NSA has been doing what they're doing? Did people think the authorities use magic to uncover terrorist plots? Which would you prefer, "spying" on you or terrorism on you? Snowflake did what he did for the fame (for the escape from obscurity that everyone wants... although most average people simply use Facebook).