Added response... below Mike's words!
We all know that we need health care that works. Very few liked the way the contested healthcare law was written with all the "value added" pet attachments and the 2500 pages of regulations. Adults with a clear view of necessity vs boondoggle need to comb over and alter what is needed... but enough from me.

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

The Supreme Court ruling on health care was a win-win-win.

First, three cheers to those who sought to find a solution to the nation's health care problems. It was the right thing to do.

Second, three cheers to those who sued to have the law overturned. It was and is badly flawed.

Third, three cheers to the Supreme Court that both rejected a cancerous "commerce clause" argument and rightly reframed the health care law 's individual mandate in more honest terms: a tax imposed on citizens by the Congress.

Here is what is left for the future.  All laws have unintended consequences. Big laws have really big unintended consequences. 

The health care law is a poster child for unintended consequences. The Orwellian inanity of Nancy Pelosi, who argued that Congress had to pass the law in order to see what was in it, is a major reason why she is no longer Speaker of the House. This is an election year. In the near term, therefore, the only goal is to fix any of the really fatal flaws that immediately arise before they do real harm to the American people. If John Boehner balks at that maybe he won't speaker for long either.

After that, hope always springs eternal. 

Just perhaps in 2013 the unintended consequences of the law can be fixed in a bipartisan manner. No major piece of legislation of this magnitude had succeed without bipartisan support in both crafting and passing the law. Until that happens, a responsibility of the leaders of BOTH parties to reach out, the health care law is going to continue to be unpopular and divisive. More importantly, we will have failed to correctly address our health care problem, the original goal of the law.

Mike
____________________________________________

A added note from Dr. Wayne Downing

Hi Mike,

 

The Supreme Court by upholding Obamacare under the taxing power has placed a huge burden on the Democratic Party in an election year. First of all, since this a tax and not an entitlement, Congress must pass legislation to raise enough money from the uninsured to pay for their health care. Such a tax would

certainly be over $10,000 a year. If you were a member of Congress would you want to be the one who voted for a $10,000 tax increase in an election year? Who will get re-elected (the first duty of every politician is to stay in office) with that on their record? This will re-energize the Tea Party and conservatism in general.

 

Democrats may be celebrating right now. Republicans will celebrate in November. This travesty of a law will be repealed when we get a Republican president and a Republican Congress. Thank you, Supreme Court for

such a well reasoned ruling.

 

Wayne

______________________________________________

A note added from EricK Erickson, Red State

Dear RedState Reader,

As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision.  Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.

Erick

Does she remind you of that senior center gossiper who always has an aside that is blatantly shallow, mean, self-serving and off the mark? I think she is cracking up!

Nancy Pelosi: “This Holder contempt vote is about voter suppression”

Erica Johnsen, Hot Air

This was during Nancy Pelosi’s press briefing Thursday morning:

“They’re going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn these voter suppression initiatives in the states… This is no accident, it is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of Republicans.”

Pelosi denied that Operation Fast and Furious is the real cause of the investigation and contempt charge. “These very same people who are holding him in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote,” she said of her congressional colleagues. “It is connected. It’s clear as can be. It’s not only to monopolize his time, it’s to undermine his name.”

“These folks want a plutocracy where instead of the choice of the many the checks of the very very few determine the outcomes of elections,” she said.

…I don’t even know what to say. My amazement that this person is the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, of the United States of America, is once again overwhelming me. The deceit and demagoguery truly know no bounds.

Yes, I’m sure Republicans planned Operation Fast and Furious themselves, and then convinced Holder to willfully ignore the requirements of a Congressional subpoena, so that they could bring him up on contempt charges, so that they could undermine his quest to continue to allow people to vote without providing identification. Or something.

In the name of all that is holy, stop calling Republican efforts to combat voter fraud, “voter suppression.” Voter fraud is a real and widespread occurrence, although I’m sure the fact that proven cases of voter fraud tend to disproportionately benefit Democrats has absolutely nothing to do with their insistence. Even President Obama has been known to ask for IDs from people attending his rallies — why aren’t any Democrats righteously screaming that he’s trying to “disenfranchise minorities”? I mean, it’s only logical, right?

Limosines galore...

Limosines galore... as far as the eyes can see...

By "most open" Obama must have been talking about more elbow room in his admin's transportation.

Due to confusion about what a limousine is, the General Services Administration has had a hard time counting its limos in recent years, but now insists a new definition will accurately account for the fleet of government agency-owned luxury vehicles.

Last year, the GSA estimated the number of government agency limousines at 412, amounting to a 73 percent increase between 2008 and 2010, according to iWatch News.

The statistic was touted by conservatives as an excessive indulgence in tough economic times and as an irresponsible use of taxpayer money under the Obama administration.

Two months after the rise was reported in May 2011, the GSA changed the definition of “limousine” to exclude such vehicles as shuttle buses and sedans, previously classified as limos.

When the GSA released its 2011 fleet report last month, limos were shown to have decreased 62 percent to only 158, iWatch reported.

The State Department, under Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, reduced its limo count the most, to just 50 after reporting 259 in 2010.

In releasing the 2010 fleet report, GSA officials admitted the limo numbers in the report were not reliable, according to iWatch.

Intelligence leaks, part duex

Intelligence Leaks, Part Duex

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

All,

One nice thing about being retired and being an American is the right to free speech. So here goes.

If you want to come to grips with why there are so many leaks look to Thomas Donilon.

He never served a day in the intelligence community and has no real comprehension on the difficulty, stresses and hardships that are thrust upon the men and women who carry out those operations overseas.

He never served in uniform so he has not even the foggiest concept of operational security on a personal level. 

He has never had  to put his life on the line and has no useful sympathy the women and men in uniform who go outside the wire. For Donilon, that life is always an abstraction, never a reality. 

He apparently refuses to keep what is secret secret. This should not be a surprise given the enormous gap between the average Americans serving our country overseas and the protected and privileged life of a Washington DC elite that Donilon has led as an adult. They are from the same country, but from completely different worlds.

But Tommy Boy does have a unique record:

1. He is a wealthy lawyer. How did he make his money? See points 2 & 3 below.

2. He was a Washington lobbyist.

3. He was an Executive Vice President at Fannie Mae for six years.

4. He was a public affairs officer (spelt p-r-e-s-s t-o-a-d-y) with the State Department.

5. Now he is the National Security Advisor for the United States of America.

Here is what the Huffington Post wrote in 2010:

Outgoing National Security Adviser Jim Jones once disparaged his replacement and current deputy, Thomas Donilon, for his lack of overseas experience, telling him that as a result: "You have no credibility with the military," according to Bob Woodward's "Obama's Wars."

In addition, Donilon, who previously worked as a vice president for floundering mortgage giant Fannie Mae and was known for his strong views and opinions, once offending Defense Secretary Robert Gates so much during a meeting that the Pentagon chief almost walked out, according to Woodward.

Gates asserted that Donilon would be a "disaster" as National Security Adviser, the book alleges.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/tom-donilon-disaster-national-security-advisor_n_755708.html

You can't make this stuff up.

Mike

INTELLIGENCE LEAKS

Mike Walker, Col USMC (retired)

The damage done to America’s national defense by the recent onslaught of intelligence leaks has been deeply disturbing. Some have claimed they were motivated by partisan political gain, to help reelect President Obama. This does not seem likely in my opinion, although how the newspaper editors chose to spin the information is another matter. Having been an intelligence officer for over a decade, to include serving as a member of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, the most likely outcome is that the person is of high rank, a general officer or intelligence/national security SIS/SES official or some equivalent. I am assuming that it is an individual as the alternative is too frightening.

Based on the range and depth of information betrayed by this person, we are looking at someone who has access to our most vital national defense operations. Very few people have such access, even within the relatively small intelligence community. It is possible that he could be one of those highly capable colonels or civil equivalents who become seemingly indispensible at times. The culprit could also be a product of a systemic risk failure. There is a possibility that someone who should not have been “read into” these compartmented operations was allowed to do so.

If people who do not have “a need to know,” because it is not essential to the conduct of their duties, are allowed to know then mischief and bad things inevitably follow. In this last case, we may be dealing with an “accidental traitor,” someone undeserving of the special trust and confidence given to him due to a lack of maturity and judgment coupled with a misguided sense of self-importance. Nonetheless, a pathetic traitor is still a traitor.

This gets to heart of the matter. What we are dealing with is a real stinker. Outwardly, the guy is discreet and competent. On the inside, he is someone with an outsized ego and an overwhelming degree of personal vanity. The fellow is both a smooth manipulator and emotionally needy. We have Mister Vanity. Mr. Vanity has a deep-seated sense of superiority and no small degree of contempt for those around him. He knows he is smarter and alone is fit enough to make the rules. Regrettably, Washington has a large pool of such folks.

This is not like Assange who worked from without or John Walker who betrayed America from within at a low level or even like Aldrich Ames who was a traitor within the CIA. Perhaps the closest case is that of Robert Hanssen of the FBI. Mr. Vanity certainly ranks up there with Hanssen because of his ability to gain access to the highest secrets, his immense ego and his arrogant willingness to redefine betrayal as service.

Let us be clear. This fellow is a traitor. Some shrill minority will argue he is a hero performing a public service. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Mr. Vanity’s leaks were destructive not constructive. He has aided the efforts of al Qaeda, the radical Mullahs in Iran and the worst elements in the Pakistani extremist circles. People either already have died or will die because of the actions of Mr. Vanity. He has warned our enemies. They will now be more alert, quicker and better able to attack us in the future while our closest allies are now more wary of us. Mr. Vanity is a traitor of the highest order.

The bottom line is that Mr. Vanity stinks. Like anything that stinks up your home, it needs to be tossed out with the rest of the garbage.

I can only wish Godspeed to the FBI and the DOJ prosecutors in their work. To the guys who will take away this turd, please remember to wear gloves and hold you nose.

Semper Fi,

Mike

A SMASHING VICTORY IN WISCONSIN

John Hinderaker, Powerline

Wisconsin looks to exceed our fondest hopes, as everyone has called the race for Scott Walker. With 60% of the vote now counted, Walker leads 57%-42%. That is way too big a margin for the Democrats to make up through fraud. The TV headlines to the effect that “Governor Walker Survives Recall” are really misleading. Walker didn’t just survive, he trounced the greedy union bosses who were fighting for their lives, as it turned out that a clear majority of union members were paying dues only because they were forced to do so. Public sector union membership has plummeted by more than 50% since membership became voluntary in 2011.

Will tonight’s victory reverberate from now until November? Mitt Romney released this statement about Walker’s victory:

I congratulate Scott Walker on his victory in Wisconsin. Governor Walker has demonstrated over the past year what sound fiscal policies can do to turn an economy around, and I believe that in November voters across the country will demonstrate that they want the same in Washington, D.C. Tonight’s results will echo beyond the borders of Wisconsin. Governor Walker has shown that citizens and taxpayers can fight back – and prevail – against the runaway government costs imposed by labor bosses. Tonight voters said ‘no’ to the tired, liberal ideas of yesterday, and ‘yes’ to fiscal responsibility and a new direction. I look forward to working with Governor Walker to help build a better, brighter future for all Americans.

That seems like a fair assessment. Liberals on television tonight–i.e., CNN and MSNBC–are wailing and gnashing their teeth. It has been fun to see. I actually haven’t watched MSNBC for years, and was a little shocked, when my wife switched the channel just to gloat, that compared with Fox, MSNBC looks like a public access channel in the middle of the night. Pathetic.

So, tonight is a time to pop the champagne and celebrate a great victory for liberty.

Tonight was also the debut of Power Line Live. PL Live was a smashing success, much like the Walker campaign, as more than 1,200 people occupied the tavern/chat room at the evening’s peak. Thanks to Joe Malchow, the site never wavered with posts coming across the transom every second. Those who hung out with us had a great time. The bar will be open all the time, and no doubt will attract even bigger crowds at key moments in the 2012 campaign as it unfolds.

UPDATE: One more thing: The Democrats’ last-minute smear, their absurd rumor that Scott Walker fathered an illegitimate child 24 years ago, fell completely flat. That is a very good thing–a complete repudiation of liberal smear tactics.

Politics of red, white and green

By Jonah Goldberg, http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed

It was interesting while it lasted. But it looks like the “green revolution” has entered the long slide into “What was all that about?”

In January, the Spanish government removed absurdly lavish subsidies for its renewable energy industry, and the renewable energy industry all but imploded. You could say it was never a renewable energy industry at all. It was a government subsidy industry where in exchange for creating conscience-soothing but other-wise inefficient windmills and solar panels, the government gave the makers piles of cash consumers never would.

“They destroyed the Spanish market overnight with the moratorium (on subsidies),” European Wind Energy Association CEO Christian Kjaer told Bloomberg News.

The reason the Spanish example is so important is that it demonstrates how the whole green energy “revolution” was really an ideologically driven green boondoggle from the start.

At the beginning of his administration, President Obama insisted that if we didn’t follow their lead, we would surrender the hugely profitable renewable energy sector to those sagacious Spaniards. In 2009, researchers at King Juan Carlos University found that Spain had destroyed 2.2 jobs in other industries for every green job it created. It also calculated that the Spanish govern-ment has spent more than half a million euros for each green job created since 2000, while wind industry jobs cost more than 1 million euros apiece.

“Since 2009,” reports the Wall Street Journal, “the Obama administration has awarded more than $1 billion to American companies to make advanced batteries for electric vehicles. Halfway to a six-year goal of producing one million electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, auto makers are barely at 50,000 cars.” Well, that leaves just 950,000 cars to go.

Obama believed he was smart enough to start whole new industries simply by sluicing taxpayer dollars into the right maws. Any suggestion that the transition to inefficient energy sources might come at a cost to taxpayers or economic growth was derided as a “false choice.”

It seems like Obama at least understands the tough choices he faces. In 2009, the president’s Earth Day message was stridently dedicated to climate change. In 2012, it didn’t even mention the word “climate.” Much to the chagrin of the green lobby, Obama will not be attending this year’s Earth Summit. Heck, the current picture on the White House’s energy and environment page even shows Obama happily walking past a stack of oil pipes. Subtle.

Yes, Obama threw a bone to the greens on the Keystone pipeline, but he more quietly opened up the Alaskan Arctic to new oil development, granting Shell permits to drill offshore.

“We never would have ex-pected a Democratic president — let alone one seeking to be ‘transformative’ — to open up the Arctic Ocean for drilling,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, told The New York Times [NYT].

Now, I have no doubt that Obama’s course correction is entirely political. For instance, if he hadn’t approved the Arctic drilling, Shell almost surely would have sued the administration for the billions it’s spent developing its Arctic leases. That’s not the kind of lawsuit Obama would want in an election year.

But saying Obama has caved to political reality doesn’t change the fact that political reality is largely a function of economic reality. In Europe and America alike, voters increasingly recognize that the benefits of the green revolution aren’t worth the costs, particularly when the revolutionaries don’t have a clue what they’re doing. The only question for voters is whether Obama has really learned his lesson, or whether he plans on reverting to type if re-elected.

Talk back at JonahsColumn@aol.com.

Record, in real time...

IS ROMNEY PULLING AWAY?

John Hinderacker, Powerline

It is, of course, way too early to get cocky. But Republicans have to be happy with the way current polling is going. In this morning’s tracking poll at Rasmussen Reports, Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by a stunning 50%-42%. Rasmussen’s matchup is a rolling three-day survey and Obama announced his flip-flop on gay marriage on Wednesday afternoon. So this morning’s poll would consist overwhelmingly of people who have heard that news. Still, it is important to note that Romney was already starting to pull away before gay marriage entered the picture. Here is the history of Rasmussen’s Romney vs. Obama polling:

Romney’s surge is due to the public’s perception of Obama far more than to anything Romney is doing. Currently, Rasmussen finds that only 44% of likely voters approve of Obama’s performance, while 55% disapprove. And Obama is at his lowest point in six months in Rasmussen’s Approval Index, the difference between the number of voters who strongly approve of his performance and those who strongly disapprove:

-22 is a dismal number. Again, some of this is due to Obama’s turnabout on gay marriage, but in my judgment it owes more to voters’ deepening pessimism about the economy. As the months drag by and the economy stays awful, voters are simply giving up on Obama and his administration.

There is a long way to go until November, and no doubt we will see polls between now and then that will tilt the other way. But at this juncture, it appears that the elements are in place for a big GOP year.

Under proposed legislation this photo details criminal activity!

Another stupid proposal from stupid people

A few words from Sherman Hawley

U.S. Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis is a pro-union, socialist minded opponent of free trade and a staunch ally of Nancy Pelosi.  She had backing from the unions and the Communist Party when she ran for congress in 2000.  She is well educated and has supposedly worked to protect workers in this country but I think she is totally out of touch with the reality of what is good for this country in her latest proposal.


She wants to prevent children from doing farm chores.  The Dept. of Labor will soon put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child labor laws to children working family farms, keeping them from doing a list of jobs on their own family farms.


This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard of and I am sure it is not designed to protect children but part of an agenda to further the intrusion of government into our private lives.  This is shameful and I will bet this woman does not know or has ever met a young person who has gathered eggs, slopped hogs, carried a 5 gal. bucket of water or scooped a bushel of corn.


These chores have produced the most conscientious, responsible and hard working youth in America.


Under her proposal, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of grain, vegetables or livestock.”  It would prohibit young people from working in grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, etc.


It would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA both of which I was involved in as a kid. Instead, it would replace them with a 90 hour federal government training course. Like most liberals, she thinks the government will do a better job than private enterprise can.


I was born and raised on a farm in central Illinois. I was picking asparagus for the Princeville Canning Factory at the age of 9. At 12, I was hired out to drive a tractor and plow, disc and harrow our neighbor’s fields if my Dad didn’t need me. At 15 I was hauling corn to the grain elevators with my Dad’s truck. And during all this I was feeding pigs, grinding corn, milking cows, spreading manure and handling bales of hay from the fields. Also mowing lawns and helping Mom in the garden.


I would not trade those experiences for any government efforts to protect my childhood. I don’t usually go on a rant like this, but the Secretary of Labor has pissed me off with her idiotic proposal. The majority of small family farms have already been eliminated by big Agra-Business, so this should just about finish them off. Now, if I only knew what to do about it.


Yours truly,
Sherman Hawley


p.s.  I apologize if I have offended any liberal sensitivities here but I had to express how I feel.
I’m allowed to do that, right?
(I don't think that Sherm has his 90 hours of approved training... uh oh, re-training camp!)

Stratfor Global Intelligence

Russia's Strategy

By George Friedman

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 reversed a process that had been under way since the Russian Empire's emergence in the 17th century. It was ultimately to incorporate four general elements: Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Caucasus and Siberia. The St. Petersburg-Moscow axis was its core, and Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine were its center of gravity. The borders were always dynamic, mostly expanding but periodically contracting as the international situation warranted. At its farthest extent, from 1945 to 1989, it reached central Germany, dominating the lands it seized in World War II. The Russian Empire was never at peace. As with many empires, there were always parts of it putting up (sometimes violent) resistance and parts that bordering powers coveted -- as well as parts of other nations that Russia coveted.

The Russian Empire subverted the assumption that political and military power requires a strong economy: It was never prosperous, but it was frequently powerful. The Russians defeated Napoleon and Hitler and confronted the far wealthier Americans for more than four decades in the Cold War, in spite of having a less developed or less advanced economy. Its economic weakness certainly did undermine its military power at times, but to understand Russia, it is important to begin by understanding that the relationship between military and economic power is not a simple one.

Economy and Security

There are many reasons for Russia's economic dysfunction, but the first explanation, if not the full explanation, is geography and transportation. The Russians and Ukrainians have some of the finest farmland in the world, comparable to that of the American Midwest. The difference is transportation, the ability to move the harvest to the rest of the empire and its far away population centers. Where the United States has the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio river system that integrates the area between the Rockies and the Appalachians, Russia's rivers do not provide an integrated highway to Russia, and given distances and lack of alternative modes of transport, Russian railways were never able to sustain consistent, bulk agricultural transport.

This is not to say that there wasn't integration in the empire's economy and that this didn't serve as a factor binding it together. It is to say that the lack of economic integration, and weakness in agricultural transport in particular, dramatically limited prosperity in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. At the same time, the relative underdevelopment of the empire and union made it impossible for them to successfully compete with Western Europe. Therefore, there was an economic motivation within the constituent parts of the empire and the union to integrate with each other. There could be synergies on a lower level of development among these nations.

Economics was one factor that bound the Russian Empire and Soviet Union together. Another was the military and security apparatus. The Russian security apparatus in particular played a significant role in holding first the empire and then the union together; in many ways, it was the most modern and efficient institution they had. Whatever temptations the constituent republics might have had to leave the empire or union, these were systematically repressed by internal security forces detecting and destroying opposition to the center. It could be put this way: The army created the empire. Its alignment of economic interests was the weak force holding it together, and the security apparatus was the strong force. If the empire and union were to survive, they would need economic relations ordered in such a way that some regions were put at a disadvantage, others at an advantage. That could happen only if the state were powerful enough to impose this reality. Since the state itself was limited in most dimensions, the security apparatus substituted for it. When the security apparatus failed, as it did at the end of World War I or in 1989-1991, the regime could not survive. When it did succeed, it held it all together.

In the Russian Empire, the economic force and the security force were supplemented by an overarching ideology: that of the Russian Orthodox Church, which provided a rationale for the system. The state security apparatus worked with the church and against dissident elements in other religions in the empire. In the Soviet Union, the religious ideology was supplemented with the secular ideology of Marxism-Leninism. The Soviet Union used its security apparatus to attempt a transformation of the economy and to crush opposition to the high cost of this transformation. In some sense, Marxism-Leninism was a more efficient ideology, since Russian Orthodoxy created religious differentials while Marxism-Leninism was hostile to all religions and at least theoretically indifferent to the many ethnicities and nations.

The fall of the Soviet Union really began with a crisis in the economy that created a crisis in the security force, the KGB. It was Yuri Andropov, the head of the KGB, who first began to understand the degree to which the Soviet Union's economy was failing under the growing corruption of the Brezhnev years and the cost of defense spending. The KGB understood two things. The first was that Russia had to restructure (Perestroika) or collapse. The second was that the traditional insularity of the Soviet Union had to be shifted and the Soviets had to open themselves to Western technology and methods (Glasnost). Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was a reformer, but he was a communist trying to reform the system to save the party. He was proceeding from the KGB model. His and Andropov's gamble was that the Soviet Union could survive and open to the West without collapsing and that it could trade geopolitical interests, such as domination of Eastern Europe, for economic relations without shattering the Soviet Union. They lost the bet.

The Soviet Collapse

The 1990s was a catastrophic period for the former Soviet Union. Except for a few regions, the collapse of the Soviet state and the security apparatus led to chaos, and privatization turned into theft. Not surprisingly, the most sophisticated and well-organized portion of the Soviet apparatus, the KGB, played a major role in the kleptocracy and retained, more than other institutions, its institutional identity. Over time, its control over the economy revived informally, until one of its representatives, Vladimir Putin, emerged as the leader of the state.

Putin developed three principles. The first was that the security system was the heart of the state. The second was that Moscow was the heart of Russia. The third was that Russia was the heart of the former Soviet Union. These principles were not suddenly imposed. The power of the KGB, renamed the FSB and SVR, slowly moved from a system of informal domination through kleptocracy to a more systematic domination of the state apparatus by the security services, reinstituting the old model. Putin took control of regional governments by appointing governors and controlling industry outside of Moscow. Most important, he cautiously moved Russia back to first among equals in the former Soviet Union.

Putin came to power on the heels of the Kosovo war. Russia had insisted that the West not go to war with Serbia, what was left of the former Yugoslavia. Russia was ignored, and its lack of influence left President Boris Yeltsin humiliated. But it was the Orange Revolution in Ukraine that convinced Putin that the United States intended to break Russia if someone like Yeltsin led it. Ukraine is economically and geographically essential to Russian national security, and Putin saw the attempt to create a pro-Western government that wanted to join NATO as Washington, using CIA-funded nongovernmental organizations pushing for regime change, attempted to permanently weaken Russia. Once the Orange Revolution succeeded, Putin moved to rectify the situation.

The first step was to make it clear that Russia had regained a substantial part of its power and was willing to use it. The second step was to demonstrate that American guarantees were worthless. The Russo-Georgian War of 2008 achieved both ends. The Russians had carried out an offensive operation and the Americans, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, could not respond. The lesson was not only for Georgia (which, similar to Ukraine, had also sought NATO membership). It was also for Ukraine and all other countries in the former Soviet Union, demonstrating that Russia was again going to be the heart of Eurasia. Indeed, one of Putin's latest projects is the Eurasian Union, tying together Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus, a large economic and military part of the former Soviet Union. Add to this Ukraine and the former Soviet Union emerges even more.

Remaking the Union

For Russia, the recreation of a union is a strategic necessity. As Putin put it, the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical catastrophe. Russia needs the economic integration, particularly given the new economic strategy of post-Soviet Russia, which is the export of raw materials, particularly energy. Aligning with states such as Kazakhstan in energy and Ukraine in grain provides Moscow with leverage in the rest of the world, particularly in Europe. As important, it provides strategic depth. The rest of the world knows that an invasion of Russia is inconceivable. The Russians can conceive of it. They remember that Germany in 1932 was crippled. By 1938 it was overwhelmingly powerful. Six years is not very long, and while such an evolution is unlikely now, from the Russian point of view, it must be taken seriously in the long run -- planning for the worst and hoping for the best.

Therefore, the heart of Russian strategy, after resurrecting state power in Russia, is to create a system of relationships within the former Soviet Union that will provide economic alignment and strategic depth but not give Russia an unsustainable obligation to underwrite the other nations' domestic policies. Unlike the Russian Empire or Soviet Union, Putin's strategy is to take advantage of relationships on a roughly mutual basis without undertaking responsibility for the other nations.

In achieving this goal, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a godsend. Until 9/11, the United States had been deeply involved in peeling off parts of the former Soviet Union such as the Baltics and integrating them into Western systems. With 9/11, the United States became obsessed with the jihadist wars, giving Russia a window of opportunity to stabilize itself and to increase its regional power.

As the United States extracts itself from Afghanistan, Russia has to be concerned that Washington will supplement its focus on China with a renewed focus on Russia. The possible end of these conflicts is not in Russia's interest. Therefore, one piece of Russian external strategy is to increase the likelihood of prolonged U.S. obsession with Iran. Currently, for example, Russia and Iran are the only major countries supporting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad. Russia wants to see a pro-Iranian Syria -- not because it is in Moscow's long-term interests but because, in the short run, anything that absorbs the United States will relieve possible pressure on Russia and give more time for reordering the former Soviet Union.

The crisis in Europe is similarly beneficial to Russia. The unease that Germany has with the European Union has not yet matured into a break, and it may never. However, Germany's unease means that it is looking for other partners, in part to ease the strain on Germany and in part to create options. Germany depends on Russian energy exports, and while that might decrease in coming years, Russia is dealing with the immediate future. Germany is looking for other potential economic partners and, most important at a time when Europe is undergoing extreme strain, Germany does not want to get caught in an American attempt to redraw Russian borders. The ballistic missile defense system is not significant, in the sense that it does not threaten Russia, but the U.S. presence in the region is worrisome to Moscow. For Russia, recruiting Germany to the view that the United States is a destabilizing force would be a tremendous achievement.

Other issues are side issues. China and Russia have issues, but China cannot pose a significant threat to core Russian interests unless it chooses to invade maritime Russia, which it won't. There are economic and political issues, of course, but China is not at the heart of Russia's strategic concerns.

For Russia, the overwhelming strategic concern is dominating the former Soviet Union without becoming its patron. Ukraine is the key missing element, and a long, complex political and economic game is under way. The second game is in Central Asia, where Russia is systematically asserting its strength. The third is in the Baltics, where it has not yet made a move. And there is the endless conflict in the northern Caucasus that always opens the door for reasserting Russian power in the south. Russia's foreign policy is built around the need to buy time for it to complete its evolution.

To do this, the Russians must keep the United States distracted, and the Russian strategy in the Middle East serves that purpose. The second part is to secure the West by drawing Germany into a mutually beneficial economic relationship while not generating major resistance in Poland or an American presence there. Whether this can be achieved depends as much on Iran as it does on Russia.

Russia has come far from where Yeltsin took it. The security forces are again the heart of the state. Moscow dominates Russia. Russia is moving to dominate the former Soviet Union. Its main adversary, the United States, is distracted, and Europe is weak and divided. Of course, Russia is economically dysfunctional, but that has been the case for centuries and does not mean it will always be weak. For the moment, Russia is content to be strong in what it calls the near abroad, or the former Soviet Union. Having come this far, it is not trying to solve insoluble problems.

Read more: Russia's Strategy | Stratfor