John Helmer: Armchair General Sells Australian Involvement in Ukraine….On Behalf of Arms-Maker-Funded Think Tank

Posted on by

Yves here. This post reveals the reach of the military-industrial complex, as well as some of its methods.

By John Helmer, the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

Paul Dibb, the former head of two Australian spy organizations and a deputy defence minister, has just published a call for Australian troops to be ready to fight in Europe against “Russia’s refusal to act in ways consistent with international law and standards of behaviour.” Dibb is known in Australia as “the country’s leading Cold War Russia expert.”

The Dibb report appeared on June 29, on the eve of last week’s Australian parliamentary election, when voters repudiated incumbent prime minister Malcolm Turnbull. He had called the snap poll, confident of expanding his majority in the two houses of parliament. He has now suffered a 3% negative swing by the voters; the loss of at least 23 seats; and months of political uncertainty ahead, including the possibility his party will replace him as leader.

Among Turnbull’s last-minute ploys to attract votes, one was the leak last month of Australian cabinet plans for an Australian Army force to fight in eastern Ukraine, alongside Dutch and other NATO units, to destroy the Donetsk and Lugansk rebellion against the regime in Kiev. Turnbull’s leak had suggested that Tony Abbott, the prime minister Turnbull had pushed aside to take the job, dreamed up the plan of Australian war at the Russian frontier by himself. The new report by Dibb now corroborates the idea of an Australian military expedition against Russia, in exchange for improved American commitments to defend Australia from the Chinese closer to home, in the Pacific. “How things work out in Europe,” Dibb claims, “ will affect Washington’s ability to reassure allies and partners everywhere, including those in our region who must contend with increasing coercion by China.” Unless Australia does more fighting with the Americans on the Russian front, he concludes, “China will take advantage of this, and allies and partners of the US in the region—including Australia—would be subject to further uncertainty about American military commitments to Asia.” Combating “Russia’s aggressive military behaviour “is necessary because, otherwise, “both Moscow and Beijing will be seen as getting away with it.”

The 40-page Dibb report is entitled “Why Russia is a threat to the international order”. Read it in full. The publisher is a think-tank headquartered in Sydney called the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). It says “ASPI was established, and is partially funded, by the Australian Government as an independent, non-partisan policy institute.”

The institute’s financial reports reveal it is financed by grants from the Australian Department of Defence, the Australian Army, the Australian Federal Police, the Dutch Foreign Ministry, and the Japanese Government; plus Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing — the leading arms-exporting corporations of the US. European arms builders also funding ASPI include the European missile-maker MBDA, BAE Systems, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, Rheinmetall, Airbus, and Navantia, the Spanish state shipbuilder. When Australians march into the field against the Russians, these suppliers aim to provide the best kit Australian money can buy.

Australian historians and military analysts say the idea that Australia is a military protectorate, for which it must pay with troops for its protector’s wars thousands of kilometres from Australian territory, is almost as old as the colonial settlement itself, once British troops were confident the convict settlers would not rebel. On British order, Australian troops were committed to the Sudan war in 1885; the Boxer rebellion in China in 1900; the Boer War in South Africa between 1899 and 1902; the war against Germany and Turkey in 1914, the war against Germany and Japan from 1940; and the war against the Malayan insurgency in 1948.

An Australian unit under British command in China, 1900. Source:

The only time Australians prepared to fight against Russians directly was also on command from London; that was in the Crimean War of 1854, when units of cavalry, infantry and artillery were mustered in Sydney.

On order from Washington, Australian forces have fought in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as participated in spetznaz operations with the Americans in Africa. For case studies of these engagements and the Australian strategizing that led to them, read this. The conclusion: “The pattern, both before and after 1901, was much the same – no immediate direct threat to national security (except from Japan), popular enthusiasm at least initially, little if any parliamentary debate, haphazard preparation, and a minimum of formality, such as declaring war or debating it.” Tony Kevin, a former Australian ambassador to Poland to Cambodia, has described the process as one of loyalty, not legality : “We go to war when our cousins do.”

What is new, according to former Australian ambassador to Vietnam and Korea, Richard Broinowski, is that under the American protectorate, “to remain in good standing with the US, explicit acts of support are required from time to time, the more regular and the more extensive the better.” Paul Barratt, a former permanent head of the defence ministry in Canberra, has explained how Australian war-fighting evades public scrutiny, parliamentary vote, and a constitutional declaration of war. “A decision to send troops remains the prerogative of the executive — that is, Cabinet, meaning in practice the Prime Minister and a very small group of key ministers — an arrangement which means that a decision, once taken, can be acted upon without significant debate.”

This also means that war plans are decided and put into action in secret. The plan for an Australian force of up to 3,000 troops to fight in Ukraine in 2014 was revealed by James Brown in a report issued three weeks ago. Brown is a former Australian Army captain and head of research at the US Studies Centre of the University of Sydney. Brown (below, left) is also the son-in-law of Prime Minister Turnbull (right).


For the Ukraine operation Brown has reported the “planning for these military options consumed Australia’s intelligence agencies. The National Security Committee of [the Australian ministerial] Cabinet met every day for more than three weeks , and staff and agencies produced a frenzied stream of briefings on Ukraine, Russia and the intentions of [President] Vladimir Putin.”

If not from his father-in-law – in 2014 Turnbull was a cabinet member and prime minister in waiting — how did Brown know? Brown refuses to clarify his sources. His report also conceals the involvement of Dutch, NATO, and US commanders in the Ukraine war plan. Was it possible for two prime ministers, the Australian and the Dutch, to start mobilizing for a combined operation on the Russian border without US and NATO participation in the planning? Brown will not say. He does claim that then-Prime Minister Abbott had been foolhardy in considering such a largescale force in broad daylight on an open battlefield at the Russian frontier. He prefers, he reported, Australian special forces operating with the Americans, in the dark. For the Brown story, read this.

Dibb outranks Brown in Australia’s warfighting hierarchy, and he has had years more experience in espionage and military operations against Russia. But he cites no inside knowledge of the National Security Committee’s “frenzied stream of briefings on Ukraine, Russia and the intentions of [President] Vladimir Putin.”

To answer his question, Why Russia is a threat to the international order, Dibb cites 53 references and 11 footnotes. Take out 3 references by Dibb to speeches of President Putin, one to the published Russian military doctrine of 2014, there are just 6 other references which qualify as Russian sources of evidence. None of them is direct, military or official. They are the commentaries of think-tank academic Sergei Karaganov, former Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov, and a group of analysts from the Valdai Discussion Club.
image0102As evidence of Russian intention, plan and strategy, just 20% of Dibb’s sources are Russian. The rest are UK and US sources, the most frequently cited of which is the Chatham House think-tank in London. The only serving military officer cited by Dibb is Philip Breedlove (right), a US Air Force general and the outgoing commander of NATO forces in Europe. Dibb footnotes himself more often for evidence of Russian threats than he cites Russian evidence.

The “why” in the Dibb report title turns out to be rhetorical, not inquisitive. His is an argument, not an investigation. “There can be no doubt”, Dibb reports, “that Putin’s Russia is now seeking to reassert itself as a major power. The outward symbols of this occurred as long ago as 2008, when Russia used military force against Georgia, although not very impressively. “ Dibb omits to discuss the preliminaries to the August 2008 fighting, or identify ex-President Mikheil Saakashvili who moved first.

In his assessment of the Ukraine front, Dibb omits the removal of President Victor Yanukovich in Kiev in February 2014; the terms of the Ukraine-Russia base agreement for Crimea; and the Crimean referendum. Instead, “Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea and its attempt through military means to detach the Donbass region in the eastern part of Ukraine have to be seen as a fundamental challenge to the post-Cold War sanctity of European borders.”

On the Syrian front, according to Dibb, “Russia’s use of military force in Syria is a clear demonstration of Putin’s aggressive conduct of foreign policy” – no mention of US, Israeli, Turkish, Saudi, and NATO attempts to remove President Bashar al-Assad.

Dibb also applies passive reflexive syntax and no names for the top-secret intelligence that Russia is at war with the US itself. “Russia is believed to have used cyberattacks in 2015 to exert pressure on Ukraine by shutting down the electrical grid in the west of the country for several hours. In July 2015, cyberattacks thought to originate in Russia harassed the US Government. This included hackers successfully obtaining sensitive information from the White House and interrupting the Defense Department’s email system.”

Australian press reaction to the Dibb report has been muted. The Rupert Murdoch media claimed last week that Russian weapons sales to China “undermine Australian Defence Force technological advantage”. Another Murdoch publication, The Australian, reveals that Dibb has “lived a secret life working on behalf of ASIO [Australian Security Intelligence Organization] between 1965 and 1984 to penetrate the Soviet embassy in Canberra, identify which diplomats were KGB and GRU (Soviet military intelligence) agents and try to recruit them as informers.”

Dibb is now reported by The Australian as asking: “What if Putin suddenly put 150,000 troops with hardly any intelligence warning into one of the Baltic countries and NATO became involved — what would Australia do? If that happened, you can forget America’s pivot to Asia ­because it would pivot hard to Europe. What would that mean for us?”

The answer from Dibb is a call for Australian forces to be ready for action in Europe, when the call comes from the US and NATO. “All this points to taking the Russian threat more seriously… Our current security priorities focus on terrorism in the Middle East and the rise of China, as if nothing else is of national security concern.”

Responding to a 150,000-man Russian strike into Lithuania isn’t the only reason for urgency by Dibb and the strategists at ASPI. Last October, when the institute issued its financial report, the auditors revealed the organization, a limited liability company wholly owned by the state, was running in the red:


The ASPI balance-sheets show it has been in the red since 2012.

The money gap, according to the auditors, is “attributable to the Australian government”. However, in the small print the auditors have acknowledged the government has been in no hurry to pay. “ASPI is dependent on funding from the Department of Defence for its continued existence and ability to carry out its normal activities. The proposed new three year funding agreement (commencing 1 July 2015) with the Department of Defence has not been signed. The company has been in discussions with both the Minister and the Department of Defence in regard to this new agreement and is of the opinion that the company will continue to receive funding support past the expired funding agreement of 30 June 2015.”

Either the think-tank must cut its losses, meaning smaller stipends for Russia experts like Dibb. Or else it must appeal for bigger donations from foreign governments and weapons suppliers. The Dibb report makes clear which option he favours, but since he isn’t sure warfighting against Russia should become too public, he muffles his message.

“I’m not arguing here,” Dibb summarizes, “that we should earmark [sic] elements of the ADF [Australian Defence Force] for possible combat in Europe in the event that Russia attacks—for example—one of the Baltic countries. But we do need to think through what our response would be, if any [sic]. We’ve been willing in the recent past to contribute to NATO operations to address shared challenges, including in Afghanistan. The question here is: would the interests of NATO members and Australia align sufficiently in the event of a Russian attack against a NATO country?” Another rhetorical question, to which Dibb gives a camouflaged yes.

The warfighters in Canberra aren’t convinced. The ASPI management, having decided to publish Dibb’s report, issues this warning in the small print: “No person should rely on the contents of this publication without first obtaining advice from a qualified professional person.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Massinissa

    “No person should rely on the contents of this publication without first obtaining advice from a qualified professional person.”

    PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT I started laughing so hard. They may as well be saying “If you engage in WW3 we are not to be held legally responsible for the outcome”

  2. hemeantwell

    Agreed, this is a good, solid criticism of Dibb’s opportunistic, cash-craving warmongering that will hopefully grease his slide to hell.

    But I’m not sure what to make of Helmer. Compare this to the insider dope/palace intrigue article from several days ago posted here, wherein Merkel was on the way out of power, black-spotted by a cabal seeking to avoid war with Russia. Nice if true, but has anyone seen corroboration of that bombshell?

  3. vidimi

    the countdown to armageddon continues.

    i thought that WW3 will blow up in Syria or Iran, but it looks increasingly likely to be Ukraine. If we make it to 2020 without blowing up most of the world i will consider us lucky.

  4. The Rev Kev

    Seriously? Abbott thought that it would be a great idea to commit an Aussie Task Force to fight in a European war? And what would he say when the first body bags came back home – that we had to send more troops to honour those killed in action? I’ve seen this movie one too many times already.
    I kept track of that war as it was happening and I can already see some of the possibilities unfolding what could have happened. Forget the fight against the rebels, the real enemy would be the neo-nazi formations like the Azov mob and what they are capable of. It would not be beyond them to kill a few dozen of our soldiers and try to pin the blame on the Rebels in order to get more commitments for example.
    And would Abbott have declared all operations to be top secret like the anti-emigrant operations in our waters as well? Also, last time I looked, launching aggressive wars is still illegal in the international law books. This idea is so toxic on so many levels that the people that came up with it should themselves be put on a watch list.
    Sorry, but the lives of Aussies soldiers are too valuable to be thrown away so that someone can make a buck. If they are so keen on the idea, I am sure that the Australian army would be more than willing to lend them a rifle and a set of camos so that they can go over there themselves and show how much they believe in the idea.

    1. Chuck

      “but the lives of Aussies soldiers are too valuable to be thrown away”

      Truth is they are “not” valuable – if there ever was a definition of cannon fodder it is the Aussies.

      Australia can easily be Switzerland – never invaded in three hundred years – not because of England or US protection nor their defense systems just because of geography and cheaper to buy whatever is there than pick up the acquisition cost of invasion and overhead.

      There must be strange DNA, serious limitations of critical thought in Australia for Politicians and Military to have the same game for 100’s of years – need to look into the water quality.

      1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

        Australia is run from afar by Rupert Murdoch and his media empire (although that may be cracking a bit with the voters’ repudiation of “repackaged Abbott” puppet Malcolm Turnbull).
        But the fact remains that the prevailing dogma is that Australia must line up with whatever country keeps the sea lanes open, under Rudd this dogma was nuanced a little, balanced against China (who want to protect a few sea lanes of their own these days). But under the Tories they snapped back to attention to their US masters and overlords.
        (Of course if the locals get too uppity, MI5 and the CIA can always have another nice little coup and just install a different government here like they did in 1975).

      2. Kfish

        Truth is, we’re a teeny little white colony on the edge of Asia that’s been trained from the beginning to look to our masters at ‘home’ for direction. First it was the British, then Prime Minister Curtin switched us to the Americans during WW2 sometime around the Battle of Midway when the sinking of the ‘Repulse’ and ‘Prince of Wales’ ships proved that the UK navy was not capable of saving us from the Japanese bombers. Most of our population is concentrated heavily in a thin strip on the east coast; the interior is hot, dry and hostile to industrial civilisation.

        One of the original verses from our anthem (since removed):

        Should foreign foe e’er sight our coast,
        Or dare a foot to land,
        We’ll rouse to arms like sires of yore
        To guard our native strand;
        Brittannia then shall surely know,
        Beyond wide ocean’s roll,
        Her sons in fair Australia’s land
        Still keep a British soul.
        In joyful strains then let us sing
        “Advance Australia fair!”

    2. Kukulkan

      Rumour has it… meaning I can’t substantiate any of this, but what the hell…

      Rumour has it that when Abbott was contemplating this the Australian Military High Command had to explain to him that Australia simply isn’t capable of mounting the logistical operation required to sustain an expeditionary force in Europe. By “sustain” I mean I keep it supplied with food, spare parts, ammunition, do medical evacuation, rotate personnel in and out of theater, and so on. While Australia has often fielded military units to distant parts, it has always done so in cooperation with allies like the US and UK and has basically piggy-backed off their logistical operations. Not entirely; Australia has some solid logistical capabilities, but nowhere near the worldwide logistical infrastructure required to mount and sustain such a mission. I mean, what did Abbott think all those American and British bases and military alliances spread all over the world were for?

      As I say, rumour has it… but this was a bit of a buzz in the logistics field a couple of years ago as a fine example of just how clueless our political masters (at the time) really were…

  5. Carolinian

    The wacky Breedlove again. The 1960s farce Dr. Strangelove is looking more and more like a documentary.

    1. ekstase

      “Unless Australia does more fighting with the Americans on the Russian front, he concludes, “China will take advantage of this, and allies and partners of the US in the region—including Australia—would be subject to further uncertainty about American military commitments to Asia.”

      That must be a typo. Cause that’s how the Mafia works.

    2. ColdWarVet

      I worked for Breedlove briefly in the late 90’s. He was annointed even then, although none of us knew how much so at the time. He came on base on short notice and bumped another Col for a Command slot less than two weeks before the Change of Command. At the end of his tour he went just as quick, taking command of the 8thFW at Kunsan ROK less than a year later. Reading these guys’ assignment listings is always illuminating. I never saw anything special about the guy personally, but evidently he was annointed for great things from early on. He’s retired now evidently, as of July the 1st. Now that’s surpising.

  6. lin1

    “The only time Australians prepared to fight against Russians directly was also on command from London; that was in the Crimean War of 1854, when units of cavalry, infantry and artillery were mustered in Sydney”

    Pardon me, but this is incorrect.. An invasion force made up of the armies of 14 capitalist powers intervened in the Russian civil war, on behalf of White warlords ( including a Siberian lunatic whos stated goal was to become “the Bonaparte of Russia” ) . Wikipedia will at least confirm the fact of this substantial military aggression against the nascent Russian republic , post WW1

    1. clinical wasteman

      Glad to hear that Wikipedia at least notices (or allows to be noticed) that much. But there’s no need to go there for an account of that precocious bit of Liberal Interventionism. For a version that’s openly personal and partisan but untainted by Stalin-apologism, Trotsky-wishfulness OR Eastman/Rumsfeld-type Cold War Convert zeal, see the first-hand reports of Victor Serge in ‘Memoirs of a Revolutionary’ (new English-language edition: NYRB, 2012) or the short collection ‘Revolution in Danger’. Debates about the ‘meaning’ of the Russian revolution are a mostly a dead-end left-niche obsession, but Serge writes so well (in French, but the two translations cited are ok) about the White Terror/Allied Siege, and with so little ideological axe-grinding, that I’d recommend it to anyone even if you think February 1917 wasn’t worth trying.
      The ‘proper’ journalist John Reed was more naively spellbound by the Bolshevik leadership than Serge (Gulagged by Stalin and disowned by Trotsky) ever was, but Reed’s more famous ’10 Days that Shook the World’ is not bad as a secondary source on the feeling in St. Petersburg that the proto-NATO coalition and its pogrom-loving auxiliaries were coming to exterminate everyone unless they could be beaten. As they duly were, at least for a while.

  7. Peter Pan

    If Australia were to pivot to Eastern Ukraine or the Baltic’s then wouldn’t China have an opportunity to pivot to Australia?

    These think tank warmongers must really suck at playing chess.

  8. Jason

    Two words defence Force
    Timor showed that our ability to operate was
    Near on useless, all because of $$$$ cuts

Comments are closed.