Category: NATO

Russia Makes Offer on Euro Missile Defense

No Comments

They won’t place missiles in Kaliningrad if the US terminates its ABM installation in Poland and the Czech Republic.

It’s not surprising that the Russians consider this a direct threat.

It’s also not surprising that they consider the expansion of NATO a direct threat.

Their worst case scenario is, “What would have happened if Georgia had been a NATO member?”

There are people in positions of power, or one election away from a position of power, in many of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations who would be inclined to be just as crazy as Georgian President Saakaskvili, only when they launch an assault on an unarmed populace that is inclined toward the Russians.

Georgian Aggression Makes the NY Times

No Comments

Honestly, I think that they got the green from Bush and His Evil Minions™, or at least Dick Cheney before cluster bombing cities, but cluster bomb cities they did, and they did it before the Russians moved in.

Even without consideration as to right or wrong, it would be catestrophically stupid to allow Georgia into NATO for one simple reason: It will give the Russian FSB unprecedented access to NATO secrets, because the Russians have completely penetrated the Georgian state security apparatus.

That’s why the Russians were able to launch a devastating counter attack: they knew that it was coming, to the minute and individual battalion level battle plans, and so could respond quickly.

Russian Missiles to Kalaningrad

No Comments

The Russians legitimately see the BMD system in Poland as a threat, and they are taking what they see as appropriate action. (See also here)

This was foreseeable. It’s natural for the Russians to see the system as a direct challenge, particularly since the location of the interceptors and radar are better more suited to protecting Europe from Russia than from Iran, which is the putative reason for the installation in the first place.

It’s also a challenge to Obama, which complicates things, because it makes it harder for him to do the smart thing, which is to relocate the installation further south or cancel it completely.

Some Insight on the Russian Psyche from a Russian

No Comments

From Stanislav Mishin‘s blog Mat Rodina, we find The Sixteen Reasons Why Russia Should NEVER Trust the West.

You can go to the site to get a bit more in exposition.

About half of the reasons are true, or at least true as one can when one is talking about international relations:

  • Western banks and institutions raped Russia in the 1990s, which is true. The bankers made money, the pensioners were out on the street, and teen aged girls were selling themselves as prostitutes in order to keep from starving.
  • Western Governments did cheer when Yeltsin shelled his own parliament
  • The West, particularly western oil companies do want control of Russian oil
  • NATO was expanded to the Russian border, despite promises to the contrary
  • NATO bombed Serbia, though I would argue that there were legitimate reasons, a genocidal regime, for doing so.
  • The West has a policy of explicit and extensive support to political enemies of Russia in the nations of the former USSR.
  • That the West’s moves into Central Asia following 911 were accompanied by attempts at regime change, or regime foreign policy change to create states generally hostile to Russian interests.
  • That the west abrogated treaties as soon as they were no longer convenient, most notably the ABM treaty.
  • That the west has provided fairly explicit aid to opposition groups in Russia. Clearly true, though I think he lists this one item as two on his list of 16.

Then there are those that I have doubts as to their significance or veracity. Either I have no knowledge of the truth of the statements, or I think that he is conflating basic international Realpolitik with explicit hostility:

  • That the west has been backing secessionist and Islamist movements within Russia, most notably in Chechnya. Certainly, given the consequences and how they might effect access to Caspian oil make them plausible, particularly when it appears clear that the US gave tacit approval for Saakisvili to launch assaults in South Ossetia.
  • That the Polish missile defense silos for could be used for the deployment of short range nuclear missile….Technically true, I put this in the paranoid section, it’s easier/safer to use SSBNs firing missiles on depressed trajectories.
  • That the West is giving asylum to people wanted by Russia, while demanding extradition of Russians to face western courts…Technically true, but meaningless, as a pretty standard standard state of diplomacy.
  • That the west went soft on the Taliban, and pressured the Russians not to respond militarily to them prior to 911 because they wanted an oil pipeline that avoided both Russia and Iran. True, but I don’t see it as overtly hostile, it’s just the Texas oil men running the US government. To quote The Godfather, it’s not personal, it’s, “Just Business”.

Then there is the tinfoil hat stuff:

  • That the West despises “Russian Patriotism and Christianity”
  • That the, “The West back every Jihad aimed at Orthodox Christians”

These are tinfoil hat, but it does reflect the deeply Xenophobic character of the worldview expressed here.

What I see as stupidity, he sees as malice.

I would say that this is particularly the case with NATO expansion, where the Euros were just too busy partying about the fall of the wall, and the US was looking at new markets for their military hardware and saw the need to replace Soviet legacy systems in new NATO members as a profit center.

I do think that Mr. Mishin represents a mainstream view in Russia, which begs the question, how is this addressed.

Unfortunately, many of the things that have been done, the feeding frenzy of the 1990s and the expansion of NATO cannot be easily undone.

As start, a forceful statement that the US is opposed to NATO membership for the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan would be constructive.

I have little knowledge of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, but it is clear that the presidents of Ukraine and Georgia have a few screws loose.

Additionally, it’s clear that the state security apparatus of Georgia has been thoroughly penetrated by the Russians, as the speed and effectiveness of the Russian military response shows that they knew of the specifics of the assault on South Ossetia for weeks in advance.

I am not a military man, but the idea of having an ally whose defense establishment is completely penetrated by another country does not fill me with glee.

How Russians View NATO and the US

No Comments

Yes, I am quoting an article in Pravda, and I think that what it says about Russian attitudes is more important than the objective truth (though I generally agree):

….

NATO was originally designed to keep Germany down, America in Europe and the Soviets out. With no Soviet Union, NATO’s purpose, like that of all good bureaucracies, has mutated. It has reneged on its promises to Russia not to expand eastward and has expanded eastward into some rather questionable regimes, particularly in the Baltics. All the same, as it was declaring Russia a useful partner, though a minor one not worthy of ever inviting in, it sought out a new purpose.

….

Afghanistan was and is the first real NATO fighting war. No longer is this primarily NATO bombers dropping bombs, often on civilians targets, from 3,500 meters, no this is a fighting war with a jihadist guerrilla force, trained by the very same NATO experts. Afghanistan as a whole has already shown NATO to be an empty shell. Many of the members have opted out of contributing anything to the conflict and quite a few that have sent soldiers have sent them with such strict rules of engagement (ROE)s that they are all but useless.

To the Anglo-American Neocons, this of course was a disaster. Their grip on power over Europe and thus the EU in general, was cracking. Add to this the economic knots tied by Russia to several key members, using the very real ropes of energy and business investments, and NATO was opting to be nothing more than a sewing circle.

The Anglo-American Neocons had to take bold action, something that would cause the member states of NATO to recoil back under the Neocon umbrella and unify against a common enemy. But whom? The Muslims showed little ability to project military power into Europe, they do much better with immigrants. The Chinese were out of the question a general rule, way to much elite money at risk for that kind of nonsense. Thus there was only one clear choice: Russia. But how to resurrect the Soviet Union, or at least it’s shadow?

Enter stage right, a small time Georgian dictator and one not to bright but very egotistical. The perfect dupe: Saakashvili.

….

Still, all this in itself, may not be enough to finally finish off NATO and end the 100 years of Ideological Warfare, for yes, dear reader, we have yet to leave that period. Russia is no longer the Soviet Union, no longer the Stalinist Marxists, but Economic Trotskyite Marxism (fascism) is alive and well, having infected the West flowing from the decayed corpse of Military Trotskyite Marxism (Nazism). NATO is the final guard against the return of the traditional world, where nations sought economic advantage for themselves not in the name of some mutant form of Internationalism. It is the final guard against nationalistic states that sought the betterment of their people first and foremost and not that of some hypothetical global village or for the internationalistic elite.

The Bank Panic of 2008 may be, however the final stone to knock down this aged and staggering Goliath. The Anglo-American Trotskyites who created this mess are in short, bankrupt. Their ability to project power grows weaker every day with a new DOW low. At the same time, nations such as Iceland, once one of their key military posts, are seeking aid not from their so called allies but from Russia itself. Bound together by economic or cultural or religious or historical ties, or all of the above, nations such as Iceland, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Czech, Slovakia and others will naturally pull away from the now bankrupt alliance. Historical ties that were supposed to have died along with history, as proclaimed by one of the fathers of Trotskyite Neoconism: Fukuyama, will now return the globe to an equilibrium long not seen and one that promises more stability than the Internationalist regimes of the past 100 years.

Going through Stanislav Mishin’s other blog posts, it’s clear that he’s a bit of a Russian nationalist, though less so than any Fox News commentator, and his 16 reasons for Russia to NEVER trust the West is an instructive read, even if you disagree with parts of it.

Iceland® a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Russia

No Comments

Well, it looks as if as bad as the US has been hit, tiny Iceland has been absolutely destroyed by the financial crisis.

Despite regulatory actions intended to shore up Icelandic banks, Icelandic banks have all failed, and they are in talks with the Russians about a €4 billion loan…..For a country with just over 300,000 people….That’s a bit under $20,000 per resident.

It also looks like there may be some action from the IMF, which raises an interesting question, how will Europeans feel when one of their own is told to gut labor protections, reduce union rights, end free health care, and make payments for primary education mandatory?

That is, after all what the IMF demands of dark skinned folks.

Of course, no crisis is complete without one complete pratt making things worse, and (not surprisingly) this role is assumed by British PM Gordon Brown, who is upset that the Icelandic guarantees only apply to domestic account holders, so he, “has used powers granted under anti-terrorism laws to freeze British assets of Landsbanki until the standoff is resolved.”

I think that once the Icelanders find out what the IMF is demanding, and if they are true to form, it will be the complete dismantling of their social safety net, they will run to Russia for their loan, which will come with its own strings, probably a naval base, and possibly an air base.

Your Regular Georgia Update

No Comments

There are rumblings in the Council of Europe about ejecting both Russia and Georgia, which just goes to show what memberships in the Council of Europe are actually worth, seeing as how this was shortly followed by Russia signing treaties with South Ossetia and Abkhazia guaranteeing protection in the event of an attack.

Still Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the NATO secretary general, has declared that Russia cannot block Georgiaan membership in NATO, which implies that Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has not read the NATO charter, which states that there can be no extant border disputes for a nation to be brought into NATO.

The only way for Georgia to get into NATO at this point would be to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and somehow come to a consensus on what the borders were.

As the Caucuses Turns

No Comments

Unsurprisingly, we have reports that Cheney to made promises to support Georgia while there.

Once again, Mr. Deferment is letting his mouth cut checks that someone else’s kids will have to cash.

No doubt he promised more welfare for American defense contractors to help rebuild their military, which the Georgians are reportedly very eager to do.

Additionally, it appears that once again, Cheney is determined to make another problem worse, as he is lobbying for the US terminating the civil nuclear cooperation pact with Russia, which is likely to mean more ill-secured nuclear material in that nation.

This isn’t to say that Russian diplomatic efforts are going well. They just got the kiss of death diplomatically, when Hugo Chavez of Venezuela backed the Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Also, in the, “I thought that this has already happened,” category, we have Georgia severing diplomatic ties with Russia.

I think that the final word on this conflict comes from William Pfaff:

Ukraine and the Baltic states have been given the lesson that great powers do not go to war against other heavily armed great powers just to settle ancient sectarian quarrels or linguistic rivalries in client countries, even if those are prospective NATO members.

Meanwhile, Saakashvili is beginning to see domestic push-back from his failed adventure, with the opposition now saying that some of the blame lays in the, “US educated Georgian leader,” for the spanking received from the Russians.

Meanwhile, the EU has been unable to come to a consensus on any diplomatic actions to take, which is an indication that the EU does need a change in governance structure, just not the one that they are trying to ram down the throat of the Irish.

Russia remains completely unapologetic about the whole affair, which is not surprising, as over the top as some of the statements made by Moscow on the conflict are, it’s clear that this is a real statement of how Russia feels about both Georgia and NATO expansion.

While I am not as big a fan of delving into the minutiae of military conflicts analysis as, for example, the War Nerd, Aviation Week does have an interesting report on Russian self-analysis on what happened in Georgia. (paid subscription required)

Not surprisingly, the RuAF comes in for most of the criticism. There was apparently little preparation on their point, and no attempts to use long range PGWs to take out Georgian air defense systems.

Georgia: Dueling Presidents

No Comments

Kind of like “Dueling Banjos”, only it’s both Medvedev and Saakashvili, both writing an OP/ED for the Financial Times.

I think that they are both very sparing with the truth, but one sounds like a mealy mouthed politician, and the other sounds like a complete tie chewing nutjob.

Medvedev’s bullet points:

  • The Ossetians and the Abkhazians wanted independence.
  • Upon independence, Georgia stripped Abkhazia and South Ossetia of Autonomy, and engaged in brutal military operations against ethnic minorities.
  • That the West encouraged Saakasvili to make broad claims against the region.
  • That the recognition of an independent Kosovo encouraged secessionist movements in Georgia.
  • Following the recent conflict, he felt compelled to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s independence.

Saakashvili’s bullet points:

  • Russia intends to redraw the map of all of Europe.
  • Russia was issuing passports to Abkhazians and South Ossetians to get a claim on these regions.
  • That the Russians were actively ethnically cleansing Georgians using, “using arson, rape and execution.”
  • That the Russians were already invading when the Georgians attacked South Ossetia.
  • That the Russians have designs on Ukraine, Muldova.
  • That Moscow is determined to wipe out democratically elected governments in its “near abroad”.

These are both self serving statements from men, they are both less than completely frank.

One of them, however, sounds nuts.

Georgia: Can We Just Say that Russia Won, and Be Done with It?

No Comments

We have NATO demanding that Russia rescind its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia without explaining why Kosovo is legal, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not.

Because I said so is not a good argument in foreign policy.

Meanwhile, Medvedev is talking to the China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan about their recognizing the break away provinces.

I think that China will wait, but that one or two of the FSU central Asian naations will go along.

Kosovo is refusing to back sovereignty, which is not surprising.

In terms of the purely legal aspects of the situation, they are very similarly, but the Kosovars were targeted with an organized campaign of Genocide, while the Georgians went with a brutal program of imperialism, and there is a difference morally.

In any case, the independence of Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are really more about the “great game” between the US and Nato and Russia than they are about concern for the people in those regions….on both sides.

Meanwhile, Serbia said, I told you so,” which is not unexpected.

Russia-Belarus Alliance Approaching Georgian Breakaway Provinces

No Comments

A spokesman for the so called “Union State” alliance, is saying that Transdnestr, Abkhazia and South Ossetia might be granted some sort of observer status, possibly followed by full membership.

Needless to say, this would lead to secession from Georgia, and very likely a some sort of hostilities.

This kind of crap is going on because first Bill Clinton, and then George W. Bush ignored commitments to limit the westward expansion of NATO to the reunification of Germany, and so have created what is legitimately viewed by the Russians as a ring of steel around them, complete with a ballistic missile defense system that is better positioned against them than it is against the Iranians.

I don’t think it’s going to happen, but the expansion of NATO really needs to be stopped.

Even the Poles Recognize a Lame Duck*

No Comments

Well it appears that the Polish have rejected the Bush Administration’s missile defense deal, saying that they, “have not reached a satisfactory result on the issue of increasing the level of Polish security.”

Essentially, I think that they realize that the potential damage to their relationship is not worth what the US is offering, and they believe that any US good will from accepting will expire when Bush and His Evil Minions™ leave office.

When the Poles recognize Bush’s lame duckitude, it’s game over.

*I am not minimizing Polish intellect. It’s merely that they are currently the most vociferous knee jerk supporters of the US in Europe right now.

US Talking With Lithuania About Missile Interceptor Location

No Comments

It appears that because the Poles are getting cold feet, or demanding more for the base, they are talking with Lithuania about locating the missiles there.

This means a number of things:

  1. The relatively new Polish government is not being as cooperative as they would like.
  2. That most other nations are not interested (the Lithuanians really hate the Russians)
  3. That this missile defense installation is directed against the Russians, and not the Iranians.

The last point is simple: If you have a sub optimal location, one that is too far north to protect parts of Turkey, Greece, and Italy, starting negotiations with a country that is further north, and hence less well suited to intercepting Iranian missiles, but just as well suited to intercepting a Russian strike.

What is going on is simple: This is Republicans trying to recreate the cold war, because it benefits them politically.

US NATO Rep Boosts Russian Membership in Alliance

No Comments

This proposal is actually good policy, as Russia continues to see, with no small justification, NATO as a military institution directed against it.

That being said, she doesn’t really mean it:

“Speaking as a mom and as a strategist and a lifetime student and friend of the Russian people, I would love to live in a world where Russia wanted to be a NATO member and Russia had met the very high standards that NATO sets for openness, democracy, reform, rule of law that new NATO members must meet,” Victoria Nuland said in an interview with RIA Novosti and the Argumenty i Fakty weekly.

What she’s saying is that she wants Russia to be more like western nations, and then she would consider it.

When one considers the fact that at least two NATO nations, Greece and Turkey, spent much of their time in the cold war under military rule from a Junta, I would think that Russia has already met that standard.

Seriously though, Russian membership in NATO would go a long way towards easing relations.

As I’ve said before, the eastern expansion of NATO following the collapse of the Berlin wall was a bad idea, and this is one of the few ways to undue the damage done.

As to why the original NATO members enthusiastically expanded eastward, I think that it was two things, uncritical euphoria at the fall of the Warsaw Pact, and the desire for arms sales in the newly liberated countries.

Putin: Russia Opposed to NATO Expansion in Principle

No Comments

This statement is not in any way surprising. The Russians, and the Soviet Union before them, have always seen NATO as a spear pointed at them.

That is why they demanded, and got, promises that following the reunification of Germany that there would be no eastward expansion of NATO.

Unfortunately, this promise was promptly ignored, and countries have been added to NATO with abandon, and the Russians see this as a ring of steel intended to threaten and pacify them.

There is nothing that has contributed to the bellicose nature of current Russian foreign policy as much. They are completely justified in seeing this as a threat and a provocation.

Russia Protests Outside Military Aid to Georgia

No Comments

The back story is in 2002, the US started suppling military aid to Georgia to fight “al Queida backed forces”, but these forces never existed, and the aid continues.

The Russians, quite reasonably, see this as a provocation directed at them. (see here and here)

The arming of Georgia, like the westward expansion of NATO, is seen by the Russian government as a real threat to their own security, particularly given the guarantees made in the early 1990s that there would be no westward expansion of NATO.

As I’ve said before, I think that part of this agenda is a desire by Republicans to recreate the Slavic menace for political advantage.