Category: NATO

Georgia-Russia War of Words Reaches Crescendo

No Comments

There are now statements from representatives in the breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia that Russia will be taking over full control of military operations, and the Georgian foreign minister is claiming that they are near to war with Russia.

Again, let me say that much of this* is a direct result of NATO’s expansion eastward, in violation of agreements, which has fed Russia’s long tradition of xenophobia and paranoia, and hence has led to these actions.

*Though there is an aspect of Russia attempting to create a sphere of influence in the area too.

Georgia on My Mind

No Comments

Nope, we’re not talking about the southern state, but the birthplace of Josef Stalin.

We are having problems. It appears that NATO is warning Russia not to interfere in Georgia, and Russia is warning NATO not to interfere in Georgia.

Fundamentally, this is an outgrowth of NATO’s disastrous policy of expansion, which was driven by post Berlin Wall euphoria and the lobbying of the various national defense industries, who saw a move to NATO as being a way to sell some expensive toys to the former Warsaw Pact nations.

Before the fall of the USSR, one of the conditions that Russia placed on the reunification of Germany was that NATO expand no further eastward. The fact that it has, and that the countries added no use for NATO but as a sword against Russia, contributes to the current bellicose and paranoid nature of Russian foreign relations.

A Good Commentary on Russia

No Comments

Boston Globe columnist James Carroll looks at what might be driving Russia’s hostility to recent NATO actions, and comes to the conlusion that it’s completely justified:

  • The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact was accompanied by a buildup of NATO.
  • Mikhail Gorbachev was assured that if the USSR accepted the reunified Germany’s presence in NATO, there would be no further eastern expansion of the alliance.

Carroll quotes George Kennan describing NATO expansion as, “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

The list of countries that have invaded Russia in the past few hundred years includes, “Poland, the Ottoman Empire, Sweden, Austria, France, Great Britain, and Germany”, though he leaves off the US’s direct military participation in White Russian revolts of the 1920s.

I would argue that Carroll does not go far enough.

If one looks at the Hart-Rudman Commission of the late 1990s looking at coming threats to America, and the behavior of Lynne Cheney, who continuously called for an immediate military strike on China, and resigned when she was created like a crazy aunt by everyone else, inclucing other Republicans, and juxtaposes it with the report that Francis Fukuyama said that “There was actually a deliberate search for an enemy because they felt that the Republican Party didn’t do as well“, I think that this is actually a deliberate strategy.

The Republican party needs an external enemy to succeed, and that this actions taken recently, particularly the missile shield, are part of a deliberate attempt to recreate the Cold War for partisan political gain.

News Flash: Europeans Conflate Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Support Neither

No Comments

Robert Gates is surprised and alarmed by this attitude. I say, “Well, Duh!!!”

It’s painfully clear that Afghanistan was shortchanged for the invasion of Iraq, and that the US is unable to support both efforts fully, so this means that European aid with operations in Iraq actually does free up US resources for operations in Afghanistan.

The European public has realized this for some time, as have the governments.

However, those in power realize that saying, “You’re on your own, Jack,” will shatter an alliance that they see as valuable.

The support of the European public American military operations anywhere is a rapidly wasting asset, and the stupid, disasterous war in Iraq is at its core.

France and UK to Co-Develop New Carriers

No Comments

This should significantly improve power projection capabilities of both navies, particularly the Royal Navy.

Britain and France Develop New Carriers (Subscription Required)

Jun 13, 2007

Christina Mackenzie/Defense Technology International

Britannia rules the waves, the old standard declares, but now it looks like it’s going to share them with France–at least when it comes to launching the next generation of aircraft carriers.

Britain and France are on the verge of signing an agreement calling for three carriers to be designed and built in an Anglo-French partnership. The deal would be a milestone in cooperation between two countries with major differences in naval strategies and operational needs.

The reason for rapprochement is economics: At a total projected price of around $10 billion for three ships, the cost of developing and building the 65,000-ton carriers alone is too expensive for Britain and France to bear separately.

The program calls for Britain to take delivery of two aircraft carriers, the first and third, and for France to get one. The ships are slated to start entering service by 2015.

…

An interesting note:

Meanwhile, France and the U.K. have invested a lot of money in studies to reduce the number of personnel needed to man and operate the carriers. The French ship, for example, will have around 20% less manpower than the Charles de Gaulle, although it is significantly larger and has greater operational capability.

This would appear to imply that reports of problems with the CdG are justified.

Bush Diplomacy Leaves Debris in Its Wake

No Comments

The program is splitting Europe because it is poorly conceived and dishonestly presented.

Again, I refer you to my post on the patent system to provide some perspective on the level of performance of this administration

NATO Struggles With Missile Defense(Subscription Required)

Russian pressure heightens missile defense concerns within NATO

Printed headline: Out of Sync

NATO nations are growing increasingly divided over how to move forward plans to establish European missile defenses, with unease exacerbated by concern over Russia’s strategic objectives.

Officials at NATO Headquarters in Brussels say the U.S. plan to station a radar site and 10 interceptor missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland, using bilateral agreements, is throwing NATO’s own approach off balance. NATO worries are being aggravated by what one official describes as ‘well-orchestrated Russian pressure on all chess boards simultaneously, ranging from the CFE [Conventional Armed Forces in Europe] treaty to energy, Estonia, Kosovo, NATO expansion and missile defense.’ Moscow’s latest gambit is the offer of a joint missile defense system to be sited in Azerbaijan.

The crux of the problem is that the U.S. system is designed to provide protection for the continental U.S., and will only give some European coverage, through the proposed Polish and Czech sites. The NATO missile defense architecture would protect all of Europe. Command and control also remains an area of contention.

…

Let’s be clear. This is directed at Russia, Iran is just a pretext here.

That’s why Putin’s proposal of locating the radar in Azerbaijan made the Bushies look like fools.

It’s better to protect Europe, and does not threaten the Russians, which is the real objective of the US, Poland, and the Czech Republic.