Monday, December 13, 2010

Is Moscow moving to counter NATO again....?

Is Moscow moving to counter NATO
again....? NO way......
By M K Bhadrakumar

Many people wouldn't know that former United States president Ronald Reagan's signature phrase "trust, but verify" is actually the translation of a Russian proverb - doveryai, no proveryai. Two decades into the post-Cold War era, Moscow wants to reclaim the self-contradictory phrase from the American repertoire and apply it to Russia's "reset" of ties with the United States.

The shellacking that US President Barack Obama received in the mid-term elections to congress, CIA/WikiLeaks disclosures about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) plans to defend against "possible Russian aggression", the announcement of the US decision to deploy an air force detachment at Lask Air Base in Poland, the belligerent speech last week by Senator John McCain calling into question the entire philosophy behind the reset with
Russia - these have created a sense of disquiet in Moscow.

Unsurprisingly, the message that comes out of the summit meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in Moscow on Saturday is that Moscow wants its own alliance to be further strengthened as a "key element in ensuring the security in the post-Soviet space" and its image to be enhanced globally. CSTO comprises Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The mid-term elections in the US would leave Russia, like many other countries, wondering whether pinning hopes on Obama's capacity to deliver on the "reset" isn't, in fact, supposing a lot. McCain's speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies last Friday signals that the reset is most certainly going to run into stiff opposition from the Republican-dominated congress.

McCain questioned the very need of reset when "Russia is becoming less and less capable of being a global, great power partner with the US"; when American and Russian interests mostly diverge; when they don't have any shared values; when the Russian political system is "unresponsive and predatory" presided over by a "quasi-criminal ruling syndicate" that "steals from, lies to, and assaults its own citizens with virtual immunity".

Citing continuing disagreements with Russia on missile defenses in Europe, Russia's overwhelming superiority in tactical nuclear weapons and differing approaches to open energy markets, McCain called on the Obama administration to be "more assertive in the defense of our interests and values" and to link Russia's admission to the World Trade Organization with its adherence to the rule of law.

The contrived bonhomie at the NATO summit in Lisbon last month has all but dissipated. Meanwhile, the CIA/WikiLeaks disclosures put a question mark on NATO's sincerity in a "reset" with Russia. According to US diplomatic cables, NATO drew up plans in January to defend the Baltic states against possible Russian military aggression and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wanted that the plans be kept secret from Moscow.

Moscow says these plans were approved at the Lisbon summit even as the alliance declared that it sought a "true strategic partnership" with Russia based on shared security interests and the need to address "common challenges, jointly identified".

Moscow is annoyed. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, "With one hand NATO... negotiated with us some important documents that were aimed at a joint partnership, and with the other hand took behind our backs decisions about the need for defense against us... We have posed these questions and we expect to get answers. I presume we have the right to do so."

Equally, following talks in Washington on Wednesday between Obama and visiting Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski, the two countries announced an enhancement of their defense ties in the spirit of the 2008 US-Polish Declaration on Strategic Cooperation, which includes cooperation between the two air forces and the establishment of a US air detachment in Poland.

The Russian Foreign Ministry reacted, linking the US-Polish decision with the CIA/WikiLeaks disclosure and the deployment in 2009 of Patriot air defense systems in Poland, "The true purpose of which also raises questions." Ironically, Komorowski hosted Medvedev in Warsaw just before proceeding to Washington. That was the first visit by a Russian leader to Poland in 10 years and the Western media lauded it as an historic turnaround in European security.

Moscow said: "It seems we are witnessing an old reflex of NATO triggered to build up power to the detriment of other countries' security - all the more odd that all this happens after the positive outcome of the Russia-NATO council summit and the alliance's declarations that Russia is not regarded as an adversary... we [Russia] will be forced to consider the US-Polish plans as we implement our own programs for building armed forces and in work with our allies."

Thus, the CSTO summit in Moscow on Saturday took place against a complicated political backdrop. Originally, the agenda was to focus on improving the alliance's crisis response mechanism "in order to enhance the CSTO potential for responding to security threats and challenges".

Simply put, the CSTO was virtually prevented by Uzbekistan from intervening in the crisis in Kyrgyzstan in June and an informal summit of the alliance in Yerevan in August had mandated that changes should be made in the statutes of the CSTO "to improve the efficiency... in the field of emergency response". Interestingly, Moscow has met with success in persuading Tashkent to go along with the revision of the CSTO statutes and Uzbek President Islam Karimov attended the summit meeting on Saturday.

The summit endorsed a declaration on cooperation in the international arena. Moscow is clearly interested in enhancing the role of the CSTO at the international level as a counter to NATO's self-projection at its Lisbon summit as the only global security organization. It also decided on a collective peacekeeping force and on undertaking "out-of-area" operations on the pattern that NATO is doing in Afghanistan.

Thus, CSTO member countries have expressed a willingness to not only carry peacekeeping tasks but also "provide on certain terms, these collective peacekeeping forces for operations that are being conducted by decision of the UN Security Council". The Moscow summit put emphasis on "foreign policy coordination" among the CSTO member countries similar to NATO's system.

Clearly, the CSTO has factored in the outcome of NATO's Lisbon summit. Uzbekistan's participation in the summit on Saturday strengthens Moscow's hands. A distinct cooling is apparent in relations between Uzbekistan and the US. Clinton, during her visit to Tashkent on December 2, publicly rebuked the Uzbek government. She said Uzbekistan should "translate words into practice" to improve its human-rights situation.

Addressing a group of non-governmental organization leaders in Tashkent, Clinton said, "I urged him [Karimov] to demonstrate his commitment through a series of steps, to ensure that human rights and fundamental freedoms are truly protected in this country." Clinton revealed she took up with Karimov the issues of restrictions on religious freedom, torture and child labor in Uzbekistan. "We raise these issues... and will continue to make improvement of human rights in Uzbekistan an integral part of expanding our bilateral relationship."

Washington has reason to be displeased with Tashkent. Karimov teamed up with Russia to smother the US move to introduce the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as the provider of security in Central Asia. More important, Tashkent has turned openly critical of the US's war strategy in Afghanistan.

At the OSCE summit in Astana on December 1 (which Karimov failed to attend), Uzbek Foreign Minister Vladimir Norov lambasted the OSCE and its structures for a "failure to play a positive role in the prevention and neutralization of the bloody events" in Kyrgyzstan in June. It was an indictment of Washington's attempt to pitchfork the OSCE into Kyrgyzstan as a substitute for the CSTO in the region.

Even more direct was Norov's criticism of Obama's surge strategy. "It is becoming ever clearer that there is no military solution to the Afghan problem and that the settlement strategy chosen by the coalition forces is not rendering the expected results."

Norov reiterated Tashkent's proposal to find alternative solutions for a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan through multilateral talks under the UN aegis. He said: "The context of the Uzbek initiative is based on the recognition that internal Afghan affairs must be resolved by the Afghan people with assistance from countries whose security interests include bringing an end to the war and promoting stability in Afghanistan." He stressed that talks should be held with "all major opposing sides".

In sum, what emerges from the CSTO summit are the following. First, there is an unspoken but underlying suspicion in Moscow regarding NATO's intentions. This apprehension translates as a new determination to build up the CSTO as a rival organization that challenges NATO's bid to project itself into the post-Soviet space and its claim to be the sole global security organization.

Second, Central Asian countries are deeply concerned over the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and the failure of the US's war strategy. They look up to Moscow as a guarantor of regional security. This has translated as the readiness to beef up the CSTO's rapid deployment force and to streamline the decision-making processes within the alliance to meet emergencies or crisis situations.

Third, US's intentions in Afghanistan are far from transparent and an open-ended American military presence is in the cards. The picture remains hazy as to the exact ground situation developing on Afghanistan's border with Tajikistan. Indeed, US intelligence has had covert dealings with Central Asian militants operating out of Afghanistan and there is great wariness among Central Asia countries with regard to the US's democracy project in the region.
Fourth, the Moscow summit paid much attention to the CSTO's activities in the fields of law enforcement, border security and military policy. The CSTO's readiness to play a role in Afghanistan in the post-2014 scenario is self-evident. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is visiting Moscow next week. The CSTO is also moving in the direction of forging links with Pakistan with regard to countering drug trafficking.

Finally, the Moscow summit focused on enhancing the CSTO's foreign policy role. This has factored in US attempts to accentuate intra-Central Asian differences and play the role of a diplomatic spoiler to undercut the Moscow-led integration processes in the region. It becomes necessary for the CSTO member countries to coordinate their foreign policy if they are to undertake peacekeeping operations in global hotspots. The CSTO is emulating NATO's culture.

In sum, Russia trusts the need for a "reset" in ties with NATO, but is under compulsion to "verify" its sincerity. As Lavrov put it, "serious questions arise" out of the contradictory tendencies in NATO's posturing toward Russia. Moscow decided to keep the CSTO as an effective counter-alliance - just in case McCain's school of thinking gains ground in Washington.....

The latest sentence of Khodorokovsky is great news for Russia.....

The latest sentence given to Khorokovsky has been the pretext for yet another immense outpouring of Western hypocrisy. Just to quote a recent BBC article:

US state department spokesman Mark Toner said Washington was concerned by the apparent "abusive use of the legal system for improper ends, particularly now that Khodorkovsky and [former business partner Platoon] Lebedev have been sentenced to the maximum penalty". Later an unnamed senior US administration official, quoted by Reuters news agency, said the sentencing might complicate Russia's expected entry to the World Trade Organization in 2011.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she was "disappointed" by the sentence. "The impression remains that political motives played a role in the trial," she said in a statement.


And UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said he was deeply concerned and urged Russia "to respect the principles of justice and apply the rule of law in a non-discriminatory and proportional way". "In the absence of this the UK and much of the international community will regard such a trial as a retrograde step," Mr. Hague added.

What the hell is going on here?! Khodorkosky is just one of many so-called 'oligarchs' who stole money from the Russian nation like all of them did. And like most of them, he is a Jew. And like most of them, he tried to mess with Putin and his power base. So? Why is he deserving of so much crocodile tears?

The European Court of Human Rights does not see a problem, neither does Amnesty International, or HWR, or anybody in Israel for that matter (at least that I am aware of). Yet the West is whining and whining about Khodorkovsky...

Gone and forgotten are the accusations about 'Putin' ordering the poisoning of Yushchenko, the poisoning of Litvinenko, the killing of Politkovskaia and all the rest of the idiotic "Putin the KGB murderer" narrative. Now its "Putin is crushing his political opponents". Fine. But is that big news? Let's look at the record here:

1) General Lev Rokhlin, one of the best Russian military commanders who single handedly rescued Eltsin's regime for total failure in Chechnya: killed by his "insane wife" as soon as he openly opposed the "United Russia" Party.

2) General Gennady Troshev, another of the very best Russian military commanders, credited with winning the 2nd Chechen war. Conveniently dies in a rather bizarre air crash as soon as he became too popular.

3) General Alexander Lebed, not a favorite of mine for sure, but popular for a while in Russia for saving the Trans-Dniester Republic from a Moldavian assault and for stopping the 1st Chechen war (a disastrous decision in my opinion).

4) General Vladimir Shamanov, became extremely popular for his capable performance in Chechnya and for protecting the Russian Airborne Forces from the so-called "reforms". Miraculously survives a more than bizarre traffic accident.

5) General Vladimir Kvachkov: former Spetsnaz Brigade commander. Charged twice (!) with attempting to murder Anatoly Chubais, acquitted in a jury trial twice (!) and now charged with no less than armed insurrection. Conveniently for the Kremlin, this accusation is not tried in a jury trial, but by professional judges.

I will end my list here (and before I continue, please note that I put the Wikipedia links only for your general info, not because I consider the Wikipedia entries about these generals are remotely trustworthy. In fact, all of Wikipedia is hopelessly biased and has a clear political slant - in this case, against the aforementioned generals). My point is that a long list of Russian generals die or are otherwise clearly crushed by the Kremlin but nobody shows any concern about them. Could it be because, unlike Khodorkovsky, they were trying to make Russia stronger?

All these military men had one thing in common: they were perceived as a threat to the Kremlin and they were simply (but very skillfully) murdered (or jailed, or seriously injured). This is how Putin and his clique of ex-KGB and "nouveau Mafia" thugs deal with their political opponents - ruthlessly. Yet, in this case, nobody whines. But when an undisputed thief and crook like Khodorkovsky gets slapped with a medium prison sentence the West is whining to high heaven. Why?

The answer is simple: like Berezovsky, Politkovskaya or Yushchenko, Khorodkovsky was a de-facto agent of Western political and oil interests. What he did besides embezzling money was actively assist the West in the plunder of Russian natural resources. In this sense, Khodorkovsky committed the same mistake as another notorious thief, Dzhokhar Dudaev, who was the Kremlin's darling until he dared to defy Moscow and seek to keep Chechnya's resources for himself. Then the Kremlin started a full-scale war to get rid of him.

The fact is that Putin, Medvedev & Co. are ruthless politicians who do crush their enemies in one way or another. When Eltsin his Jewish oligarch bosses were in power they were even more ruthless, much to the West's delight. Remember how Eltsin's tanks shot at the Russian Parliament building? Over 5'000 people died in this 'democratic coup', way more than on 9-11, yet the West applauded with both hands. And how many people died in the Chechen war?

Under Putin and Medvedev the oligarchs were finally given the boot by the ex-KBG officer and ex-Gazprom boss who, unlike Eltsin and the oligarchs, at least managed to return Russia into a semi-powerful position in just one decade. This is why the West is really whining: Khodorkovsky is not only a Jewish oligarch, he is the last vestige of a bygone era when Russia was a Western colony open to pillage, political manipulation and utterly incapable of standing up for itself.

This is why the sentencing of Khodorkovsky is great news for Russia - it sends a very simple message to the West: Russia is no longer your colony.....

Clearly Putin is there to preserve the interests of the oligarchs as a class. Any individual like Khordokovsky who threatens him politically will be taken out. But this is not out of principle but simple power politics.

Russian democracy was murdered in 1993 when Yeltsin sent his tanks against the White House with the full support of the West. The West may believe in freedom but only for itself. Countries like Russia are locked into periphery capitalism. Their role is to supply the center with primary products such as oil and gas and to know their place.

Zhuganov betrayed all those who voted for him in 1996 by wimping out the way he did, but he had every reason to fear being murdered. The mafia and the oligarchs were not going to allow the Left to get back in power and Zhuganov could be demonized as a commie who wanted to restore the USSR.

The Soviet Union is dead and it's never coming back but it does not follow that Russia will never achieve democracy. But it will most likely take a rising Egyptian style.

The FSB doubtless has a file on all Russian generals and for good reason, ultimately a revolution happens only if the army refuses to fire on the people.