Inexplicably Obama Withdraws Objection to Russian Transfer of Defense Missiles to Iran

BACKGROUND



THE MISSILE SYSTEM

The missile is designed to engage both modern and prospective air targets, including strategic, tactical and naval aircraft, strategic cruise missiles, air-launched missiles, tactical and battlefield ballistic missiles and other air attack weapons over a wide range of combat environments.

The 5V55R is a single-stage missile employing the normal aerodynamic configuration, with control surfaces unfolded after launch.

The missile is kept in a hermetically sealed launch canister and need not be tested and adjusted during its service life.

The missile is equipped with a highly efficient solid-propellant motor and comprises sections housing a radio direction finder, onboard control units (made as a monoblock), high-explosive fragmentation warhead, solid-propellant motor and control surface actuators.

The missile is launched vertically by the canister catapult without a preliminary turn of the launcher toward the target.

After ignition of the motor, the missile is tilted in the required direction depending on the target position.
The missile employs the track-via-missile guidance principle.

The high maneuverability of the missile and powerful high-explosive fragmentation warhead provide effective target destruction.


____________________________

OBAMA'S DEAL

U.S. Makes Concessions to Russia for Iran Sanctions
By PETER BAKER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 21, 2010 NY Times

WASHINGTON — As it sought support for international sanctions on Iran, the Obama administration gave Moscow two concessions: lifting American sanctions against the Russian military complex and agreeing not to ban the sale of Russian anti-aircraft batteries to Tehran.

The administration dropped sanctions on Friday against the Russian state arms export agency and three other Russian entities previously found to have transferred sensitive technology or weapons to Iran. The move came just three days after the United States and Russia agreed on a package of United Nations sanctions against Iran.

Russian and American officials also said Friday that while the United Nations resolution would ban many weapons sales to Iran, it would not prohibit Moscow from completing the sale of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran, a contract that Russia has suspended but not canceled. The sophisticated defensive system could help Iran shoot down American or Israeli warplanes should either try to bomb its nuclear facilities.

Russia has invented a series of reasons to delay delivery of the systems, under strong American pressure. A senior American official said Friday that other provisions of the sanctions, urging countries to exercise caution in what they deliver to Iran, would give Washington the ability to continue to urge Russia never to deliver the systems. Iran, in frustration, announced recently that it was developing a similar system that would be domestically manufactured, but outside experts said that would take years.

The concessions are the latest moves in President Obama’s effort to establish a fresh partnership with Russia after years of mutual suspicion. Last month Mr. Obama signed a new arms control treaty with Russia, and this month he revived a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement that had been shelved after Russia’s war with Georgia. Mr. Obama’s decision last year to restructure a European missile defense system was also seen by critics as a gesture to Moscow, although the president denied that.

The latest moves generated a fresh barrage of criticism from lawmakers and national security experts who said the administration was giving away too much and getting too little in return. Just this week, a bipartisan team in the House opened a legislative campaign to block the administration’s decision to bring back the civilian nuclear agreement.

Administration officials said the moves were reasonable gestures of confidence as ties improved. The decision to lift sanctions against the Russian companies was not a direct trade-off for support at the United Nations, they said, but a reflection of the increasing trust that allowed both developments. And they added that Russia had earned that trust in part by putting the S-300 sale on hold.

“What we’ve seen is a shift in Russian attitudes toward military support for Iran, and emblematic of that is the restraint with respect to delivering S-300s,” said Philip J. Crowley, the State Department spokesman. “This was not a quid pro quo, but the fact that Russia has improved its performance with respect to Iran has given us the confidence to take these steps.”

Another senior official, who is involved in the discussions but not authorized to be identified, said the administration would have liked to have banned the S-300 sale but believed it had an understanding with Russia not to proceed with it. As for the sanctions lifted on the Russian companies, he said that some of them had lapsed anyway and that they were not much to give up compared with the importance of the United Nations resolution.

“We got a major instrument to help advance what we’re trying to do vis-à-vis Iran,” the official said. “Compared to what we gave up, I think we’re in a pretty good place, and we’re certainly better off than where we were in January 2009.”

But there was bipartisan criticism of the moves. David J. Kramer, who oversaw Russia policy in President George W. Bush’s State Department, said the concessions were “premature and unwarranted” without a firm commitment not to transfer the S-300s. “A Russia transfer of those missiles would be much more significant in a negative way than a Russian vote for a watered-down resolution,” he said. “Let’s not forget that Russia supported three previous resolutions and didn’t get ‘rewarded’ for those votes.”

John R. Bolton, who was acting ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Bush, said Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, got the upper hand on the Obama team. “He sensed desperation in the Obama administration on this Iran resolution, and probably extracted all that the traffic would bear,” he said. “The only remaining question is what else he got that we don’t yet know about.”

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and co-chairman of the Nuclear Security Caucus, said that the overall trend in Russian-American relations was good but that he was not sure Moscow agreed to enough teeth in the United Nations resolution to justify the concessions.

“It’s clear Russia is extracting a huge price for its cooperation at the U.N. Security Council on the Iran sanctions,” he said in an interview. On the S-300s, he said, “It’s hard to understand why they would insist on that if they weren’t intending to deliver.”

Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, introduced a measure to reject the civilian nuclear cooperation deal on Thursday. “I believe Russia is continuing to assist Iran’s nuclear program,” he said, citing the civilian nuclear plant at Bushehr built by Russia and set to open this year. “Russia has sold Iran advanced conventional weapons and air defense systems.”

But administration officials said there was no evidence of current arms or technology transfers involving the companies freed of sanctions on Friday. Rosoboronexport, the state arms export corporation, was sanctioned in 2008 for arms sales to Iran, while the Dmitry Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology, the Moscow Aviation Institute and the Tula Instrument Design Bureau were all originally sanctioned in 1999.

Earlier this year the administration lifted sanctions on two other Russian entities, Glavkosmos and the Baltic State Technical University, both sanctioned in 1998 for helping Iran’s missile and weapons programs.

CONCLUSION?

Obama Signs Nuclear Deal with Russia. Russia has Far Larger Problems.

Evaluating the U.S.-Russia Nuclear Deal

By KEITH B. PAYNE WSJ

Today President Obama will sign a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia. Official Washington is already celebrating the so-called New START Treaty in the belief that it reduces forces below the 2002 Moscow Treaty levels and "resets" U.S.-Russian relations in the direction of greater cooperation. But the new treaty—whose actual text and accompanying legal documents were not released before the signing ceremony in Prague—may not accomplish these goals.

The administration's "fact sheet," for example, claims that the treaty will reduce the number of strategic weapons to 1,550, 30% lower than the 2002 treaty. But New START has special counting rules.

For example, there are reportedly 76 Russian strategic bombers, and each one apparently can carry from six to 16 nuclear weapons (bombs and cruise missiles). Nevertheless, and unlike under the Moscow Treaty, these many hundreds of nuclear weapons would count as only 76 toward the 1,550 ceiling. Consequently, the New START Treaty includes the potential for a large increase in the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons, not a reduction.

The administration claims, as Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher stated emphatically on March 29, that "There is no limit or constraint on what the United States can do with its missile defense systems . . . definitely, positively, and no way, no how . . ." Yet our Russian negotiating partners describe New START's constraints on missile defenses quite differently.

On March 30, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in a press conference after the G-8 foreign ministers meeting in Canada that there are obligations regarding missile defense in the treaty text and the accompanying interpretive texts that constitute "a legally binding package." He also stated at a press conference in Moscow on March 26 that "The treaty is signed against the backdrop of particular levels of strategic defensive systems. A change of these levels will give each side the right to consider its further participation in the reduction of strategic offensive armaments." Kremlin National Security Council Secretary Sergei Prikhodko told journalists in Moscow on April 2 that "The United States pledged not to remodel launchers of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-based ballistic missiles for firing interceptor missiles and vice versa."

The New START restrictions on missile defense as described by Russian officials could harm U.S. security in the future. For example, if the U.S. must increase its strategic missile defenses rapidly in response to now-unforeseen threat developments, one of the few options available could be to use Minuteman silo launchers for interceptors, either at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base or empty operational silos elsewhere. Yet, if the Russian description of New START is correct, doing so would be prohibited and the launchers themselves probably will be eliminated to meet the treaty's limitation on launchers. U.S. officials' assurances and Russian descriptions cannot both be true.

Another claim for New START is that possible concerns about the limitations on U.S. forces must be balanced against the useful limits on Russian forces. Yes, this argument goes, the U.S. will have to reduce the number of its strategic delivery vehicles—silos, submarine tubes and bombers—but in the bargain it will get the benefit of like Russian reductions.

This sounds reasonable. According to virtually all Russian sources, however, New START's agreed ceiling on strategic nuclear delivery vehicles will not require Russia to give up anything not already bound for its scrap heap.

The aging of its old Cold War arsenal and the pace of its strategic nuclear force modernization program means that Russia will remain under the New START ceiling of 700 deployed launchers with or without a new treaty. Whatever the benefit to the U.S. agreement to reduce its operational strategic force launchers, it is not to gain reciprocal Russian reductions. No such reciprocity is involved.

Some hope that New START's amicable "reset" in U.S.-Russian relations will inspire Russian help with other issues, such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, where they have been less than forthcoming. This is a vain hope, as is demonstrated by the past 40 years of strategic-arms control: Innovative strategic force agreements and reductions follow improvements in general political relations. They do not lead to them.

Finally, for many the great locus of concern about Russian nuclear weapons lies in its large arsenal of tactical (i.e., short-range) nuclear weapons. According to U.S. officials, Russia has a 10-to-one numeric advantage. In 2002, then Sens. Joe Biden and John Kerry, and the current White House Science Adviser, John Holdren, expressed great concern that the Bush administration's Moscow Treaty did not limit Russian tactical forces. One might expect, therefore, that New START would do so; but the Russians apparently were adamant about excluding tactical nuclear weapons from New START.

This omission is significant. The Russians are now more explicit and threatening about tactical nuclear war-fighting including in regional conflicts. Yet we still have no limitations on Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal. The problem may now be more severe than in 2002, but concern seems curiously to have eased.

This brief review is based on the many open descriptions of the treaty by U.S. and Russian officials. Given the apparent inconsistencies on such basic matters as whether the treaty requires weapon reductions or allows increases, or whether missile defenses are limited or untouched, the Senate will have to exercise exceptional care in reviewing the actual language of the treaty documents before drawing conclusions about their content.

Mr. Payne is head of the department of defense and strategic studies at Missouri State University, and a member of congressional Strategic Posture Commission.


Kyrgyzstan, former Soviet Republic falls

BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan — An opposition coalition in Kyrgyzstan proclaimed an interim government Thursday in the wake of clashes that left dozens dead nationwide, and said it would rule for six months before calling new elections.
Opposition leader Roza Otunbayeva said she would head the interim government, and that the parliament was dissolved. She said the new government controlled four of Kyrgyzstan's seven provinces in the Central Asian nation, which is home to a key U.S. military base that the opposition has said it wants to close.

Otunbayeva urged President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to resign after he fled the capital amid violent clashes that started on Tuesday. Thousands of protesters have clashed with security forces throughout the country, driving out local governments and on Thursday seizing government headquarters in the capital.

"His business in Kyrgyzstan is finished," she said, adding that Bakiyev has fled for the central Jalal-Abad region, where he is trying to consolidate his supporters.

Bombers Kill Policemen in Russia
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ
Published: April 5, 2010

MOSCOW — A suicide bomber killed at least two police officers in the restive North Caucasus region of Russia on Monday, officials said, the latest in a spate of such attacks, including a double bombing on the Moscow subway, that have killed more than 50 people in the last week.

In Monday’s attack, in Ingushetia, a mostly Muslim region bordering Chechnya, a bomber blew himself up next to a police car in the town of Karabulak, a statement on the Web site of the Prosecutor General’s Investigative Committee said.

Shocker from Moscow: 'Tough sanctions on Iran may be counter-productive.'

MOSCOW —threatening Tehran now with harsh new sanctions to further negotiations over its nuclear program would be “counterproductive,” Russia’s foreign minister said Tuesday, throwing cold water on the Obama administration’s hopes for a powerful ally in the global campaign to pressure Iran.

A nuclear Iran only has to prove its program is peaceful to satisfy Russia.

Iran tells Obama, 'no thanks.' Russia says stealth technology is dead. Obama shucks and jives.

The Obama administration is getting ready to kill the proposed US missile-defense system scheduled for Poland and Czech Republic. Obama thinks this will please the Petit Prince Putin.

Got it.

Russia support for Iran is the problem with Iran, yet this naive, least American President, cannot see what is happening to US security.

So baby, what's the score? Iran: 1, Russia:1, Obama -2. And the US? Big problems ahead.

________________________________


Iran snubs Barack Obama's nuclear talks

Iran has dealt a blow to one of President Barack Obama's most ambitious diplomatic initiatives by dismissing demands to put its nuclear programme at the heart of direct talks with the United States.

By Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem
Published: 7:02PM BST 13 Sep 2009 telegraph

Less than 48 hours after Washington and its allies reluctantly accepted an offer of face-to-face negotiations from Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, insisted that the topic of greatest interest to the West would not be on the table.

"From the Iranian nation's viewpoint, the nuclear case is closed," he told Britain's ambassador to Tehran, Simon Gass. "Having peaceful nuclear technology is Iran's lawful and definite right and Iranians will not negotiate with anyone over their undeniable rights."

In a rambling five-page document presented to western diplomats last week, Iran proposed negotiations on a wide array of economic and regional security issues but made no mention of its nuclear activities.

After responding with initial coolness, the United States defied expectations by taking up the offer to negotiate directly for the first time since Mr Obama came to power. The US president had promised during his election campaign to hold unconditional talks with Iran.

The decision initially appeared as though it could be vindicated after Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said he would not rule out discussing the nuclear issue, "should the conditions be right".

Despite opposition from American conservatives, the prospect of the first substantive negotiations between Washington and Tehran since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 suddenly seemed a realistic possibility.

But in his meeting with Mr Gass, who was presenting his credentials as Britain's ambassador, Mr Ahmadinejad scotched the hopes his foreign minister had raised.

He also indicated that the prospect of negotiations had made him no less combative by breaking with protocol to upbraid Britain.

"The Iranian people will never allow anybody to interfere in the country's internal affairs, and I hope the British government will repair its past mistakes," he told Mr Gass.

Iran will also come under the spotlight of human rights activists, some of whom have criticized Mr Obama for seeking direct talks with the regime, when a show trial for over 100 people accused of taking part in opposition protests after June's disputed election begins a new session.

Despite the intransigence it has encountered, the United States argues that it has no choice but to engage with Tehran.
Last month, international weapons inspectors concluded that Iran now had the capacity to produce one nuclear weapon if it were to further purify its existing stockpile of lowly enriched uranium, making the need for negotiations even more pressing.
Iran insists that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful in intent and maintains that it has as the right to develop the technology to generate electricity.

McCain Best Suited to Stand Against NeoSoviet Aggression

Over the past several years I have become increasingly wary and concerned over events in Russia and the cult of personality of Vladimir Putin. I have not counted how many posts have been made about Putin, but there have been many. The general tone presented Putin as a dangerous Soviet era thug.

Over the past three years, we have made a transition from the Schroeder-Chirac-Bush approach of inclusion with Putin, to one of increasing caution and now alarm. Europe and the US are once again reentering a twilight and dangerous period of adjustment with Russia and a Soviet revival. The "triumph of Democracy days" of the eighties and nineties is over. The world is once again devolving into spheres of influence and balance of power politics.

Putin is a tough, experienced and ruthless politician. He is leading a country that adores him and welcomes a resurgent Russia. The opposition to Putin has been crushed inside Russia. Outside of Russia is a different story. American power and leadership is once again necessary and will be appreciated. Iraq is over.

On Saturday night, I watched Obama and McCain at Saddleback Church. The comparison between an idealistic and inexperienced academic and a tough and battle-scarred veteran could not have been more obvious. You owe it to yourself to watch and compare. I enclose a brief video on the highlights of McCain.

________________________

David Cameron and John McCain are best suited to defy Russian aggression

By Janet Daley
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 18/08/2008

Telegraph

...In the United States, the story is taking a more predictable but no less riveting course. John McCain was always going to be the net gainer in a foreign crisis. Not only does he have precisely the experience - both personal and political - of coping with war and international threat, but his manner and his presence seem designed to be both reassuring and inspiring. This is a man who endured horrific torture as a prisoner of war but refused to be released earlier than the men who served under him, and who has had the political fortitude to put his own moral principles above partisan loyalty.

So if you are looking for a guy to stand up to the Russians - or anybody else, for that matter - without blinking, you are probably going to give McCain the benefit of the doubt over the very young, very untried Obama, whose experience on the world stage consists of a whirlwind series of speaking engagements.

Last Saturday night, the two contenders appeared on a platform together for the first time - not to engage in a formal presidential debate which would have been improper since neither has been formally nominated as yet, but to participate in a novel format staged by the Saddleback Church, one of the largest evangelical congregations in America.

Saddleback is a moderate outfit and its pastor, Reverend Rick Warren, is a famously benign and tolerant figure. He called his event a "civil forum" and stated specifically that his intention in chairing it was to restore civility to political discourse. He was scrupulously fair and courteous to both presumptive candidates, to whom he put the identical questions in separate interviews (out of each other's hearing). It was, as the commentator Charles Krauthammer said afterwards, a brilliant "controlled experiment" in which both men were subjected to identical examinations in identical conditions. I stayed up to watch the whole two hours of it between 1am and 3?am. It was as illuminating as any political event I have ever witnessed.

Mr Obama came first. He was, as we have come to expect, articulate, engaging and very relaxed ("comfortable in his skin", as is often said). He responded with charm if some ambiguousness to the tricky questions that arose on the evangelical heartland issues, most notably abortion, on which he is pro-choice. But the most interesting aspects of his performance (especially in retrospect when we had heard McCain) lay in what he did not say.

Asked whether he thought that evil existed and, if so, what should be done about it, he replied that it did and that we had to confront it "on our streets". The only international reference that he made in this answer was to Darfur. There was no mention of al-Qaeda, Russia or Georgia. In another answer, he described the most significant moral failing of the United States as not getting to grips with domestic poverty, racism and sexism. Asked to define the "rich" whom he has said should pay more tax so that government can improve society, he offered a figure of $250,000 a year. His performance was attractive and fluent in its own terms.

But within moments of McCain appearing to face the same queries, the Obama poise looked positively laconic and the Obama answers insubstantial. Where he had glided through the session with glib personableness, McCain electrified the hall. His answers were direct, detailed and full of the personal anecdote that his life experience has to offer.

Asked the question about evil, he cited al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism. (He would, he said, pursue Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell if necessary.) America had a moral obligation to defeat genocide wherever it occurred, and he was "very saddened by Russia's re-emergence as an empire". Georgia had achieved democracy and deserved our support. On the definition of "rich", he said that he did not want to raise taxes for anyone in tough economic times. He made it clear, too, that he supported education vouchers to allow poor children greater opportunity.

Both men answered the question, "What is worth risking lives for?", with the word "freedom", but it was McCain whose memories gave it force. Ironically, the man whose age is thought to be a liability seemed more energetic and robust than his rival, whose cool sophistication looked somehow inappropriate for the times.

An Opportunity for Europe or Wishful Thinking?

Perhaps a new Russian image would be helpful.

Controlling the new Russia requires new thinking

Observer
Sunday August 17 2008

It is clear, in the short term at least, what must happen in South Ossetia. Russia must honour its ceasefire agreement with Georgia. Russian troops must withdraw to positions they held before the current conflict erupted. Both sides must allow peacekeepers into the region and return to negotiations on the final status for the enclave. Georgia's attack on the separatists would be reversed, Russia's ostensible war aim would be achieved.

Moscow's reluctance to follow such a course proves that its war aims were more ambitious: a fundamental change in the balance of power in Europe.

It is easy to see why the Kremlin should want such a shift. At the end of the Cold War, it lost control of a vast economic-political bloc. It ceded territory to neighbouring states and saw a rival military alliance advance on its borders. Few states are easily reconciled to such a drastic shrinkage of global status.

Although Britain knows the pain of losing an empire, the more common comparison is with Germany after the First World War - humiliated, plunged into an economic crisis, followed by the emergence of an authoritarian ruler pledging to restore national pride.

Given the parallels, it is hardly surprising that many of Moscow's former satellites are nervous. They see Russia's intervention in South Ossetia as a blatant land grab. In the Kremlin's claim to be protecting the local population, they hear echoes of Hitler's professed concern for the well-being of Sudeten Germans before marching into Czechoslovakia.

That interpretation is shared, in part, by Washington. The US has responded to the South Ossetian crisis with renewed determination to hem Russia in. Its method is to press ahead with plans to include Georgia and Ukraine in Nato and to deploy anti-ballistic-missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. When, in the past, Russia has complained about the 'son of Star Wars' system, the US has insisted it is meant to deter Iran. It now looks transparently like old-fashioned Cold War escalation.

One crucial difference between the current East-West confrontation and the Cold War is that, this time, the economic ties binding the two sides are stronger. Russia needs access to Western markets; the West - and Europe in particular - needs Russian oil and gas. That creates an opportunity for the European Union, the world's largest single market, to play a moderating role, steering the conversation away from military grandstanding and towards economic negotiation.

But there is another, more worrying factor distinguishing present hostilities from the Cold War enmity. Under Soviet rule, many Russians privately shared the West's view of their leaders as thugs. But the Russian intelligentsia that secretly admired democracy has been either crushed or co-opted by Vladimir Putin.

Unlike the tired dogma of Marxist-Leninism, Mr Putin's brand of militarist nationalism enjoys genuine popular support.

Such a country will not defer to Nato out of respect for its members' status as democracies. But it might be convinced of the wisdom of settling disputes through international institutions rather than military adventurism. Inevitably, that raises allegations of Western hypocrisy. In defence of its campaign in South Ossetia, Russia cites Western actions in Kosovo and Iraq. That is neat rhetoric from the Kremlin, but as justification for its assault on Georgia it is plainly cynical. Russia's claim to be 'keeping the peace' in South Ossetia is belied by its army's penetration into undisputed Georgian territory and by credible allegations that it is facilitating atrocities by anti-Georgian militias.

Such aggression must not be rewarded. But Cold War-style brinkmanship will not make Russia's neighbours safer. It will only reinforce the Kremlin's view that small states are pawns in a strategic game. The best guarantee of security and peace in Europe since the end of the Cold War has been economic integration, achieved through the EU. It is Brussels, not Washington, that stands the best chance of persuading Moscow to change its ways.

Russia Unhinged, Needlessly.

It does not take much to rattle the inner paranoia so close and near to the Russian heart. It is always there. I don't know why it is there and to be honest it is not important. It is and that is all that matters. The Clinton and Bush Administrations needlessly and recklessly were too much in Russia's face. Nato expansion, Kosovo and missile defense were all pursued with an abandonment of thought. The thinking should have been simple, "What is the upside and what is the downside of various acts towards Russia?"

Was the expansion of Nato necessary to make Europe safer and did it make for a more reliable military partner? One only has to look at the paltry, timid and anemic participation of Germany in the Afghan war to come to the conclusion that the trade was a bad one.

The downside is apparent. Russia has become unnecessarily agitated. Nato has not been strengthened and neither has US security. The US taxpayer will foot the bill for another three or four hundred billion in unnecessary military systems that will never be used for a problem that need not to have existed. 

We won the Cold War at a considerable cost with remarkably few casualties. It is a victory and peace that should have been understood and built upon. Instead we have non-problems being raised to a crisis of confidence. What fools we have for those that rule us.


General says U.S. looking for fight
By Mike Eckel The Washington Times
December 16, 2007


Baluyevsky

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's top military officer yesterday accused the United States of seeking direct confrontation with Moscow and warned again that U.S. plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe would destabilize the continent.

Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky spoke at a joint press conference along with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak, who repeated that Russia would not increase troop levels on its western border even after suspending participation in a key arms treaty.

Among the issues that have most undermined Russian-U.S. relations in recent years is a U.S. plan to put elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic — former Warsaw Pact members that have joined NATO.

Russia has claimed the system will be used to spy on Russian missile and military forces; Washington says it will help defend Europe from a potential missile attack from Iran.

Gen. Baluyevsky said the U.S. missile defense plan would destabilize Europe and he repeated sharp warnings that Russia would respond in some fashion.

"We plan and, depending on the situation, will take appropriate and asymmetric measures aimed at preventing the deterioration of our defense capability," Gen. Baluyevsky was quoted as saying by Interfax. There was no explanation of what he meant by asymmetric.

Gen. Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, said U.S. Defense Department policies continued to challenge Moscow openly.

"The question of confrontation with Russia, mildly speaking, including direct confrontation, unfortunately has not been struck from the agenda by my colleagues at the Pentagon," he told reporters. He did not elaborate.
On Wednesday, Moscow formally suspended participation in the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaty, which limits the deployment of tanks, aircraft and other heavy weapons across the Continent.

Officials have said the moratorium was not a threat, but rather an effort to persuade NATO nations to ratify a 1999 update of the pact.

Mr. Kislyak repeated that Russia did not intend to increase its force levels on the western border despite the moratorium.

Kosovo, Will the Cesspool of Europe Overflow, Again?

The Russians just want to be helpful.

Kosovo: the heat is on
Posted by Harry de Quetteville on 25 Oct 2007 at 14:51 Telegraph

Kosovo is bubbling up again. It's easy to write it off as a grim wasteland of economic gloom, bureaucratic stagnation and seemingly the world's entire collection of discarded plastic bags.

But it's worth remembering that this is in the centre of Europe, a two and a half flight from London. There are still 17,000 NATO soldiers there, keeping the peace. Come December they might really have to start earning their corn.

December 10th is the deadline for the last, of last ditch, final (honestly) talks between Serbia and Kosovo's ethnic Albanian leadership to sort out a future for the place.

You will remember that though ethnically Kosovo is 9/10ths Albanian, it is a province of Serbia. And a cherished province at that. Kosovo separatist and Serb forces dispatched by Slobodan Milosevic fought a war there in 1999 until NATO jumped in and drove out the Serbs.

Since then it’s been administered mostly by the UN. And nothing has happened, nothing has changed. The Serbs are willing to let Kosovo be autonomous, the ethnic Albanians want nothing short of independence. There is no deal.

What is the difference between autonomy and independence? Not a huge amount, but, crucially, combustible notions like pride, history, and nationhood.

The ramifications of failure are huge.

A poll this week suggests Serbia's government will collapse over Kosovo. Now the current Serbian government, filled with 'moderate hardliners' (I love that phrase) like Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica may not seem very appetising. But it is a lot better than the hardline hardliners, like Tomislav Nikolic, leader of the Radical party.

To give you a sense of nationalist sentiment in Serbia, The Radicals won elections earlier this year. It's the biggest party, but isn’t in power because it couldn't form a majority government. Nikolic is only in charge because official leader Vojislav Šešelj is in the Hague charged with war crimes.

Then there is Russia, which backs its traditional ally Serbia in wanting to keep Kosovo. Earlier this week a Russian diplomat said that independence for Kosovo would set a "precedent" which could see Abkhazia and South Ossetia break away from rival Georgia.

Instability in the Balkans and instability in the Caucasus can be a recipe for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

So hold on to your hat. Kosovo may seem boring now, as the diplomats shuttle around for yet more negotiations. But it might get pretty interesting soon.

Dangerously so.

US and Russia - No Love Lost - Part One

THE RUSSIA PROBLEM
By Peter Zeihan, Stratfor.com

For the past several days, high-level Russian and American policymakers, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Russian President Vladimir Putin's right-hand man, Sergei Ivanov, have been meeting in Moscow to discuss the grand scope of U.S.-Russian relations. These talks would be of critical importance to both countries under any circumstances, as they center on the network of treaties that have governed Europe since the closing days of the Cold War.

Against the backdrop of the Iraq war, however, they have taken on far greater significance. Both Russia and the United States are attempting to rewire the security paradigms of key regions, with Washington taking aim at the Middle East and Russia more concerned about its former imperial territory. The two countries' visions are mutually incompatible, and American preoccupation with Iraq is allowing Moscow to overturn the geopolitics of its backyard.

The Iraqi Preoccupation

After years of organizational chaos, the United States has simplified its plan for Iraq: Prevent Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Once-lofty thoughts of forging a democracy in general or supporting a particular government were abandoned in Washington well before the congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. Reconstruction is on the back burner and even oil is now an afterthought at best. The entirety of American policy has been stripped down to a single thought: Iran.

That thought is now broadly held throughout not only the Bush administration but also the American intelligence and defense communities. It is not an unreasonable position. An American exodus from Iraq would allow Iran to leverage its allies in Iraq's Shiite South to eventually gain control of most of Iraq. Iran's influence also extends to significant Shiite communities on the Persian Gulf's western oil-rich shore. Without U.S. forces blocking the Iranians, the military incompetence of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar could be perceived by the Iranians as an invitation to conquer that shore. That would land roughly 20 million barrels per day of global oil output -- about one-quarter of the global total -- under Tehran's control. Rhetoric aside, an outcome such as this would push any U.S. president into a broad regional war to prevent a hostile power from shutting off the global economic pulse.

So the United States, for better or worse, is in Iraq for the long haul. This requires some strategy for dealing with the other power with the most influence in the country, Iran. This, in turn, leaves the United States with two options: It can simply attempt to run Iraq as a protectorate forever, a singularly unappealing option, or it can attempt to strike a deal with Iran on the issue of Iraq -- and find some way to share influence.

Since the release of the Petraeus report in September, seeking terms with Iran has become the Bush administration's unofficial goal, but the White House does not want substantive negotiations until the stage is appropriately set. This requires that Washington build a diplomatic cordon around Iran -- intensifying Tehran's sense of isolation -- and steadily ratchet up the financial pressure. Increasing bellicose rhetoric from European capitals and the lengthening list of major banks that are refusing to deal with Iran are the nuts and bolts of this strategy.

Not surprisingly, Iran views all this from a starkly different angle. Persia has historically been faced with a threat of invasion from its western border -- with the most recent threat manifesting in a devastating 1980-1988 war that resulted in a million deaths. The primary goal of Persia's foreign policy stretching back a millennium has been far simpler than anything the United States has cooked up: Destroy Mesopotamia. In 2003, the United States was courteous enough to handle that for Iran.

Now, Iran's goals have expanded and it seeks to leverage the destruction of its only meaningful regional foe to become a regional hegemon. This requires leveraging its Iraqi assets to bleed the Americans to the point that they leave. But Iran is not immune to pressure. Tehran realizes that it might have overplayed its hand internationally, and it certainly recognizes that U.S. efforts to put it in a noose are bearing some fruit. What Iran needs is its own sponsor -- and that brings to the Middle East a power that has not been present there for quite some time: Russia.

Option One: Parity

The Russian geography is problematic. It lacks oceans to give Russia strategic distance from its foes and it boasts no geographic barriers separating it from Europe, the Middle East or East Asia. Russian history is a chronicle of Russia's steps to establish buffers -- and of those buffers being overwhelmed. The end of the Cold War marked the transition from Russia's largest-ever buffer to its smallest in centuries. Put simply, Russia is terrified of being overwhelmed -- militarily, economically, politically and culturally -- and its policies are geared toward re-establishing as large a buffer as possible.

As such, Russia needs to do one of two things. The first is to re-establish parity. As long as the United States thinks of Russia as an inferior power, American power will continue to erode Russian security. Maintain parity and that erosion will at least be reduced. Putin does not see this parity coming from a conflict, however. While Russia is far stronger now -- and still rising -- than it was following the 1998 ruble crash, Putin knows full well that the Soviet Union fell in part to an arms race. Attaining parity via the resources of a much weaker Russia simply is not an option.

So parity would need to come via the pen, not the sword. A series of three treaties ended the Cold War and created a status of legal parity between the United States and Russia. The first, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), restricts how much conventional defense equipment each state in NATO and the former Warsaw Pact, and their successors, can deploy. The second, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), places a ceiling on the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that the United States and Russia can possess. The third, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), eliminates entirely land-based short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles with ranges of 300 to 3,400 miles, as well as all ground-launched cruise missiles from NATO and Russian arsenals.

The constellation of forces these treaties allow do not provide what Russia now perceives its security needs to be. The CFE was all fine and dandy in the world in which it was first negotiated, but since then every Warsaw Pact state -- once on the Russian side of the balance sheet -- has joined NATO. The "parity" that was hardwired into the European system in 1990 is now lopsided against the Russians.

START I is by far the Russians' favorite treaty, since it clearly treats the Americans and Russians as bona fide equals. But in the Russian mind, it has a fateful flaw: It expires in 2009, and there is about zero support in the United States for renewing it. The thinking in Washington is that treaties were a conflict management tool of the 20th century, and as American power -- constrained by Iraq as it is -- continues to expand globally, there is no reason to enter into a treaty that limits American options. This philosophical change is reflected on both sides of the American political aisle: Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations have negotiated a new full disarmament treaty.

Finally, the INF is the worst of all worlds for Russia. Intermediate-range missiles are far cheaper than intercontinental ones. If it does come down to an arms race, Russia will be forced to turn to such systems if it is not to be left far behind an American buildup.

Russia needs all three treaties to be revamped. It wants the CFE altered to reflect an expanded NATO. It wants START I extended (and preferably deepened) to limit long-term American options. It wants the INF explicitly linked to the other two treaties so that Russian options can expand in a pinch -- or simply discarded in favor of a more robust START I.

The problem with the first option is that it assumes the Americans are somewhat sympathetic to Russian concerns. They are not.

Recall that the dominant concern in the post-Cold War Kremlin is that the United States will nibble along the Russian periphery until Moscow itself falls. The fear is as deeply held as it is accurate. Only three states have ever threatened the United States: The first, the United Kingdom, was lashed into U.S. global defense policy; the second, Mexico, was conquered outright; and the third was defeated in the Cold War. The addition of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltic states to NATO, the basing of operations in Central Asia and, most important, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine have made it clear to Moscow that the United States plays for keeps.

The Americans see it as in their best interest to slowly grind Russia into dust. Those among our readers who can identify with "duck and cover" can probably relate to the logic of that stance. So, for option one to work, Russia needs to have leverage elsewhere. That elsewhere is in Iran.

Via the U.N. Security Council, Russian cooperation can ensure Iran's diplomatic isolation. Russia's past cooperation on Iran's Bushehr nuclear power facility holds the possibility of a Kremlin condemnation of Iran's nuclear ambitions. A denial of Russian weapons transfers to Iran would hugely empower ongoing U.S. efforts to militarily curtail Iranian ambitions. Put simply, Russia has the ability to throw Iran under the American bus -- but it will not do it for free. In exchange, it wants those treaties amended in its favor, and it wants American deference on security questions in the former Soviet Union.

The Moscow talks of the past week were about addressing all of Russian concerns about the European security structure, both within and beyond the context of the treaties, with the offer of cooperation on Iran as the trade-off. After days of talks, the Americans refused to budge on any meaningful point.

Next Part Two - Pressure and Mischief
From Stratfor.com.

McCain is Getting Back on Target

Take out Russia and Replace with India.

McCain would exclude Russia from G8 nations
Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:45pm EDT

Reuters

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Monday if elected he would push to exclude Russia from the Group of Eight conclave of major industrial nations to punish Moscow for rolling back political freedoms.

"We need a new Western approach to this revanchist Russia," McCain wrote in a Foreign Affairs magazine article outlining his views on foreign policy looking ahead to the November 2008 election.

The Group of Eight, known as the G8, includes the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, Japan and Russia. Their leaders gather each year in one of their countries to discuss major economic and political challenges facing the globe.

Russia is a fairly recent entry into the group, joining the Group of Seven in 1997, and President Vladimir Putin played host to the annual G8 summit in St. Petersburg in 2006.

McCain, an Arizona senator who frequently denigrates Putin, said the G8 should again become "a club of leading market democracies: It should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia."

"Today, we see in Russia diminishing political freedoms, a leadership dominated by a clique of former intelligence officers, efforts to bully democratic neighbors, such as Georgia, and attempts to manipulate Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas," McCain wrote.

At age 71 trying to become the oldest American to win a first term as president, McCain said the challenges facing the country are such that "there will be no time for on-the-job training."

McCain sought to distance himself from the foreign policies of President George W. Bush in the article, never mentioning the current president, while singling out Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, for praise for forming a broad international coalition during the Gulf War of the early 1990s.

He said years of "mismanagement and failure in Iraq" are proof that the United States should go to war only with sufficient troop levels and with a realistic and comprehensive plan for success.

But he said the current U.S. troop build-up is working in Iraq and should be pursued, dismissing Democratic candidates who promise a quick pullout.

"The war in Iraq cannot be wished away, and it is a miscalculation of historic magnitude to believe that the consequence of failure will be limited to one administration or one party," he wrote.

McCain said if elected he would set up a new intelligence agency patterned after the Office of Strategic Services, the World War Two predecessor to the CIA, to fight "terrorist subversion around the world and in cyberspace."

"It could take risks that our bureaucracies today rarely consider taking -- such as deploying infiltrating agents without diplomatic cover in terrorist states and organizations -- and play a key role in frontline efforts to rebuild failed states," he said.

To fight climate change, McCain said he would do what the current administration has refused to do. He would agree to set reasonable caps on emissions of carbon dioxide and provide industries with tradable emissions credits.

China and Russia Weave a Web of Dollars

Gulliver taking it in the shorts.

The US trade deficit and foreign oil dependence is a national security threat of unprecedented historical impact. The combination has invigorated China and Russia, two natural and hostile enemies of the US. A Republican, Richard Nixon, started the process with China and a Republican, George W. Bush, misread the intentions of Putin's Neo-Soviet Russia. Hardly a day goes by without news of a Russian military revival played to the background music of a Chinese economic and security web being weaved globally and particularly in the Americas. The benign neglect of American interests by the Bush Administration in trade and energy policy is particularly troubling and will require a massive re-think by future political leaders.

From the Washington Times:


Chavez signals satellite plans
By Martin Arostegui
September 13, 2007

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says his nation plans to launch "the Simon Bolivar satellite" now being built in China as part of plans to develop an integrated ground- and space-based air defense — presumably against the United States.

"We have 100 satellite technicians training in China who be back in the next few months. The radars, tracking stations and air defenses are being installed right now," Mr. Chavez said this week on his television talk show, "Hello President."

With the Chinese ambassador present for the performance, Mr. Chavez made extensive comments on Venezuela's growing ties with China in areas such as oil exports and national defense.

"In less than a year, we will be launching the Simon Bolivar satellite with China" he said.

His statements highlight China's expanding military ties with Latin America at a time of increasing concern about Chinese capabilities to wage electronic warfare.

"The U.S. needs to be alert to rapidly expanding Chinese capabilities particularly in the field of intelligence, communications and cyber-warfare and their particular application in the region," said former U.S. assistant secretary of defense for the Western Hemisphere, Roger Pardo Maurer, in recent congressional testimony.

"We would encourage other nations in the hemisphere to take a close look at how such activities can be used against their own countries and the United States," the Pentagon official said.

China has moved into a vacuum created with the election of leftist, anti-American governments throughout Latin America, Venezuela being the most prominent example.

Close ties have been forged with Venezuela through repeated visits by senior Chinese officials who have expressed support for Mr. Chavez's efforts to establish a socialist one-party state.

China has developed space programs with Brazil and Argentina and a military exchange program with Ecuador, whose president, Rafael Correa, wants to close the U.S. base in Manta.

Beijing also is cultivating military ties with Mexico, Peru, Chile and various Caribbean countries. In addition, it operates an electronic eavesdropping station in Cuba.

Mr. Chavez said that once the Venezuelan engineers return from China, they will operate air defenses being built with Chinese and Russian technology.

Venezuela has purchased Chinese JYL-1 mobile air-defense radars that would interface with satellites to monitor the airspace around Venezuela, reaching nearly 250 miles into the Caribbean, Colombia and Panama, Mr. Chavez said.

He said the system that will be integrated with anti-aircraft missiles and become completely operational in two years.

Mr. Chavez, who claims the U.S. has attempted to assassinate him and often warns of an Iraq-style U.S. invasion of Venezuela, already has the most powerful air force in South America with his recent acquisition of 24 Sukhoi Su-30 fighters from Russia.

He also is negotiating the purchase of nine Russian submarines.

Some analysts argue that China's new defense relationship with Latin America also is geared toward protecting its growing commercial and economic interests in the area.

China has invested heavily in Venezuela's oil industry as part of efforts to gain ever greater access to energy sources.

They are jointly planning a pipeline through Panama to pump 800,000 barrels of oil a day to Pacific ports. This would allow a vast increase in Venezuelan exports to China at the possible expense of the U.S.

Russians remind the World that US not all that bad afterall.

You can always depend on the heavy handed Dour Power to come to the rescue of the US image abroad. During the Cold War, Moscow was always available to invade a European country or two or scare the the schnitzels out of the Germans. The US, could never quite trump Russian clumsiness and stupidity, although we did give them a good run. Never underestimate Yankee ingenuity. I was worried for a bit that that there really once was such a thing as a "soviet." Fear not they were merely Russians in bad clothes.

They are back.

Putin, soul exposed to the world, has turned off gas supplies, threatened Europe with new missiles, murdered businessmen, journalists and political opponents and in general has reminded just about everyone, save Compassionate George, that he is the little KGB smug thug he always was.

The latest stunt is Russia claiming the North Pole and yes sports fans they are serious. The Russians are always serious.

Russia Arctic Grab Mission Nears Its Finale

MOSCOW, Aug. 1: An ambitious Russian expedition intended to symbolically claim rich Arctic resources for Moscow was expected to reach the North Pole today ~ part of the Kremlin’s efforts to strengthen the nation’s energy power and expand its global clout.
The planned dive by two mini-submarines to the depth of more than 4,000 metres, or more than 13,200 feet, is intended to prop up Moscow’s claims to almost 1.2 million square kilometres (more than 460,000 square miles) of the Arctic shelf ~ which by some estimates contains 10 billion tons of oil and gas deposits.
The expedition is taking place amid an intensifying rivalry between Russia, the USA, Canada and other nations whose shores face the northern polar ocean for vast potential riches hidden in the Arctic.
About 100 scientists aboard the orange-coloured Akademik Fyodorov research ship are specifically looking for evidence that the Lomonosov Ridge ~ a 2,000 kilometre (1,240 mile) underwater mountain ridge that crosses the polar region is a geologic extension of Russia, and therefore can be claimed by Russia under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. After reaching the sea floor under the North Pole, Russia’s mini-subs will leave a titanium capsule containing the Russian flag. The subs will also collect specimens of Arctic flora and fauna and videotape the dives. The most difficult part of the mission will be getting back precisely to the ice-free point of departure to avoid being trapped under a thick ice crust.

AP

Returning to a Theatre Near You?

Paranoia rests deeply in the Russian soul. That will never change. This is probably just some more Russian silliness, but it may be helpful in reminding the Europeans who their friends are. You may want to re-look at General Dynamics stock.

Russia pulls out of key arms pact BBC

Russia says that the CFE treaty has become "meaningless"
Russian President Vladimir Putin has suspended involvement in one of the key post-Cold War arms control treaties.
In a statement, the Kremlin said the choice was due to "extraordinary circumstances" affecting security.

Russia has been angered by US plans to base parts of a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty limits the number of heavy weapons deployed between the Atlantic Ocean and the Urals mountains.

'Cornerstone'

A Nato spokesperson said that the alliance's secretary general would "very much regret the decision" if confirmed.

"The allies consider this treaty to be an important cornerstone of European security," he said.

In a separate interview, Nato spokesperson James Appathurai told the BBC the move was "a disappointing step in the wrong direction".

Russia's new foreign policy

The CFE agreement, one of the key Cold War European security accords, was signed eight years after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved.

It sets limits for the number of tanks, heavy artillery and combat aircraft, as well as troops, deployed in the region.

The BBC's Europe editor, Mike Saunders, says that the US announcement of its plans for a missile defence shield within Europe was the last straw for Russia.

Mr Putin saw the plans as further unbalancing a treaty that already limits the conventional arms Russia can deploy on its own territory.

The Kremlin maintains that the 1990 treaty is outdated and restricts its ability to move troops around its own territory.

Russia ratified the 1999 revised version, but Nato has not done so.

Nato is first demanding the withdrawal of Russian forces from two breakaway regions with Russia-speaking majorities - Abkhazia in Georgia and Trans-Dniester in Moldova.

Naked Cyber Aggression from Russia

No, I did not make this up.

Russia accused of unleashing cyberwar to disable Estonia


· Parliament, ministries, banks, media targeted
· Nato experts sent in to strengthen defences

Ian Traynor in Brussels
Thursday May 17, 2007
The Guardian

A three-week wave of massive cyber-attacks on the small Baltic country of Estonia, the first known incidence of such an assault on a state, is causing alarm across the western alliance, with Nato urgently examining the offensive and its implications.
While Russia and Estonia are embroiled in their worst dispute since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a row that erupted at the end of last month over the Estonians' removal of the Bronze Soldier Soviet war memorial in central Tallinn, the country has been subjected to a barrage of cyber warfare, disabling the websites of government ministries, political parties, newspapers, banks, and companies.


Nato has dispatched some of its top cyber-terrorism experts to Tallinn to investigate and to help the Estonians beef up their electronic defences.
"This is an operational security issue, something we're taking very seriously," said an official at Nato headquarters in Brussels. "It goes to the heart of the alliance's modus operandi."

Alarm over the unprecedented scale of cyber-warfare is to be raised tomorrow at a summit between Russian and European leaders outside Samara on the Volga.

While planning to raise the issue with the Russian authorities, EU and Nato officials have been careful not to accuse the Russians directly.

If it were established that Russia is behind the attacks, it would be the first known case of one state targeting another by cyber-warfare.

The Rest of the Story

Secretary Rice - Keeping it Real for the Russians

The Yahoo headline is "Rice says missles no threat to Russia" and the question immediately brought to my mind is, "What the hell is going on?" How could things have gone so bad? It's like when, out of the blue, your girlfriend says she doesn't want to see you anymore. Stunned by the news, you say, "But I thought we had such a good thing going, what happened? "

How could things have gone so bad, so quickly? It seems like just yesterday that Vlad and the Missus were coming over for barbecues and brewskies. Now, like the "Sopranos," they put the squeeze on their former satellites, they shakedown on oil company "partners" and they whack more people than Good fellas. Last year, they were breaking into parking meters and all of a sudden, they're flush with energy money. I heard a BBC radio report that Moscow now has 60 billionaires. In the early nineties, they had none. Today they have more billionaires than any city in the world. Fox News reported that 25% of the Russian GDP is held by 36 individuals. Moscow is all about money and energy power.

Fox reported a Putin anti-American rant today. He claims that the US is destabilizing eastern Europe. Secretary Rice says that's ludicrous, we only have ten anti-missile batteries placed along the eastern European borders. Fox says that Putin is intentionally "poisoning" relations with the west.

What happened? Was George W. completely off base in his assessment of Putin? Was Putin secretly harboring resentment over US involvement in Afghanistan? And how did Russia go from 'down and out' to resurgent in such a short period of time? Of course, soaring oil prices helped but did our intelligence agencies miss it when the KGB "old boys club" decided that the "democracy thing" wasn't working out? Did the State Department think the Russians had forgotten about 30,000 dead in Afghanistan? I don't know. Is Putin positioning himself with the Arab oil world? That's all waaay above my pay grade.

I'll let the State Department sort it out. After all, everyone knows that's where the real brains of the country serve. Forget about the Intelligence agencies, those guys barely got their GED's. (If we had only listened to the diplomatic boys prior to the invasion of Iraq.) I am just thankful that that Secretary Rice is on the job. Being a "Russian studies expert" from the old cold-war days, she's the perfect hand to have at the tiller. I feel quite certain that once she turns her mind to it, she'll have the Putins back in Crawford in no time. Just look at the wonderful job she did with the Israelis and Lebanon.

Why I am wrong about Russia.

We need Russia in the G8
John Kirton, National Post
Published: Friday, April 20, 2007

With the approach of the annual G8 summit, this year being held in Germany, some critics are questioning whether Russia belongs in this exclusive democratic club. These include National Post columnist Lorne Gunter, whose column on the subject appeared recently in these pages ("Expel Russia from the G8," April 18). Some claim Russia is returning to totalitarianism and should be shunned until it meets certain democratic standards. Others think it is essential to curb Russia's increasing economic power. Both ideas are deeply flawed.

Those who would remove Russia from the G8 forget that this strategy of exclusion failed at the League of Nations, and thereby helped bring about the horrors of the Holocaust and the Second World War. They also forget that Russia's democratic revolution, unlike the bloody events in the United States in 1776 and France in 1789, was not a revolution from the streets but from the top, with Boris Yeltsin and then Vladimir Putin trying to impose political openness on a bureaucracy and society that had never enjoyed it before. Such a process will take some time to succeed -- a fact that should be understood by those other G8 members with a parliamentary tradition that was built up over many centuries.

Nor would the world be better off with a reprise of the old Cold War. Countries fighting to free democratic Afghanistan from terrorists would not want a rival superpower supplying surface-to-air missiles to the Taliban (in payback for what the West did to invading Soviet armies 25 years ago). Moreover, Russia is by far the best positioned G8 power to talk North Korea and Iran out of their nuclear ambitions, and to put pressure on Tehran regarding its support for Islamist terrorists. It is the only country that can get the Serbs to accept a settlement on Kosovo.

Russia's surging oil revenues have, under Putin's guidance, eliminated the instability that plagued the country in the 1990s, when the old G7 members regarded Russia as a thirdworld country with nuclear arms. Russia's oil wealth has moved it from a consumer to a producer of development assistance, and Moscow is now aiding poor countries in Africa. Russia's refusal thus far to create a natural gas cartel alongside OPEC further helps poor hydrocarbon consumers around the world. And as the G8 member most responsible for bringing the Kyoto Protocol on climate change into life, Russia is central to the outcome of this important global issue.

True, a responsible Russia globally does require an ever more democratic Russia domestically. Yet here, too, Russia's G8 membership has proven its worth. As G8 host in 2006, Russia mounted the most well organized, open, inclusive process for global civil society participation in the G8 since the club was created in 1975. It helped produce a G8 meeting with greater respect for environmental values and social cohesion. It is also worth noting that this same G8 meeting witnessed a frank dialogue among the leaders, initiated by President Putin, about the condition and future of democracy in Russia itself.

This sort of dialogue is far more productive for the world than shouting Cold War slogans through a new Iron Curtain. And that is what we would wind up with if the West kicked the Russians out of the G8 club. - Prof. John Kirton is director of the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto.

© National Post 2007

Why is Russia still in the G-8? Kick them out.

Riot police officers detain Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov

Please explain to me why we continue to pretend that Vladimir Putin is anything other than the retro-communist thug that he is? The only point to giving Russia the status of a normal state was to help make Russia a normal state. That is not happening and it is getting worse. At least the West should remove the prestige that Putin clearly enjoys from the pretense.

Let the Russians be swallowed by the Chinese or make their lot with the Iranians and Venezuelans. It would be good riddance.

European Press Review: The Kremlin Shows Its True Color
Deutche Welle

The crackdown on anti-Kremlin protestors sparked international condemnation

A sign of "weakness" or blatant disregard for international opinion? European newpapers have reacted to the beating and arrest of hundreds of Russian protesters, including opposition politician Garry Kasparov.

French newspaper Le Figaro expressed surprise at the events in Russia in the light of Putin's domestic support."The friends of Kasparov will not gain any popularity because their demonstrations are suppressed. The tough actions of the police will not trigger a wave of protest against those in power. Nevertheless, the Kremlin is showing an astonishing weakness by reacting so rigorously to the smallest sign of protest," muses the paper.

Austrian newspaper Die Presse also wondered why the Kremlin had acted so brutally: "You really ask yourself whether the people in power in Moscow are completely crazy. Apparently, President Putin continues to have the backing of 70 percent and more of the population. What are he and his technocrats afraid of?"

Riot police officers detain Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov
It added later: "If this small heap of civil and human rights campaigners, liberals, national bolchevists and anarchists really frightens the Putinists so much that they deploy a whole army of police against them, then their power base isn't looking rosy (…) In that case, this demonstration of power from the Kremlin has actually revealed its weakness."

Bulgarian newspaper Dnewnik described the beatings and arrests as par for the course. "Really no one should be surprised. It is enough to remember that the Russian President is a former KGB agent and that 90 percent of the leadership in today's Russia are a product of the former secret services."

Swiss newspaper Basler Zeitung argued Putin was attempting to deter what had happened in parts of the former Soviet Union. "From the point of view of the governing regime of President Vladimir Putin this makes perfect sense. (…) The Kremlin has learnt its lesson from the peaceful revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine where after blatant vote rigging, protest rallies quickly gained momentum and led to the toppling of the respective governments. He wants to keep the protests as small as possible and incite fear among normal citizens."

But the paper also questioned whether this approach would really work. "It may work in the short-term," it wrote. "But in the long-term this was rarely a healthy political strategy."

Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende was damning about Russia's political system. "You have to be completely blind or excessively tolerant not to see that there is something wrong with Russia. Just a year before the elections that mark the end of President Putin's time in office, he has this country so firmly in his grip that democracy is just a shell."

The paper calls upon the international community to do more. "The EU and the US could happily exercise more pressure than is the case at the moment. Putin can carry out his actions largely unhindered".

Finally, German newspaper Die Welt also urged the West not to beat about the bush. The paper says any misguided sense of respect or fear of having Russia energy supplies cut should not stop the international community from taking action. "The West owes it to the dissidents in Putin's empire to speak openly."

DW-World.DE

The Destruction of Freedom in Russia

Here's an interesting excerpt from a speech in the January issue of Hillsdale College's Imprimus.

Freedom vs. Non-Freedom: View from Russia
Andrei Illarionov
Former Chief Economic Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation


The Destruction of Freedom in Russia

The story of the destruction of freedom in my own country, Russia, is sad. But this story should be told, should be known, and should be remembered—to avoid repeating it and in order one day to reverse it.

First, there was an assault on the people of Chechnya. Many Russian people thought that it was not their business to defend the freedom of the Chechen people. People in Chechnya lost their independence, their political rights and many of them—their lives. Many Russians lost their lives as well.

Then there was an assault on the Russian media. This time many Russian people thought that it was not their business to defend the freedom of the media. As a result, the media lost its independence—first television channels, then radio stations and newspapers. And now the censors are turning their attention to the Internet.

Then there was an assault on private business. Many Russian people thought that it was not their business to defend the freedom of private business. So private business has lost its independence and has become subjugated to the caprice of the executive power. This has been accomplished through so-called PPPs or public private partnerships, but it would be more correct to call what is happening CPC—coercion of private business by the corporation in power.

Then there was an assault on the independence of political parties. Many Russian people thought that it was not their business to defend the independence of political parties. As a result, independent national political parties ceased to exist.

Then there was an assault on the independence of the judiciary. Many Russian people thought that it was not their business to defend the independence of the judiciary. Now, there are no more independent courts or judges in Russia.

Then there was an assault on the election of regional governors. Many Russian people thought that it was not their business to defend free elections of regional governors. Today, regional governors are appointed by the president, and there are no more independent regional authorities in the country.

Then there was an assault on the independence of non-governmental and religious organizations. Finally, some people tried to defend the freedom of these organizations, but it was too late. And now even those who want to resist have neither the resources nor the institutions required to fight back. As a result, Russia has ceased to be politically free. For 2005, Freedom House’s Freedom in the World ranks Russia 168th out of 192 countries. Transparency International’s Global Corruption Report ranks Russia 126th out of 159 countries. The World Economic Forum calculates that Russia is 85th (among 108 countries) in avoiding favoritism in government decisions, 88th (also of 108) in its protection of property rights, and 84th (of 102) when measured by the independence of the judicial system. The Russian government could form another G-8 with countries that destroyed the fundamental institutions of modern government and civil society as quickly as it did over the past 15 years by partnering with Nepal, Belarus, Tajikistan, Gambia, the Solomon Islands, Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

What is the Russian government doing now, when it has destroyed freedom and achieved next to full control over Russian society? Is it stopping its assaults? No. It continues them, both within and beyond Russia’s borders. Inside the country, the government has started a campaign against human rights. It has created and financed detachments of storm troopers—the movements “Nashi” (“Our Own”), “Mestnye” (“Locals”), and Molodaya gvardiya” (“Young Guard”)—which are being taught and trained to harass and beat political and intellectual opponents of the current regime. The days for which these storm troopers are especially trained will come soon—during the parliamentary and presidential elections in 2007 and 2008. Beyond Russia’s national borders, the government provides economic, financial, political, intellectual and moral support to new friends: leaders of non-free countries such as Belarus, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Myanmar, Algeria, Iran, and Palestinian Hamas. At the same time, Russia is attempting to destroy hard-won freedom and democracy in neighboring countries. Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia find themselves in a new cold war as Russian authorities pursue hostile policies involving visas, poultry imports, electricity, natural gas, pipelines, wine, and even mineral water. The Russian government has just started a full-scale blockade of Georgia. Meanwhile, the state-controlled Russian media has launched a propaganda war against Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Baltic countries, Europe and the United States.

What do non-free countries have in common? What unites such disparate countries as Nepal, Belarus, Tajikistan, the Solomon Islands, Gambia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Cuba, Myanmar, and yes, now Russia? Only one thing: war, in which governments take away property and destroy society, in which they send people to camps or kill them solely because they have a different perception of the world, of faith, of law, and of their homeland. Only through hatred, fear, and electoral violence can these governments hold on to what is dearest to them—absolute power. Without freedom there can be no open discussion of topics of national and international importance. There is an exclusion from public life of conversation about the most important matters. This primitivizes public life, degrades society, and weakens the state. The politics of non-freedom is the politics of public impoverishment and of the retardation of the country’s economic growth.

The greatest practical lesson of Russia’s recent history is that freedom is indivisible. The failure of freedom in one sphere makes it harder to defend freedom in other areas. Likewise, the fall of freedom in one country is a blow to global freedom. The inability to defend freedom yesterday comes back to haunt us at a great price today and perhaps an even greater price tomorrow.

“Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu.”

Iranian and Russian love affair develops a rash.

The Endgame Moscow Should Have Expected
By Georgy Bovt, The Moscow Times

Russia's relations with Iran have come to resemble its relations with Belarus. In both cases, the each side started out assuring the world of how much they had in common, how mutually advantageous their relationship was, and how they had established an equitable partnership. Most of all, they unfailingly added that all of this had been achieved in spite of the West, and the United States in particular.

Then these wonderful relationships unexpectedly began to fall apart. The declarations of love were replaced by accusations of underhandedness and evil intentions.

This happened with Belarus at the end of last year, when Russia got fed up with subsidizing its economy by selling it oil and gas at bargain prices. In a snap, all thoughts of Slavic brotherhood were forgotten as each side accused the other of acting in bad faith and Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko attempted to blackmail Moscow by threatening to establish independent relations with the West. A similar problem appears imminent between Moscow and Tehran.

The problems with Iran date also to the end of last year, when reports began to surface that Iran was late on payments to Russia for the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Iran blamed the delay on its decision to convert its cash reserves from dollars into Euros. Two months have since passed without the promised payment, and Russia has declared it will halt construction on the Bushehr station. The Iranians provided assurances that some payment had been made, but that no further money would change hands until Russia delivered the first shipment of nuclear fuel. Moscow answered that deliveries of fuel were pointless at this stage, as the reactor was not yet ready to receive it.


This all look like political gamesmanship, especially given Washington's support for Moscow's calls that Iran stick to its contractual obligations. After all, business is business and the Iranians should accept that a contract is a contract.

There is also the creeping suspicion that Moscow is using the late payments as an excuse to pull out of the controversial Bushehr project altogether. Washington has long demanded just this, and blaming Tehran for everything would allow Russia to pull the plug without appearing to have bowed to U.S. pressure.

In a situation like this, most Soviet leaders would have waived the contractual obligations and finished building the plant just to spite the United States. But the current crew in the Kremlin isn't as interested in "altruistic" projects, and when the price tag for opposing U.S. policy becomes prohibitively high, it tends to opt for pragmatism. Nobody -- or at least nobody in Russia -- is ready to foot the bill for the Bushehr power plant.

Iran's motives are unclear at first glance. The Iranian government owes Russia something in the neighborhood of $200 million to $250 million, a sum it could produce instantly if it wanted to. The ultimatum regarding fuel deliveries appears to be deliberately impracticable, which gives the impression that the Iranians themselves are now less interested completing the construction at Bushehr. This could be because the project has become a political lightning rod. Iran doesn't want to incur any increased obligations in its relationship with Moscow or join it in an anti-U.S. crusade. It doesn't want to become dependent on Russia for its nuclear energy program as it doesn't entirely trust Moscow. The money withheld from Russia will probably be set aside for a different plant or to enable the Iranians to finish the Bushehr project themselves.

Russia comes out the loser here. It tried to play the "Iranian card" by building a special relationship with an unpredictable, fanatical regime strongly opposed to the United States. This was Moscow's way of demonstrating its independence or, using the terminology currently in fashion in the Kremlin, its "sovereignty" in foreign policy.

But one particular characteristic of authoritarian or dictatorial regimes -- whether run by Iranian mullahs or by a former chairman of a Soviet collective farm like Lukashenko -- is that they are unpredictable. They change the rules of the game according to their own whims and wishes, and without consultation.

Furthermore, they only understand one language -- the language of force. Had Russia acted in concert with the large international group trying to bring pressure on Iran -- as it did, for example, with the group of six nations addressing the issue of North Korea's nuclear program -- it would have left Tehran without maneuvering space and reduced its ability to blackmail others.

Whatever the case, canceling the Bushehr contract -- a move that looks increasingly imminent today -- would not have left Moscow in the awkward position in which it now risks finding itself. This is the result of naively placing all its hopes on Iran and vehemently rejecting every suggestion from Washington that Russia and the United States coordinate their policies toward Iran. Once the disagreement arose with Tehran, Moscow was stuck.