So, the gears are set in motion now as Barack Obama has sent an official letter to President Medvedev proposing to cease the European Missile Defense efforts in Poland and the Czech Republic if Moscow collaborates with Washington on pressuring Tehran to stop its nuclear enrichment program. This is not the way talks should begin over the European anti-missile shield and Iran between Moscow and Russia. Obama has not yet made a name for himself in the international arena, if anything, Hillary actually tainted the view of the way the world views the foreign policy of the new administration in Washington. At a press conference with the Spanish prime minister, Dmitriy Medvedev stated clearly that he is not going to settle for any exchanges with regard to the anti-missile defenses in Europe and that he viewed it as an unproductive approach. The implications of decisions made on the subject of cooperation between Moscow and Washington regarding Iran were discussed in an earlier article, so now, things start moving, and it looks like not in the direction which will actually bring the results intended.
Foreign Policy of the US
It is clear to anyone paying attention to politics that Obama does not have much experience with foreign policy and most likely will stumble along the way in his first year as he learns how other countries operate and how to deal with different nations. Entrusting his foreign affairs to Hillary is more than an indication that he is not yet at the level of knowledge about the international arena as one might hope. Obama won purely because of his domestic policy promising change to save the US from total collapse and good marketing. His foreign policy platform was only concerned with telling the Americans what they wanted to hear – stopping the war in Iraq.
Now, the reality sets in, and it is not as easy as it looks. America does not have the leverage that it had in the nineties over Moscow, when Yeltsin would pull back on certain national interests in return for support for the new Russia from the West. Obama’s letter to the Kremlin seems to indicate a lot of false assumptions over the way Russia has set itself in the international politics. The White House seems to put a lot of emphasis on the European anti-missile defense, not realizing that Russia is not really concerned with it as much as it is with further extending its influence in Central Asia and cooperation with Iran on weapons trading and technological research and development.
It is extremely wrong of Obama to try and put Russia in a position that would be beneficial only to the US national interests. International politics does not work like that. In the international scene today, if one county wants to further their national interests abroad they have to take into consideration the other side’s interest as well in order to facilitate cooperation in any given area. The new administration should not put pressure on Russia’s national security in order to get what they want. They need to give Russia something to benefit their national interest abroad in order to get Moscow’s cooperation. Considering the possible benefits of Moscow-Tehran relations for Russia, Washington will have to find another way and give a lot to with regard to Russian national interests.
Evidence of Direction
Every time a person representing a foreign policy speaks to anyone, they usually think about the way their words will be viewed else where. Clinton seems to miss this point. If there are two countries bumping heads, and a third country comes in and pledges support for one of the sides, it becomes an enemy of the other. As the saying goes, “My worst enemy’s worst enemy is my best friend.” So, ipso-facto Clinton’s words… CONTINUE READING HERE
FULL ARTICLE HEREThe news of seven post-soviet nations creating a military rapid reaction force should come as no surprise, for it was only a matter of time before a military alliance of some former soviet republics was created. Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan are putting together a force whose central command will be in Moscow. The force will be able to dispatch a rapid reactionary force to any region in the post-soviet space.
This is actually very important because this news came out the same time that Kyrgyzstan announced that it will close a U.S. base on its territory. Most likely there was a struggle for influence between Moscow and Washington, and analysts may only guess why Kyrgyzstan chose Russia, but the fact remains that the US is not going to take this loss lightly. Trying to guess future reactions of these two powers would be a waste of time for there’s not enough information to do so. However, it is necessary to analyze why this step by these seven nations is important and what are further implications of this Rapid Reactionary Force (RRF).
Natural Resources
Every country except for Belarus is vital in its own way to protect Russia’s interest in the Caspian. Presence of Russian military bases and a joint military with these Central Asian countries gives Moscow an ability to secure their resource transit routes and the resources themselves from providing America an alternative to the Persian Gulf for oil.
It is a known fact that United States has spent a lot of time and money trying to increase their presence in the Caspian to lessen their dependence on oil coming from the Middle East. It only makes sense that Russia wants to close off this alternative for the United States. If this RRF is a successful endeavor, the United States will have to deal with another military alliance that truly does not want Washington to meddle in its affairs. The newly established RRF will also be able to react to any threat that would otherwise threaten the continuous flow of oil and gas through the pipelines and by ship to refineries in Russia and other nations of the RRF.
This military union is also a concern to Georgia and Azerbaijan as well. These two nations host foreign oil refineries and pipelines in Supsa and Baku. Especially after the recent war CONTINUE READING –>
FULL ARTICLE HERE Aside from being an essential element in heating homes during the coldest time of the year, Russian gas is a political tool. It is a tool for the U.S.-sponsored Ukrainian government as well as Moscow. However, what are the goals being pursued? It is not just to show might and power over Europe. That actually would hurt Russia in the long run with no real short term benefits either. The current gas dispute between Moscow and Kiev is actually a continuation and a move forward in trying to discredit each other and win over the majority support of the population.
Just to recap, President Yuschenko and his government tried to discredit the Russian Black Sea Fleet and taint Russia’s reputation in Ukraine during and after the conflict in the Caucasus between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. Yuschenko was not successful in getting the Fleet out of Sevastopol and did not change the population’s outlook on Russia. One thing did become evident – Ukraine is split into East and West, Eastern Ukraine being pro-Russian and Western part being more pro-Western. Also, Yuschenko’s government is not as popular as some, especially in Washington, had hoped for.
Transit of gas is one of the best trumps in Russia’s hands. If the observers that are supposed to monitor the flow of gas through Ukraine find any disruptions that can potentially damage Ukraine’s credibility, Moscow will score a big win in this tug-o-war on many levels. First, the credibility of President Yuschenko’s government will be dealt a big blow. Second, Moscow would score an indirect win against the U.S. in global politics. Lastly, the EU will be more reluctant to consider Ukraine for membership.
If Russia is successful in discrediting Yuschenko’s government, Washington will suffer the biggest loss. Having put a lot of effort into getting the current Ukrainian government in place and putting even more…FULL ARTICLE HERE
Crimea is the current target of Washington’s campaign in Ukraine. Overall, the United States is after lucrative business opportunities in Ukraine, aside from becoming a bigger thorn in Russia’s side. A recent announcement by the U.S. Department of State stating that U.S. may open a diplomatic post in Simferopol in Crimea is another step toward escalation of tensions between Washington and Moscow over Ukraine.
Washington’s goals are fairly simple – business opportunities galore coupled with putting more pressure on Russia. Most importantly, if U.S. influence in Ukraine grows, it will be able to keep Russian gas companies in check by becoming the direct negotiator representing Ukraine on the issues regarding gas. In addition, it will be able to play its role in the politics of Europe regarding gas, thus increasing pressure on Russia.
Full article can be viewed on RussiaToday site and I would appreciate any comments to be made on this page.
Washington is holding on to everything it has in Georgia, and for a reason. It needs a platform of allies surrounding Russia, which is nothing new. In addition, the fact that has purposefully been overlooked in the mainstream media is that the U.S. is more interested in the economy of Georgia, which will ensure their alliance. The system that America uses to keep hold of Georgia and its President is an elaborate scheme that will ensure political cooperation of Georgia and big profits for U.S. companies.
Making the Rich Even Richer
United States’ “private” companies have long been working in favor of their government abroad. Their actions are commendable as they show patriotism and a belief in both the capitalist system and the American way of life. Nevertheless, working in favor of your country, more often than not, means making citizens of a country worse off than before the investments came into that country’s economy.
The system is fairly simple – bring in U.S. companies to build up energy production, infrastructure, and re-arm the military. The financing of the projects is done through loans made to Tbilisi by the World Bank or similar financial institutions. The loans are given in such large amounts that Georgia will most likely default in the near future. Defaulting will in turn mean that the U.S. will have a firm hold on Georgia’s politics and its system of government as a whole.
The projects that the loans will be issued for will make the rich that own the power plants, dams, and other industrial investments richer. These are the same individuals that sit in the Georgian parliament and run the country. The people, on the other hand, whose land is used for the projects and whose labor is used to make the whole industry work, will be getting a below-acceptable wage and most will likely be out of work as a whole.
Reports indicate that in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, the unemployment rate is close to 30%. In 1991, after gaining independence, Georgia reported a 17% unemployment rate. Today, although Georgia reports economic growth and higher per-capita income, people are actually worse off now than before America took an interest in the small Caucasus nation.
It is true that Georgia is growing economically, producing more power, and that more industries are working. However, most of the income earned from the industries goes to paying off the huge loans taken out for the projects. In addition, the wealth of the rich has grown, which produces a higher statistic for the country’s economy. It’s a case of simple math – the more overall wealth divided by the approximately the same number of people in the country produces a higher per-capita statistic.
Georgia Owes America
The people in the Georgian government owe their increase in wealth completely to America. If the U.S. had not offered to help build up the country and lend them the money, Georgia would’ve been struggling just as much today as it had in the 1990s. What does this mean for Washington? It means that they can utilize Georgia’s military, UN votes, WTO membership, and many other tools of politics in their favor.
Tbilisi owes Washington for setting up the Rose Revolution. It is a simple fact that no one in Georgia had the money to set up such a well-funded and well organized action. Not too surprising that in 1999, Georgia’s GDP grew at 3%. The following year, with the introduction of new investors from the West, their GDP grew at 2%, 4.5%, and 5% in 2000, 2001, and 2002 respectively. Right after the Rose Revolution, the GDP growth nearly doubled in 2003 to 8.3%.
In addition to investing in the Georgian political and economic welfare, America and a row of its allies invested heavily in rearming the Georgian military. It was a necessary measure in ensuring that the Georgian army is under their control. If Georgia would side with Russia once again, the project of reequipping the military again would be a costly affair. It is a headache which Tbilisi is not willing to go through again in the near future.
What’s Going to Happen Next?
America has a firm hold on Georgia. Tbilisi is bound by the “friendly” gesture of the Western states to be their allies and to side with America on its foreign policy. Georgia has already become a firm base for the American military. In case of an armed conflict with Russia, Georgia will provide a buffer zone that will be able to hold out for the necessary time needed to bring U.S. troops to the region.
Economically, it benefits the U.S. industries and the few that hold the wealth of Georgia. The U.S. and European companies reap good profits off the projects in the region. On the flip side, the Georgian elite get their share of income that keeps them out of meddling with U.S. interests. The platform has been prepared in case of a potential threat from the Russian Bear.
This original published article can be found here. RussiaToday is the original source of this article.
United States officials say that the missile defenses are aimed at Iran. However, Iran’s missiles and motives indicate no threat to Europe.
One of the main issues facing the new President-elect Barack Obama is the European Missile Defense System that the Bush administration has been trying to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russian Federation has been fiercely protesting this action and has viewed the installation of Anti-Missile Defenses as a direct threat to its national security.
The Kremlin has threatened to counter the deployment U by placing short to mid-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack stated that the Anti-Missile Defenses are not aimed at Russia and expressed hope that one day Russia will see this. The threat that the defenses are aimed at, according to the White House, is Iran. But why would U.S. place missile defenses some 3,000 kilometers away from Iran? A look at the U.S. missile defense system and the Iranian ballistic missiles shows that Tehran’s strike on a major European city is highly unlikely.
U.S. Missile Defense
A missile defense system’s purpose is to intercept anything from ICBMs to smaller ballistic missiles. However, the missile defense systems in use today are not as sophisticated as one might think. They still need to be located close to the potential flight path of the missiles. An independent study by the American Physical Society (APS) in 2004 showed that, “effectiveness of interceptor rockets would be limited by the short time window for intercept, which requires interceptors to be based within 400 to 1,000 kilometers of the possible boost-phase flight paths of attacking missiles.”
The United States Army uses MIM-103 Patriot surface-to-air missile system (SAM). The Patriot system proved to be effective during the Gulf War in 1991, shooting down Iraqi SCUD missiles. Still, SCUDs are short to mid-range missiles, and the Missiles Defenses were located very close to the flight path of the missiles. There is no confirmation of U.S. Missiles Defense intercepting long range missiles far away from the launch point. According to the study by the APS, the missiles’ effectiveness decreases as the distance of the potential flight path of the ICBM or other missile increases.
Iran’s Missiles
Little is known about the Iranian missile program. However, the Iranian Mid-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) Fajr-3’s operational range is estimated at 2,300 kilometers. The Shahab-6 missile is Iran’s longest range ballistic missile with a range of 4,000-5,000 kilometers. Nevertheless, no official reports come of successful tests of this missile or any detailed information on the missile specifications in general. The last Iranian test that Washington has denounced was the Shahab-3, with a range of 2,300 kilometers.
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threat to destroy Israel has not been taken lightly. Iran’s defiance of the West has only added fuel to the fire. Tehran is not allowing international organizations to monitor their nuclear enrichment program and is refusing to shut it down all together. It is already known that Tehran is able to strike Israel, however, there have been no threats made to Europe. There is a possibility that Iran has nuclear capabilities, but they are still a threat to Israel, rather than Europe.
Putting it all together
According to Google Maps, direct path from Tehran to Raciborz, Poland (located between Warsaw and Krakow), is 3,114 kilometers, which is beyond the potential range of Shahab-3 and Fajr-3 missile and it is still unknown whether Iran has successfully made an ICBM capable of striking major European cities. Tehran is more likely to strike Israel rather than a European nation.
U.S. Missile Defenses are more in the way of a possible strike by Russia on Europe, rather than by Iran. Iran may be a good excuse to move missile defenses closer to Russian borders, also creating closer ties with countries that are more outspoken against Russia than most other European nations.
The European Missile Defense System looks like an attempt by the GOP to bring the world back into a Cold War-like state. This only makes sense, as they were the party that claimed the victory over the Soviet Union, when it collapsed in 1991. If things heat up around European Missile Defenses and Russia is made the “bad guy” again, the GOP will have a fighting change to reclaim the White House in 2012, riding on the wave of claims that they’ve defeated the “Evil Empire” once and they’ll do it again.
President-elect Obama has already said that the European Missile Defense system will have to prove its ability to protect Europe against Iran before he allows millions of dollars to be allocated for this project. Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough stated that, Obama’s “position is as it was throughout the campaign: that he [Obama] supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable.”
The recent events of the past month in Georgia become more complex everyday. This is especially due to information finally being unearthed.
Israel
Israel has banned all businessmen related its military industry to travel to the Caucasus region. Russia is known to protect its interests no matter what. So if Israel kept on dealing arms to Georgia, Russia in turn would start supplying Middle Eastern nations hostile to Tel-Aviv with modern weapons. To avoid risking this, Israel has decided to virtually halt its role as a Georgian ally and to avoid getting involved in the whole situation around Tbilisi. Iran being a closer Russian ally, Israel does not want to give Russia reason to deal modern weapons to Tehran.
Georgia
Saakashvili may resign his Presidency sometime before, or in the beginning of, this upcoming winter. The question of Saakashvili’s resignation has been discussed actively in Washington by the Georgian opposition. According to Alexander Chachia, leader of the opposition movement “Samegrelo”, M. Saakashvili “will be made an offer he cannot refuse.” He also added that the U.S. has been looking into the question of having Saakashvili resign in September, but it would mean admitting their own “human resource” mistake. Saakashvili’s predecessor is presumed to be his fellow of the “Rose revolution” Nino Burdzhanadze, who is an ex-speaker of the Georgian parliament and currently is part of the opposition. She has already visited Washington. Nonetheless, experts say that this change will not bring about much change into the relationship between Moscow and Tbilisi. “Moscow will have to speak with the masters, not the servants,” says Alexander Skakov, and expert at the Russian Institute of Strategic Research. He states that Tbilisi’s foreign policy will still be coming from Washington.
American media is now becoming split in condemning and supporting Georgia. Most of the critics of Saakashvili in the West say that his actions went against Western interests and were completely orchestrated by Saakashvili.
The way the situation is unfolding right now is exactly as I said on my very first post on August 8th, as Georgian artillery pounded Tskhinval:
United States will do one of the following: remove Saakashvili from power or wait for the conflict to end and then congratulate the victor. Saakashvili seems to think that he has brought Georgia to the global level, but no one really cares. It is as simple as that. Access to the Black Sea and a base near the Caucasus Mountains is not reason enough for the U.S. to go to war with another power. Full Article Here
U.S. Policy in the Caucasus
Russian officials have stated that by sending back Georgian military personnel from Iraq to Tbilisi on August 8th, 2008, Washington has provided military support to Tbilisi in its fight in South Ossetia. Colonel-General A. Nagovitsin, head of the military operations in South Ossetia stated that, “[Georgian] political and military officials have lost control of the situation [during the conflict], and Mikheil Saakashvili has gone as far as asking Americans to provide him with a plane in case he had to leave.” He added that the panic in the country was so great that when 50 Georgian tanks were retreating from Tkhinvali, they were mistaken by the media and the government for Russian tanks, which in turn made the West think that Russians were pushing through Georgia.
Again, as was stated in the first article at CloserView:
That in mind, why has the U.S. not stepped in to help Georgia? Simple – Saakashvili did not talk it over with the U.S. He is now officially making decisions for himself, and this is not a decision that Washington truly supports. They HAVE to condemn Russia’s actions because Russia and U.S. have never sided on the same side of any major issue.
The Conclusion
Russia knows that it lost the informational war. Now it was what it is best at – cornering its opponents into admitting their mistakes. It will throw all its resources not into playing the informational war, for it cannot be won. Is has already won it’s battle with Israel sending modern weapons and modifying Georgia equipment. Czech Republic has already indirectly admitted to U.S. missile-defenses and radars being directed against Russia.
Now, Moscow wants Poland to admit it’s decision for letting the U.S. set its missile defenses on its territory wrong.
Most important battle that the Kremlin is fighting right now is getting Washington to stop backing Saakashvili and becoming an alternative to the U.S. as an ally for countries. Medvedev has openly stated that Kremlin’s policy is getting the world to stop being a one-sided game in Washington. Implying that it will do its best to defend its interests and interests of others even if they go against U.S. foreign policy interests.
Avoiding a new cold War means Washington and Russian politicians to set things straight around Georgia and to have everyone do their own things. When everyone starts getting involved in one conflict, two sides emerge and start clashing heads. If the battle remains only between Washington and Moscow, and the rest of the world stays out of it, a new Cold War will be avoided.
U.S Congressmen HAVE to support Georgia, for U.S. holds responsibility for Saakashvili and his administration. This video was sent to me by a reader. It shows direct speeches of Ron Paul, Dana Rohrbacher, and (!!!) Hillary Clinton. No commentary is needed further. The evidence is there.
RBC, a trusted and well known news source in Russia and especially in the European business world has just released a story that is titled, “American Intelligence Confirms That Russia Is Right” relating to the war South Ossetia. Here’s the link to the permanent site of the story on RBC. If anyone reading this questions my translation, feel free to pop this into a translator, or find a person who reads Russian. I guarantee direct translation.
American Intelligence Confirms That Russia Is Right
American intelligence confirmed that Russia’s actions were correct during the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict. According to their data, recent military actions in South Ossetia were begun by Georgia, which is why Russia’s position is correct. Dana Rohrbacher (R – California) stated this on Tuesday’s hearing in Congress.
“All intelligence sources with whom I’ve talk – and I have talked to many during the summer [congressional] recess – confirm, that all recent military actions in Georgia and its separatist provinces were started by Georgia,” stressed Dana Rohrbacher, according to TV channel “Vesti-24″.
According to his words, “Georgia, not Russians, broke the ceasefire, and no talks about provocations and other things can change this fact.”
D. Rohrbacher said that all attempts to put all of the blame for the military actions on South Ossetia are a “fig-leaf”**. “Russians are right, we are not. Georgians started it, Russians finished it,” said the politician.
**A fig-leaf is the little leaf that covers the private parts of statues. This is a direct Russian translation and a “fig” here is not the fruit, but rather meant to express that it does not serve a lot of purpose, as the statue is naked already.
The Conclusion
This will NEVER be aired or written anywhere in America. A thorough Google, Yahoo!, etc search will not find anything even mentioning this in English language. Rohrbacher’s statements undermine the whole political stance of the West in the conflict. Even though American intelligence is the source of all of this, the politicians who have a lot at stake here will do all they can to make sure this does not get out into the Western newspapers and tabloids soon, if at all. U.S. will completely lose face if a story even slightly mentioning this is published anywhere in Europe, even more so if it is published in the States.
The leaders in Ukraine and Georgia – Yuschenko and Saakashvili respectively – seem to be losing hold of their governments and their public support is falling each day. News are coming out quite frequently hinting at tensions between the Presidents of the two countries and their governments. Oppositions are using this chance to bring forth their ideas and show what they have to offer their countrymen.
Ukraine
Newspapers from Russia and Ukraine are reporting that Yuschenko and the Rada (Verhovnaya Rada is Kiev’s Upper House) are more tense than ever. The Ukrainian parliamentariansare introducing a new bill that calls for renaming the Ukrainian Internal Forces to the National Ukrainian Guard. In essence, this gives the control of the military to the Rada, and takes it away from Yuschenko. Nikolai Dzhiga, a Ukrainian parliamentarian, pointed out that in this way, Yuschenko will not be able to use the military to pursue his political goals.
In 2007, during the Ukrainian political crisis, Yuschenko tried to issue an order for the military to step in when the special police units loyal to the head of the Ministry of Interior took control of the building of the Secretary of State’s building. No one followed the order as they did not agree with it and Ukrainian parliamentarians shot down the order, deeming it unconstitutional.
This shows, that Yuschenko is the only one who is backing his political goals. Ukraine is virtually split, the East and the South regions supporting Russia and pro-Russian parties, while the West and the North are supporting the complete opposites. It is important to note that one that thing that everyone in Ukraine has in common, is lack of support for Yuschenko.
Events around Yuliya Timoshenko, a leader of an opossition party to Yuschenko, has been the center of media attention for the past week.She has taken a pro-Russia stance, as Yuschenkoputs it, with repsect to Georgia and Crimea. Timoshenko said that Yuschenko is only putting the Ukrainian people in danger by tensing the situation in the Black Sea and supporting Georgia, events around which have become a political turmoil. Timoshenko also said that she has noticed a “tail” behind her wherever she goes. Most likely from the Ukrainian Secret Service at the request of Yuschenko. Because of her stance on Georgia and Crimea, she has been called a traitor to Ukraine by Yuschenko, however, no one else seems to echo his thoughts on the matter.
Georgia
Opposition leaders in Georgia are calling for Saakashvili’s resignation. The opposition leader of the party called “New Right” David Gemkrelidze said that is was “irresponsible of Saakashvili to bomb Tkhinvali, it was a trap, whichw as set for Georgia, against which the U.S., Europe, and the Georgia people have warned.” He also added, that now NATO does not know within which borders to accept Georgia into it’s organization. It is true, though, South Ossetian War has truly backed up Tbilisi’s attempts to join NATO.
The leader of the opposition also stated that he will meet with other opposition leaders to work out a plan of action of how to act in situations such as the one on hand. Soon, they will release their own, independent analysis of the short war in South Ossetia and will presented to the world.
Although the opposition is condemning Saakashvili, they are not taking a pro-Russia stance. Knowing, that the Georgian citizens have only been fed Saakashvili’s take on the war and read only the stories published by state controlled media, they have to take a stance which shows them as saying that this conflict was wrong and that the territorial sovereignty of Georgia has been destroyed. Nevertheless, they are not blaming Russia for the actions and are placing all of the blame on Saakashvili.
The Conclusion
United States is losing the grip on the “friends” in Tbilisi and Kiev. The oppositions in the countries are becoming more and more popular, as the current administrations do not give the Ukrainian and Georgian people what they want, and that is security (as seen in the South Ossetian War and the tensions in Crimea), and stable economies (spending a lot on military, while not paying attention to important domestic issues). It will be interesting to see how the elections in Ukraine and Georgia will be affected by the wave of current events, what role the U.S. will play.
closerview