NATO membership: Bush’s goodbye gift to Ukraine?

The US suggestion that Kiev could bypass NATO’S membership rules and join the alliance anyway has shocked the world’s diplomatic community. Freelance writer Alexey Sazonov reports for RT on what’s behind the surprise move.

On December 1, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Ukraine and Georgia will eventually join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but they have a “long road” ahead to meet the entry criteria.

The Bush administration has begun the final push to accomplish one of its most important goals in Europe, that of encircling Russia with NATO countries. According to the New York Times, “the United States has started an unexpected diplomatic initiative in Europe, urging NATO allies to offer … Ukraine membership in the alliance without going through a lengthy process and fulfilling a long list of requirements.” Now, the question is whether it would make sense for NATO to take such an action, and would this produce a split in NATO.

Any measure to bypass the requirements through which all NATO countries had to go may cause an outrage in the ranks of the organisation as well as set a dangerous precedent.

NATO unity

The purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not to create a coalition and to wage war, but rather to avoid it. Condoleezza Rice’s proposal to accept Ukraine in NATO’s ranks seems to be putting the organization’s unity and the security of its members at risk. Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treat Organization signed in Washington D.C. in 1949 states the following on enlargement of the organisation: ”The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European state in a position to further the principles of this treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this treaty. (…)“

Ukraine’s involvement in the war in Georgia in August of 2008 has not helped Ukraine’s chances of getting the approval of top ranking European members of NATO. European nations, although condemning Russia’s actions, have stayed away from committing their forces to the conflict, and would like to avoid doing so if possible. In addition, Kiev’s outcry about a possible Russian attack on Crimea has made some members scratch their heads and ask themselves whether they really want to put themselves at risk of an open conflict with Russia.

Unlike the Western European nations, the Baltic States, along with Poland and the Czech Republic have expressed support for Washington’s…

FULL ARTICLE

Syria and Russia – New Naval Bases and New Markets

Middle-Eastern Promises

The Islamic nations in the Middle East have all been carefully watching the war in Georgia. Russia in the 1990’s Russia was ready to sacrifice friends and national interests to gain “good relationships” with the West. By using military force to enforce it’s decisions regarding South Ossetia, Russia has shown the world that now it is to be dealt with when it comes to its national interests and friends.

President of Syria Bashar Asad recently visited Moscow on a two day visit to discuss possible strategic and economic relationships. “It is not a secret, that back in the day industries and defense systems were set up with Soviet help [in Syria]“, said Vladimir Isaev at the Institute of Eastern Studies. Most Syrians know Russian and use outdated Soviet equipment for their defense and industrial purposes. Russia will jump on the offer to produce new equipment for new power stations in Syria, along with setting up trade channels of military equipment. The Syrian Army is equipped with old Russian weapons and weapons systems, which are outdated by today’s standards. Russian military industry is already trying to set up a deal to sell anti-tank complexes to Damascus. “Unites States are dealing weapons to anyone they want, so why can’t we sell weapons to those, with whom we have been friends with for a long time?”, asks Isaev. Russia has a lot of business opportunity in Middle East, and particularly in Syria, as the whole country is screaming to be reequipped and modified. It is a whole new market for Russian industries.

New Naval Base

The most important part of the Syrian President’s visit to Russia is his offer to allow the Russian navy to set up a base in Tartus. He even offered to allow Russia to set up Iskander missiles to defend the naval base. This is a much better alternative to the Black Sea Fleet, because it allows access into the Mediterranean Sea. For the Black Sea Fleet to exit the Black Sea, it needs to sail through Turkey’s territory, so access out of the Black Sea is dependent on Turkey’s mood towards Russia and the nature of the Black Sea’s reasons for leaving the Black Sea. Although Turkey has supported Russia in it’s war with Georgia, it is trying to enter the E.U., which may turn Turkish loyalties away from Russia. Syria, however, has been antagonized by the West and after seeing Russia step up their game in South Ossetia is evermore willing to become a strategic partner. Israel has criticized Russian-Syrian partnership, however, now that it is proven that Israel helped build up Georgian military (nearly $300 million in military equipment has been sold to Georgia by Tel-Aviv) it is evident why they would not want Russia to help Syria.

Ukraine has not allowed Russia to utilize it’s missile defense systems, and has not allowed the Russian Navy set up those of their own. Ukraine has also been trying to get the Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea, and bring in American Naval ships into the Black Sea. Ukrainian President, Yuschenko, has tried to use South Ossetian War as an excuse to get the Russian Navy out of Crimea and out of Ukraine for good. However, Russia Navy does not answer to the President of Ukraine, and all of his orders for the Russian Black Sea Fleet to leave are illegitimate, as all branches of the Russian Defense Ministry answer solely to the President of the Russian Federation. The Black Sea Fleet is a thorn in Yuschenko’s side because to be part of NATO, they cannot have Russian bases on their territory. Europe is reluctant to accept Ukraine into its Union because of the same reason. In case of a military dispute, Russia will have their ships in the Black Sea ready to bombard targets in Europe. Right now, however, if Syria’s offer is valid and will be accepted, Russia will be willing to give up their port in Sevastopol and will more than gladly jump on the Syrian offer.

The Conclusion

Russia defending it’s interests and it keeping its promises in South Ossetia has shown the world that it is back in the game is to be dealt with. Now, any anti-west nation (all Islamic nations and most of South America) will be having talks with Moscow to become strategic partners. Venezuela and Cuba have already expressed interest in Russian partnership. Although partners for a while, friendship hasn’t gone as far as military bases and large business partnerships. The war in South Ossetia is changing the relationships in the world. Now, the division between the East and West will become more evident.

Russian Black Sea Fleet's Flagman Cruiser "Moskva"

The New Politics of the XXI Century

The New “Iron Curtain”

The United States has been accusing Russia of fueling a new Cold War and wanting to set up a new “Iron Curtain”. It is, however, the United States that is setting up a new type of a “curtain”. Let’s call it the “blinds”. It is a good analogy, for whenever Washington does not want to their citizens to know something, they simply close them, and open them whenever it is safe for them to receive harmless information from their Eastern counter parts. The Iron Curtain during the Soviet Era was basically the border between the West and the East. Politicians today are children of the Cold War. No matter what happens in the political arena, Western political leaders will still see Moscow as a threat to the “free world” and Russians as drunk, bear-wrestling people with think accents. U.S.S.R. had satellite nations, which were basically a buffer zone in case of an attack from the West. Today, that buffer zone has been eliminated, and Washington could not be happier. American troops can actually be on the border of Russia in broad daylight. the Baltic States, Ukraine, Georgia, are all lead by former or current American citizens. There are hundreds of “political” and Pentagon-employed advisors in those countries “helping” make decisions. United States accusing Russia of making a new Iron Curtain is absurd, due to the fact that the United States has been slowly creeping up to Russian borders. The “blinds” are set between Russia and the United States, running through the borders of the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Georgia.

The E.U.

The European Union is a great idea, and has worked out well so far, for the most part. The Europeans have been doing nothing but mediating talks and conflicts, and most countries of the E.U. have avoided getting involved in conflicts in the Middle East and other places around the globe. The E.U. will always side with Washington, for Europe has never liked that Russia has so much control over the resource market. The only way to keep the “Russian Bear” at bay, is to have a big power have some leverage. That big power with leverage is the United States. E.U.’s has and oil, at least most it, comes from Russia. Europeans don’t have many resources left on their land, so they really depend on the eastern neighbor. Their politics are purely business. Although its citizens make fun of Americans and their politics, E.U. and U.S. need each other. E.U. needs the United States for pressure on Russia, and United States needs E.U. to have the power that it has. If E.U. become indifferent to U.S. politics and decides to be nutural, U.S. will stop being a big power. Nevertheless, the commercial markets and interdependency on financial and capital exchange will keep the two sides of the Atlantic bound for a long time.

Modern Political Drive

Today politicians are driven not by ideologies (Communism vs. Democracy during the Cold War), but by money. So, today’s political world should be analyzed just like a business is, but on a much bigger scale. Biggest of them all, actually. Almost every leader of any country makes decisions based on his potential financial gains, and utilizes tax payers’ money to do his dirty work. In essence using someone else’s funds to pay for business intelligence and research. President George W. Bush has stake in United Defense, Carlyle Group, and numerous other industries that relate directly to his administration’s agenda and goals. Vladimir Putin, just like most of Russian politicians have stake in Gazprom, Rosneft, and other companies that are ultimately in charge of natural resources. So, no matter what these or any other leaders say about “noble” motives for the actions (i.e. territorial integrity, anti-ethnic genocide, human rights, bringing down dictatorships, etc.), the underlying motives are always business. And if any good for the people is actually achieved, it is simply something done along the way to the ultimate goal of personal financial gain. Ideologies no matter govern political decisions. It is business, and just as was mentioned previously in this blog, resources are the sole reason for any major armed conflict. Morris 108 laid out the last major armed conflict motive very well,

“The BP run BTC pipeline is the only valuable item in Georgia, the only thing to fight over, and just 2 weeks ago, the promise of it being filled with Kazakh oil disappeared. And it disappeared into Russia’s hands. Within a week the pipeline was blown up, and the Georgian offensive started.” Full Article Here

Another example is Sudan. United States politicians, to keep citizens of the U.S. happy, have been criticizing the events in Darfur. However, no direct action has been taken. None of the world really has, and that is because Sudan doesn’t have enough resources in it’s land to have interest of big businesses. Today, ethics have nothing to do with big political decisions of any player of the Big Game.

China and the Rest of Asia

China has been knocking on Siberia’s door for decades. Starting with earliest provocations along Amur and Ussuri rivers, biggest of them all being on Damanskiy Island in 1969 with tens of Russian border troops killed in open armed conflict and hundreds of Chinese soldiers killed (thanks to introduction of the new “Grad” system, which was also used by Georgians in the South Ossetian War). China, although has a lot of sparsely settled land the West, has most of the populations living along the Pacific Coast, because a lot of its resources and jobs are in major cities, all of which are along the Eastern Coast. Once again, resources come into play. China, today, imports a lot of resources. It’s exports are slowing down (read China Today’s trade section, and you will notice this trend as well). It’s population is growing. Russia is the target of the People’s Republic because of the abundance of resources. The abundance of living space, resources, and business opportunity drives the Chinese to keep disputing over Russian territories and they actually send people into Russia to live, to drive out the Russian population, so some time in the future, they will have no problem having population support of historically Russian regions wanting to join PRC (smart, you have to admit).

The rest of Asia is simply living in their own world. They have enough problems of their own, and their leaders have no problem being corrupt and making cash. If anything, leaders of most Asian countries don’t want to be involved in the politics on the world scale, for it will bring too much attention to their corrupt governments.

The Conclusion

Smartest political players have already transitions into the 21st century mentality, that business runs everything. Expect events to heat up from here on in. The South Ossetia War in Georgia has started a new crack between the East and the West. Sides are going to be chosen, and the alliances made within the next few years will remain such for decades on. A new Cold War, more ferocious and dangerous has begun. This one, however, is not of ideologies between the West and the East, it is a war of business interests between resource rich, and resource needy.