Gas Tug-o-War

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

Washington’s Ambitions in Crimea

FULL ARTICLE AT RUSSIATODAY.COM

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.

Ukraine’s president is already a Washington supporter. Yushchenko’s …FULL ARTICLE AT RUSSIATODAY.COM

Energy Wars: Diversify or Die

FULL ARTICLE HERE on Russia Today.

It would be very naïve to think that oil producing countries would all come together during the financial crisis in order to adjust prices to suit all the parties involved. Even more naïve would be to think that Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Iran and other oil economies are good friends. Well, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela are definitely closer than, for example, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Nevertheless, competition drives prices lower and also takes away market share from other competitors in a given industry. According to the New York Times, Iran and Venezuela both need US $95/barrel in order to maintain balanced budgets. Russia’s ideal oil price is US $70/barrel. Saudi Arabia needs a price of US $55/barrel in order to meet … FULL ARTICLE HERE

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

Ukraine and Georgia – When the Body Doesn’t Listen to the Head

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.

Financing the Georgian Army – Foreign Investment Galore

Following the annihilation of the Georgian Army during the South Ossetian War, NATO and other allies of Georgia have promised Georgia to help rebuild its full military potential. Having Western say in the Caucasus region seems to be the priority of the Western world.

Captured Georgian Military Equipment

The Russian military officials have reported that they captured around 150 military units, 65 of them are tanks. 44 tanks have been brought back to Russia, the rest were destroyed because they were either unfit for use or of old modifications. Georgian Armed Forces had 230-240 tanks in use before the conflict was started. Most of those tanks were modified by an Israeli firm Elbit Systems into T-72-SIM-1. During the fighting, the Russian troops also captured 5 anti-aircraft missile systems 9K33 “Osa”, 15 BMP-2, numerous 122-mm towed howitzers D-30, American armored personnel carriers, HUMVEE’s, and artillery systems of Czech design. According to Lieutenant-General Golovchenko of the North Caucasus Military District, one of the captured anti-aircraft systems registered 3 launches.

Military Bases in Gori, Senaki, and Poti

The West has condemned the Russian military for moving into Georgian territory, primarily into the port of Poti and towns of Senaki and Gori. the Georgian military completely abandoned their military bases in all of those cities. Saakashvili raised panic and evacuated civilians out of those areas, saying that the Russian and Ossetian forces will kill the civilians as a form of revenge for what the Georgian military has done to Tskhinval (Tskhinvali with an “i” at the end is a Georgian renamed city. After Medvedev declared the republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independent, the “i” was dropped, to return the city its rightful ancient name”).

The goal of the Russian military operation was not to destroy the Georgian economy, which was not good before the war already. The goal was to demilitarize the Georgian Army and to thwart Georgian military potential in the region. A lot of the captured military equipment the Russians took from Gori. 15 T-72-SIM-1 tanks, dozens of armored fighting vehicles, and artillery systems along with their ammo were captured. Part of the arsenal found in Gori was destroyed, part was taken to Russia. The explosions that the Saakashvili said were Russian bombings of Gori were actually Russian engineers destroying Georgian military equipment.

From the military bases in Senaki, Russian troops captured 1728 assault weapons. 764 American M4 carbines, 28 M-40 machine guns, and 754 various modifications of the AK. Western Media sources also say that Russian military has also captured 15 Georgian vessels, among them torpedo boats.

According to the representative of the Russian Peacekeeping Force in the Caucasus, there was enough high-caliber ammunition in Senaki to level all of Caucasus. On the base at Senaki, for the time of the conflict, the Georgian 2nd Infantry Brigade was stationed. Georgian forces left Senaki after the Russian Air Force carried out air strikes against the air field by the base.

Anatoliy Nagovitsin, the commanding General of the Russian Forces in the conflict said that 4000 assault weapons were captured, that’s not counting the ones destroyed and other military equipment captured. The American and Georgian governments have requested Russia to return the captured weapons. The Russian officials have said that they have no intent on returning the weapons, as they are captured during military operations.

Foreign Investment in the Georgian Military

According to the official statement presented by Lieutenant-General Golovchenko, there is written documentation captured by the Russian Forces that the tanks of the 1st Georgian Infantry Brigade (played biggest part in the storming of Tskhinval) underwent partial modifications in 2002 and complete modernizations in 2007 in Lvov and and other cities in Ukraine. Same thing with the BMP-2’s.

From official statements and reports to the U.N. from Ukraine, since 1999 Kiev has delivered 150 units of heavy tanks and equipment of Georgia. In the first report in 1999, among 11 other nations, Georgia was also listed as a buyer of a Rocket-Cruiser “Konotop” from Ukraine. Then, there was a four year gap in military eqiupment sales from Ukraine to Georgia. In 2004, Georgia received 6 self-propelled howitzers 2S3 “Akatsiya”. In 2005, after Yuschenko came to power and board of directors of UkrSpetsExport changed(responsible for Ukrainian weapons export), military equipment sales from Ukraine to Georgia increased dramatically. In 2005 alone, Georgia bought 15 T-72 MBTs, 12 BMP-2s, 10 BTR-80 APCs, 6 self-propelled howitzers 2S3s, 6 MI-24 “Hind” attack helicopters, and 2 MI-8 transport helicopters. In 2006 no sales were made from Ukraine to Georgia. However, Georgia still received 2 air-radar vehicles 36D6-M to control the air space around Tbilisi.

In 2007, Georgia Ukraine sold 74 T-72 MBTs, 6 BTS-5B heavy armored tracked towing vehicles, 2 self-propelled howitzers 2S7 “Pion”, 8 training aircraft L-39 (can be fitted to serve as regualr ground-attack planes). Ina Georgian official statement to the U.N., it says that it bought 5 units of the self-propelled howitzers 2S7 “Pion”, not 2, like Ukraine states.  Also, according to the Georgian version of the document, they also acquired one Anti-Air Mobile System “Buk” and 48 Anti-Tank Guided Missiles “Kombat”. Also in 2007 Tbilisi said that it bought assault weapons from Ukraine.

Looking at this statistic, how Georgia financed all of this. Georgian GDP for 2003 was 3.91 billion dollars. It’s external debt being 1.8 billion, or 40% of its GDP. Per capita income averages $700 per year. So how can Georgia buy these weapons? Simple – financial help from the West.

The biggest contributor to Georgia’s military build up was the United States. During the period of 2004 – 2007, Washington officially gave Tbilisi nearly $600 million dollars. In addition to this, Tbilisi made a special fund in 2004, that accepted donations to develop its national armed forces. Donations can be made in full anonymity from private and government organizations, as well as NGO’s and non-profit organization.

The German Controversy

Recently, the German news channel ARD released a statement saying that Georgian soldiers were photographed and noted as using the German G36 assault rifle. Western reporters were actually the ones that took pictures of the Georgian Special Forces holding G36 rifles, made by the German weapons company Heckler und Koch. The director of the informational bureau in Freiburg – Jurgen Gresslin – stated that he had no doubt that the rifles in the pictures were the H&K G36 with the shortened barrel for the special forces.

The German Minister of Economics denied Germany selling the weapons to the Georgians, as special documentation that is required for export is not on file and never has been filed. No permission has been given to Heckler und Koch to sell the guns to Tbilisi. Channel ARD, quoting the British Jane’s Defence Weekly, Heckler und Koch directed a request to the German government for sale of 230 G36 rifles to Georgia (200 of them shortened special forces versions, and 30 compact-assault versions). However, H&K’s request was denied. Although no permission was given, because it violates the German policy of not selling weapons to countries involved in territorial conflict, the G36 rifles appeared on the battlefield in South Ossetia. H&K could’ve as easily sold the weapons to a third country, who could in turn sell the weapons to Georgia.

Most Recent Confrontation

On the 19th of August, an incident took place that undermined Washington’s statements that it was delivering humanitarian help to the people of Georgia. In the Georgian town of Poti, Russian troops arrested 22 Georgian uniformed men. After interrogation, the men said that they were supposed to receive humanitarian help from the U.S. ships. As it turns out, their packages included assault weapons, rocket launchers, and plastic explosives. The Georgian soldiers were driving nearly brand new HUMVEE’s, whose odometer showed not even 400 miles. On the windows of the vehicles there were still stickers with “U.S. Property” printed on them. This incident sparked the Pentagon’s official request made by Brian Wittman to the Russian government to return “US property” to the rightful owners.

Hightened Tensions in the Black Sea

The Overall Picture

The United States has sent ships to the Black Sea to give humanitarian aid to Georgia. This missions, knowing todays politics, most likely has a darker side to it – delivery of weapons and U.S. military specialists to organize diversions and to bring weapons to whatever remains of the Georgian Army. The story is still unfolding and most likely, the details won’t be that well known. However, it is a very shady operation by the United States.

Washington seems to be trying to build a fence around Russia, getting as close to it possible, for it once again, has control of many resources, on which American businessmen a.k.a. politicians want to get their hands on. Oil and other natural resources are more and more controlled by nations and people considered by Washington as “unfriendly”, and if United States can shake the feeling of Russia’s security, then it can start dictating terms and getting Moscow to allow business to come in and take advantage of the abundance of resources.

U.S. Naval presence in the Black Sea is simply another plank in the fence. U.S. destroyers and cruisers carry up to 8 Tomahawk missiles on board, which can carry nuclear warheads. In addition, U.S. setting up missile defenses in Poland and other European countries close to Russia borders is an indication of U.S. getting ready for something major. Speculations abound, but true reasons are known only to intelligence services. It could range from invasion of Iran to U.S. bringing troops into Ukraine and Georgia, bringing U.S. and Russia closer to war than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which looks suspiciously familiar, but in a mirror-reflection. U.S. is bringing it’s troops and equipment ever closer to Russian borders, which should really worry the rational thinking people of even Western countries.

The Black Sea Fleet and the Black Sea Itself

The Black Sea Fleet, since the break up of the Soviet Union, has lost most of it’s strategic value. However, as evident in recent events of the South Ossetian War, Black Sea Fleet can still be of a lot of importance to Russia. the Russian Navy can play a crucial role in cooling some heads in Georgia, for the Russian fleet is no match for the few demoralized Georgian ships left in the navy. Nevertheless, it has to be taken into account, that Russian ships were face with two small Georgian ships equipped with nothing more than big caliber machine guns. So, in essence, Russian Navy has nothing to brag about. Nevertheless, Russian Black Sea Fleet is able to be of important political value to Moscow, as it can keep the U.S. ships at bay, listen to the radio frequencies and decipher U.S. codes. They are of more intelligence value than confrontational. If the United States is really delivering weapons and military advisers to Tbilisi, then it is a trump in the pocket of the Russian politicians, as they most likely will quietly hint to the U.S. that they know what Washington is up to, and are ready to release this information to the public, indicating that NATO is not there for peacekeeping purposes and is in fact violating agreements, which the West constantly accuses Russia of violating.

Map of the Black Sea

The Ships in the Black Sea

The situation in the Black Sea remains tense. The United States has sent, as a show of good will and friendship, has sent it’s naval ships to the coast of Georgia with humanitarian help: U.S. Navy destroyer USS McFaul, U.S. Coast Guard cruiser USS Dallas, and the flagship of the sixth supply fleet USS Mount Whitney. Moscow has expressed concern for this, accusing Washington of supplying weapons and other military equipment to Georgia. Other sources have also informed the media that the U.S. warships carry Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, able to strike land and sea targets. On the other hand, some of the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s ships remain near the coast of Abkhazia, protecting the withdrawal of its troops. On August 25th, Russian Flagship Moskva has left port at Sevastopol with its purpose described by Moscow officials as “testing of it’s systems and radio communications”.

Russian destroyer “Pitliviy”

Small Russian rocket cruiser “Mirage”

Russian Black Sea Fleet Flagship “Moskva”

“USS McFaul” anchored in the port of Batumi

Launch of the American Harpoon missile

Launch of a Tomahawk missile

Flagship of the 6th Supply Fleet “USS Mount Whitney”

U.S. Coast Guard’s “USS Dallas”

U.S. Navy’s destroyer USS McFaul

Independance of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and NATO’s Drive East

Independance of the Breakway Republics

Russian President Medvedev announced on August 26th, 2008 that Russia has recognized Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence and will start setting up diplomatic relations with the two nations. The West, almost immediately, reacted with anger and frustration. Russia is “out of control”. Washington has lost the diplomatic leverage over Moscow. The Kremlin now has the means by which to enforce its interests and it has made clear that it’s interests and decisions will not only be defended diplomatically, but also with the use of force. What has to follow now, in order for South Ossetia and Abkhazia not to end up like Taiwan, is international recognition of the two nations. If Russia can persuade E.U. of necessity of the step towards independanceofthe Caucasian republics, then U.S. will be left with no choice. It is a matter of Moscow having something to offer to the E.U., because Washington will not budge on the issue, and E.U. is dependent on Russian gas and oil, which may be used by Kremlin as leverage. First step has been taken – Moscow recognized the independance of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the people of the two republics are celebrating, and Russia has promised to provide help to Tskhnivali and Sukhumi whenever trouble should arise. Now, it’s up to the Moscow’s diplomats to work the situation in their favor.

NATO’s Drive East – Ukraine

U.S., 4 Turkish, Polish, and Spanish ships have been seen in the Black Sea. The Russian Flagship “Moskva” has already left port of Sevastopol with an “undeclared” purpose, which troubles the West. Ukraine has been trying to show NATO that they have power over Russia. This was exemplified in Kiev’s attempts to tighten their hold on the Black Sea Fleet with illegitimate orders for the Fleet to notify the Ukrainian authorities of any ship movements 72 hours, follow by an approval from Kiev, which may or may not happen. This was disregarded and Russia sailors know not to answer to any orders from Ukrainian officials. As it turns out, Ukraine does not have a firm hold on the Russian Naval Forces in the Black Sea. In addition to U.S. seeing this as evidence of Ukraine not being strong enough against Russia. Ukrainian people are more pro-E.U. than pro-U.S., which basically means that if the Ukrainian people do not see the partnership with U.S. as a way to get into E.U., they will not back their government’s decisions.

NATO’s Drive East – Poland

Poland has finally allowed the United States to put their missile defenses in Poland. It is simply ridiculous of the United States to state that their missiles defenses are aimed at Iran. They are closer to Russia than anything else troubling the West, and Iran has no reason to fire missiles at Europe. Polish people are scared, especially after Russia declaring that their missiles (some nuclear) are aimed at military bases in Poland. The Polish people have no one else to blame but their leader – Leh Kachinski, for endangering his own people. Poland has no business regarding Georgia, Ukraine, or Russian politics aside from those that concern trading relations between the two. Poland has developed magnificently in the recent decade, aside it’s eastern neighbor, and should not engage in outside politics of the Big Game, for it does not have leverage power, or much voice on global international issues.

Rest of NATO

British Foreign Minister Miliband decided to put together an anti-Russian coalition, being quoted as calling to the international community to “put together as wide a coalition to stop Russian aggression against Georgia.” (http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/26/miliband/ Anatol Lieven of the British newspaper the Times quoted Lord Salisbury:

Lord Salisbury, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister in the days of the British Empire, dispensed immense global power; but that did not mean that he liked playing about with that power.

Faced with proposals for British policy that he understood to be deeply damaging to the interests of other great powers, Salisbury would look his colleagues in the eye and ask simply: “Are you really prepared to fight? If not, do not embark on this policy.”

The full article that Lieven wrote, criticizes Miliband’s words and actions. He points out that the West’s threats towards Russia – not being able to join the WTO, canceling the membership of G8 – are empty and meaningless. Russian economy has performed well even without the WTO so far, and really has not many reasons left for joining this organization. The G8 is a meaningless organization without India and China, so Russia really could care less whether it is considered part of G8 or not. Miliband seems to be trying to get himself in the picture, and put himself up there with the politicians that made a difference in history. This is not the way to do this today. Diplomacy and rationale are key to making history today.

The Conclusion

Russia has declared South Ossetia and Abkhaziaindependent. The two Republics are celebrating. This may be a short-lived celebrations as the rest of the world is yet to recognize the two new additions to the world community. It seems like it may be a long process. U.S. and the rest of the west are trying to threaten Russia with different things that they assume are hurtful. In the short-run, they may make Russia stumble, especially economically, but the guys sitting in Kremlin has all the things planned out. It seems like they have a way out of every situation that the West puts them in. It seems that they have anticipated every possible action and have already planned every “just-in-case” scenario. Now, Western threats to Russia sounds more like frustrated gasps, such as those that one makes when he gets punched in the solar plexus.

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 Times” on the War in South Ossetia

Vladimir Putin’s mastery checkmates the West

Russia has been biding its time, but its victory in Georgia has been brutal – and brilliant

Michael Binyon

Russia accused of cluster bomb abuse | Video: Journalists attacked in Ossetia | Rice in Georgia amid scorched earth claims

The cartoon images have shown Russia as an angry bear, stretching out a claw to maul Georgia. Russia is certainly angry, and, like a beast provoked, has bared its teeth. But it is the wrong stereotype. What the world has seen last week is a brilliant and brutal display of Russia’s national game, chess. And Moscow has just declared checkmate.

Chess is a slow game. One has to be ready to ignore provocations, lose a few pawns and turn the hubris of others into their own entrapment. For years there has been rising resentment within Russia. Some of this is inevitable: the loss of empire, a burning sense of grievance and the fear that in the 1990s, amid domestic chaos and economic collapse, Russia’s views no longer mattered.

A generalised resentment, similar to the sour undercurrents of Weimar Germany, began to focus on specific issues: the nonchalance of the Clinton Administration about Russian sensitivities, especially over the Balkans and in opening Nato’s door to former Warsaw Pact members; the neo-conservative agenda of the early Bush years that saw no role for Russia in its global agenda; and Washington’s ingratitude after 9/11 for vital Kremlin support over terrorism, Afghanistan and intelligence on extremism.

More infuriating was Western encouragement of “freedom” in the former Soviet satellite states that gave carte blanche to forces long hostile to Russia. In the Baltic states, Soviet occupation could be portrayed as worse than the Nazis. EU commissioners from new member states could target Russian policies. Populists in Eastern Europe could ride to power on anti-Russian rhetoric emboldened by Western applause for their fluency in English.

Nowhere was such taunting more wounding than in Ukraine and Georgia, two countries long part of the Russian Empire, whose history, religion and culture were so intertwined with Russia’s. Moscow tried, disastrously, to check Western, and particularly American, influence in Ukraine. The clumsy meddling led to the Orange Revolution.

Georgia was a different matter. Relations were always mercurial, but Eduard Shevardnadze, the wily former Soviet Foreign Minister, knew how to keep atavistic animosities in check. Not so his brash successor, Mikheil Saakashvili. From then on, hubris was Tbilisi’s undoing.

It was not simply the dismissive rhetoric, the open door to US advisers or the economic illiteracy in forgetting dependence on Russian energy and remittance from across the border; it was the determined attempt to make Georgia a US regional ally and outpost of US influence.

Big powers do not like other big powers poaching. This may not be moral or fair but it is reality, and one that underpins the Security Council veto. The Monroe Doctrine – “hands off the Americas” – has been policy in Washington for 200 years. The US is ready to risk war to keep out not only other powers but hostile ideologies – in Cuba and Nicaragua.

Vladimir Putin lost several pawns on the chessboard – Kosovo, Iraq, Nato membership for the Baltic states, US renunciation of the ABM treaty, US missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. But he waited.

The trap was set in Georgia. When President Saakashvili blundered into South Ossetia, sending in an army to shell, kill and maim on a vicious scale (against US advice and his promised word), Russia was waiting.

It was not only Mr Saakashvili who thought that he had the distraction of the Olympics to cover him; the Kremlin also knew that Mr Bush was watching basketball, and, in the longer term, that the US army was fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the day that the Russian tank brigade raced through the tunnel into South Ossetia, Russia has not made one wrong move. Mr Bush’s remarks yesterday notwithstanding, In five days it turned an overreaching blunder by a Western-backed opponent into a devastating exposure of Western impotence, dithering and double standards on respecting national sovereignty (viz Iraq).

The attack was short, sharp and deadly – enough to send the Georgians fleeing in humiliating panic, their rout captured by global television. The destruction was enough to hurt, but not so much that the world would be roused in fury. The timing of the ceasefire was precise: just hours before President Sarkozy could voice Western anger. Moscow made clear that it retained the initiative. And despite sporadic breaches – on both sides – Russia has blunted Georgian charges that this is a war of annihilation.

Moscow can also counter Georgian PR, the last weapon left to Tbilisi. Human rights? Look at what Georgia has done in South Ossetia (and also in Abkhazia). National sovereignty? Look at the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia. False pretexts? Look at Ronald Reagan’s invasion of Grenada to “rescue” US medical students. Western outrage? Look at the confused cacophony.

There are lessons everywhere. To the former Soviet republics – remember your geography. To Nato – do you still want to incorporate Caucasian vendettas into your alliance? To Tbilisi – do you want to keep a President who brought this on you? To Washington – does Russia’s voice still count for nothing? Like it or not, it counts for a lot.