Depardieux...or is that Asterix...Confusion

This is actually blog post Number 500 and the first for 2013.  So - I thought it should be decidedly unserious and focus on the enormously amusing antics of Cyrano and Asterix - also known as that slightly rotund alcoholic and sometime actor, Gerard Depardieux.

Gerard, upset by the new socialist president of France and, not to put too fine a point on it, his plan to tax those with incomes in excess of $1 million at a rate of 75% (which is a little outlandish) has obtained a Russian passport to exhibit how put-out he feels. 

However, he has now taken the plunge into Russian politics with a loud yelp in support of Vladimir Putin and his not so subtle move toward an oppresive state. 

In a supposedly secret telephone interview he also heavily criticised the anti-Putin stunt that the Pussy Riot all-female punk band performed last year in Russia's main cathedral. With talking points that could have been written by the Kremlin, Depardieu said that the band members would have received worse treatment had they gone to an Arab country and performed in a mosque.

"Imagine if these ladies walked into a mosque -- they would not come out alive..." 

Yes, well. Nothing like lowering the bar.  Sort of like saying that the Russian government is slightly less barbaric and crushes any decent with less vigour than chopping off heads in a public square in Saudi Arabia.

Two band members are currently serving two-year sentences in Russia's notorious manual labour camps.

He then said, "But when I say such things in France, I am considered an idiot."  No, Gerard, not just in France.

But, then he dives straight in the muddy water of Russian politics. 

Gratuitous remarks involved dishing out severe criticism of the opposition, who are not enamoured of Putin's 13-year rule were the norm. 

"The Russian opposition has no programme -- it has nothing," he told Rossiya state television's weekly program.

Then the remark designed to win over his new fellow citizens:

"Unfortunately, the masses are stupid. Only the individual is beautiful." 
Russia's first post-Soviet protests exploded last year in response to a fraud-riddled parliamentary election in which Putin's party barely got past the post.

But it get's dumber:

Depardieu said the opposition had "very smart people" such as former chess champion Garry Kasparov in its ranks. "But that is good for chess and not much else."

So - he leaves a free and open society in France because he doesn't like the idea of high taxes, to go to Russia - demonstrably un-free and un-open and with a flat 13% tax rate which played no part in his decision.

Gerard - fat, dumb and being an alcoholic are rarely a good life style choices.

Putin Throws Assad Under the Bus

When you lose this guy, time's up.

On Thursday, President Putin said this about Syria and Assad:

"We are not concerned about the fate of al-Assad’s regime. We understand what is going on there and that the family has held power for 40 years. Undoubtedly, there is a call for changes.”

“We are worried about a different thing – what next? We simply don’t want the current opposition, having become the authorities, to start fighting the people who are the current authorities ... and [we don’t want] this to go on forever.”

During the past several months, the opposition forces have consolidated gains, holding most of the north and opening up new fronts in the south. After a year of scattered fighting and assaults, they have now carried out coordinated attacks that are stripping away territory from the Assad regime which is looking more and more like a well-armed militia than coherent national fighting force. Russia knows this and is likely planning its pull-back from the Middle East. Does Iran? Probably.

But, there is a grain of truth in President Putin's remarks yesterday.  The Arab Spring has resulted in an upsurge of hard line Islamists, such as the Salafists in Egypt and similar groups in Syria.  The conventional wisdom was that if the Assad regime fell, those who peacefully demonstrated for fundamental rights a year ago would be able to consolidate and reconstruct a largely secular Syria but one that included Islamic principles.  That is unlikely to happen, and we can see from Iraq and Egypt, that those who wanted democracy are likely to end up with a new government that is neither liberal or democratic.  

President Putin is also correct in his concern that the fighting could go on forever.  Syria's opposition is united by only one thing - to remove the Assad regime. Once that is accomplished, what then?  One merely has to look at Egypt and its looming governance crisis.

Then there are the Kurds who have been largely disconnected from the fighting but not the opposition. Will they have a role to play within a new government or will they reflect on their wider interests with their government in northern Iraq?  If fighting erupts in northern Iraq between the Baghdad government and the Kurdish autonomous region - an increasingly likely scenario given the possibility of no Kurdish representation in the Iraq government - will it spread to engulf Syria?  Ankara is also likely looking at that possibility.

So, the complexity of the state of play in Syria is reflected in the entire region at this point while the US and Europe seem to be trying to find a way to engage in the regime change process so as to have influence in the new Syria.  Hence the labelling of the Ansar al-Jebhat al-Nusra li-Ahl al-Sham (Supporters of the Front for Victory of the People of Syria) or simply Jebhat al-Nusra (Support Front) by Washington as a terrorist organization in an attempt to sift out extremist.

As the end game approaches, the complexity will increase as Iran, seeing an ally swept from power, struggles to reset its relationship with Syria, while Turkey moves to create a stable transition that does not involve a Kurdish uprising that could spill over into its territory and the West maneuvers to prevent extremist elements from coming to power.

Syria, Russia and Slow Train Wrecks

English: President Bashar al-Assad, Aleppo, Abbarah square (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To steal from Churchill, the now almost daily fighting inside Damascus, including the destruction of a major barracks and the attack on the State Security building, is not the beginning of the end, it is simply the end of the beginning.  The downfall of the Assad regime won’t come from the streets, however; it will only come when his own people determine that the status quo has changed and turn on him as they did on Qadaffi’s regime.  Stay tuned though because the military can still field thousands of tanks and artillery– all of whom are Alawite led and loyal so far.  This is not Egypt, Tunisia or Libya (where the military was essentially incinerated by NATO).  And if you think it can’t get much worse than it already is, consider that the government has begun to shift some of its chemical weapons.  If they are sent to fire units of any type, this could be very ominous, to say the least.  One hopes they are simply  being moved to more secure locations – itself an indication that the Syrian government is nervous.

Meanwhile, it is likely that the Kremlin is moving rapidly to a Plan C.  Plan A which amounted to unqualified support for the Assad regime, was modified a few weeks ago to Plan B when they announced that their purpose was not to sustain Assad in power but to bring about a negotiated settlement with no external intervention.  Like the Egyptian military who simply took advantage of the massive unrest to remove a threat to the regime itself (Mubarak and more to the point his son),  Russia is now saying that Assad is not the point.  But the optics are bad for them as they are seeming to support a regime because 1) they want to keep their wharf on the Med; 2) they want to be able to keep all the arms contracts; and, 3) they want to prevent an alternative route for oil to Europe that would open up with a change in government in Syria.  None of this has played well in the rest of the Arab world. And they, not to mention many Syrian’s who are likely to come to power, will not forget.

Nor should they.

Germany = EU - EU = Germany

Lest anyone feel uncomfortable with the notion that Germany is the EU and the EU is Germany, they need simply to  look at their Hooveristic economic policy it is imposing on  the EU and their attitude toward Ukraine at the recently conclude EU-Ukraine summit.
 

In the first case, the German government is simply saying that others – and they are looking at Spain, Italy and Greece in particular – must be like them, or else; hence the proposal to force the 27 members of the EU to amend their national constitutions to require balanced budgets.  To propose this in a recessionary environment sounds rather foolish especially when Germany has not proposed any growth policies, just crippling austerity which, ultimately won’t work to solve the multiple problems.  Coupled with the trade imbalances that exist in the EU – which Germany seems disinclined to address – it is hard to imagine any solution that would satisfy Germany which did not require that its policy choices are mirrored in Brussels.  If that’s the case, then the Eurozone is going to disintegrate and maybe even the EU.

The second German imposed decision arose at the EU-Ukraine summit.  Blithely ignoring the Polish position that inducements work better than sticks, Germany engineered the summit so that the EU did not even initial the Association Agreement with Ukraine killing, for the time being, closer economic cooperation and letting Yanukovich off the hook.  The reason for this rejection of even a small step forward was the German view that the Tymoshenko trial and imprisonment should bring the entire integration process to a grinding halt.  Astoundingly, Germany ignored Tymoshenko’s call to sign the Agreement preferring to appear as a defender of human rights while obscuring the inconvenient fact that 1) it is joined at the hip with Russia for energy and investment; 2) it gets to work on pipeline projects originating with Russia; and 3) it gets preferential pricing by Gazprom.

The result is that the EU, run by Germany, has managed to push an important country like Ukraine closer to the demonstrably undemocratic Russia and has also failed to come to grips with the Eurozone/EU crises.  Not a bad month’s work.

Tymoshenko Redux

Image via WikipediaThe political trial of Yulia Tymoshenko is over but an appeal could change everything.  By bringing her to trial for negotiating a generous (from Moscow’s point of view) gas deal while Eastern Europe was freezing in and of itself revealed the motive behind the persecution.  Seven other members of her party are already in jail.  It stincks of a political murder. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck – well….

The question, like everything in Ukraine, is the underlying reason for this mock trial run by a neophyte, 31 year old judge whose sentence was written for him by the Presidential Administration.  It has resurrected Tymoshenko politically, rather than the opposite.  It has put Yanukovich in the worst possible light as his government is condemned by the EU and the US.  Russia, which appeared equally surprised, may be play-acting as putting political opponents in jail is the norm for the Kremlin (journalists are merely murdered). And this may be key – Russia’s interest in the case as crocodile tears’ come to mind.

Does Yanukovich really care about deeper integration with Europe?  Personally, I doubt it.  Will he agree to join the economic union Russia has slapped together with Belarus and Kazakhstan?  Perhaps – but that is no substitute for the loss of a trade agreement with the EU, despite the Kremlin’s glee should it come to pass.

I prefer not to think that Yanukovich is both stupid and a thug.  The latter maybe, but not the former – at least until now.  On the other hand, collapse of trade negotiations with the EU gives him the excuse to run to Russia without being the instigator of the break with the EU.   But with Putin set to return to power, criticism from the big brother to the north is not a welcome sign for Yanukovich. 

As always, nothing is clear in Ukraine and conspiracy theories are a daily menu item.   But this prosecution and conviction appear to be a gross misjudgment if the purpose was to remove Yulia from the political arena.  It has made her a martyr and, since she has been through this before, even more dangerous for Yanukovich and his Party of the Regions. 

The stage is set for what could be a remarkable comeback.  First there is a sentence pronounced by a non-entity child judge under pressure by her political opponent Yanukovich for the “crime” of negotiating a bad deal with the Russians.  Putin remarked that the sentence is odd at best and the agreements were, in any event legal.  Then she is jailed during the appeal process because of, essentially, being rude to the court (not hard considering the court). This is followed by the loss of a major trade agreement with the EU and condemnation from every European leader and principal EU legal experts.   Yanukovich has given her what she needs. She lost to him by less than 3% of the vote in 2010.  He clearly did not want her, or her party, another grab at the ring.  But, tired old apparatchik bully from the East that he is, he could not let her just fade away.

Call it a gut feeling, but I believe the appeal is likely to go her way. If that happens (and even Yanukovich appears to think it may) she will come out of this unscathed and emboldened.  She is a ferocious, dangerous competitor and Yanukovich may soon regret his actions.

New, Old World Order

I am, finally, returning to a thesis not widely supported but which I believe is rapidly taking shape: the world has returned to a pre-1939 political structure where regional powers are making more foreign policy decisions based on national interests rather than within alliances. Blocs like NATO, ASEAN and even Shanghai Cooperation Organization are have become largely clubs without transnational impact, except at times militarily like NATO, and even then are severely constrained by the conflicting international interests of their members.  This is also true of the European Union where the political (and perhaps fiscal) unraveling of the Eurozone is proceeding apace.

Some caveats.  First, this is not about the perceived decline of the United States because it is not a decline except in relative terms.  It is about the reality of multi-polarity and local dominance and not absolute decline and fall – something a vast number of Europeans and Americans simply are too reluctant or obtuse to understand. The United States is still the leading military power on a planet-wide basis in general.  Its navy with accompanying air power can go anywhere, anytime and push anyone out of the way. No one can project military power like the US and no one is going to be able to do so for a very long time. In the wrong hands, as we have seen, that has been a problem.  But, there is simply no competition.

Nevertheless, on land and in foreign affairs, it is a different matter. The ill-conceived war in Iraq and the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan have drained the power of the United States militarily, economically and politically.  The policies of the neo-cons and the far right in the US have destroyed the “city on the hill” image that Ronald Reagan tried to push both domestically and internationally. The eight year Bush administration buried the credibility, economy and good will felt toward the US with its astonishingly arrogant, incompetent (but unsurprising) foreign policy otherwise known as the ‘go-it-alone’, ‘with us or against us’ and ‘international agreements be damned’ posturing. 

Second, the European Union remains a creation with enormous potential; but the failure to push for more political integration is now fraying the edges of its economic foundation.  If it is able to resolve the fiscal issues of its member states fairly, then the opportunity to conduct a unified foreign policy will have a chance.  It is not, in my opinion, likely.  Which is why the EU is not included in my list as an entity – just a few member states.

Third, a seismic event could reverse the trend toward the nation-centric foreign policy of pre-1939. I believe in the improbable and dismiss facile bell curves, models and forecasts based on hindsight. It’s what you have dismissed as improbable that will hurt you – usually badly.  The fiscal crises which began in 2008 could have been such an event and should not have been unforeseen, but that moment has dissipated with the uneven recovery – some countries doing much better than others such as in the case of Germany which unfortunately, also proceeded to vocally relegate some member states –the southern tier and Greece in particular - to second citizen status with some distasteful,  nationalistic  remarks bordering on bigotry.   

So, on a region by region basis I believe we are looking at an old, new world order.  It may last a decade or fifty years.  My bet is that it will last longer than anyone expects.  Its structure is that of the realpolitik world of pre-1939 which largely came crashing to a bloody end in 1945 with the rise of the blocs. Some blocs are still around but in reality began a rapid disintegration with the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

Viewing the political map from this geo-political perspective, there are several clear, locally powerful players – China and India; Russia; Turkey; Germany and France; the Visegrad group; and, of course, the US.  Oh – and BRIC is not a bloc – it is a label of convenience mostly for economists who, like Linus and his blanket, need to pigeon-hole un-related countries into nice chewable morsels. 

I have not included Iran because, compared to the others and despite the hysterics of the galactically stupid right wing in the US, it simply doesn’t count.  Its economy is in shambles and it is politically unstable and cannot risk going to war or cutting off the Strait of Hormuz because that would invite retaliation of the most unpleasant sort by almost everyone.  It’s not near to building a single nuclear bomb and couldn’t afford to toss it in any direction even it did manage that amazingly difficult task because then it would be wiped out.

I did not include any African country because, well, if you can name one that is a regional power with enough influence both economically and militarily to do anything with significant impact except very locally, you win a cookie.  South Africa is the sub-Sahara elephant in the room– but its absurd attempts to play on the world stage as it has in Libya make it more of an annoying busybody than effective player.  The African Union in general is an old boys’ club intent on maintaining the status quo. Just look at the lack of effective condemnation of Mugabe’s reign by the AU. 

I also do not include any South American country despite my strong temptation to present Brazil as a player.  Maybe soon, but not now.

That’s my pre-amble.  Next time, and as a first choice, let’s look at Turkey or, more to the point, how Turkey looks at everyone else and their reaction.

Unwinding Europe

Largely unnoticed and unremarked, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary, otherwise known as the Visegrad Group, have decided to develop an independent military force, or battle group, under the command of Poland.  The fact that this event passed unnoticed last week is perhaps the result of the Libyan intervention by NATO and upheavals in Syria and the riots in and around Israel by Palestinians with the usual over the top reaction of the IDF. Oh, yes, there was this little OBL thing as well.

The timing  for the creation of the battle group could not be better for flying under the radar (although probably not lost on certain people to the north and east).   This small event may be more significant than the lack of news coverage it has generated.

I’ve previously noted that the Russian invasion of Georgia and its aggressive remarks regarding the Baltics shortly thereafter would ring the alarm bells in Warsaw, as well as in Bucharest, Prague, Riga and Tallin among others. Those alarms have become real now that it is abundantly clear that the Germans have adopted the somewhat incoherent foreign policy of abandoning Europe and the United States for mother Russia and openly challenging the stability of the Eurozone with intemperate remarks by, among others, its naïve and inexperienced Foreign Minister.  The French, for reasons still murky, sold a close support vessel - useful for invading countries by sea – to the Russians and the US has been so pre-occupied with winding down its ill-conceived Iraq adventure and continuing involvement in unappreciative Afghanistan that Eastern Europe has all but vanished from the foreign policy agenda. Further, given the financial woes in Europe, rumblings about when to join the Eurozone by the Visegrad Group have turned to questions of whether.

HIstorically, when Germany and Russia get close, bad things happen to those sandwiched between.  Clearly, a repetition of 1914 and 1939 is remote, to say the least.  However, Poland and the other Visegrad members have long memories of Russian dictatorship and the Kremlin’s proclivity for bullying it’s near abroad – not to mention what happened to Georgia.  The abandonment of the idea of “Europe” by the Germans while embracing Russian offers of investment possibilities and, lately, taking Russia’s side regarding the no-fly zone vote in the UN imposed on Libya, has now resulted in the first steps of a defensive coalition mirroring the similar organization to Poland’s north. 

There is no European defense force and NATO is increasingly irrelevant as it searches for a reason to be.  Furthermore, NATO depends on unanimity – something the Poles are well aware of as a member.  They are unsure as to what Europe’s response would be if Poland called for aid in the event the Russian empire seeks to become ever more aggressive. 

So, slight as it appears, the creation of this new military force may be the tipping point for European political unity, much less integration.

In Other News...

In what undoubtedly is a massive understatement, at Victory Day celebrations President Lukashenko of Belarus announced that “the West” was the prime enemy of Belarus.  Well, he’s probably right.  But perhaps he should look over his shoulder back to the east where his government is in negotiations with Moscow for an economic bailout. Yet again. It is probably too much for the last dictator in Europe to swallow that the Russian Federation is only a reluctant friend of his government and probably wishes he would just go away.

Luki has been in a snit ever since the EU basically slammed the doors closed around him, his family and supporters with very effective economic sanctions.  On April 25, he refused to travel to Ukraine for the 10^th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, which heavily impacted large chunks of Belarusian territory in and around the Pripyat and Gomel regions.  Why refuse? Well, as part of the EU boycott, the current EU commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso had asked President Yanukovich not to invite him to a conference in Kiev on the consequences of the disaster. Ukraine complied with the EU demand, hoping he would still show up to the Chernobyl anniversary, but Luki had taken umbrage.  It seems he is angry with Ukraine as well.

Considering he has vowed never to give up power, has jailed or exiled all opposition leaders and appears to be grooming his son for succession (remind you of Egypt?), perhaps he is losing sight of the fact that Moscow is not an ardent supporter, but treats him more as a useful clown; and, that Ukraine still has a saying that the reason Belarus was invented was to make Ukraine look good; and, that the EU simply wants him gone. When you’re a leader of a country with a bankrupt economy, surrounded by people who either don’t like you, actively seek your removal or, in the case of Russia, find you barely tolerable, perhaps an attitude improvement would be in order. 

Will it happen?  No. The former collective farm manager has dug in his heels and gone into hedghog mode.  Everyone is stuck with him until the youth in the country explodes or Medvedev’s tolerance for fools thins sufficiently to arrange a long vacation – or both.

The Future of NATO to be decided over a Week-end

As NATO meets this week-end in Lisbon, three crucial issues will be on the table.


The first is Afghanistan. The timetable for withdrawal of NATO forces will focus on pace, not if. The rising crescendo of certain politicos in the US that there should be no withdrawal apparently forget that this is a NATO mission, not a US mission regardless of the fact that the majority of troops are American. Decisions in NATO are taken by unanimous consent. A decision not to withdraw is not an option. However, that does not mean that the mission – a decade old, by the way – should not be molded to fit the reality on the ground.

First, as often pointed out by me and others, Afghanistan has not been and will not be a country. It is a largely feudal system of differing tribes, some of whom have more power than others. The mission of NATO and the US in particular, was established as a response to the 9/11 terror attack by Al Qaeda which launched its training and planning from Afghanistan and who were guests of the Taliban. I’m sure there are elements of the Taliban today who wish they had not indulged their cultural traditions quite as much and thrown Al Qaeda out. Nevertheless, NATO has achieved its goal of destroying Al Qaeda Central and the mission needs to consider how to assure that Afghanistan does not become a base for international terrorism again. To do this, it will need to involve Pakistan, Russia, India and (yes) Iran.

NATO, and the US, did not plunge into the Afghan civil war raging at the time in the north between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban for the purpose of nation building. Good governance and civil society building were not part of the writ then and are a long vanished opportunity now. It was a wasted opportunity and short-sighted policy, but the reality is that the Taliban are deeply embedded in society, NATO is going away, and other tribes, particularly in the north, will not be inclined to cooperate with the Taliban alliance. These are the ingredients to a return to an Afghanistan with which all the local participants are very familiar. After NATO vanishes, expect a return to localized tribal war.

That is why NATO needs to discuss the structure of future involvement in Afghanistan, not only among its member states, but also with the surrounding players. It will need to formulate a strategy to deal with potential threats. The Taliban pose zero threat to NATO or any member country. They posed no threat in 2001 and less now. We may decry the return to what most in the West consider barbaric practices; but, aside from complaints, no one in the West was in favor of a massive use of force against the Taliban for their cultural proclivities and abuse of women. Otherwise, NATO might as well invade Saudi Arabia – an unlikely proposition.

NATO, as a body, appears particularly useless at this point in time and its principal mission, defending Europe from the Soviet Union, is not relevant. It must redefine its role and Afghanistan is a good place to start.

The second issue on the table is its relationship with a resurgent Russia. This is complicated by factors that Russia considers important to its foreign policy and its relationship with Europe – such as missile shield deployment and securing its field of influence. NATO has frequently stated that Russia is a partner, not an opponent. Many in the US do not see it that way and may well sink the START Treaty which is supported by the US military and important (thinking) Republicans. If START goes down and they are not included in the decision to deploy a missile shield, expect trouble.

For a start, Moscow may stop cooperating with the United States on Iran and, bearing in mind that Afghanistan will not be over for at least another few years, it may not be so generous with the transit of non –lethal material over its territory to supply NATO troops. It may renew pressure on its “near abroad” through energy supplies and less than subtle political pressure to make sure that NATO – and particularly the US – do not renew the Bush era political invasion of their turf. Finally, if START is not ratified and the Republican leadership succeeds in bringing a return to the confrontational policies of the previous administration with Russia, then Moscow hawks may win the day. So much for the reset button.

Third, and connected to the above is this issue of the missile shield. NATO, through the US, changed its focus from an overtly challenging system aimed at Russia that Bush and his neo-con allies sought to install, to one which is aimed at defending Europe and others from Iranian missiles. NATO will try and force the issue with Turkey for example. It has already asked that Turkey allow anti-missile shields to be placed on its territory. If Turkey says ‘no’, that will lose the second most powerful military to NATO, not to mention an important Muslim ally. If NATO pushes and Turkey says ‘yes’, then its standing in the Middle East will plummet- leaving Iran as the great protector. Ultimately, it is hoped that no specific countries are cited, giving Turkey the cover to place the shield on its soil. Of course, this is not to say that Turkey is not making some serious blunders along the way. The recent demand by Turkey that it be given operational control of the system based on its territory is absurd – but indicates the levels to which Turkey will go to gain respect and leverage in its back-yard. Time for NATO to be clever and devise a satisfactory solution because it would be sad to begin the ritual “who lost Turkey” refrain. Turkey needs to climb down from some of its positions as well.

By the end of the week-end, NATO will need to formulate an approach to the entire Middle East. It should have the wit to see how key Turkey is to the alliance and the West and not permit Israel to dictate policy. Fortunately, there is only one member of the alliance that allows its foreign policy to be directed by Israel. The others are not so inclined.

Finally, aside from specific areas of concern that must be addressed, NATO must redefine itself. It is already largely irrelevant but is unable to dissolve itself. None of its members, even France and Germany and certainly not Poland and the Baltics, want that to happen. Sweden and Finland will likely increase their participation in NATO short of becoming members. So, what is NATO to become? Because, the Cold War is over and political relationships are getting back to normal.

Right Wing Russia - A Mirror of Right Wing America

This alarming analysis  out of Moscow (Russian only)  just shows that right wing reactionary nightmares in the Russian Federation are very similar to right wingnut fantasy scenarios regarding Iran in the US.  The entire article is an review of the military status of countries in Central Asia and the threats to Russia - but goes on to postulate a Chinese seizure of Central Asia.  With ease.  The paranoia about China in Russia is deep.  I'm not sure why - unless it has something to do with the ancient Mongol domination of Russia.  Whatever.  This is simply not going to happen. 

South Caucuses and a Return to Normal Foreign Policy

 

Image via Wikipedia

 In what should be considered another example of a return to “normal” foreign policy choices cited in a previous post, Russia signed a treaty with Armenia that commits it to defend the borders of Armenia proper while in August, Turkey signed a Treaty on Strategic Partnership and Mutual Assistance with Azerbaijan that happens to include the establishment of a military base in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic – an Azerbaijani exclave between Armenia and Turkey. The tacit agreement, with US preoccupation in other regions, is that the South Caucuses (see map) now belongs to Turkey and Russia to work out. Indeed, both the EU and the US seem to have concluded on a period of strategic neglect in the region.

What is interesting about the latest round of treaties vowing to protect the territorial integrities of Azerbaijan and Armenia by, respectively Turkey and Russia (with the notable exception of the Ngorno Kharabakh enclave which both Armenia and Russia studiously avoided), is the return to a 19th and early 20th century diplomacy. These are zones of interest which could be characterized as a return to normalcy after the end of history in 1991. It also represents the collapse of any agreement on Ngorno Kharabakh as the two local players rely on their much more powerful regional allies to assure their relative safety and prevent the conflict from reigniting while retaining the status quo.

Meanwhile, both Turkey and Russia are shepherding a solution to the Ngorno Kharabakh issue by working on bi-lateral meetings between Baku and Yerevan – the first one having been held in the Russian Caspian Sea city of Astrakhan during the last week of October and the next soon to be held at the OSCE conference in Astana. The absence of the EU and the US from this process is telling and another example of a new, old foreign policy system based on regional power.

The Russian Are Coming - Again

Back in August, 25 Islamic militants escaped from a high security prison in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan.  The government immediately initiated a hunt.  It's not going well.  On September 19 in the northeastern valley of Rasht, militants ambushed a Tajik patrol and killed at least 25 soldiers.  Nothing like this has been seen in a decade.

There are a whole variety of different militant groups operating in Tajikistan whose terrain is difficult, to say the least. Similar groups exits in Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. The sudden increase in activity coupled with the upcoming withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan just to the south may spell trouble for the entire region.

Which is why the Russians are coming.  They have never rally left and have bases in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, most notably along the Uzbek border who the Russians fear may have designs on becoming the regional power since it has the largest population and a ruthless military. But all the countries have an interest in making sure the conflicts of the 1990s don't return, especially in the form of Islamic militancy. So the Russian just sent around 25,000 troops to Tajikistan.  More will be coming and China will certainly take an interest as some of the militant groups spill over into their territory. 

As the US pulls back and the latest iteration of The Great Game dials down, these Central Asian republics are in for a ride.  It will be left to the Russians.

Iran Losing Key Support?

In a surprising move, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has signed a decree banning the delivery of the S-300 air defense system and a host of other major arms to Iran, apparently in response to the new UN sanctions.  Since the S-300 system doesn't even make it to the UN list of conventional arms and would be entirely justified, the move is clearly a sign that the deal made between Washington and Moscow for more investment into Russia had a catch.  More investment, fewer supplies to Iran. 

Also included in the ban was entry to and transit through  Russia for a Iranians connected with Iran's nuclear program while simultaneously banning Russians or Russian firms from rendering financial services if the services relate to Iran's nuclear activity.

The move by Moscow is a big deal.  It signals that Russia's foreign policy may be returning to a more pragmatic view of the world based on self-interest.  Ultimately, it is not in Russian's interest to have a strong Islamic state to the south that is very capable of causing trouble in Russian dominated regions of its neighbors or even its internal trouble spots of Chechnya and Ingusetia.  It is in its national interest to attract Western investment of every type.  In that scenario, Iran is dispensable.

The UN sanction regime still won't work in and of themselves - but losing allies like Russia at a time when Iran cannot be certain that the US may be changing its tactics regarding military intervention, may be the beginning of a change in Iran's tactics overall.

The Fighting Mayor of Moscow

Image via Wikipedia

On a light note, your blogger has been reading the gossip pages of the Russian print media (no access to state controlled TV) and following the Luzhkov Chronicles.

This guy has been around for as long as I can remember. I actually was there when his predecessor – a very forgettable fellow and why his name escapes me – was in power. Luzhkov has been the powerful, contentious, outspoken mayor of Moscow for almost two decades. Now he seems to be on the way out.

The Kremlin wants him to go. He says he intends to stay until his term expires in mid-2011. The Kremlin reminded him that he is appointed and can be removed by the Kremlin. Others have noted that, indeed, the Kremlin can fire him. But, unfortunately they need a reason. Fire him without a reason and the political campaign could be adversely affected as he is not short on popularity.

Putin is his friend. Medvedev is not. Putin and Medvedev are partners and Luzhkov has been doing his very verbal best to divide the two. After taking a not-so-subtle shot at the Kremlin after he was told to resign and refused, Luzhkov announced last week that he was heading on vacation to Austria.

Except his wife took over. Yelena Baturina is anything but subtle. She tends to name names. She is Russia's richest woman, making her fortune as the head of a construction equipment manufacturer. She has always stayed out of the public eye. Until now.

Her husband's fight with the Kremlin and the media onslaught unleashed on him by every major national broadcaster has brought her out of the closet. Using slightly less vague and diplomatic language and naming names, Baturina accused the Kremlin of orchestrating the media's smear campaign against her husband. This is a blinding grasp of the obvious, but nevertheless something that is usually uttered in subdued locations over tea. She said that there are people "who fear that in the 2012 presidential campaign, Luzhkov will back Prime Minister Vladimir Putin over President Dmitry Medvedev."

And who said politics in Russia was predictable?

Putin at 10

Image by World Economic Forum via Flickr

First, yes. I know. Long, long dry spell between posts.  As usual, my day job has tripped me up.  Live with it.

Probably few have noticed but Vladimir Putin has now been in power for over 10 years.  Plucked from nowhere by a failing Boris Yeltsin, he succeeded in restructuring Russia - sometimes not in a good way - with the massive support and approval of the Russian people.  He crushed the nascent free media. He crushed the oligarchs - at lease those who refused to tow the line.

The devastating heat wave and fires during the past month have dented his popularity - but there are few countries in the world who don't blame their leaders  for events beyond their control. Like the weather.  But, then, people are not particularly smart in general and like easy answers.  Most of the time it is the response to disasters that usually kill the politician.  This phenomenon has taken aim at the Russian Prime Minister where calls for his resignation have surfaced this week.  Ain't gonna happen.

Putin will be remembered for consolidating the state and not indulging in revolutionary fervour. As a result, changes that started and faltered under the Yeltsin years have taken place merely because Putin said "do it".

Last May when I was in Moscow to review progress on the consolidation of a certain number of government agencies - something my colleagues and I advocated in 1995 - the progress that had been made when Putin had said "do it" three years ago was astounding.  He also cleared out the old - aged and backward vodka swilling - guard in government, replacing it with very bright and very young professionals. 

I saw a report recently that while visiting Nizhny Novgorod - the fourth largest city in the country - he promised those standing amid smoldering ruins that once had been their homes that all would be rebuild before November. Indeed, work had already begun. All because Putin said "do it".

From a human rights, civil society and media freedom perspective, I don't particularly like him.  But, more leaders should be able to get things done with similar determination.

New Russian PR Web Site

I''ve done my share of Russia bashing, but this new PR site by the Russian Federation - called Modern Russian - is pretty cool.  It actually provides some interesting information which would not normally be found in the news - except perhaps in Russia, and perhaps not even then.  Check it out.

Welcome to BICT and Mult-Polar World

OK. I was wrong. I thought that the Israeli assault on the Turkish flotilla would have sunk the vote on sanctions against Iran. It did not. Whether these sanctions work or not, and I don’t believe that they will achieve the desired result, is not really the question. Israel is now more isolated than ever, as is Iran. The vote against the resolution by Turkey and Brazil was more about regional muscle-flexing and desire to play a larger role in their regions and the world, than their understandable anger over the snub of their nuclear fuel swap agreement with Iran – which is not entirely dead depending on the next move by the US.

Turkey has faced the fact that the opposition by France, Germany and Austria to EU membership has killed the prospect regardless of previous commitments by Brussels to move forward. It has now turned to its old domains in the east and south to increase and solidify Turkish influence and power and it is succeeding.
Ankara may have genuinely believed in the uranium swap deal; but, regardless of the outcome, it has placed itself solidly in the regional power column, independent of the US while still remaining within NATO. Turkey principal competition is Iran. They are not allies and the Iranian brand of Islamic rule is not palatable in Turkey. The attack on the Turkish flotilla has elevated Turkey’s standing in the region as the pre-eminent political power. By voting “no” in the UN against sanctions and joining with Brazil in a nuclear fuel swap deal, its political capital in the Middle East leaped multiple levels. All these events come at Iran’s expense and make Turkey a leader in the region, wielding political and military clout that cannot be safely ignored. Even Russia knows this and has been careful to rapidly build closer economic ties to Turkey. Although Turkey is heavily dependent on Russia for energy, Moscow knows that Turkey can create serious problems for it in the Caucuses and less so in Central Asia.

Brazil, meanwhile, is rapidly asserting its independence and strength in South America and has shown that it can be a player of international scope. Brasilia has increased its trade relationships with China, Russia, West Africa and the Middle East, especially now Turkey. Clearly the leading political and economic power in South America (despite the pretensions of the Chavez regime), it is in a position to require the US to pay attention to its views. Joining with Turkey in the nuclear fuel swap agreement puts Brazil on the map outside of its region.

Russian agreement on the new sanctions also reflects an awareness that it will need to be more sensitive to a multi-polar world. Although it clearly may indulge in more aggressive behaviour in the Caucuses, any such further adventure will come at a steep price as it tries to build ties with Turkey. Turkey is in a position to make life easier for Russia in the Caucuses and may ultimately be instrumental in resolving the long-running confrontation between Yerevan and Baku. By asserting its independence from the US when its interests conflict with those of Washington, Turkey is leveraging its regional strength and becoming a trusted broker.

All the recent events are pointing toward a new balance of power where regional interests can trump traditional alliances. The US can no longer rely on Turkey or Brazil to tow any particular line if their national interests would be adversely affected. For that matter, neither can Russia or the EU. Each must deal with the regional powers in a different way. The now famous BRIC bloc is not really accurate. Drop the R and add a T. Welcome to the new world.

Russian Foreign Policy, Economics and Local Elections

United Russia’s electoral loss to the Communist Party in Bratsk, Siberia for mayor has garnered slight media attention, even in the Russian press, but it is a reflection on the impact of the extent of the financial crises within Russia. United Russia also lost the mayor’s race in Irkutsk, a major city, last March – also to the Communist Party.


Although the latest defeat was likely caused by the ineptitude of local United Russia political leadership – they managed to field two candidates who split the vote for which heads will role – it is a concern for the Kremlin as it tries to recover from the international financial collapse which severely impacted Russia’s economy.

Local political concerns for the ruling party will likely not translate into a threat to United Russia’s control of the Duma, but it cannot absorb too many of these local election losses without eventual damage to its internal network. There is a connection with the economic turmoil resulting in these losses and Russian foreign policy.

The principal concern of the Kremlin now is attracting international investors. Should the control exercised by United Russia weaken internally, particularly in the industrial centers, those same investors will begin to either look elsewhere, or demand a better deal on their investments. The strength and stability of the political structure might become questionable if further internal problems begin to deteriorate.
Russia’s economic problems have resulted in the weak start on the custom’s union among Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The union, which came into existence on January 1 and was to begin official operations on July 1, is one part of Russia’s attempt to restore economic confidence within the investment community, both internally and internationally. It is not off to a positive start. The union’s commencement has been put off for a year.
It does not help that Ukraine – a member of the WTO while Russia’s membership has been languishing for 17 years – has declined to become part of the custom’s union. Despite the largely pro-Russian leanings of the President Yanukovych, Ukraine’s economic interests are grounded in more cooperation with Western Europe and Yanukovych has shown little inclination to increase the trade relationship with Russia beyond its current bi-lateral format.
Further complicating matters is Belarus, which has recently poked its finger in the Kremlin’s eye by sheltering the fugitive former president of the Kyrgyz Republic, refused to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and which will be hosting Prime Minister Berlusconi in Minsk as part of the growing warming of relations with western Europe.
As a result of adverse economic and political events during the past year, Russian foreign policy may be undergoing a change from its recent bellicose nature toward the west. Although largely successful in reasserting Russian control in the near abroad ranging from the annexation of Georgian territory to the recent revolution in the Kyrgyz Republic, the success has come at a diplomatic and economic cost. Eastern Europe and the Baltics were particularly alarmed about the invasion of Georgia which had followed the economic arm-twisting of gas supply cut-offs. The Georgia adventure did not help Russia’s relationship with Western Europe, the United States or Turkey. Using gas supplies as a weapon is probably viewed in hindsight by Moscow as a mistake.
Now Russia desperately needs investment. Russia’s political pendulum has historically swung periodically between an eastern and western world view for sometimes very vague motives, if not outright caprice. There are signs that it is repositioning toward the middle on its current swing to the west for very practical political and economic reasons.

Moscow's Abkhazia and South Ossetia Problem

Image via Wikipedia

Despite my normal misgivings about Ukraine’s changing foreign policy positions toward Russia and the West – none of which is surprising since Russia is next door and has all the leverage – their Minister of Foreign Affairs Kostyantyn Hryshchenko has said that the Yanukovych administration has no plans to recognize an independent Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Citing the sanctity of borders as the reason, Kyiv has now joined Minsk in refusing, so far, to bow to Moscow’s need to have some other countries aside from the diplomatic coups of getting Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru (look it up) to recognize both break-away regions of Georgia.

How long Belarus will keep up its in-your-face attitude with Russia is an open question. They have welcomed former president Bakiyev of the Kyrgyz Republic, a less than popular decision in the Kremlin, and have also refused recognition of Georgia’s lost regions. The same is true for Kyiv, which may be realizing that its balancing act with Europe would be damaged by recognition. Moscow has a problem, which may account for its less aggressive tone lately as it tries to attract Western investment.

Brazil and Turkey Convince Iran - Maybe

Brazil and Turkey appear to have brokered a deal with Iran to accept low-enriched uranium to Turkey for further enrichment. By appear, I mean that although the agreement has been signed by Iran, the Never-Ending-Negotiation Process of the Iranians may yet unravel this first step. And, lest anyone think the current Iranian regime has a corner on this particularly back to the bazaar tactic, the former Shah and his government also used this favourite of Persian tactics.

Nevertheless, despite the protestations of Israel that Turkey and Brazil have been “tricked”, this is a positive development. Israel has said that Erdogan and Lula are naïve. They may be a lot of things but naïve is not one of them - particularly in the case of Erdogan and Turkey for which this is a significant diplomatic and geo-political coup if it works.

Assuming acceptance of the deal by Russia, the United States and France and compliance by Iran, Turkey has established itself as a trusted broker in the region. If Iran follows through, then it has suffered a geo-political set-back as Turkey will use this to enhance its presence throughout the Middle East both economically and politically. By helping Iran to avoid an additional set of sanctions, Turkey has shown that it can accomplish what Iran cannot on its own. Big brother, little brother. Syria and Iraq need to pay attention now as Turkey puts its interests first to further enhance its position.

Israel needs to pay attention too. The remarks that Turkey is naïve show a strong tendency to ignore its ever shrinking circle of support. It is the present government that is naïve. If this deal is implemented, Netanyahu and his supporters lose their last chance for an attack on Iran. Good.