Russia Makes its Moves

A decision by the Kremlin to pay a naval visit to Syria as reported in Izvestia spells trouble.  Russia is clearly ramping up its position regarding what it sees as encirclement redux by the West.  Sending its flagship aircraft carrier the "Admiral Kuznetsov" along with a patrol ship, an anti-submarine craft and other vessels is a signal to NATO that Russia is willing to irritate the West - such as threatening to shut down the supply line to Afghanistan as well - to assert its resurgent foreign policy. 

Aside from the natural position of any country to protect its interests, the move to send a naval contingent to Syria is curious because the blow-back to Russian economic interests in Syria could be serious in long run.  Assad is going down and it is unlikely that the new government will recall the support given to him by the visiting ships with any fondness.  It may have been pre-planned, but it was not cancelled, and under the circumstances is a supremely stupid move by Moscow. Defending one's interests is one thing - supporting a bloody murderer is another. Not that the Russians don't have a history of supporting people like Assad - just look to Serbia. 

The other somewhat provocative move is the recent threat to cut off the supply route to NATO troops in Afghanistan.  Coupled with this weeks border closure by Pakistan, this could spell real trouble.  NATO is withdrawing anyway and the logic of the threat speaks more to the perceived and somewhat real containment of Russia by the US in Eastern Europe.  But, again, such a threat, if implemented, would affect real NATO interests and lives.  This would be a profoundly dumb move by the Kremlin unless it actually desires a return to the cold war - one it did not win. 

The timing of the threats from another standpoint is also curious. The US is Russia's greatest competitor. It is withdrawing from Afghanistan and has largely completed its withdrawal from Iraq.  Russian ability to reign-in its near-abroad depended on the window of opportunity provided by the distraction caused by those two wars.  The window is almost shut and the US will have more opportunity to shift its foreign policy focus away from these wars, much to the detriment of Russian foreign policy should it continue on this course. 

It is difficult to understand the choices that are made by those in power in Russia regarding how they protect their interests.  They certainly have other leverage points but appear to be deliberately choosing those that maximize the chance of long-term damage in relations with the West - a partner they desperately need.  The imminent re-assumption of power by Vladimir Putin coupled with militaristic muscle flexing does not auger well for future.

Future US Republican Foreign Policy

OK.  Resistance is futile. I must comment on the current foreign policy pornography espoused by the presidential candidates in the Republican Party.

Let’s get to it:

Huntsman:  He said “Iranians have already decided to go nuclear”.  There is no proof and repeating it over and over does not make it true.  Sort of like the definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over while believing there will be a different result. In fairness, he’s not alone in this.

Perry:  Monroe Doctrine redux – to stop Hezbollah and Hamas from interfering in South America and joining in on the drug trade in Mexico.  The legality of the original doctrine is questionable.  This is just stupid.  Not a lot of Hezbollah and Hamas members in South America to stir up, plus it is unlikely that either group would survive a street fight with Mexican drug cartels. 

Santorum:  “Africa is a country on the brink”.  No comment. 

Bachmann:  Iran wants to attack Israel – and the US – with nuclear weapons.  The first policy has never been announced although may be true and the second involving the USwas never stated by anyone. Anywhere. Anytime. 

Bachmann: “We know that they [Iran] already have a nuclear capability.”  We is the unidentified bird whispering in her ear.

Cain: Iran is very mountainous and therefore a security threat to the US.  Watch out Switzerland.

Cain:  China is a threat to US security and is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Beijing is astonished and starts counting its stockpile of warheads. 

Santorum:  “Obviously, Muslims should be people we look out…”  Yup all those darker skinned people look alike and must be Muslim terrorists. Unless, of course, they happen to be Mexican. 

Romney:   He said: “there is "no price that is too expensive to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon."  Really?  

Romney AND Perry:  Zero out foreign aid and start negotiating.  The government of Israel started to pay attention with that line.  Aside from the thundering economic and political stupidity of the proposal, that’s not how foreign aid works. 

Cain:  We should assist the opposition in Iran to overthrow the regime.  That is otherwise more commonly known as a declaration of war.  Go home and sell more crappy pizza. 

Gingrich: It’s absolutely unacceptable for Iran to fully develop a nuclear weapon.. And if China continues to resist joining the world in tough sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, then a U.S. trade boycott of China would quickly persuade Beijing,  He is now the newest “anyone but Mitt Romney” candidate so I guess advocating a trade boycott with the second largest economy in the world and  one on which the US also is dependent economically makes perfect sense.  I bet it would be a resounding success. Like invading Iraq and seeing into Putin’s soul.

The International Fickle Finger of Fate Award

To celebrate the end of 9 days of rain, I want to end the week with the people that deserve the old “Fickle Finger of Fate” award (Rowan and Martin’s “Laugh-In” for those old enough to remember).  The list is limited to the top seven, one for every day of the week.

George Papandreou, PM Greece:  For no obvious reason, creates world-wide consternation when, following months of negotiations in the EU (otherwise known as Germany) to deal with debt crises in general and with problem Greece in particular, by first agreeing to terms of a financial rescue package (which would not have solved the problem and makes the lives of ordinary Greeks worse than they are already, but whatever…) and then turning 180ᵒ to everyone’s surprise, including his own Finance Minister, announcing that he would hold a public referendum to let the Greek people decide.  His job is now on the line. Aside from dumbfounded surprise, Sarkozy and Merkel were enraged. Key Greek cabinet members ask him to resign and the Greek government is about to form a coalition government.  Good job for the week and for letting the cat out of the bag – national sovereignty trumps everything and threatens the EU (otherwise known as Germany).

Bashar al-Assad, Fearless Leader and (hopefully temporary) President, Syria:  After allowing his brother to unleash the army and security forces for months so they could arrest, torture and/or kill demonstrators while being condemned by most of the planet (except Iran, which needs him), Fearless Leader and former optometrist from northern London Assad resisted Arab League demands to stop the violence. This week he changed his mind and said he agreed to the plan, which called for calling off his tanks and security forces, allow foreign and domestic journalists free access, release political prisoners and enter into negotiations with the opposition. Except he really didn’t and within a day his tanks had killed additional dozens of people.  Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, the prime minister of Qatar who developed the deal, is not happy.  Assad should remember that Qatar was in the lead calling for a no-fly zone in Libya, sent fighter aircraft to take part in the campaign and put hundreds of boots on the ground to help pull down Gadhafi. He also should keep in mind those Syrian military units that have promised a civil war if he does not keep to the deal.

Ilena Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and chair of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee:  During the week, this Republican member of Congress (there’s a pattern to this) marked up a bill and pushed through an amendment that criminalizes diplomacy with Iran. This is unconstitutional, but that little legalistic problem doesn't concern most Republicans when it comes to securing power.  She represents the jingoistic and power hungry elected official (aka Republican) who will “do whatever  possible to hurt Obama regardless of the interests of the country”. If they are continued to be elected, it will make the US a threat to world peace.  Oh – and remember those hikers that were imprisoned in Iran as spies? They’d still be there if Ilena of the galactically stupid had her way.

Condi Rice, former worst US Secretary of State Ever:  To be fair, she was an expert on the Soviet Union and was thrown into a world without the Soviet Union. Bit of bad luck, that – but perhaps she should have adjusted.  Unfortunately she then went on to work on issues in which she had no grounding. That’s ok too – unless one ignores the learning curve. Like supporting the Iraq war which she recently defended as "worth it" (courtesy of ABC news where she promoted her recent book).  Why was the war worth it? Because -  “We also now know that it (the Middle East) was the cradle of al Qaeda and extremism”.  Apparently, "we" didn't know it then and assumed al Qaeda and religious extremism were from a different universe - the same one where US white supremacists and Timothy McVeigh were born.

The fact that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq seems to have escaped her. The fact that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were enemies also appears to be beyond her capability to admit.  The fact that the core of al-Qaeda was Afghanistan (despite Osama’s birth in Saudi Arabia) where the US was (at the time) more or less successfully engaged until she and her boss took the eye off the target to indulge in a personal war , also seems to have vanished from her mind.

Her logic dictates that because the head of al Qaeda was born and raised to a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia, the US was justified in invading Iraq – which had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda.  She does assert that Iraq was a security threat. How? No one (other than the moth brained neo-cons and their followers) is sure.  She regretted the lives lost but that “nothing of any value is ever gained without sacrifice”.  What was the value gained?  Iran was gifted the region, so I guess that’s one to them but to no one else.  Value for sacrifice? Explain that to over 100,000 Iraqi civilian dead and almost 4,500 US soldiers killed (not to mention those maimed for life) when it was clear that al Qaeda in Iraq was as much of a  fabrication as were the claims of weapons of mass destruction.

Herman Cain, Pizza King and Wannabe POTUS:  Well – what can I say?  His foreign policy thoughts include killer electric fences on the Mexico border and maybe a moat with alligators. Pandering to the Israeli lobby and the Christian right, he now refers to the “so-called” Palestinian people. Beijing will be shocked to learn that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and is therefore a military threat. The Pizza King thinks he qualified to hold public office. Sarah set the bar really, really low. Bachmann and her followers dropped it through the floor. Who would have thought anyone could lower it further? Oh – and there are those sex harassment issues…

David Williams, Kentucky Gubernatorial Wannabe:  This loser (he’s behind by 30 points) decided to attack the Democratic governor, Steve Beshear, for participating in a Hindu prayer at a groundbreaking ceremony in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, for a new factory run by FlexFilm, a company based in India that makes materials for packaging, printing, insulation and other purposes. The plant represents a $180 million investment, and is expected to create 250 jobs in Kentucky. He said it was a ceremony of idolatry and prayers to false gods.  “He’s there participating with Hindu priests, participating in a religious ceremony…they can say what they want to. He’s sitting down there with his legs crossed, participating in Hindu prayers with a dot on his forehead with incense burning around him. I don’t know what the man was thinking.”

To be fair, Williams is a Republican (the pattern continues) and therefore, like his followers, entitled to some slack.  There’s no pill for stupidity and bigotry. Thankfully, he’s also not in charge, and won’t be. Otherwise insulting the religion of the second most populous democracy on the planet and a growing  power balance to a rising China (a helpful aspect for US foreign policy) might be taken the wrong way. 

And to finish this off –

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor (Independent, Rich Person), New York City:  “It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”  Got that? This is not a joke. The Very Important People were forced to give bad loans (which they then sold forward and made money).  Sounds like German and French complaints about Greece:  The Greeks cheated to get in the Eurozone. They cooked the books. Shocking. Terrible. And we, the best and brightest in Brussels, surrounded by thousands of deep thinking analysts and auditors were completely fooled. Wow.  Just like all those banks in the US who were forced to loan money to people who they knew couldn’t pay it back.  Yeah. That's it.

Russian Roulette - The Greek Way

After weeks of strained negotiations, pleading, insults and hammering of EU members, a deal was struck on Eurozone finance and Greece in particular.  Then this morning, the Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou spun the chamber and pointed the gun at the EU and Greece by announcing that the Greek people will decide on whether to accept the bailout wrung out by the big players in Brussels.

First, I am not so sure that the agreements reached in Brussels were so great in the first place - but they were something.  Second, politicians fall back on referendums when they can't or won't lead (witness the mess of California, a referendum happy state where the politicos run from the responsibilities they are given in elections). Third, this move was manifestly political to avoid early elections.

The referendum announcement sent the markets down. Way down.  The Greek public will likely vote against the deal.  This is not going to end well.

Libya Rule of Law Prospects...Short Response to Stupid Assertions

Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch stated about the violent end of Gadhafi and those like him: “Finding out how they died matters. It will set the tone for whether the new Libya will be ruled by law or by summary violence.”

Actually, no - it sets the tone for nothing. Think Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Russia - In the National Interest

Image via WikipediaRussia has problems and it knows it.  But, the end of the US centric world has given Russia the opportunity to reassert itself as a major player in the Eurasia theater, but just barely and perhaps only for a limited time.  The policies of Peter the Great are back.

Russia looks to Europe and the West, but not as it did in the decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  After Yeltsin came Putin whose vision was to reassemble the broken state, create a highly centralized governance system and stamp out overt displays of democratic aspirations through the supremacy of the FSB (formerly KGB) in the political food chain.  None of this is surprising in hindsight because Russia proper was historically indefensible and needed either buffer territory or client states to surround its core and strong central government. 

Imperial Russia carved out an empire in Central Asia, the Caucuses and East Asia which was simply transferred over to the Soviet Union, albeit with considerable bloody fighting in these regions between 1918 and 1922 when it was re-conquered for a second time.  The buffer proved invaluable for defeating Nazi Germany in a variety of ways, not the least of which was room to retreat, a place for industry out of reach of enemies and an unlimited source of cannon fodder. 

Putin served the Soviet Union as part of the KGB and his inheritance was an imperial Russia with major losses in Central Asia, the Baltic States, the Caucuses and East Asia (Mongolia), a pathetically weak military, collapsed industrial capacity (most of it was located in the now independent Ukraine), unrest in the Northern Caucuses (Chechnya in particular), unconstrained oligarchs who had divided state assets under privatization and a depressed public.  It was a mess.

Any sober Russian leader knows that Russia is surrounded by some pretty hefty neighbors with no natural barriers while the country outside the western Russian core consists of multiple ethnic groups with a dislike of Moscow. The collapse of the Soviet Union ended the internal economy that sustained it (badly).  It’s major asset is energy, but it has a poor infrastructure network in general and needs foreign assistance, particularly in technology.  This is a daunting task for any Russian leader.

Russia, historically and for good reason, does not trust its neighbors.  But since Europe is so much more advanced in almost every sector Russians – or at least their leaders – realize that aggressiveness must be tempered with accommodation.   In the A.Y.  period (After Yeltsin), Vladimir Putin aggressively went about securing absolute power and restoring Russian prestige in the world as he saw it.  Russians were ecstatic and felt that, at least as far as  the “near abroad” (all the former Soviet colonies) was concerned, Russian pre-eminence was achieved.  He was seen as pro-Western abroad and a strong leader at home.  As Russia internally became authoritarian and the nascent democracy was crushed with the help of an energy dependent Europe and a distracted US (Bush saw into Putin’s soul, felt comradeship and invaded Iraq – another story), Putin led Russia in a great charm campaign with Europe and the US. 

Frankly, this is not much different from any other country in the prosecution of foreign/domestic policies.  It’s ok to be nice abroad when the perceived strength of the country is high.  Weak countries tend to be more unpredictable and prone to accidents.  Although Putin’s internal and international reputation suffered as he became more dictatorial, it didn’t matter internally because the majority felt that he had restored Russian greatness and stature.  He also leveled Grozny.

Dmitri Medvedev, the current and soon to be ex-president, was welcomed as a friend of the West.  Again, appearances were deceptive.  Medvedev is charming, most of the time, and probably understands Europe and the US better than KGB trained Putin. But when push came to shove, Russia’s national interests logically came first and securing the borders for buffer zones against any outside threat was still a priority.  Georgia, ignoring every signal not to poke the bear (who had already said – repeatedly - how much it disliked Georgia’s president) felt the consequences of that policy.  Small surrounding countries made a note.

Leaders are rarely of a single personality and both Medvedev and Putin put the national interests of Russia first which results in accommodation or aggressiveness as the case may be. The distraction of the US, first in Afghanistan and then in the illegal war in Iraq gave Moscow a ten year scope of maneuver which it used to destroy democratic tendencies, kill off journalists opposed to the regime and consolidate power within the country followed quickly by changing the  dynamics in the near abroad without a murmur of objection from the US or the West.  The result was a profound disillusionment in the West with Putin, but no action because the only country that could counter Russia’s moves was tied up in the personal wars of Bush and the abandonment of countries like Ukraine by Europe.

When Medvedev became President and Putin reverted to Prime Minister, nothing changed. Indeed, without blinking and largely due to the thundering stupidity of the Saakashvili, president of Georgia, he quickly launched the war against Georgia the result of which was a foregone conclusion despite the poor and sometimes astoundingly incompetent performance of the army and air-force.   It was the perfect war to help secure an important part of the Russian southern flank and blunt Turkish influence.  The refusal of Azerbaijan to bend to Russian pressure, however, makes this victory somewhat less than it could be in the Caucuses as does the continuing unrest and unremitting anger in Georgia. 

The overthrow of the Bakaiv government in Kyrgyzstan, which had gained control in a color revolution but which quickly degenerated into a kleptocracy, was supported by Moscow – and  by the West for different reasons, but the geo-political results were favourable to Russia. As far as Russian historical security policy toward its neighbors is concerned, the outcomes were pretty good. 

Finally, there is Ukraine. Russia can do without the Baltics, although it has threatened them frequently, especially when Medvedev said that Russia has the right to protect Russians wherever they happen to be. Ukraine, however, is a different matter. Russia was caught off guarded with the Orange Revolution and the visit by Putin just before the fraudulent election angered both Yanukovich and Yuschenko supporters as an unwarranted interference in Ukrainian politics.  However,  Russia without Ukraine is indefensible.  NATO touches its borders in the Baltics and now has NATO members Romania and Bulgaria on the Black Sea.  The expansion of NATO was beginning to look like an encirclement coupled with the Manas air base in Bishkek. A NATO aligned Ukraine would be a disaster.

In short, Russia cannot do without the food, infrastructure (pipelines to Europe), or the port of Sevastopol  for the Black Sea fleet. Geographically without Ukraine Russia is looking into a black hole of poverty and marginalization. The defeat of the Orange Revolution with the election of Yanukovich ended the threat of Western penetration into the Russian heartland. This victory in Ukraine changed the attitude of every Russian neighbor. Conciliation and cooperation with Moscow is now the flavour of the day.  The West must now learn to deal with a dictatorial puppet regime in Ukraine, which will only be removed by revolution, similar to the absurd notion in the Soviet period of allowing Ukraine a seperate seat in the UN.

Moscow knows it has a small window of opportunity to achieve its goal of internal control and secure borders.  With the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, negotiated by Bush and being implemented by Obama, and the wind-down of Afghanistan, the room to maneuver for the Kremlin has narrowed.  However, now that it is feeling strong and secure - and knowing that demographically it is losing ground it allows the government to move closer to the West to obtain the technology it desperately needs. Historically, Russia has always followed this pattern.  This time, however, may be different because investors’ memories are longer.

Nevertheless, so far the Russian balancing act of building strength internally through the Potemkin village of managed democracy and threatening aggressiveness in the near abroad is working.  Moscow has extended its control through strategic relationships in Europe, particularly with Berlin whose need for Russian energy is Moscow’s trump card.  This secures the Western front, at least for the near future both politically and economically.

Finally, the customs and trade union conceived in Moscow, is not – as it alleges – to re-create the EU trade system, but to tie Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Belarus close to the Kremlin.  The economic union is only a step in the search by Russia for security through control. 

Nevertheless, as the window closes, Russia still has resistance from Azerbaijan and Georgia and faces continuing unrest in the north Caucuses.  The Baltics are not exactly friendly.  Poland, despite its moves to normalize political relations with Moscow, mistrusts Russia and Germany and has helped to form the Visegrad Group with the Baltic states whose primary goal is to forge a military alternative to NATO.  As previously mentioned, Russia's demographics is not enviable.  Russia's balance between cooperation and confrontation will continue for some time and will always reflect national interests.

One last observation.  On September 24 Putin announced he would be running for President to replace Medvedev.  These are not, of course, elections.  Nevertheless, two days afterwards, Medvedev’s public and nasty firing of the deputy prime minister and Minister of Finance Alexei Kudrin revealed more of the internal politics of the Kremlin than would normally be the case. 

Medvedev was not happy at being treated like a seat warmer for Putin.  During the meeting he referred to decisions  he had made and the fact that he was in charge.  Unfortunately, with the musical chair now back to Putin, it is clear that his decisions and positions were irrelevant.  Not only that.  Russia does not seem to be going anywhere economically (aside from energy and without Western help) and certainly not democratically.   The idea that Putin will be running the show until 2024 is not appetizing; but from the view of the Kremlin, it is the only choice.

In this corner - al Shaabab

The Kenyan incursion across its border into the  region known as Somalia (the national government in Mogadishu has no control over the majority of the territory – sort of a prerequisite to country status), has bogged down because of heavy rains.  Nairobi clearly intends to continue the operation up to and including seizure of the coastal city of Kismaayo – the financial and logistics hub of the al-Shaabab terrorist group.  The loss of Kismaayo will be a blow to the financial and logistical prospects of al-Shaabab which reaps the benefits of piracy, and now kidnapping of tourists, using the funds to purchase arms and materials for its activities. 

The issue is what happens when the Kenyan’s leave?  Some deal will need to be made with the tribal groups allied, more or less, with the government in Mogadishu.  Foreign troops cannot stay – that much should be obvious.  However, it is very clear that the problem of piracy and the predations of al-Shaabab, including the famine it’s control of areas is exacerbating, are not going to be solved off-shore. 

Al-Shaabab must be made to suffer heavy losses and that can only be done ultimately with boots on the ground.  Cutting them off from their source of income and headquarters in Kismaayo is a good first step, but must be quickly followed by a Mogadishu presence through one of its allies since it is incapable by itself to do so. 

The fact that the Mogadishu government has voiced official protests at the breach of its “sovereignty” is legal window dressing.  There are 8,000 foreign troops in Mogadishu (the reason al-Shaabab departed so quickly).  The US is sending in drones from neighboring Ethiopia. Failed states have no sovereign rights. The famine in the region is made worse by al-Shaabab. The attacks on civilians, kidnappings in Kenya and the mutual aid society between al-Shaabab and pirates, is a perfect scenario of R2P actions.  Support to the Kenyan government’s efforts need to be ramped up now.