Russia: Other Points of View

MISSILE DEFENSE IN EUROPE

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Comment on "Missile Defence in Europe - Pie in the Sky," The Economist, September 19-25, 2009

A recent Economist editorial "Missile Defence in Europe - Pie in the Sky" from September 19-25 argued the following:

"Although Poles may bemoan the timing, America's calendar may be shaped by the forthcoming UN General Assembly. Russia and China have been reluctant to agree to further sanctions or other pressure on Iran. Mr Obama may hope that by demonstrating a willingness to engage Russia in Europe he might have a better chance of co-operation in the Middle East. "But the big task for America now is to reassure the Poles and other twitchy ex-communist countries such as the Baltic states, that it remains committed to their defence. It stresses that plenty of high-level structures exist to discuss these worries and that NATO is actively rethinking its plans for defence in the east. The question is what will really be on offer in these discussions. The east European countries, squeezed between an increasingly close Russian-German friendship, look anxiously towards America to safeguard their interests. But is America looking at them?"

Gordon Hahn's rebuttal:

The fact is that the Obama Administration has looked out for Polish and Czech interests in refashioning its missile defense plans.  At the same time it is taking Russia's interests into account. 

UKRAINE PREPARES TO VOTE

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to Washington Post "Kremlin Intensifies Pressure as Ukraine Prepares for Vote - Russia Lodges List of Complaints Against Neighbor" by Philip P.Pan, Sep 14, 2009 

by Gordon Hahn

The Washington Post article reviewed below is littered with one-sided opinion masquerading as news.  The article, which insinuates into readers minds the view that Russia is planning aggression against Ukraine and is solely to blame for the deterioration in relations between the two countries, contains numerous inaccurate statements, claims unsupported by data or facts, and a consistently one-sided perspective.  No facts are brought to bear that show any Russian intent to commit aggression against Ukraine.  It should be noted that this article follows a summer replete with articles in the Post and other mainstream media and other news outlets purporting to show that Russia would attack Georgia this summer.  ROPV continues to wait and see when those predictions will be borne out in reality and whether anyone else will hold the U.S. mainstream media responsible in any way for its misleading reporting.

To access the full analysis, please click here Download WP_Pan_14_Sep_09

RUSSIA, POLAND, and “HISTORY”

ROPV CONTRIBUTORS

by Rodric Braithwaite

(A revised version of the original "Russia, Poland and the History Wars", which appeared on www.opendemocracy.net and other sites)

A senior Russian official once asked me why Poland needed to join NATO: after all, Russia wasn’t about to invade the place. I agreed that he was probably right. But the Poles didn’t know that: three partitions in the eighteenth century; two risings in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth; the carve-up in 1939; and more. “Why do you bring up all that old stuff?” my friend responded.

History is an essential part of a nation’s self-image. It is rewritten by every generation. Even the settled democracies can find it hard to come to terms with their past. The British have barely brought their relationship with Ireland into an objective historical focus. The Irish, with good reason, find it even harder.

History is politics in all countries. But in countries which have been through the traumas suffered by Russia and Eastern Europe in the past century, it is unrealistic to hope that they will soon be able to write what the rest of us would regard as “objective” history. 

BLACK SEA WARS

REPRINTS

By Patrick Buchanan

Sep 22, 2009

In August, the Georgian navy seized a Turkish tanker carrying fuel to Abkhazia, Georgia's former province whose declaration of independence a year ago is recognized by Russia but not the West. 

The Turkish captain was sentenced to 24 years. When Ankara protested, he was released. Abkhazia has now threatened to sink any Georgian ship interfering in its "territorial waters," but it has no navy. 

Russia, however, has a Black Sea Fleet and a treaty of friendship with Abkhazia, and has notified Tbilisi that the Russian coast guard will assure, peacefully, the sea commerce of Abkhazia. 

Not backing down, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili -- who launched and lost a war for South Ossetia in 48 hours in August 2008 -- has declared the blockade of Abkhazia, which he claims as Georgian national territory, will remain in force. And he has just appointed as defense minister a 29-year-old ex-penitentiary boss with a questionable record on human rights who wants to tighten ties to NATO. 

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Election fever. Recent remarks by Medvedev and Putin have set off a Kommentariat feeding frenzy of will-they-won’t-they run again. I’m tired of this analytical bankruptcy: there is more happening in Russia than can be reduced to the actions of a few people at the top of the power pyramid. But, more importantly, it is unreflective. Neither Medvedev nor Putin is ever going to say out loud whether and for what position he is going to stand in the future. If, for example, Putin were to say he was tired of working like a “galley slave” and would open a fishing lodge in Yakutia in the new year, there would be immediate upheaval in the bureaucracy and power structure as kratotropic timeservers sought a new power source to connect to. The Russian government is not so well-structured and stable that it can smoothly hum away on its own while the men at the top change. There is also a stubborn inability to observe. Putin never signaled personnel changes in advance. I commend three case studies: the replacement of Sergeyev by Ivanov as Defence Minister, the replacement of Vyakhirev by Miller at Gazprom and the blessing of Medvedev as President. There were no hints: he never gave away his thinking, but when he thought he had the right man, he acted. It is too early to see whether Medvedev follows the same modus operandi, but I would be surprised if he didn’t. And if the two should ever doubt the wisdom of keeping quiet about their intentions, all they have to do is observe the political paralysis in their immediate neighbour caused by the open hostility between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko. Continuing speculation about whether Putin will become President betrays a refusal to comprehend that, had he wanted to, he could be President right now: the question is not “will he or won’t he?” but “why didn’t he?”. Finally, it should be noticed that the will-he-won’t-he obsession of the Kommentariat now involves two people: to that extent Russia has advanced in political pluralism.

EUROPE WELCOMES US MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD DECISION

REPRINTS 

German analysts say this gives the US and Europe more leeway in negotiations with Russia, and give Poland a ‘healthier’ foreign policy.

By Robert Marquand

The Christian Science Monitor 

With President Barack Obama facing Republican charges that backing off a missile shield in eastern Europe is appeasing Russia and abandoning Poland, European officials are strongly applauding the American decision.

German and French diplomats see the White House move as changing a US policy imposed unilaterally on Europe – and allowing greater running room with Moscow on issues from Iran to North Korea, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, and with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

But Alexander Rahr of the German Council of Foreign Relations, a Russian expert, says the original US missile shield plan was ill-conceived. He says that in eastern Europe and Russia the decision to shelve it is raising a new question: "Is Obama doing this out of American strength, or out of American weakness?" He adds, "I know that sounds pretty 19th century. But that's the question."

Last week, the White House decided to shelve an expensive and untested missile shield, agreed to by the Bush administration days after Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008. The US now supports smaller, tested defense systems, unambiguously deployed to intercept short and mid-range Iranian rockets.

BREAKING NEWS: KUCINICH, PRICE FORM BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL RUSSIA CAUCUS

Washington D.C. 

September 22, 2009 

Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Tom Price (R-GA) today announced the formation of a bipartisan caucus to address issues that are of mutual concern to Russia and the United States and to examine ways to improve friendship, dialogue and international exchange between the two nations. The announcement comes as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev  arrives in the United States tonight for the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh on September 24-25.

"The relationship between the United States and Russia has influenced the path of global development and the course of world politics. Today we announce the bipartisan Congressional Russia Caucus to help make sure that the relationship we share with Russia is equitable and friendly.  I look forward to working with Congressman Price and other members who share our goals of ensuring that the future of American-Russian relations is strong and peaceful," said Kucinich. 

"Few matters in the international arena can be discussed today without giving due consideration to Russia's influence in global affairs," said Rep. Price. "By opening a dialogue and engaging in diplomatic fact-finding, we hope to advance a stronger understanding of Russian policy and how it affects the United States and its allies. Congressman Kucinich's breadth of knowledge of foreign affairs is considerable, and I look forward to working together to move the U.S.-Russia relationship in a more productive and principled direction."   

The Russia Caucus will serve to maintain an open and constructive relationship between lawmakers from both countries by encouraging dialogue and the free exchange of ideas.

UNGUIDED MISSILES

by Patrick Armstrong

For some years Washington has been planning a missile defence network with a radar in the Czech Republic and ten interceptor missiles in Poland ostensibly to counter possible intercontinental ballistic missiles from Iran. Last week the plan was dropped. At a briefing at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Gates provided the rationale: there had been, he said, two changes since 2006 when he had recommended the Polish and Czech bases: “The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran’s short- and medium-range ballistic missiles… is developing more rapidly than previously projected” while “the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities has been slower to develop than was estimated in 2006”. Thus a different defence against a different threat is planned.

Immediate Polish and Czech official reaction was that Washington had abandoned them: “we are not firmly anchored”; “losing a strategic alliance with Washington”; “the Americans are not interested in this territory”; “defeat primarily of American long-distance thinking”. It should be emphasised that the idea was never especially popular in either country and a Polish poll immediately after the announcement shows approval. Here, as in other places, the leadership is not in line with the population.  

RFE/RL: MEDVEDEV'S CALL FOR REFORM LAUGHABLE

COMMENTARY

Response to RFE/RL "Dmitry Medvedev's Laughable Call For Reform" by Aleksandr Ryklin, Sep 11, 2009

by Gordon Hahn 

The once venerable Cold War U.S. media outlet, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty unfortunately sunk to a new low when it wrote on the recent anniversary of 9/11.  RFERL translated and posted an article by one Aleksandr Ryklin titled "Dmitry Medvedev's Laughable Call For Reform" which it accompanied with the rather disingenuine disclaimer that the article did not represent the view of RFERL's editors. 

In fact, this sophomoric article was translated from the Russian website of the liberal Yezhednevny zhurnal (Daily journal) and printed because it agrees with RFERL leadership.  The article was disdainful and cynical in its attitude toward the Russian president in a way reminiscent of how many Sovietologists rejected out of hand that Mikhail Gorbachev might institute serious reforms. 

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Missiles. Washington has given up missile system deployment in the Czech Republic and in Poland. (White House Pentagon), an idea never very popular in either country. A good deal of the comment accuses Washington of abandoning eastern Europe to the “Russian menace”. This is very ironic: when Moscow complained that it saw the missiles as a possible threat, everyone pooh-poohed it and insisted that it was only about Iran. Now it turns out that many saw them precisely as a counter to Russia. (Indeed we see this logic here: we say that what we do is not a threat to Russia; but the Russians think it is; that is itself threatening; therefore we must counter this Russian threat). I am encouraged that there seems to be some opening to Russian participation in the new scheme. But, more details to follow no doubt.

Military reform. At the Valdai meeting, one of the authors of the military reform plan (he doesn’t like the word “reform”; he prefers “revolution”) described it. “Russia is giving up the mass army prepar[ed] for a large-scale war. That old system was introduced by War Minister Dmitriy Milyutin in 1874. The purpose was to have a rather small regular army for peace time and a huge pool of reservists… And that was followed for almost 150 years”. But there is now no need for it today: “No mobilization, no large-scale war, no threats from NATO”. The aim now is about one million in the standing forces with reserves of about 100,000. However, tactical nuclear weapons will be “the replacement for those reserves, dozens and dozens of reserve divisions in case of something happening. It is not considered a real threat at the present time. But when they speak about Chinese spread or NATO spread, you cannot just dismiss it as something impossible”. Russia is adopting NATO’s strategy of the 1950s: nuclear weapons as the equaliser. But it is painful: “And it is difficult to accept with the military mind, that is why lots of officers are unhappy about what is going on. But it should have been done, in my opinion, five, 10 - maybe even better - 15 years ago. What’s being done is overdue.”