Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts

Thursday, March 6, 2014

NATO to "intensify partnership and strengthen cooperation with Ukraine"

What a joke!

According to RT, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has just announced that:
"Alliance officials would put “the entire range of NATO-Russia cooperation under review.”  He stated that NATO has decided to “take a number of immediate steps” because “Russia continues to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and its own international commitments.”  “We have also decided that no staff-level civilian or military meetings with Russia will take place for now,” Rasmussen added. Russia and NATO had been discussing a possible joint mission to protect a US ship that will destroy Syria's deadliest chemical weapons. However, that plan has been suspended as one of the “immediate steps.” “We have suspended the planning for our first NATO-Russia joint mission. The maritime escort for the US ship Cape Ray, which will neutralize Syria’s chemical weapons. Let me stress, this will not affect the destruction of chemical weapons, but Russia will not be involved in the escort of the US vessel,” Rasmussen said. Nevertheless, NATO is willing to “keep the door open for political dialogue. So we are ready to maintain meetings of ambassadors in the NATO-Russia Council, as we have done today,” Rasmussen said.
In contrast,  he declared that:
"NATO has decided to “intensify our partnership” and “strengthen our cooperation” with Ukraine in order to “support democratic reforms.”  “We will step up our engagement with the Ukrainian civilian and military leadership. We will strengthen our efforts to build the capacity of the Ukrainian military, including with more joint training and exercises. And we will do more to include Ukraine in our multinational projects to develop capabilities,” Rasmussen clarified.  The way NATO sees it, cooperation between the alliance and Ukraine will “complement the international efforts to support the people of Ukraine” while they are forming their future. “Tomorrow, I will meet the prime minister of Ukraine to make clear NATO’s support,” he stressed".
  This begs two basic question:

a) Does Rasmussen really think that Russia will care about any of that?
b) Does Rasmussen know that there is no Ukrainian military to speak of?

The reply to question one is yes, Russia will care about that.  But not in the way Mr Rasmussen seems to think.  Russia couldn't care less about the canceled activities any more than Putin cares about the G8, but the message this does send Russia is "We are NATO, we hate you, and we will use each and every opportunity to side against you even if that means giving our support to Satan himself!".  And if anybody might be tempted to say that I am exaggerating, let me remind you that NATO countries did support the Chechen Wahabis in Chechnia and that they are still supporting the liver-eating reptiles in Syria.  I don't know if the rumor that NATO and the Ukies are negotiating a deal to deploy NATO anti-missile missiles in the Ukraine is true, I doubt it, but I suspect that NATO is dumb enough to deploy some kind of forces in the rump Ukraine just to further provoke Moscow. Basically, NATO is doing everything conceivable to provoke, anger and threaten Russia.  The question is why does everybody in Europe accept that in peaceful silence?

As for question number two, I am sure that Rasmussen must know the real state of affairs of the Ukrainian military: antiquated rusted hardware (only 4 aircraft at the Belbek military airbase were in condition to take off).  And that is assuming that somebody had the needed fuel and a sufficient number of flight-hours to even get to fly them.  The Ukie navy?  Their subs are held by chains on the pier to prevent them from sinking.  As for the ground forces, one expert estimated that roughly 500 men - all in the Airmobile forces - had received a decent basic training.  That's it.  The rest of the Ukrainian military is basically a huge labor camp which is phenomenally corrupt and does everything but train for war.  And it's not even their fault - there are plenty of good officers and soldiers in the Ukrainian army.  It's 20 years of total neglect which will do that to any military.  So what is  Rasmussen talking about when he speaks of engaging and training with the Ukie military? Building it up from scratch?  Ok, he can do that.  NATO has already done that in the past.  In Latvia.  See for yourself:

The following is a hilarious video made by some Russian in Latvia who report about a military parade in Latvia.  The speaker uses language similar to what one can hear during the yearly Victory Parade in Moscow.  It is fantastically funny, but even if you don't understand - just look what the NATO-created "invincible Latvian military" looks like today:



Honestly, and no offense to the Latvian people, seen from Russia this kind of parade looks like a kindergarten graduation ceremony, especially with the participation of a few "NATO allies".

I also remember similar parades in Georgia, when Saakashvili was spending an obscene amount of money on NATO gear and uniforms to create his equally "invincible army".  And we all remember what happened in 08.08.08...

NATO has, shall we say, a less than stellar record in building up the military of their "partners" or even full members.  Frankly, NATO itself is pretty much a "one mission organization": the mission to provide the US military with a tiny figleaf with the words "our allies" and "our European allies" or even "the international community" written on it.  

So how does Mr Rasmussen come across to the folks in the Kremlin?  I will tell you, as a harmless but nasty jerk who makes empty threats but hates Russia nonetheless.  The Russians will be disgusted, but otherwise unimpressed.

But nobody will ever tell Mr Rasmussen, alas.

The Saker

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Anti-Shia plans finalized by NWO elites?

The leaders of the New World Order are clearly engaged in major and intense consultations of how to deal with the "Shia problem".  Check out this agenda:
On the agenda?  Syria and Iran, of course, at least according to Russian sources.  Practically, here are the options which must be decided upon:

1. Military strike on Iran and its inevitable consequences
2. Military intervention in Syria
3. Annexation of Bahrain by Saudi Arabia

The G8 summit will be an excellent opportunity to check out what the Russian position on this three topics will be, in particular since the election of Vladimir Putin.  Then, at the NATO summit, NWO leaders will have the opportunity to see who is on-board with these plans and who is not (most will), and finally the Bilderberg Conference will be the perfect setting for the Bilderberg Steering Committee and the interests behind it to take a final decision on these topics.  It is also likely that the upcoming Presidential elections in the USA will be discussed and that a post-Obama candidate will be selected to replace Obama.

I suspect that there will be a lot of horse-trading with Russia as the West can easily hand Putin a terrific PR "victory" by giving in on the anti-missile shield in Europe (either by shelving the entire idea - unlikely - or by getting the Russian involved - possible, but still unlikely - or by giving written guarantees to the Russian - which is probably what they will choose).  However, to give this to Putin the West will demand his compliance on Syria and even possibly Iran, and I personally very much doubt that this will happen.  So my personal guess is that the Russians and the West will put a positive spin on it all, but that they will not agree on anything meaningful.

I also don't see anybody in Europe agreeing to a NATO military intervention in Syria (except the Brits, of course - "poodles" - or the Central European, but they are irrelevant anyway).  Not because of any Russian efforts to rescue Assad, but basically because this is a militarily and politically risky operation with no clear exit strategy.  So for Syria, "more of the same, only worse" is probably the "best" choice for the West.

As for Iran, paradoxically, it is far more likely that the US will strike at it.  Yes, Iran is far bigger and far more powerful than Syria, but the objectives of a strike on Iran will be far more limited.  Indeed, I don't believe that anybody seriously has any more hopes for regime change in Iran, so the next best fallback option is to cripple Iran economically and humiliate it politically by doing to it what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006 and to Gaza in 2008.  Kill a maximum number of people while crippling the infrastructure.  The Israelis, who know full well that there is no Iranian military nuclear program, might even settle for less: a short 24 hour bombing campaign destined at humiliating Iran and at making the Israelis feel good about themselves.  Yes, this is naive and dangerous, but then the Israelis are stupid and arrogant.

As for the annexation of Bahrain, the Saudis can probably do it, in particular if the USA fully supports such an operation.

And make no mistake - the the US/Israeli Empire speaks of a "total war on Islam" they mean *Shia* Islam, not Islam in general, simply because the non-Shia Islamic world has been very effectively co-opted and neutered a long time ago and is a de-facto ally of Zionist interests.

There is no war on Islam, there is only a global war on Shia Islam.

What is your take on that?  Any ideas?

The Saker

Monday, November 28, 2011

Russian envoy to NATO threatens to "reconsider" Russia's support for NATO in Afghanistan

Dimitri Rogozin,  the official Russian top envoy to NATO (and who is also one of the most interesting Russian public figures), has just declared that Russia is considering revising its support for NATO operations in Afghanistan.  This is a direct consequence of the US decision to deploy an anti-missile system along the Russian border in Europe.

And since Pakistan has decided to close down (probably for a limited time) the NATO supplies through Pakistan following the murder of 24 Pakistani soldiers by NATO, it sure looks like NATO infinite arrogance has landed it into some painful circumstances.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

The Western corporate media: the Empire's most subservient lackey

Following President Medvedev's speech yesterday, I decided to scan the western corporate media for reactions.  I was curious, what would the pundits make of what I personally consider a total failure of Obama's foreign policy?  Would at least the European press express outrage over the fact that the always imbecile US foreign policy has now turned several European countries into targets?

I mean, really, let's consider the following basic and, I strongly believe, undeniable facts:

a) There is no Iranian missile threat to Europe, nor will there ever be.  Under no imaginable scenario would the Iranians ever even consider striking at Europe simply because it would make absolutely no sense.

b) It is a well-known "secret" that this entire anti-missile system is designed to "protect" NATO from a putative Russian strike.  However, since it is quite evident to anybody except for a complete cretin that under no circumstances would Russia ever gain anything from striking at Europe.  Thus the real reasons behind this anti-missile system are the following:
  1. to provide more taxpayer money to the US MIC
  2. to firmly peg the East-Europeans into the NATO colonial realm
  3. to spite and threaten Russia by brazenly ignoring its legitimate concerns
c)  Militarily speaking, this anti-missile shield is only a minor annoyance for Russia because Russia does have the technical means to defeat it.  President Medvedev outlined these measures, adding that "these measures will be adequate, effective, and low-cost". He is right.  This is not Reagan's "Star Wars", but a system deployed within a short range of Russia's borders.  Countering it will be cheap.

What this deployment does "achieve" is a psychological return to the worst years of the Cold War, at least for Europe.  For those who, like myself, lived in the late 1970s and 1980s under the threat of Soviet SS-20 missiles, it is deeply distressing to see that the USA is, again, turning the European continent into a target, in particular considering the fact that there is no "Russian threat" to "counter" (why would Russia ever wanted to threaten its biggest market for gas? and if it really wanted to threaten the EU, all it would need is to cut its gas supplies anyway...).

Bottom line: this entire anti-missile debacle is useless, counter-productive, and fundamentally toxic.  The only 'winners' in all this are the CEOs of a few American corporations, and the USA faithful servant in Eastern Europe.

I wondered, would the Western corporate press notice any of that?

I checked the WSJ, the WP, NYT and a host of other outlets and I was shocked.  Speaking with one voice, as they apparently always do, they brought it all down to three talking points:

a) Medvedev is catering to his election campaign (he ain't running, but nevermind)
b) Russia is creating a new Cold War (and what is NATO doing exactly?)
c) NATO is "frustrated" by Russia's stance (and the Russians, might they be frustrated?)

That's it.  Nothing more.  Not a single attempt at understanding anything, no analysis of the Kremlin's position.  Not a word about the consequences for Europe.  The Western corporate press is basically fully and unconditionally endorsing the White House's propaganda without any attempt whatsoever to form its own opinion.

In its ever-present hubris, the West fails to see an important detail: we are not living in the 1980s anymore and, unlike the Brezhnev years, Russia's economy is booming, while both the EU and the USA are in the midst of a deep, structural, crisis with no foreseeable way out.  Furthermore, the US empire is hopelessly over-extended,  spending more on "defense" than the rest of the planet combined.  Who do you think has more staying power this time to win this arms race?

Could it be that Obama's empire is repeating exactly the same mistakes as the Soviet Union committed under Brezhnev?

The Saker

PS: there is one entity in Russia which, no doubt, is deeply satisfied with Obama's hubris: the Russian military intelligence service, GRU, which Medvedev had almost abolished, and whose Spetsnaz brigades have been reduced in number.  It just so happens that the original function of the (then still Soviet) Spetsnaz forces was precisely to destroy the kind of system which the USA will be deploying in Europe.  Thanks to Obama, the GRU and its Spetsnaz forces - which have just be re-subordinated to the Russian strategic commands - have now re-acquired their traditional target.

I can just imagine the high-fiving at 766 Khoroshovskoye shosse...

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Statement by Russian President Medvedev in connection with the situation concerning the NATO countries’ missile defence system in Europe

Citizens of Russia,

I address you today in connection with the situation concerning the NATO countries’ missile defence system in Europe.

Russia’s relations with the USA and NATO in the missile defence area have a long and complicated history. I remember that when US President Barack Obama revised his predecessor’s plans to build a missile defence system in Europe in September 2009, we welcomed this as a positive step.

This decision paved the way to our being able to conclude the important New START Treaty which was signed not too long ago and which clearly states the intrinsic link between strategic offensive weapons and missile defence. Let me state that again, this was a major achievement.

Subsequently, however, the USA began carrying out a new missile defence plan that foresaw the creation of a missile defence system in stages. This specifically raises concerns in Russia. It would eventually see the deployment of US missiles and military capability in close proximity to Russia’s borders and in the neighbouring waters.

At the NATO-Russia Council summit in Lisbon a year ago, I proposed developing a joint sector-based missile defence system in Europe where every country would be responsible for a particular sector.

Furthermore, we were ready to discuss additional modifications to the system, taking into account our NATO partners’ views. Our only goal was to preserve the basic principle that Europe does not need new dividing lines, but rather, a common security perimeter with Russia’s equal and legally enshrined participation.

It is my conviction that this approach would create unique opportunities for Russia and NATO to build a genuine strategic partnership. We are to replace the friction and confrontation in our relations with the principles of equality, indivisible security, mutual trust, and predictability.

Regrettably, the USA and other NATO partners have not showed enough willingness to move in this direction. Rather than showing themselves willing to hear and understand our concerns over the European missile defence system at this stage, they simply repeat that these plans are not directed against Russia and that there is no point for us to be concerned. That is the position of the executive authorities, but legislators in some countries openly state, the whole system is against Russia.

But our requests that they set this out on paper in the form of clear legal obligations are firmly rejected. We do hold a reasonable position. We are willing to discuss the status and content of these obligations, but our colleagues should understand that these obligations must have substance and not be just empty words. They must be worded not as promises and reassurances, but as specific military-technical criteria that will enable Russia to judge to what extent US and NATO action in the missile defence area correspond to their declarations and steps, whether our interests are being impinged on, and to what extent the strategic nuclear balance is still intact. This is the foundation of the present-day security.

We will not agree to take part in a programme that in a short while, in some 6 to 8 years’ time could weaken our nuclear deterrent capability. The European missile defence programme is already underway and work on it is, regrettably, moving rapidly in Poland, Turkey, Romania, and Spain. We find ourselves facing a fait accompli.

Of course we will continue the dialogue with the USA and NATO on this issue. I agreed on this with US President Barack Obama when we met recently, and on that occasion again stated our concerns very clearly. There is still time to reach an understanding. Russia has the political will to reach the agreements needed in this area, agreements that would open a new chapter in our relations with the USA and NATO.

If our partners show an honest and responsible attitude towards taking into account Russia’s legitimate security interests, I am sure we can come to an agreement. But if we are asked to ‘cooperate’ or in fact act against our own interests it will be difficult to establish common ground. In such a case we would be forced to take a different response. We will decide our actions in accordance with the actual developments in events at each stage of the missile defence programme’s implementation.

In this connection, I have made the following decisions:

First, I am instructing the Defence Ministry to immediately put the missile attack early warning radar station in Kaliningrad on combat alert.

Second, protective cover of Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons will be reinforced as a priority measure under the programme to develop our air and space defences.

Third, the new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defence penetration systems and new highly-effective warheads.

Fourth, I have instructed the Armed Forces to draw up measures for disabling missile defence system data and guidance systems if need be. These measures will be adequate, effective, and low-cost.

Fifth, if the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy modern offensive weapon systems in the west and south of the country, ensuring our ability to take out any part of the US missile defence system in Europe. One step in this process will be to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad Region.

Other measures to counter the European missile defence system will be drawn up and implemented as necessary.

Furthermore,

If the situation continues to develop not to Russia’s favour, we reserve the right to discontinue further disarmament and arms control measures.

Besides, given the intrinsic link between strategic offensive and defensive arms, conditions for our withdrawal from the New START Treaty could also arise, and this option is enshrined in the treaty.

But let me stress the point that we are not closing the door on continued dialogue with the USA and NATO on missile defence and on practical cooperation in this area. We are ready for that.

However, this can be achieved only through establishing a clear legal base for cooperation that would guarantee that our legitimate interests and concerns are taken into account. We are open to a dialogue and we hope for a reasonable and constructive approach from our Western partners.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Russia opposes any military intervention in Libya, Sarko is a idiot, NATO mulls options

Russian TV has shown a statement of Foreign Minister Lavrov who declared that Russia opposes any type of military intervention in the Libyan conflict.

The Eltsin years are over and I don't think that Russia will back down from this.  So no UNSC resolution authorizing any US/NATO military intervention will be passed.  Besides, I suppose that China would also oppose it.

As for the US Empire, I am not sure that its up to act unilaterally, even with this bellicose bitch Hillary as Secretary of State.  It's pretty clear that Defense Secretary Gates is against it, and he probably speaks for the rest of the military (at least in this case).

In the meanwhile, France - trying to be 'grand', as usual - just recognized the Libyan rebels as the legitimate government of Libya.

"Sakro" is just such a flaming idiot, it's almost incredible...

But then, Chirac seriously wanted a replay of the Dien Bien Phu disaster when he seriously suggested that NATO troops be landed in Gorazde in Bosnia (the Yanks told him to forget that crazy idea, and since only the US had the helicopters the idea died a timely death).

In the meantime - NATO is meeting in Brussels.  We shall see what these folks come up with.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Monday, December 13, 2010

Analysis: Russia Moves To Counter NATO


Many people wouldn't know that former United States president Ronald Reagan's signature phrase "trust, but verify" is actually the translation of a Russian proverb - doveryai, no proveryai. Two decades into the post-Cold War era, Moscow wants to reclaim the self-contradictory phrase from the American repertoire and apply it to Russia's "reset" of ties with the United States.

The shellacking that US President Barack Obama received in the mid-term elections to congress, WikiLeaks disclosures about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) plans to defend against "possible Russian aggression", the announcement of the US decision to deploy an air force detachment at Lask Air Base in Poland, the belligerent speech last week by Senator John McCain calling into question the entire philosophy behind the reset with Russia - these have created a sense of disquiet in Moscow.

Unsurprisingly, the message that comes out of the summit meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in Moscow on Saturday is that Moscow wants its own alliance to be further strengthened as a "key element in ensuring the security in the post-Soviet space" and its image to be enhanced globally. CSTO comprises Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The mid-term elections in the US would leave Russia, like many other countries, wondering whether pinning hopes on Obama's capacity to deliver on the "reset" isn't, in fact, supposing a lot. McCain's speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies last Friday signals that the reset is most certainly going to run into stiff opposition from the Republican-dominated congress.

McCain questioned the very need of reset when "Russia is becoming less and less capable of being a global, great power partner with the US"; when American and Russian interests mostly diverge; when they don't have any shared values; when the Russian political system is "unresponsive and predatory" presided over by a "quasi-criminal ruling syndicate" that "steals from, lies to, and assaults its own citizens with virtual immunity".

Citing continuing disagreements with Russia on missile defenses in Europe, Russia's overwhelming superiority in tactical nuclear weapons and differing approaches to open energy markets, McCain called on the Obama administration to be "more assertive in the defense of our interests and values" and to link Russia's admission to the World Trade Organization with its adherence to the rule of law.

The contrived bonhomie at the NATO summit in Lisbon last month has all but dissipated. Meanwhile, the WikiLeaks disclosures put a question mark on NATO's sincerity in a "reset" with Russia. According to US diplomatic cables, NATO drew up plans in January to defend the Baltic states against possible Russian military aggression and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wanted that the plans be kept secret from Moscow.

Moscow says these plans were approved at the Lisbon summit even as the alliance declared that it sought a "true strategic partnership" with Russia based on shared security interests and the need to address "common challenges, jointly identified".

Moscow is annoyed. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, "With one hand NATO... negotiated with us some important documents that were aimed at a joint partnership, and with the other hand took behind our backs decisions about the need for defense against us... We have posed these questions and we expect to get answers. I presume we have the right to do so."

Equally, following talks in Washington on Wednesday between Obama and visiting Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski, the two countries announced an enhancement of their defense ties in the spirit of the 2008 US-Polish Declaration on Strategic Cooperation, which includes cooperation between the two air forces and the establishment of a US air detachment in Poland.

The Russian Foreign Ministry reacted, linking the US-Polish decision with the WikiLeaks disclosure and the deployment in 2009 of Patriot air defense systems in Poland, "The true purpose of which also raises questions." Ironically, Komorowski hosted Medvedev in Warsaw just before proceeding to Washington. That was the first visit by a Russian leader to Poland in 10 years and the Western media lauded it as an historic turnaround in European security.

Moscow said: "It seems we are witnessing an old reflex of NATO triggered to build up power to the detriment of other countries' security - all the more odd that all this happens after the positive outcome of the Russia-NATO council summit and the alliance's declarations that Russia is not regarded as an adversary... we [Russia] will be forced to consider the US-Polish plans as we implement our own programs for building armed forces and in work with our allies."

Thus, the CSTO summit in Moscow on Saturday took place against a complicated political backdrop. Originally, the agenda was to focus on improving the alliance's crisis response mechanism "in order to enhance the CSTO potential for responding to security threats and challenges".

Simply put, the CSTO was virtually prevented by Uzbekistan from intervening in the crisis in Kyrgyzstan in June and an informal summit of the alliance in Yerevan in August had mandated that changes should be made in the statutes of the CSTO "to improve the efficiency... in the field of emergency response". Interestingly, Moscow has met with success in persuading Tashkent to go along with the revision of the CSTO statutes and Uzbek President Islam Karimov attended the summit meeting on Saturday.

The summit endorsed a declaration on cooperation in the international arena. Moscow is clearly interested in enhancing the role of the CSTO at the international level as a counter to NATO's self-projection at its Lisbon summit as the only global security organization. It also decided on a collective peacekeeping force and on undertaking "out-of-area" operations on the pattern that NATO is doing in Afghanistan.

Thus, CSTO member countries have expressed a willingness to not only carry peacekeeping tasks but also "provide on certain terms, these collective peacekeeping forces for operations that are being conducted by decision of the UN Security Council". The Moscow summit put emphasis on "foreign policy coordination" among the CSTO member countries similar to NATO's system.

Clearly, the CSTO has factored in the outcome of NATO's Lisbon summit. Uzbekistan's participation in the summit on Saturday strengthens Moscow's hands. A distinct cooling is apparent in relations between Uzbekistan and the US. Clinton, during her visit to Tashkent on December 2, publicly rebuked the Uzbek government. She said Uzbekistan should "translate words into practice" to improve its human-rights situation.

Addressing a group of non-governmental organization leaders in Tashkent, Clinton said, "I urged him [Karimov] to demonstrate his commitment through a series of steps, to ensure that human rights and fundamental freedoms are truly protected in this country." Clinton revealed she took up with Karimov the issues of restrictions on religious freedom, torture and child labor in Uzbekistan. "We raise these issues... and will continue to make improvement of human rights in Uzbekistan an integral part of expanding our bilateral relationship."

Washington has reason to be displeased with Tashkent. Karimov teamed up with Russia to smother the US move to introduce the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as the provider of security in Central Asia. More important, Tashkent has turned openly critical of the US's war strategy in Afghanistan.

At the OSCE summit in Astana on December 1 (which Karimov failed to attend), Uzbek Foreign Minister Vladimir Norov lambasted the OSCE and its structures for a "failure to play a positive role in the prevention and neutralization of the bloody events" in Kyrgyzstan in June. It was an indictment of Washington's attempt to pitchfork the OSCE into Kyrgyzstan as a substitute for the CSTO in the region.

Even more direct was Norov's criticism of Obama's surge strategy. "It is becoming ever clearer that there is no military solution to the Afghan problem and that the settlement strategy chosen by the coalition forces is not rendering the expected results."

Norov reiterated Tashkent's proposal to find alternative solutions for a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan through multilateral talks under the UN aegis. He said: "The context of the Uzbek initiative is based on the recognition that internal Afghan affairs must be resolved by the Afghan people with assistance from countries whose security interests include bringing an end to the war and promoting stability in Afghanistan." He stressed that talks should be held with "all major opposing sides".

In sum, what emerges from the CSTO summit are the following. First, there is an unspoken but underlying suspicion in Moscow regarding NATO's intentions. This apprehension translates as a new determination to build up the CSTO as a rival organization that challenges NATO's bid to project itself into the post-Soviet space and its claim to be the sole global security organization.

Second, Central Asian countries are deeply concerned over the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and the failure of the US's war strategy. They look up to Moscow as a guarantor of regional security. This has translated as the readiness to beef up the CSTO's rapid deployment force and to streamline the decision-making processes within the alliance to meet emergencies or crisis situations.

Third, US's intentions in Afghanistan are far from transparent and an open-ended American military presence is in the cards. The picture remains hazy as to the exact ground situation developing on Afghanistan's border with Tajikistan. Indeed, US intelligence has had covert dealings with Central Asian militants operating out of Afghanistan and there is great wariness among Central Asia countries with regard to the US's democracy project in the region.

Fourth, the Moscow summit paid much attention to the CSTO's activities in the fields of law enforcement, border security and military policy. The CSTO's readiness to play a role in Afghanistan in the post-2014 scenario is self-evident. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is visiting Moscow next week. The CSTO is also moving in the direction of forging links with Pakistan with regard to countering drug trafficking.

Finally, the Moscow summit focused on enhancing the CSTO's foreign policy role. This has factored in US attempts to accentuate intra-Central Asian differences and play the role of a diplomatic spoiler to undercut the Moscow-led integration processes in the region. It becomes necessary for the CSTO member countries to coordinate their foreign policy if they are to undertake peacekeeping operations in global hotspots. The CSTO is emulating NATO's culture.

In sum, Russia trusts the need for a "reset" in ties with NATO, but is under compulsion to "verify" its sincerity. As Lavrov put it, "serious questions arise" out of the contradictory tendencies in NATO's posturing toward Russia. Moscow decided to keep the CSTO as an effective counter-alliance - just in case McCain's school of thinking gains ground in Washington.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

U.S. Recruits Russia As Junior Partner To Maintain Global Dominance


This past weekend the world witnessed an event that until recently would have seemed inconceivable: A Russian head of state attended a summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

President Dmitry Medvedev participated in the NATO-Russia Council meeting during the second day of the summit in Lisbon, Portugal on November 20 with the heads of state of NATO's 28 member states.

The national leaders signed a Joint Review of 21st Century Common Security Challenges, agreed on resuming joint - NATO and Russian - theater missile defense cooperation and "reconfirmed a shared determination to assist in the stabilisation of Afghanistan and the whole region." [1]

That is, Russia's Medvedev endorsed NATO's agenda without adding anything of substance to it and without asking anything by way of a quid pro quo.

The joint declaration states that "we have embarked on a new stage of cooperation towards a true strategic partnership" and "that the security of all states in the Euro-Atlantic community is indivisible, and that the security of NATO and Russia is intertwined." [2] It also applauds Russia - referred to in the third person - for "facilitating railway transit of non-lethal ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] goods" through its territory for the war in Afghanistan and for "resuming its support to NATO’s operation Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean Sea." The summit declaration referred to Operation Active Endeavor, now in its tenth year, as an Article 5 mission; that is, as part of the first and to date only activation of NATO's collective military assistance provision.

On November 23 Russia signed a pact with NATO to allow "NATO to ship armored vehicles and other equipment from the region [the greater Afghan war theater] back to Europe using the same route via Central Asia and Russia." [3]

The day before the NATO-Russia Council meeting, where Russia was outnumbered 28-1, U.S. President Obama met privately with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, Russia’s Public Enemy No. 1 as military analyst Alexander Golts described him on the occasion.

Saakashvili, who was educated in the U.S. on a State Department fellowship and came to power through a U.S.-sponsored coup in 2003 which its perpetrators termed the Rose Revolution, ordered sniper and mortar attacks on South Ossetia on August 1, 2008, killing six people including a Russian peacekeeper. The day after the Immediate Response 2008 NATO war games led by 1,000 U.S. troops had ended and with American soldiers and military equipment still in Georgia.

Six days later, as the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games was underway in Beijing, Georgia launched an all-out assault on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali.

By the time Russian reinforcements beat back the Georgian offensive and the war ended five days after it had begun, 64 Russian service members had been killed and 323 wounded. The U.S. provided military transport planes to bring 2,000 Georgian troops back from Iraq for the fighting.

Shortly afterward the U.S. rewarded Georgia with the signing of the United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership and NATO formed the NATO-Georgia Commission, out of which an individually tailored Annual National Program(me) was created to further Georgia's integration into the North Atlantic Alliance.

The declaration issued by the recently concluded NATO summit in Portugal includes:

"At the 2008 Bucharest Summit we agreed that Georgia will become a member of NATO and we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions. We will foster political dialogue and practical cooperation with Georgia, including through the NATO-Georgia Commission and the Annual National Programme. We strongly encourage and actively support Georgia’s continued implementation of all necessary reforms...in order to advance its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. We welcome the recent opening of the NATO Liaison Office in Georgia which will help in maximising our assistance and support for the country’s reform efforts. We welcome Georgia’s important contributions to NATO operations, in particular to ISAF. We reiterate our continued support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia within its internationally recognised borders....We continue to call on Russia to reverse its recognition of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions of
Georgia as independent states."

During the opening hours of the Georgian-Russian war of 2008 Mikheil Saakashvili was reported to have held "several phone talks including consultations with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer." [4]

That almost 400 Russian soldiers had been killed and wounded by Georgian military forces trained, equipped and supported by the U.S. and NATO before, during and since the war doesn't appear to mean much to President Medvedev. That his 28 fellow heads of state in the NATO-Russia Council had unanimously supported the perpetrator of the 2008 war while demanding Russia humiliate itself by rescinding its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - and withdrawing its troops, thereby leaving both states easy prey for Georgia's next assault - also didn't take the fixed smile off Medvedev's face during his huddling with President Obama and 27 other NATO leaders this past Saturday.

The autumn session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Warsaw, Poland ending three days before the NATO summit began passed a resolution referring to Abkhazia and South Ossetia as "occupied territories." Also in advance of the summit, interim president of Moldova Mihai Ghimpu, who came to his position on the back of the latest "color" uprising in a former Soviet republic - the so-called Twitter Revolution of last year - sent a telegram to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen calling on the U.S.-dominated military alliance for assistance in ousting 1,500 Russian peacekeepers from Transdniester (Pridnestrovie), which refused to join an independent Moldova (and be absorbed into Romania, now a NATO member) as the Soviet Union was dissolving in 1990.

But the legendary "reset" button has been pushed by the Obama administration and now Russia has a new "strategic partner."

Medvedev had only been president of Russia for five months when the war with Georgia broke out and five months after it ended George W. Bush was no longer president of the United States.

Obama and Medvedev, it has been observed, are their respective nations' first fully post-Cold War heads of state. Medvedev was 26 when the Soviet Union collapsed. Obama was 30.

However, Obama's vice president, Joseph Biden, was the first American official to visit Georgia after the war in his then-position of chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, pledged to work with the George W. Bush administration to secure $1 billion in emergency aid for the Saakashvili government, and upon returning to Washington stated:

"I left the country convinced that Russia’s invasion of Georgia may be the one of the most significant event to occur in Europe since the end of communism....[T]he continuing presence of Russian forces in the country has severe implications for the broader region.”

Five days after leaving Georgia - on August 23 - Biden was announced as Barack Obama's running mate in the 2008 presidential election.

Three weeks after taking up his current post as vice president on January 20, Biden spoke of plans to "press the reset button" with Russia without in any manner adjusting his position on the South Caucasus or any other issue: Russia had invaded Georgia. Georgia had not attacked South Ossetia. Russian actions were characterized as a belated confirmation of Cold War fears of Russian troops and tanks pouring over the territory of a defenseless nation whose only crime was to cherish freedom and democratic values...and so on.

When Obama and Biden moved into the White House in 2009 Obama had only served two-thirds of his first term in the U.S. Senate, where he had been catapulted from the Illinois state legislature in 2005. Biden had served six terms - 36 years - in the Senate and was the outgoing chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Biden, not Obama and the equally foreign policy-challenged Hillary Clinton at the Department of State, is the current administration's international relations veteran and grey eminence.

Though Obama and Clinton have learned to parrot Biden's position on not only the South Caucasus but on relations with Russia as a whole.

Last month Clinton met with a delegation led by Georgian Prime Minister Nikoloz Gilauri at the second annual United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership meeting in Washington, D.C. and repeated the accusation that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are "occupied territories," a charge she made in July while meeting with fellow former short-term New Yorker Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi.

On October 6 she stated: "We continue to call on Russia to end its occupation of Georgian territory, withdraw its forces and abide by its other commitments under the 2008 cease-fire agreements."

More broadly, she added:

"The United States remains committed to Georgia's aspirations for membership in NATO, as reflected in the Alliance's decisions in Bucharest and Strasbourg-Kehl. We strongly support Georgia's efforts related to its Annual National Program, which promotes defence reform and guides cooperation with NATO. And we continue to support Georgia's efforts on defence reform and improving defence capabilities, including NATO interoperability and Georgia's contributions to ISAF operations in Afghanistan."

Her comments on assisting the upgrading of Georgia's military capability led "some observers to surmise that Washington may consider selectively relaxing the undeclared embargo on equipping and training Georgia for defense of the homeland. In that case, interoperability might extend beyond counterinsurgency in expeditionary operations, and start encompassing national defense. The latter would not only answer to Georgia’s own requirements but also enhance its credentials for eventual NATO membership, in line with NATO’s core mission." [5]

The government of Abkhazia responded by challenging Clinton to label Afghanistan and Iraq "American-occupied territories."

Russian President Medvedev was silent on the subject.

As to the ultimate purpose of the U.S. training Georgia's armed forces for deployment to Afghanistan, in September Saakashvili told cadets at a military base in Georgia that "someone may say: 'we have so many problems, our territories are occupied and there is no time now for going somewhere else to fight.' But because of these very same problems that we have, we need huge combat experience...and that [Afghan mission] is a unique combat and war school." [6]

As noted earlier, Obama set aside time on the first day of last week's NATO summit in Portugal to meet privately with his fellow Columbia University alumnus Saakashvili.

Between Clinton's meeting with Georgia's prime minister and Obama's with its president, State Department spokesman Philip Crowley sided with military ally Japan on what Washington also considers to be "occupied territory," Russia's Kuril Islands. On November 2 he affirmed "We do back Japan regarding the Northern Territories," the Japanese term for the islands.

Russia's Medvedev has made an odd choice of partners. Washington has consistently supported Japan, with which it is bound by the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, and Georgia, which it is committed to under the terms of the 2009 United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership, against Russia in regards to territorial disputes and openly accuses Russia of occupying territory belonging to two of its major military allies.

There is no reciprocity in Russian-American relations.

Even in the transition from the former Bush administration's interceptor missile plans for Eastern Europe, the new Phased Adaptive Approach of current administration - described by Obama himself in September of 2009 as providing "stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies" than his predecessor's would have - will, as formalized by last week's NATO summit declaration, be far broader than 10 ground-based midcourse missiles in Poland.

That NATO chief Rasmussen has repeatedly advocated - and since the Lisbon summit has secured - a U.S.-controlled interceptor missile system over all of Europe as the continent is allegedly threatened because "30 countries have or are aspiring to get missile technology" without ever listing which nations he's speaking of or being pressed to do so by the news media is reprehensible. Four days before the summit began he told journalists in Brussels: "There is no reason to name specific countries, because there are already a lot of them." That the Russian government allows such statements to go unchallenged is criminal.

This May the Pentagon moved the first interceptor missiles into Europe by installing a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 battery in Poland as close to Russia's border - 35 miles - as possible. [7]

The day before the NATO summit in Lisbon, Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich revealed that the U.S. will start rotating F-16 Fighting Falcon jet fighters and Hercules military transport planes to Poland in 2013. The U.S. provided Poland with 48 F-16s between 2006 and 2008, the first deployment of the planes to a former member of the Warsaw Pact and the largest arms purchase in Poland's history. (Russia's Black Sea neighbors Romania and Bulgaria were next in line to purchase F-16 warplanes until the current financial crisis hit Europe.)

On November 16 the U.S. delivered the third of five C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft to Poland. "The C-130 aircraft are Poland's biggest transport planes. Polish crews used the planes to fly to Spain, Georgia, Iraq and Afghanistan." [8]

U.S. F-15C Eagle aerial combat fighters are operating out of the Siauliai Air Base in Lithuania until the end of the year for the now six-year-old NATO Baltic Air Policing mission, and earlier this month they participated in a Baltic Region Training Event with NATO Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft at the Siauliai Air Base.

Fellow Baltic state Estonia recently opened the newly expanded and modernized Amari Air Base for use by NATO and U.S. warplanes. [9]

The U.S. has gained access to and has been employing eight military bases, including three air bases, in Bulgaria and Romania over the past five years.

This February Romania and Bulgaria were prevailed upon by the U.S. to provide missile shield installations for the Pentagon's - and now NATO's - interceptor missile system, in the case of Romania a land-based adaptation of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) as the 1936 Montreux Convention prohibits the transit of non-Black Sea nations' warships over 45,000 tons through the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles into the sea and as such effectively excludes U.S. Aegis class destroyers and cruisers equipped with SM-3s. There are no comparable restrictions in the Baltic Sea region where the Pentagon is also going to station land-based SM-3s in Poland.

The U.S. and its NATO allies in Europe have yet to ratify the 1999 Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty - insisting, without legal foundation, on linkage with the demand for the withdrawal of Russian peacekeeping contingents in Transdniester, Abkhazia and South Ossetia - and the U.S. and NATO are in direct violation of it through establishing a permanent (in all but name) military presence in several Eastern European countries. [11]

The Pentagon and NATO resumed annual Sea Breeze exercises in Ukraine this July, presided over by commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Europe and Africa Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, after last year's exercise was cancelled because of domestic opposition, particularly in the Crimea where the exercises are held near the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol.

In former Soviet Central Asia, the U.S. State Department signed a military transit agreement with Kazakhstan and the Defense Department a cooperation agreement with Uzbekistan in the past two weeks. The U.S. and NATO conduct ongoing operations out of bases in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and, though not publicly acknowledged, Turkmenistan. Earlier this year reports surfaced of plans for the Pentagon to construct new multi-million-dollar training bases in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

The U.S. and NATO are also expanding military exercises, deployments and facilities in the Arctic Ocean in concert against their only rival in the region, Russia. [12]

In return for the steadily advancing deployment of U.S. military personnel and infrastructure to Russia's borders, the Medvedev administration is expanding its accommodation of Pentagon and NATO operations in Central and South Asia by providing ever-broader transit and overflight rights for U.S. and NATO troops and equipment headed to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Last week the U.S. secured a port in Lithuania as the latest transit hub for NATO's Northern Distribution Network to bring supplies and equipment by rail across Russia for the war in Afghanistan. Estonia and Latvia already supply docking facilities for goods coming to the Baltic Sea.

Two years ago Russia granted Germany permission to transit military equipment bound for the German military base in Termez, Uzbekistan and northern Afghanistan. Several years before Russian passengers were forced off a train to provide seats for German troops. German troops in Russia.

After assigning its first troops to NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan recently, on November 12 Kazakhstan signed an agreement with the U.S. that allows American military aircraft to fly across the North Pole and over Kazakhstan to supply U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Kazakhstan is a member of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization and along with Russia and China a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It also shares borders with China and Russia. [13]

Last August U.S. and British troops led a NATO military exercise, Steppe Eagle 2010, in the country.

The new agreement permits the U.S. to send weapons over Kazakh airspace for the first time.

Between the Arctic Ocean and Kazakhstan lies Russia, which had to - and did - agree to the Pentagon flying military aircraft over its territory.

"The new arrangement will also substitute for a previous one under which U.S. military cargo planes flew combat troops and materiel to the Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where they refueled, and from there to air bases in Kuwait and other destinations in the Persian Gulf, circumventing Iran which forbids American military overflights, and then either directly into the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan or to Pakistan." [14] Or from Germany over Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus to the Caspian Sea and western Kazakhstan to Kyrgyzstan, where cargo was transshipped across Tajikistan to Afghanistan. The Northern Distribution Network also includes sea-land-sea shipments through the South Caucasus: Georgia and Azerbaijan on the Black Sea and Caspian Sea, respectively. Decidedly circuitous - and expensive - routes.

Flying over Russia and Kazakhstan allows U.S. military transport planes to go directly from Alaska to Afghanistan without refueling.

"The new route over the North Pole to Bagram Air Base, the military’s main air hub in Afghanistan, will allow troops to fly direct from the United States in a little more than 12 hours.” [15]

Last April Michael McFaul, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and senior director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the United States National Security Council, said the agreement would also "allow troops to fly directly from the United States over the North Pole to the region” in addition to supplies and equipment. “This will save money; it will save time in terms of moving our troops and supplies needed into the theater." [16]

Additionally, "Chartered passenger jets could leave from Chicago and fly over the North Pole to deliver troops.” [17]

Presidents Obama and Medvedev prepared the way for the recent agreement in a verbal commitment on polar overflights in the summer of 2009. "The White House said at the time that the accord would set the stage for 4,500 polar-route flights a year over Russia and Kazakhstan, saving the U.S. government $133 million annually in fuel, maintenance and other transportation costs." [18]

The Obama administration has approved a $708 billion defense budget for next year - the largest in constant dollars since 1946 and over $2,300 for every man, woman and child in the United States - and Russia is kind enough to save it $133 million on the war in Afghanistan. The Medvedev government is even more obliging considering that two of three armed groups the U.S. and NATO are laying waste to Afghanistan in the name of fighting are those of Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who Washington - and its then-CIA deputy director, now defense secretary Robert Gates - funded and armed to kill young Russian and other Soviet conscripts in the 1980s.

Soon U.S. and NATO planes, troops and equipment will criss-cross Russia from the west, east and north. Russia has made a new friend, has found a new "strategic partner," at the expense of its traditional allies, its national interests and its self-respect alike.

The Russian position on regional and international developments has changed radically since then-President Vladimir Putin addressed the Munich Security Conference in February of 2007 and said:

"What then is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it describes a scenario in which there is one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And this is pernicious, not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this, certainly, has nothing in common with democracy. Because democracy is the power of the majority in the light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

"Today we are witnessing an almost unrestrained hyper-use of force - military force - in international relations, a force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts."

Two years before, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) held its fifth annual heads of state summit in Kazakhstan at which India, Pakistan and Iran (in addition to Mongolia) were welcomed as observer nations. Addressing the attendees of those nations and the six members of the SCO - Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - the host country's President Nursultan Nazarbayev said they represented half of humanity. [19]

After the summit nations as diverse as Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Nepal and even NATO member Turkey expressed interest in joining or affiliating with the SCO.

In reference to the SCO and to the RIC (Russia, China, India) and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, China, India) formats, discussions of a new multipolar world order, of a just, rational and peaceful world, and of a new international security architecture were heard in Eurasia and throughout the world.

When in 2007 Putin warned against the unrestrained use of military force in the world, his comments came three years after the U.S. and its NATO allies had launched three wars in less than four years: In Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. His speech was condemned in the West, after which Putin was labeled a new czar, commissar and so forth, but was welcomed in most of the rest of the world, even being translated and posted on the website of the Turkish armed forces.

Russia is uniquely positioned to rally the world against the post-Cold War unipolar dominance of what current U.S. president Obama referred to as - without irony, though under ironic circumstances: while receiving the Nobel Peace Prize - the world's sole military superpower. [20]

Because of Russia's size and location. Because of its vast natural resources, including oil, natural gas and uranium; its military technology; its possession of the only nuclear deterrent and triad of delivery systems that matches those of the U.S. Because of its history: Its predecessor state the Soviet Union had supported independence and national liberation movements in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America for 70 years.

Calls from Russia for, not a revival of a bipolar, but the creation of a multipolar world had to be taken seriously.

After the financial crisis that began on Wall Street in 2008 and soon engulfed the world, Russia suffered several serious blows, affecting its two main export products: Energy and arms.

The price of oil and natural gas plummeted precipitately, which in turn led to a decrease in foreign arms orders from oil- and gas-producing nations and a substantial depletion of Russia's previously formidable gold and foreign exchange reserves. NATO expansion into Eastern Europe has also led new member states and candidates to discontinue the acquisition of military equipment made, designed and licensed by Russia in favor of U.S. and Western European arms, and deals struck during President Obama's recent visit to India have advanced the displacement of Russia as that Asian giant's main weapons provider.

Nevertheless, the abrupt about-face in Russia's foreign policy is not solely attributable to nor can it be excused by the above-cited developments.

In addition to unconscionably dragging out the completion of the nuclear power plant it has been building in Bushehr after draining Iran of substantial sums of money, in June of this year Russia joined China in voting for the harshest sanctions yet against Iran in the United Nations Security Council. The measures would have stronger, no doubt, without Russian and Chinese efforts to soften them, but both countries had the option of voting against and if need be vetoing them.

Claiming the very sanctions it had supported as the rationale, in September President Medvedev signed a decree which banned the delivery of S-300 air defense missiles to Iran - a $1 billion dollar package for which Iran had already paid $166.8 million - and other weapons including tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, ships and missile systems.

At several decisive points in the middle of this decade key Russian officials - including the country's foreign and defense ministers and top military commanders - warned against military attacks against Iran. It is to be assumed that such public pronouncements as well as back channel communications may well have stayed the hand of the U.S., Israel and perhaps both.

However, with the Russian political leadership's turn toward the U.S, and NATO, the prospects of an attack against Iran and all the catastrophic - perhaps cataclysmic - consequences it will unavoidably bring in its wake is heightened dramatically. To an extent that the conflagrations in Afghanistan and Iraq will seem mild in comparison.

In the past year and a half the only military-security formation Russia is a member of - the Collective Security Treaty Organization - has been weakened, perhaps fatally, with Belarus and Uzbekistan drawing back from commitments and joint exercises and the remaining members - Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan - being courted and in varying degrees won over by the U.S. and NATO.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, once a model and a source of inspiration for the world, has degenerated into an ineffectual forum, with this year's summit in Uzbekistan a non-event where Russia's Medvedev stated that "Countries which have difficulties with their legal status cannot claim SCO membership." An allusion to Iran and the sanctions Medvedev's government had voted for two days before.

In February of this year Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hosted Madeleine Albright and her NATO Group of Experts at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations as part of a tour in preparation for presenting a report on the military bloc's new Strategic Concept.

A leading Russian think tank, the Institute of Contemporary Development, issued a report whose contents, divulged in early September, detailed prospects for Russia collaborating more closely with NATO, even discussing the nation joining the Alliance. President Medvedev is the chairman of the institute's supervisory board.

Two days after the NATO summit in Lisbon ended, Eduard Shevardnadze, former president of Georgia ousted by the "Rose Revolution" and the last foreign minister of the Soviet Union, told one of his nation's newsweeklies that "Russia will become a NATO member soon." [21]

In an analysis published three days before the Lisbon summit, Victor Kovalev, a corresponding member of Russia's Military Science Academy, warned of what confronts Russia as it intensifies its collaboration with NATO:

"The NATO summit which will convene in Lisbon on November 19-20 will adopt the alliance's new strategic concept switching NATO from regional defense to global-scale missions. In practice, the reform will institutionalize the West's victory in the Cold World War III. The already visible results of the victory include the ongoing departure from the Yalta-Potsdam system and the downscaling of the role played by the UN – or at least by the UN Security Council – in international relations."

"The new world order built as we watch on the ruins of the Yalta-Potsdam system automatically energizes a range of negative global processes and is prone with new wars or major regional conflicts. At the moment, the situation in the Far East already appears similar to that in Europe on the eve of World War II." This week's developments on the Korean peninsula bear out the contention.

"Under the circumstances, Russia's priority should be to avoid being dragged into the epicenter of the coming collapse. Hoping to get rid of competitors in the post-capitalist world and to enforce a 'final solution' of the Russian problem, the West is luring Russia into this very epicenter." [22]

The author also pointed out that by assisting the U.S. and NATO in their plans for Eurasia and much of the rest of the world Russia risks alienating the Muslim world. Approximately 20 percent of Russians are Muslims or of Muslim religious background and in 2005 Russia became a permanent observer at the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Russia will also "be neutralized during the planned attack against Iran," though still be affected by whatever broader consequences such an action would entail.

It will expend material resources and political capital on the flagging and failing war in Afghanistan which has already contributed to an explosion in opium production that has led to 2.5 million heroin addicts and 30-40,000 annual overdoses in Russia according to the nation's Federal Drug Control Service.

The Russian analyst also stated that increased cooperation with NATO would lead to Russia Moscow "see[ing] its promising dialog with Beijing suspended as China would end up fully encircled" by a U.S.-created Asian NATO.

Russia will also be expected to distance itself from historical allies in the Arab world like Syria and Libya and to abandon burgeoning relations with Latin American partners like Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Nicaragua and Venezuela have recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which none of Russia's partners in the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization have yet to do. The U.S. and its NATO allies - President Medvedev's new friends - are adamant in branding the two new nations Russian-occupied Georgian territories. Moscow will be punishing its real friends and rewarding its competitors and adversaries.

Africa, where during the Soviet period Russia was the continent's main political and economic partner, will have to be acknowledged as the exclusive province of the Pentagon's Africa Command.

The analyst also warned that Western preconditions for integrating into NATO include the resolution of territorial disputes and could lead to demands to cede the Kuril Islands and even Sakhalin to Japan. That Russia would have to abandon claims in the Arctic Ocean in favor of NATO members the U.S., Canada, Denmark (through Greenland) and Norway, and "as a minimal concession" would have "to renounce its claim to the Lomonosov Ridge."

Russia might also be confronted with territorial claims by Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Georgia and Ukraine and be compelled to make concessions in the Caspian Sea. The Kaliningrad exclave is not free from potential claims by Poland, Lithuania and even Germany.
....
It has been a long time since words like multipolar world have been mouthed by Russian officials. Expressions like a just, rational and peaceful world are as rarely heard.

By aligning itself with the U.S. and NATO, Russia has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

1) North Atlantic Treaty Organization, November 20, 2010
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-4F07AFE2-C5D95F20/natolive/news_68876.htm
2) NATO-Russia Council Joint Statement
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, November 20, 2010
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_68871.htm
3) Xinhua News Agency, November 23, 2010
4) Russia Today, December 31, 2008
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/35499
5) Jamestown Foundation, October 8, 2010
6) Civil Georgia, September 13, 2010
7) Poland: U.S. Moves First Missiles, Troops Near Russian Border
Stop NATO, May 29, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/poland-u-s-moves-first-missiles-troops-near-russian-border
8) Xinhua News Agency, November 17, 2010
9) Baltic States: Pentagon’s Training Grounds For Afghan and Future Wars
Stop NATO, September 30, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/baltic-states-pentagons-training-grounds-for-afghan-and-future-wars
....
Pentagon Confronts Russia In The Baltic Sea
Stop NATO, January 28, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/pentagon-confronts-russia-in-the-baltic-sea
10) U.S. And NATO Accelerate Military Build-Up In Black Sea Region
Stop NATO, May 20, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/u-s-and-nato-accelerate-military-build-up-in-black-sea-region
....
Romania: U.S. Expands Missile Shield Into Black Sea
Stop NATO, February 6, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/romania-u-s-expands-missile-shield-into-black-sea
11) Pentagon Forges NATO Proxy Armies In Eastern Europe
Stop NATO, October 30, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/pentagon-forges-nato-proxy-armies-in-eastern-europe
....
U.S. Consolidates New Military Outposts In Eastern Europe
Stop NATO, September 23, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/u-s-consolidates-new-military-outposts-in-eastern-europe
12) Canada Opens Arctic To NATO, Plans Massive Weapons Buildup
Stop NATO, August 29, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/canada-opens-arctic-to-nato-plans-massive-weapons-buildup
....
Loose Cannon And Nuclear Submarines: West Prepares For Arctic Warfare
Stop NATO, December 1, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/loose-cannon-and-nuclear-submarines-west-prepares-for-arctic-warfare
....
NATO’s, Pentagon’s New Strategic Battleground: The Arctic
Stop NATO, February 2, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/natos-pentagons-new-strategic-battleground-the-arctic
13) Kazakhstan: U.S., NATO Seek Military Outpost Between Russia And China
Stop NATO, April 14, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/kazakhstan-u-s-nato-seek-military-outpost-between-russia-and-china
14) Ibid
15) New York Times, April 12, 2010
16) Washington Post, April 12, 2010
17) Air Force Times, April 12, 2010
18) Central Asia Newswire, November 15, 2010
19) The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Prospects For A Multipolar World
Stop NATO, May 21, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/150
20) Obama Doctrine: Eternal War For Imperfect Mankind
Stop NATO, December 10, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/obama-doctrine-eternal-war-for-imperfect-mankind
21) Trend News Agency, November 22, 2010
22) Victor Kovalev, The Cost Russia Will Pay for NATO Rapprochement
Strategic Culture Foundation, November 16, 2010
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2010/11/16/the-cost-russia-will-pay-for-nato-rapprochement.html