Sense is returning to East-West relations, despite the US and NATO, affirms Eric Walberg
2008 will be remembered as a turning point in Russia’s relations with the West. It was a tumultuous year, with Kosovo, missiles in Europe and NATO’s seemingly relentless march eastward like thunderclouds gathering on Russia’s horizon, which finally burst 8 August over South Ossetia, bringing tragedy to Georgians, triumph and tragedy to Ossetians and Russians, as the Russian army stopped short of Tbilisi in their defence of the plucky Ossetians.
Poland, in a tizzy, quickly signed up for US Patriot missiles; the EU and NATO, in a snit, suspended relations with Russia and did their best to undermine Russia’s fragile economy. US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates made a grand tour of countries supposedly threatened by Russia (in addition to visiting his new friends in Kosovo), though only the woe-begone Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili bothered meeting him at the airport. This darling of the West – and Israel – suddenly found himself friendless after his disastrous altercation with his neighbour. Even Israel pulled in its horns, cutting off its lucrative arms sales out of fear of Russia.
Little more than a month later, the storm clouds over Russia seem to have dispersed. Europe again began improving relations, with a Euro-Russia summit in November, followed by renewed negotiations on a strategic partnership and a renewal of Russian-NATO dialogue in December. The Bush administration was not amused, but then lame-duck President George W Bush has about as many friends these days as Saakashvili.
It was amusing watching NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer jumping through hoops, so to speak, in early December after a NATO foreign ministers meeting, as he explained the alliance’s decision to begin “a conditional and graduated re-engagement” with Moscow, despite strident disapproval from Washington, not to mention Moscow’s own strident disapproval of NATO moves to absorb Ukraine and Georgia, and after its spectacular assertion of authority in its “near abroad” with the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abhazia. The Hoop argued, “Russia is such an important factor in geopolitical terms that there is no alternative for NATO than to engage Russia.” He innocently claimed he had no idea why Russia felt “victimised, not to be taken seriously, but if that is the perception, we have to discuss it, because I have to try to convince them that democracy and the rule of law coming closer to Russia’s borders – why should that be a problem?”
As if he actually believes that NATO is about the tired clichés of democracy and freedom that are used to justify this Cold War relic, and not about US empire and its attempt to end any residual opposition, especially in the oil-rich Eurasian space, which Russia just happens to control.
So why the sudden courtship of the Russian ogre? De Hoop said it was because of Afghanistan, fighting terrorism and narcotics. We could add the financial crisis as well. But towering over even that is the very frightening spectre of another arms race between the two – yes two – superpowers which Europe is uncomfortably sandwiched between.
It’s as if Don Juan realised too late that his latest flame – his true love this time – was wise to him and had decided the jig was up. Defying the US, de Hoop Scheffer and his Euro diplos realised their place was the tried and true middle path between the two big guys. He did his best to pretend that nothing really was wrong, but no one was fooled. “I’m basically an engager,” de Hoop Scheffer said. “But engagement can’t take place in the context of spheres of influence. We have to see if Georgia is a watershed or not. I hope not, and I’ll do my best that it will not be.” Sorry, de Hoop. You closed the barn door too late. Your beloved has bolted.
The emissary of the spurned lover, Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitri Rogozin, welcomed the decision to resume informal talks with Russia, saying, with not a little sarcasm, “I personally do not see the difference between formal and informal sittings, except that you don’t have coffee in an informal meeting but you still can order one.” Rogozin also said that the decision not to give a formal action plan to Georgia and Ukraine showed that relations with Russia were more important to NATO than either applicant. He predicted that NATO would retreat from admitting Georgia and Ukraine, a prospect that “does not cheer anyone in the alliance.” Rogozin said that “there is an open split within NATO, and it will widen if NATO tries to expand further. The schemes of those who adopted a frozen approach to Russia have been destroyed.” Words that left Don Juan apoplectic. The Hoop shot back that Rogozin could say what he liked, and American officials dismissed his comments as bluster aimed at a domestic audience.
Upping the ante, in the NATO meeting’s final communiqué, which went through 22 drafts, the foreign ministers gave their unanimous support to the planned deployment in Europe of US missile defenses, which Washington continues to say are for protection from Iran, not Russia. Reading from a script retrieved from history’s dustbin, the ministers called the missile system “a substantial contribution” to defense and encouraged Russia to take up US proposals for cooperation on missile defence, oblivious to US president-elect Obama’s own scepticism about the system, or the comments last month by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that the missile defense would “bring nothing to security” but “would complicate things and make them move backward,” or Russia’s threat to install short-range missiles of its own in Kaliningrad.
As for Russian President Dmitri Medvedev’s proposed talks on a new “security architecture” for Europe – which Sarkozy agreed to in November – de Hoop Scheffer said that NATO members were “quite happy with the security structure as it exists in Europe. There is not a shimmer of a chance that NATO could or would be negotiated away.” The Euro fans of America and foes of Russia see the Russian president’s proposals as a direct attempt to undermine NATO. And so what? The only way to make peace with Russia is to do what should have been done 17 years ago, when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded: dismantle its twin and build a European partnership from the Atlantic to the Pacific, minus the US and Canada. There is something called the United Nations where everyone can get together. The EU and Russia are already working together on peacekeeping – through the UN – as seen with the current EUFOR mission in Chad, which includes 320 Russians. I repeat: Who needs NATO to police the world?
De Hoop drew his line in the sand at a news conference with Georgian Foreign Minister Eka Tkeshelashvili. She expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the meeting, in which ministers reconfirmed that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually become members of NATO and said NATO would accelerate cooperative reform programmes with both countries through existing NATO commissions. Don’t hold your breath, Eka. A lot can happen between now and “eventually”. The US and Germany are at odds over how further expansion of NATO can proceed, with Germany insisting on a MAP (Membership Action Plan) and Bush’s team arguing that “MAP has been fetishised”. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried said that this “is not the only way to get there,” wherever “there” is. Instead of a MAP, he has in mind the NATO-Georgia Commission established hurriedly after 8 August, modeled after the NATO-Ukraine Commission established in 1997 – “MAP without MAP”, as the German fetishists drolly put it.
But the bottom line on Georgia is that it can’t join NATO if it is not at peace with its neighbours, as this would oblige NATO to go to war to “defend” it. This argument could even encourage Russia to make a move on Crimea, putting Ukraine in the same predicament, making it, too, ineligible. How ironic this would be, given NATO’s pretensions to be a bastion of peace.
As the Hoop performed his verbal acrobatics, the EU was performing its own highwire act with Russia, renewing negotiations on a new strategic partnership. But with a nod to US desires to keep moving eastward come hell or high water, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso also outlined to the press the EU’s proposed new “Eastern Partnership” with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, the latest move into the ex-Soviet bloc since the EU expanded in 2004 and 2007 to embrace the Baltics and all the former Warsaw Pact nations. The partnership offers free trade deals, closer energy ties, easier access to visas and financial assistance programmes worth a total of €600 million over two years. To their bitter disappointment, EU-member hopefuls Ukraine and Moldova were lumped together with the others, indicating that their applications were on hold.
Interesting, the supposed rush to get Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and the procrastination over them joining the much more important economic organisation. The Eastern Partnership was a response to Sarkozy’s Mediterranean Union, bringing all the Mediterranean countries together with the EU in a loose economic club, and was put on fast track after the war in Georgia in August. Barroso denied suggestions that the EU was seeking to establish itself as an alternative power centre to Moscow. “The Cold War is over,” said Barroso, “and where there is no Cold War, there should be no spheres of interest.” Who does he think he’s kidding?
But Russia has no beef with EU expansion, which can only benefit Moscow in the long run. In fact, it is not inconceivable that Russia itself could join this economic pact, which clearly benefits one and all, at least economically. This cannot be said of NATO. De Hoop Scheffer understandably wants to keep his prestige (and pension), but this is one endangered species that deserves extinction.
As NATO prepares the fireworks for its big 60th anniversary, its plans for Georgia and Ukraine are in disarray and its war in Afghanistan is a nightmare which could tear the organisation apart in 2009. Happy anniversary.
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at www.geocities.com/walberg2002/
——-
Comment: I would only add one small thing to Eric’s excellent piece: the OSCE is also going through some painful realizations of their own. Check out the idiotic article the BBC published yesterday (for a Russian take on the same issue, check out this article by Russia Today). It just seems that the OSCE fails to understand a basic fact: Russia has absolutely no interest in letting the OSCE continue to be the arrogant and useless actor which it has shown itself to be this year. Nevermind that the OSCE observers had prior knowledge of the attack, that the OSCE has been hopelessly committed to the US/Israeli/Georgian propaganda and that it has persisted against all common sense in pretending that somehow South Ossetia and Abkhazia would be “de-recognized” by Russia and “returned” to Georgia. To paraphrase Lynyrd Skynyrd, the OSCE should “remember, the Russians don’t need them around, anyhow!”.
——-
Comment: I would only add one small thing to Eric’s excellent piece: the OSCE is also going through some painful realizations of their own. Check out the idiotic article the BBC published yesterday (for a Russian take on the same issue, check out this article by Russia Today). It just seems that the OSCE fails to understand a basic fact: Russia has absolutely no interest in letting the OSCE continue to be the arrogant and useless actor which it has shown itself to be this year. Nevermind that the OSCE observers had prior knowledge of the attack, that the OSCE has been hopelessly committed to the US/Israeli/Georgian propaganda and that it has persisted against all common sense in pretending that somehow South Ossetia and Abkhazia would be “de-recognized” by Russia and “returned” to Georgia. To paraphrase Lynyrd Skynyrd, the OSCE should “remember, the Russians don’t need them around, anyhow!”.
Over the past months, the Brits have changed their tune and now speak of possible Georgian war crimes, NATO has calmed down, the OSCE is getting the boot, Europe is pitifully “investigating” which side actually started the war, and the NYT advises Obama to renege on Dubya’s missile plans for Europe to get the Russians to help with the Iran thing.
Welcome to the real world guys! Imperial hubris only can take you that far and even though you are all waking up with an ugly hangover, it’s good to see that you are returning to the real world!
The Saker
Excellent news Saker. It’s exactly what I hoped, and indeed expected would happen. You can only hide from reality so far before it reasserts itself.
Let’s hope when Obama takes over there is an outbreak of sanity in Washington.
Russian-US relations, I fear, won’t improve substantially with Obama. He supported Georgia in the South Ossetian war (though not so ridiculously as McCain, who stated “We are all Georgians”), he is commited with NATO enlargement and has many Russophobes in his team – including old Brzezinsky, whose main goal is to break the Russian Federation. That is really a pity, as the end of the Warsaw Pact brought the possibility – for the first time in history – of a completely stable and peaceful European continent. This possibility was completely wasted, and I don’t see much possibility that the course will change, at least not until the US empire falls.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well, the Russians have learned a lesson. They had been trying to reason the US and NATO for years using diplomacy. And it took just five days to get what they wanted by force.
What do you recon the Russians are going to follow from now on? Diplomacy or force?
Russia is playing a bad guy now.
They already announced huge increase in their military spending. They’ve made several launches of their ballistic missiles. They announced about an export deal of S300 to Iran. They’re giving 10 MIG29 to Lebanon. Signed a huge arms contract with Venezuela. Confirmed their commitment to finish nuclear deal with Iran.
All that within a month.
And what the US say on all that?
Nothing.
So the Russians learned that it’s the bad guys who get whatever they want.
And that’s bad news.
Russia has been really trying to go about it’s own business lately. Just make some money and get on feet. They haven’t been spending much money on their military forces since Russia was not going to use them much. They have their nukes so it seemed that they could skip on the conventional weapons. So – they exported arms instead of wasting money on them.
Not anymore.
These f…g idiots not just had awaked the bear but managed to piss him off and now they have no idea how to deal with him. And nobody knows where it will get us now.
NSM News (from P2O2)
Thank the “f*** idiots” for what they did!
Putin fooled himself with the USA, firstly thinking that the West would really and truthfully recognize Russians crave to live in peace **within** world community, secondly (but that’s only my view) allowing Russian financies to be set up in accord with the American-Jewish banksters’ agendas of the world.
Sorry to say that but he was duped by US.
I agree with Carlo. Two signs from Kiev Ukraine News Blog:
1) Ukraine Journalist Hurls Shoes At Politician In NATO Protest
, a quote: The reporter in southern Ukraine’s Odessa tossed his footwear at Oleh Soskin, an official presiding at the opening of a NATO information centre in the Black Sea port, the Interfax news agency reported.
2) US, Ukraine, Sign Partnership Charter, a quote – The United States and Ukraine Friday signed what was termed a Charter of Strategic Partnership calling for cooperation in defense, energy, trade and other areas. The United State will set up a diplomatic mission in Ukraine’s Crimean region.
Empty gestures? I don’t think so…, alas!
BTW. I have found was I searching for a while:
Putin Hints At Splitting Up Ukraine, a quote – http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2008/04/08/017.html
The Moscow Times
President Vladimir Putin hinted at last week’s NATO summit in Romania that Russia would work to break up Ukraine, should the former Soviet republic join the military alliance, Kommersant reported Monday.
Putin “lost his temper” at the NATO-Russia Council in Bucharest during Friday’s discussions of Ukraine’s bid to join NATO, Kommersant cited an unidentified foreign delegate to the summit as saying.
“Do you understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state!” Putin told U.S. President George W. Bush at the closed meeting, the diplomat told Kommersant.
After saying most of Ukraine’s territory was “given away” by Russia, Putin said that if Ukraine joined NATO it would cease to exist as a state, the diplomat said.
Putin threatened to encourage the secession of the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, where anti-NATO and pro-Moscow sentiment is strong, the diplomat said, Kommersant reported. (…)
I fully agree with Mr Putin.
Regards
Alibi, you are right: Russia has been playing the “good guy” for more than 20 years, since the times of Gorbachev, and gained nothing with this. All they got was US and NATO troops close to their borders. So, playing the “bad guy” seems the only option for the Russians. Anyway, this bad guy is very soft, compared to NATO and the US. It is funny to see the Europeans condemning Russia for the “disproportionate response” against Georgia in the South Ossetian war, when NATO ruined Serbia in 1999, and the US left Iraq in ruins in 2003…
Just one correction: yesterday Russia denied that they are selling S-300 SAMs to Iran. It makes sense, not for political reasons, but for technical ones: this system is not being produced anymore (it is being replaced by S-400), and they would have to take aways some of their own systems to sell them to Iran.
anonymous: «The United States and Ukraine Friday signed what was termed a Charter of Strategic Partnership calling for cooperation in defence, energy, trade and other areas. The United State will set up a diplomatic mission in Ukraine’s Crimean region.
Empty gestures? I don’t think so…, alas!»
I don’t know if these are empty gestures, but the US had similar agreement with Georgia. So did the UK.
«After saying most of Ukraine’s territory was “given away” by Russia, Putin said that if Ukraine joined NATO it would cease to exist as a state, the diplomat said.»
Russia was doing it’s best trying to explain to the good guys where a red line was. The Russians exhausted all diplomatic means and had to just blow up the region.
It was the Russians who dragged Saakashvily in that conflict. And they will definitely do something about Ukraine if it will come to that
Carlo: “…yesterday Russia denied that they are selling S-300 SAMs to Iran.»
I don’t think Russia will sell S300, or S400 to Iran. Not now. The Russians are simply giving hints to the US and of course Israel as to what may happen if their interests continue to be ignored. The Israelis are not stupid and they already offered Russia to act as mediators between the US and Russia in regards of AMD. And we suspect that the Israelis may find a few listeners in Washington.
The NSM News (from P2O2)
Once I wrote on my defunct now blog that if Russia had allowed Israel to attack Iran it would showed the world how weak she is de facto.
It seems to me the issue of S300 is practical implementation of the policy. In that view Iit IS Russia which allows or forebids Israel to attack Iran, not the USA. For me Iran is off limit to Israelis due to Russias interest in the region. It is like wagging a finger against Israel – “watch your steps over this side of the Persian Gulf”.
It also means that US “stopped” implementing Iran’s operational plans having too much to loose due to possible Russia’s counter-reactions within that area. Perhaps the rabid US reaction after Georgian war was bound with the understanding? Who knows?
BTW Can you imagine the USA or Israel bombing the Busher reactor during day shift with Russian technicians working inside?
Regards
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
P2O2: «Once I wrote on my defunct now blog that if Russia had allowed Israel to attack Iran it would showed the world how weak she is de facto…»
«…It IS Russia which allows or forebids Israel to attack Iran, not the USA. For me Iran is off limit to Israelis due to Russia interest in the region»
I think that any strike on Iran either by Israel or by the US will only benefit Russia.
Firstly – Russia and Iran are not allies, and never have been – so no obligations to do anything for Moscow and even a little support from the Russians would be highly appreciated by Teheran.
Secondly – the US would sink even deeper into wherever they are so far.
Thirdly – there would have been no room left for any talks between the US and Iran /a possibility of which is on the table now/- hence Iran will move further towards Russia with practically exclusive military, nuclear, and resource cooperation between the two.
Fourthly – any destabilisation in the region will affect oil prices.
Fifthly – Obama will loose all credit he has so far.
And then the reason for the AMB in Europe will have been destroyed all together with Iran’s own striking capability.
Russia doesn’t really want military strong Iran on her borders so it will no impose any rivalry in the region full of oil and gas.
Just wanted to say that it was me who has deleted a few previous comments not VS.