Russian army chief of staff Gen. N. Makarov broke the news on September 22 that Russia will not sell the S-300 air defense systems to Iran. Regardless of official explanations, it does not take an expert to realize that as a purely defensive system designed to shield a country from aircraft and cruise missile attacks the S-300 complexes cannot pose a threat to any country unless it attacks the one owning them.
As for the standoff between Iran and Israel, Tehran is constantly confronted with threats of massive air strikes, and taking steps to prevent the aggression is a must for any country seeking to sustain peace, especially for a permanent UN Security Council member sharing the responsibility for global security. Aggression is least likely in the situation of military parity or if the potential victim is able to inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor. Iran’s possession of the S-300 complexes could expose Israel’s air forces to the risk of unacceptable damage in case the letter choses to attack the former. Denying Iran the right to efficient means of self-defense is tantamount to encouraging aggression against it. Isn’t Russia thus helping to unleash a disastrous war in the proximity of its own borders, a war against a country which, by the way, hosts a large colony of Russian specialists? On top of that, the refusal to supply the S-300 complexes to Iran clearly hurts Russia’s political and economic interests.
What could be the motivation behind Russia’s recent decision? Obviously, it stems from several regards. Ostensibly unaware of the existence of Israel’ nuclear arsenal, Moscow has for years been playing the game of taming Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions and voted for sanctions against the country in the UN Security Council. Actually, Tehran proposed a number of times to turn the Middle East into a nuclear-free zone. The plan was welcomed by the majority of the Arab world but seems to be a taboo for Russia’s foreign ministry. Now, why is that?
Igor Yurgens, chief of the Institute of Contemporary Development, a well-connected Russian thinktank, said at the Nixon Center Russia-US roundatable on July 28, 2010 that not everybody in Russia regards the collapse of the USSR as a geopolitical catastrophe (as Russia’s former president and current prime minister V. Putin described the historical development). Yurgens went on to assert that the goal of those who don’t is to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic security architecture and to eventually bring the country to NATO. He praised Russian defense minister A. Serdyukov’s military reform and told that in the nearest future Russia would oddly enough – be importing at least 30% of the weapons and equipment for its army from Israel and NATO countries. Another roundtable speaker from Russia – Gen. V. Dvorkin who, incidentally, paid a visit to Israel a short time ago – urged US senators to OK launching an attack against Iran as soon as possible and even presented a computer model of the conflict to US partners.
Defense ministers of Russia and Israel A. Serdyukov and Ehud Barak signed a first-ever agreement on the military cooperation between the two countries on September 6, 2010. The sides went so far as to include intelligence data swaps in the package, leaving it open to interpretation whether from now on Russia is going to spy on Arab countries, Turkey, and Iran and pass sensitive information to Israel. Whereas in the past the Russian administration sought consensus with Tel Aviv to sell weapons to Middle Eastern countries, currently the impression is that it needs Israel’s explicit sanction for such deals. A similarly absurd arrangement was in effect in the days of the Gore-Chernomyrdin commission when Moscow did not even dare to supply ordinary mechanical equipment to Iran unless Washington greenlighted the deal.
It is an open secret that Israel assisted in organizing and launching the August, 2008 unprovoked Georgian aggression against South Ossetia and the deadly raid against the Russian peacekeepers deployed in the republic. Israeli advisers are in part responsible for the bloodshed, but one gets an impression that these days for Moscow no sacrifices are too great a price for an entry ticket to the Judo-Atlantic civilization.
Decisions like the one announced by Gen. N. Makarov undermine Russia’s prestige and erode its security, making the world less safe for every one of us. At the moment the Islamic world has reasons to believe that Moscow has switched to the camp of its foes. Given the facts that Russia is locked in a protracted conflict in the Muslim part of the Caucasus and that over a million Muslims reside in Moscow, antagonizing Muslims worldwide is the last thing the country needs.
On the whole, Serdyukov’s military reform the structural overhaul, the introduction of the brigade system, the acquisitions of Israeli and NATO weapons, joint Russia-West exercises in the US and in Europe, and the tide of military college closures lead watchers to conclude that the broader plan behind it is to build what still remains of Russia’s army and navy into the US and NATO expedition corps.
Shall we really be taking the riskiest roles in the military escapades of the Anglo-Saxons and of the Israeli Zionist leadership in the name of the shadowy financial oligarchy’s global dominance? Let others judge what authors of the plan deserve.
General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union’s ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federation’s Ministry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the Russian armies. He is member of the Axis for Peace conference.
There are consistent reports that Medvedev plans to bring Russia closer to NATO, and even a member of the alliance in the long term. I wonder how the Russian population would take this, as NATO is extremely unpopular and hated.
On the other hand, the cooperation between Israel and Russia is at risk: the Israelis have been complaining about the sale of Yakhont anti-ship missiles to Syria, and threatening to cancel the deals with Russia.
Instead of wasting time and energy trying to appeal the West and Israel, damaging Russia’s interest by doing this – wouldn’t it be much easier to move on, forget NATO, US and Israel and move closer to China, India, Iran and Venezuela, for example? I can’t understand how still exist Westernizers in Russia, after all that happened during the governments of Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin’s first mandate.
@Instead of wasting time and energy trying to appeal the West and Israel, damaging Russia’s interest by doing this – wouldn’t it be much easier to move on, forget NATO, US and Israel and move closer to China, India, Iran and Venezuela, for example?
Absolutely! Russia being the most powerful member of the The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the The Collective Security Treaty Organisation or (CSTO) it should be Russia’s obligation to give these organization more real power. The first step would be, of course, to include Iran as a full member.
My feeling is that Medvedev is bad bad news for Russia….
There’s also the large Russian Jewish community, the majority of whom presumably back Israel and may well be more pro US than your average Russian.
Russia may well be wary of China and fear Chinese immigration to Siberia and the Far East is a potential threat to Russian sovereignty. For that reason they may well prefer to sell arms to Russia’s old ally India, which is a friend of the US.
Personally I’d far rather see Russia commit itself to the Eurasian strategy and build up the SCO. Russia is more likely to get a good deal from the Americans if it negotiates from a position of strength. Cosying up to NATO enables the US to take Russia for granted.
Looks like the Obama administration has decided they can’t fight both Russia and the Muslim world simultaneously and have done a deal with Moscow. In return for abandoning Iran the US has abandoned the Orange revolution and ended any chance of Georgia or Ukraine entering NATO. The Polish missile defence shield also appears to have been scrapped. So its’s not like Russia got nothing out of its new position.
“My feeling is that Medvedev is bad bad news for Russia….”
I’m afraid that you’re right. My hope is that Medvedev is just playing his part in a ‘good cop bad cop’ game he has going with Putin. I still think that is a possibility. After all, Russia is still not doing anything to seriously hurt Iran. They could, after all, role over at the UNSC and allow the worst possible sanctions. They could also halt military sales to Syria. That they haven’t done any of these things gives me hope that Russia is not yet in the NATO camp.
The other possibility is that Medvedev has turned on Putin and plans to use western support to help him take power for real.
The worst possibility is that both Medvedev and Putin are both looking to go westward.
Hope that’s not the case. But if it is, our best bet, ironically, is for Sarah Palin or the most aggressive wingnut the GOP can come up with winning in 2012. Then the Russians will know exactly where they stand and that Iran is probably the best friend they have.
Indeed Medvedev is no good. Somehow people here believed that he is fine if Putin recommends him. But what he is doing is so pathetic – all these calls for ‘innovations’, ‘the struggle with the corruption’ (very selective) preparation for the olympic games (that will be a total failure) reforming the militia (essentially renaming it to police) etc. The president loves twitter, iphone and reads fantasy books on his ipad. impressive.
And now the foreign policy on top of that. How one can put any trust into West after all that happened – i can not comprehend. It must be obvious for any reasonable politician that as soon as west is done with his current target it will get after you.
Instead of making new good friends, to cancel the signed agreement and to try to be a friend with an old enemy – not sound and plainly shamefull.
People around me (let’s call it middle class) don’t take Medvedev seriously and do not appreciate what he does.
May be if poor Saakashvili waited a year or two, he could seize both republics without much fuss.
Sorry if I messed the language – i’m russian :)
Saker
have you seen this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11439033
Human Rights, my foot. So Dubya, Cheney and Tony are choir Boys and what about the torture in those prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan by the so-called civilized soldiers of the west!
Isn’t this meddling into a sovereign country internal business? Or is the righteous Empire allowed to tell the world what to do/
@anonymous: There’s also the large Russian Jewish community, the majority of whom presumably back Israel
Beginning, I believe, with Medvedev’s wife and quite a few advisors.
@Lysander: The other possibility is that Medvedev has turned on Putin and plans to use western support to help him take power for real.
That is the possibility which I am very reluctantly leaning towards. I say reluctantly, because it begs the question of how Putin and his supporters could have been conned and misread Medvedev; but then, that is what happened to th backers of Eltsin who misread Putin…
@Anonymous2: But what he is doing is so pathetic – all these calls for ‘innovations’, ‘the struggle with the corruption’ (very selective) preparation for the olympic games (that will be a total failure) reforming the militia (essentially renaming it to police) etc. The president loves twitter, iphone and reads fantasy books on his ipad. impressive.
That is exactly the impression I am getting too. He is more of a bad joke then of a reformer which, for all his other faults, Putin definitely was. Putin was a real state leader, Medvedev is some kind of confused dilettante.
Sorry if I messed the language – i’m russian :)
Да не переживай – мы тут все свои :-) А вообще – тут ребята со всего мира пишут а твой английский язык вполне нормальный
@External: Thanks for the pointer, I had not seen this story
Extremely disappointing. If you look at Russia and China each has what the other lacks and they would make ideal partners in a committed alliance. I was hoping that the SCO would develop into a Eurasian equivalent of NATO. Once the West was confronted with a bloc with a combined military and economic power equal to its own, that might persuade the West to be much less aggressive in the world. It would have given smaller countries like Iran more room for manoeuvre.
I used to hope that the EU might emerge as a counterweight to the US but the Atlanticists seem to have come to power right across Europe. There may be commercial competition between the EU and US but Europe will remain militarily subordinate to Washington and will close ranks against a country like Iran.
[corrected, the machinery was expected to give a preview and it published instead]
Well, the national-security policy of independent countries is generally independent of internal politics no matter how much the politicians scream that they are different from one another [e.g., Obama and Bush]. Russia’s policy seems pretty predictable and consistent with my own view, viz, that Russia is an empire, has been an empire, and wants a seat at the table of the larger Empire.
Not a chance Putin will reverse the anti-Iran decision if/when he returns to full power.
Looking up to Russia as somehow a bulwark of anti-imperialism is utterly baffling, as I’ve explained in detail elsewhere on this blog. It served as the Eastern Branch of the Empire for a time as the Soviet U — Imam Khomeini especially was very clear on this:
No East [communism]! No West[liberal capitalism]!
Now, in the wake of loosing the Cold War, it seeks to return to the fold of Europe in which it sees its identity and its future. Playing footsie with anti-imperialist movements and nations is just to gain leverage for the terms of full and ongoing reintegration into the Western — and now only — wing of the Empire.
Occam’s razor at work: If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck …
Peace
@ishamid: Russia is an empire, has been an empire, and wants a seat at the table of the larger Empire.
I think that you are grossly mis-reading Russia. Yes, the REGIМЕS in power in Russia have acted pretty much in the way you describe, but each time this was done at the (relative) cost of disgusting the majority of the population which feels that taking up a confrontation with NATO and the US is far more desirable then sheepishly accepting the Empire’s order. Think of Iran BEFORE the Revolution – would you judge the entire nation by the behavior of its ruling class? If yes, how mistaken would such a judgment be?
When you say “Russia is an empire” you are being as mistaken as observers of Iran before the Revolution who would say “Iranians are sold out to Israel”.
You write: Playing footsie with anti-imperialist movements and nations is just to gain leverage for the terms of full and ongoing reintegration into the Western — and now only — wing of the Empire.
If you speak of the clique running Russia today, you might well be right. But you ignore the VAST majority of the officer corps, the VAST majority of the intelligence/security community, and, most importantly, the vast majority of the Russian people who have lived for centuries with Muslims neighbors and who do NOT consider Islam as a foe and who know that the West is the real mortal enemy of Russia.
Ishamid, do not judge Russia by the conflict in Bosnia and Chechnia. Russia is also the nation which spilled blood in defending Dagestan against the Wahhabi plan of a “Muslim Emirate in the Caucasus”.
Frankly, you seem convinced that Russian are somehow closer to the West than to the Islamic word and I think that you are deeply mistaken. Historically, Russia has always been a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society and Russians are ready to die for their Muslim brother as long as they are not instruments of the CIA (Bosnia) or crazed Wahaibi thugs (Chechnia).
Let me ask you this: if all of Chechnia would suddenly become a province of Iran, what would the Pasdaran do with the Chechen insurgents?
You know the answer as well as I do, don’t you?
The Saker
Medvedev is not acting properly, but I still don’t see him as (I think it was Jack who said) “Gorbachev 2.0”. Let’s see things objectively: that Russia allowed Resolution 1929 to pass (even in a mild form) and now cancelled the deal to deliver S-300 to Iran are very bad news indeed. There are many information surfacing now that Medvedev would like to join NATO, but is it possible? What will the siloviki (members of intelligence, military and other security agencies, who are very influential thanks to Putin) think of it? I’m pretty sure they don’t like the idea. What will most of the population think of it? NATO is still deeply hated among the population. And not only: will NATO accept the Russian membership? There are still many disagreements between Russia and NATO, that can’t be solved just because Obama and Medvedev trust one another: Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia. And Russia sold powerful anti-ship missiles to Syria, which is not a strong country as Iran, but still causes some troubles to Israel.
And let’s not forget the absurd act of “Russian spies” being arrested the day after Medvedev and Obama ate burguers together: this proves that there are many people in the US who don’t like Obama’s “reset” policy, and don’t want Russia in NATO either.
@VINEYARDSAKER:
Ok, here we go again: :-)
=================================
Ishamid, do not judge Russia by the conflict in Bosnia and Chechnia.
=================================
Well, that’s a straw man for sure … My observation had nothing to do with Bosnia, and nothing to do with the latest Chechen conflict. Indeed, let’s assume for the sake of discussion that you are right on both of those conflicts. [I don’t think so, but let’s assume]
In the 19th century, Russia was a modern land-based empire bent upon imperialist expansion at the expense of Muslims and others to its south, and embracing much of the same post-Enlightenment racist BS as the Western Europeans. Muslims were expelled from their homes or otherwise subjugated to make room for Slavic immigrants in terms not so different from America’s Manifest Destiny. The Circassians were nearly eradicated much as the Native Americans.
From Orientalism and Empire: North Caucasus Mountain Peoples and the Georgian Frontier (Jersild), in a dispatch from the Russian army:
“In this year of 1864 a deed has been accomplished almost without precedent in history: not one of the mountaineer inhabitants [Circassians] remains on their former places of residence, and measures are being taken to cleanse the region in order to prepare it for the new Russian population.”
The Russian aristocrats spoke French and saw themselves in the European model. Euro-identity was central to the Russian Empire.
[And before you say it: Yes, the Ottomans were also an empire, but arguably not a modern one in the sense of the Age of Euro-Imperialism with its post-Enlightenment arrogance — though they certainly tried and failed –, and they have thankfully been carted off to the trash heap of history and without any successor — no, Turkey does not count].
The Soviet Empire was the direct successor to the Classic Russian Empire, and its bullying and inhuman treatment of non-Russians — and Russians too! — is too well known to mention. It crushed all attempts of recently conquered lands to attain independence after the Russian revolution. From there: Finland, the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and finally Afghanistan: The Soviets were an Empire. It adopted a post-Enlightenment ideology — communism — as the basis for what was otherwise a continuation of the Russian Empire in proletariat clothing.
Empires are as their leaders are: Most Americans opposed the 2nd Gulf War, but the ruling clique went ahead. We live in an empire, regardless of the views of the populace. If the majority of Russians don’t see themselves in imperial mode, that’s wonderful. The ruling parties however have an imperial agenda; just as the ruling parties in the US have an imperial agenda. And that agenda supersedes internal political differences.
The imperial agenda of Russia in the post-Cold War era has been, apparently, to fall back into the arms of Western alliances, into a modern version of the role it played in the 19th century as the Eastern frontier of Western Civilization.
I see this as perfectly natural and not surprising at all, and no mere change of the guard at the presidency of Russia is going to change it. Based on my current model of Euro-Imperial history and reality, the foreign policy of Russia makes perfect sense and fits the model.
===============
But you ignore the VAST majority of the officer corps, the VAST majority of the intelligence/security community
:
===============
I interpret that as echoes and nostalgia for the age of Soviet power, not a principled anti-imperialist position. But you would know better …
===============
Frankly, you seem convinced that Russian are somehow closer to the West than to the Islamic word
===============
Sure, and I see no evidence that that’s not the case, at least not at the level of national policy. And most Russian Muslim ideologues — not Wahhabist wingnuts — would agree I think.
Peace
PS
============
instruments of the CIA (Bosnia)
============
The 1000’s of women raped by the Serbs and those forced to bear “Chetnik” children were NOT instruments of the CIA.
The CIA takes advantage of conflict wherever it can, but Bosnia was not a creation of the CIA, Hamas was not a creation of Mossad, and Imam Shamil was not an agent of the Ottomans. Canards…
Peace
@ishamid:The Russian aristocrats spoke French and saw themselves in the European model. Euro-identity was central to the Russian Empire.
And that is the crux of your misunderstanding of Russia: you conflate the FRENCH SPEAKING aristocrats with the Russian people. When you conflate the Russian aristocracy with the Russian people, you are as mistaken as when Westerners conflate Wahabi crazies with Shia Islam. I wonder what it would take to open your eyes to that profound analytical mistake…
Would you judge Iran by the English speaking Iranian elites under the Shah? Would you judge Egypt by the elites supporting Mubarak nowadays?!
The 1000’s of women raped by the Serbs and those forced to bear “Chetnik” children were NOT instruments of the CIA.
This is absolutely ridiculous and unworthy of somebody with your intellectual capabilities. You know that the Bosnian Muslims (the so-called “Bosniacs”) are ethnically the same as the Serbs, and yet you seriously believe that there is something called a “Chetnik child” ot there. This is as ridiculous as saying that the IRA was raping Irish Unionist women to make them bear Provo-babies. They are all Irish and, unlike you, they understand that.
Ishamid, if you insist on siding with Bosnian Muslims, there are plenty of perfectly reasonable and fact-based reasons which can bring a decent and logical person to that point of view, there is really no need to insist on parroting myth which could only have been conceived by Americans utterly ignorant of the socio-historical reality of Bosnia. That “rape as a tool of ethnic cleansing” is utter and total nonsense. Don’t believe me if you want, but ask any Bosnian MUSLIM who is not involved in political PR about it and he/she will confirm this to you.
I see no evidence that that’s not the case, at least not at the level of national policy. And most Russian Muslim ideologues — not Wahhabist wingnuts — would agree I think.
And I say that you are wrong. And this makes me wonder whether you have ever met a Muslim from Russia. I don’t know about you, but I have. In fact, one of my best friends is a Kazakh Muslim and I can tell you one thing – his ancestors and my Russian ancestors did fight each other for centuries, yet today when we meet, we share the same plov with beshparmak, we drink kumys together, and we deeply feel that we are of one common root. I am sorry that I do not have the possibility to invite you at our table to share our meal, it would open your eyes to a reality which is much more nuanced and complex than the ideological representation you have of our reality.
For centuries, Muslims have fought and died for Russia as a multi-ethnic state. This was true before the Revolution when the famous “Dikaia Diviziia” which was formed of Muslim volunteers to the “Musulmanskii Batalion” which participated in the storming of the Palace of Hafizullah Amin in 1979, to the “Vostok” battalion which heaped terror on the (Orthodox) Georgians in 2008.
Russia has 1000 years of history living next and with Muslims. If you want to reduced it all to the pro-European (and frankly anti-Russian) ideology of French-speaking “Russian” Free-Masons, I will not be able to change your opinion. But you will be 100% wrong. Does that not sadden you?
===============
And that is the crux of your misunderstanding of Russia: you conflate the FRENCH SPEAKING aristocrats with the Russian people.
===============
Bait and switch: The rulers are the rulers and set the policies of the empire. What did the Austrio-Hungarian Empire have to do with the poor Austrians and Hungarians? Still, it was what it was.
When have I said anything about the Russian people per se? Empire is a function of the rulers per se, with or without the acquiescence of its people. The Russian people per se are not and never were the issue!
================
Would you judge Iran by the English speaking Iranian elites under the Shah?
================
Again, bait and switch. An empire is a function of its rulers per se, not its people. Its people may very well be oppressed.
So yes: if Shah Pahlavi were still there and did the things other empires do, and if its elites continued pro-imperialist policies, then yes, Iran would be part of the Empire too.
Egypt is a vassal of the Empire, along with Saudi Arabia etc. Iran used to be. Most people in Egypt don’t like it. Does not change the fact that Egypt is a vassal at the state level.
===============
You know that the Bosnian Muslims (the so-called “Bosniacs”) are ethnically the same as the Serbs, and yet you seriously believe that there is something called a “Chetnik child” ot there.
===============
No, did you not see the dbl-quotes I used for “Chetnik”? This is what the Bosnian Serb rapists perpetrated. That they were raping their ethnic kin was obviously of no concern to them.
==============
This is as ridiculous as saying that the IRA was raping Irish Unionist women to make them bear Provo-babies
==============
Tell the Bosnian Serb rapists that, not me. I’m merely quoting what they have been reliably quoted as saying, and that is far too well documented for anyone to hide from. It may be bs, but it’s what they have said.
===============
That “rape as a tool of ethnic cleansing” is utter and total nonsense.
===============
Now it’s my turn to express disbelief that you could say such an insensitive thing in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary. Let’s not go there.
==============
Don’t believe me if you want, but ask any Bosnian MUSLIM who is not involved in political PR about it and he/she will confirm this to you.
===============
I have, including an atheist Bosnian colleague of mixed Bosnian-Serb ancestry, a true product of Tito universalism, as apolitical as can be, and who LIVED through the horror of it.
=================
I am sorry that I do not have the possibility to invite you at our table to share our meal, it would open your eyes to a reality which is much more nuanced and complex than the ideological representation you have of our reality.
=================
Mixing apples and oranges. The natural amalgamation of Russian-Muslim culture is one thing. In the Western US, Native Americans and Cowboys share a common culture on the Plains and will share a beer together on the rodeo. That does not change history. And it has nothing to do with the past imperial or modern pro-imperial policies of America as a state. Or of Russia as a state.
You and I are talking about two different things. Whatever the situation of the current status of relations between Russians and Muslims with the Russian Empire or CIS universe, the state policy appears to follow one version or other of a Euro-centric imperial model, and has done so for at least two centuries.
==============
If you want to reduced it all to the pro-European (and frankly anti-Russian) ideology of French-speaking “Russian” Free-Masons, I will not be able to change your opinion.
==============
To be honest, I think you’ve missed my point :-)
Peace
=================
I am sorry that I do not have the possibility to invite you at our table to share our meal, it would open your eyes to a reality which is much more nuanced and complex than the ideological representation you have of our reality.
=================
Mixing apples and oranges. The natural amalgamation of Russian-Muslim culture is one thing. In the Western US, Native Americans and Cowboys share a common culture on the Plains and will share a beer together on the rodeo. That does not change history. And it has nothing to do with the past imperial or modern pro-imperial policies of America as a state. Or of Russia as a state.
You and I are talking about two different things. Whatever the situation of the current status of relations between Russians and Muslims with the Russian Empire or CIS universe, the state policy appears to follow one version or other of a Euro-centric imperial model, and has done so for at least two centuries.
==============
If you want to reduced it all to the pro-European (and frankly anti-Russian) ideology of French-speaking “Russian” Free-Masons, I will not be able to change your opinion.
==============
To be honest, I think you’ve missed my point :-)
Peace
@ishamid: Empire is a function of the rulers per se, with or without the acquiescence of its people
Here you and I will have to disagree. I believe that an Empire can only survive when it caters to the needs of at least a good part of the people it rules over. If not, it collapses, just like the old regime in Russia did in 1917 or the Soviet regime did in 1991, or the Palahi regime did in 1979.
This is what the Bosnian Serb rapists perpetrated.
Wrong. The Serbian rapists raped not for any particular ideological reasons, but because these are the Balkans and because in a civil war hate is a black, yet powerful force, and rape is a means to humiliate and crush your victims. But no matter how stupid, drunken or bestial a Bosnian Serb can be, no amount of slivovica can make him think that by raping a Muslim woman he can change the genetic makeup of her offspring.
Now it’s my turn to express disbelief that you could say such an insensitive thing in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary. Let’s not go there.
I go wherever I want to go. You don’t have to follow me, but neither can you limit what I will say here.
The natural amalgamation of Russian-Muslim culture is one thing. In the Western US, Native Americans and Cowboys share a common culture on the Plains and will share a beer together on the rodeo.
How does one respond to such a ignorant and frankly deeply offensive characterization? Is there even a point in replying?
I don’t know what to tell you here, Ishamid. I think that you have crossed an invisible line in which beyond which I can only reply “God is my witness”.
Superficially looking, you and Jack are both polar opposites of each other, yet you both are so much alike. You both see a complex problem and you both have it “solved” with a solution that is simple, neat, and yet wrong. (Amusingly, you both also tell me that I do not understand your points).
Somewhere, I am deeply frustrated with the likes of you and Jack: ideologues who have just the right amount of hatred and instinctual simplification to justify (or even trigger) civil wars, to never see the “other” as something else than a conceptual category. Jack “knows” that Mulisms are supporters of terrorism. You “know” that Russia is an Empire and the Serbs vile rapists.
On the wall of my high-school somebody had spray-painted the sentence “l’eclat des certitudes m’amene a tuer” (the glitter of certitudes brings me to murder). Maybe God intended for me to read and remeber that graffiti so that I would repeat it to you today.
Saker:
Fascinating exchanges and very informative…
Suffice it to say today…that the Russian ruling elite has most obviously joined with CIA-MOSSAD in most of their endeavors worldwide it seems….[ S-300 is a glaring case in point…] and the Stuxnest Malware seems to have been planted in Iran by RUSSIAN agents on behalf of CIA-MOSSAD…] even if RUSSIA does not join NATO…It is also obvious that beyond MOSCOW and St Petersburg’s conglomerates…the Russian ruling elites don’t really care much about what goes on….except for keeping the Empire together in one piece….especially in the Siberian plains and the Energy basins….
==============
@ishamid: “Empire is a function of the rulers per se, with or without the acquiescence of its people”
Here you and I will have to disagree. I believe that an Empire can only survive when it caters to the needs of at least a good part of the people it rules over. If not, it collapses, just like the old regime in Russia did in 1917 or the Soviet regime did in 1991, or the Palahi regime did in 1979.
===========================
What you say is no doubt true, and it does not subtract one iota from my argument :-)
==============
“The natural amalgamation of Russian-Muslim culture is one thing. In the Western US, Native Americans and Cowboys share a common culture on the Plains and will share a beer together on the rodeo.”
How does one respond to such a ignorant and frankly deeply offensive characterization? Is there even a point in replying?
==============
You dismiss Bosnian Serb atrocities such as the systematic raping of women as “utter nonsense” and then say that _I’m_ being offensive? :-)
And how in God’s name is that offensive?!? Conquered peoples and people who fought wars amalgamate all over the world. That’s life: It happens everywhere. I was merely stating a truism and confirming part of your own point. You and I are closer than you realize, I think.
Have you been to the America West? To the rural South, where descendants of slaves and their former owners share much common culture? does not change history…
It’s your blog and you can do what you like, but I respectfully ask you to stop comparing me with your other contributor, whom I have _never_ mentioned once in my replies to you. I find that offensive and a false comparison.
I have _never_ expressed “hatred” for Russians, for Orthodox Christianity, or for any other traditional religion or ethnic group. I have opposed jingoism in my replies, be it Serbian or Russian; Ottoman or Muslim. Did you actually _read_ my replies carefully?
I have _never_ accused you of “hatred” of Bosnian Muslims, despite your apparent support of the other side or accusing the Bosnians of being “CIA agents”. So respectfully I ask: criticize me on my own facts (or lack thereof in your view) and analyses.
From an intellectual perspective there is no comparison whatsoever between the view that all “Muslims are supporters of terrorism” and the view that Russia as a state is an historic empire with a specific set of national security interests that transcends local politics.
The opinion that Russia has formed an empire in the post-Enlightenment sense, and that that empire or its imperial interests continues in one form or other up to today, is not a fringe view, a racist view, or one fueled by hatred. It is a standard historical perspective held by numerous academicians of all ideological, religious, and numerous ethnic, stripes from across the world. It could be wrong — as you suggest — but it is at least a sober view of history and reality.
Merely considering Russia an historic empire in the post-Enlightenment mold obviously does not imply “hatred” of Russians in any way, shape or form! In Iran they burn American flags etc… but they always emphasize that they bear no ill will to the American people per~se. Yet many Americans are deeply offended … maybe there is something similar going on with your replies, although my own words do not come _anywhere_ close to burning flags!
==============
(the glitter of certitudes brings me to murder)
==============
No doubt true again, and once again it does not detract one iota from my argument :-)
I remain your friend in
Peace
[contd]
From an intellectual perspective there is no comparison whatsoever between the view that all “Muslims are supporters of terrorism” and the view that Russia as a state is an historic empire with a specific set of national security interests that transcends local politics.
The opinion that Russia has formed an empire in the post-Enlightenment sense, and that that empire or its imperial interests continues in one form or other up to today, is not a fringe view, a racist view, or one fueled by hatred. It is a standard historical perspective held by numerous academicians of all ideological, religious, and numerous ethnic, stripes from across the world. It could be wrong — as you suggest — but it is at least a sober view of history and reality.
Merely considering Russia an historic empire in the post-Enlightenment mold obviously does not imply “hatred” of Russians in any way, shape or form! In Iran they burn American flags etc… but they always emphasize that they bear no ill will to the American people per~se. Yet many Americans are deeply offended … maybe there is something similar going on with your replies, although my own words do not come _anywhere_ close to burning flags!
==============
(the glitter of certitudes brings me to murder)
==============
No doubt true again, and once again it does not detract one iota from my argument :-)
I remain your friend in
Peace
@anonymous06:09: the Stuxnest Malware seems to have been planted in Iran by RUSSIAN agents on behalf of CIA-MOSSAD..
May I ask what do you base that statement on?
Thanks!
@ishamid: You dismiss Bosnian Serb atrocities such as the systematic raping of women as “utter nonsense”
No. I dismiss the idea that Serbs raped Bosnian-Muslim with the intend to make them give birth the Chetnik children. In fact I specifically wrote The Serbian rapists raped not for any particular ideological reasons, but because… that was an affirmative statement which was not preceded by any such expressions of doubt such as “allegedly raped”. And now you tell me I did not read your posts?
And how in God’s name is that offensive?!?
Because you make a parallel between the relationship between on one hand:
a) Anglos and Indians: the former committed what can only be described as the only continental-size multi-genocide in history and the latter have survived in such small numbers as to make them demographically irrelevant
and
b) Orthodox Russians and Kazakh (or other) Russian Muslim ignoring the fact that, just like Christianity is an official and Constitutionally protected religion in Iran, Islam is an official and Constitutionally protected religion in Russia, that Russia even has an observer status at the OIC and might well apply for full membership, that about 12% of the Russian population is Muslim even AFTER Russia lost all the traditionally Muslim regions, that Nicholas II built in Saint Petersburg the biggest Mosque in Europe and that even that spineless Medvedev has plans to do that today in Moscow. How does that compare to the history or status of Indians in the USA?
I am amazed that you would not see the absolutely offensive nature of your statement or that you would further compare my attempts to make you understand the enormity of what you say with Anglos getting offended at flag burnings.
Look – cultural “sensitivity” for a lack of a better terms, or courteous language, is not something which can be hammered in like an algebraic demonstration. You do no see how you are being offensive? Fine – I throw in the towel and give up on that topic.
I have _never_ expressed “hatred” for Russians, for Orthodox Christianity, or for any other traditional religion or ethnic group.
As such – no. But I can also clearly see that your completely mistaken views of Russia are shaped by what I can only describe as a “basis” (readings, or interaction with humans) which is deeply hostile to Russia.
It is a standard historical perspective held by numerous academicians of all ideological, religious, and numerous ethnic, stripes from across the world.
That is, alas, very true. And there are so many more of such views which are held by “numerous academicians of all ideological, religious, and numerous ethnic, stripes from across the world” and which are absolutely and completely wrong that this hardly constitutes and argument, at least for me (just look at the collective blindness of such academics towards the 9/11 issue!)
I respectfully ask you to stop comparing me with your other contributor
I will, of course, honor your request, but I will ask you to ponder what I said to you.
I can’t resist: :-)
==============
Let me ask you this: if all of Chechnia would suddenly become a province of Iran, what would the Pasdaran do with the Chechen insurgents?
==============
They would not have razed Grozny to the ground, that’s for sure. Look at how Iran deals with its Kurdish insurgents, its Baluch “insurgents” — real cia agents for sure — compared to Turkey or even the US in Afghanistan. Ahmadinejad himself has pointed out — in the very speech you posted — the difference between the Iranian approach to “terrorism” and the West’s. They arrested Rigi without firing a shot.
In any case, the hypothetical comparison is very out of place on numerous grounds, and a simplistic substitution of players in this case will give simplistic answers.
Peace
==============
Because you make a parallel between the relationship between on one hand:
:
==============
Every comparison and contrast is always deficient to one degree or other: it’s a dialectical activity that, even at its best, can easily breed misunderstanding of intent, as appears to me from your reply. So instead of parsing your reply or giving more counterexamples (a la Circassia) I’ll settle for this general observation.
==================
And now you tell me I did not read your posts?
==================
I _asked_ if you read them carefully, otherwise you could not accuse me of “hatred”.
===================
And there are so many more of such views which are held by “numerous academicians of all ideological, religious, and numerous ethnic, stripes from across the world” and which are absolutely and completely wrong that this hardly constitutes and argument,
===================
I also said, “It could be wrong — as you suggest”. So again I ask: Are you carefully reading what I wrote? I did not offer that as a stand-alone argument; you’re taking it out of context. I extend a leaf in your direction and you ignore it.
===================
I will ask you to ponder what I said to you.
===================
Sure.
SAKER;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/world/middleeast/30worm.html?_r=1
Ralph Langner, a German computer security consultant who was the first independent expert to assert that the malware had been “weaponized” and designed to attack the Iranian centrifuge array, argues that the Stuxnet worm could have been brought into the Iranian nuclear complex by Russian contractors…..
@anonymous11:20: thanks! very interesting article, by the way. I know, I do sound like a broken record, but how, HOW IN THE WORD!!!!! would anybody want to use Windows, in particular for a strategically important facility, is simply beyond me. I just don’t get it.
Hopefully the lesson will be learned by the Iranans (and the Russians!)
================
HOW IN THE WORD!!!!! would anybody want to use Windows, in particular for a strategically important facility, is simply beyond me. I just don’t get it.
================
For years, I have tried — in vain mostly — to convince my Iranian friends in academia to look at the OpenSource movement from an Islamic perspective (anti-monopoly, security etc) but maybe now they’ll pay more attention ;-)
@ishamid
The Chechen regime was creating an ethnic cleansing campaign before the first war.
Grozny was raised in areas of heavy fighting which had large Russian populations whilst other mostly Chechen regions were not.
And that is because of the massive foreign support, weapons fighters and weapons that came into Chechnya before and during the first war due to heavy ground fighting not aerial bombardment which despite the propaganda was never used in the first war and only used in the second to knock out heavy fortified regions
What about historic Muslim imperialism especially during the 80’s to the present?
And the Soviet Union was not the precursor to the Russian Empire as it was not run by Russians and only came into existence in its post WW2 form when allied countries used East European corridor to attack the USSR lead by Britain.
@VINEYARDSAKER:
I think he was referring to the mass rape myth who I would guarantee Muslims probably raped more Serb women than vice-versa which I bet foreign jihadist probably raped Bosnian women.
@Ishamid: They would not have razed Grozny to the ground, that’s for sure. Look at how Iran deals with its Kurdish insurgents, its Baluch “insurgents” — real cia agents for sure — compared to Turkey or even the US in Afghanistan. Ahmadinejad himself has pointed out — in the very speech you posted — the difference between the Iranian approach to “terrorism” and the West’s. They arrested Rigi without firing a shot.
Have you ever been in the military? I just wonder, because while your comparisons are possibly legitimate “dialectical tools”, they are, from a military point of view laughable.
Can you name me a single city of a size comparable to Grozny, with three distinct defense perimeters mostly based in buildings built with reinforced concrete, protected by over 3000-6000 dedicated fighters armed to the teeth in which the city was NOT raised to the ground?
It makes me wonder what mysterious tactics the Pasdaran would have used had they been tasked to re-take Grozny and why those gentle methods of persuasion are not taught to Iranian riot police and cops (as seen in the suppression of the Gucci-Revolution)
You also overlook the fact that the first war in Chechnia was a war of secession while the second one was a war of AGGRESSION against the MUSLIM Republic of Dagestan by the, quote, “Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade” (I am not kidding you!!) of Basaev and Khattab. And you make comparisons with the arrest of a single individual on a airplane!
Ishamid – is there any point where common sense or simple decency makes a comparison a dishonest dialectical tool?
================
I just wonder, because while your comparisons are possibly legitimate “dialectical tools”, they are, from a military point of view laughable.
================
As usual you take only part of what I said. I also said,
================
In any case, the hypothetical comparison is very out of place on numerous grounds, and a simplistic substitution of players in this case will give simplistic answers.
================
The rest of your response likewise parses what I have said and ignores the context. So we’re just talking past each other now, my friend :-)
@ishamid: nonsense. you made a ridiculous statement and now you explain it away by means of a “context”.
In this threads you repeatedly make comparisons in lieu of a substantiations and when I show them for being clearly inappropriate (both on logical and moral grounds), you simply say that, hey, as a dialectical tool you get to use them to make a point, even though they fail to truly support your conclusions. And if I point out to you that a comparison you made is simply laughable, you uphold it as being quite appropriate via its integration into some vague “context” which, of course, you accuse me of of not taking into account.
I am getting tired of this kind of “dialectical methods” more worthy of a teenage debating society than of a serious and honest discussion between tho honest men presumably seeking to understand the truth.
I don’t know if there is an Islamic equivalent to the kind of casuistics the Jesuits used to be famous for, but if there is I don’t feel like tackling with it.
You are more than welcome to post here as much as you want, and others are welcome to reply to your post in any way they choose, but in what concerns my own attitude I will from now on simply ignore any and all of your post unless I detect a least a basic intellectual honesty to them.
===============
@ishamid: nonsense. you made a ridiculous statement and now you explain it away by means of a “context”.
===============
I’m very sorry that you would take our conversation to the level of ridicule and insult, and that you choose to interpret my words in the worst possible way. I have _never_ personally insulted you no matter how much I’ve disagreed with you, and I’m frankly quite disappointed that you’ve resorted to that.
Once one reaches that level there is no point in continuing the conversation.
Peace