Ever since Russia’s mind-boggling abstention at the UNSC on a resolution which effectively allows for a US/NATO war on Libya I have been trying to make sense of what the hell had happened. First, I was so mad at Russia that I did not bother looking a little deeper into possible Russian motives. Then, when Russia joined China and the Arab League in criticizing the resolution they had just authorized, I felt like I had entered some ‘twilight zone’. I mean – I always knew that the Arab League was a joke, but Russia and China zig-zagging (together!) just made no sense. One can say many bad things about Russian or Chinese rulers, but nobody has ever called them stupid or short-sighted.
And today I see the amazing spectacle of Putin calling the US-NATO attack on Libya a “medieval crusade” only to be openly rebuffed by Medvedev.
Uh?! Since when do these two openly fight each other?!
Seriously, for all the fake openness in modern Russia (such as Putin and Medvedev receiving their subordinates in the presence of TV cameras), the reality is that the Russian regime is every bit as non-transparent as in the bad old days of the Soviet Union: everything which matters is really decided behind the scenes (but that is also the case in most Western states, I would add).
So I came up with a hypothesis, based only an guesses, nothing more, which I would like to share with you:
What if the Russian intelligence community decided that a US-NATO intervention in Libya would be a major mistake for the US Empire?
First, a no-fly zone would inevitably turn into a full scale air war which would further alienate the world’s public opinion against the USA.
Second, a military engagement in Libya with no visible exit strategy would bog down the USA in yet another war. Have you recently tried to tally the number of current US military involvements? I did that this morning and I came up with this:
1) Iraq (full scale – one point)
2) Afghanistan (full scale – one point)
3) Pakistan (full scale – one point)
4) Libya (full scale – one point)
4) Yemen (covert & via KSA – half a point)
5) Iran (covert & via Israel – half a point)
6) Bahrain (covert – via KSA – half a point)
7) Kosovo (occupation – half a point)
8) Somalia (covert & via Ethiopia – half a point)
9) Palestine (covert & via Israel – half a point)
Total “war points”: 1+1+1+1+.5+.5+.5+.5+.5+.5 = 7.0 wars
SEVEN SIMULTANEOUS WARS!!!
No empire, no matter how rich, can sustain such a military effort, much less so an already bankrupt empire like the USA.
Third, it is highly likely that the conflict with Gaddafi will be a long one. Either no side will prevail, or one will and the other will respond with a protracted guerrilla war. Can you guess what this will do to Libya’s oil export capabilities? And then, can you guess what a further increase in the price of oil will do to the Russian (and Venezuelan!) economy?
So let us assume that the Kremlin decided that a UN military intervention would be a major mistake for the US Empire. Then, one of two things could have happened:
Variant #1: Medvedev and Putin have agreed to let Putin run in the next presidential elections. In that case, Medvedev has nothing to loose and a lot to gain ($$$) to let the UNSC resolution pass and then let Putin look noble, patriotic, principled and righteous.
Variant #2: (I like this one even more!) Putin quietly nudges Medvedev into approving the UNSC resolution thereby making him look like a spineless weakling and, as soon as the outrages takes-off in the Russian public opinion, Putin makes a widely reported statement making him look, well, noble, patriotic, principled and righteous (again).
In variant #2 Putin would kill two birds with one stone: damage the USA and damage his likely challenger Medvedev.
Please do not mistake any of the above as an expression of support or admiration for Putin. I believe that it is impossible to do something good by immoral means and Russia’s abstention at the UNSC was definitely deeply immoral. But I also know that Putin is not exactly somebody over-burdened with issues of morality, ethics, or honor. In fact, I have always suspected that Putin and the folks backing him had left Eltsin bring Russia to the edge of total collapse only to make themselves appear like “patriotic saviors” once in power (just remember how long Russia had a “pretend war” in Chechnia before getting serious in 2000!).
So what do you guys think of my hypothesis? Could it be that it is all a very devious calculation on Putin’s part?
The Saker
Most of people will forget the beginning of this very war and the role of Russia in the passing of the resolution in a few weeks. Too subtle subject for general public and too complicated move to actually work for elections (which are still far away). Also based on assumption that cynical but nevertheless intelligence prevails, not greed or cowardice :-)
May be Medvedev have been offered a new iPad, so he really had no choice. Putin sincerely thinks that it’s a bit too much and it is starting to be dangerous (indeed to much of revolutions in what seemed to be stable countries).
A two-headed eagle must be a schizophrenic creature by definition. Our brain hurts from our rulers, really. How we are supposed to select from these clowns and thieves. Where the sensible alternative can came from.
from the perspective of inter-state rivalries, one could surmise that russia and china are hoping that the US walks into a quagmire. but, from the standpoint of russian politics, i doubt that putin and medvedev agreed to this plan.
the legal precedent of the resolution is very dangerous, so i think you were correct in your original estimation: medvedev capitulated to the empire.
putin is now pointing out the obvious, to his own political advantage.
but i know almost nothing about russian politics…
You could well be right. But will it be a protracted war? I saw a piece on dutch mainstream TV where they showed people from Tripoli demostrating in favor of MQ. A student said: no poverty in Libya, quite a good life, no beggars, everyone can have a house with decent food. Also they accused the rebels of not being real Libyan but mixed. Like having an Egyptian father or Maroccan mother.
Then, seeing the state of the rebels ‘army’, it seems to be that some well trained snipers can take care of them. MQ will probably need not much firepower to keep the city of Benghazi subdued for the moment. Or will the West traffic heavy weapons to the rebels?
The West is now committed to overthrowing Gadaffi and they will do whatever it takes, including arming and training the rebels.
As for Putin and Medvedev this is classic Machiavelli. Machiavelli warns that if someone plays a key role in hoisting you up into a position of power higher than the one he himself occupies he will almost inevitably become dissatisfied and a source of danger to that person. He will be perpetually conscious of the fact that it is only through him that you have reached you position and this will make him feel that he is as good as you are but not regarded as such by others. As his resentment grows he will be tempted by the thought that having placed you in your position means he could place someone else there if he put his mind to it. So he is likely eventually to start plotting against you or at least sympathising with your enemies. For all these reasons if you have been placed in power by another and want to be secure it is advisable to eliminate that person as soon as you can safely do without him.
What about honestly conflicted? Is the deviousness really much more than window dressing? The Russians weren’t strong enough to take the heat for vetoing this resolution. Nor were the other BRICs, not with the Arab League (initially) coming out in favor and Lebanon even co-sponsoring the resolution. Why be called anti-democratic Gaddhafi lovers for blocking this when one can simply abstain? In fact most countries are very conflicted on Libya, whether they are nominally pro the resolution, or not: Italy, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iran, China, Lebanon, the Arab League, Brazil… overtly enthusiastic cheerleaders seem to to be confined to a small Jewish clique in France. On the other hand Gaddhafi has no friends, the Saudi Royals and Iranian theocrats are for once as one in their hatred, yet both are conflicted: The Saudis tremble at the sight of dictators falling, the Iranians see the Great Satan at work. Hezbollah has even created a recycled Hidden Imam myth around Mussa Sadr with Gaddhafi as the villain. The Germans, Italians and Bulgarians have voiced fears that the intervention will generate mostly blow-back in the end. Which seems very reasonable, no? Irrespective of how this goes down militarily in the next few weeks, I see no net political upside for “The West”. Putin’s use of the term Crusaders is of course devious, but it’s just a devious choice of words.
(Besides, yes I still owe you a possible alternative term for ‘Saudi’. I have meant to ask a bunch of people, but have not gotten around to actually doing it…).
Variant 2 is more likely.
In any case: For serious or big powers foreign policy is decided behind the scenes, largely by consensus; this spectacle is all for public consumption and distraction.
On the Libya front, I suspect we’ll find out it was mostly a military-industrial-complex operation imposed on the US, happily sponsored in part by the Saudis. When Mullen says the aim is not to topple Qadhafi, he may very well be telling the truth (also possible that he’s lying of course). In that case, here’s the game plan:
Create a situation where neither side can win, leaving a failed state which needs continual Nato intervention, to protect us from terrorists and black African migrants and … This is just the kind of scenario the military-industrial dragon feeds and thrives upon. And Nato/US will be ensconced on every side and corner of the Middle East. This will, e.g., keep Egypt in check etc…
Peace
Whichever way you look at the situation in Libya, it has has one common denominator “it stinks of OIL”
M K Bhadrakumar was a professional “career diplomat” whose analyses are worth reading. His writings are about as objective and as non-ideological (at least on the surface) as one can find in the media:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/MC23Ag02.html
Peace
@Ishamid: yes, Bhadrakumar is very good and he knows Russia rather well. I always liked his columns. And in this case, I agree with him too. I would just add that Gates supporting Medvedev is actually BAD for Medvedev and good for Putin. Russian anti-US feelings are higher than ever before, almost universal, in particular in the sectors which matter.
Cheers!
Saker,
There has been great puzzlement over whether there is a split in the Russian dyarchy since Russia suddenly decided not to deliver the S-300 air defense systems that Iran had already paid for.
I have come across two compelling, but opposed interpretations:
1. From Xavier Moreau, according to whom Russia was punishing Iran for moving too close to Turkey on energy cooperation. Russia would like to maintain its dominant position in the European energy market and looks askance on any rival southern energy route from Iran to Turkey and then onwards to Europe.
2. From Thierry Meyssan: Open political warfare has broken out between Putin and Medvedev. The former wishes to continue the policy of national defiance, while the other is convinced that US cooperation is indispensable for the modernization of the Russian economy. You have a growing rivalry between the old Czar (Putin) who enjoys popular support, and the young and ambitious Czarevich (Medvedev) who seeks backing from the scheming boyars (the new oligarchs).
J
Figures in the ruling class disagree with each other all the time in public. Medvedev chose to abstain because a veto would’ve humiliated Obama and jeapordized the “reset” of U.S.-Russia relations after Bush Jr. mangled them; such humiliation and conflict, in his view, wasn’t worth the price, hence the cop-out vote.
Putin historically is more strident and confrontational, at home and abroad. Look at what he did to that Russian billionaire, the journalists that were murdered, the poisonings of the Ukranian president and Litvinenko.
@ProletarianRenegade:the journalists that were murdered, the poisonings of the Ukranian president and Litvinenko.
Oh come on!! You really by that British propaganda crap?! Even the Ukies admit that Yushchenko was not poisoned by Moscow (that is, if he was poisoned at all). As for Politkovskiaya – she was killed by her Chechen pals, and Litvenenko died because of a SNAFU of his Berezovsky-sponsored Chechen friends.
Yes, the Kremlin does have the means to kill somebody, but when they do that, they do the cleanly, fast and without leaving traces. And they sure do not use crappy means like Polonium (which would be a terrible choice).
Please don’t buy into that kind of nonsense, not with a handle like “ProletarianRenegade”. And if you really do believe that the Kremlin killed Politkovskaya or Litvineniko, then change your nick to something like “TVaddictedBrickInTheWall” :-)
Interesting points Saker. Honestly I havent made up my mind yet about whats going on between Putin and Medvedev. One day I think that they will run for the presidency both as rivals just to make it look like a real rivalry for the world. The other parties are a joke in russia and the west still wants to see a real fight for the top seat in Kremlin so – they might just get it. Imagine Putin as a hawk vs Medvedev as a liberal with all the attributes to a cat fight. They will divide voters between the two of them and at the end will make a coalition or whatever they will call it.
But the other day I seem to believe that Medvedev is just trying to believe in himself and is positioning himself as an independent player. Still don’t really buy it though. I guess we will have to stay intrigued for a little longer.
alibi
Please don’t buy into that kind of nonsense
I suppose 9/11 conspiracy theories are far more plausible than the Kremlin doing a sloppy job killing people. Their record on that extends back into the 1930s when they purged the Russian CP. Their sloppiness is nothing new.
Either way, I see you didn’t respond to my point about splits in the Russian ruling class which was addressed to your thesis.
@ProletarianRenegade
I suppose 9/11 conspiracy theories are far more plausible than the Kremlin doing a sloppy job killing people. Their record on that extends back into the 1930s when they purged the Russian CP. Their sloppiness is nothing new.
Yes and they were fake as well seeing how it was a panic reaction to a real Trotskyite plot and those that were responsible for committing mass murder and crime as a result were themselves put on trial and executed.
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/homepage.html