Cyrill Vatomsky, Where All Politics Are Global

The August 12 KSCO AM 1080 broadcast of the Embassy of the New World Order, featuring Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman. As usual, this is only an outline to accompany the podcast of the show. Please go to the blog page at http://cyrillvatomsky.com to download or stream the mp3 file.

The show covered lots of subjects in no particular order:

• My disagreements with Laina on how dangerous the results of Turkish elections last month were. I personally think that the situation in Turkey makes it a great example of how economic liberalization of 1980-s resulted eventually in establishment of a moderate Islamic party. Laina is very concerned and has been vocal about it on her blog as well.
• The issue of Kosovo and how it affects other aspects of foreign relations. I am coming on record as no longer supporting independence for Kosovo. It is a geopolitical issue and I am treating it as such. US insistence on Kosovo independence is ill advised because if pushed through, it will cause problems for one of the staunchest supporters of the US - Georgia that also wants to be a NATO member. Geopolitically Georgia's location on the Caucasus isthmus between Black and Caspian Seas is way more important to the US then Kosovo will ever be. I think that the US should drag its feet and give this issue to the Russians as a victory. Creating the precedent of Kosovo independence will push South Ossetia and Ablhazia away from Georgia.
  
• Religion has been discussed a lot in different parts of the show, including a little exchange with a caller that claimed he had seen Jesus. I actually asked for an opportunity to be introduced, but I don't think it went anywhere. I am an atheist, so it is pretty silly to try to convert me.
• Lots been said about moderate religions, and a potential for moderate Islam. In general the consensus was that Islam is preoccupied with appearances and acts like a testosterone poisoned teenager. Grow up already.
• Just a bit about the death of democracy in Russia. Or was it an abortion or maybe a miscarriage. 40% of Russians are apparently ready to vote for whomever Putin appoints, regardless of the person. There does seem to be any pretense anymore in Russia about democratically electing their presidents. Too bad.
• A caller wanted our opinions of the rise of China and supposed future confrontation between US and China. Maybe, someday, but for now China is hardly a military giant. As for economics, I want prosperous China.
• Some talk about America leaning left and most importantly, my take on the split in the "conservative" movement in the US.
  

Take a listen.

 

 

As always wit5h my radio shows, this is just a quick outline of what the subjects were on the Embassy of the New World Order KSCO AM 1080 radio show. To listen to the recording of the show, follow the link to the web site (if you are reading this in an email ) and then click on the LISTEN icon.  Commercials are edited out, so it is about an hour and a half - some 40 MEG.

Here are the main subjects, but others were mentioned as well.

• Sex for the Motherland. Putinjugend AKA Nashists are encouraged to procreate to save Russia.
• US Senate is hell bent on ruining US economy. It once again want to blame China for the trade deficit. Protectionist train has left the station and China bashing is becoming vogue. If trade surpluses are so damn good (naturally, since trade deficits are deemed to be so bad) then why 9 out of 10 years of the Great Depression saw US trade surpluses?! The US Congress is trying to cover its collective ass, pandering to xenophobic conservatives on one hand and baseball bad wielding unionists on the other and scapegoating China.
• Umlazi township is South Africa near Durban bans women from wearing trousers. Well, from burqua to trousers to anti abortionism - all this is about controlling women so that men can rule without competition. Nuff said.

In April of this year Russian President Putin declared that Russia declare moratorium on adherence to restrictions set up in the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. Today he  made good on the promise.

There has been quite a bit of point counter point arguments between Russia and NATO over the years regarding the treaty but the basic disagreement goes to the heart of the philosophical differences between the current Russian position and that of the West.

The original CFE Treaty took some 10 years to negotiate and it was signed in November 1990 by 30 countries:

Since the treaty came from and was still a part of the Cold War, initial CFE limitations were set up to achieve a balance between existing military blocks or alliances: NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Each block was limited to 20,000 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces, 30,000 armored combat vehicles,  6,800 combat aircraft and 2,000 attack helicopters.

Subsequent geopolitical disaster of the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, as Mr. Putin eloquently called it, completely changed the military, but most importantly political and philosophical landscape of Europe. The idea of pan European unity became possible, old captive Warsaw Pact members abandoned their forced allegiance and decidedly moved towards Europe eventually integrating themselves into the European Union and NATO, completely distorting the original CFE regime.

Naturally, further negotiations were necessary and in November 1999, 9 years later to the day, the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty was signed. It is worth to note that Boris Yeltsin was still President of Russian Federation. The main difference between the original and adapted treaties reflected the sea of change in philosophical approach of how Europe looked at itself. Instead of a the Cold War standoff between the two adversary alliances, the troop ceilings were to be replaced with a ceilings based on each of country and /or adjacent territory . The principle of two rival gangs was replaced with the principle of a community. Or so it was envisioned.

Results of the Adapted Treaty were less then spectacular, since it never went into effect. September 11th 2001 not only distracted attention from the treaty but, what was worse, the Adapted Treaty became a negotiating chip between NATO, US, Russia and multiple minor signatories. Instead of pushing forward towards complete ratification of the treaty and bringing legality to the new concept of Europe, unnecessary bickering  continued. Still basking in its past glory and happy with enlargement, NATO decided to use Russian military presence in Georgia and Moldova to apply pressure on Russia. This marginally related issue did not yield anything of substance and as a result, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine are the only parties that ratified the treaty. It is quite shameful that none of the European countires managed to break ranks and move ahead with what was most definitely a major positive step forward for Europe.

Was excessive Russian military presence in "flank" areas a concern? Yes it was. Was it worth postponing ratification of the Adapted CFE treaty that had so many positive implications? Not at all. This is yet another miscalculation from the Bush Administration that keep piling on and on.

Although Russia is one of the four countries that actually did ratify the Adapted Treaty, it is not without blame. And here comes the fundamental philosophical difference between current Russian policy and the new concept of Europe that went into the foundation of the treaty. The government of Vladimir Putin still thinks in terms of spheres of influence, in terms of territorial control rather than economic and social integration. Putin stubbornly tries grasping at straws of old imperial grandeur, harassing Georgia and other neighbors. This return to the rival gang view that seemed to be on its way out is back.

Russia considers NATO expansion as a threat to itself, which also reflects Russia's idiosyncratic relationship with its past. It is no longer the communist dictatorship out to impose its communist ideology over everyone, but it cherishes what it used to be. After all, Putin did call the fall of the USSR the greatest geopolitical disaster of the XXth century. The 6 "exceptional circumstances" that Russia lists as the rationale to  suspend the treaty come exactly from the adversary standoff mentality. The last one about the Baltic states is simply laughable. I must add here that there are some vivid discrepancies between the Russian and English versions of the reference memo to the Presidential decree published at Kremlin.ru.

2. The excessive parties to the CFE Treaty that belong to NATO, and the exclusive group that formed among CFE Treaty members as a result of the widening of the alliance;

3. The negative impact of the planned deployment of America's conventional forces in Bulgaria and Romania because of this exclusive group mentality;

4. The failure of a number of parties of the CFE Treaty to comply with the political obligations contained in the Istanbul Agreements relating to the early ratification of the Adapted Treaty;

5. The failure of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic to comply with commitments accepted in Istanbul to adjust their territorial ceilings;

6. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania’s failure to participate in the CFE Treaty has adverse effects on Russia’s ability to implement its political commitments to military containment in the northwestern part of the Russian Federation. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania’s actions result in a territory in which there are no restrictions on the deployment of conventional forces, including other countries’ forces.

Russia is afraid of the ever growing Estonian army?

Russian military analyst Aleksandr Golts, speaking to RFE/RL's Russian Service, called Putin's decision "a deeply unfriendly act," adding: "The irony is that even though NATO countries haven't ratified the adapted agreement, they all observe its terms. No one is going over the prescribed limit."

A deeply unfriendly act indeed. With a stroke of a pen Putin annuls almost 3 decades of negotiations and significant progress.

It fits quite well with the tension building course Putin has embarked on since his Munich speech, including recent threats to target more missiles at Europe for wanting to build a missile defense shield.

Sean from Sean's Russia Blog suggests nothing more than symbolism

There is also no doubt that talk about a "New Cold War" will get another gasp of life even though there seems to be an early consensus that Russia's move is mostly symbolic. "Stability" between European countries is hardly at risk. The bigger risks to stability are increasing tensions over immigration, Islam, and European integration show within European countries, not between them. Plus Russia's influence over Europe does not reside in its hard power, but in its economic soft power. The real area of global insecurity stretches across the Central Asia and the Middle East.

All quite true, but it still begets the question "why?" If this is nothing more then a symbol or an attempt to further solidify his base at home before elections, than the trade off of further aggravating already tense relations with the West is hardly adequate.

I frankly have very little doubt this is not a cosmetic or symbolic move. It fits all too well with the recent pattern of Russian foreign policy. It longs for the lost former glory and power while aware it can't sustain a new Cold War. I also have very little doubt there will be quite a lot of expressed support for Putin's move from Russian Internet users. One of them had recently affectionately mentioned an old Russian saying to me: "God rid us of our friends and we will fight off our enemies ourselves." It is a chilling sentiment if it can take over a society.

Just consider what would our reaction to the recent pattern of Putin's hostility be if  we thought Russia could sustain and win a new Cold War. This will most certainly be a subject tomorrow on my Embassy of the New World Order radio show on KSCO. 11 AM PST

 

 

 

 

A map published by Kommersant together with some reports from Bush-Putin talks at the G-8 summit in Germany suggest that Putin's offer of Azeri radar site will go nowhere and in reality does not do much at all. However, it becomes evident why is it that Russia is so adamant against the radar station proposed to be installed in the Czech Republic.

His [Bush's] main argument was that interceptors installed in Poland  will not be able to neutralize more then one ICBM, while Russia has "a huge arsenal that the proposed system would be incapable to intercept".  

Bush's point is also confirmed by looking at the map as well as preliminary calculations. In case of a Russian launch against the USA, missile would take the north-east trajectory since the shortest route lies over the North Pole. Earth rotation will also contribute to shortening of the distance. American interceptors based in Poland will be way to the West and will have to "catch up" Russian-launched ICBM. There will be not enough velocity or range to achieve that.

The most important aspect of the confrontation seems to be the ability of the proposed Czech radar to cover most of the Russian territory. That's the reason to use Azeri radar.

The funniest thing is that Putin's demarche might not bring him what he wants and result in exactly the opposite. US has been courting Azerbaijan with plans to build trans-Caspian pipeline in order to offer an alternative route for Kazakh oil and Turkmen gas, that will essentially remove Russian monopoly on transits from Central Asia. Azerbaijan seems to be quite excited about the prospect of having more US presence with or without Russia. I think it will not be too difficult to separate the two proposals as not related and go for both of them.  

Legend for the map

1. Blue 1: Range of the proposed Czech radar

2. Red 2: Range for proposed Poland based interceptors

3. Blue 3: Aleutian Islands radar station range.

4. Red 4:  Alaska based interceptor range

4. Ceyon 5: Coverage of the Azerbaijan based existing radar.

6. Missle Sylo: Russian missle location by divisions.

7. Russian strategic missle submarine bases. 

 If you are reading this as an email you will have to visit the blog itself and see the map there.

 

 

There is a fairly simple explanation for Mr. Putin's smug threat to target Europe with missiles. One only needs to recall what was going on in Europe in the early 1980-s, According to John c. Kornblum, former US ambassador to Germany:

This is exactly what President Putin is aiming at:


The plan is to recreate the old nuclear war fears. I frankly have no way to predict or even to speculate whether Putin's plan will succeed or backfire. I do hope that the Europeans in general and Germans in particular will remember at least two things:

• Deployment of Pershings most certainly drove Russia to the negotiation table. Mikhail Gorbachev admitted this much in an interview to Radio Echo Moskvy[link in Russian only]:

• It was about deployment of Pershings - nuclear missiles after all - not a harmless radar station and missile interceptors. One thing is to have someone target missiles at you because you have missiles targeted at them, quite another thing is to have somebody targeting you because you are trying to protect yourself. If the intellectually superior Europeans understand this distinction, then Putin's gambit will fail.
  

There is an additional wedge he is trying to drive in here. He most certainly will expect the more lenient Western Europe to pressure rowdy and unfriendly Eastern Europe, notably Poland and Czech Republic to abandon cooperation with the US missile defense plans. It is only yet another example of how Russia is forcing Europe to take the solidarity test. Energy blackmail over the last year and a half was hardly different. Will Europe stand together with those they have invited and accepted into their Union? So far it had not.

If Putin succeeds in driving this wedge and fanning another hysteria in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, this will be a sorry testament to Europe's state of mind. I do hope this will not have to come. But I have to admit that I have my doubts.

Tell me who your friends are, goes an old saying. But how indicative is one's enemy list, especially when the list of friends grows dangerously slim?

Levada Center [unfortunately there is no longer an English language version of the site] has just released results of their study of who do Russians consider friends and foes. Results are all but predictable and Levada Center might just as well can the study for the foreseeable future or at least until coercive state dominated media loosens it grip on propaganda.

Not surprisingly, the two countries Russians consider best friends are Kazakhstan and Belarus. Both autocratic regimes, both highly dependent on Russia economically and politically. Also not surprising is the list of foes. Estonia is the foe number one and Georgia is the foe number two. It is mildly amusing and revealing that such tiny countries are now Russia's biggest foes. Talking of picking on countries from the same league does not cover the monumental differences in size, population, economic and military capacity. So why would this be? Why would Russian people feel threatened, or feel that people from these two tiny countries are the least friendly?

There are two compounding explanations. One obviously is coercion of state dominated media. I personally witnessed media and government induced hysteria on my two previous trips to Russia. Last September it was Georgia and this May it was Estonia. Such a drumbeat of attacks, accusations, snide generalizations, personal and otherwise, will most certainly have an effect on people's thoughts. Especially when opposing opinions are short and far between. Dynamic of apprehension towards Estonia does suggest an artificial spike: 28% last year and 60% this year. Vzglyad [Outlook] Business Daily references "experts" that "have no doubt that the moving a grave site war memorial in Tallinn was the cause". I would recommend that people at Vzglyad look in the mirror - their (together with other media outlets) distinctly negative coverage and fanning of hysteria has just as much to do with the spike.

But to say that Russian people are brainwashed and just swallow all what the establishment PR machine stuffs down their senses would not be fair. Media can not be a sole source for such animosity and expanding the list of "unfriendlies" illustrates a deeper meaning: Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, USA, Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland. If we drop the US from the list for obvious reasons of traditional animosity, the remaining list would shine with one glaring commonality - all these countries have with different levels of success embarked on independent political and economic paths. They have broken away or are trying to break away from the "sphere of influence" and according to some like a Visiting Columbia University Scholar Vasili Rukhadze , countries in that "traditional Russian sphere of interests" [what a monstrous feudalism oozing construct!] are in the gravest of dangers from the current Russian geopolitical offensive.

Of course, there is a third explanation and I have very little doubt it would be the most popular in Russia and among Russians themselves - the West is siccing mindless drones against Russia. The same Vzglyad Business Daily quotes the Chairman of the Union of Orthodox Citizens of  the Ukraine (sic!) Mr. Kaurov as suggesting that "orange" sentiments and desires to join NATO  have had "a detrimental effect on relationships between our countries". The article itself is called "USA trained enemies of Russia", while there is nothing in the body of the article to warrant such a screaming headline. One of the worst cases of petty journalistic dirty tricks Russian media is so full of these days.

Germany made it to number 3 on the list of biggest friends of Russia. It is an interesting but not an unexpected development. Russia has a history of pendulum shifts in relations with European powers. Sometime it would gravitate towards France, sometimes it would gravitate towards Germany. Only a quarter of respondents felt this way about Germany the third country on the list vs. 38% and 39% respectively that feel Belarus and Kazakhstan are friends. Tell me who your friends are...

The biggest surprise to me was inclusion of China as number four best friend of Russia. Talk about wishful thinking and delusions. In fairness, China has dropped and only 19% consider it a friend vs. 24% last year.

US commands a respectable 35% of those that think it is unfriendly to Russia, but this number had decreased since 2006 by 2% despite of all the anti-US rhetoric. Finally, 10% of Russians think there aren't any countries friendly to Russia. 2% think there aren't any unfriendly ones.

I just came back from an exciting and always invigorating Memorial Day weekend trip to London, only to read an interview with Economist's Edward Lucas at Marginalia blog. I spent quite some time there in wandering around town, ST. Paul, Westminster Abbey, looking among other things at memorials to those perished over the XX-th century. Beds of red poppies in England always produce bitter sweet butterflies in my stomach. What Sacrifice!

You want scary? Here is your scary thought for the week from Edward Lucas:

It is scary not because of how imposing, assertive and in the long run, aggressive Russia has become. There is a cold chill of Munich and betrayal of Poland oozing from this sentiment. Will The West betray the Balts again?

On the emotional level, the first reaction is resentment. These countries are all NATO members. This can't be. US and UK will not forget and forgo NATO members, even if Europe will. And European Union is different from NATO, isn't it?

But then I look at the rise of petty isolationism, the rise of petty nationalistic temper tantrums in the US both on the left and on the right and realize that if these people ever get to power in the USA, they will forgo the Balts just like they want to forgo Iraqi people now and cut and run in the face of difficulties or, in most cases of the left - for petty political gains.

The West owes Eastern Europe big time. Abandoning them to the USSR allowed the West to recover, flourish and eventually reclaim therm back peacefully, but lives of generations were lost. Only the first half of my life was lost in the USSR but the feeling of loss is quite strong nonetheless, believe me.

Even during these proudest of moments, while reflecting on previous sacrifices we should never forget that they will mean nothing if more sacrifices are not made because the work has not been finished. Resting on laurels of others will get us nowhere. Call this pompous all you will. I will raise you your petty cynicism.

I do hope what Lucas is warning about will never come to pass.

Although the vocal protests and PR driven saber rattling around the move of the Bronze Soviet Soldier to a military cemetery seem to be subsiding, the real fallout will be felt for quite some time. Not in form of direct actions but rather in attitude that will result in actions or inactions.

Western attitude towards relationships with Russia seems to be dull and lacking. It lacks excitement of the early 90-s, it lacks the sense of partnership of late 90-s and it starts loosing the sense of trust that came out of the Reagan Gorbachev era. Just like political capital of a leader can be wasted, political capital of a country can diminish. The US can most certainly feel some loss of political capital due to situation in Iraq, but it is expected from a controversial endeavor of such magnitude. But what has Russia spent its political and emotional capital on? What does it want to achieve by pursuing the current course? And is there a course after all?

Condi Rice is in Moscow right now and I would like to see a show of hands from people that think that something of any significance is going to be achieved during this visit? Kommersant Daily dies not expect any advances on any major issues.(link in Russian only) Oh, of course, they all will be addressed one way or another but both sides will likely agree to disagree.

The White House will sit and wait for changes during the complex period of transfer of power to a new president. Neither the White House no Kommersant seem to be considering a democratic transfer of power through free elections. There is no expectation of a vibrant political struggle, clashes of ideas, debates of where does Russia go from here. The course seems to be set, the engine running fairly smoothly and the crew is ready to go wherever the captain is taking the ship to. And this probably is going to be the main achievement of President Putin, if one can call it such: the tired crew is willing to follow the captain to that deserted island with a treasure chest. Does it occur to them that wild savages are going to eat half of them when going gets tough?

Who will send rescue teams when the mortgage bubble causes a crash in Russia? Brotherly Turkmenistan? Friendly China? Grateful Iran? It probably will not be neighbours like Estonians or Poles. Radio Echo Moskvy reports that Estonia might follow Poland and block the new Russia-EU agreement.

Estonian Defence Ministry will also ask NATO to consider computer attacks (most likely denial of service types) from foreign countries equal to military attacks. US Senator Richard Lugar had already suggested NATO should consider energy blackmail as a military upfront. Neither suggestion is likely to be adopted any time soon, but this forms a peculiar context around the course that Russia is pursuing. And my nagging feeling is that Russia is not pursuing any course at all. It has been taken for a ride by its President and his cohorts.

Russia has recently made several threatening moves using energy supply and flexed some natural gas muscle letting Europe know of its intentions. It has been on a buying expedition trying to purchase energy infrastructure in Europe, it has successfully blocked any potential for a TransCaspian  pipeline, routing all future gas from Turkmenistan through Gasprom pipelines and switches. Russian President hints of other sinister powers in the world that are supposedly seeking world domination. And then he takes two days to congratulate Nicolas Sarkozy with his presidential election victory in France.

What might be the purpose of this collision course? I can think of only one answer that does not involve excessive use of imagination: there is no purpose.  There is no plan, there is no course other then  the course of personal power and enrichment for the clan of Mr. Putin. To this purpose Russia's political and emotional capital is being spent with incompetent, criminal neglect.