From Tehran Times, Sept 6, 2008
(originally published on Aug 18, 2008, Electronic Intifada)
Israel’s role in the Russia-Georgia war
By Ali Abunimah
From the moment Georgia launched a surprise attack on the tiny breakaway region of South Ossetia, prompting a fierce Russian counterattack, Israel has been trying to distance itself from the conflict. This is understandable: with Georgian forces on the retreat, large numbers of civilians killed and injured, and Russia’s fury unabated, Israel’s deep involvement is severely embarrassing.
The collapse of the Georgian offensive represents not only a disaster for that country and its U.S.-backed leaders, but another blow to the myth of Israel’s military prestige and prowess. Worse, Israel fears that Russia could retaliate by stepping up its military assistance to Israel’s adversaries.
“Israel is following with great concern the developments in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and hopes the violence will end,” its foreign ministry said, adding with uncharacteristic dovishness, “Israel recognizes the territorial integrity of Georgia and calls for a peaceful solution.”
Tbilisi’s top diplomat in Tel Aviv complained about the lackluster Israeli response to his country’s predicament and perhaps overestimating Israeli influence, called for Israeli “diplomatic pressure on Moscow.” Just like Israel, the diplomat said, Georgia is fighting a war on “terrorism.” Israeli officials politely told the Georgians that “the address for that type of pressure was Washington” (Herb Keinon, “Tbilisi wants Israel to pressure Russia,” The Jerusalem Post, 11 August 2008).
While Israel was keen to downplay its role, Georgia perhaps hoped that flattery might draw Israel further in. Georgian minister Temur Yakobashvili -- whom the Israeli daily Haaretz stressed was Jewish -- told Israeli army radio that “Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers.” Yakobashvili claimed rather implausibly, according to Haaretz, that “a small group of Georgian soldiers were able to wipe out an entire Russian military division, thanks to the Israeli training” (“Georgian minister tells Israel Radio: Thanks to Israeli training, we’re fending off Russian military,” Haaretz, 11 August 2008).
Since 2000, Israel has sold hundreds of millions of dollars in arms and combat training to Georgia. Weapons included guns, ammunition, shells, tactical missile systems, antiaircraft systems, automatic turrets for armored vehicles, electronic equipment and remotely piloted aircraft. These sales were authorized by the Israeli defense ministry (Arie Egozi, “War in Georgia: The Israeli connection,” Ynet, 10 August 2008).
Training also involved officers from Israel’s Shin Bet secret service -- which has for decades carried out extrajudicial executions and torture of Palestinians in the occupied territories -- the Israeli police, and the country’s major arms companies Elbit and Rafael.
The Tel Aviv-Tbilisi military axis appears to have been cemented at the highest levels, and according to YNet, “The fact that Georgia’s defense minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli who is fluent in Hebrew contributed to this cooperation.” Others involved in the brisk arms trade included former Israeli minister and Tel Aviv mayor Roni Milo as well as several senior Israeli military officers.
The key liaison was Reserve Brigadier General Gal Hirsch who commanded Israeli forces on the border with Lebanon during the July 2006 Second Lebanon War. (Yossi Melman, “Georgia Violence -- A frozen alliance,” Haaretz, 10 August 2008). He resigned from the army after the Winograd commission severely criticized Israel’s conduct of its war against Lebanon and an internal Israeli army investigation blamed Hirsch for the seizure of two soldiers by Hezbollah.
According to one of the Israeli combat trainers, an officer in an “elite” Israel army unit, Hirsch and colleagues would sometimes personally supervise the training of Georgian forces which included “house-to-house fighting.” The training was carried out through several “private” companies with close links to the Israeli military.
As the violence raged in Georgia, the trainer was desperately trying to contact his former Georgian students on the battlefront via mobile phone: the Israelis wanted to know whether the Georgians had “internalized Israeli military technique and if the special reconnaissance forces have chalked up any successes” (Jonathan Lis and Moti Katz, “IDF vets who trained Georgia troops say war with Russia is no surprise,” Haaretz, 11 August 2008).
Yet on the ground, the Israeli-trained Georgian forces, perhaps unsurprisingly overwhelmed by the Russians, have done little to redeem the image of Israel’s military following its defeat by Hezbollah in July-August 2006.
The question remains as to why Israel was involved in the first place. There are several reasons. The first is simply economic opportunism: for years, especially since the 11 September 2001 attacks, arms exports and “security expertise” have been one of Israel’s growth industries. But the close Israeli involvement in a region Russia considers to be of vital interest suggests that Israel might have been acting as part of the broader U.S. scheme to encircle Russia and contain its reemerging power.
Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been steadily encroaching on Russia’s borders and expanding NATO in a manner the Kremlin considers highly provocative. Shortly after coming into office, the Bush Administration tore up the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and, like the Clinton administration, adopted former Soviet satellite states as its own, using them to base an anti-missile system Russia views as a threat. In addition to their “global war on terror,” hawks in Washington have recently been talking up a new Cold War with Russia.
Georgia was an eager volunteer in this effort and has learned quickly the correct rhetoric: one Georgian minister claimed that “every bomb that falls on our heads is an attack on democracy, on the European Union and on America.” Georgia has been trying to join NATO, and sent 2,000 soldiers to help the U.S. occupy Iraq. It may have hoped that once war started this loyalty would be rewarded with the kind of round-the-clock airlift of weapons that Israel receives from the U.S. during its wars. Instead so far the U.S. only helped airlift the Georgian troops from Iraq back to the beleaguered home front.
By helping Georgia, Israel may have been doing its part to duplicate its own experience in assisting the eastward expansion of the “Euro-Atlantic” empire. While supporting Georgia was certainly risky for Israel, given the possible Russian reaction, it has a compelling reason to intervene in a region that is heavily contested by global powers. Israel must constantly reinvent itself as an “asset” to American power if it is to maintain the U.S. support that ensures its survival as a settler-colonial enclave in the Middle East. It is a familiar role; in the 1970s and 1980s, at the behest of Washington, Israel helped South Africa’s apartheid regime fight Soviet-supported insurgencies in South African-occupied Namibia and Angola, and it trained right-wing U.S.-allied death squads fighting left-wing governments and movements in Central America. After 2001, Israel marketed itself as an expert on combating so-called ”Islamic terrorism”.
Georgia’s government, to the detriment of its people, may have tried to play the role of a loyal servant of U.S. ambitions in that region -- and lost the gamble. Playing with empires is dangerous for a small country.
As for Israel itself, with the Bush Doctrine having failed to give birth to the “new Middle East” that the U.S. needs to maintain its power in the region against growing resistance, an ever more desperate and rogue Israel must look for opportunities to prove its worth elsewhere. That is a dangerous and scary thing.
Ali Abunimah is the cofounder of The Electronic Intifada.
Caucasus Crisis
Re: Caucasus Crisis
The Georgian crisis is over bar the belated posturing by Shaky-Willy and his western allies,licking their wounds of shame in the ignominy of defeat by the resurgent Russian armed forces.The focus now has shifted to the Ukraine,where Yuschenko,puppet of the US & NATO,is fighting for his political survival as his own partner in the CIA sponsored "Orange" revolution,has deserted him for his rabid anti-Russian policies.A vast portion of the Ukranian population is of Russian origin and Kiev is part of Russia's historic "heartland" as much as Kosovo was that of Serbia's.Yuschenko has tried to snub Russia by permitting US naval vessels to use at this time of crisis,Sevastopol,Russia's naval base on lease upto 2017 by Russia.The most toxic and corrosive man on the planet,Dick-the-Pri*k Cheney,Uncle Sam's Veep and chief trouble shooter and trouble maker ,is also visiting Ukraine as part of his Caucausus mischief meanderings.More trouble is definitely on the cards,as the US and NATO are desperately trying to prop up a falling puppet,Yuschenko.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hbSx ... AD930T20G0
Russia is testing West and Crimea could be target
By EDITH M. LEDERER – 5 hours ago
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A key Czech leader said Friday that a resurgent Russia has begun testing the West and warned that Ukraine's strategic Crimea peninsula could become a target.
Tomas Pojar, deputy foreign minister of the Czech Republic, said Russia's strong objection to U.S. missile defense bases in his country and Poland and recent events in Georgia clearly indicate Moscow's opposition to Western influence in the former Soviet Union's sphere of influence.
"We are being tested," he told a group of U.N. journalists. "We should be careful. We should be firm."
Russia drew harsh criticism from the U.S. and Europe for recognizing two separatist Georgian territories as independent states following a short but devastating war that left Russian troops in control of a key Georgian Black Sea port and other locations deep inside Georgia.
The conflict followed an escalation of incidents by pro-Russian separatists from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It was sparked by Georgia's attempt to use force to retake control of South Ossetia.
Pojar raised the possibility of confrontations with Moscow elsewhere.
"I think that we would not be surprised if in the future similar events, for example, develop in Crimea," he said. "We hope that it is not going to happen, but we think that the situation there is not very stable, and to provoke more instability would probably not be that difficult."
The Crimea peninsula on the Black Sea, once a jewel of Russia's empire, was a beloved tourist destination in the Soviet era and home to the proud Soviet naval base in the port of Sevastopol. But in 1954, control of the Crimea was handed to the then Soviet republic of Ukraine. After the 1991 Soviet breakup, it remained part of independent Ukraine, with an agreement allowing Russia to keep it's naval base there.
Pojar said the Crimea could become "some new frozen or unfrozen conflict because of the situation on the ground, because of the political demographic and (Russian) military presence in Crimea."
The United States and the European Union should realize "the strategic importance of stability and prosperity in Ukraine and in the whole of Caucuses," he said.
Pojar spoke to reporters as Vice president Dick Cheney started a tour of three ex-Soviet republics — Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Georgia — that are wary of Russia's intentions.
The Czech government signed a bilateral treaty in July allowing the U.S. to build a radar base near Prague as part of a proposed U.S. missile defense system that has been harshly criticized by Russia.
Pojar said there is "significant opposition" to the treaty in parliament but the government expects it to be ratified by the end of the year.
Hosted by Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
US provocations at Russian naval base tp coincide with Cheney's visit.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 682003.ece
US warship confronts Russian military in ‘tinderbox’ port
(Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images)
The USS Mount Whitney, pictured here in the Bosphorus, today made a controversial landing at the port of Poti
James Hider in Tbilisi and Tony Halpin in Moscow
A US Navy flagship carrying humanitarian aid yesterday steamed into a Georgian port where Russian troops are still stationed, stoking tensions once again in the tinderbox Caucasus region.
A previous trip by US warships was cancelled at the last minute a week ago amid fears that an armed stand-off could intensify in the Black Sea port of Poti.
The arrival of the USS Mount Whitney, flagship of the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean, came as Moscow accused Dick Cheney, the hawkish US Vice-President, of stoking tensions during a visit to Tbilisi this week. After meeting President Saakashvili, Mr Cheney vowed to bring Georgia into the Nato alliance. Russia sees such moves as Western encroachment on its traditional sphere of influence.
Russia’s leaders have accused previous US warships that docked at the port of Batumi, to the south, of delivering weapons to re-arm the smashed Georgian military — charges that Washington denied.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hbSx ... AD930T20G0
Russia is testing West and Crimea could be target
By EDITH M. LEDERER – 5 hours ago
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A key Czech leader said Friday that a resurgent Russia has begun testing the West and warned that Ukraine's strategic Crimea peninsula could become a target.
Tomas Pojar, deputy foreign minister of the Czech Republic, said Russia's strong objection to U.S. missile defense bases in his country and Poland and recent events in Georgia clearly indicate Moscow's opposition to Western influence in the former Soviet Union's sphere of influence.
"We are being tested," he told a group of U.N. journalists. "We should be careful. We should be firm."
Russia drew harsh criticism from the U.S. and Europe for recognizing two separatist Georgian territories as independent states following a short but devastating war that left Russian troops in control of a key Georgian Black Sea port and other locations deep inside Georgia.
The conflict followed an escalation of incidents by pro-Russian separatists from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It was sparked by Georgia's attempt to use force to retake control of South Ossetia.
Pojar raised the possibility of confrontations with Moscow elsewhere.
"I think that we would not be surprised if in the future similar events, for example, develop in Crimea," he said. "We hope that it is not going to happen, but we think that the situation there is not very stable, and to provoke more instability would probably not be that difficult."
The Crimea peninsula on the Black Sea, once a jewel of Russia's empire, was a beloved tourist destination in the Soviet era and home to the proud Soviet naval base in the port of Sevastopol. But in 1954, control of the Crimea was handed to the then Soviet republic of Ukraine. After the 1991 Soviet breakup, it remained part of independent Ukraine, with an agreement allowing Russia to keep it's naval base there.
Pojar said the Crimea could become "some new frozen or unfrozen conflict because of the situation on the ground, because of the political demographic and (Russian) military presence in Crimea."
The United States and the European Union should realize "the strategic importance of stability and prosperity in Ukraine and in the whole of Caucuses," he said.
Pojar spoke to reporters as Vice president Dick Cheney started a tour of three ex-Soviet republics — Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Georgia — that are wary of Russia's intentions.
The Czech government signed a bilateral treaty in July allowing the U.S. to build a radar base near Prague as part of a proposed U.S. missile defense system that has been harshly criticized by Russia.
Pojar said there is "significant opposition" to the treaty in parliament but the government expects it to be ratified by the end of the year.
Hosted by Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
US provocations at Russian naval base tp coincide with Cheney's visit.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 682003.ece
US warship confronts Russian military in ‘tinderbox’ port
(Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images)
The USS Mount Whitney, pictured here in the Bosphorus, today made a controversial landing at the port of Poti
James Hider in Tbilisi and Tony Halpin in Moscow
A US Navy flagship carrying humanitarian aid yesterday steamed into a Georgian port where Russian troops are still stationed, stoking tensions once again in the tinderbox Caucasus region.
A previous trip by US warships was cancelled at the last minute a week ago amid fears that an armed stand-off could intensify in the Black Sea port of Poti.
The arrival of the USS Mount Whitney, flagship of the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean, came as Moscow accused Dick Cheney, the hawkish US Vice-President, of stoking tensions during a visit to Tbilisi this week. After meeting President Saakashvili, Mr Cheney vowed to bring Georgia into the Nato alliance. Russia sees such moves as Western encroachment on its traditional sphere of influence.
Russia’s leaders have accused previous US warships that docked at the port of Batumi, to the south, of delivering weapons to re-arm the smashed Georgian military — charges that Washington denied.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
US gives $1bn in aid to Georgia to reverse Russian legacy of war damage
The US has announced a $1 billion (£560 million) aid package for Georgia as the besieged democracy seeks Western help to recover from the conflict with Russia.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 678456.eceGeorgia linked to Nato early warning system
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
Nato's early-warning surveillance system has been plugged into Georgia's air-defence network in the first evidence that the US-led alliance is shoring up the country's shattered military.
Alliance officials said that the arrangement enabled Nato radar specialists to be linked up to the Georgian radar systems. “It means Nato can now see what the Georgians are seeing through their radars, effectively allowing the alliance to monitor what is going on over Georgian airspace without having military assets in place,” one official said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... amage.html
this time they will be prepared against ruskies,we could see some more 'crashed' rusky t-72/90 tanks and aircrafts
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Namit,the Russians are ssupposed to have crashed Georgia's defences,govt. institutions,etc.,through massive cyber attack.This time,they're in S.Ossetia and the port of Poti,mere kms away from Tiblisi.If there is another spat,forget about the whole of Georgia remaining under a US puppet regime.Russia will simply annihilate the remainder of Georgia's forces.Forget also any chance of the US/NATO coming to Georgia's future aid militarily.The Ukraine is the next place of superpower rivalry and Russia have a most important advantage,that a large number of Ukranians are Russian and that the majoriuty of all Ukranians do not want enmity with Russia.The days of the US/NATOs puppet ,Yuschenko are numbered as even his partner in the "Orange revolution" has dumped him!
http://www.kyivpost.com/top/29597/
Ukraine crisis a setback for EU, NATO bids
Sep 05 2008, 11:04
BRUSSELS, Sept 5 (Reuters) - Renewed crisis in Ukraine is a fresh setback for its EU ambitions and those who want it to join NATO, despite growing concern about Russian moves to roll back Western influence after intervening in Georgia, analysts say.
A shaky coalition between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko collapsed on Wednesday, less than a week before an EU-Ukraine summit at which Kyiv has been seeking a clear signal it can one day join the European Union.
Yushchenko wants to move his strategically important country towards the EU and NATO but bickering between him and Tymoshenko has stalled reforms in the former Soviet republic of 47 million.
"It's incredibly bad timing," said Andrew Wilson of the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank.
"The inability to keep domestic housekeeping in order is the very reason many EU states argue against Ukraine. It's not just the traditional EU divide about whether or not to offend Russia, but the genuine question about reform capacity and the short-term future of Ukraine."
EU diplomats said Tuesday's summit in the French town of Evian was expected to offer Ukraine some concessions, including talks on long-term moves to ease visa requirements.
It may also designate a broad pact governing ties as an "Association Agreement" -- wording that can imply the possibility of future membership.
However, they said divisions within the bloc meant it would fall short of any explicit statement making clear Ukraine could one day join the 27-nation European Union.
EU states including Britain, Sweden and former communist countries such as Poland want such a statement. "But it's not where the EU as a whole is right now," an EU diplomat said.
An explicit offer is opposed by the Benelux countries, and Germany and Italy are also not keen, given waning public support for further EU expansion, Kyiv's poor record on EU-related reforms and a desire to avoid further straining ties with Moscow, a key supplier of energy to Europe.
The political infighting in Kyiv has prevented the government adopting a unified approach to inflation, which rose to more than 30 percent in May and is still high at 26 percent, and divided the central bank as it revalued the currency.
UKRAINE VITAL FOR EU STRATEGY
Analysts say Ukraine is vital to long-term EU security and economic strategy and should be encouraged on its path towards Europe, especially in the light of Russia's attempt to counter Western influence with its intervention in Georgia.
"Regardless of the political turmoil in Ukraine, this is the right time to reach out and offer more," said Wilson. "Russia is trying to send out a clear sphere-of-influence message and we need to push back."
Russia was incensed by the promise of eventual NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia, another former Soviet republic, and many see this as the motive behind its intervention in Georgia last month.
Regional analyst Tomas Valasek said the upheaval in Kyiv was a clear setback for those who wished to see Ukraine join NATO, given the possibility of a new coalition involving Tymoshenko, who was lukewarm about alliance membership, and former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, who opposed it.
http://www.kyivpost.com/top/29597/
Ukraine crisis a setback for EU, NATO bids
Sep 05 2008, 11:04
BRUSSELS, Sept 5 (Reuters) - Renewed crisis in Ukraine is a fresh setback for its EU ambitions and those who want it to join NATO, despite growing concern about Russian moves to roll back Western influence after intervening in Georgia, analysts say.
A shaky coalition between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko collapsed on Wednesday, less than a week before an EU-Ukraine summit at which Kyiv has been seeking a clear signal it can one day join the European Union.
Yushchenko wants to move his strategically important country towards the EU and NATO but bickering between him and Tymoshenko has stalled reforms in the former Soviet republic of 47 million.
"It's incredibly bad timing," said Andrew Wilson of the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank.
"The inability to keep domestic housekeeping in order is the very reason many EU states argue against Ukraine. It's not just the traditional EU divide about whether or not to offend Russia, but the genuine question about reform capacity and the short-term future of Ukraine."
EU diplomats said Tuesday's summit in the French town of Evian was expected to offer Ukraine some concessions, including talks on long-term moves to ease visa requirements.
It may also designate a broad pact governing ties as an "Association Agreement" -- wording that can imply the possibility of future membership.
However, they said divisions within the bloc meant it would fall short of any explicit statement making clear Ukraine could one day join the 27-nation European Union.
EU states including Britain, Sweden and former communist countries such as Poland want such a statement. "But it's not where the EU as a whole is right now," an EU diplomat said.
An explicit offer is opposed by the Benelux countries, and Germany and Italy are also not keen, given waning public support for further EU expansion, Kyiv's poor record on EU-related reforms and a desire to avoid further straining ties with Moscow, a key supplier of energy to Europe.
The political infighting in Kyiv has prevented the government adopting a unified approach to inflation, which rose to more than 30 percent in May and is still high at 26 percent, and divided the central bank as it revalued the currency.
UKRAINE VITAL FOR EU STRATEGY
Analysts say Ukraine is vital to long-term EU security and economic strategy and should be encouraged on its path towards Europe, especially in the light of Russia's attempt to counter Western influence with its intervention in Georgia.
"Regardless of the political turmoil in Ukraine, this is the right time to reach out and offer more," said Wilson. "Russia is trying to send out a clear sphere-of-influence message and we need to push back."
Russia was incensed by the promise of eventual NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia, another former Soviet republic, and many see this as the motive behind its intervention in Georgia last month.
Regional analyst Tomas Valasek said the upheaval in Kyiv was a clear setback for those who wished to see Ukraine join NATO, given the possibility of a new coalition involving Tymoshenko, who was lukewarm about alliance membership, and former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, who opposed it.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Failed adventure in Iraq and now Georgia will be viewed as the beginning of the end of the "Empire". The empire builders should have taken a leaf out from their British allies, that, empires cannot be built or sustained by brute force. It has to have the right mix of soft and hard power.
This will be how history will view it after the eventual demise after 20 yrs.
This will be how history will view it after the eventual demise after 20 yrs.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
so many rusky sympathizers 
Philip , it may be correct that russia could annihilate georgia next time, but thats in future, right now if you see that US is preoccupied in iraq,afghan,iran,.... same could happen to russia as well. if ruskies decide to engage ukraine, poland ,nato, same condition for russia as well. Russia is developing and at this if they go for war on many fronts then no one could neglect EU,US , israeli, involvement and no one is fool enough to do so.
as for people who say start of end of empire(US) should think again. if someone creates power then he knows how to preserve it, rest assured even if ruskies dare to involve in new expansions, what do you think why US-nato were spending trillions on millitary R&D for, over last decade after colapse of ussr ?.
Philip , it may be correct that russia could annihilate georgia next time, but thats in future, right now if you see that US is preoccupied in iraq,afghan,iran,.... same could happen to russia as well. if ruskies decide to engage ukraine, poland ,nato, same condition for russia as well. Russia is developing and at this if they go for war on many fronts then no one could neglect EU,US , israeli, involvement and no one is fool enough to do so.
as for people who say start of end of empire(US) should think again. if someone creates power then he knows how to preserve it, rest assured even if ruskies dare to involve in new expansions, what do you think why US-nato were spending trillions on millitary R&D for, over last decade after colapse of ussr ?.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
A country of 300 yrs history at best and that too from "immigrants" from every corner of the world, cannot be empire builders. They have spent billions into non-productive assets (defense for example), without due economic appraisals why, just to serve the interest groups.
Before they had a bogey of communism to justify spending on Defense, now, "Freedom" ? or something else. It seems to be very unconvincing argument.
They should first clear their own mess, introduce fiscal prudence as per "economic principles", retake their own country from a group of scruplous and selfish interest groups, then preach about democracy, freedom and all "values" to others.
The first thing Russians did after getting a windfall in oil revenues was to repay all Yeltsin era foreign debts. No one is a sympathizers of ruskies. Just trying to be objective. World does not represent only western interests. There has to be a respect of legitimate interests of everyone. Some sane heads in EU seem to have prevailed ...... They seem to understand that they cannot afford to be a tool in serving unreasonable foreign policy interests of a country thousands of miles away. If there is a war, Europe will suffer the consequences as it happened in WW I and WW II.
Before they had a bogey of communism to justify spending on Defense, now, "Freedom" ? or something else. It seems to be very unconvincing argument.
They should first clear their own mess, introduce fiscal prudence as per "economic principles", retake their own country from a group of scruplous and selfish interest groups, then preach about democracy, freedom and all "values" to others.
The first thing Russians did after getting a windfall in oil revenues was to repay all Yeltsin era foreign debts. No one is a sympathizers of ruskies. Just trying to be objective. World does not represent only western interests. There has to be a respect of legitimate interests of everyone. Some sane heads in EU seem to have prevailed ...... They seem to understand that they cannot afford to be a tool in serving unreasonable foreign policy interests of a country thousands of miles away. If there is a war, Europe will suffer the consequences as it happened in WW I and WW II.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Empires can be sustained for any amount of time provided the powers that be at the top of the food chain have the stamina (in various forms) to sustain the empire by outlasting any external challenges. The variables could be these:prabir wrote:Failed adventure in Iraq and now Georgia will be viewed as the beginning of the end of the "Empire". The empire builders should have taken a leaf out from their British allies, that, empires cannot be built or sustained by brute force. It has to have the right mix of soft and hard power.
This will be how history will view it after the eventual demise after 20 yrs.
1) Manpower.
Nations and empires that have large dominant ethnic population can sustain an empire as long as the dominant ethnic group reproduces itself. This is where the problem begins. As empires prosper, the seeking of pleasure becomes prominent. Most important of all the seeking of sex for pleasure. Nature has evolved in such a way that babies are "accidental" happenstance of sexual relations. When both men and women decide to have less children and spend more on pleasure seeking, then the eventual consequence will be decline in manpower. Once Rome became a superpower, the Romans thought all the power and grandeur would last. The orgies, the drinking, the lavishing of perties and sports was all well as long as Romans produced Roman babies but liberated Roman women either refused to have babies or had fewer babies. Number of Roman recruits for the legions slowly declined. This disease soon also gripped the Romanised "others" of the empire. Soon, the make numbers, non Romans were recruited. The slow decline began. To arrest this decline Rome had to form alliance with other powers and tribes. These alliance come with a price in its various forms. The alleigience of the alliance partner is not certain. Once a superpower resorts to forming alliance, its grandeur declines. From the perspectives of external elements, when grandeue declines, the power declines too. With that goes the economic power. Growth of rival centers of power takes place. (That is why Cincinatus was continuosly harping on the need to finish off the power of Carthege) Conquering and control of Rome becomes a tempting desire. The end soon appears on the horizon.
More than a hundred years ago, American troops went and conquered the then Spanish controlled Philipines. Though the Americans will fight the locals for some duration but it was an entirely American effort. In WW2, almost 20 million Americans were in uniform with 12 million carrying arms even if only 3 million actually saw combat. Today to sustain the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, America has to ask for soldiers El Salvador, Taiwan and Georgia among other nations. Why? Even though America's population is increasing but the dominant ethnic group which provided the bulk of the soldiers is declining in numbers. If anyone bothered to look this decline is the result of increasing wealth and prosperity.
2) Wealth.
With manpower, there also need to be enough money to pay for the men who sustain the empire. This money comes from the treasury. The treasury’s money comes from taxes. Most of the tax comes from economic trade. In ancient times superpowers collected tributes, tax on trades in their territories and the shipping ports in the control of a power would ensure a huge loot in fees. In today’s world it is the banking sector. A superpower exudes confidence especially if the superpower is a law and order kind. Its banks offer sanctuary for money and people from other parts of the world park their money in such safe sanctuary. Go ask the Ambanis, the Birlas and the Tatas where they keep most of their wealth? I will not be surprised if it is all in banks in the USA, England and some in Switzerland. A decline in a grandeur of power would slowly erode the confidence level of the many people whose money is sitting in the banks of the superpower. Soon there will be flight of capital. This will effect the available credit. Then, there would borrowing. If the lender is not too confident, he would lend at a higher interest rate than normal. Once this initiative shifts from the superpower to the lender, the decline is already cert ain.
Once taxes dried out, Rome had to borrow. A Rome that borrows money to sustain an empire cannot maintain many legions. It had to restrict first the size of legions and then the number of legions. Then it had to pay less for the legionaires. Then the quality men would want to serve other powers that pay higher wages than Rome. Territories undefended fall to the enemies. When you were at the top of the food chain, you cause envy and many aspiring rivals.
In my opinion multi polar world is a natural phenomena. Not all powers are going to be equal but there will be many centers of powers. The decline of Europe and America is certain unless there is an effort to increase their white population.
Someday in the future, the white population of America will become minority unless the trend is reversed. From then on majority of the technocrats, managers, financiers and other important personnels in the banking, corporate and political fields will be non-whites. While I would not doubt their capabilities, there are bound to be Jason Blairs. Would these exude the same levels of confidence from the perspective of the Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese and the Arabs who have parked trillions in the USA? I seriously doubt it. Most probably Chinese, Japanese and Taiwanese money would be going home while the Arab money would be going to some other location where they have more confidence. When this happens, there would be serious credit crunch that would put a road block on sustaining the present level of living standard. When that declines, so too the development and growth. Will there still be immigrants looking to go to America? This is long away in the future and has a potential to happen.
A superpower can maintain an empire even with brute force as long as the superpower can sustain all the elements and resources that can continuously nourish the brute force. It is all in sustainability. There is no other magic wand.
Soft power alone cannot sustain an empire. A mixture of soft and brute power can maintain an empire. Once must remember that empire is the result of power. Power is usually due to brutishness or hardness. A softy will not be an empire. May be an element of some influence.
Avram.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
"To sustain a war one has to plunder, loot the vanquished or tax all the subjects to various degrees" Spinster 2004.
Avram I hope you forward your analysis to the dynamic duo of Mcain and Sarah for some wisdom , I not confident they will understand what you say though.
But worth a try...
Avram I hope you forward your analysis to the dynamic duo of Mcain and Sarah for some wisdom , I not confident they will understand what you say though.
But worth a try...
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Do you keep a record of your own utterances?John Snow wrote:"To sustain a war one has to plunder, loot the vanquished or tax all the subjects to various degrees" Spinster 2004.
Avram I hope you forward your analysis to the dynamic duo of Mcain and Sarah for some wisdom , I not confident they will understand what you say though.
But worth a try...
Generally one has a SHQ for that...
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Caucasus crisis is now mutating/metastasizing into Ukraine crisis, etc.
It's now all becoming one common blob.
Tymoshenko has broken with Yuschenko, and is now leaning towards Yanuckovitch. Another victory for Putin. This will definitely keep Ukraine out of NATO. The Russian regional savvy is showing.
It's now all becoming one common blob.
Tymoshenko has broken with Yuschenko, and is now leaning towards Yanuckovitch. Another victory for Putin. This will definitely keep Ukraine out of NATO. The Russian regional savvy is showing.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Thing is there has been significant capital flight from Russia, Central Asia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Poland, the Baltic states and CAR due to the Russian-Georgian crisis. Worst hit had been Ukraine because many see it as the next focal point of crisis. Those pulling out their money included Gazprom (surprised????) and even local Ukrainians.
The banks are going to be hit and it is just going to compound the crisis especially in Ukraine. The billion the US is planning to pour into Georgia is going to end up in some western bank within weeks.
Avram.
The banks are going to be hit and it is just going to compound the crisis especially in Ukraine. The billion the US is planning to pour into Georgia is going to end up in some western bank within weeks.
Avram.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Capital flight from Ukraine would only further undermine Yuschenko. Time is on the Russians' side, as the longer Ukraine's economic woes drag on, then the more Yuschenko's position erodes. Russia's energy politics has deftly positioned itself to woo Tymoshenko's business interests, which has effectively undercut Yuschenko's position. I don't see him recovering from this debacle.
Orange was a passing flavour, while the Colour of Money never goes out of style.
Orange was a passing flavour, while the Colour of Money never goes out of style.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Avram:
One word:
It may get to that pretty soon..
Why? Even though America's population is increasing but the dominant ethnic group which provided the bulk of the soldiers is declining in numbers. If anyone bothered to look this decline is the result of increasing wealth and prosperity.
One word:
DRAFT
It may get to that pretty soon..
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Russian badlaa:
1. Russia to increase help to Iran with nuclear support
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 692237.ece
2. Russia to do naval exercise off Venezuelan coast
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 02x3442937
3. Russia to supply arms to Venezuela
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ven ... sia-02472/
4. Russian naval asset heading for Syrian naval base
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5526
1. Russia to increase help to Iran with nuclear support
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 692237.ece
2. Russia to do naval exercise off Venezuelan coast
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 02x3442937
3. Russia to supply arms to Venezuela
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ven ... sia-02472/
4. Russian naval asset heading for Syrian naval base
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5526
Re: Caucasus Crisis
It may be worth keeping in mind that that most (almost all) of that comes due to its synergy with Indian interests and/or worldview, not some abstract love for a foreign land/people.namit k wrote:so many rusky sympathizers
I hope you get my point!
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Hmmm... If USA were a true democracy, they would learn to accomodate the communists as well. But US wants to kill Communism. Their hatredness towards communism is un called for and anti-democratic. Well take it this way, I can't live your life, just because you feel good about it. Communism is another voice a part of democratic society, can not be hated in a true democratic society. In a way Indian democracy is much more mature than US democracy. Hatredness or paranoia towards communism itself is anti-democratic.prabir wrote:All Americans are not paranoid with Russia now. They were more paranoid about the "communist" threat.
Media does have a role, but, only when proven to be credible. With so many objective analysis available on Internet, smart people understand and do make a difference.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
McCarthy is long dead and you can be a communist in US if you want to. It is just that not many do. The key difference, as you have admitted, is US wants to kill communism, not communists. You can't say the same of opposition in communist countries.renukb wrote: Hmmm... If USA were a true democracy, they would learn to accomodate the communists as well. But US wants to kill Communism.
To say that communism is just another democratic form is to say rape is just another form of having s.x
Re: Caucasus Crisis
The US today doesn't care a fig about Communism, and is in fact blind to the huge and growing threat from COMMUNISM. However, a lot of Americans automatically believe anything bad about RUSSIA.
The blindness to Communism in the highest levels of the US security establishment is what is setting the stage for WW3, as the really hate-filled Communists such as the Indian CPI(M), their Nepali buddies, the Chinese anti-humans, the Phillippine "rebels" etc. with the French, British and Australian "Academicians" have ganged up with the Islamists to destroy all democracies.
When asked about the Communist threat, a very senior US diplomat and phoren policy/ security Expert told me:
The US is blind to this threat. Look carefully at the growing movements all around, in Columbia University, U. Cal Berkeley, CIIS, CA, Trinity College, CT, Ryder U., NJ, Oberlin College, OH, and numerous other universities and petty colleges, and you will see that the most virulent forms of Communism and not just being "tolerated" but are proliferating very rapidly, and with excellent funding from the oil-rich Islamists AND the export-rich Chinese People's Liberation Army.
OTOH, while McCarthy is long dead, his style of trampling on the US Constitution is also alive and well.. but as usual, the DHS pandoos are focused on the wrong people, and spend their time football-tackling airline passengers at the TSA security line who are a bit slow in removing their shoes, or who get up to to go the restroom on airplanes.
It's almost as bad as the persecution of the lal mullahs at BRF.
The blindness to Communism in the highest levels of the US security establishment is what is setting the stage for WW3, as the really hate-filled Communists such as the Indian CPI(M), their Nepali buddies, the Chinese anti-humans, the Phillippine "rebels" etc. with the French, British and Australian "Academicians" have ganged up with the Islamists to destroy all democracies.
When asked about the Communist threat, a very senior US diplomat and phoren policy/ security Expert told me:
For my lifetime, and probably for yours, Communism is not going to be a threat
The US is blind to this threat. Look carefully at the growing movements all around, in Columbia University, U. Cal Berkeley, CIIS, CA, Trinity College, CT, Ryder U., NJ, Oberlin College, OH, and numerous other universities and petty colleges, and you will see that the most virulent forms of Communism and not just being "tolerated" but are proliferating very rapidly, and with excellent funding from the oil-rich Islamists AND the export-rich Chinese People's Liberation Army.
OTOH, while McCarthy is long dead, his style of trampling on the US Constitution is also alive and well.. but as usual, the DHS pandoos are focused on the wrong people, and spend their time football-tackling airline passengers at the TSA security line who are a bit slow in removing their shoes, or who get up to to go the restroom on airplanes.
It's almost as bad as the persecution of the lal mullahs at BRF.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
There is a huge difference between what I said and what how you have manipulated my statements. I said, Communism is just another voice and it is OK to have a different opinions within democracy. But if it doesn't match with yours, doersn't mean I be damned and be killed for having expressed my opinions. I hope you get what I mean here.Suppiah wrote:McCarthy is long dead and you can be a communist in US if you want to. It is just that not many do. The key difference, as you have admitted, is US wants to kill communism, not communists. You can't say the same of opposition in communist countries.renukb wrote: Hmmm... If USA were a true democracy, they would learn to accomodate the communists as well. But US wants to kill Communism.
To say that communism is just another democratic form is to say rape is just another form of having s.x
Re: Caucasus Crisis
New crop of US suckers?namit k wrote:so many rusky sympathizers
Philip , it may be correct that russia could annihilate georgia next time, but thats in future, right now if you see that US is preoccupied in iraq,afghan,iran,.... same could happen to russia as well. if ruskies decide to engage ukraine, poland ,nato, same condition for russia as well. Russia is developing and at this if they go for war on many fronts then no one could neglect EU,US , israeli, involvement and no one is fool enough to do so.
as for people who say start of end of empire(US) should think again. if someone creates power then he knows how to preserve it, rest assured even if ruskies dare to involve in new expansions, what do you think why US-nato were spending trillions on millitary R&D for, over last decade after colapse of ussr ?.
One thing about USA.... If THE US can ditch Pakistan, their all time ally and MUNNA, they can ditch anyone in the current world scenerio if it benefits them. US is like a snake, never to be trusted.OTOH, I agree with the bolded part here, I hope and believe that Russians have realized their faults and they will be fixing them sooner than later. Russians will find their own supporters and allies because they like Russians or because they hate Americans and in many senses and Russians perhaps know what to do next.
IMHO, the WW III if at all it occurs, here is some prediction, The war would end only after nooks being used against the root of all the today's worlds problems, the UK. It is just a prediction, take it for what it is worth.
Last edited by renukb on 07 Sep 2008 20:18, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Exactly my friend, exactly. Difference of opinion is perfectly fine in a democracy as long as everyone that disagrees is committed to keeping the system and not sabotage it from within.renukb wrote: I hope you get what I mean here.
Let me end this off topic banter by saying one small thing - touch your heart and ask yourself this question and answer it to yourself truthfully (dont have to answer here). Would you rather be a communist in a democracy or a anti-communist in a communist nation?
Re: Caucasus Crisis
FYI: BTW, When it comes to politics, internal or international, I don't go by my heart. Your question a bit way offtrack the topic for the thread, but here My vote doesn't count, so I abstainSuppiah wrote:Would you rather be a communist in a democracy or a anti-communist in a communist nation?renukb wrote: I hope you get what I mean here.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Kremlin-watchers warn of direct U.S.-Russia clash
By TOM LASSETER
McClatchy Newspapers
In the aftermath of last month's war between Russia and U.S.-backed Georgia, Kremlin-watchers in Moscow are worried that Russia and America are closer to direct confrontation than at any point since the end of the Cold War.
The rhetoric coming from the Bush administration - and presidential hopeful John McCain - suggests that tensions are still on the rise.
During the Cold War, "the sides were very careful of each other. They were careful not to come too close," said Alexander Pikayev, a prominent military analyst in Moscow who works for a government-funded research center. "The risk of direct military clashes is (now) much higher. ... This situation is much riskier than the Cold War."
Both sympathizers and critics of Kremlin policy shared the assessment of a significantly heightened chance of conflict. They expressed hopes that cooler heads will prevail.
Vice President Dick Cheney put a spotlight on the standoff during visits to Georgia and Ukraine last week, the countries at the core of the row between Washington and Moscow. He told Georgians on Thursday that the United States will continue to back the country's NATO application - which the Kremlin vehemently opposes - and said that Moscow's intervention "cast grave doubt on Russia's intentions and on its reliability as an international partner."
Cheney traveled on Friday to Ukraine, which also is applying to NATO with strong U.S. support. There, he spoke of the "threat of tyranny, economic blackmail and military invasion or intimidation" from Russia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the same day that it was up to America to decide whether disagreements would get worse.
"We are not interested in bad relations with the United States," Lavrov told CNN. "It wouldn't be our choice, but if the United States does not want to cooperate with us on one or another issue, we cannot impose."
At the Republican convention Thursday, McCain mentioned Russia just after al-Qaida and Iran.
"Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power," McCain said in his nomination-acceptance speech. "As president, I will work to establish good relations with Russia so we need not fear a return of the Cold War," he said. "But we can't turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people."
Democratic contender Barack Obama promised to "renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can curb Russian aggression."
Andrei Klimov, a Russian parliament member with the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, said he didn't think there would be fighting between the United States and Russia, but acknowledged that he's taken aback by how much more possible it seems now.
"If you have a lot of people on the streets with pistols, it is very dangerous," said Klimov, the deputy of the foreign affairs committee in the Duma, the lower house of parliament.
Russian analysts say there are three possible flash points, all centered on or around the Black Sea, once almost lakefront property for the Soviet empire. The sea borders three NATO members - Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania - and two applicants, Georgia and Ukraine. If the two applicants join the alliance, Russia's Black Sea coastline would be surrounded by NATO.
"Now it looks like there is a certain red line that exists in the heads of Russian leadership and they are willing to do anything to stop it from being crossed," said Nikolai Petrov, a Moscow scholar in residence with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "And this red line is Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO."
...more....
http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/785839.html
By TOM LASSETER
McClatchy Newspapers
In the aftermath of last month's war between Russia and U.S.-backed Georgia, Kremlin-watchers in Moscow are worried that Russia and America are closer to direct confrontation than at any point since the end of the Cold War.
The rhetoric coming from the Bush administration - and presidential hopeful John McCain - suggests that tensions are still on the rise.
During the Cold War, "the sides were very careful of each other. They were careful not to come too close," said Alexander Pikayev, a prominent military analyst in Moscow who works for a government-funded research center. "The risk of direct military clashes is (now) much higher. ... This situation is much riskier than the Cold War."
Both sympathizers and critics of Kremlin policy shared the assessment of a significantly heightened chance of conflict. They expressed hopes that cooler heads will prevail.
Vice President Dick Cheney put a spotlight on the standoff during visits to Georgia and Ukraine last week, the countries at the core of the row between Washington and Moscow. He told Georgians on Thursday that the United States will continue to back the country's NATO application - which the Kremlin vehemently opposes - and said that Moscow's intervention "cast grave doubt on Russia's intentions and on its reliability as an international partner."
Cheney traveled on Friday to Ukraine, which also is applying to NATO with strong U.S. support. There, he spoke of the "threat of tyranny, economic blackmail and military invasion or intimidation" from Russia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the same day that it was up to America to decide whether disagreements would get worse.
"We are not interested in bad relations with the United States," Lavrov told CNN. "It wouldn't be our choice, but if the United States does not want to cooperate with us on one or another issue, we cannot impose."
At the Republican convention Thursday, McCain mentioned Russia just after al-Qaida and Iran.
"Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power," McCain said in his nomination-acceptance speech. "As president, I will work to establish good relations with Russia so we need not fear a return of the Cold War," he said. "But we can't turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people."
Democratic contender Barack Obama promised to "renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can curb Russian aggression."
Andrei Klimov, a Russian parliament member with the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, said he didn't think there would be fighting between the United States and Russia, but acknowledged that he's taken aback by how much more possible it seems now.
"If you have a lot of people on the streets with pistols, it is very dangerous," said Klimov, the deputy of the foreign affairs committee in the Duma, the lower house of parliament.
Russian analysts say there are three possible flash points, all centered on or around the Black Sea, once almost lakefront property for the Soviet empire. The sea borders three NATO members - Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania - and two applicants, Georgia and Ukraine. If the two applicants join the alliance, Russia's Black Sea coastline would be surrounded by NATO.
"Now it looks like there is a certain red line that exists in the heads of Russian leadership and they are willing to do anything to stop it from being crossed," said Nikolai Petrov, a Moscow scholar in residence with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "And this red line is Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO."
...more....
http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/785839.html
Re: Caucasus Crisis
A month on, Georgia crisis becomes US-Russia struggle: analysts
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 454359.cms
MOSCOW: "The world changed after August 8 this year."
That, at least, is Russia's view -- a view articulated again in the Kremlin during the weekend by President Dmitry Medvedev. And a view, say analysts, that today no nation on earth is in a position to dismiss out of hand.
But a month after the outbreak of conflict in ex-Soviet Georgia, as the world struggles to come to grips with a shifting international landscape, the question no one can yet answer is: Exactly how has the world changed?
Russia is demanding a new "multipolar" world structure, the United States is vowing to fight anywhere for "democracy," Europe seems somewhere in the middle as it gropes for its own "unity," Asia quietly watches as events unfold.
On a smaller scale, NATO power Turkey has suddenly decided the time is ripe to talk with Caucasus neighbour Armenia after a century of enmity, while a few ex-Soviet republics seem to be cautiously humming to Moscow's tune again.
Against this background of deep and shifting currents, the United Nations has practically gone off the air, seemingly unable to formulate a coherent thought beyond expression of "concern" over a burgeoning international crisis.
Amid the general confusion, however, one thing -- the identities of the real protagonists in what is shaping up as an epic struggle -- have become crystal clear: It is Russia versus the United States.
That came into sharper focus last week as the United States continued to dispatch warships on what it said were humanitarian aid missions for Georgia, prompting open charges from Moscow that it was quickly rearming its ally.
"Neither Russia nor the Europeans nor the Americans have a strategy now for moving forward," said Sergei Mikheyev, deputy head of the Center for Political Technology, a privately-funded think tank that is politically close to the state.
"Russia gave up a lot with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Kremlin considers it has every right to assert influence in the 'post-Soviet space'.
"However the Americans now also regard this space a legitimate 'zone of US influence'" and will bring considerable US means, economic and otherwise, to bear in reinforcing it, Mikheyev said.
Washington's determination to put its own economic and political lock on at least part of the strategic Caucasus and Central Asian regions was on clear display last week in the person of US Vice President Dick Cheney.
Visiting oil-rich Azerbaijan, Cheney, whose personal fortunes are closely tied to the US oil industry, evoked Washington's "deep and abiding" interest in these ex-Soviet states, notably in developing new energy supply routes.
Routes, it was clear, over which Russia would have no control.
Predictably, Kremlin anger over what it sees as a none-too-subtle US drive to take control of the regions sitting on Russia's western and southern borders is now on the rise.
At the same time, Moscow's annoyance with a European Union seen increasingly here as Washington's strategic proxy despite being a valued trading bloc is also approaching a level not seen in years, analysts say.
In a commentary posted on the liberal gazeta.ru website, Semyon Novoprudsky, deputy editor of the centrist daily Vremya Novostei, said events today had the same disturbing feeling as those preceding both world wars of the 20th century.
US insistence in placing new missile defences near Russia's borders, pushing for further expansion of NATO and sending warships to deliver aid to Georgia was only "militarising" Russian consciousness and boosting Russian hawks.
"In this generalised pushing and shoving toward war, the European Union looks something like a dog that 'understands everything but cannot speak'," Novoprudsky wrote.
"Among the nearly 30 countries of the EU there is no unified, unanimous position on any of the key issues of international security and they are unable to present anything resembling a 'balanced position'," he added.
It was Prime Minister Vladimir Putin who most succinctly described Russian frustration with Europe, saying recently that if EU policy continued to toe the US line then Moscow "may as well talk with Washington about European affairs."
This is the atmosphere -- angry, suspicious and unbending -- that will greet French President Nicolas Sarkozy when he and two top EU officials come to Moscow on Monday to discuss the crisis with Medvedev before heading to Georgia.
Indeed, as Sarkozy prepared for the trip Russian officials bluntly alleged that crucial wording in the ceasefire agreement brokered by France -- a document whose interpretation is hotly disputed -- had been altered in the hours after Moscow signed it and before Georgia signed.
"In the 15 years since the Soviet collapse, Europe has merely followed the United States," Mikheyev said.
"This greatly irritates the Kremlin -- it harms relations between Russia and western Europe," he added. "The anti-Russian mood is pushed by the Americans who will sit on their island and let the Europeans man the front lines."
Though the Kremlin insists that its strategic aim in the present conflict is clear and limited -- to end what it says is a US monopoly on global decision-making -- some say Russia has already overplayed its hand.
"The Russian leadership is trying to spin and justify after the fact its hysterical and historic break-up with the West and its institutions," Andrei Kolesnikov, deputy editor of the weekly magazine The New Times, wrote recently.
Russia, he said, was living under the illusion that it can recreate something of its lost Soviet and Tsarist-era empires though in reality it has neither the economic, political nor even military means to do so.
That kind of scepticism however is in the minority today in Russia, where Western diplomats say they hear almost no voices against Moscow's current actions even among liberal, pro-Western elites who usually oppose the Kremlin.
Alexander Dugin, a hardline theorist described by the US daily Los Angeles Times as a "father figure for contemporary Russian nationalism," was in no doubt that, a month after the Georgia conflict erupted, the world had changed.
"It is very far from the end," he told the paper last week. "It is only the beginning of a real, and maybe very serious, and very dangerous for all of the sides, confrontation between us and the Americans."
Readers Opinions Write to Editor
A month on, Georgia crisis becomes US-Russia struggle: analysts
Travis H.,Leicester U.K,says:Very good analysis indeed. We, the simple citizens of Europe, see that we have become America's poodle on a leash, and resent the European Union very much. We believe that the EU is failing us and is lying to us, and that it's taking us towards a war that will be fought on European soil, because the help America's constant expansion of its Empire. This can have no other effect but an angry and threatened Russia. We believe America is a warmonger country, starting wars for energy source control with fake reasons, and is lying using the word "democracy" when it means "a regime we can manipulate" like Poland, Georgia, FYROM, the Czech republic, and so on. America is bankrupt and desperate, and therefore very dangerous, and country leaders have no guts to face it, except Russia. We laugh when we read what America accuses Russia of: They are all the things America does, and Russia does not. It's America that bombed Yugoslavia for 3 weeks, America that is occupying Iraq, America that's invading Afghanistan trying to clear the land so it can build a pipeline to the Arabic Sea. The propaganda in the news is incredible, especially from America and U.K, and we don't even read their news any more. We are sick of the people that lead our countries without any concern about what we, the citizens want. An immoral, lying bunch of carpetbaggers govern Europe and America, and a price will soon be paid. That's why they avoid referendums in the EU; afraid of the people's voice.
[7 Sep, 2008 1249hrs IST]
palash,jharkhand,says: The solution to the present Russia-West tension lies in the followings: 1. Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states; 2. Normalization of Russia-EU relations; and 3. Setting the future world-order on the basis of the new Russian foreign policy. Russia has already taken a position on the crisis. It cannot and will not withdraw itself from this position now no matter what happens to it and the rest of the world. EU must understand it. It cannot toe with the USA on the crisis for its own security and stability. Otherwise forget life in the planet.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 454359.cms
MOSCOW: "The world changed after August 8 this year."
That, at least, is Russia's view -- a view articulated again in the Kremlin during the weekend by President Dmitry Medvedev. And a view, say analysts, that today no nation on earth is in a position to dismiss out of hand.
But a month after the outbreak of conflict in ex-Soviet Georgia, as the world struggles to come to grips with a shifting international landscape, the question no one can yet answer is: Exactly how has the world changed?
Russia is demanding a new "multipolar" world structure, the United States is vowing to fight anywhere for "democracy," Europe seems somewhere in the middle as it gropes for its own "unity," Asia quietly watches as events unfold.
On a smaller scale, NATO power Turkey has suddenly decided the time is ripe to talk with Caucasus neighbour Armenia after a century of enmity, while a few ex-Soviet republics seem to be cautiously humming to Moscow's tune again.
Against this background of deep and shifting currents, the United Nations has practically gone off the air, seemingly unable to formulate a coherent thought beyond expression of "concern" over a burgeoning international crisis.
Amid the general confusion, however, one thing -- the identities of the real protagonists in what is shaping up as an epic struggle -- have become crystal clear: It is Russia versus the United States.
That came into sharper focus last week as the United States continued to dispatch warships on what it said were humanitarian aid missions for Georgia, prompting open charges from Moscow that it was quickly rearming its ally.
"Neither Russia nor the Europeans nor the Americans have a strategy now for moving forward," said Sergei Mikheyev, deputy head of the Center for Political Technology, a privately-funded think tank that is politically close to the state.
"Russia gave up a lot with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Kremlin considers it has every right to assert influence in the 'post-Soviet space'.
"However the Americans now also regard this space a legitimate 'zone of US influence'" and will bring considerable US means, economic and otherwise, to bear in reinforcing it, Mikheyev said.
Washington's determination to put its own economic and political lock on at least part of the strategic Caucasus and Central Asian regions was on clear display last week in the person of US Vice President Dick Cheney.
Visiting oil-rich Azerbaijan, Cheney, whose personal fortunes are closely tied to the US oil industry, evoked Washington's "deep and abiding" interest in these ex-Soviet states, notably in developing new energy supply routes.
Routes, it was clear, over which Russia would have no control.
Predictably, Kremlin anger over what it sees as a none-too-subtle US drive to take control of the regions sitting on Russia's western and southern borders is now on the rise.
At the same time, Moscow's annoyance with a European Union seen increasingly here as Washington's strategic proxy despite being a valued trading bloc is also approaching a level not seen in years, analysts say.
In a commentary posted on the liberal gazeta.ru website, Semyon Novoprudsky, deputy editor of the centrist daily Vremya Novostei, said events today had the same disturbing feeling as those preceding both world wars of the 20th century.
US insistence in placing new missile defences near Russia's borders, pushing for further expansion of NATO and sending warships to deliver aid to Georgia was only "militarising" Russian consciousness and boosting Russian hawks.
"In this generalised pushing and shoving toward war, the European Union looks something like a dog that 'understands everything but cannot speak'," Novoprudsky wrote.
"Among the nearly 30 countries of the EU there is no unified, unanimous position on any of the key issues of international security and they are unable to present anything resembling a 'balanced position'," he added.
It was Prime Minister Vladimir Putin who most succinctly described Russian frustration with Europe, saying recently that if EU policy continued to toe the US line then Moscow "may as well talk with Washington about European affairs."
This is the atmosphere -- angry, suspicious and unbending -- that will greet French President Nicolas Sarkozy when he and two top EU officials come to Moscow on Monday to discuss the crisis with Medvedev before heading to Georgia.
Indeed, as Sarkozy prepared for the trip Russian officials bluntly alleged that crucial wording in the ceasefire agreement brokered by France -- a document whose interpretation is hotly disputed -- had been altered in the hours after Moscow signed it and before Georgia signed.
"In the 15 years since the Soviet collapse, Europe has merely followed the United States," Mikheyev said.
"This greatly irritates the Kremlin -- it harms relations between Russia and western Europe," he added. "The anti-Russian mood is pushed by the Americans who will sit on their island and let the Europeans man the front lines."
Though the Kremlin insists that its strategic aim in the present conflict is clear and limited -- to end what it says is a US monopoly on global decision-making -- some say Russia has already overplayed its hand.
"The Russian leadership is trying to spin and justify after the fact its hysterical and historic break-up with the West and its institutions," Andrei Kolesnikov, deputy editor of the weekly magazine The New Times, wrote recently.
Russia, he said, was living under the illusion that it can recreate something of its lost Soviet and Tsarist-era empires though in reality it has neither the economic, political nor even military means to do so.
That kind of scepticism however is in the minority today in Russia, where Western diplomats say they hear almost no voices against Moscow's current actions even among liberal, pro-Western elites who usually oppose the Kremlin.
Alexander Dugin, a hardline theorist described by the US daily Los Angeles Times as a "father figure for contemporary Russian nationalism," was in no doubt that, a month after the Georgia conflict erupted, the world had changed.
"It is very far from the end," he told the paper last week. "It is only the beginning of a real, and maybe very serious, and very dangerous for all of the sides, confrontation between us and the Americans."
Readers Opinions Write to Editor
A month on, Georgia crisis becomes US-Russia struggle: analysts
Travis H.,Leicester U.K,says:Very good analysis indeed. We, the simple citizens of Europe, see that we have become America's poodle on a leash, and resent the European Union very much. We believe that the EU is failing us and is lying to us, and that it's taking us towards a war that will be fought on European soil, because the help America's constant expansion of its Empire. This can have no other effect but an angry and threatened Russia. We believe America is a warmonger country, starting wars for energy source control with fake reasons, and is lying using the word "democracy" when it means "a regime we can manipulate" like Poland, Georgia, FYROM, the Czech republic, and so on. America is bankrupt and desperate, and therefore very dangerous, and country leaders have no guts to face it, except Russia. We laugh when we read what America accuses Russia of: They are all the things America does, and Russia does not. It's America that bombed Yugoslavia for 3 weeks, America that is occupying Iraq, America that's invading Afghanistan trying to clear the land so it can build a pipeline to the Arabic Sea. The propaganda in the news is incredible, especially from America and U.K, and we don't even read their news any more. We are sick of the people that lead our countries without any concern about what we, the citizens want. An immoral, lying bunch of carpetbaggers govern Europe and America, and a price will soon be paid. That's why they avoid referendums in the EU; afraid of the people's voice.
[7 Sep, 2008 1249hrs IST]
palash,jharkhand,says: The solution to the present Russia-West tension lies in the followings: 1. Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states; 2. Normalization of Russia-EU relations; and 3. Setting the future world-order on the basis of the new Russian foreign policy. Russia has already taken a position on the crisis. It cannot and will not withdraw itself from this position now no matter what happens to it and the rest of the world. EU must understand it. It cannot toe with the USA on the crisis for its own security and stability. Otherwise forget life in the planet.
Last edited by renukb on 07 Sep 2008 21:02, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
I cannot believ e the rumble of nonsense in the last few posts. Folks, Communism is DEAD!!! Chinese government may call itself communist but they are Nationalist Dictatorship. Russia may call itself a democracy but it is mainly a Russian Nationalist authoritarian state. North Korea and Cuba may call themselve communist but they are both dictatorship no different from Libya or Syria.
Russians wasted huge amount of their resources to maintain the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. They gave their oil, timber, other mineral resources and arms at almost free of charge rates to the Eastern block nations to keep them in good humor and in the alliance that it broke their back.
Remember that to keep Castro financially afloat they gave him free oil and bought his sugar at three times the international market price.
They thought Russia's vast resources and socialistic "efficiency" would ensure unending flow of wealth that would maintain everything until such time when they would defeat the capitalistic west. It didn't happen. Russians were tired of throwing away their wealth and tired of working for a system that didn't benefit them. They aint going back to communism. That is why Gennardy Zyuganov is not the President of Russia.
The USA thus far had been good to Israel. Most of it is due to the strong support base Israel has in the Christian conservative section of the soceity and due to the strong Jewish lobby. But there are also very strong anti-Israel blocks in the FBI, CIA, Pentagon and State Department. The biggest culprit is the State Department. This is the bastion of cold warriors and jihadi sympathizers. As long as the likes of CAIR, Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff and Karl Rove have sway along the corridors of power.....there will always be pro-Islamic sympathy and cold war sentiments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narayanan,
The draft in a declining population can only be effective for a limited time. A husband and wife that have one son can only sent to the military one son. If he gets killed in action there is no more son or even daughter to send to the military. Further more with the death of the son, there will not be a third generation for this family. Thats what I was talking about. Rome was basically a draft system. So was Persia.
Though not related - here is a true account of history that happened during the reign of Cyrus the Great. There was a man who had six sons. One by one due to Persian draft system the first five of his sons were all killed in the various Persian military expeditions. So the father wrote to the King. In the letter the father lamented how he had lost his five sons and begged the king to spare his only remaining son. Guess what the King did? He had both the father and son arrested and executed.
Avram.
Russians wasted huge amount of their resources to maintain the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. They gave their oil, timber, other mineral resources and arms at almost free of charge rates to the Eastern block nations to keep them in good humor and in the alliance that it broke their back.
Remember that to keep Castro financially afloat they gave him free oil and bought his sugar at three times the international market price.
They thought Russia's vast resources and socialistic "efficiency" would ensure unending flow of wealth that would maintain everything until such time when they would defeat the capitalistic west. It didn't happen. Russians were tired of throwing away their wealth and tired of working for a system that didn't benefit them. They aint going back to communism. That is why Gennardy Zyuganov is not the President of Russia.
The USA thus far had been good to Israel. Most of it is due to the strong support base Israel has in the Christian conservative section of the soceity and due to the strong Jewish lobby. But there are also very strong anti-Israel blocks in the FBI, CIA, Pentagon and State Department. The biggest culprit is the State Department. This is the bastion of cold warriors and jihadi sympathizers. As long as the likes of CAIR, Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff and Karl Rove have sway along the corridors of power.....there will always be pro-Islamic sympathy and cold war sentiments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narayanan,
The draft in a declining population can only be effective for a limited time. A husband and wife that have one son can only sent to the military one son. If he gets killed in action there is no more son or even daughter to send to the military. Further more with the death of the son, there will not be a third generation for this family. Thats what I was talking about. Rome was basically a draft system. So was Persia.
Though not related - here is a true account of history that happened during the reign of Cyrus the Great. There was a man who had six sons. One by one due to Persian draft system the first five of his sons were all killed in the various Persian military expeditions. So the father wrote to the King. In the letter the father lamented how he had lost his five sons and begged the king to spare his only remaining son. Guess what the King did? He had both the father and son arrested and executed.
Avram.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Vladimir Putin set to bait US with nuclear aid for Tehran
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 692237.ece
Russia is considering increasing its assistance to Iran’s nuclear programme in response to America’s calls for Nato expansion eastwards and the presence of US Navy vessels in the Black Sea delivering aid to Georgia.
The Kremlin is discussing sending teams of Russian nuclear experts to Tehran and inviting Iranian nuclear scientists to Moscow for training, according to sources close to the Russian military.
Moscow has been angered by Washington’s promise to give Georgia £564m in aid following the Russian invasion of parts of the country last month after Tbilisi’s military offensive. Kremlin officials suspect the US is planning to rearm the former Soviet republic and is furious at renewed support for attempts by Georgia and Ukraine to join Nato.
Last week a third US Navy ship entered the Black Sea with aid bound for Georgia. Moscow has accused the Americans of using the vessels to deliver weapons but has failed to provide any evidence.
Vladimir Putin, the prime minister of Russia, who has been the driving force during the crisis, has declared he will take unspecified action in response.
But diplomats say that despite its help with the Bushehr plant, Moscow has so far played a constructive role as a mediator between the regime in Tehran and the West and by backing United Nations sanctions.
Earlier this year, in one of his last actions as president, Putin added Russia’s stamp of approval to a UN security council resolution imposing fresh sanctions against Iran.
The document bans, with the exception of the Bushehr project, dual-technology exports that could be used for civil nuclear purposes and missile production.
“After the war in Georgia it’s difficult to imagine relations between Russia and America getting worse,” said a western diplomat. “Russia giving greater nuclear assistance to the Iranians would do the trick – that’s for sure.”
Last month Russia agreed to sell missiles to Syria. “The mood among the hawks is very bullish indeed,” said one source who did not rule out a resumption of Russian military action in Georgia to take the port of Batumi, where American vessels are delivering aid.
Hardliners were infuriated last week by the visit to Georgia of Dick Cheney, the American vice-president. “Georgia will be in our alliance,” Cheney said. He also visited Ukraine, whose Nato aspirations could make it the next flashpoint between Russia and America.
However in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, events appeared to be moving Moscow’s way. Viktor Yushchenko, the pro-western president, is fighting to stay in power in a crisis that could see him impeached.
“I’m amused by claims in the West that Russia is the loser in this crisis,” said a former Putin aide. “What would Washington do if we were arming Cuba the way it armed Georgia? The postSoviet days when we could be pushed around are over.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 692237.ece
Russia is considering increasing its assistance to Iran’s nuclear programme in response to America’s calls for Nato expansion eastwards and the presence of US Navy vessels in the Black Sea delivering aid to Georgia.
The Kremlin is discussing sending teams of Russian nuclear experts to Tehran and inviting Iranian nuclear scientists to Moscow for training, according to sources close to the Russian military.
Moscow has been angered by Washington’s promise to give Georgia £564m in aid following the Russian invasion of parts of the country last month after Tbilisi’s military offensive. Kremlin officials suspect the US is planning to rearm the former Soviet republic and is furious at renewed support for attempts by Georgia and Ukraine to join Nato.
Last week a third US Navy ship entered the Black Sea with aid bound for Georgia. Moscow has accused the Americans of using the vessels to deliver weapons but has failed to provide any evidence.
Vladimir Putin, the prime minister of Russia, who has been the driving force during the crisis, has declared he will take unspecified action in response.
Increasing nuclear assistance to Iran would sharply escalate tensions between Moscow and Washington. Over the past 10 years Russia has helped Iran build its first nuclear power station in Bushehr. Iran claims the plant is for civilian purposes. Officially at least, Moscow accepts that. The West has little doubt the aim is to build a nuclear bomb.“Everything has changed since the war in Georgia,” said one source. “What seemed impossible before, is more than possible now when our friends become our enemies and our enemies our friends. What are American ships doing off our coast? Do you see Russian warships off the coast of America?
“Russia will respond. A number of possibilities are being considered, including hitting America there where it hurts most – Iran.”
But diplomats say that despite its help with the Bushehr plant, Moscow has so far played a constructive role as a mediator between the regime in Tehran and the West and by backing United Nations sanctions.
Earlier this year, in one of his last actions as president, Putin added Russia’s stamp of approval to a UN security council resolution imposing fresh sanctions against Iran.
The document bans, with the exception of the Bushehr project, dual-technology exports that could be used for civil nuclear purposes and missile production.
“After the war in Georgia it’s difficult to imagine relations between Russia and America getting worse,” said a western diplomat. “Russia giving greater nuclear assistance to the Iranians would do the trick – that’s for sure.”
Last month Russia agreed to sell missiles to Syria. “The mood among the hawks is very bullish indeed,” said one source who did not rule out a resumption of Russian military action in Georgia to take the port of Batumi, where American vessels are delivering aid.
Hardliners were infuriated last week by the visit to Georgia of Dick Cheney, the American vice-president. “Georgia will be in our alliance,” Cheney said. He also visited Ukraine, whose Nato aspirations could make it the next flashpoint between Russia and America.
However in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, events appeared to be moving Moscow’s way. Viktor Yushchenko, the pro-western president, is fighting to stay in power in a crisis that could see him impeached.
“I’m amused by claims in the West that Russia is the loser in this crisis,” said a former Putin aide. “What would Washington do if we were arming Cuba the way it armed Georgia? The postSoviet days when we could be pushed around are over.”
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Does anyone care if communism is dead or alive?Folks, Communism is DEAD!!!
BTW, The topic came out from a different discussion as a diversion of what US people think about the Russian threat to USA.
To add.....
In the current world order as dictated by the USA... As long as you can strike, and protect your vital interests, you are a winner, be a democratic or a communist.....
More over, Once the US prez gets elected, he is a designated 'dictator' to 'rule the world', as most americans would want to think.
Last edited by renukb on 07 Sep 2008 21:57, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
It's funny to read several reports... When the US fights war it is to protect democracy and freedom. When others fight wars, talk is all about territorial integrity and soverignity of the nation !
In the last 20 years, The US didn't care for the territorial integrity and soverignity of 1. USSR 2. Iraq 3. Yogoslavia 4. Afghanistan...... The list can grow....
Very soon, the world might witness, the Americans letting loose their poodle UK against Russia and enjoy the conflicts...and the Brits hate Russians anyways...
In the last 20 years, The US didn't care for the territorial integrity and soverignity of 1. USSR 2. Iraq 3. Yogoslavia 4. Afghanistan...... The list can grow....
Very soon, the world might witness, the Americans letting loose their poodle UK against Russia and enjoy the conflicts...and the Brits hate Russians anyways...
Last edited by renukb on 07 Sep 2008 21:18, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
How could this possibly hurt Russia?
U.S. May Drop Atomic Accord With Russia, Rice Says (Update1)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home
By Viola Gienger and Avram Goldstein
Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicated the Bush administration is ready to abandon a proposed agreement on nuclear cooperation with Russia.
``The time isn't right for the Russia agreement,'' Rice told reporters traveling with her today to Algeria as part of a North African tour. ``We'll be making an announcement about that later.''
U.S. and Russian officials signed the nuclear cooperation accord in Moscow in May to pave the way for joint efforts on supplying and reprocessing atomic fuel. President George W. Bush submitted the agreement to Congress later that month, and lawmakers have 90 legislative days to block the accord, a period that hasn't expired.
Even before Russia angered the Bush administration by invading Georgia last month, Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress objected to the agreement. They expressed concerns that Russia has been providing uranium to help Iran build its first nuclear power plant. The U.S. and its European allies believe Iran is using the nuclear program to develop weapons, a charge Iran denies.
The U.S. and Russia have been working since 2006 on proposals to make nuclear fuel affordable to countries that need it to produce electricity, U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said last year.
Under the plan, the countries would set up three or four international centers in nuclear fuel-producing countries that would offer services from uranium enrichment and processing to the recycling and storage of spent fuel.
Russia, which enriches two-fifths of the world's uranium, planned to open the first such center in Angarsk, eastern Siberia.
To contact the reporters on this story: Viola Gienger in Washington at [email protected] Goldstein in Washington at +1- [email protected].
US holds off on civilian nuclear pact with Russia
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfS6 ... QD931ML680
By MATTHEW LEE – 10 hours ago
ALGIERS, Algeria (AP) — Now is not the right time for the U.S. to move forward on a once-celebrated deal for civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.
Her comment increased speculation that President Bush is planning to punish Moscow for invading Georgia, a former Soviet republic, by canceling the agreement. Such a move is being planned, according to senior Bush administration officials, but is not yet final.
"The time isn't right for the Russia agreement," Rice told reporters while flying from Tunisia to Algeria during a visit to North Africa. "We'll be making an announcement about that later."
U.S.-Russian relations have cooled considerably since last month's military standoff between Russia and Georgia. On Saturday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the war has shown the world that "Russia is a nation to be reckoned with."
Traveling in Italy, Vice President Dick Cheney pushed back against Moscow, saying: "Russia's actions are an affront to civilized standards and are completely unacceptable."
The nuclear deal was signed in May by U.S. and Russian officials and is now before Congress. It would give the U.S. access to modern Russian nuclear technology and clear the way for Russia to establish itself as a lucrative center for the import and storage of spent nuclear fuel from American-supplied reactors around the world.
Such a deal was seen as crucial to boosting relations with Russia, and to fulfilling Bush's vision of increasing civilian nuclear energy use worldwide as a way to combat rising energy demands and climate change.
Withdrawing the agreement from Capitol Hill would have little effect. The deal probably would not have been approved before Bush's term ends in January. But pulling it would send a message to Russia that its actions in Georgia are not acceptable and will not go unanswered.
"I am relieved the administration finally appears to be heeding calls from Congress to withdraw the ... agreement with Russia from consideration," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn. "I have long believed that it is highly inappropriate to reward Russia with nuclear cooperation when it is recklessly providing Iran with sensitive technologies to protect its nuclear program."
U.S. May Drop Atomic Accord With Russia, Rice Says (Update1)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home
By Viola Gienger and Avram Goldstein
Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicated the Bush administration is ready to abandon a proposed agreement on nuclear cooperation with Russia.
``The time isn't right for the Russia agreement,'' Rice told reporters traveling with her today to Algeria as part of a North African tour. ``We'll be making an announcement about that later.''
U.S. and Russian officials signed the nuclear cooperation accord in Moscow in May to pave the way for joint efforts on supplying and reprocessing atomic fuel. President George W. Bush submitted the agreement to Congress later that month, and lawmakers have 90 legislative days to block the accord, a period that hasn't expired.
Even before Russia angered the Bush administration by invading Georgia last month, Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress objected to the agreement. They expressed concerns that Russia has been providing uranium to help Iran build its first nuclear power plant. The U.S. and its European allies believe Iran is using the nuclear program to develop weapons, a charge Iran denies.
The U.S. and Russia have been working since 2006 on proposals to make nuclear fuel affordable to countries that need it to produce electricity, U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said last year.
Under the plan, the countries would set up three or four international centers in nuclear fuel-producing countries that would offer services from uranium enrichment and processing to the recycling and storage of spent fuel.
Russia, which enriches two-fifths of the world's uranium, planned to open the first such center in Angarsk, eastern Siberia.
To contact the reporters on this story: Viola Gienger in Washington at [email protected] Goldstein in Washington at +1- [email protected].
US holds off on civilian nuclear pact with Russia
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfS6 ... QD931ML680
By MATTHEW LEE – 10 hours ago
ALGIERS, Algeria (AP) — Now is not the right time for the U.S. to move forward on a once-celebrated deal for civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.
Her comment increased speculation that President Bush is planning to punish Moscow for invading Georgia, a former Soviet republic, by canceling the agreement. Such a move is being planned, according to senior Bush administration officials, but is not yet final.
"The time isn't right for the Russia agreement," Rice told reporters while flying from Tunisia to Algeria during a visit to North Africa. "We'll be making an announcement about that later."
U.S.-Russian relations have cooled considerably since last month's military standoff between Russia and Georgia. On Saturday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the war has shown the world that "Russia is a nation to be reckoned with."
Traveling in Italy, Vice President Dick Cheney pushed back against Moscow, saying: "Russia's actions are an affront to civilized standards and are completely unacceptable."
The nuclear deal was signed in May by U.S. and Russian officials and is now before Congress. It would give the U.S. access to modern Russian nuclear technology and clear the way for Russia to establish itself as a lucrative center for the import and storage of spent nuclear fuel from American-supplied reactors around the world.
Such a deal was seen as crucial to boosting relations with Russia, and to fulfilling Bush's vision of increasing civilian nuclear energy use worldwide as a way to combat rising energy demands and climate change.
Withdrawing the agreement from Capitol Hill would have little effect. The deal probably would not have been approved before Bush's term ends in January. But pulling it would send a message to Russia that its actions in Georgia are not acceptable and will not go unanswered.
"I am relieved the administration finally appears to be heeding calls from Congress to withdraw the ... agreement with Russia from consideration," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn. "I have long believed that it is highly inappropriate to reward Russia with nuclear cooperation when it is recklessly providing Iran with sensitive technologies to protect its nuclear program."
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Medvedev: “Russia is a nation to be reckoned with”
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 06044/1009
MOSCOW — President Dmitry Medvedev said today that “Russia is a nation to be reckoned with” following its war with Georgia, again putting the West on notice that Moscow is prepared to use it military and economic might.
At a meeting of the State Council, a government consultative body of largely regional governors, Medvedev said the world had changed since the beginning of fighting in Georgia last month.
“We have reached a moment of truth. It became a different world after Aug. 8,” he said.
“Russia will never allow anyone to infringe upon the lives and dignity of its citizens. Russia is a nation to be reckoned with from now on.”
Medvedev criticized the United States and other Western nations, though not by name, for challenging Russia’s intervention.
“Millions of people supported us, but we’ve heard no words of support and understanding from those who in the same circumstances pontificate about free elections and national dignity and the need to use force to punish an aggressor,” he said.
The United States has lambasted Moscow for what it called a disproportionate military response and has provided humanitarian and economic aid to Georgia.
U.S. warships have delivered much of the aid, and Russian officials have questioned whether the aid is a cover for weapons shipments.
At Georgia’s Black Sea port of Poti, Russian forces watched today as the U.S. naval ship USS Mt. Whitney delivered 17 tons of aid for Georgians displaced by the fighting.
U.S. naval officers said a Russian warship had trailed the Mount Whitney — the flagship of the U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean fleet — across the Black Sea. Russian forces onshore were also scrutinizing the ship from a position 3 miles away from its anchorage off Poti.
Capt. John Moore, commander of the task force that has brought some 450 tons of aid to Georgia on three U.S. ships and numerous planes, said the Russian frigate Ladnyy had trailed the Whitney about 4,000 yards away for the entire Black Sea trip. The Russian boat remained in international waters after the U.S. ship crossed Friday into Georgian waters 12 miles from Poti, he said.
In the weeks since Russian forces routed the Georgian army and seized the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia, Russian officials have used bellicose language toward the West. Putin has suggested the United States was to blame for the war for helping the Georgian military rebuild.
EU position: In France, the European Union’s 27 foreign ministers were reluctant to provoke Moscow, with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner saying the EU didn’t plan to impose sanctions against Russia.
“Russia must remain a partner, it’s our neighbor, it’s a large country and there is no question to go back to a Cold War situation, that would be a big mistake,” Kouchner said.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy was heading to Russia on Monday to meet with Medvedev.
Cheney critical: U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, at an economic meeting today in Italy, blasted Russian actions in the war with Georgia as an “affront to civilized standards” and said Moscow has given “no satisfactory justification” for invading.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 06044/1009
MOSCOW — President Dmitry Medvedev said today that “Russia is a nation to be reckoned with” following its war with Georgia, again putting the West on notice that Moscow is prepared to use it military and economic might.
At a meeting of the State Council, a government consultative body of largely regional governors, Medvedev said the world had changed since the beginning of fighting in Georgia last month.
“We have reached a moment of truth. It became a different world after Aug. 8,” he said.
“Russia will never allow anyone to infringe upon the lives and dignity of its citizens. Russia is a nation to be reckoned with from now on.”
Medvedev criticized the United States and other Western nations, though not by name, for challenging Russia’s intervention.
“Millions of people supported us, but we’ve heard no words of support and understanding from those who in the same circumstances pontificate about free elections and national dignity and the need to use force to punish an aggressor,” he said.
The United States has lambasted Moscow for what it called a disproportionate military response and has provided humanitarian and economic aid to Georgia.
U.S. warships have delivered much of the aid, and Russian officials have questioned whether the aid is a cover for weapons shipments.
At Georgia’s Black Sea port of Poti, Russian forces watched today as the U.S. naval ship USS Mt. Whitney delivered 17 tons of aid for Georgians displaced by the fighting.
U.S. naval officers said a Russian warship had trailed the Mount Whitney — the flagship of the U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean fleet — across the Black Sea. Russian forces onshore were also scrutinizing the ship from a position 3 miles away from its anchorage off Poti.
Capt. John Moore, commander of the task force that has brought some 450 tons of aid to Georgia on three U.S. ships and numerous planes, said the Russian frigate Ladnyy had trailed the Whitney about 4,000 yards away for the entire Black Sea trip. The Russian boat remained in international waters after the U.S. ship crossed Friday into Georgian waters 12 miles from Poti, he said.
In the weeks since Russian forces routed the Georgian army and seized the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia, Russian officials have used bellicose language toward the West. Putin has suggested the United States was to blame for the war for helping the Georgian military rebuild.
EU position: In France, the European Union’s 27 foreign ministers were reluctant to provoke Moscow, with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner saying the EU didn’t plan to impose sanctions against Russia.
“Russia must remain a partner, it’s our neighbor, it’s a large country and there is no question to go back to a Cold War situation, that would be a big mistake,” Kouchner said.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy was heading to Russia on Monday to meet with Medvedev.
Cheney critical: U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, at an economic meeting today in Italy, blasted Russian actions in the war with Georgia as an “affront to civilized standards” and said Moscow has given “no satisfactory justification” for invading.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Russia should stop co-operating with the US in SPACE tech....
U.S. May Drop Atomic Accord With Russia, Rice Says (Update1)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home
U.S. May Drop Atomic Accord With Russia, Rice Says (Update1)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home
Re: Caucasus Crisis
France against sanctioning Russia
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/2061504
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/2061504
Re: Caucasus Crisis
How do you hurt an adversary? You either inflict physical pain on him/her or you attempt to starve him so that he/she suffers the hurt of hunger or a combination of both. In affairs of nation-states, this is translated into punishing the adversary militarily or economically or a combination of military and economic punishment.
Now lets look at the Georgia situation. The US is not going on a military punishment mode. There is already major dissent on the subject of economic sanction not only from the Europeans but inside the USA too. Even within the conservative base. In some circles there is growing resentment at Condi for going hard on "Christian Russia" and Israel when we are fighting Islam inspired terrorists. (If McCain goes in the direction Dick(less) Chainey, he might lose some portion of these conservatives regardless if Palin is his VP candidate or his elderly care aide).
So what else is the US doing? This cancellation of the nuke agreement with Russia is probably for domestic consumption and in reality is a toothless nuisence.
The noise coming from Condi is due to her failure to see what was coming in the days prior to August 8th. She was supposed to be an expert on Soviet/Russian affairs. How could she have overlooked the gross misculcalation that was about to happen. It was a gross miscalculation and could jeapordize the nuke situation in Iran, the cooperation on NoKo, the power balance in Afghanistan and turbulance in the oil market. She is making so much noise because she needs to be seen as doing something about it. She is such an expert and mastermind in international affairs that she saw the light to make amends with Gadaffi and warned Israel not to attack Iran.
Condi is such a "success" that majority of white are going to vote for Obama because they want to replicate Condi's success through Obama. And I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn.
Avram
Now lets look at the Georgia situation. The US is not going on a military punishment mode. There is already major dissent on the subject of economic sanction not only from the Europeans but inside the USA too. Even within the conservative base. In some circles there is growing resentment at Condi for going hard on "Christian Russia" and Israel when we are fighting Islam inspired terrorists. (If McCain goes in the direction Dick(less) Chainey, he might lose some portion of these conservatives regardless if Palin is his VP candidate or his elderly care aide).
So what else is the US doing? This cancellation of the nuke agreement with Russia is probably for domestic consumption and in reality is a toothless nuisence.
The noise coming from Condi is due to her failure to see what was coming in the days prior to August 8th. She was supposed to be an expert on Soviet/Russian affairs. How could she have overlooked the gross misculcalation that was about to happen. It was a gross miscalculation and could jeapordize the nuke situation in Iran, the cooperation on NoKo, the power balance in Afghanistan and turbulance in the oil market. She is making so much noise because she needs to be seen as doing something about it. She is such an expert and mastermind in international affairs that she saw the light to make amends with Gadaffi and warned Israel not to attack Iran.
Condi is such a "success" that majority of white are going to vote for Obama because they want to replicate Condi's success through Obama. And I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn.
Avram
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Amricans seem to have eaten too much than they can swallow.
Ineptitude of a few will make them pay heavily this time.
Ineptitude of a few will make them pay heavily this time.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
asprinzl,
You & I both know that both Powell & Rice were lapped up by right as token gestures to show that they are not racists. I don't think the heavyweights take them seriously except as Yes man/woman. Powell tried to punch above his weight and was shown the door. Rice learnt her lesson and goes along with whatever the big boys want her to say. So, all her so called independent Russian expertise, even if she had that, wouldn't mean diddly squat unless the big boys wanted that on the table.
You & I both know that both Powell & Rice were lapped up by right as token gestures to show that they are not racists. I don't think the heavyweights take them seriously except as Yes man/woman. Powell tried to punch above his weight and was shown the door. Rice learnt her lesson and goes along with whatever the big boys want her to say. So, all her so called independent Russian expertise, even if she had that, wouldn't mean diddly squat unless the big boys wanted that on the table.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
btw, he needs to be on our Deck of 52
Re: Caucasus Crisis
beware this is from the British media....
Russia may pass test of strength, but it still fails Berlin Wall challenge
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.j ... com108.xml
Which is stronger, the Russian bear or the British lion? The spat between Russia and the West about Georgia has led to much apocalyptic talk about confrontation. Many people have been struck by what they see as Russia's economic strength compared with our weakness. The new battleground, they say, is over oil and money. And here, compared with us, Russia is better placed than ever it was in the bad old days. Are they right?
What does economic weakness mean? Supposedly the UK economy is "weak" this year. In fact, this terminology is highly misleading. It is referring to the level, or growth rate, of production. Our economy normally grows by between 2.5pc and 3pc a year, and if in one year it grows by less, the economy is referred to as "weak". In fact, all that has happened is that the aggregate amount of GDP, or income, in the country has risen by less than normal.
At current prices, Russian GDP is roughly half the UK's. Admittedly, this probably misrepresents the true situation. At the artificial exchange rate which economists use to make such comparisons, Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), the two economies are roughly the same size. But the population of Russia is much bigger. The figures for GDP per head are more striking; at current prices GDP per head for Russia is about £5,000 compared with about £23,000 in the UK. Even at PPP, the figure is about £9,000 for Russia and about £20,000 for the UK.
But all this is about the two countries. The financial position of the governments is very different. The Russian government is in surplus to the tune of about £60bn. Ours is in deficit to the tune of £50bn. Whereas our Government has debt of about £600bn, the Russian government has accumu-lated net assets of about £250bn.
Yet when people talk of the strength of an economy they really mean robustness. Western governments and economists have paid little attention to this concept. It has been accepted that there is a case for keeping a domestic defence industry going even if this is not the most cost-effective way of providing for defence needs. And many have argued that there is a similar argument for maintaining domestic food production. More recently, the case has been accepted with regard to energy, as it has been realised that the world's energy resources have been located in some unstable places. So, on this basis, a strong economy is not necessarily one where the income is highest, but rather one which, if something went wrong in the world economy, would be able to survive well.
In this regard, the ultimate definition of strength could be seen as self-sufficiency. Yet the only completely self-sufficient economies are extremely poor. They are self-sufficient because they are so benighted, by nature, or more likely, through bad government, that they have nothing to sell and make do with consuming only what they produce. Such societies may be self-sufficient but it would be peculiar to describe them as strong. In that case, if not complete self-sufficiency, at least self-sufficiency in the things which we cannot easily do without may be a reasonable definition of strength. This comes down to the idea that not all sorts of production are equal. The GDP figures may make no distinction between production of food and the provision of facilities for playing bingo. How much a certain amount of one is valued compared with a certain amount of the other is determined by the market. There is no sense in which one is intrinsically worth more than the other.
Yet man can live without bingo, but not without food. On this definition, America is strong. She gains from trade as we all do. Yet if the shutters came down she would be able to provide for many of her essential needs, and all of her food needs. But not oil. And a modern economy cannot function without energy. The distinctive thing about the Russian economy is that it is a large producer of things, principally oil and gas, which we cannot easily do without. This is a sense in which she can be regarded as strong.
Britain is an economy well integrated with the rest of the world. We rely on international trade for our prosperity. We gain by selling things, or more particularly services, which then enables us to import things which it is relatively expensive to produce ourselves. Compared with much of western Europe, our energy situation is relatively robust. We just about produce enough oil for our own needs and a good amount of gas and coal. But our energy situation is set to deteriorate sharply as domestic oil and gas production peaks and then falls.
More generally, we are highly vulnerable to a shutting down of the world economy in a way that America is not. And we are even more vulnerable to a shutting down of international financial markets because our leading net export is financial services. In this sense, we are "weak". But is Russia so strong? If the world economy was to soften considerably, then so would the demand for all the things she produces. It is noteworthy that the price of oil and other commodities has recently fallen considerably and it could fall much further. In that case, much of Russia's recent strength would evaporate. In that sense, she is as much dependent on the health of the world economy as we are.
Financial and economic success is different from military strength. If the former derives from exports then you need the purchaser to be successful enough to buy your exports. Military strength increases with your opponents' weakness. Economic success increases with your trading partners' well-being.
We are in a phase when access to raw materials and energy is perceived as particularly important. But, in the long run, the success of an economy depends upon its people. Russia's population is falling fast. The birth rate is extremely low and the death rate is extremely high. More importantly, Russia fails what I call the Berlin Wall test. In the old days of the Cold War, incredibly various people in the West supported and admired the regimes of the eastern bloc. At the time, I thought that the Berlin Wall provided a critical test. If life was so much better on the eastern side why was it that all the human traffic was from East to West and not the other way round?
This test applies to Russia today. Sophisticated, educated, skilled Russians are leaving their country in droves. Many come to the UK. Is this the mark of a strong economy? On a long-term view, Russia is decidedly weak.
Roger Bootle is managing director of Capital Economics and economic adviser to Deloitte. You can contact him at [email protected]
Have your say
Post this story to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit | Fark
Comments
No natural resources mean that Russia
is strong in the long term. Do we
have to look at this in terms of
competing national economies? BP has
decided cooperation is the way
forward with Russia - and if the UK
does otherwise it is just missing out
on a massive opportunity. Dubai has
been buying, see this post: link
y-dubai-is-right-to-be-buying-in-
russia/
Posted by Peter on September 8, 2008 6:41 AM
Report this comment
There has been much talk about Russia holding the west to ransom by threatening to restrict the supply of oil and gas. However, if this were to happen, who else would buy the oil and gas? The bankrupt economies of the former USSR? Russia needs the west as a customer as much as the west needs Russia as a supplier.
Posted by Jaf on September 8, 2008 6:21 AM
Report this comment
You decidedly fail to prove your case by basing it on the migration of 'skilled' Russians. I've lived in the San Francisco area and I've seen lots of French and Brits abandon Europe for better pay and weather. It doesn't make those countries weak per se.
Posted by Sergei on September 8, 2008 6:20 AM
Report this comment
Russian bear is magnitude stronger than British poodle(lion is dead). There is no comparison. Russians aren't leaving in droves, birth rate is skyrocketing, death rate is falling, and if Russian people went into debt like Brits did they'd have GDP per capita higher than US. The fact that Russians achieved 50% of British GDP (at the end of this year Russian economy will surpass British at PPP) while maintaining pristine balance sheet leaves them ample room for further growth. Putin is genius. The purpose of this article is simply to calm Brits down a bit. Its info value is zero. Pure propaganda.
Posted by alec on September 8, 2008 5:55 AM
Report this comment
Jon, if all you're willing to concede is that Dostoevsky, Tolstoy et al and Turgenev are decent authors and that Mussorgsky, Shostakovich, Rimsky-Korsakov et al are merely decent copmposers then you clearly are in no position to be a judge of such matters and your entire response should be regarded as nothing more than a chip-on-the-shoulder at some slight received when in Russia.
Posted by Billy Barnett on September 8, 2008 5:32 AM
Report this comment
Jon Livesey, I also spent a lot of time in Russia and
agree with your comments 100%. And you can add
poor management skills and and poor working
skills to the list of unspoken about problems Russia
has to face, as well as a level of poverty that has
gone unheeded for years. There is still a great deal
of the Third World about Russia.
Posted by Gerhard on September 8, 2008 5:21 AM
Report this comment
neil on September 8, 2008 4:16 AM says:The UK is in danger of just adding more volume and less and less quality in the population. That makes for a weaker position.
If we apply this logic to immigration, the answer is only to welcome those whose skills/contribution is better than the average of existing UK people, thus constantly improving the average. This is akin to the management maxim of achieving success by employing staff smarter than yourself. Can you imagine the UK government having the backbone to adopt such a policy? Or the lazy and feckless Brit chav employees accepting people brought in above their heads. Hmmmmmm.
Posted by toandfro on September 8, 2008 5:07 AM
Report this comment
You say that "the success of an economy depends upon its people". I fully agree, but it is not a simple matter of sheer numbers, but the skills the population has, the socially beneficial behavior they engage in and the value they return to the country as a whole. The UK is in danger of just adding more volume and less and less quality in the population. That makes for a weaker position.
Posted by neil on September 8, 2008 4:16 AM
Report this comment
The direction of the movement of the capable, creative and the skilled is highly significant; their feet are doing the voting, moving from a less attractive and amenable environment to one that is more so.
A relatively freer market, where there is less risk of anyone or group of people using coercion to steal the fruits of one's labours, is more likely to attract such people from risky economic environments such as Putin's Russia, where there is no rule of law.
Political freedom and economic freedom are very much interrelated, the diminution of political freedom in Putin's Russia will inevitably be reflected in its general economy, with the best and the brightest looking for safer havens.
The same principles apply to Europe and the UK, the skilled will find a way of moving to where they are most appreciated...Central and Eastern Europeans seem to be voting with their feet out of the UK...there is still a steady flow of such individuals to North America.
Posted by Dr Andris Lielmanis on September 8, 2008 2:45 AM
Report this comment
Jon Livesey's posting is interesting as far as a study of what one's perspective of any issue can be. If you replace his word "Russian" with "British", it all applies, except for the part on the sunken submarine, which could aptly adapted by citing that UK let her military servicemen die in Iraq for oil. What a shame!
Posted by xuyin on September 8, 2008 2:41 AM
Report this comment
I think you are correct. As someone who has lived and worked in Russia for extensive periods, I believe it is in more trouble than most people who view it from the outside think.
Russia is actually a rather primitive country, with very low standards of construction, engineering, manufacturing, education and public health. Its top six exports are no-value added commodities and its top six imports are manufactured goods. That is what you would expect of a colonial possession's economy, not of the imperial or metropolitan power.
Russian demographics are dreadful, its public health and life expectancy very low, corruption is rife, as is crime, the gulf between rich and poor is vast and its population tends to xenophobia, racism and a too-ready acceptance of "strong-man" Government.
Worse still, its government is unaccountable. It can let a hundred and fifty sailor drown in a submarine rather than ask for British aid, and it gets away with it.
Oh, one other thing. Only whisper this one, but Russia's claim to have a valuable culture is based on half a dozen decent authors and about the same number of composers. The rest is repetitive and derivative.
Posted by jon livesey on September 8, 2008 1:10 AM
Russia may pass test of strength, but it still fails Berlin Wall challenge
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.j ... com108.xml
Which is stronger, the Russian bear or the British lion? The spat between Russia and the West about Georgia has led to much apocalyptic talk about confrontation. Many people have been struck by what they see as Russia's economic strength compared with our weakness. The new battleground, they say, is over oil and money. And here, compared with us, Russia is better placed than ever it was in the bad old days. Are they right?
What does economic weakness mean? Supposedly the UK economy is "weak" this year. In fact, this terminology is highly misleading. It is referring to the level, or growth rate, of production. Our economy normally grows by between 2.5pc and 3pc a year, and if in one year it grows by less, the economy is referred to as "weak". In fact, all that has happened is that the aggregate amount of GDP, or income, in the country has risen by less than normal.
At current prices, Russian GDP is roughly half the UK's. Admittedly, this probably misrepresents the true situation. At the artificial exchange rate which economists use to make such comparisons, Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), the two economies are roughly the same size. But the population of Russia is much bigger. The figures for GDP per head are more striking; at current prices GDP per head for Russia is about £5,000 compared with about £23,000 in the UK. Even at PPP, the figure is about £9,000 for Russia and about £20,000 for the UK.
But all this is about the two countries. The financial position of the governments is very different. The Russian government is in surplus to the tune of about £60bn. Ours is in deficit to the tune of £50bn. Whereas our Government has debt of about £600bn, the Russian government has accumu-lated net assets of about £250bn.
Yet when people talk of the strength of an economy they really mean robustness. Western governments and economists have paid little attention to this concept. It has been accepted that there is a case for keeping a domestic defence industry going even if this is not the most cost-effective way of providing for defence needs. And many have argued that there is a similar argument for maintaining domestic food production. More recently, the case has been accepted with regard to energy, as it has been realised that the world's energy resources have been located in some unstable places. So, on this basis, a strong economy is not necessarily one where the income is highest, but rather one which, if something went wrong in the world economy, would be able to survive well.
In this regard, the ultimate definition of strength could be seen as self-sufficiency. Yet the only completely self-sufficient economies are extremely poor. They are self-sufficient because they are so benighted, by nature, or more likely, through bad government, that they have nothing to sell and make do with consuming only what they produce. Such societies may be self-sufficient but it would be peculiar to describe them as strong. In that case, if not complete self-sufficiency, at least self-sufficiency in the things which we cannot easily do without may be a reasonable definition of strength. This comes down to the idea that not all sorts of production are equal. The GDP figures may make no distinction between production of food and the provision of facilities for playing bingo. How much a certain amount of one is valued compared with a certain amount of the other is determined by the market. There is no sense in which one is intrinsically worth more than the other.
Yet man can live without bingo, but not without food. On this definition, America is strong. She gains from trade as we all do. Yet if the shutters came down she would be able to provide for many of her essential needs, and all of her food needs. But not oil. And a modern economy cannot function without energy. The distinctive thing about the Russian economy is that it is a large producer of things, principally oil and gas, which we cannot easily do without. This is a sense in which she can be regarded as strong.
Britain is an economy well integrated with the rest of the world. We rely on international trade for our prosperity. We gain by selling things, or more particularly services, which then enables us to import things which it is relatively expensive to produce ourselves. Compared with much of western Europe, our energy situation is relatively robust. We just about produce enough oil for our own needs and a good amount of gas and coal. But our energy situation is set to deteriorate sharply as domestic oil and gas production peaks and then falls.
More generally, we are highly vulnerable to a shutting down of the world economy in a way that America is not. And we are even more vulnerable to a shutting down of international financial markets because our leading net export is financial services. In this sense, we are "weak". But is Russia so strong? If the world economy was to soften considerably, then so would the demand for all the things she produces. It is noteworthy that the price of oil and other commodities has recently fallen considerably and it could fall much further. In that case, much of Russia's recent strength would evaporate. In that sense, she is as much dependent on the health of the world economy as we are.
Financial and economic success is different from military strength. If the former derives from exports then you need the purchaser to be successful enough to buy your exports. Military strength increases with your opponents' weakness. Economic success increases with your trading partners' well-being.
We are in a phase when access to raw materials and energy is perceived as particularly important. But, in the long run, the success of an economy depends upon its people. Russia's population is falling fast. The birth rate is extremely low and the death rate is extremely high. More importantly, Russia fails what I call the Berlin Wall test. In the old days of the Cold War, incredibly various people in the West supported and admired the regimes of the eastern bloc. At the time, I thought that the Berlin Wall provided a critical test. If life was so much better on the eastern side why was it that all the human traffic was from East to West and not the other way round?
This test applies to Russia today. Sophisticated, educated, skilled Russians are leaving their country in droves. Many come to the UK. Is this the mark of a strong economy? On a long-term view, Russia is decidedly weak.
Roger Bootle is managing director of Capital Economics and economic adviser to Deloitte. You can contact him at [email protected]
Have your say
Post this story to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit | Fark
Comments
No natural resources mean that Russia
is strong in the long term. Do we
have to look at this in terms of
competing national economies? BP has
decided cooperation is the way
forward with Russia - and if the UK
does otherwise it is just missing out
on a massive opportunity. Dubai has
been buying, see this post: link
y-dubai-is-right-to-be-buying-in-
russia/
Posted by Peter on September 8, 2008 6:41 AM
Report this comment
There has been much talk about Russia holding the west to ransom by threatening to restrict the supply of oil and gas. However, if this were to happen, who else would buy the oil and gas? The bankrupt economies of the former USSR? Russia needs the west as a customer as much as the west needs Russia as a supplier.
Posted by Jaf on September 8, 2008 6:21 AM
Report this comment
You decidedly fail to prove your case by basing it on the migration of 'skilled' Russians. I've lived in the San Francisco area and I've seen lots of French and Brits abandon Europe for better pay and weather. It doesn't make those countries weak per se.
Posted by Sergei on September 8, 2008 6:20 AM
Report this comment
Russian bear is magnitude stronger than British poodle(lion is dead). There is no comparison. Russians aren't leaving in droves, birth rate is skyrocketing, death rate is falling, and if Russian people went into debt like Brits did they'd have GDP per capita higher than US. The fact that Russians achieved 50% of British GDP (at the end of this year Russian economy will surpass British at PPP) while maintaining pristine balance sheet leaves them ample room for further growth. Putin is genius. The purpose of this article is simply to calm Brits down a bit. Its info value is zero. Pure propaganda.
Posted by alec on September 8, 2008 5:55 AM
Report this comment
Jon, if all you're willing to concede is that Dostoevsky, Tolstoy et al and Turgenev are decent authors and that Mussorgsky, Shostakovich, Rimsky-Korsakov et al are merely decent copmposers then you clearly are in no position to be a judge of such matters and your entire response should be regarded as nothing more than a chip-on-the-shoulder at some slight received when in Russia.
Posted by Billy Barnett on September 8, 2008 5:32 AM
Report this comment
Jon Livesey, I also spent a lot of time in Russia and
agree with your comments 100%. And you can add
poor management skills and and poor working
skills to the list of unspoken about problems Russia
has to face, as well as a level of poverty that has
gone unheeded for years. There is still a great deal
of the Third World about Russia.
Posted by Gerhard on September 8, 2008 5:21 AM
Report this comment
neil on September 8, 2008 4:16 AM says:The UK is in danger of just adding more volume and less and less quality in the population. That makes for a weaker position.
If we apply this logic to immigration, the answer is only to welcome those whose skills/contribution is better than the average of existing UK people, thus constantly improving the average. This is akin to the management maxim of achieving success by employing staff smarter than yourself. Can you imagine the UK government having the backbone to adopt such a policy? Or the lazy and feckless Brit chav employees accepting people brought in above their heads. Hmmmmmm.
Posted by toandfro on September 8, 2008 5:07 AM
Report this comment
You say that "the success of an economy depends upon its people". I fully agree, but it is not a simple matter of sheer numbers, but the skills the population has, the socially beneficial behavior they engage in and the value they return to the country as a whole. The UK is in danger of just adding more volume and less and less quality in the population. That makes for a weaker position.
Posted by neil on September 8, 2008 4:16 AM
Report this comment
The direction of the movement of the capable, creative and the skilled is highly significant; their feet are doing the voting, moving from a less attractive and amenable environment to one that is more so.
A relatively freer market, where there is less risk of anyone or group of people using coercion to steal the fruits of one's labours, is more likely to attract such people from risky economic environments such as Putin's Russia, where there is no rule of law.
Political freedom and economic freedom are very much interrelated, the diminution of political freedom in Putin's Russia will inevitably be reflected in its general economy, with the best and the brightest looking for safer havens.
The same principles apply to Europe and the UK, the skilled will find a way of moving to where they are most appreciated...Central and Eastern Europeans seem to be voting with their feet out of the UK...there is still a steady flow of such individuals to North America.
Posted by Dr Andris Lielmanis on September 8, 2008 2:45 AM
Report this comment
Jon Livesey's posting is interesting as far as a study of what one's perspective of any issue can be. If you replace his word "Russian" with "British", it all applies, except for the part on the sunken submarine, which could aptly adapted by citing that UK let her military servicemen die in Iraq for oil. What a shame!
Posted by xuyin on September 8, 2008 2:41 AM
Report this comment
I think you are correct. As someone who has lived and worked in Russia for extensive periods, I believe it is in more trouble than most people who view it from the outside think.
Russia is actually a rather primitive country, with very low standards of construction, engineering, manufacturing, education and public health. Its top six exports are no-value added commodities and its top six imports are manufactured goods. That is what you would expect of a colonial possession's economy, not of the imperial or metropolitan power.
Russian demographics are dreadful, its public health and life expectancy very low, corruption is rife, as is crime, the gulf between rich and poor is vast and its population tends to xenophobia, racism and a too-ready acceptance of "strong-man" Government.
Worse still, its government is unaccountable. It can let a hundred and fifty sailor drown in a submarine rather than ask for British aid, and it gets away with it.
Oh, one other thing. Only whisper this one, but Russia's claim to have a valuable culture is based on half a dozen decent authors and about the same number of composers. The rest is repetitive and derivative.
Posted by jon livesey on September 8, 2008 1:10 AM