Turkey's position as a precarious bridge between East and West is highlighted once more as it is torn between its NATO obligations and its important trade partner Russia. Barriers at customs remind Turkey of the potential danger of upsetting Moscow, while NATO ships on the Black Sea armed with Tomahawks and anti-ship missiles irritate Russians
U.S. President George W. Bush: "We expect Russia to live up to its international commitments, reconsider this irresponsible decision and follow the approach set out in the six-point (cease-fire) agreement."
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner: "We cannot accept these violations of international law, of accords for security and cooperation in Europe, of United Nations resolutions, and the taking ... of a territory by the army of a neighboring country."
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev: "We're not afraid of anything, we will do everything we can to avoid a new Cold War. If they want relations to worsen, they will get it."
The Russian move to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia at the expense of triggering a collision course with the West has left Turkey in a dilemma as the country may be forced to choose between the two if the rift deepens in the near future. Walking along the lines of a fragile diplomacy in the wake of the latest Caucasus crisis between Russia and Georgia, Turkey wants to neither disengage itself from its Western allies nor alienate its trade and energy partner Russia. The trade volume between Turkey and Russia is expected to reach $38 billion this year, according to Turkish estimations, raising Russia to first place among its trade partners.
No doubt, all the complications in the newly shaping global order are narrowing Turkey's maneuverability on foreign policy. Turkey has lately found itself increasingly under pressure from both sides. The passage of NATO ships through the Turkish straits to dispatch humanitarian aid to war-torn Georgia has been a source of contention between the West and Russia. Stuck between the two, Turkey seriously adhered to the Montreux convention of 1936 governing the access of military ships to the Black Sea through the straits, thus blocking U.S. intentions to show force in the Black Sea.
Still this is far from satisfying Moscow, which raised objections even to the U.S. ships carrying humanitarian aid and showed its discontent with the NATO exercise in the Black Sea, an event scheduled long ago.
"NATO's naval deployments in the Black Sea, where nine foreign vessels have already been sent, provoke concern," said the Russian deputy chief of General Staff Anatoly Nogovitsyn early this week. According to a Russian military intelligence source, the NATO warships that have entered the Black Sea carry over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. So far three U.S., Polish, German and Spanish ships have passed through the straits.
Turkey is extremely careful not to violate the Montreux convention. It is however also extremely cautious not to antagonize its Russian neighbor and main trade partner. The Turkish economy already has suffered from the recent tension as Russian boarder obstructions have hit Turkish exporters. These difficulties by the Russians are perceived by Ankara as an implicit warning to Turkey to be careful when it chooses a side in the conflict, thus raising questions as to the loyalty of Russia as a trade partner and the growing trade dependency with Russia. The problems at the customs were raised during telephone conversations between the two countries' foreign ministers. The Russian ambassador said he was upset the economic issue spread to the diplomatic platform, but assured the Russian government took the initiative to solve the problem.
Similar questions will also be raised as to Turkey's heavy dependence on Russian energy supplies. Turkey depends on this country for 29 percent of its oil and 63 percent of natural gas. It cannot afford a disruption in the gas and oil flow.
Meanwhile, Turkey's relations with Russia are not the only criteria shaping its policy in the recent crisis. The Turkish government believes the West as well as Russia should refrain from steps that would aggravate the situation. It has thus asked its NATO allies to be less aggressive towards Russia.
Independence: model for northern Cyprus?
Besides Turkey's conflicting interests with the West and Russia, the political implications of Russian recognition of two breakaway provinces leave Turkey with a difficult dilemma. The fact that it can set a precedent makes Turkey undoubtedly nervous, as it is fighting against a separatist group, the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party. Turkey is also against an independent Kurdish state in Iraq. Though some believe that the recent situation strengthens the hands of Turkish Cyprus, a country only recognized by Turkey; many disagree by reminding that talks are underway to reunite the island.
"It is not accurate to recognize northern Cyprus as an independent state," Russian Ambassador to Ankara Vladimir Ivanovskiy told reporters yesterday, citing the U.N. resolutions. But he declined to further comment as the two leaders of the divided island of Cyprus are set to hold direct negotiations in September.
"Territorial integrity and national sovereignty [of Serbia] has been violated in the Kosovo case," said the Russian envoy. But he admitted that Kosovo, northern Cyprus, South Ossetia or Abkhazia would not enjoy larger support from the international community vis-à-vis their independence, a fact all of which has to live with.
"BSEC already in place"
The details of the negotiations between Turkish and Russian diplomats in Moscow are still not available but the Turkish-led Caucasus platform for peace and solidarity in the region will be thoroughly discussed when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meets Tuesday with his Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan in Istanbul.
Ambassador Ivanovskiy said Russia considered the Turkish proposal for cooperation and security in the Caucasus as a "good beginning" but said it was difficult for both Moscow and Ankara to discuss such issues overnight.
He admitted that it was not an easy task to bring together Baku-Yerevan around the same table but he added, "I know where such a meeting can take place. Negotiations can be held at the Black Sea Economic Cooperation [BSEC] platform of which all five countries are members." With regard to the ambassador's reference, it is important to further note that BSEC mainly handles economic cooperation and is not a platform to discuss security matters.
Despite the growing feeling that Turkey's Caucasus proposal is dead in the water, sources close to the prime minister insisted that the regional mechanism was still feasible in the long run.
President Abdullah Gül also said negotiations were still under way over the proposal and added it would not be realized tomorrow.
"The Foreign Ministry is engaged in intense diplomacy. Turkey cannot stay out of the developments. Turkey will be careful, balanced but determined," he told NTV.
Since the eruption of the crisis between Russia and Georgia, Ankara repeatedly stressed the territorial integrity of Georgia must be respected. The president once again underlined this yesterday. "Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity is important for everyone," Gül said. However the ministry's official statement issued late Tuesday fell short of a strong emphasis on the territorial integrity, reflecting as a sign of how stranded Ankara was.
Further escalating the crisis in the Caucasus, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia yesterday; their annexation by Russia is likely to follow shortly. Russian promises to withdraw troops to pre-conflict positions ring increasingly hollow. Russian officials have threatened to use nuclear weapons against Poland and Ukraine. All signs point to the Kremlin's decision to launch a new Cold War.
The free world's response has been feeble. Western spokesmen have warned that Russia's aggression will hurt its international "standing." NATO has suspended formal dialogue, and Russia may be blocked from entering the World Trade Organization. Moscow is clearly unworried by this talk. Europe's dependence on Russian energy, and claims that the West needs Russia's cooperation on many international issues, reinforce its confidence. Yet the West is in a stronger position than it or Vladimir Putin may realize. A properly managed "soft power" response -- such as a law enforcement campaign targeting Russia's ruling elites -- could be extremely effective in punishing aggression against Georgia and in deterring future misconduct. Indeed, Russia's governing elites place their personal interests ahead of Moscow's raison d'etat. If enough pain is inflicted on them, they will demand foreign policy changes or even seek to replace Putin as the power behind the throne.
The fusion of private business interests and state policy in today's Russia differs from the endemic corruption of Soviet times. Moscow is dominated by a network of ex-KGB siloviks and wealthy Kremlin-friendly tycoons. Despite their gangsteresque behavior -- including assassinations of business and political rivals -- Russia is a member, albeit a thuggish one, of the global economic system. Bereft of any significant civilian manufacturing, Russia's economy depends on natural resources exports. As a result, Russia, though grotesquely corrupt, is tightly plugged into global financial and commercial networks. The shady cadre running modern Russia has embraced globalization. These "Chekist oligarchs" -- to distinguish them from the Western-oriented robber barons who rose in the 1990s, only to be purged by Putin -- increasingly dominate lists of the world's richest individuals. They invest their ill-gotten wealth abroad and maintain opulent residences in London, Paris and the Cote d'Azur. They educate their children at Western universities and even collect Western sports teams.
These tycoons bankrolled Putin's rise and are the medium by which he has consolidated control over Russia's vast wealth. Putin and his cronies have used the levers of state power (including trumped-up prosecutions and official intimidation) to enrich themselves and crush rivals. Complex financial mechanisms -- often involving major international financial institutions -- are in place to launder vast sums for reinvestment abroad. Western banks seeking to profit and curry favor with Russia's rulers have rushed to underwrite the dubious transactions used to place Russia's natural resources under Kremlin control.
The oligarchy's widespread corruption, disrespect for the rule of law and embrace of globalization make it a perfect target for Western "soft power." Whenever they have jurisdiction to do so -- which should be often -- U.S. and E.U. regulators should examine the business transactions of people close to Putin's regime for money laundering or for securities, tax and other economic irregularities. Asset tracing and long statutes of limitation should enable Western authorities to examine years' worth of business activities. The U.S. Justice Department should aggressively prosecute any instances of Kremlin-connected market manipulation, fraud, tax evasion and money laundering that fall within its reach. Subpoenas, indictments, asset forfeitures, judgments and travel restrictions will hit where even the most callous bullies feel pain: squarely in the wallet. Western governments should also support private investors who try to challenge Kremlin-backed thievery. Moscow's blatant manipulation of oil and gas deliveries, often masquerading as technical problems, should be vigorously contested by Western customers and substantial penalties sought. Russian efforts to purchase additional refineries and pipelines in the West should be challenged on antitrust grounds.
Careful diplomacy could ensure that Europe's energy fears do not lead it to shy away from legal challenges to Putin and his cronies. Crucially, pursuing the oligarchs through the courts would not require the United States or Europe to take a single action "against Russia." U.S. and allied governments could note that these activities are consistent with overarching Western efforts to curb public and private corruption. Meanwhile, publicizing Western investigations into illegal activity by Moscow businessmen and returning the ill-gotten gains to the Russian people should please even the fiercest Russian nationalists.
The question of what connection, if any, exists between the demise of Russia's democracy and Moscow's renewed imperialism has long dominated Western debates. Clearly, something far more dangerous than mere authoritarianism has arisen in Putin's Russia. A peculiar blend of political autocracy and corruption, seamlessly fusing political, economic and military power, threatens world peace. Challenging this state of affairs is a strategic necessity.
#2
Right, but they will throw some dumbass in prison for 5 years for letting people download tracks from Chinese Democracy. It doesn't make much sense, does it? My personal advice is that if you are going to break the law, do it big and get off Scott Free.
#3
Clearly, something far more dangerous than mere authoritarianism has arisen in Putin's Russia. A peculiar blend of political autocracy and corruption, seamlessly fusing political, economic and military power, threatens world peace.
Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin would be quite envious.
#4
Looks like we are about to see a shakedown cruise of western soft power. If that doesn't work, guns and bombs can always solve it the old fashioned way. Demographically, Russia is dying. The outcome is not in doubt, only the pace.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/28/2008 10:11 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Someone has to start pushing buttons. I'd suggest the biggest and hottest button to push would be to eject Russia from the International Olympic Committee and refuse to allow Russia to participate in any future Winter or Summer Olympics. That's a major political showcase for the Russians, and would hurt them badly. Secondly, I'd halt all licencing of all patents to Russian companies, and halt all joint cooperative agreements. That, too, would be a damaging blow. Finally, I'd eject all Russian students from schools anywhere else other than Russia. I would also halt all "exchange" programs, regardless of what they are (cultural, economic, student, military, political, etc.). If the whole world did that, and treated Russia as a pariah nation, they'd soon change their behavior. The ONLY way you're going to change Russia's behavior is to HURT them badly enough they WANT to change. The three things I've mentioned above would go a long way toward inflicting that pain.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/28/2008 14:53 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The biggest button to push would be a variable tariff on imported oil maintaining a floor price of $100 a barrel to increase with inflation. That would significantly spur investment in domestic energy sources.The second would be to open up all offshore areas to domestic drilling and to cut off all highway funds for those states that do not allow drilling.
The final would be to strengthen the dollar.
The sum result would be to crash the price of oil, perhaps at the cost of a deeper recession. Nonetheless, it would be a cheaper way out than gearing up for conflict.
(Alexander Khramchikhin is head of the analytical department at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis in Moscow. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.) Note this paragraph:
A host of factors will determine the future of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Sevastopol and the Crimea. It is unlikely that the Black Sea Fleet will stay in Sevastopol after the lease expires in 2017. Logic suggests that either it will move base to Russia before the final date or the Crimea and Ukraine will see major political changes.
Sounds like a major threat to me!
Head to the article and read the whole thing.
#1
NATO is building some pretty serious heavy metal in the Black Sea, I wouldn't be surprised to see a permanent contingent there. If the russians let on to it at all, they must really be shitting their pants over this.
#4
Russia has gotten the attention of it's neighbors. It will not like many of the responses. Long term, bad move.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/28/2008 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Putin is an advanced black belt in judo. He does international relations like a judeka.
When the West refuses to leave, he will argue we've broken international agreements and will use that as justification to do what he always intended to do, having gotten us to provide the pretext.
Some around the world will buy his interpretation, count on it.
#6
Putin is not so different than Hitler. Hitler killed off "undesirables." dressed them in Polish uniforms, dumped the bodies across the border in Germany, said Poland attacked German forces, and used that as a provocation to declare war on and attack Poland.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 (UPI) -- Its recent invasion of Georgia shows that Russia is actually a "weak" nation not a re-assertive one, said a top U.S. diplomat.
Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, told The Washington Post (NYSE:WPO) in an interview that Moscow risks isolating itself and weakening its place in the world.
"There is a Russia narrative that 'we were weak in the '90s, but now we are back and we are not going to take it anymore.' But being angry and seeking revanchist victory is not the sign of a strong nation. It is the sign of a weak one," he told the Post. "Russia is going to have to come to terms with the reality it can either integrate with the world or it can be a self-isolated bully. But it can't be both."
Fried also offered some conciliation to Russia, agreeing that Georgia's own initial movement of forces into the runaway region of South Ossetia had been a foolish provocation. But he said Russian over-reactions were even worse and the United States was determined to prevent Russia from claiming a new sphere of influence in the Caucasus, the Post said.
#1
"There is a Russia narrative that 'we were weak in the '90s, but now we are back and we are not going to take it anymore.' But being angry and seeking revanchist victory is not the sign of a strong nation. It is the sign of a weak one," he told the Post.
He's right. Germany's invasion of Western Europe was a sign of weakness. As was Genghis Khan's invasion of the territories surrounding Mongolia. These State Department morons are a waste of my taxpayer dollars. I wish we could fire them all and start fresh.
#2
Every ground pounder I've ever known or whose opinion I'v read has had nothing but the highest praise for the A-10. When it comes to being on-time and on-target, there just isn't anything like it.
#3
Like the old "Spad" of Viet Nam...the A4D, Skyraider, the A-10 is the best friend the modern infantry has.
I loved the "Spad", it had a loiter time of about 10 hours and it carried enough crap to make any NVA Regimental commander wet his pants.
I don't understand, why in this day of asymmetrical warfare, counterinsurgency and just flat nutjob crazies, they Military would ever think about deactivating the A-10...I would say they need to unroll the blue prints and make about a zillion more of those pups.
Posted by: James Carville ||
08/28/2008 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Military would ever think about deactivating the A-10"
The zoomies never wanted it to begin with and always try to kill it off. Yet after 30 years, it's still highly useful and still here. May it live another 30 years. For COIN/CAS, it's still the best. Perhaps one day to be superseded by a UAV.
#5
The Air Farce doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic, it isn't stealthy, and it doesn't cost multimillions per copy. The Defense Department should give the A-10s to the Army and Marine Corps.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
08/28/2008 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The Air Farce doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic, it isn't stealthy, and it doesn't cost multimillions per copy. The Defense Department should give the A-10s to the Army and Marine Corps.
Posted by Rambler in California
Better yet, the USAF should be re-integrated into the Army and be done with it.
The Navy and Marines are responsible for their own air support, why should the Army be any different?
And (pardon me but I'm about to offend some USAF vets) why the Hell should my tax dollars go to support the Country Club of the armed forces?
As a footnote, my real views on the Armed Forces are a bit more radical. Read (no, not see the movie, READ) the book Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein for an interesting take on the Armed Forces and gov't in general.
#7
Like the F-16, the A-10 is one hell of a good aircraft, forced on the Pentagon by the Crazy Colonel.
The puzzle palace does NOT like to be forced into doing what they ought to be doing in the first place. It pisses 'em off something terrible.
And yes, the AF brass hated it. The Marines love it, as they did the Colonel. One of the few AF officers in Arlington with a Marine ball-and-bird on his headstone.
I will write what todays article on Al-Qabas to mention that the document uses ambiguous phrases and general terms, which can be interpreted in many ways. There is also no mention of the removal of Iraq from the UNs article seven.
It seems also that there are some kind of differences between the Arabic version and the English version but since we dont have the English version then I cant say about this.
First it starts with Article I which explains the purpose of this document and it given as following:
Reorganize the temporary presence, the activities and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
Article II explains the terms used in this agreement.
The first term is Installations and areas agreed upon [which are in my opinion is not very good explained]
Installations and areas agreed upon are the installations and areas owned by the Iraqi state and used by the American forces.
These Installations and areas will be identified in alist presented by the Americans forces and reviewed by a joint commission.
Note from the Iraqi side:
The Iraqi side asked the American side to attach the list of these installations and areas to the agreement.
Article IIII Tasks
Cooperation to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other outlaw groups. Strange thing about this is that in point I the same previous text repeated adding remnants of the former regime
Point II says something about a joint body called JMOCC to coordinates the military operations
Point V is very short and can interpreted in many ways, it says the following:
There is nothing in the agreement limits the right of the both sides from self-defense.
Very shadowy, since every military operation can be played as self defense.
Article XII is one the article still in dispute between the two sides:
U.S. has the legal authority for military forces and civilian elements inside and outside the installations and areas only [notice the use of only].
Iraqi side noted:
U.S. has the legal authority for military forces and civilian elements inside installations and areas used by these forces and outside while they are in combat operations.
American side noted:
As temporary prosecutions, until the end of the withdrawal and the combat operations.
After that the U.S. becomes the legal authority for military forces and civilian elements inside and outside the installations and areas
There is also point VI in the same article
Members of the [American] forces and civilian elements arrested or detained by the Iraqi authority will be delivered directly to the U.S. authorities.
Iraqi side noted:
Members of the forces and civilian elements arrested or detained by the Iraqi authority will be prepared to be delivered to the U.S. authorities within 24 hours.
[The Iraqi side suggested to treat "foreign" detainees the same as article 22 offered by the U.S. treatment of the Iraqi detainees which is: to be delivered to the Iraqi authorities within 24 hours]
Article XXVI starts with a dispute on the name of this article
Noted by the Iraqi side:
The Iraqi side suggested to title this article: Transition the authority to the Iraqi security and the withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Iraq.
The funny thing is the American side mark.
The American side suggested to name this article: the withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Iraq.
One point is very clear in this article, which is there a timetable for the withdrawal of the American forces from Iraqi cities, villages and streets to their military basses and this is scheduled 30 Aug 2009.
"The Crusader-Zionist campaign has nothing left besides roaming the sea. For more than a year, one after the other, armed battalions off the beaches of Yemen have started to hunt commercial [vessels], tourism [vessels], and oil tankers. In the current phase, it has become a necessity to the mujahideen in conducting a global campaign to restore the Islamic Caliphate and to rule the world through it. The next step is to control the sea and ports, starting with those surrounding the Arabian Peninsula⊠It becomes necessary to develop the battle to include the sea, and as the mujahideen have managed to form martyrs' brigades on the ground, the sea remains the next strategic step toward ruling the world and restoring the Islamic Caliphate. The beaches of Yemen are considered the links between the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The latter overlooks the Strait of Bab al-Mandab in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. This region represents a strategic point to expel the enemy from the most important pillars of its battle. If it is unable to protect itself in this strategic region, then it cannot protect itself on the ground and its naval bases under the blows of the mujahideen"
#2
I'm all for it. They become very easy targets on the open waters. Sitting ducks.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/28/2008 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Piracy has a long and honored history in Islam. Long before "Zionism", probably long before the Crusades. So claiming that the Crusader-Zionists made them do it is BS.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
08/28/2008 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hell just drop thousands of tiny MOABS on them.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 (UPI) -- Its recent invasion of Georgia shows that Russia is actually a "weak" nation not a re-assertive one, said a top U.S. diplomat.
