WAR Russia Is Back on the Warpath

Russia Is Back on the Warpath

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649267530483121.html

The West must reaffirm its support for Georgia.

By CATHY YOUNG

With President Barack Obama's trip to Moscow on Monday, you might expect Russia to avoid stirring up any trouble. Yet the Russian media are now abuzz with speculation about a new war in Georgia, and some Western analysts are voicing similar concerns. The idea seems insane. Nonetheless, the risk is real.

One danger sign is persistent talk of so-called Georgian aggression against the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which Russia recognized as independent states after the war last August. "Georgia is rattling its weapons . . . and has not given up on attempts to solve its territorial problems by any means," Gen. Nikolai Makarov, who commanded Russian troops in Georgia in 2008, told the Novosti news agency on June 17. Similar warnings have been aired repeatedly by the state-controlled media.

Independent Russian commentators, such as columnist Andrei Piontkovsky, note that this has the feel of a propaganda campaign to prepare the public for a second war. Most recently, Moscow has trotted out a Georgian defector, Lt. Alik D. Bzhania, who claims that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili "intends to restart the war."

Yet Russia is the one currently engaged in large-scale military exercises in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and adjacent regions. Russia has also kicked out international observers from the area. On June 15, Moscow vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution renewing the mandate of U.N. monitors in Abkhazia because it mentioned an earlier resolution affirming Georgia's territorial integrity. Negotiations to extend the mission of monitors for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have broken down thanks to Russian obstruction. Now, 225 European Union monitors are the only international presence on the disputed borders.

The expulsion of neutral observers seems odd if Russia is worried about Georgian aggression. But it makes sense if Russia is planning an attack.

What would the Kremlin gain? A crushing victory in Georgia would depose the hated Mr. Saakashvili, give Russia control of vital transit routes for additional energy resources that could weaken its hold on the European oil and gas markets, humiliate the U.S., and distract Russians from their economic woes. Mr. Piontkovsky also believes the war drive comes from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is anxious to reassert himself as supreme leader.

Still, the costs would be tremendous. Last year the Kremlin repaired some of the damage to its relations with Europe and the U.S. by portraying the invasion of Georgia as a response to a unique crisis, not part of an imperial strategy. Another war would cripple Russia's quest for respectability in the civilized world, including its vanity project of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.

And after the patriotic fervor wears off, domestic discontent would likely follow. Moreover, Russia would almost certainly find itself mired in a long guerilla war. This would further destabilize a region where Russia's own provinces, Ingushetia and Dagestan, are plagued by violent turmoil.

Given all this, a war seems unlikely. What's more probable is that Russia will seek to destabilize Georgia without military action. This saber-rattling may be meant to boost Georgian opposition to Mr. Saakashvili.

Still, Moscow's actions are not always rational. If the pro-war faction believes that the Western response to an assault on Georgia would be weak and half-hearted, it could be emboldened. In a June 25 column on the EJ.ru Web site, Russian journalist Yulia Latynina writes that the probability of the war "depends solely on the Kremlin's capacity to convince itself that it can convince the world that the war is its enemies' fault."

That is why it's essential for the United States and the EU to respond now -- by increasing their non-military presence in Georgia, expressing a strong commitment to Georgian sovereignty, and reminding Russia of the consequences of aggression. Such a statement from President Obama in Moscow would go a long way toward preventing the possibility of another tragedy.

Ms. Young is a columnist for RealClearPolitics.com and the author of "Growing Up in Moscow" (Ticknor & Fields, 1989).

----------

Lunar eclipse July 7th:

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/OH/OH2009.html

http://www.spiritoftruth.org/astrology.htm

We're in a Puetz eclipse crash window:

http://www.spiritoftruth.org/stockmarketcrash.htm
 

Brutus

Membership Revoked
from the article said:
In a June 25 column on the EJ.ru Web site, Russian journalist Yulia Latynina writes that the probability of the war "depends solely on the Kremlin's capacity to convince itself that it can convince the world that the war is its enemies' fault."
I'd keep an eye on the domestic news out of Russia for the next several weeks. Ms. Latynina will likely be the next Russian journalist who just turns up dead all of a sudden.

:rolleyes:
 

knepper

Veteran Member
I don't know. Last time, they didn't have any trouble convincing the US state-controlled media that it was all Georgia's fault. Many here could not see past the obvious propaganda coming out of Russian state-controlled media.
 

Foothiller

Veteran Member
This is interesting in view of the above.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0xBv8YQwWSZqAQgjd42RCvU1uEAD99745A00
Russia to allow US arms shipments to Afghanistan

By NATALIYA VASILYEVA – 45 minutes ago

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia said Friday it will allow the United States to ship weapons across its territory to Afghanistan, a long-sought move that bolsters U.S. military operations but potentially gives the Kremlin leverage over critical American supplies.

The announcement by a top Kremlin aide came ahead of President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow next week, when the deal is expected to be signed during a summit aimed at improving the nations' strained relations.

Russia's concession on arms shipments also came as the Obama administration is shifting the U.S. military's focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, where a massive American offensive is currently under way in Taliban-controlled areas of Helmand province.

Russia has been allowing the United States to ship non-lethal supplies across its territory for operations in Afghanistan, and Kremlin officials had suggested further cooperation was likely.

Kremlin foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko told reporters Friday that the expected deal would enable the U.S. to ship lethal cargo and would include shipments by air and land.

He said it was unclear if U.S. soldiers or other personnel would be permitted to travel through Russian territory or airspace.

"They haven't asked us for it," he said.

The normal supply route to landlocked Afghanistan via Pakistan has come under repeated Taliban attack, and the U.S. and NATO have been eager to have an alternate overland supply route through Russia and the Central Asian countries.

Confirmation of such a deal appeared aimed at setting a constructive tone for the meetings between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday and Tuesday. After years of increasing strain, both governments have expressed hope the summit will put ties between the former Cold War rivals back on track.

Military analyst Alexander Golts, however, said the U.S. should be under no illusion about Russia's intentions. Although Medvedev has set a warmer tone in relations with the West, his predecessor, Vladimir Putin, retains considerable power as prime minister.

"The least impression you should get from this is that Putin's foreign policy style foresees gestures of goodwill," Golts said.

The Russian leadership still has the mindset of "19th-century Realpolitik" and seeks the ability to hold its partners "by the throat," he said.

"If something goes wrong in Russian-U.S. relations, this transit will cease as quickly and suddenly as it started," Golts said.

While Russia has stressed a willingness to work with the West to bring stability to Afghanistan, it has shown that it can use its clout in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia to hobble U.S. efforts.

Russia was seen as the instigator of Kyrgyzstan's decision earlier this year to evict the United States from an air base used to ship military hardware and troops to Afghanistan. The decision was reversed only after the U.S. agreed to pay three times the price.

No comment was immediately available from the Pentagon on Friday, a federal holiday.

The expected deal would be the first time Russia has allowed U.S. military shipments through its territory during the Afghan campaign, said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs magazine. "This may actually be the first time they will do this since World War II," he said.

Serious rifts remain over other defense issues. The U.S. and Russia want to forge a nuclear arms reduction agreement to replace the 1991 START treaty, which expires in December.

But talks on a new treaty are complicated by Russia's push for the U.S. to scrap the previous administration's plans for missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe.

The U.S. says missile interceptors based in Poland and a related radar in the Czech Republic — if built — would be aimed to counter a potential Iranian threat and would not threaten Russia. Russia rejects those arguments and says the facilities would be aimed to weaken Russia's nuclear deterrent.

Prikhodko said Medvedev and Obama are expected to sign a declaration of understanding that would set out guidelines for a new arms reduction treaty and would likely include specific target numbers.

He insisted that plans for further nuclear arms cuts and a possible U.S. missile shield in Europe are inextricably linked and that Russia wants the Obama administration to acknowledge that. U.S. officials have rejected Russia's argument that cuts in offensive weapons must be linked with U.S. plans for missile defense.

"We would like the interconnection between START and missile defense to be described" in the declaration signed at the summit," he said.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's spokesman also said that the two issues are interconnected and indicated Russia's leaders would repeat their arguments in meetings with Obama, who is to hold talks with Putin as well as Medvedev.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
I don't know. Last time, they didn't have any trouble convincing the US state-controlled media that it was all Georgia's fault. Many here could not see past the obvious propaganda coming out of Russian state-controlled media.

It is true that Saakashvili ordered a brazen, brutal assault on S. Ossetia to provoke the Russian attack last time around. Of course, it's also true Saakashvili is a Kremlin stooge placed in power by Moscow for the purpose of strategic deception and manipulation of the West:

http://www.spiritoftruth.org/astrology.htm

Given this, it won't be a problem for a new war scenario to be created if this is Moscow's intent.
 
Top