The Bare Knuckled Pundit

One of the intentions behind Russia’s ongoing revisionist aggression in Georgia was to send a message to its former republics and vassals in what it considers to be its’ historical sphere of influence; particularly those gravitating towards a Western orientation and flirting with NATO. Having sent a message, one might naturally expect it to elicit a response.

While they have succeeded in spades, it is hardly the response Prime Minister Putin and the Kremlin had sought or imagined.

Instead of cowering in fear - with only the sound of chattering teeth to protest as Russian tanks mangled the meager Georgian defenses - those targeted for intimidation have instead stood defiantly against the belligerent Bear. Moreover, not satisfied to settle for mere words to register their defiance, their actions have left no doubt about their resolve and intentions.

Following the announcement on Friday of Poland’s agreement to host 10 American missile interceptors at a base on the Baltic coast, Ukraine offered a series of former Soviet missile early warning radar installations and space control systems for integration into Western missile defenses on Saturday.

Putting aside any possible misinterpretations of the Ukrainian offer, President Victor Yushchenko stated, “Only a collective security system will provide the highest international guarantees... that could prevent any actions like those which occurred in... South Ossetia.”

This followed reports that Kiev last week limited the freedom of movement of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet after ships based at Sevastopol in Ukraine's Crimean peninsula were deployed in conjunction with the Russian overland offensive against Georgia.

While the American-Polish interceptor agreement had been in the works for some time, the timing of the announcement in the midst of the ongoing Georgian crisis would appear to clearly signal on which side of the geopolitical fault line Poland sits.

As part of the agreement, Poland will receive 96 Patriot missiles to augment its air defense needs.

Responding in classic Brezhnev era crypto-Kremlin fashion, Russia's deputy chief of general staff, Gen Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said the US move "cannot go unpunished".

Nogovitsyn then went on to say that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them." “Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," the General concluded.

Moving beyond the West, the response of some of Russia’s former republics and traditional allies is telling. Normally verbose and unflinching in their support of Mother Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan have been uncharacteristically low-key in their response to the crisis in Georgia.

Supporting international calls for a cease-fire, the two former Russian republics have been careful not to offend the Bear lest they incur its wraith. At the same time, they and other former republics fear Russia will use the rationale of defending ethnic Russians within their borders as a pretext for action similar to its ongoing occupation and infrastructure-dismantling operations in Georgia.

In addition to openly questioning whether it should respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity along with ominous statements calling for the return of the Crimea back under Russian control, the Kremlin has been issuing passports to ethnic Russians in many of its former republics in the near abroad; thereby granting them citizenship. With growing numbers of its “citizens” living in its diminutive neighbors, Russia then declares it has a moral responsibility to oversee their interests and insure their protection; much the same rationale Nazi Germany used as the basis for its expansion into Czechoslovakia as well as its annexation of Austria.

This seeding-of-sovereignty-via-passport is similar to action taken in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia that exacerbated rising tensions prior to the current Georgian crisis earlier in the year.

Taken in conjunction with the cancelation of Russian Foreign Minister Segey Lavrov’s previously scheduled trip to Poland in response to the American-Polish missile interceptor agreement, it appears as if the Kremlin has waxed nostalgic for the bygone days of heavy-handed, reactionary Cold War diplomacy.

A cold front has roared out of the Russian heartland into Georgia and threatens to seize its neighbors in its’ icy grip. As the resulting unforeseen and ominous August chill descends on the international tableau, one wonders if this is merely a freak cold snap or the first signs of a long cold winter to come.

Bundle up, faithful readers; lest you fall frostbit in the midst of summer’s glory. Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and temperatures drop precipitously.

__________________
http://bareknuckledpundit.blogspot.com/

Some things are just too important to be taken so damned seriously.

justone

How in the world did it limit? It just made Russians laugh like you made me laugh. (And how many Ukranians will/would reelect their President?)

One has to be totally disconnected with reality in order to take it as an indication that the 2 are sitting with the West.


I like these international calls for a cease-fire… after the seize fire announcement by Russia. It is like “”Sarkosy negotiated seize fire agreement’’ … well… hours after Russia announced seize fire… by signing the page Russia prepared for him before his arrival… Though I must admit – it was the only rational step taken by the West – to send Sarkosy to ‘’negotiate,’’ it seems he is the only who knows how to talk to Russians.


Russia is not any different from many countries having the same laws for citizenship. As the matter of fact too many people who found itself in Ukraine after ‘’separation ‘’ of Ukraine from Russia may have fallen under the laws and on top of that they do not like the separation, because it has occurred in a very unnatural, Stalinist style, not taking in the consideration any national, ethnical and historical realities. Russia is employing such realities and acts along the “’natural stream.’’ What some perceive as an icy grip of the wild bear is a very warm friendly hug for too many inhabitants of Ukraine.

On other hand the US support of the unnatural separation with the only one goal of confrontation with Russia has proven for too many Ukrainians that they have received no advantages or gains in the claws of the American eagle. The eagle is trying to fly against the wind of historical, ethnical, national, economical realities. In all of all they come to understanding that their interests as people are no more than a pocket change in the game of American interests.

Many Western Ukrainians historically just hate Russians, as well, according to my knowledge and Tashah’s personal report, they hate Jews. They are naturally an American part of Ukraine, in the same way as they used to be a natural part of Nazi Germany collaborating with Nazis. They are the friends we are getting.

On other hand many eastern Ukrainians have no antagonism against Russians, but rather very strong family ties.

Unfortunately hatred of the Westerns employed by the West is not a reliable and rational employee. As the employee moves to the cold war style confrontation and revenge, he may count on the ‘’disproportionate’’ response…

The idea of a good world is the world where the borders are getting to be washed away, like in EU if to compare to the situation 50-80 years ago. The tendency of the neo Nazi movement supported by the US is directed in the opposite direction, towards the past.

I am not quite getting the idea. Why the Russian federation which includes tens of ethnicities and nationalities with borders washed away and Putin holding Russian neo-nationalistic tendencies at bay has to be opposed, confronted or integrated into the Western democracy? Russians tried the Western democracy and didn’t like it. As an American of Russian original I do not see ideas of democrats and democracy ever attractive. I don’t like democracy. A half of this country do not support democrats, but yet it does not cause any kind of sensible confrontation in the US; it is not like I don’t have good friends democrats.

This attempt to establish Western democracy in Russia and integrate it with means of the Cold war, of employment of missile systems, of expansion of the military block and generally with militarization/weapons looks to me not to be not only dangerous for the both sides, but what is more important to be acting in the direction opposite from the goal announced by the West. It is like when a child doesn’t want to eat broccolis you think that the only one way to make him is to hit him in the head and keep on hitting him. He is allergic to broccolis.

Let’s say Saddam was a thug, he actively supported terrorist organizations and suicide bombing, occupied neighbors, etc… - I fully understand and support military confrontation with him (even if I don’t like ‘’bringing democracy”’). On other hand Russia has given away tens of it historical and legal territories, has helped actively after 9/11, has been actively conducting war against Islamofashists, has supplied bases for actions in Afganistan…, but it seems we are treating Putin as another Saddam today,… - because?

I may guess that the main problem of the west with Russia is that Russia represents a real danger for liberals of the West; because it seems to me it is the main value of the West Russia does not want to accept. It opposes it quite peacefully, but the danger is that if Russia prospers such prosperity may undermine liberalism.

The main featur of all analyses here, I mean thoughtful analyses, that they are produced by liberals. The main featur of liberal thinking is that liberals do not see forest behind the trees. Living life as an American, I was not following events in Russia for years… I have personal accounts and bitterness towards the Soviet regime, KGB, blind nationalism and many other things of my previous life. I didn’t believe I could see any possible positive changes in Russia in my lifetime. I was brushing away everything and called I it the USSR…. I didn’t want to know anything about it…

The thing nobody understands is that Russia totally shocked me a month or 2 before events in Georgia and I started paying some attention… Now I see that Russia all over suddenly has turned around, resurrected itself from ashes and Soviet crap, and has put its feet on the ground. It is very weak, it is very shaky, it is covered in mud and blood but it is alive and it is breathing. One should start from this point. If she has been able to resurrect itself from clinical death, then it is too late to confront her, you cannot kill her, she was dead once (and more than once). I have to throw my lifetime beliefs into garbage – I see positive changes, I see Russia moving, and I see it moving in the positive direction. I am not a liberal, and I have no clue, nor I would guess or predict where it is going, what would be the political and social configuration – it may be unknown to the world experience yet, but as long as it is not Soviet, KGB, socialistic, nationalsocialistic or a banana republic, I am very, very interested to see the development; so far it looks it makes first steps in a very American (less liberalism) style, like the US in its beginning (not coping in anyway).

I would give the world 2 advices.1. Don’t mess with the US. 2. Don’t mess with mother Russia. You cannot kill US.

donsutherland1

BKP,

It does seem that even as NATO and Russia have been sharpening their rhetoric, occasionally accompanied by concrete steps, both NATO member states and Russia appear to be leaving the proverbial door open to possible compromise once passions cool.

On Russia's part, Russia proceeded to launch a British satellite on August 18. Russia's ambassador to NATO Dmitriy Rogozin described Russia's freezing military cooperation with NATO as a decision "of temporary character, of regional character, not global character." Russia's RIA Novosti news agency also noted that Amb. Rogozin added, "The sides (Russia and NATO) acted pragmatically. There are no concrete targets to be hit in our cooperation." In his opinion piece published in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov wrote, "Russia is committed to the ongoing positive development of relations with the U.S. That kind of agenda is set forth in the Foreign Policy Concept—the framework document that sets out the basic directions of Russia's foreign policy—recently approved by President Dmitry Medvedev."

For its part, NATO refrained from adopting tough punitive measures. Rhetoric not a dramatic scaling back of relations with Russia carried the day during Tuesday's discussions. The New York Times reported, "...the NATO ministers, at a rare emergency meeting, failed to agree on any specific punitive measures, despite pressure from the United States that NATO at least threaten Russia with unspecified 'consequences,' and pleas from the Czech Republic, Poland and NATO’s Baltic members that it take a tough stand." Prior to the special meeting, the French, German, and British Foreign Ministers explained that they were not seeking to isolate Russia.

My guess is that so long as pragmatism ultimately prevails, the risks involved in the current situation will recede and there will be renewed opportunities to begin forging a more constructive long-term relationship between Russia and the West. In the days ahead, the most important task facing policy makers in NATO member states and in Russia will concern the ability to minimize highly-charged commentary that reduces options for flexibility on the other side. Instead, they will need to pursue a rational and pragmatic approach that solidifies the existing ceasefire and then lays the foundation for devising an agreed negotiating process aimed at resolving the political issues behind the Georgia-Abkhazia-South Ossetia-Russia dispute.

Having said this, there remains a genuine risk that harsh back-and-forth commentary and measures/countermeasures could take on a life of their own, which would limit both sides' room for maneuver. For now, I find the quiet indications of flexibility at least somewhat encouraging. Those indications suggest that there is still ample opportunity for the parties to avoid a course that can only lead to increased confrontation. Needless to say, much diplomatic work remains to be done.

The Bare Knuckled Pundit

Mr. Sutherland,

I sincerely hope your analysis comes to fruition. However, I would highlight what I believe to be the other side of the proverbial coin catching the August sun as it spins through the air.

In light of the West's response to Russia's invasion; ongoing destruction of Georgian infrastructure; repeated obfuscation and provocative rhetoric, I would suggest Mr. Putin and the Generals in the Kremlin are taking a very serious look at Ukraine.

With Ukrainian President Yushchenko offering the West a series of former Soviet missile early warning radar installations and space control systems for integration into Western missile defenses; attempting to impose previously agreed to revisions on the agreement governing the Russian Black Sea Fleet based at Sevastopol in Ukraine's Crimean peninsula and rising tension with the pro-Russian Prime Minister there are a number of possible pretexts for Russian intervention (a euphemistic term for invasion).

The timing is also serendipitous, I would suggest.

-The US will be preoccupied with the Party conventions for the next two weeks; followed by Labor Day weekend.

-Fall is quickly approaching with winter on its' heels; Europe will need Russian natural gas to fight off the chill, as you are well aware.

-America and NATO have their best troops engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan; thus precluding deployment of significant conventional forces.

-Turkey recently signaled its displeasure with the US by refusing permission for the USN Mercy to pass through the Bosporus enroute to provide humanitarian assistance to the Georgians.

-Russian nationalism is soaring having exorcised the ghosts of Afghanistan and Chechnya at the expense of the Georgian military.

-There is a clear and exploitable divide between the "Old" and "New" camps in NATO; with Germany and France leading the more cautious, Russo-accommodating "Old" camp and America being supported by the former Soviet satellites in the "New" camp.

All of this provides extremely tempting geopolitical conditions for further Russian adventurism in what it considers its rightful and historic sphere of influence.

Nonetheless, the coin has yet to land one way or the other.

donsutherland1

BKP,

Although I suggested that there is an opportunity for a better outcome, I am not sure how things will ultimately evolve. On one hand, shared interests and some common geopolitical challenges would tend to push the parties together and create a chance of improved strategic cooperation. Realizing such an opportunity will require a great deal of diplomatic skill, pragmatism, flexibility, and patience with appropriate considerations given to the core needs of all the parties, the balance of power, etc. On the other, a combination of ambition, desire to inflict punishment, steps already undertaken, nationalist sentiments, and the dynamics associated with Campaign 2008 could push them farther apart. How each party responds in coming days and weeks--Russia with its performance concerning the ceasefire agreement and the West's position concerning Russia's performance (or lack thereof)/ideas for bringing about a political solution--will create momentum either toward increased conciliation or increased confrontation.

As the U.S. is in the midst of a situation in which its leverage is arguably reduced from even a decade ago on account of such factors as troop commitments in Iraq/Afghanistan, fiscal and economic challenges, the EU's need for Russian energy supplies, etc., at least some of the incentives for restraint on the part of the Russian government have likely eroded. Nonetheless, Russia has desires, too. For example, it still wants to join the World Trade Organization (something Georgian President Saakashvili previously blocked a few months ago).

Perhaps in a demonstration that they are looking to minimize the extent to which West-Russia relations can deteriorate, both British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that the European Union will continue to support Russia's joining the WTO. The British Foreign Secretary also said that Britain opposed Russia's being expelled from the G-8. Whether or not one will witness the kind of schism that opened up between the U.S. (with its tougher posture concerning Russia) and some of Europe's states as happened in the run-up to the Iraq war remains to be seen. Certainly, such a development could embolden the Kremlin. A common position would be optimal.

Russia's emerging actions in response to the Polish-U.S. missile defense agreement have so far proved less robust than Russia's initial rhetoric. Russia has not taken up a Syrian offer to host Russian Iskander missiles, but merely left the option open. Instead, it announced yesterday that it reached an agreement with Belarus to establish a "joint air defense system" as a reply to what Ivan Makushok, a spokesman for the state secretary of the Belarus-Russia Union, termed "a logical response to the hasty decision to deploy missile defence elements in Poland, which is viewed as a threat to Belarus, Russia, and the whole of Europe." That decision would have a lesser impact than an agreement to deploy Iskander missiles in Syria, which could have balance of power implications for the Mideast.

Finally, I agree with you that the Kremlin's planners are almost certainly looking at Ukraine and probably assessing the situation all along Russia's periphery. Ukraine is quite worrisome for the reasons you cited. Adding to those risks are the secessionist threats recently advanced by pro-Russia elements in the Crimea.

justone

The only thing I can object is that again you slightly twist and you think you twist just slightly.

See the huge difference:

1. but merely left the option open.
2. but left the option open.

Understand?

donsutherland1

According to news reports published today, there are fresh indications that the parties may slowly be easing back from confrontation. For the first time, a senior U.S. diplomat termed Russia's military operation in South Ossetia (but not Georgia) as "legitimate." At the same time, a Russian diplomat ruled out Russia's placing Iskander missiles in Syria stating that Russia had no intention of altering the Middle East's strategic balance of power. Previously, Russia had left the option on the table.

The Globe and Mail reported:

The U.S. ambassador to Moscow, in a rare U.S. comment endorsing Russia's initial moves in Georgia, described the Kremlin's first military response as legitimate after Russian troops came under attack...

“Now we see Russian forces, which responded to attacks on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, legitimately, we see those forces now having advanced on to the soil of Georgia; Georgian territorial integrity is in question here,” Mr. Beyrle [Amb. John Beyrle] told the newspaper.

Whether or not the U.S. State Department or White House knock down Amb. Beyrle's comments in coming days will be important. If not, then the Ambassador's remarks could indicate a gradually evolving U.S. position in which "Georgian territorial integrity" is defined more flexibily. If so, a framework that could lead to the possible separation of Abkhazia or South Ossetia or both could become a feasible element of a political process aimed at resolving the situation concerning Georgia, Georgia's breakaway provinces, and Russia.

Meanwhile, The Jerusalem Post reported:

Russia has no intention of placing the advanced Iskander missile system in Syria, acting Ambassador Anatoly Yurkov told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday...

"Why would we do that?" Yurkov asked of such a deployment, adding that Russia had no interest in upsetting the strategic balance in the region.

In sum, while the rhetoric from both sides still remains fairly sharp, there appears to be at least some movement in which the parties are feeling out one another for opportunities for conciliation.