TW: Much going on with the move by Obama to shift the focus of our regional BMD from Eastern Europe to other venues (sea-based and perhaps nations closer to Iran).
1) It is an explicit change from Bush policy which is relatively rare and naturally gets the usual suspects up in arms but one must keep in mind the Polish/Czech BMD deployment's purpose was always meant in substance to create a shield against limited missile launches by a regional power such as Iran. It was not meant to provide cover against a major power such as Russia. If we had started encircling Russia with BMD then the Russians would have rightly regarded that as a massive escalation and unfriendly move on our part. Those shrieking about "caving" to the Russians are wrong.
2) This does not mean there will not be a quid pro quo from Russia which many expect will be greatly enhanced cooperation in addressing the Iranian nuke program.
3) As far as supporting the Poles (and to lesser extent the Czechs), public support in those countries for the BMD deployment was marginal. There are many things we can do besides BMD deployment against in Iran in Poland to express our support for strong Eastern European allies.
4) If one hears military folks lament the change in approach then I would be more concerned but I suspect any such concerns will not be forthcoming as militarily the new BMD approach makes sense.
4) There is much chatter in the blogosphere about signs pointing to significant stars aligning for some sort of inflection point relative to the Iran nukes program. The likely outcome being aggressive sanctions soon with Russian and some Chinese cooperation. We shall see.
From Information Dissemenation (no national defense shrinking violet):
"The reaction in Poland and the Czech Republic clearly illustrates that the purpose of the ballistic missiles in those countries was to influence Russia, yet the Bush administration always sold the concept domestically from the political position that the shield protects the US from Iranian ballistic missiles, an obvious disingenuous position. To me, that indicated Bush was sending a signal to Russia that the ballistic missile shield was on the negotiating table for the subject of Iran.
I look at the decision today and see a smart move by Gates, for reasons previously discussed, but believe the politics of this has everything to do with the Obama administration successfully trading the ballistic missile shield deployment to eastern Europe for something in regards to Iran.
France is now 'sure' Iran is working on nukes. Israel is sending every signal it can that it is poised to attack. The IAEA now says Iran has sufficient information to build a bomb. Israel is calling for tough sanctions, and suggests they will attack if tough sanctions aren't applied.
Then there is the immediate effect the timing the Eastern European decision has on Israel. All that equipment heading to Israel for the Juniper Cobra exercise in mid-October is supposedly going to stay put now. That will be useful.We seem to be heading towards one of two conclusions. Either big time sanctions are applied on Iran, or Israel attacks Iran by the end of the year. Today's actions suggest Russia will support the sanctions, but I guess we will have to wait and see."
Showing posts with label russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label russia. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
What Is With the Russians?
TW: I have never been to Russia and unfortunately unlike many other nationalities have never even met one. But from afar they appear to have a really bad chip on their shoulder. To me they should be embracing the West and making sure their eastern and southern borders are not compromised. Instead they repress and try to poke us in the eye whenever possible. I understand the "they are a proud people" thing but still.
And the way they treat journalists is just abominable. If a society cannot brook dissent, then it is weak, the lower the tolerance for dissent, the weaker it is. And to be clear we have our own issues on this front but we are light years ahead of most.
From Mike Shearer at Time:
"A week after visiting Russia, I am still haunted by the sort of subdermal creepiness of the place. I'm not sure what it was exactly--the Russian security man who rode in our press van to spy on our conversations, the total disinterest people on the street showed for the [Obama] Presidential motorcade...the abundant signs of the seediness of power (prostitutes in the hotel bar, the extravagant wealth, the averted gazes).
Then there was also the central lie of the state--the mob-like corruption that is never dealt with, the spoon-fed national press, and the (mostly) unstated threats to journalists or activists who demand a different fidelity to the truth. (It was a great disappointment to U.S. officials that the major Russian television networks declined to broadcast Barack Obama's speech last week.) And then there were Russia's American public relations flaks, who hovered around the traveling press like some sort of Orwellian brainwash guard, bright, smiling and familiar, arguing that the election of Dmitry Medvedev was free and fair, or delivering lines like "It's a great day for Russia" with earnest affection.
...I open the newspaper to...the abduction and murder of Natalya Estemirova, who worked in Chechnya exposing the kidnappings and abuses of the government of Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin's puppet president and a documented thug, who has a reputation that rivals the worst comic book bad guys.
As the New York Times reported earlier this year, Kadyrov's former bodyguard, Umar S. Israilov, accused the Chechen president of personally engaging in the torture of the state's victims. Kadyrov, said the bodyguard, amused himself by personally giving prisoners electric shocks or firing pistols at their feet, among other offenses...Shortly after the Kremlin was notified that Israilov had talked to the Times, he was gunned down by at least two men on the street in Vienna..."
And the way they treat journalists is just abominable. If a society cannot brook dissent, then it is weak, the lower the tolerance for dissent, the weaker it is. And to be clear we have our own issues on this front but we are light years ahead of most.
From Mike Shearer at Time:
"A week after visiting Russia, I am still haunted by the sort of subdermal creepiness of the place. I'm not sure what it was exactly--the Russian security man who rode in our press van to spy on our conversations, the total disinterest people on the street showed for the [Obama] Presidential motorcade...the abundant signs of the seediness of power (prostitutes in the hotel bar, the extravagant wealth, the averted gazes).
Then there was also the central lie of the state--the mob-like corruption that is never dealt with, the spoon-fed national press, and the (mostly) unstated threats to journalists or activists who demand a different fidelity to the truth. (It was a great disappointment to U.S. officials that the major Russian television networks declined to broadcast Barack Obama's speech last week.) And then there were Russia's American public relations flaks, who hovered around the traveling press like some sort of Orwellian brainwash guard, bright, smiling and familiar, arguing that the election of Dmitry Medvedev was free and fair, or delivering lines like "It's a great day for Russia" with earnest affection.
...I open the newspaper to...the abduction and murder of Natalya Estemirova, who worked in Chechnya exposing the kidnappings and abuses of the government of Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin's puppet president and a documented thug, who has a reputation that rivals the worst comic book bad guys.
As the New York Times reported earlier this year, Kadyrov's former bodyguard, Umar S. Israilov, accused the Chechen president of personally engaging in the torture of the state's victims. Kadyrov, said the bodyguard, amused himself by personally giving prisoners electric shocks or firing pistols at their feet, among other offenses...Shortly after the Kremlin was notified that Israilov had talked to the Times, he was gunned down by at least two men on the street in Vienna..."
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Why the Russians Are Stuck In the Past: Ahmadinejad and Putin
TW: Putin plays a bad hand of cards very well (as opposed to W. Bush who played a good hand like crap) in terms of geo-political power. But he pursues power regardless of any principles such as liberty, democracy etc. There is a difference between effective and right. Hanging out with the Ahmadinejad's of the world should shame his fellow Russians.Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Russian Demographic Implosion
TW: Russia has always lived with a level of upheaval unbeknown st to most in the West. Between their revolution, the Stalinist purges and WWII not to mention longer past events, Russia has seen its power and population wax and frequently wane. The current demographics in Russia are unique not only in their relatively weak birth rate but stunningly high death rate. Chronic alcoholism, shaky health care, disproportionately high death rates from various forms of violence etc. are combining to erode Russia's population by roughly 2,000 people per day.
Putin/Medvedev et al. are striving to restore Russia to superpower status. When you are losing 2K folks per day almost a million annually such ambitions are paradoxical. Sustained above average economic growth regardless of one's natural resources becomes highly unlikely. Funding and sustaining world power level armed forces equally challenging. Some fear the reemergence of a powerful Russia akin to the old USSR days. I do not think so. And rather than poking the West in the eye whenever an opportunity arises Russia needs to focus on restoring its demographic balance lest their borders implode inward. After all they face rapidly growing China in their east, restive Islamic states to their south and skeptical potential to their west. They should be seeking to be our best friends not an annoying foil.
From World Affairs:
"...Since 1992, Russia’s human numbers have been progressively dwindling. This slow motion process now taking place in the country carries with it grim and potentially disastrous implications that threaten to recast the contours of life and society in Russia, to diminish the prospects for Russian economic development, and to affect Russia’s potential influence on the world stage in the years ahead.
...Between 1976 and 1991, the last sixteen years of Soviet power, the country recorded 36 million births. In the sixteen post-Communist years of 1992–2007, there were just 22.3 million, a drop in childbearing of nearly 40 percent from one era to the next. On the other side of the life cycle, a total of 24.6 million deaths were recorded between 1976 and 1991, while in the first sixteen years of the post-Communist period the Russian Federation tallied 34.7 million deaths, a rise of just over 40 percent. The symmetry is striking: in the last sixteen years of the Communist era, births exceeded deaths in Russia by 11.4 million; in the first sixteen years of the post-Soviet era, deaths exceeded births by 12.4 million.
...As of mid-year 2005, Russia’s estimated population was around 143 million...The Census Bureau’s projections for the Russian Federation’s population in 2025 and 2030 are 128 million and 124 million, respectively.
...Strikingly, and perhaps paradoxically, Moscow’s leadership is advancing into this uncertain terrain not only with insouciance but with highly ambitious goals. In late 2007, for example, the Kremlin outlined the objective of achieving and maintaining an average annual pace of economic growth in the decades ahead on the order of nearly 7 percent a year: on this path, according to Russian officials, GDP will quadruple in the next two decades, and the Russian Federation will emerge as the world’s fifth largest economy by 2020. But history offers no examples of a society that has demonstrated sustained material advance in the face of long-term population decline.
...Like the urbanized and literate societies in Western Europe, North America, and elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of deaths in Russia today accrue from chronic rather than infectious diseases: heart disease, cancers, strokes, and the like. But in the rest of the developed world, death rates from these chronic diseases are low, relatively stable, and declining regularly over time. In the Russian Federation, by contrast, overall mortality levels are high, manifestly unstable, and rising."
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Spring/full-Eberstadt.html
Putin/Medvedev et al. are striving to restore Russia to superpower status. When you are losing 2K folks per day almost a million annually such ambitions are paradoxical. Sustained above average economic growth regardless of one's natural resources becomes highly unlikely. Funding and sustaining world power level armed forces equally challenging. Some fear the reemergence of a powerful Russia akin to the old USSR days. I do not think so. And rather than poking the West in the eye whenever an opportunity arises Russia needs to focus on restoring its demographic balance lest their borders implode inward. After all they face rapidly growing China in their east, restive Islamic states to their south and skeptical potential to their west. They should be seeking to be our best friends not an annoying foil.
From World Affairs:
"...Since 1992, Russia’s human numbers have been progressively dwindling. This slow motion process now taking place in the country carries with it grim and potentially disastrous implications that threaten to recast the contours of life and society in Russia, to diminish the prospects for Russian economic development, and to affect Russia’s potential influence on the world stage in the years ahead.
...Between 1976 and 1991, the last sixteen years of Soviet power, the country recorded 36 million births. In the sixteen post-Communist years of 1992–2007, there were just 22.3 million, a drop in childbearing of nearly 40 percent from one era to the next. On the other side of the life cycle, a total of 24.6 million deaths were recorded between 1976 and 1991, while in the first sixteen years of the post-Communist period the Russian Federation tallied 34.7 million deaths, a rise of just over 40 percent. The symmetry is striking: in the last sixteen years of the Communist era, births exceeded deaths in Russia by 11.4 million; in the first sixteen years of the post-Soviet era, deaths exceeded births by 12.4 million.
...As of mid-year 2005, Russia’s estimated population was around 143 million...The Census Bureau’s projections for the Russian Federation’s population in 2025 and 2030 are 128 million and 124 million, respectively.
...Strikingly, and perhaps paradoxically, Moscow’s leadership is advancing into this uncertain terrain not only with insouciance but with highly ambitious goals. In late 2007, for example, the Kremlin outlined the objective of achieving and maintaining an average annual pace of economic growth in the decades ahead on the order of nearly 7 percent a year: on this path, according to Russian officials, GDP will quadruple in the next two decades, and the Russian Federation will emerge as the world’s fifth largest economy by 2020. But history offers no examples of a society that has demonstrated sustained material advance in the face of long-term population decline.
...Like the urbanized and literate societies in Western Europe, North America, and elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of deaths in Russia today accrue from chronic rather than infectious diseases: heart disease, cancers, strokes, and the like. But in the rest of the developed world, death rates from these chronic diseases are low, relatively stable, and declining regularly over time. In the Russian Federation, by contrast, overall mortality levels are high, manifestly unstable, and rising."
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Spring/full-Eberstadt.html
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Russia: Grizzly or Cubby Bear?
TW: I vote for Cubby. The neo-cons vote for Grizzly. Do the Russians have a chip on their shoulder? yes; nukes? yes; a strong conventional military? absolutely not; a strong economy?absolutely not; strong moral authority associated with a western liberal democracy? absolutely not; are they surrounded by hostile or dysfunctional states on nearly every border? YES.
Yet the neo-cons want to fret and create another frictional relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Respect the Russians and politely tell them to pound sand whilst their economy implodes. It will be much less risky and costly than the neo-con confrontational, answer a chip on the other's shoulder with a bigger chip approach.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"[Neo-cons are promoting that] Barack Obama is getting played by the Russians. This is a theme that goes back to John McCain's overreaction to the skirmish in Georgia last summer--and further, to Robert Kagan's theory that the Russkies are roaring again. Which goes back to the neoconservative tic of searching for--at times, creating--enemies rather than opportunities.
In other words, this is cold war nonsense. The Russians were behind Kyrghizstan's "decision" to close down the American base there, an important Afghan supply link. (The "decision" is more like the opening round in a negotiation, which will probably wind up with the U.S. shelling out more for the rights to use the base.) The Russians want to have a choke-hold on U.S. Afghan supply routes. The Russians want to build a naval base in Abkhazia--nominally part of Georgia, but not really--on the Black Sea. The Russians want to gobble up Georgia.
OK. Russia has a history of aggression in its near-abroad. Let's assume all of the above is true, even if it probably isn't. (Why would the Russians want to put a choke-hold on our ability to fight in Afghanistan, where the enemy is the jihadi allies of the central asian Islamic terrorists--Chechens, Uzbeks etc--making life difficult along Russia's southern border?) Realism dictates that if the Russians actually want to swallow Georgia, there's nothing we can do to stop them. (Realism also dictates that the Russians learned a lesson when their stock market tanked last summer--foreign investors fleeing--when it seemed they would actually press on to Tblisi.)
On the other hand, let's say we do what Obama seems interested in doing: make further reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles, and agree to put a hold on the anti-ballistic system in Europe (a system that is a technological fantasy, so far, in any case)...if the Russians successfully help to convince--or help threaten--the Iranians to halt their nuclear weapons plans. Diehl seems to think that because the Russians appear to open to this sort of negotiation, we should be suspicious of it. If--a big if, granted--we could stop the Iranian bomb program at the price of the anti-ballistic missile system (and slow-walking Georgia and Ukraine's entry into NATO), who wouldn't take that deal?
The fact is, Russia isn't the Soviet Union. Its military, beyond a few elite units, is decrepit. Its economy is suddenly shaky, given the recession--and the drop in demand for its oil and gas. It may be able to threaten a few former Soviet provinces, but its Eastern European satellites are safely tucked beneath the NATO and EU umbrella.
We have had eight years of neoconservative huffing and puffing about this putative enemy and that. This Russia fixation is among the weirder outcroppings. Obama's "reset" with Russia may not work, but it's certainly worth a major effort."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/23/ursa-minor/
Yet the neo-cons want to fret and create another frictional relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Respect the Russians and politely tell them to pound sand whilst their economy implodes. It will be much less risky and costly than the neo-con confrontational, answer a chip on the other's shoulder with a bigger chip approach.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"[Neo-cons are promoting that] Barack Obama is getting played by the Russians. This is a theme that goes back to John McCain's overreaction to the skirmish in Georgia last summer--and further, to Robert Kagan's theory that the Russkies are roaring again. Which goes back to the neoconservative tic of searching for--at times, creating--enemies rather than opportunities.
In other words, this is cold war nonsense. The Russians were behind Kyrghizstan's "decision" to close down the American base there, an important Afghan supply link. (The "decision" is more like the opening round in a negotiation, which will probably wind up with the U.S. shelling out more for the rights to use the base.) The Russians want to have a choke-hold on U.S. Afghan supply routes. The Russians want to build a naval base in Abkhazia--nominally part of Georgia, but not really--on the Black Sea. The Russians want to gobble up Georgia.
OK. Russia has a history of aggression in its near-abroad. Let's assume all of the above is true, even if it probably isn't. (Why would the Russians want to put a choke-hold on our ability to fight in Afghanistan, where the enemy is the jihadi allies of the central asian Islamic terrorists--Chechens, Uzbeks etc--making life difficult along Russia's southern border?) Realism dictates that if the Russians actually want to swallow Georgia, there's nothing we can do to stop them. (Realism also dictates that the Russians learned a lesson when their stock market tanked last summer--foreign investors fleeing--when it seemed they would actually press on to Tblisi.)
On the other hand, let's say we do what Obama seems interested in doing: make further reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles, and agree to put a hold on the anti-ballistic system in Europe (a system that is a technological fantasy, so far, in any case)...if the Russians successfully help to convince--or help threaten--the Iranians to halt their nuclear weapons plans. Diehl seems to think that because the Russians appear to open to this sort of negotiation, we should be suspicious of it. If--a big if, granted--we could stop the Iranian bomb program at the price of the anti-ballistic missile system (and slow-walking Georgia and Ukraine's entry into NATO), who wouldn't take that deal?
The fact is, Russia isn't the Soviet Union. Its military, beyond a few elite units, is decrepit. Its economy is suddenly shaky, given the recession--and the drop in demand for its oil and gas. It may be able to threaten a few former Soviet provinces, but its Eastern European satellites are safely tucked beneath the NATO and EU umbrella.
We have had eight years of neoconservative huffing and puffing about this putative enemy and that. This Russia fixation is among the weirder outcroppings. Obama's "reset" with Russia may not work, but it's certainly worth a major effort."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/23/ursa-minor/
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Paper Tiger: The Russian Military
TW: The Information Dissemination blog is an awesome resource for anyone interested in American or world navel information. In this piece, Galrahn highlights the hollowness of the Russian navy. Despite their recent high profile deployments (duly fretted about at places like Fox News or Debka, the Israeli right wing site), the Russians are much more bark than bite. If one, I repeat ONE, ship is performing the majority of all your worldwide deployments, then you do not really have a deep water navy.
From Information Dissemination:
"As I have noted many times on the blog, RFS Admiral Chabanenko (DDG 650) is the hardest working warship in the world. Prior to mid last year, RFS Admiral Chabanenko (DDG 650) was basically the only Russian warship that made global deployments. Imagine being the only naval ship to protect Russian maritime interests for half a decade...For those who watch too much TV, this is the same destroyer Foxnews played over and over again on TV last month when it pulled into Cuba, and RFS Admiral Chabanenko (DDG 650) was the escort during the Caribbean Sea cruise with the nuclear powered battlecruiser RFS Pyotr Veliky (BCGN 099)..."
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/01/hardest-working-warship-in-world.html
From Information Dissemination:
"As I have noted many times on the blog, RFS Admiral Chabanenko (DDG 650) is the hardest working warship in the world. Prior to mid last year, RFS Admiral Chabanenko (DDG 650) was basically the only Russian warship that made global deployments. Imagine being the only naval ship to protect Russian maritime interests for half a decade...For those who watch too much TV, this is the same destroyer Foxnews played over and over again on TV last month when it pulled into Cuba, and RFS Admiral Chabanenko (DDG 650) was the escort during the Caribbean Sea cruise with the nuclear powered battlecruiser RFS Pyotr Veliky (BCGN 099)..."
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/01/hardest-working-warship-in-world.html
Saturday, January 10, 2009
"We Are All Georgians Now": Not So Much
TW: John McCain came out breathing fire when Russia engaged Georgia in a brief war last August. His remark that "we are all Georgians" was regarded as strident at the time and has not aged well. While Putin led Russia has been a source of irritation and has not supported world stability, it appears the Georgians under Shakashvilli at a minimum acted irrationally to prod the Russians.
What is most disturbing was the lockstep march of a certain group of mainly but solely Republican pundits and politicians to jump on the August war as a casus belli to re-ignite old Cold War tensions. No responsible person suggests cowing to the Russians but bellicosity has never been a particularly effective form of policy. We would do well to pick our fights more carefully where one we are right on the facts and two we are able to actually achieve our desired outcome. Supporting a weak government in the Bear's backyard means we better have very compelling facts and strategy. Otherwise we are risking much more when we are already risking too much.
From the Dallas Blog:
"The Republican leaning punditocracy in Washington D.C. backed McCain to a fault. Frank Gaffney, President of the hawkish Center for Security Policy, called for Americans to boycott Russian products, and to dump companies like Russia’s Gazprom from their stock portfolios. Max Boot, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, compared the Russian incursion into Georgia to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Boot called for America to supply advanced weapons to Georgia so the Georgians could kill more Russians...
In recent weeks, Saakashvili’s case for NATO membership and U.S. support has been devastated. The International Herald Tribune reported the findings of a leaked Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) independent observer report which claimed that Georgian forces attacked South Ossetian towns with infantry and artillery before the Russian army entered the Roki Tunnel between Russia and South Ossetia on the night of August 7, 2008. This confirms what Orange County California-based Republican Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, who has access to House Intelligence Committee reports, told the UK Telegraph newspaper in September, that “Georgia started the war and Russia finished it.” Rohrabacher’s statement was basically ignored by the right-leaning media...
With all of these revelations, which have led even the previously pro-Georgian Washington Post and New York Times to distance themselves from Saakashvili’s government, will any so-called conservatives in Washington admit that they made a mistake in backing Georgia unconditionally? Will there be any reconsideration of their blind support for installing a missile defense system on Russia’s border in Poland, or bringing Ukraine into NATO over the objections of a majority of Ukrainians? Will there be any apology to the people of South Ossetia for feeding Saakashvili’s delusions of grandeur? Don’t hold your breath. The Cold War Lobby continues to exert its dead hand over the Republican Party, pointlessly antagonizing Russia and continuing to write checks the American people are unwilling to cash."
http://www.dallasblog.com/200812201004135/guest-viewpoint/georgia-war-exposed-gop-cold-war-lobby.html
What is most disturbing was the lockstep march of a certain group of mainly but solely Republican pundits and politicians to jump on the August war as a casus belli to re-ignite old Cold War tensions. No responsible person suggests cowing to the Russians but bellicosity has never been a particularly effective form of policy. We would do well to pick our fights more carefully where one we are right on the facts and two we are able to actually achieve our desired outcome. Supporting a weak government in the Bear's backyard means we better have very compelling facts and strategy. Otherwise we are risking much more when we are already risking too much.
From the Dallas Blog:
"The Republican leaning punditocracy in Washington D.C. backed McCain to a fault. Frank Gaffney, President of the hawkish Center for Security Policy, called for Americans to boycott Russian products, and to dump companies like Russia’s Gazprom from their stock portfolios. Max Boot, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, compared the Russian incursion into Georgia to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Boot called for America to supply advanced weapons to Georgia so the Georgians could kill more Russians...
In recent weeks, Saakashvili’s case for NATO membership and U.S. support has been devastated. The International Herald Tribune reported the findings of a leaked Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) independent observer report which claimed that Georgian forces attacked South Ossetian towns with infantry and artillery before the Russian army entered the Roki Tunnel between Russia and South Ossetia on the night of August 7, 2008. This confirms what Orange County California-based Republican Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, who has access to House Intelligence Committee reports, told the UK Telegraph newspaper in September, that “Georgia started the war and Russia finished it.” Rohrabacher’s statement was basically ignored by the right-leaning media...
With all of these revelations, which have led even the previously pro-Georgian Washington Post and New York Times to distance themselves from Saakashvili’s government, will any so-called conservatives in Washington admit that they made a mistake in backing Georgia unconditionally? Will there be any reconsideration of their blind support for installing a missile defense system on Russia’s border in Poland, or bringing Ukraine into NATO over the objections of a majority of Ukrainians? Will there be any apology to the people of South Ossetia for feeding Saakashvili’s delusions of grandeur? Don’t hold your breath. The Cold War Lobby continues to exert its dead hand over the Republican Party, pointlessly antagonizing Russia and continuing to write checks the American people are unwilling to cash."
http://www.dallasblog.com/200812201004135/guest-viewpoint/georgia-war-exposed-gop-cold-war-lobby.html
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Oil Schadenfreude?
TW: Plummeting oil prices help US consumers (at least in the short run as if everyone runs back to their SUVs then we can safely expect oil crunch 2.0 in 2010 or 2011). But the producers who are generally poorly governed by oligarchs with dubious competence (Chavez/Nigeria) or expensive nationalist appettites (Putin), the prices are highly problematical. The chart above (from Barry Ritholz's blog) shows estimated (I emphasize estimated because who really knows) breakeven price per bbl needed by various countries in order to fund their 2009 spending (note Russia is not on the chart but has a $70ish breakeven). With oil at $45/bbl and perhaps headed lower, they all have issues some worse than others.
Nigeria is a mess whose problems seem to get worse as oil prices go up (their fundamental problem is crime so lower prices just means less to fight over), so they are not the big problem. The Saudis/Kuwaitis/UAE have been through this before, they will have less to invest which has implications for sure but is not existential. Russia and Venezuela are the ones to watch. Putin and Chavez have built their political power on the back of high oil and bombastic nationalism, good luck to both in 2009.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Newsweek Zakaria: The Russians Messed Up
Zakaria may be the best MSM foreign policy writer today. His book "Future of Freedom" written before the Iraq mess explains alot on why Iraq is a mess along with most of the rest of Bush's foreign policy.
Regardless, the point of this column was that contrary to some of the hysterical reactions Russia's move into Georgia may have been a serious strategic blunder on Russia's part.
"The attack on Georgia will go down not as the dawn of a new era of Russian power but as a major strategic blunder. Look at what has happened. Russia has scared its neighboring states witless, driving them firmly into the arms of the West...
Diplomats are now searching for ways to make Moscow pay some price for its actions, to weaken its standing in international bodies, suspend some agreements, break some joint enterprises. These are all worth looking into but it's also worth noting that we only have this leverage with the Russians because we have spent the last two decades building up ties with them. In fact, the real challenge we face in dealing with Moscow is that we have too few such ties and, as a result, too little leverage...The problem is not that Russia has been integrated into a world order that has failed to deter it, but rather that the country remains largely unintegrated—and thus feels it has little to lose by breaking the rules...A strategy that further isolates Moscow would only reduce the levers that we have to affect its behavior.
Imagine if we had kicked Russia out of the G8 and broken most ties with Moscow—as the Republican nominee, John McCain, and many neoconservatives have long wanted to do. Then, when the Russians attacked Georgia, we would have had only two options—appeasement or war.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156350
Regardless, the point of this column was that contrary to some of the hysterical reactions Russia's move into Georgia may have been a serious strategic blunder on Russia's part.
"The attack on Georgia will go down not as the dawn of a new era of Russian power but as a major strategic blunder. Look at what has happened. Russia has scared its neighboring states witless, driving them firmly into the arms of the West...
Diplomats are now searching for ways to make Moscow pay some price for its actions, to weaken its standing in international bodies, suspend some agreements, break some joint enterprises. These are all worth looking into but it's also worth noting that we only have this leverage with the Russians because we have spent the last two decades building up ties with them. In fact, the real challenge we face in dealing with Moscow is that we have too few such ties and, as a result, too little leverage...The problem is not that Russia has been integrated into a world order that has failed to deter it, but rather that the country remains largely unintegrated—and thus feels it has little to lose by breaking the rules...A strategy that further isolates Moscow would only reduce the levers that we have to affect its behavior.
Imagine if we had kicked Russia out of the G8 and broken most ties with Moscow—as the Republican nominee, John McCain, and many neoconservatives have long wanted to do. Then, when the Russians attacked Georgia, we would have had only two options—appeasement or war.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156350
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)