Troubled Tandem?

Is the power tandem of President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in trouble? Is duel power antithetical to Russian power culture and institutions? Is it inevitable that only one can rule and in the end eventually one of the two will “step aside?” All of these questions are being debated and with every passing day with greater intensity. However, few have reflected on just how well the tandem is performing.

I will be up front from the get go – I didn’t think Putin would really accept the position of prime minister when Medvedev offered him the job during the presidential campaign last year. In retrospect, I am glad he did. Events over the past year have demonstrated that Russia needs all the leadership it can get. And Russia is fortunate that Medvedev and Putin are close allies with a similar mindset (though differing approaches).

What’s all the fuss about?

Over the past year we are told that only one person can govern as leader. We are also told that Russia’s political culture and institutions are resistant to power sharing at the highest level. In theory I am very swayed by these arguments. However, facts and experience tell us something very different. One member of the tandem is the leader, but both men have shown that they lead the country. And in the larger context of things, it is remarkable how well both have settled into their new roles. Both Medvedev and Putin have had to navigate some amazingly turbulent waters: Saakashvili’s aggression against South Ossetia last August and the on-going global recession.

During the South Ossetian conflict, Putin probably could have easily made the case that the country’s most experienced leader needed to return to the presidency because of national security. But he didn’t. Instead he worked in tandem with Medvedev to manage the crisis. The same applies to the global slump. The majority of Russia’s current economic and financial order came into being during the years of the Putin presidency – who best could manage this on-going crisis? Of course the answer is Putin. Again this has not happened. The hard reality is that it is Putin who has the most thankless job in Russia – managing the economy for his boss Medvedev.

What are the drawbacks of the tandem?

The Medvedev-Putin tandem is working, but there are issues that need serious consideration. Medvedev inherited a stable political environment created by Putin. It is understandable many in the political and business elites continue to be very deferential toward the prime minister during times of uncertainty and even crisis. It would be better to see greater institutional development in Russia, but at the moment other issues are far more important.

I think it is important to point out that many who did quite well for themselves during the Putin presidency turned to the current prime minister for financial aid and other favors but did not get them. Of course this did not score Putin any points, but at the same time the tandem remains intact. I disagree with some commentators that the tandem, particularly Putin, has put the financial interests of some above the interests of the nation. As long as the tandem remains united, we can expect the disgruntled to be powerless to confront the current constitutional order.

What about domestic politics? How should the tandem be regarded in terms of political parties’ development, the opposition’s response and the regions?

I remain very dissatisfied with the development of political parties over the past year. I had hoped (probably naively) that United Russia would rise to the occasion and make managing the current crisis its hallmark policy plank. Well it hasn’t happened and this is a missed opportunity to distinguish itself as an important element of domestic politics. However, other political parties and politicians have done no better – if not worse. Garry Kasparov, Mikhail Kasyanov (Misha 2%), and Boris Nemtsov continue to make fools out of themselves and provide the average Russian voter reason enough to vote for United Russia. The opposition’s commissions and omissions continue to make the party of power inarticulate and the party of last resort when it comes to elections.

Russia’s regions have reacted to the crisis accordingly and not necessarily because of the existence of the tandem. Being a governor in a Russian region is no easy task – all must answer to the center. I do not have a problem with this, but the governors do. There has been too much needless commentary on whether Medvedev or Putin is in charge of the governors. The fact is that so much discussion about regional leadership and the tandem has given the governors wiggle room to underperform as budgets are changed and downsized. On the upside, irrespective of the ins and outs of the tandem, the governors are being called to account. This can only be a good thing.

Then there is the issue of corruption.

Those of us who follow Russian affairs closely had noticed that the courts face more and more corruption cases. This is as it should be. During the financial crisis, the average Russian suffers the most, but it is about time the fat cats of bribes and extortion of small and medium size businesses be made accountable for what is so terribly wrong about the new Russia. For too long those who procure enormous sums because of their status in the state’s bloated bureaucracy are being called on the carpet. Many kinds of state corruption were unduly tolerated while the economy expanded year after year. Today this is not the case and it is an opportunity for the tandem to really make good on it words to tackle this social ill. There is no evidence that the tandem disagree on this course.

In lieu of a conclusion

Do Medvedev and Putin disagree on things from time to time? Of course they do. But both have so much more in common that it makes differences almost trivial. And I put forward a question that no one I know of has asked: Is there any evidence (at all) of Putin undermining Medvedev’s authority as president? I answer to this question in the negative. I have no doubt that Putin raises his eyebrows from time to time regarding his protégés’ words or decisions, but at the same time I have never seen Putin publicly challenge the man he promoted and works for.

Putin knew what he walked into when accepting the position of prime minister. Does Putin “like being prime minister?” I have been asked this question so many times I can’t remember the number. My reply is that it does not matter. Putin is committed to his project for Russia from the time he was prime minister, then president, and now again as prime minister. Until I can be convinced otherwise, I contend that he wants Medvedev to succeed and will most likely back Russia’s incumbent president for re-election when the time comes.

The tandem is a political project, but not solely driven by anyone’s personal gain. Medvedev and Putin may have their differences and the same can be said about the political and financial elite that came to the fore during the Putin years. But consider the following: the current political elite have benefitted under Putin and Medvedev and the population at large agrees by and large. Thus, instead of looking for a Putin-Medvedev split, look at how they work together considering their differing approaches and style.

Hitting the ‘restart button’ – not so fast

From Moscow to Washington, politicians and diplomats appear to be in a bidding war over who can best hit the ‘restart button’ to put life back into the troubled Russia-US bilateral relationship. There is good reason to believe that both sides at the highest political level have the will to make this happen. Unfortunately, recasting the Russia-US relations must also involve a change of mindset in Western media and those who make a living off of Russia bashing.

The Russia-US relationship is unlike most country-to-country encounters on the world stage. These ties are always part of a complex web of high-level geopolitics, the political style of politicians and
the opinion and preferences of special interests, including attitudes found in the media. Politicians at the very top, in this case Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and US President Barack Obama, can make it a policy priority to improve their countries’ bilateral relationship, but this will not ensure any meaningful improvement. The other players in this parley have to get on board too and this will not be any easy task.

The fact is Russia is an idea and media story that employs many people and has been made into a subject that entertains and confirms a certain Western moral superiority. All of which makes hitting the
‘restart button’ difficult, if not impossible. It is hardly likely that Obama’s overtures toward Russia will sit well with The Washington Post, The New York Times, or The Economist, to mention only a few of the most notable media outlets that have a constant anti-Russia drumbeat. All are so anti-Russia that it goes beyond the border of Russophobia or even geopolitical commonsense. Obama and company will have no choice but to take notice. All of this will take its toll on finding the balance for Moscow and Russia as they assess what they can do together when assessing the world’s problems.

Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have it no easier, by the way. Like a game of tit-for-tat, Russian language media almost always mirrors many of the same prejudices against the US and its media. After all, Russian media can claim its coverage of Russia-US relations have been a success – it is the US that has stepped forward to ‘restart’ relations. Russian media can legitimately say ‘we were right all a long – and why now be to so understanding of a Washington that only wants to try to trick us only in a different way?’ Indeed, changing attitudes on both sides will be thorny. Simply put, there are a lot pride issues at stake.

Then there is the issue of institutionalized Russophobia. Western media works this position to make money and cater to past prejudices and wrongful assumptions of how the entire world should bow to Western perceptions and tastes. But there is also the huge institutional elite, founded during the Cold War, which exists to this day attempting to prove countries like Russia are the antithesis of
Western values (the same values they rarely adhere to). There are many of them and they include the National Endowment for Democracy, the American Enterprise Institute, the Council of Foreign Relations, and the Heritage Foundation.

The list of organizations that make a living off justifying their existence based on fearing Russia is sadly commonplace and a prejudiced barrier when hitting the restart button. One does not have to look hard to find evidence of this. Take for example Ariel Cohen’s comments in front of the US Senate Foreign Committee. Cohen, a scholar at The Heritage Foundation, testified the following:

“If Russia reconsiders its anti-American stance, the United States should be prepared to pursue a matter of common interest.”

This comment should floor any objective viewer of the Russia-US relationship since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. When has the US been prepared to reconsider its anti-
Russia stance?

The US has strongly pursued NATO expansion against Russia’s legitimate security interests. Russia exists in a neighborhood that is unstable. Russia has the right and responsibility to have a say in this region’s future.

US-led NATO forces encouraged the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia to fight a war against Russia. Washington and Brussels are culpable for the death of innocent Russian civilians and peacekeepers. These factsare now part of the Russia’s mindset when thinking about better relations with the West, particularly the United States.

In my heart of hearts, I want to see Russia and the US mend relations, but there can be no doubt that too many in the West cannot reconcile themselves to see this happen. They have too much at stake and will lose so much if this were to come to pass.

Russia and the US have so many commonalities when it comes to the international agenda. Why should it be sidetracked by hateful and outdated prejudices and the careerism of the few?

Medvedev and Obama continue to face many who want them to fail. Many in media and the ideologically driven NGOs, and former Cold War policy wonks still have the advantage. Don’t expect too much from the ‘restart button’ until this changes.

At Last, ‘The End Of History’

The world is experiencing a paradigm shift that will fundamentally change how we think and live. Conventional wisdoms, some held in the West since the end of World War II and others dating from the end of the Cold War, are not only being challenged, but swept into the dustbin of history.

In 1992, Francis Fukuyama published his “The End of History and the Last Man.” At the time, Fukuyama’s thesis seemed obvious for the Western world: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

Today these words appear out of place, if not simply gibberish. With the exception of a few neoconservatives, a growing number of people in the West and the vast majority of the world are questioning what was unquestionable in the Western mainstream — for example, the role of the state in the economy, how the global economy should be run, and whether there should be engagement with groups now labeled as “terrorists.”

The global financial slump is destroying not only economies, but also the foundations of the West’s worldview. Examples abound. Over the last 20 years, the Western world dangerously deregulated sectors of the economy to the point of privatizing what have been traditionally state services, including the military. Those who questioned the wisdom of doing so were called “socialist,” a word that in American political discourse is akin to an expletive. The hard reality today is that the state must also be an active economic player to ensure we don’t repeat the follies that have brought the world to its knees.

To date, the world’s economy has been dominated by a small group of Western countries, a legacy of the post-World War II era called the Bretton Woods arrangement. However, the global economic order has not kept up with the times. What are known as the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) remain almost invisible when it comes to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. When the G20 countries, which includes the BRICs, meet in London next month, this grouping should replace the Group of Eight and meet twice a year until the worst of the slump has been overcome, when it should become institutionalized.

The issue of “Western liberal democracy” has been monopolized by the West, particularly the United States. The idea of democracy has been so badly abused over the past 20 years that it has been rendered almost useless and nothing more than an ideological weapon of mass destruction by the West.

Dictated Democracy

Since the end of the Cold War, democracy has come to mean one thing: promotion of Washington’s foreign-policy agenda. Rarely do we hear anything about the democratization of the global economic order. Russia and China continue to be viewed with suspicion, and the concept of “fair trade” with the rest of the world has been superceded by one-sided policies under the rubric of “free trade” that only and always favor Western economies.

In the area of international security the same applies. Where is “Western liberal democracy” in this sphere? NATO claims that Russia has no right to dictate which country can enter the alliance. Fair enough. However, what right does NATO have to threaten a country, specifically Russia, with its continued expansion? What is democratic about that?

Then there is the issue of democratic elections. The West wholeheartedly supported elections in Ukraine and Georgia (the so-called “Orange” and “Rose” revolutions). Washington gloated, but longer-term results in these so-called democracies have created many doubts about the continued political development of Ukraine and Georgia. Nonetheless, Washington congratulated itself on its ability to fast-forward history — ending history all together, as Fukuyama prophesied.

What is the result? Both Ukraine and Georgia are becoming, or have already become, failed states, and the security consequences for Russia of that collapse are profound. Washington’s misguided and ideologically driven hubris has resulted in Russia being left to pick up the pieces — and being branded authoritarian and a regional hegemon in the process. And lest we forget, Hamas was democratically elected, but “Western liberal democracy” continues to reject election results elsewhere in the world it does not like. This is simply hypocrisy.

We all face new vistas. For the majority of the world it won’t be easy. But the changes we face will be very hard for the West so accustomed to its “special place in history.” That place in history is changing, and in the most dramatic way. The rest of the world has funded Western prosperity for decades, making the United States the greatest debtor state in history. As we can see today, this was a failed model and ideology. Now everyone must pay and be rewarded equally an idea the West abandoned long ago.

In a strange way, Fukuyama was right in his “The End of History and the Last Man.” History never ends, but bankrupt ideologies do. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was buried two decades ago. In light of recent history, Fukuyama’s “Western liberal democracy” should now be preparing for its own burial ceremony. I won’t weep at the funeral — nor will most of the world.

The curious case of Hillary’s button

For years Russian-U.S. relations have been on the rocks. Megaphone diplomacy on both sides was considered the norm and benefited neither side. That is why U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s public relations stunt of “resetting” this bilateral relationship is important to consider.

The makeshift button Clinton presented to the media and pressed together with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov read “reset” in English, but in Russian it was rendered as “reload.” Not the best way to restart things.

The lost-in-translation part was put aside with kind words and high hopes. However, this linguistic error could be very telling, depending on how the next few months pan out.

Clinton’s enthusiasm to recast the Russia-U.S. relationship says a lot about how the Bush administration got Russia wrong. The Bush people always wanted it to appear they reached out to Russia, but at about every possible juncture the Russians saw it differently.

Few remember that it was then President Vladimir Putin who first called George W. Bush after the 9/ll attacks - pledging support against the terrorists who attacked the United States. While Putin didn’t like it, he didn’t object to the U.S. military stationing a “temporary” base in Kyrgyzstan promoting Bush’s “war on terror.”

Putin didn’t like it when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, but there was nothing Russia could do to stop it.

Putin didn’t like Western funding of overtly anti-Russian “coloured revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia. But that was something Russia could do about. The more the United States tried to undermine Russia’s neighbourhood to promote Washington’s geopolitical interests, the more Moscow defended what it saw as its legitimate security interests.

Washington started this competition, not Russia. And because of geography, history and Washington’s bad habit of not following through on so-called commitments to friends and allies, Russia has been given a new hearing in its neighbourhood.

The U.S. government is very close to its energy companies and has pressed hard to promote their interests in the energy-rich, post-Soviet space. At the same time, many in the West claim that Russia is using energy as a political weapon.

It is not amiss on the Russian side that mainstream media presents Western companies as merely looking for profit, while Russian companies only seek geopolitical advantage. As far as Moscow is concerned, this is a clear double standard. Russia’s embrace of capitalism and the profit motive is genuine and scares the heck out its Western competitors.

The Bush people pushed hard to continue NATO’s expansion eastwards. Russia strenuously objects to this. Russia cannot veto any country from joining a political, economic and military bloc, but it can and does speak out about its own security interests.

NATO does not present itself as a foe of Russia’s; however it does not accept Moscow’s self-defined security interests. This is a red line that Moscow will not compromise on.

Then there is the issue of security architecture. Obama has waffled on Bush’s hard-line commitment to anti-missile defence in Europe. For Russia this is an existential threat. Any country - large or small - would rightfully be concerned if a new and modern military system was based close to its border. Given all the broken promises and smiles coming from the United States regarding Russia for almost 20 years, it’s understandable that Russians want more than good intentions from their American counterparts.

Georgia’s pre-emptive war against South Ossetia last August remains a very sour issue in Russia. America funded and trained Saakashvili’s military. The same military killed Russian citizens and peacekeepers.

The trust level Russia has toward the new American administration is limited, to say the least. As long as the U.S. continues its military engagement of Georgia and promotes Tbilisi’s NATO aspirations, the more likely it is that Moscow will view Washington with apprehension.

What will happen? Will it be the “re-set” or “reload” button? We still really don’t know.

It seems to me that the new administration in Washington still doesn’t see Russia to be all that important - it is deemed as a problematic country only to be dealt with. But all the same there is the recognition that not much can be done on many global issues without Russia’s engagement and help.

Viewed from the Potomac, Russia remains a bridesmaid. This is a huge mistake inherited not from the George Bush administration - look further back to Bill Clinton’s time in office to understand this.

I must admit I remain sceptical. I have no doubt there was an obvious and embarrassing translation error made when Clinton gave the button to Lavrov. But I can’t but help sense that the same tried and failed policies toward Russia remain in play. The “reload” translation is somehow not serendipity.

For almost 20 years, Republican, De­mocratic, Republican - and now again Democratic administrations have continued the same ritual. They all believe that they only have to explain why the United States never threatens the world and that everyone should agree with it. And they believe Russia should not question this proposition.

Yet Russia is not interested in diplomatic PR, it seeks reliable partners. Partnership is the button that needs to be pressed.

A year of Medvedev

Dmitry Medvedev was elected president of the Russian Federation a year ago. How has he fared and in what direction(s) is he going? The short answers are: he is doing relatively well under the circumstances and he will continue to leave his own mark through time.

Who rules?

This topic generates a lot of headlines, but there is preciously little real analysis. Does Medvedev run the country or does Prime Minister Vladimir Putin? The answer is Medvedev does. However, he has delegated an enormous amount of his power to Putin. After all, it needs to be remembered that the position of prime minister is to oversee the economy (or anything else the president wants this person to oversee). The essence of the Medvedev-Putin “tandem” goes something like this – Medvedev is charged with the “vision thing” and Putin is supposed to make it happen. However there is a caveat, something few ever point out: Medvedev and Putin have remarkably similar views about Russia and the way they would like to see the country go. It seems to me the only great difference is that Medvedev is a liberal who looks to the state to solve problems and Putin is a statist who supports a fundamentally liberal agenda according to Russian conditions. The difference in accent does (and should) cause some tension between the two from time to time. (This, of course, demonstrates a positive dynamic in Russian politics that the commentariat almost always deny).

Is Medvedev a stalking horse for Putin’s return?

I really don’t think so. Again, I will ask an uncomfortable question: Is Putin really intent on undermining the political system he helped to create? I really doubt it. I strongly believe he wants Medvedev to be a successful president and that building and strengthening political institutions do count. This would vindicate his support of Medvedev to succeed him. Does it annoy Putin when Medvedev criticizes the government’s performance during the global economic turndown – well yes, of course it does! But I think Putin would be more annoyed if the president didn’t. Medvedev learned everything he knows about politics from Putin. The pupil is only acting out what he learned from his teacher.

Medvedev making his own mark

Slowly but surely we are witnessing Medvedev leave his own impression on the Russian presidency. Medvedev has already been tested and he has earned high marks. The first real challenge was Georgia’s pre-emptive war against South Ossetia. Medvedev stood firm every step of the way and turned back this western-supported aggression and he also gave security assurances to the newly independent states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Then there is the financial crisis. Interestingly, this crisis has been dropped into Putin’s lap. I am more than sure that the “tandem” never expected that Russia would have to down-size and fundamentally re-gig macroeconomic policy. This has been forced upon Russia from the outside and there is no other option than to deal with hard reality. To date, Medvedev and Putin have responded accordingly. At the same time, like most of the world, Russia is far from out of the woods.

The transmigration of the “tandem”

Change is always happening. Those who try to halt it or over-manage it are usually punished. I see the “tandem” recognizing this. Medvedev is growing his feet to fit into Putin’s political shoes. This will still take a while. And I think Putin will do much to help this process along. But I have no illusions. Putin remains a significant, if not the most significant, powerbroker in today’s Russia. Though I see no evidence that Putin undermines Medvedev’s approach and policy orientation.

In lieu of a conclusion

Is Medvedev a “kinder and gentler version” of Putin? Maybe. Most underestimate how Putin saved Russia from collapse during his time in office. Today’s mission for Medvedev is to learn from Putin’s successes and better them. I can’t think of a better compliment from the current president to the man that was instrumental in helping him to become president. The “tandem” is working and benefiting Medvedev – just as Putin envisioned it would.

Afghanistan: the history lesson

Twenty years ago to the day Soviet forces left Afghanistan. It was a stinging political and military defeat. The mighty and very much feared Soviet war machine was stopped in its tracks and forced to retreat. Washington gloated. Today that gloating is turning into despair.

Ten years ago, the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan was still celebrated in the West as a crushing defeat for communism and an important proxy battle won by the West in the Cold War. Indeed, this was true at the time. The Soviet Union shortly thereafter collapsed in on itself and so did the Warsaw Pact. The Cold War ended almost immediately. However, it was a hollow victory. To end that conflict a new menace was created – religious jihadists.

I remember the Soviet-Afghan conflict well. In the West it was merely another low-level conflict in the global struggle that made up the Cold War. The West and its allies saw the opportunity to bog down the Soviets and bleed it dry. And it worked with the aid of the mujaheddin. The mujaheddin were rarely described as religious extremists. In fact, the appellation “freedom fighters” was the most common. It didn’t matter who they really were only as long they fought with Washington to inflict a crushing blow against Soviet communism. And that suited the mujaheddin just fine for that moment in time. Interestingly, the Soviets also didn’t make any distinction as to the “values” of their enemy.

When the Soviet military left Afghanistan, the U.S. declared victory and went home. It rarely made it on Washington’s radar for the next decade. Afghanistan had rid itself of the Soviet occupation. Few in Afghanistan were beholden to the Americans for their clandestine help. The mujaheddin would transmigrate into many different groups. The most prominent today are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The mujaheddin rid their country of the Soviets. Now the Taliban and Al-Qaeda want to rid the Islamic world of Western cultural, political, and military occupation. The mujaheddin’s triumph over the Soviets demonstrated that Islam can fight and win against foreign occupation.

In many ways the U.S. and its NATO allies today have it worse than the Soviets did. Rightly or wrongly, the Soviets entered Afghanistan to bolster a friendly government. Moscow grossly underestimated the Afghans’ resistance to foreign occupation, much like the British before them. The U.S. has made the same mistake, but with the added label of being the protector of Israel and at war with Islam. From the streets of Kabul to the “Arab street” (if such a thing really exists), there is the strong perception that the U.S. defends Israel, bankrolls corrupt Arab governments, ignores the plight of the Palestinians, occupies two Islamic states (Afghanistan and Iraq), and threatens another (Iran). The Soviets were never universally hated in the Greater Middle East – today the U.S. has that dubious reputation.

Obama’s surge plans for Afghanistan is a fool’s errand, but if this is to happen, Washington should do the following if it wants to avoid the Soviet debacle.

* Obama should state unequivocally that the U.S. will end its occupation of Afghanistan (and Iraq), but there should be conditions for the folks on the ground to meet.

* The U.S. should drop Karzai as its front man (In a few months Afghanistan will hold a presidential election). He is seen a nothing more than an American puppet in Afghanistan and the country’s neighborhood.

* Instead of fronting the same or new weakling strongman, there should be another national assembly or Loyah Jirga to change the country’s constitution. Get rid of a strong presidency and empower a parliamentary form of governance in which all political and ideological groups can join to create the country’s future, including the Taliban.

* Use the surge to punish Al-Qaeda and other forces that disrupt this process of reconciliation and anyone or any idea that slows the exit of the occupiers.

I know this is a strong prescription, but this is what is needed. All of these steps will also start to alleviate the destructive pressure that has turned Pakistan into a failed state.

It is pity that Washington didn’t learn from the Soviet catastrophe in Afghanistan. Washington closed its eyes because of hubris. The Soviet Union was humbled and the U.S. needs a huge dose of humility. The New Russia has made it clear it is willing to help the U.S. as it learns the lesson of any outsider demanding to call the shots in the troubled land called Afghanistan.

Moscow-Washington: Accidental serendipity?

As I expected, the Obama people are actively trying to pick-up the pieces when it comes to US-Russia relations. Like an abandoned junkyard in hard times, the Obama people are looking to find what can be salvaged from an inherited foreign policy machine that ran into a brick wall and failed. Its Afghanistan policy appears to be a piece worth reconsidering.

Russia and the US are moving forward and one area of mutual concern is Afghanistan’s descent into the truly bad-old-days. The Taliban is back and it looks as confident as ever. Ok, the US is leaving Manas, but as I have blogged before, there is a silver-lining to all of this: a better and more realistic Russia-US relationship.

The agreement to provide NATO with non-lethal air supply corridor through Russia to Afghanistan is being activated. (This probably would have happened earlier if it had not been for Saako’s aggressive war against South Ossetia). Even more, there is the possibility that lethal military hardware could be added to the mix. I call this pragmatism and logic.

Then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to upset the cart. She said Tuesday that the Obama administration might reconsider its plans to deploy an ABM system in Eastern Europe if Iran agrees to compromise on its nuclear program. Well it is not up to the Obama people to say anything until the IAEA says something on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Once it decides, then the international community can do the same, including Russia.

So early in the job, Clinton has already committed a cardinal mistake. America’s continued and irrational fixation on Iran is derailing just about everything else that should be on Washington’s foreign policy menu. And this is met with almost complete dismay in Russia.

What is Russia’s take on all of this? Well, it is, in my humble opinion, the following:

“Washington! Yes, we have to either destroy or talk with the Taliban. It is better to talk with them. We can help you bring them to the table. We will help you with your war efforts in Afghanistan, but what about finding a political solution? Can we collectively, through force if necessary, bring the Taliban to the table? Together, we can.”

What does Iran and the ABM in Europe have to do with all of this? This is what Moscow is asking.

Beyond the media and extreme built-in political bias, Tehran is looking for security guarantees from Washington. It wants to survive in the world as a state no different from Israel. If Washington did so for Tehran, why would it have to worry about Iran’s nuclear program? The same program it has a right to under international law. Once Washington cares more about Moscow’s sensibilities, the less it will have to worry about Tehran’s. Working with Russia can make things happened. Until this is acknowledged, The idea of ABM in Europe will ALWAYS been seen in Moscow as a threat to its security.

I didn’t like what Biden said in Munich and I am full of suspicions about Clinton’s “vision” thing. But I will admit that Moscow and Washington working collectively on Afghanistan does give me hope.

At this moment, this troubled bilateral relationship is trying to find some kind of pragmatic consensus. Maybe it is all only accidental – a limited timeframe of extraordinary serendipity.

Who will be the first to sour this good beginning by lecturing? I will leave it up to my readers to decide.

Bad habits die hard….

Hitting the replay button

US Vice President Joe Biden’s tone at the Munich security conference was refreshing. It would seem the megaphone diplomacy in Russia-US might be changing for the better. It has been a long time since we heard some pragmatism coming out of Washington. But I must admit I am not satisfied. Words are nothing when it comes to geopolitics.

Biden said it is “time to press the reset button” between Moscow and Washington. This sounds great, but the entire address reminded me of “hitting the replay button.” There is no evidence that the Obama administration has yet formulated a coherent foreign policy beyond Bush’s. To be fair, we are still in the earliest phase of Obama’s term.

Tipping points remain

From a PR point of view, Biden made a good impression. But substance was sorely lacking:

* Washington’s position on anti-missile defense in Europe has not really changed. There will be dire consequences if the Obama people eventually decide to deploy the system despite Russia’s objections.

* There was no mention of deep cuts in strategic missiles or the need to replace START I, which expires this year.

* Biden’s defense of Georgia’s NATO ambitions was simply shocking. It would appear that Obama will continue the neocon tradition of rewarding aggression (as long as it suits American security concerns).

* The US Vice President did not question the current global security architecture. The fact is global security is in a shambles. It is the Russian side that has proposed a major re-think of the global order we inherited from the Cold War. This is dangerous.

* Reading between the lines, Biden gave the impression that Washington is satisfied with NATO just as it is. This means we will continue to see NATO lumbering along without a defined 21st century mission. This doesn’t bode well for Russia-NATO relations.

Package deal?

In my humble opinion, it is obvious that the Obama administration hasn’t really considered “what do with Russia.” Biden’s address makes this clear. But one thing is for sure, Obama knows he needs Russia when it comes to Afghanistan and Iran.

Washington’s “disinvitation” from Manas was not a Russian stab in the back. I see it as good news – Obama says he wants a fundamentally different approach to the war in Afghanistan. Because of Manas, he now has no choice but to get that new approach in place and with Russian help. Biden suggested as much in Munich, but with preciously few details (like what Moscow would get for its “cooperation?).

Biden’s hard line with Tehran is just as troubling. Russia will maintain its current policy – allow the IAEA to determine if Tehran is living up to its international agreements. If not, then let the UN Security Council decide what to do next. Biden didn’t give us an indication why Moscow should change its current policy stance regarding Tehran.

More of the same

Biden excelled in eloquence, but came up short with the “vision thing.” I would sum up the address as “compassionate neo-conservativism.” To date, Obama’s foreign policy has too many Bush and Clinton finger prints on it. Moscow and much of the world grew tired of Washington’s rhetoric long ago. Biden smiled at Russia and it gave it a pat on the back. But neither adds up to change. I worry Biden’s words are only a replay of the same.

Washington, please exit westward

Kyrgyzstan has decided to show the Americans the door – Washington is no longer an invited guest at the Manas military base. Instead, Kyrgyzstan has decided to strengthen relations with Russia. We should not be surprised by this. In the scheme of things, Washington could care less about Kyrgyzstan’s security interests or the security concerns of Russia and Central Asia as a whole.

Let’s get real. Why did Bishkek decide to pull the plug on the leasing deal for Manas made right after 9/11? To my mind there are a number of reasons. And let’s remember, the Americans said that they wanted Manas only on a “temporary basis.” Well, temporary started to look like forever. Kyrgyzstan didn’t sign up to that deal.

I submit a number of reasons Kyrgyzstan decided to change course:

1. Kyrgyzstan is in dire straits - its economy is really in trouble and it’s a feeding ground for radical Islamist groups. Kyrgyzstan simply needs outside financial help and Moscow made Bishkek an offer - a deal worth double its current annual GDP. Well, it wasn’t exactly a quid pro quo, but the fact is in international politics states must make trade-offs. Anyway, the Americans never really fitted into Kyrgyzstan – two women were run over by the American military and a Kyrgyz man was shot dead for no reason. Under the current leasing deal, American military personnel have legal immunity from Kyrgyz law.

2. Kyrgyzstan no longer wants to be a front line state in America’s failed “war on terrorism.” The Afghanistan mess won’t be cleaned up for a long while and Bishkek no longer wants to be closely associated with American war efforts.

3. Kyrgyzstan sees that the US may or may not change policy toward Iran. Again, it doesn’t want to be seen taking sides just for the meager rental fees it earns from Manas. Leasing Manas was to earn some easy cash – not to sell Kyrgyzstan’s soul to Washington for the rest of time.

4. Kyrgyzstan is simply too small, fragile and weak to ignore the geopolitical realities. It wants to be part of the neighborhood and needs to be in step with others in the region. And Manas was a sore point with the Russians and Chinese. Manas afforded the US military the ability to “observe” military movements of both Russia’s and China’s military operations.

5. Kyrgyzstan is deeply worried about what is happening in Afghanistan - and so is Russia. Asking the Americans to leave Manas strengthens Russia’s position vis-à-vis Washington.

6. I don’t think that Bishkek’s decision is an outright snub to Washington. Essentially the message is – “We can help, but as a partner with Moscow - first let Moscow lead and we will follow.”

Hopefully, Washington and Brussels will understand Bishkek’s reasoning. NATO is in trouble in Afghanistan up to its eyeballs. It needs to turn to Moscow to elaborate a new policy towards Afghanistan. As I have repeatedly written, the ball is solidly in Washington’s court. Kyrgyzstan has decided to drop out of the “great game.”

100 blogs - 10 thoughts

This is my 100th blog for RT. This is what I was told by RT’s web team and they told me to make it special. Well heck! I thought all my blogs were special.

For this minor milestone in the scheme of things, I think it is appropriate to have a quick reality check regarding our ever changing world.

1. Every member of the commentariat should write a “thank you” letter to Vladimir Putin. You read that right! Give it a thought, Putin keeps journalists of all political stripes employed during these hard times. Love him or hate him, but it is hard to deny Putin is simply a great media story and we should all acknowledge this and show our appreciation.

2. Are Russia-US relations thawing? I don’t know. At this point the answer might be – maybe. Obama is great with theatrics and mystery at this point – the privilege of his first 100-days. But I still don’t see any substances yet. I just see a lot of Bill Clinton cronies around Obama, including Hillary. Can you imagine the following exchange when Hillary meets Dmitry Medvedev: Clinton says, “Hello Mr. President.” And Medvedev says in return, “Yea, whatever.”

3. We still don’t know much about Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Nonetheless, I think he is off to a poor start. It appears Washington’s time honoured and disastrous approach toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is still in play. A great deal of the terrorism we find in the Greater Middle East is directly tied to failed policies for the region coming out of Washington. Where is the change we can believe in? Moscow can sit down with Tehran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Obama should do the same.

4. There is a good chance that Ukraine will implode as a state this year. For all the public cheerleading for the Kiev clique, I am betting that Washington and Brussels will secretly implore Moscow to make sure Ukraine’s natural gas pipelines are secure when this happens – no matter what the cost. Of course Russia will be publicly backstabbed for doing so. Again, Russia will have to clean up a mess exported to one of its neighbours courtesy of the neocons.

5. Expect more engineered regime changes in the post-Soviet space. As far as Washington is concerned the Georgian “Saako” is as beautiful as a pig in a bikini these days. He has to go, but Russia will have nothing to do with it. Washington installed Saako and it will now “disinvite” him from power. Interestingly enough, the next protégé will be forced to deal with Russia in a rationale way.
  
6. This year will be a turning point year in Afghanistan. NATO is getting its lower backside kicked hard there. The North Atlantic alliance is a pretentious and pompous political club of real snobs and wannabe snobs. NATO wants to replace UN – at the behest of Washington – to police the world. The fact is NATO doesn’t have the guts and will to fight terrorism in the world. And Washington’s plan for a “surge” in Afghanistan is an illusion. The surge didn’t work in Iraq and it won’t in Afghanistan. Karzai’s puppet regime must come to an end. What needs to be done is to talk to all the players on the ground, including the Taliban. Once that happens, the US and its NATO surrogate can and should leave (just like the British and Soviets had to do).

7. Another flashpoint is Pakistan. Wow, what a mess! The so-called “war on terrorism” failed because too many neocons believed that Pakistan was the answer to their problems. Pakistan, at the end of day, has always been the real quandary. Pakistan, like Israel, understands well the “wag the dog” gambit in international politics. Washington likes to think that it is in control, but actually allows itself to be seduced by regimes that are a threat to its national interests and the world’s. When Pakistan is forced to get its house in order, then the Afghanistan catastrophe will be a mere footnote to be fixed.

8. In April the G-20 countries will meet in London. Their first decision should be to either abolish or completely revamp the IMF and World Bank. Both these organisations no longer serve any positive purpose. Both organisations are products of hubris. They preach one thing, but the powers behind them do differently. There needs to be new international monetary institutions to serve the global community when a state is in financial distress. But those institutions should also include Russia, China, India and Brazil as decision makers. Alas, we need to accept the on-going paradigm shift happening on the international economic order.

9. I find it really annoying when I told about “world” or “international opinion.” Again, give it a thought. A few western news outlets and western polling agencies tell us “what the world thinks.” The reality is that it is their opinion and not the world’s. I implore all who read this blog to read and watch different news outlets like RT. You don’t have to agree, but you just might be confronted with a different perspective.

10. Challenge authority and what you hear and read. And live by the motto: Always tell the truth, but never claim an easy victory.