March 28, 2008
I don't know if you guys are completely bored to death with my foreign policy posts, but here's another one. I've become increasingly interested in Russia recently, which has been quietly reasserting it's diplomatic muscle around the world.
Vladimir Putin's switch to becoming Prime Minister of the Duma (Russian Parliament),his replacement as president by his handpicked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, and the transition of the country to what is essentially one-party rule has been pretty well documented. But that's not what I'm talking about today.
Instead, I"m talking about the intersection of US foreign policy and Russian foreign policy. In particular, there is a NATO summit happening next week in Europe. The general consensus is that Georgia and the Ukraine are going to apply for NATO membership at this summit. Russia had already thrown a hissyfit when NATO expanded to include the often-threatened Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (the only former Soviet Socialist Republics to join NATO), so you can imagine that the Kremlin wil be quite unhappy at the prospect of the Ukraine, which is an important food exporter to Russia, joining.
Furthermore, this is happening in the context of serious, diplomatic issues that Russia has had with NATO, the Ukraine, and Russia. The conflict with NATO is more properly a conflict with the US, and relates to Bush's stupid, dumbass, illegal nuclear weapons shield, which doesn't work, and violates a treaty with the USSR (but it's ok, the bush team says, because a treaty signed with the USSR is no longer valid because the USSR no longer exists). Russia feels quite threatened by this, and coincidentially, is even more threatened that he required plan requires bases rom within the borders of former Warsaw Pact countries.
The conflict with the Ukraine is a bit more straightforward--the populace has elected politicians that are increasingly less friendly to Moscow. In particular, when vote tampering caused the official tally to 'elect' Kremlin-backed Victor Yanukoyvich over opposition leader Viktor Yukashenko, there were mass protests that led to the result being reversed. This is part of why the Ukraine would like to be behind the NATO shield--so that Russia would be less able to interfere with its internal affairs.
Georgia has had numerous trade disputes with Russia, and additionally, Russia is supporting seperatists movements within Georgia. This has culminated in a Russian boycott of Georgian goods, which in particular, has pissed off Moscow restaurateurs, who highly prize Georgian wine.
Additionally, Russia has organized a successor organization to the Warsaw Pact, called the CTSO . It's members currently consist entirely of former Soviet Socialist Republics, but they have made hints that they'd accept an Iranian application.
So, that's all I have. Wouldn't it be nice if the US had saved all of that diplomatic capital that they used for this stupid missile defense shield and the Iraq war on something useful, like this Ukrainian application?
Angela Merkel (the chancellor of Germany) has expressed opposition to further expansion of NATO until the situation in Afghanistan stabilizes, and France and Italy also seem to be following suit. Most of this camp has expressed that it is more a matter of timing than it is of the concept of expanding NATO further eastward.
I'm not 100% sure about how much of Russia's economy relies upon quasi-leagal dealings, but I do know that they are currently going through a massive economic boom deriving from oil development on the Caspian sea (this is the main reason that Putin is willing to devote so much energy to quelling the Checnya rebellion, to meddling in Georgian affairs, and also why the Chechnians beleive that they would have a viable state upon idependence). My (possibly wrong) understanding is that Western Europe gets a not insubstantial amount of oil from Russia or that is routed through Russia, and therefore, this partially explains why they are less keen on pissing off the Russians with a NATO expansion than the Americans are.
Also: Putin will be at the NATO conference in Bucharest as an 'observer.' The CSM article above seems to indicate that a lot of people are confused as to why the hell he's there.
Speaking to my Russian boss, you might get the feeling as he does that movie piracy is Russia's biggest industry. Whenever he talks to his parents they never fail to mention that they've seen all of the recent American blockbusters on $1 street DVDs. For the record, he doesn't seem very proud of it.
What I don't know is the extent to which tangible exports -- which largely terminate in Europe and Asia, and greatly outweigh their internet presence -- also fit.
You mean other than oil? That's where the bulk of their recent growth is coming from (rising prices). I sort of doubt that piracy is actually that large a percentage of the gross economy, although I think IT is pretty significant, so it probably depends on how you draw the line.
Oh... if I learned to read all posts, I might have noticed that Valatan already said that. Sorry.
Russian troops enter into Georgian civil war. The US sends an envoy to try to broker a ceasefire.
Condi:
We call on Russia to cease attacks on Georgia by aircraft and missiles, respect Georgia’s territorial integrity, and withdraw its ground combat forces from Georgian soil
Russia's sounding very aggressive. Their UN ambassador: questions "the viability of Georgia as a state, their viability as a responsible member of the world community," while Russian President Dmitry Medvedvev states "We will not tolerate the death of our citizens. Those guilty will receive due punishment."
This could just be subterfuge, as Russia is trying to focus international attention on this one dispute, and to distract things from another.
Russia now moves its forces beyond the regions where it has a claim and makes a move toward the interior of Georgia. They're either trying to occupy the whole country, or to weaken their government/military. The russians claim that they are pursuing forces that attacked them. The Georgians are claiming that they offered a cease fire, and that the russians rejected the offer, and continued to pursue them. Note how powerless the US is with the following quotation:
Russia escalated its assault on Sunday despite strong diplomatic warnings from Mr. Bush and European leaders, underscoring the limits of Western influence over Russia at a time when the rest of Europe depends heavily on Russia for natural gas and the United States needs Moscow’s cooperation if it hopes to curtail what it believes is a nuclear weapons threat from Iran.
And it's right. Bush has no diplomatic standing to do anything on this issue. And the Europeans are too dependent on Russia to make a strong stand, just like they were back when Georgia and Ukriane requested NATO membership. Even Nixon/Kissinger was better than this stupid foreign policy team. They at least thought ahead and had real concerns about weakening American foreign policy standing.
an interesting, but probably wrong theory that proposes to explain the central question of this crisis--Why the hell would Georgia move in on South Ossetia without calling the Americans first, and if that call was made, why the hell would the Americans not say 'this is a stupid move that threatens your country's existence.'
« Older Aethermix 3? | To leave in Ari Gold's glovebox. Newer »
To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.
Not bored to death. I very much enjoy the dispatches from the head of our foreign policy desk. As I've lamented several times before, what I really want is a "Wake me when this gets interesting/important" news source: one that identifies only a very few ongoing stories, then clearly and neutrally lays out the story thus far. Most news reporting is all tree no forest, and there's nothing that fills the "Reviews of Modern Physics" niche.
So anyway, even if the Valatan Herald-Dispatch falls somewhat short on the 'neutrality' front it fills an important gap in my understanding of the world.
How does the rest of Europe stand on the issue? Are Germany, France and the UK going to reach for their wallet? Any chance of riding the string out until we have a, y'know, leader in the White House?
On another note, I've wondered for a while -- but don't know how to find out -- how much of Russia's economy is actually based on "grey-market" industry. (Grey-market in the global context -- things like mp3search.ru, or online porn, or hacking for money, or mercenary espionage.) Apart from the nginx webserver, the only Russian commercial goods&services I ever hear about fall into this category. What I don't know is the extent to which tangible exports -- which largely terminate in Europe and Asia, and greatly outweigh their internet presence -- also fit. I know the government has long since devolved into a kleptocratic oligarchy (now firmly cemented, as you said, into single-party rule), but I'm unclear on how much that has extended to Russia becoming the Capt. Jack Sparrow of international trade.
posted by mrflip at 02:22PM CST on March 28