Why should Russia bail out America?

Link copied to clipboard

Published: 20 September, 2009, 10:45
Edited: 10 November, 2009, 13:46

September 2009

The Obama administration’s decision to scrap the Bush era anti-missile defense plans in Eastern Europe was actually expected. Nonetheless, this was a very pragmatic move on the part of Washington. However, the immediate talk and plans for a different American-led “stronger, smarter, and swifter” anti-missile strategy was not helpful. I will reserve judgment on this matter until more details are made available.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates didn’t mention cooperation with Russia in this new strategy, though the US president made it clear that he wanted this to happen. So we have to wait and see. But one thing is constant: American weapon contractors can still count on billions of US taxpayer dollars to counter military and security threats the US created in the first place.

We have been told that the Bush plan (actually designed by Gates when he served in the Bush administration) was ditched because of revised military intelligence reports. In those reports it is believe the so-called Iranian threat has changed – instead of worrying about Tehran’s long-range missiles, we now need to be mindful of its short-range missiles. Well that is really interesting! US military intelligence doesn’t exactly have the best track record, and it can hardly be called intelligent. US military intelligence got us into Iraq and cannot come up with a real plan to get us out of Afghanistan. This is why I believe Obama’s “out with old and in with the new” anti-missile plan should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Why now? Why did Obama make his announcement now and why did NATO suddenly parrot Washington’s alleged new approach toward Moscow on missile defense? NATO can hardly find a consensus on any issue, particularly regarding Russia. Well, it is really all about “someone else’s” problem – Iran.

Russia and Iran are not friends, nor allies. However, it is fair to say they do not have hostile attitudes toward each other. Simply put, Russia does not see Iran as threatening and is very hesitant to join other countries desiring to destabilize the regime in Tehran. Moscow also does not see any wisdom in punishing Iran through sanctions because of real or imagined activities surrounding Iran’s nuclear program (and alleged ambitions).

Suddenly, the West, particularly the US, wants to be Russia’s new pal. And surely it is not because of the coming talks with Iran at the start of October in Turkey! They are the same talks in which Iran must bow to the West and surrender its sovereignty, or face a fourth round of sanctions. And remember, the EU has said it will go it alone without the UN Security Council this time – the most powerful sanction is the cut exports of refined fuels to Iran. Tehran, in turn, will very likely claim this act would be an existential threat to Iran’s security. This is the path to confrontation and Russia wants to have nothing to do with it.

Russia will not join with the West to make unreasonable demands of Tehran irrespective of Washington’s future anti-missile plans. Russia believes in direct engagement of Tehran and at the same time does not want to see Iran develop a deployable nuclear weapon. Russia will continue to respect the opinions of the IAEA regarding Iran’s nuclear program. I use the word ‘respect’ and not the word ‘follow’ because a great deal of the IAEA’s intelligence comes from the Americans and the Israelis (and it is the Israelis who first and foremost hope to con its Western friends into acting against Iran as a cover for Israel to complete its annexation of the West Bank, thus making a Palestinian state impossible).

Allow me to reiterate a point: Russia does not want to see Tehran develop a nuclear weapon that could threaten Iran’s neighbors and beyond. However, Russia worst nightmare is a Western-sponsored war against Iran. About two million ethnic Azaris in the north of the country could opt to find refuge in neighboring Azerbaijan, threatening the very existence of this fragile state. The knock-on impact for the rest of the region and the post-soviet space would be devastating. Western mainstream media constantly repeat that Russia overly meddles in the affairs of its neighbors, but if Russia’s neighbors go to hell in a hand basket it is Russia that is left to pick up the pieces.

Russia has no intention of bailing out the US in the Greater Middle East. And Russia will have nothing to do with the West attacking and/or invading a third Muslim country. The West should stop looking for ways to contain and destroy the Islamic Republic. There must be honest and constructive engagement on the part of all parties. In my opinion, the first item on the table should be the complete nuclear disarmament of the entire Greater Middle East and that includes Israel. We should start struggling for peace in this region of the world and not preparing for another senseless war. This is an agenda Russia can support.

Follow @rt_com

Share on Tumblr

102 COMMENTS

Bianca, November 09, 2009, 20:41

Guistino, just a passing summary. I do not blame you for not reading the lengthy debates between Marzipan6 and myself. You must have missed a lot, otherwise you could not have come to a conclusion that both of us seek to establish collective guilt. While I am the last person to speak up for Marzipan6, and in spite of his/her generalizations, I did not feel that he/she was arguing for collective guilt. Rather, I felt that Marzipan6 felt that Russia owed Estonia an appology for WWII. While Estonia did not owe Russia any appologies. That was the on-going argument. I have provided sufficient information to show that Estonia's expectation of appologies is misplaced. But I had to go through a virtual sea of historic romanticism to get to that point. Getting back to the concept of collective guilt. If you read even half of what I wrote, you will never say something like that. So, I can recaputulate some of my oft expressed feelings on the matter. Not only that I never felt that Estonians are collectively guilty for broad participation in support of Hitler's war effort, I said just the opposite. I completely understand Estonia's support for Hitler, given its geographic position, size and strength. I did not blame Estonians who participated in fighting Soviets, mined their escaping ships with tens of thousands civilians aboard, participating in Nazi invasion of Soviet Union, helping Finland in its proxy war on behalf of Hiter against Soviet Union, and all other decisons that people make when the war is upon them. I never even blamed Germans for accepting the promises of greatness by a populist manipulator. I have never blamed Germans for trying to survive the cruel punishment at the end of WWI. I do not care if the Nazi uniforms are dusted off for a march of veterans. I brought issues only as a means of removing romantic gloss from Marzipan6 writings. None of this really matters. But what matters is when today politicians try to profit from history. This is where Estonian leadership has made many mistakes, and continues to provoke Russia. Russia has proven more then amply that it is not hung up on past. German-Russian relationship is a living proof of nations being able to build trust and better future for new generations. But it cannot do it with those countries whose leadership is trying to score political points, or even blame Russia for fighting Hitler's Germany. And Estonia has found itself in that predicament. In WWII Estonia and Russia were on the opposite sides of the battle. Marzipan6 in the last posting put it best. Estonian participation in Hitler's war effort were based on Estonian desire not to be occupied by Soviet Union. Estonian military operations against Soviet Army therefore costs Soviets hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers and civilians. Marzipan6 absolutely proves my point. Hitler's occupying forces were the pillar of the Estonian sense of security against Soviet Union. Unfortunately for Estonia, it happened to be on the wrong side of history. No matter what justifications, explanations or righeous definitions we may use today, Hitler's efforts to occupy Europe, and take battle to distant parts of the world, had to be stopped. Soviet Union had a single, uncomplicated reason to fight Hitler. He came to their land, killed their people, destroyed their cities, villages, cultural heretage and industrial base. He had to be expelled from there, and pursued till the end. Soviet Union was fighting Nazism, and that meant anybody else whose flags flew alongside Nazi flag. Estonia became the victim by association. Estonia's insistence on discussing the history from the perspective of a victim of Soviet Union, is therefore not only historically ridiculous, but lacks common decency. Estonia like many other nations made decisions in the fratricidal European bloodletting. Regarless of the reasons for joining Hitler under his flag, the end of Hitler's Europe resulted in the divided continent. The end of the Cold War signified the unique opportunity for establishing new relationships and leaving the divided Europe behind. Nations that successfully bridge the transition will prosper, others may end up being a museum of their own past. In that museum, nations stuck in the past will forever try to build exhibits that prove how their war-time alliance with Hiter did not really mean support of Nazism. As if it makes any difference. One can hope that Russian-German relationship can help East Europe and Baltic countries find a good mechanism for building new ties with Russia. This is what neighbors are supposed to do. I hope for the day we can honor all dead soldiers and reflect on their humanity, and the life that was cut short due to human folly.

Marzipan6, October 08, 2009, 12:45

Here are some errors of fact from Bianca’s last several posts. (1) I have never insisted that “the whole history of WWII was black and white,” with the SU being “black” and the Western allies being “white”. I have pointed out how the foolishness of the West, from Versailles to Munich, contributed much to the outbreak of war, and how at Yalta the West sold the Baltics into Soviet slavery at Yalta. I have never criticized Russia’s defence of its homeland, and have credited it with a major role in defeating Nazism. And I have readily acknowledged that some Estonians participated in German war crimes, though never as an expression of government policy. Unfortunately the black-and-white theory seems to be embraced by Russia – it is “white” only, while Estonia, which did not have a side at all in the War and was neutral for as long as its sovereignty lasted, is cast as “black”. (2) I have never said that “Russians need to be indicted for their past sins”. I have said that if Russia wants to have normal relations with a whole arc of surrounding nations, it needs to finally let go of Stalin’s 1940’s era lies and distortions about Soviet actions in regard to its neighbours and seek reconciliation and partnership with them rather than maintaining positions that are offensive. (3) Estonia was not “highly Germanized before the onset of WWII”. Whereas Germany had exported some of its culture and architecture to Estonia through the centuries of the Baltic Barons’ influence, it had also exported a very strong anti-German sentiment as a result of the feudalism it had practised there. Any Estonian will tell you that. Only book-bound theorists might tell you something else. Estonia had only just finished a very bitter War of Independence against Germany, and victory in a decisive battle against the Landeswehr had become Estonia’s annual Victory Day. To say that Estonia was emotionally “Germanized” is ignorant nonsense. (4) There was no enthusiasm, infections or otherwise, in pre-War Estonia over Hitler’s success in rebuilding Germany. Only worry, as the storm-clouds deepened. (5) Estonians volunteered for military service in Finland because Estonia had already yielded to Soviet Russia without so much as firing a shot. Moscow had disbanded Estonia’s army, and fighting to defend Finland was the only way at the time that Estonians could resist their Eastern invader. (6) Finland was not “conducting a proxy war on behalf of Hitler.” Instead, Finland was the victim of unprovoked Soviet aggression in 1939, at a time when Russia was not even at war with Germany, and would not be for about two more years. Russia was simply trying to claim Finnish territory which its Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany assigned to it. After war between Russia and Germany did break out in 1941, Finland saw this as an opportunity to push Russia out of occupied Finnish territory, and seek revenge for 1939. But Bianca must live in a time machine if she thinks that this had anything at all to do with Estonia in 1939-40. (7) Bianca asks, “Was there anything wrong with Estonians’ overwhelmingly supporting Germany?” This assumes that they did, and reality is that they did not. They overwhelmingly opposed Russia’s invasion and occupation of their homeland and service in the German military was the most direct way of expediting that opposition. (8) I am not aware that Estonians “marched along with Hitler’s forces into Russia” at all. I don’t believe any Estonians “marched with Hitler’s forces” until towards the end of 1942 by which time the tide of the battle had turned, German forces were bogged down in Russia, and on the threshold of marching out of there, and “inferior peoples” were admitted into the now hard-pressed German military. It was the Red Army that was then preparing to march back into Estonia, to continue its atrocities of 1940-41. That’s when significant number of Estonians started fighting in German uniform. (9) While Estonia does not need to apologise for killing Russian soldiers who invaded their country or who were on their way to doing so again, it did need to apologise for those relatively few of their people who participated in German war crimes, and indeed has done so. (10) While “Denmark never blamed anyone for their WWII decisions,” neither does Estonia. It simply states what it did and why it did it, when countering slanderous allegations. Also, if Denmark’s invader had claimed to this day that Denmark freely and legally joined the Third Reich and that there never even was a German occupation of their country, if the Nazi Party was still represented in the German Parliament, if the swastika was still a symbol of honour in Germany, if Hitler polled as the third most-popular German today, if a Railway station in Berlin was just refurbished complete with engraved quotations f rom Mein Kampf, if the Chancellor was a Gestapo officer and former Gestapo personnel held the key to power in Germany, I think Denmark’s attitude towards its Large Neighbour might be a little different today. Perhaps even a little like the Baltic countries’ attitude towards their Large Neighbour. (11) Concentration camps in Estonia were established and overwhelmingly run by that country’s German occupiers, with Estonians having only very little practical involvement, and even less policy say-so. Estonians are about as responsible for those camps as Poles are for Auschwitz. Still there was some involvement, and once again, Estonia has apologised for this, even though none of it had been an expression of its own government policies. (12) History is valid if it excludes fictions posing as facts, and arranges actual facts in a context that correlates with the living memory of the people whom it seeks to explain. Otherwise it is a political or intellectual instrument whose aim is something other than shedding light on events.

previous post next post