Russia And The Middle East
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Or: Bumbling in 10 easy steps</div> I have been following the Russian government very closely over the past few months (well, my whole life - I grew up in the shadow of the Warsaw Pact). In regards to the situation in the mideast for the past few months, I find a lot of their behavior pretty troubling. They were certainly against the war in Iraq, and I can understand that (although it's hard to reconcile, considering their last 10 years of fighting and genocide in Chechnya, still occuring as I write this). But their presented reasoning behind it seems to be getting more and more transparent every day.
Some examples:
They appear to have illegally sold Iraq <a href='http://www.cdi.org/russia/251-9.cfm' target='_blank'>weapons</a> that were used specifically to counter US equipment, such as GPS disruptors and heavy anti-tank missiles. While they appear to have been of very limited effectiveness, if even one of those disruptors caused a cruise missile to go off-target and cause civilian casualties (it has to land somewhere, you know), that puts them right into the blame pile with the US.
They refuse to <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_russia_iraq_1' target='_blank'>drop Iraq's debts</a> from all their previous-1990's trade with Saddam, even though they are the first to decry the humanitarian issues of the war. While Putin seems to be getting more ammenable to this lately, he is a President, and can't make it happen without the (missing) legislative support.
Just today, the Russian government <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20030417/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_russia_un_030417121631&e=2' target='_blank'>refused a UN-US proposal to remove sanctions on Iraq</a>, citing that they believed that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction! Talk about your doublethink, that one is a doozy. The main reasoning behind this move appears to be fears that Iraq's commerical oil flowing again will hurt the russian home oil economy. Sign these guys up for the Nobel peace prize...
Add in that they are the main providers of nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, and you have to start wondering how good of allies these guys really are.
Is Russia geopolitically the Soviet Union with a nice new flag?
Some examples:
They appear to have illegally sold Iraq <a href='http://www.cdi.org/russia/251-9.cfm' target='_blank'>weapons</a> that were used specifically to counter US equipment, such as GPS disruptors and heavy anti-tank missiles. While they appear to have been of very limited effectiveness, if even one of those disruptors caused a cruise missile to go off-target and cause civilian casualties (it has to land somewhere, you know), that puts them right into the blame pile with the US.
They refuse to <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_russia_iraq_1' target='_blank'>drop Iraq's debts</a> from all their previous-1990's trade with Saddam, even though they are the first to decry the humanitarian issues of the war. While Putin seems to be getting more ammenable to this lately, he is a President, and can't make it happen without the (missing) legislative support.
Just today, the Russian government <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20030417/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_russia_un_030417121631&e=2' target='_blank'>refused a UN-US proposal to remove sanctions on Iraq</a>, citing that they believed that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction! Talk about your doublethink, that one is a doozy. The main reasoning behind this move appears to be fears that Iraq's commerical oil flowing again will hurt the russian home oil economy. Sign these guys up for the Nobel peace prize...
Add in that they are the main providers of nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, and you have to start wondering how good of allies these guys really are.
Is Russia geopolitically the Soviet Union with a nice new flag?
Comments
Doublethink? I'd say it's just trying to **** the US adminstration off by tying them into logical knots.
The US said Iraq has "weapons of mass distruction", claimed that the failure of inspectors to find them only showed that Iraq wasn't willing to cooperate, so they invaded. Beautifully elegant logic.
But now they occupy it, they still can't find them. So either the weapons are still hidden there, unfound by the US, so the sanctions should continue, or they were never there, so America lied and the whole war was bogus. I love it.
I liked Syria's effort today too - following on from the US's "success" in Iraq they've tabled a draft UN resolution to make the whole Middle-East a WMD-free zone. It'll be fun watching the US try to veto that with a straight face. Top marks. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I wouldn't call Russia the same as the Soviet Union but the Soviet era certainly still casts a very deep shadow over the Russia of today. The failure of democracy and capitalism in Russia has seen a resurgance of both communism and authoritarian rule, and quite frankly, how can you blame them? Russia isn't opposing the US for the sake of opposing, but the large scale movement of American troops into Georgia, the placement of a large US force in Afghanistan and the encrouchment of NATO in the west have all contributed to a Russia that must be wondering why it should go out of it's way to help the US. For Russia, kowtowing to the US and not voicing any opposition to US plans for the Middle East is both unprofitable for Russia and against their national interest. The question that should perhaps be asked is why would Russia help the US now?
Doublethink? I'd say it's just trying to **** the US adminstration off by tying them into logical knots.
The US said Iraq has "weapons of mass distruction", claimed that the failure of inspectors to find them only showed that Iraq wasn't willing to cooperate, so they invaded. Beautifully elegant logic.
But now they occupy it, they still can't find them. So either the weapons are still hidden there, unfound by the US, so the sanctions should continue, or they were never there, so America lied and the whole war was bogus. I love it.
I liked Syria's effort today too - following on from the US's "success" in Iraq they've tabled a draft UN resolution to make the whole Middle-East a WMD-free zone. It'll be fun watching the US try to veto that with a straight face. Top marks. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--></span> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not talking about the US. I am talking about Russia. Answer the questions at hand or don't reply- this sort of 'yeah, but..." *really* ticks me off. Learn to be respectful of other posters and actually reply to their questions, not just hijack their posts with some other agenda.
I wouldn't call Russia the same as the Soviet Union but the Soviet era certainly still casts a very deep shadow over the Russia of today. The failure of democracy and capitalism in Russia has seen a resurgance of both communism and authoritarian rule, and quite frankly, how can you blame them? Russia isn't opposing the US for the sake of opposing, but the large scale movement of American troops into Georgia, the placement of a large US force in Afghanistan and the encrouchment of NATO in the west have all contributed to a Russia that must be wondering why it should go out of it's way to help the US. For Russia, kowtowing to the US and not voicing any opposition to US plans for the Middle East is both unprofitable for Russia and against their national interest. The question that should perhaps be asked is why would Russia help the US now? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good points Ryo. But they are actively destabilizing the world every time they hand out more nuclear reactors indiscrimionately - they have built the NK's 9 of them! And who gives atomic power to the Iranians without considering the consequences? These guys operate like the wackos in the Reagan government, but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. It seems as though they never learn from any past mistakes... go into afghanistan with untrained, badly equipped conscripts - get wasted. Go into chechnya with untrained, bad equipped conscripts - get wasted.
You would think though that they would at least play the whole affair much quieter instead of trumpeting their positions, as they are so vulnerable to a criticism of hipocricy. And their countryman go along with this at about 95% approval ratings of the anti-war stance in Iraq. And yet there doesn't seem to be the public outcry to practice what you preach...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Russia could say in response that they believe US actions are destabilising the world. Granted, the US isn't handing out nuclear reactors, but the Russians can point to Israel and say that if a US ally can have nuclear weapons and reactors, why can't Russian allies? For all it's talk and gusto Nth Korea has never used it's arsonal (that doesn't mean I think they should have it), and from a Russian perspective giving North Korea nuclear capacity offsets the US pressence in South Korea. Although the west views this as imbalance, for Russia it is balancing the US's increasing hegemony over the globe.
As for giving Iran nuclear power this is again a balancing issue. Russia has no interest in seeing the entire middle east fall under de-facto or direct US control. The naming of Iran in the "Axis of Evil" doubtless provoked fears that iran was going to be invaded. So far it hasn't happened, but given the retoric by both sides it would seem apparent that a US invasion of iran is, whilst perhaps not just around the courner, a definite possibility. America has an ally in the Middle East with nuclear arms: Israel. Thus, Russia sees fit to have an ally in the Middle East with nuclear weapons: Iran.
Russia is understandably against the existance of a sole "hyper-power" in the US. The desire for balanceing the awesome power and reach of the United States is quite likely what is behind these decisions. Yes, they may be destabilising. But Russia has little interest in helping the US achieve global hegemony and a lot to gain by helping US opposition.
I think they're just scared that they'll not be able to offload anymore MiG21's in return for oil, tbh.
Of course the one benefit of a new regime in Iraq introduced by America is that they should be able to get dollars (if they can convince the world to keep the debt) to pay off what Saddam built up.
To recap, Russia has lost a major source of income, a source of cheap fuel, and realisticaly can't afford to write off the debt.
Allies or not, thats enough to scare any nation.
A politician? Telling the truth? Admitting national failing and weakness in front of the world media?HAHAHAHOHAHOHOAHOAHOHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!
*wipes eyes*
Nice one MonsE.