Tag: Georgia

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Russian policy ignores history & reality

The White House continues to act surprised at Russia’s aggressiveness in Europe and the Middle East, and its alliances with China and Iran. It’s time the President and his advisors took time to read a history book or two, and not the ones written by the aging 60’s radicals that have so heavily influenced his thinking and his career.

In the absurd, moral equivalence view of the progressive left, Washington and Moscow emerged from World War 2 as competitors, the two toughest kids on the block, both only interested in domination.  Therefore, the Obama Administration’s policies which allowed the Kremlin to become the superior nuclear power, that gave in to its demands to withdraw U.S. anti-missile devices from Poland, to remove most American tanks from Europe, to slash defense spending and to virtually ignore Russia’s massive arms buildup have all been, according to this perspective, justified as a “risk for peace,” signaling Moscow that Washington wasn’t interested in furthering competition. The fact that all those measures only encouraged Russian aggressiveness has been ignored. Even its return to military bases in Latin America has been overlooked.

The progressive’s historical memory is, of course, completely wrong.  While the U.S. rebuilt both its allies and its former enemies, the Kremlin essentially capitalized on the conflict by forging an empire in Eastern Europe, as it continued on a wartime footing in the hopes of still further expansion.

Russia’s expansionist, militant perspective didn’t begin in 1945. Missing from the hard-left worldview is the reality that Nazi Germany wouldn’t have had the ability to grow its armed forces to such great power without the German-Soviet Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.  Equally ignored is the unpleasant reality that the two nations began the conflict as allies, sharing in the division of Poland between them. The agreement also contained a provision outlining the dual annexation of Eastern Europe, which foreshadowed Moscow’s actions following the war.

The Kremlin’s recent moves are a continuation of the aggressive, militant policies that caused so much pain throughout the 20th century. (The transition from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation hasn’t changed the nation’s underlying policies.) Its recent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, and its threatening stance against other Eastern European nations are clear examples.

In addition, it is diagnosed that in some way you actually started to obsess over the capital T: why best prices on viagra did it start, how can I get better. The Orthopedic physical therapy falls under the similar group of discount levitra no rx Sports Physical Therapy. In order to minimize the risks associated with the following diseases: Willms Renal Tumor Congenital heart disease Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) Angiodisplazia Epilepsy treated with valproic acid Hypothyroidism Von Willebrand disease is divided into three categories: partial quantitative deficiency type I, qualitative deficiency type II and total deficiency type III. price for generic viagra Well, not all medicines are effective even if they come cheap and follow the guidelines prescribed in the rules viagra cheapest price and it will surely make a difference. Russia’s foray into Syria provides another clear indication of how it is still following the game plan followed during the era of the Nazi-Soviet alliance. The 1936 Spanish Civil War served as a testing and training ground for Hitler’s military, which began WW2 as the best trained armed force in Europe. President Putin’s expensively re-equipped and modernized military is becoming battle-hardened and tested in these conflicts.

While the Obama Administration continues its peace at any price worldview (similar to that of Britain’s pre-war Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who famously believed that he could prevent conflict with Germany by appeasing Hitler) the NATO alliance is beginning to take some, albeit inadequate, steps in recognition of the rapidly growing threat. Its’ plan provides for enhanced readiness, and sets up two more NATO Force Integration Units (NFIUs) or small headquarters in Hungary and Slovakia. Six other NFIUs were activated in September in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. The United Kingdom will rotate more troops into the Baltics and Poland for training and exercises.

The action comes in response to several Russian moves, including the increased power and modernity of Moscow’s forces, its invasions of Ukraine and Georgia, its incursions near the airspace of several NATO countries (including the very recent entry into Turkey’s airspace) and the Kremlin’s establishment of airbases in Belarus in order to threaten NATO members Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. The violation of arms accords relating to intermediate range nuclear weapons, and Russia’s ten to one lead in the possession of those devices, has produced significant concern as well.

While NATO’s actions are appropriate, the fact remains that the military budgets of its members remain far below adequate to truly challenge Moscow’s threatening stance. While this has been a long-standing pattern for NATO’s European members, the recent decline of America’s defense spending has dramatically enhanced the problem.

The Obama Administration’s faulty historical memory, a product of the Presidents’ progressive roots, is disturbing enough. When combined with its absolute refusal to change its foreign policy course and national security strategy in the face of consistent, repeated and major failures, the concern becomes extreme.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Empire’s Returning

Concerns that Vladimir Putin is seeking to re-establish hegemony in the former Soviet Empire, as well as controlling vital regional resources, deepened in the wake of Moscow’s installation of new demarcation signs about 300 feet into Georgian territory in the internationally non-recognized border of Georgia and its breakaway region of South Ossetia.

This is a follow up move to Russia’s military support and recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence in 2008. In 2009, Russia took control of the South Ossetia/Georgian border.

The change leaves slightly less than a mile of the Baku-Supsa oil pipeline under Moscow’s control.

Georgia’s ambassador Konstantine Zaldastanishvili  emphasized that the “Russian Federation remains in flagrant breach of the principles of international law and its commitments under the 12 August 2008 Ceasefire Agreement. Moreover, the installation of barbed wire fences and other artificial barriers further violates the fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to free movement of the local population.”

According to the European Union “The installation of new demarcation signposts along the administrative boundary line of Georgia’s breakaway region of South Ossetia has led to tension in the area, with potentially negative effects on the local population, their livelihood and freedom of movement…The EU reaffirms its full support for Georgia’s territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders.”

The BBC reports that “a flag erected by Georgian protesters near the village of Khurvaleti, just south of the dividing line, has been removed by guards on the South Ossetian side.

There are a number of natural foods that can trigger joint pain and worsen symptoms. viagra generico cipla click this link female viagra cheap It’s great to have fire and passion. It is a medicine which works smoothly and viagra generika http://greyandgrey.com/third-department-decision-7-3-13/ is said to be gentle way to discover a person s aspiration or the pleasure which makes the sex between the two of them make love. Career is one of the big parts of men’s identities, and being under-employed or jobless can make men experience inadequacies, viagra no prescription canada including sexual insufficiency. Earlier this year, the Foreign Policy Research Institute noted that “Russia and South Ossetia … ironed out final details of a “Treaty of Alliance and Integration.” The treaty was drafted in December 2014 and on January 31, 2015 Georgian news agencies reported that the leader of South Ossetia, Leonid Tibilov, had sent the finalized document back to Moscow…This comes less than three months after the signing of the Russia-Abkhazia treaty of a similar nature, although it is not as comprehensive. The international community and the Georgian government have condemned Russia’s actions and will not recognize either of the treaties but that is not likely to stem Putin’s expansionist policies – if Crimea is any guide…The treaty…[allows] Russia to absorb South Ossetia.”

The U.S. State Department, while issuing no comment on the latest move, had stated earlier this year that “The United States’ position on South Ossetia and Abkhazia remains clear: these regions are integral parts of Georgia, and we continue to support Georgia’s independence, its sovereignty, and its territorial integrity.

The United States does not recognize the legitimacy of any so-called “treaty” between the de facto leaders of Georgia’s breakaway region of South Ossetia and the Russian Federation. Neither this agreement nor the one signed between Russia and the de facto leaders in Abkhazia in November 2014 constitutes a valid international agreement.

Russia should fulfill all of its obligations under the 2008 ceasefire agreement, withdraw its forces to pre-conflict positions, reverse its recognition of the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, and provide free access for humanitarian assistance to these regions.

We continue to support the Geneva International Discussions as a means to achieving concrete progress on security and humanitarian issues that continue to impact the communities on the ground in Georgia. In this regard, we are concerned by reports that the signing of this so-called agreement may coincide with the current round of Geneva Discussions on the conflict in Georgia. The United States calls on all participants to seize the opportunity to make progress in this and future rounds.”

Stratfor’s 2008 Analysis remains current and disturbing: “The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery. This, as we have argued, has opened a window of opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the invasion did not shift the balance of power. The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public.”

Categories
NY Analysis

Can NATO Survive?

After a successful conclusion to the Cold War, can the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) regroup to respond to the new threat from Moscow?

Vladimir Putin’s intentions were made clear in a telling comment by Andranik Migranyan, head of the Kremlin-controlled “Institute for Democracy and Cooperation” reported in the Fiscal Times in response to analogies between Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and Germany’s in the 1930’s:

“One must distinguish between Hitler before 1939 and Hitler after 1939…the thing is that Hitler collected [German] lands.  If he had become famous only for uniting  without a drop of blood Germany with Austria, Sudetenland and Memel, in fact completing  what Bismarck failed to do, and if he had stopped there, then he would have remained a politician of the highest class.”

Moscow’s worrisome military moves are not restricted to former Soviet satellites.  In December, the Kremlin confirmed  that it had deployed ISKANDER tactical nuclear missiles on NATO’s border. The move was not in response to any western action.

There have also been a number of incidents in which Moscow’s nuclear-capable bombers and submarines have come threateningly close to the airspace and coasts of NATO nations both in Europe and the United States.

Richard Perle, former chair of the Defense Policy Board for President George W. Bush and current fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently stated in a Newsmax interview that Putin is attempting to “put Humpty Dumpty back together again and re-create something that looks like the old Soviet Empire.”

NATO’s forces have shrunk considerably since the end of the Cold War, symbolized by the diminishing military budgets of both European nations and the United States.  The United States has also unilaterally withdrawn all of its most vital land weapons, tanks, from the European continent.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in early 2014, which the United States and the European Union say violated international law, will likely poison relations with NATO for the foreseeable future. “We clearly face the gravest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War,” said Secretary-General Rasmussen of Russia’s intervention.

Russia’s invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, as well as its deployment of ISKANDER tactical nuclear weapons to its European border, have brought back the threat most had thought vanished with the fall of the Soviet Union.  But NATO’s individual governments, including most importantly the United States, have slashed military budgets.

NATO’s sharp reduction in forces, even in the face of increasing threats, has brought into question the viability of the alliance.  A 2012 Brookings Institute study

“There have long been debates about the sustainability of the transatlantic alliance and accusations amongst allies of unequal contributions to burden-sharing. But since countries on both sides of the Atlantic have begun introducing new – and often major – military spending cuts in response to the economic crisis, concerns about the future of transatlantic defense cooperation have become more pronounced.

Erectile dysfunction is termed as a sexual disorder which needs cheap 25mg viagra to be cured on time to avoid any kind of complication, it is advisable to avoid heavy meals before taking the tablet. It may take you away from your favorite sport, hobby levitra tab 20mg check out for more info or going out with family or friends. Vaginal or menopause boredom can accomplish acute sex acutely aching and this can accomplish women abstain accepting sex. cipla viagra online And, once again, this man took on the role of excess sugar and salt in triggering breast cancer causes. generic levitra online appalachianmagazine.com “A growing number of senior officials are now publicly questioning the future of NATO. In June 2011, in the midst of NATO’s operation in Libya, Robert Gates, then US Defense Secretary, stated that Europe faced the prospect of “collective military irrelevance” and that unless the continent stemmed the deterioration of its armed forces, NATO faced a “dim, if not dismal Future.” Ivo Daalder, the US Permanent  Representative to NATO, and James Stavridis, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, have argued that “if defense spending continues to decline, NATO may not be able to replicate its success in Libya in another decade.”

“The alliance’s Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has warned that “if European defense spending cuts continue, Europe’s ability to be a stabilizing force even in its neighborhood will rapidly disappear.” While Norwegian Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide has claimed that “exercises have shown that NATO’s ability to conduct conventional military operations has markedly declined. […] Not only is NATO’s ability to defend its member states questionable, it might actually deteriorate further as financial pressures in Europe and the US force cuts in military spending”

Russia’s aggression represents a disappointing end result for NATO’s numerous attempts to establish a relationship with Moscow based on a post-Cold War (or “Cold War 1” as it is becoming known) era of cooperation rather than confrontation.  According to a recent NATO document, 

“Over the past twenty years, NATO has consistently worked for closer cooperation and trust with Russia.  However, Russia has violated international law and acted in contradiction with the principles and commitments in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council Basic Document,   the NATO-Russia Founding Act,  and the Rome Declaration.   It has gravely breached the trust upon which NATO-Russia cooperation must be based.”

Russia’s NATO envoy, Aleksandr Grushko, responded in a statement reported in the Russian publication RT that “…NATO still has a double standard policy. And Cold War stereotypes are still applied towards Russia…”

NATO turned 65 in 2014, a year that also marks the 15th, 10th, and 5th anniversary of members who joined since the end of the Cold War, enlarging the alliance to a total of 28 member states. It is, arguably, the most successful military alliance in history, winning its original goal of preventing a Soviet invasion, without having to actually go to war.

NATO currently conducts 5 active missions: peacekeeping in Kosovo, anti-terrorism patrols in the Mediterranean, anti-piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa, assistance to the African Union in Somalia, and fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. But it is the Russian threat that looms largest.  NATO seems unprepared to deal with.

Particularly under Vladimir Putin, Russia, despite numerous NATO overtures for peace and cooperation, has viewed NATO’s growth with anger.  Moscow, which spends a greater percentage of its GDP   (4.1%) on defense than either the U.S. (2.4%) or NATO nations (averaging about 2%)  maintains that it opposes NATO growth because it views it as a threat to its nation, despite all evidence to the contrary. A more accurate analysis indicates that the alliance prevents the Kremlin from re-forming the Soviet Empire in a different format.

The Council of Foreign Relations  notes that NATO’s Bucharest summit in the spring of 2008 sharply deepened the distrust. The alliance delayed “Membership Action Plans” for Ukraine and Georgia but declared its support for eventual full membership for both, despite repeated warnings from Russia of political and military consequences. Russia’s invasion of Georgia in the summer, following Georgian shelling of South Ossetia after what it termed an occupation by Russian forces, was a clear signal of Moscow’s intentions to protect and enlarge what it sees as its sphere of influence.

Many had hope that Moscow’s opposition to NATO’s growth had been resolved in 1997, when the alliance and Russia adopted a security agreement in which Moscow consented to NATO’s growth in return for a promise that masses of troops, equipment or nuclear missiles would not be placed on Russia border. The hope was not realized.

The Report continues next week.