Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Moscow. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Moscow. Mostrar todas as mensagens

13 abril, 2017

Red Lines, Blurry Lines, No Lines



RED LINES, BLURRY LINES, NO LINES


The RED LINE.


Barack Obama drew an infamous Red Line over the use of chemical weapons by Syria´s government. The Syrians crossed the line and nothing happened. Overwhelmed by fear, outfoxed by Vladimir Putin, struggling with Congress, Obama froze. And nothing happened.

Donald Trump had no Red Lines, or otherwise. No lines. However, the moment the Syrian regime allegedly launched a limited chemical attack in Idlib province, the United States retaliated by launching a 60 Tomahawk cruise missile attack on a Syrian Arab Air Force base.

NO LINES

So, one had a clear line and did zilch. The other had no lines and attacked promptly. Where does this leave us? It leaves us with blurry lines, with a grey area of uncertainty, further undermining the credibility and reliability of the United States. This could be good to a certain extent, but, on the other hand, it can also be a conflict-enhancer; in a dubious conflict environment the safest option is to assume the worst, thus increasing the possibilities of the worst happening.

Barack Obama was outmanoeuvred by Putin in 2013, losing the trust of American allies in Europe and the Middle East.

Donald Trump wanted to show he was tough and opened the way to increase the acrimony between Moscow and Washington and to further complicate the already complex and messy Syrian war theatre.
 
BLURRY LINES

in “Airbrush Talk” at http://www.airbrushtalk.com/abtv14n2.htm




Nothing augurs well for Syria and the Blurry Lines will not help.




27 janeiro, 2017

Washington's Russophobia



WASHINGTON’S RUSSOPHOBIA

The Russian Bear.
in “Radix” at www.radixjournal.com

Cold War-like feelings and attitudes are still alive and well in some quarters 25 years after the demise of the Soviet Union. Contrary to what one would have expected, these feelings run deeper in Washington than in Moscow

In fact, politicians, the media and think-tanks in the American capital act like they have seen red when the talk is about Russia. Although this attitude was intensified after Crimea’s return to the Russian fold, it predates the Ukrainian crisis.

With Donald Trump’s election victory and his imminent inauguration, the debate about Russia reached hysterical heights. What’s worse is that the ferociously anti-Russian stance is by no means justified by or founded on sound strategic or political grounds. It is more about plain hatred.

Congress, the media, the Pentagon, the moribund administration, several intelligence agencies all want(ed) more sanctions, more punishment against Russia. They all revile Vladimir Putin as if he were the devil’s incarnation. All of them point fingers at Russian authoritarianism and poor human rights record. And finally, they all abhor the prospect of a thaw in Russian-American relations and a rapprochement that could lead to a more cooperative and eventually more productive relationship. Furthermore, Trump and any member of his cabinet who has ever established some kind of rapport with Russia is labelled as someone untrustworthy, maybe even suspected of treason.

However, these are the same people who are shocked at the prospect of a tougher stance towards China, as if she was not a dictatorship with an established record of repression and a real geopolitical threat to US interests in East Asia.

However, many of these people hailed the rapprochement with Iran, despite her record of sowing mischief across the Middle East, being a leading sponsor of terrorism, not to mention her pursuit of nuclear weapons. And the pacification of US-Iran relations came at the cost of a lousy deal that will open a fast-track to a nuclear-armed Iran by the mid-2020’s.

However, many of these people support a strong and close relationship with Saudi Arabia who is very, very far from being a democratic, human-rights-abiding nation and who also happens to have a record of fomenting a radical vision of Islam.

One could go on pointing to the normalising ties with repressive Cuba, to increasingly authoritarian Turkey and Thailand who seemingly continue to enjoy Washington’s support and understanding, or even to those defending a constructive dialogue with the unblemished government of North Korea.

Russia was pushed and shoved, treated with neglect at best, with contempt at worst during the 1990’s. In this century Moscow gradually started to push back and to be more assertive (cf. the war with Georgia in 2008). Today, Russia’s strategic priority is to retain a sphere of influence that will guarantee her security. Russia’s political priority is to guarantee a seat at the table along with the other great powers, i.e., recognition of her own status as a great power. This was one of the reasons for Russia’s intervention in the Syrian War and it paid off.

One may dislike the “sphere of influence” concept, but the truth is that neither of these goals is preposterous, nor are they harmful to fundamental American interests. Unlike US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Joseph Dunford’s statement, Russia is not the United States’ number 1 geopolitical or national security threat and she will not be so unless cornered, or if one is thinking of a nuclear confrontation.

So, the remaining plausible explanation for this phenomenon is…Russophobia. There seems to be an ingrained hatred towards Russia in a substantial share of the foreign, defence and security policy establishment in Washington who cannot get over the fact that Russia, despite her many problems, is not the post-Cold War weakling anymore. And the more capable, assertive and cunning Russia becomes, the more intense the Russophobia strain in Washington gets.