Russian Expansionism

Russia said on Wednesday it would start the first major navy sortie into the Mediterranean since Soviet times, the latest move by an increasingly assertive Moscow to demonstrate its military might.

"The aim of the sorties is to ensure a naval presence in tactically important regions of the world ocean," Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov told President Vladimir Putin, who wished the sailors well. The rest of the meeting was closed.

Serdyukov said 11 ships, including an aircraft carrier, would take part in the sortie and be backed up by 47 aircraft -- including strategic bombers.

Here we go again, as they promised four months ago.

Source: Reuters

Conspiracy Of Silence

Last night's Ten O'Clock News had a good report on the rise of neo-nazism in Russia, including an interview with Nikolai Kuryanovich, a member of the extreme nationalist Liberal Democratic Party and deputy of the State Duma. Unfortunately, it left the viewer with the impression that ill-feeling towards the "ten million foreigners" who have moved to Russia in recent years is only to be found in the country's equivalent of the BNP. However, the truth is that Central Asians, such as the Uzbek they interviewed who had been beaten up for being "dark-skinned filth" (a rather tame translation of regular abuse that is actually as harsh and inflaming as was "filthy n****r" in America), were always treated as second-class citizens in the former Soviet Union and, as economic migrants today, continue to be harassed and exploited by both the authorities and population at large. Anti-Turkic, anti-Muslim, anti-Western, and even anti-Georgian or anti-Ukrainian stereotypes dominate the mainstream, Kremlin-controlled media.

I say that not simply to point fingers at the racist attitudes endemic in another country, but to question to what extent race has been allowed to subvert a proper and reasoned debate over immigration here† and to question whether we are aware of the ways that our attitudes towards "outsiders" are shaped by our own positive perceptions of national identity and expression of national pride. I am conscious that these are inconvenient questions that the politically correct might like to brush aside, but they are ones on which our elected representatives cannot afford to remain silent.

† Consider, for instance, the recent over-reaction to comments made by Nigel Hastilow, the now former Conservative parliamentary candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, who observed:

"When you ask most people in the Black Country what the single biggest problem facing the country is, most people say immigration. Many insist: “Enoch Powell was right”. Enoch, once MP for Wolverhampton South West, was sacked from the Conservative front bench and marginalised politically for his 1968 “rivers of blood” speech warning that uncontrolled immigration would change our country irrevocably.

He was right. It has changed dramatically. But his speech was political suicide. Enoch’s successors in Parliament are desperate to avoid ever mentioning the issue. It’s too controversial and far too dangerous. Nobody wants to be labelled a racist. Immigration is the issue that dare not speak its name in public."

Sarkozy & Brown's Darfur Push

"It is the combination of a ceasefire, a peacekeeping force, economic reconstruction and the threat of sanctions that can bring a political solution to the region –– and we will spare no efforts in making this happen."

At first glance, the call in today's Times (and Le Monde) by Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy for intense action to secure a ceasefire in Darfur appears a welcome step towards stopping the genocide in Sudan. They acknowledge that the ceasefire "cannot on its own resolve such a complex conflict" and that "we need a political settlement that addresses the root causes of the violence." They also go further than last month's UN Resolution 1769 in that they threaten "further sanctions against those who fail to fulfil their commitments, obstruct the political process or continue to violate the ceasefire." They are also right to "look beyond Darfur, to the issues affecting Sudan and the region," including the need for better security and greater humanitarian assistance among the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing the conflict across the border into Chad.

And yet, underneath, they seem to be accepting a number of false presuppositions:

• They describe the weak UNAMID operation as the deployment of a "robust force," though it has no authority to disarm the militias or to pursue and arrest suspected war criminals indicted by the International Criminal Court.
• They make reference to the meeting of Darfur's rebel groups in Tanzania earlier this month, but neglect to mention that the Sudanese Government's subsequent escalation of violence is already causing the rebels to reconsider attending full negotiations.
• They also make no mention of breaches in existing sanctions, notably by China and Russia, including photographs (such as the one above) published by Amnesty International just last Friday showing military equipment being supplied by Russia at West Darfur's Geneina airport.
• Perhaps most fundamentally, they appear to believe that a political solution will be the inevitable outcome of the supposed ceasefire and the recently agreed peacekeeping force, whereas in reality a political solution must be found first if any ceasefire is to hold.

To quote both Rodolphe Adada, the new UN-AU mission head, and Mark Kroeker, the retiring UN police chief, once again, although UNAMID is sure to be one of the main tools for forwarding peace in Darfur, "it's only a peace operation — you need to have peace to keep," and "The countries that have been talking about Darfur need to now do something about Darfur with their deployment of police in probably the most desperate place in the world."

Russian Provocation

On Monday, two Russian "Su-type" jets launched a missile that landed just outside the Georgian village Tsitelubani, 60km north-west of the capital Tbilisi, though did not explode.

Yesterday Russia resumed its Cold War practice of flying long-haul missions to areas patrolled by NATO and the United States, with one of its Tu-95 "Bear" bombers undertaking a 13 hour sortie to an American military base on the Pacific island of Guam, where they "exchanged smiles" with US pilots who had scrambled to track it.

Last month, two Russian Tu-95 bombers briefly entered British air space but turned back after British fighter jets intercepted them. Norwegian F-16s were also scrambled when two Tu-95s headed south along the Norwegian coast in international air space.

Coming on top of Russia's "conquering" of the Arctic seabed and desire to restore its permanent base in the Mediterranean, its withdrawal from the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, threats to aim its missiles at European targets, and debates with the West over Iran's nuclear programme, Kosovo's possible sovereignty, and America's missile defence plans, can anyone now deny that a new Cold War has begun?

The question is, how should we respond? To what extent should we turn a blind eye to Russia's deliberate and calculated challenges?

Russian Ambition

Following its successful Arctic stunt to plant its flag on the seabed 14,000 feet beneath the north pole this week, Russia has again ramped up the Cold War rhetoric with the country's senior admiral calling for the establishment of a permanent naval base in the Mediterranean for the first time since the Soviet era. The Washington Post quotes Admiral Vladimir Masorin as saying "The Mediterranean Sea is very important strategically for the Black Sea fleet" and calling on the Russian Navy to restore its permanent presence there.

Russia's Olympic Coup

The International Olympic Committee's decision to host the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia in preference to the other final round candidate cities—Austria's Salzburg and South Korea's Pyeongchang—is an opportunity to expose the country's wanton legacy of human rights abuses, just as 2008 has enabled the spotlight to be thrown on China's poor rights record. President Putin, however, is painting the decision in a very different light, claiming that being awarded the Olympics by "one of the most authoritative and independent international organisations" was a recognition of Russia's growing economic and cultural importance in the world. Many Russians are also hailing the IOC vote as proof of their country's resurgence.

However, with the prospect of hundreds of homes needing to be destroyed to make way for new facilities, the games will only increase the growing divide between Russia's rich and poor. It is said that almost everything will have to be built from scratch, with an estimated £6 billion required just to make Sochi's infrastructure conform to international standards. Unlike the investment required for London in 2012, it is unlikely that there will be any long-term benefits to anyone except Russia's oligarchs. What's more, environmentalists are concerned that the Krasnaya Polona ski area, where many events are to be held, is part of a nature reserve and the Olympic Village is to be built on the edge of the West Caucasus National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The Black Sea coastal city of Sochi is described as "a worn-out resort of traffic jams, ramshackle Soviet-era hotels and aging villas" and is famed for its palm trees and "surprisingly warm climate." Quite evidently the perfect venue for the international games... As a US State Department spokesman has put it: "I'm not sure that the selection of Russia to host the Winter Olympics really, at this point, changes our view or others' views — or concerns — about the direction of democracy and related issues ... human rights, respect for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and to be able to peaceably organise opposition democratic parties."

Historic Moments, Fading Dreams

Five years ago, a new alliance was established: the Nato-Russia Council. Speaking at the historic opening session, President Bush concluded:

We will also look ahead to other areas, where we can expand our cooperation, such as missile defense and airspace control that can strengthen the security of all of Europe.

Nothing we do will subtract from NATO's core mission. We will be practical, moving forward step by step. And as our trust and track record of success grows, so will the breadth and depth of our work together.

The NATO-Russia Council offers Russia a path toward forming an alliance with the alliance. It offers all our nations a way to strengthen our common security, and it offers the world a prospect of a more hopeful century.

"missile defense ... airspace control ... as our trust and track record of success grows" ... As NATO secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meet today in Moscow for the fifth anniversary meeting of the Council, one can but wonder how such high hopes have been dashed so quickly.

America's To Blame!

In words reminiscent of a petulant schoolboy complaining, "But he started it!" President Vladimir Putin says that Russia will once again aim its missiles at targets in Europe if U.S. plans to build a missile defense shield near Russia's borders go ahead. Putin acknowledged Russia's response risks restarting an arms race but he said Moscow would not be responsible for the consequences because Washington had started it.

I can but point to what I have already said in A Country Without A Hero, The New Cold War, and Star Wars.

Source: Reuters—Putin warns he will point missiles at Europe

A Country Without A Hero

Russia's President Vladimir Putin yesterday maintained, "We consider it harmful and dangerous to turn Europe into a powder keg and to fill it with new kinds of weapons." Yet, in the latest round of what increasingly looks like a new Cold War, Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister and presidential hopeful Sergei Ivanov announced that the former superpower has successfully tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple independent warheads and a tactical cruise missile with an increased range "capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defence systems."

Perhaps now would be a good time for "Vanity Blair" to allow his successor Gordon "Joseph Sedley?" Brown to get on with the job of running our country. By all means, let our latter-day "Captain George Osborne" continue his tax-payer funded world tour, selling weapons of mass destruction to former terrorist states as he goes, but with such significant developments taking place on the world stage, we cannot afford any further paralysis or stagnation by this unprecedented electoral inter-regnum.

The New Cold War

"A more efficient sword can be found for every shield."

This latest salvo was the threatening response of Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister and likely successor to President Putin, Sergei Ivanov, to last week's uncompromising remarks from America about its missile defence shield plans. Without actually pledging to opt out of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, he described the pact as "a relic, a rudiment of the Cold War" and maintained that "Russia is one of the leading global powers, and it will remain such, not only because of its powerful military but also because of its economy and intellect."

Despite his belligerent tone, in a wide-ranging speech seen by many as laying out his personal manifesto, the former KGB spy rejected claims that the world has embarked upon a new Cold War. This is a man we would do well not to alienate.

Star Wars

A week ago, I reported on the financial crisis facing Europe's bid to compete with America's Global Positioning System, the Galileo project. As expected, in its bid to make the continent the world's mightiest commercial and military empire, the European Commission now looks set to fund the ailing satellite navigation system.

Ever one step ahead in this battle for control of the skies, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has today announced in Moscow that America will not allow Russia to prevent it from extending its missile defence shield into Eastern Europe. However, Washington still needs Russia's support if it is going to maintain international pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme.

So, we have Europe and America determined to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear programme, but slowly heading for conflict over Europe's potential military independence. Meanwhile, their mutual rival Russia is supplying the Islamic Republic with nuclear fuel and has today agreed to build a nuclear research centre in Burma—another pariah state.

Clearly seeing an opportunity to reassert its claim to be a superpower, Russia is now threatening to pull out of its 1987 treaty with the United States banning intermediate range nuclear forces and to end its commitments to force reductions under the Treaty on Conventional Weapons. So, when Mr Putin criticises the US for its "almost uncontained hyper use of military force" around the world and accuses it of making the world a more dangerous place, observers are surely right to talk of a new Cold War era dawning.

The question is, given this global struggle for superpower status between Europe, America, Russia, and emerging powers in the Middle East and Asia, what should Britain's role be in the new wargame? I invite your suggestions in the comments.

Do You Dare Leave A Comment?

What's the worst that could happen? Here at The Difference, nobody is even going to give you a screenful of abuse, for this blog has its own voluntary code of conduct and inappropriate comments will not be approved. You might even win a copy of the magazine!

In Russia, however, you could find the police knocking on your door. On 15th February, 21-year-old Savva Terentyev left a comment on the blog of his local journalist, Boris Suranov, who had posted about a police raid against the offices of the opposition newspaper Iskra.

Now, the comment was admitted rather lacking in tact and wouldn't have got past this blog's code of conduct. It has since been deleted, but Terentyev allegedly wrote that Russian police are "filth," "the most stupid, uneducated representatives of the living world" and recommended that six police in every city be "ceremonially burned daily, or better twice a day (at midday and midnight, for example)." However, he is now being prosecuted for hate crimes and faces two years in prison or a fine of 300,000 rubles (£5,860).

So, are you scared to express your opinions?  If not, exercise your freedom, and leave a comment!  Not sure how to do so? Then see this beginner's guide.