The crisis in Georgia will be seen by future historians as the
beginning of the end for the grandiose plans of the US to bring
its version of a New World Order in Eurasia to fruition, if not
“Russia’s 9/11.” Instead of a seemingly inexorable
march towards the Volga and the dismantling of the Russian Federation
-- recall this was Hitler’s goal -- we are now witnessing
war preparations at full tilt across the globe, with little Georgia
as the catalyst.
The spider’s web of intrigue surrounding Georgia is thick
indeed. It even reaches as far as Iran , which Israel appeared to
be preparing to attack using nearby Georgian bases as a launching
pad. This plan has been thwarted for the moment, though Iran proceeded
last week with its war games to test its defences in anticipation
of a US/Israeli attack from farther afield.
As Georgia welcomes a permanent US military presence to help restore
its battered army, Russia is expanding its military presence at
Tajikstan’s Gissar Airport. As the US positions missiles in
Russia’s neighbours, Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia
is preparing to hold joint naval drills with US neighbour Venezuela
(10-14 November) and station long-range anti-submarine patrol aircraft
there “temporarily.”
The Russian navy has resumed its (or rather its predecessor’s)
presence in different regions of the world’s oceans. A naval
task force from Russia’s Northern Fleet conducted a two-month
tour of duty in the Mediterranean Sea and North Atlantic from December
2007 to February 2008.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko insisted
that Russia’s decision to send its armed forces to Venezuela
was made before Russia’s war with Georgia. “This deployment
had been planned in advance, and it’s unrelated to the current
political situation and the developments in the Caucasus.”
But the announcement was made just a week after Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin warned that Russia would mount an unspecified response to
recent US aid shipments to Georgia.
Thankfully, the war is still at the level of hot air. “Go
ahead and squeal, Yankees,” Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
said in a national broadcast in which he announced the exercises.
The US mocked the announcement. State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack poked fun at Russia’s navy, expressing surprise
that “they found a few ships that can make it that far.”
Just in case Venezuela is too far from US shores for the outmoded
Russian vessels, Russia has signaled it is keen to restore military
and intelligence ties with Cuba. There are rumours it is seeking
a naval base in Vietnam.
Not to be left out of the increasingly complex maritime equation,
in June the US Navy announced it was reestablishing the Fourth Fleet,
disbanded in 1950, which would direct naval operations in the Caribbean
and Latin America. It is also negotiating with Georgia and Turkey
to establish a naval base at the Georgian port of Poti. One of the
responsibilities of US Special Forces in the region is to ensure
the security of an oil pipeline passing through Georgia.
As US “aid” flows to the Black Sea in US warships,
Russian military hardware flows to the Caribbean, as Venezuela recently
bought 24 Russian Sukhoi fighter jets, as well as submarines and
missiles. Chavez has said that he would allow Venezuela to be a
strategic base for Russian bombers should it be required. “In
Venezuela they will always have a green light, they will be welcome,
because Russia is an ally of Venezuela,” said Chavez. He proceeded
to expel the US ambassador last week until after the November presidential
elections.
Sergei Markov, a United Russia Duma member, sees this as posturing
rather than the prelude to setting up a permanent base in the Americas.
“We need bases on the territory of Iran and Syria where our
strategic interests lie.” While it indeed looks like Russia
will re-establish a permanent presence in the Mediterranean using
a Soviet-era base in Tartus, Syria, this talk of bases in Iran is
a new development. It is rumoured that Russia may set up bases there
and supply Tehran with the cutting edge S-300 missile system to
help protect its nuclear facilities from airstrikes.
But apart from Venezuela, the main posturing is going on in Tbilisi,
where President Mikhail Saakashvili insisted the West would help
his country regain control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the separatist
regions of Georgia recognised as independent nations by Russia and
a trickle of other countries, including Nicaragua and Belarus. “Our
territorial integrity will be restored, I am more convinced of this
than ever,” Saakashvili said in a televised appearance. “This
will not be an easy process, but now this is a process between an
irate Russia and the rest of the world.”
The hot air and military strutting by this collection of antagonists
is beginning to look like the calm before the storm. If it is true
that US military were part of the invasion of South Ossetia, if
only as advisors, this could mean that Russian soldiers might have
been killed by Americans, something that never happened even during
the height of the Cold War. During the Cold War, “the sides
were very careful of each other. They were careful not to come too
close,” said Alexander Pikayev. “The risk of direct
military clashes is much higher. This situation is much riskier
than the Cold War.” Both US presidential candidates are talking
tough, and vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin said, “We
will not repeat a Cold War,” presumably meaning she preferred
a hot one.
In such a hair-trigger atmosphere, Ukraine and Georgia can kiss
any dream of joining the ersatz Western “defence” alliance
do svidania.
Nevertheless, last week Vice President Dick Cheney toured ex-Soviet
countries the US considers threatened by Russia, including Ukraine,
Georgia and Azerbaijan, promising Georgia $1 billion (where do these
nice round sums come from?), vowing the US will continue to back
the country’s NATO application and saying that Moscow’s
intervention “cast grave doubt on Russia’s intentions
and on its reliability as an international partner.” In Ukraine,
he spoke of the “threat of tyranny, economic blackmail and
military invasion or intimidation” from Russia. That is an
interesting slant on the Medvedev Doctrine. The reader can easily
conjure up appropriate words that Medvedev might use to describe
the Bush I/ Clinton/ Bush II Doctrine.
Ukraine is now embroiled in a mud-slinging match, with the collapse
of the coalition government 3 September, when President Viktor Yushchenko
withdrew his support over the refusal of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko
to back the president in his support for Georgia and condemnation
of Russia. Yushchenko accused Tymoshenko of “treason and political
corruption,” over her failure to back a pro-US stand, and
of seeking Moscow’s support of her likely presidential bid.
Ukraine’s pro-Russian former prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich,
who heads the Party of Regions, did not rule out the possibility
of forming a parliamentary majority with the Yulia Tymoshenko bloc.
Such a move would remove from the discussion the entire issue of
a Ukrainian application to join NATO. Tymoshenko could well pull
off a metaphorical coup by campaigning in the upcoming presidential
elections on a sober platform of peace with Russia, which would
very likely hand her the presidency with the support of the large
Russian population of Ukraine as well as astute Ukrainians.
Another such scandal is brewing in Georgia itself, with the arrest
of former President Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s son Tsotne as a Russian
spy smack in the middle of Cheney’s visit to Georgia. He was
charged in late 2007 with an attempted coup and links with Russian
security services after opposition protests against Saakashvili.
The voices of sensible Georgians, fed up with President Mikheil
Saakashvili’s reckless chauvinism, are clearly being cut in
the bud, as he consolidates a very nasty dictatorship backed by
the Americans and Israelis. Of course, all Western media coverage
of Georgia slavishly supports this loose cannon, but Medvedev’s
description of him as “a political corpse” probably
is closer to the truth.
It is hard not to sympathise with the Russians. The Black Sea,
once the domain of the Soviet navy, now is the home of three NATO
members -- Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania -- and two applicants, Georgia
and Ukraine. If the two applicants join the alliance, Russia’s
Black Sea coastline would be surrounded by NATO. The volatile Caucasus
would then be the playground of the US.
“Now it looks like there is a certain red line that exists
in the heads of Russian leadership and they are willing to do anything
to stop it from being crossed,” said Nikolai Petrov, at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “And this red
line is Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO.”
Russia’s success in thwarting the Georgian attempt to wrest
back Ossetia has shown its resolution. Russian warships have been
sent to the coast of nearby Abkhazia. In the relatively close proximity
in which the Russian and American ships operate there and elsewhere
in the Black Sea , one misunderstanding could create an international
incident. “We remember very well the Tonkin Gulf incident”
in which untrue reports of North Vietnamese ships firing on US ships
started the Vietnam War, said Markov. This was seconded by Republican
California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in a sharp criticism of
US support for the Georgian attack.
Aleksandr Dugin, whose ideas about America’s weakening geopolitical
standing are popular with many Russian leaders, said Russia was
challenging US dominance and that confrontation may be unavoidable.
Russia’s move into Georgia was “an irreversible decision
that will mean in the future a serious, profound, irreversible confrontation
with the United States. The stakes are so high that Moscow has placed
all its chips on the table.”
It is not surprising that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation,
which includes Russia, China and the former Soviet Asian republics
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan , are supporting
Moscow for “assisting peace and cooperation in this region.”
Nor that Armenia and Belarus also support Russia, and the non-Yushchenko
forces in the Ukraine are backing away from the flirtation with
NATO. It is clear now that the US has insufficient power to cope
with the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both were to have
been an essential part of a US policy to militarily control Eurasian
rivals, especially Russia and China.
If the Russians hold firm, and it is worth remembering their spectacular
defeat of the Nazis at Stalingrad in this regard, this crisis will
defuse with or without fireworks, US hawks will find their feathers
clipped, and the world will adjust to a “post-America”
multilateral sanity.
The tide has already turned. The latter-day Dr Strangelove was
pointedly ignored on his cheerleading tour of countries supposedly
threatened by Russia, except by his pal Saakashvili, and the European
Union disregarded the US veepee’s bluster, hammering out an
agreement with Russia to replace Russian troops with EU observers
in undisputed Georgian territory by 1 October.
The bottom line here is a very mundane one: the EU is Russia’s
neighbour and dependent on it for gas, whether her politicians like
it or not. It is one thing for the US to wage wars far from its
shores, as it is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, or to play war games
in other people’s backyards, as it is doing in Poland and
Georgia, but it is quite another thing to expect a war-weary Europe
to sign up and prepare to freeze in the dark.