I don’t have time to write extensively on Putin’s historic trip to Iran. Plus there are many others who are more versed in Russian-Iranian relations and the geopolitical significance of Putin’s trip. So with that in mind and a dissertation chapter deadline hanging over my head, I offer Juan Cole’s take on it. His post is significant because it provides the entire text of Putin’s and Admadinejad’s joint statement. I also recommend Farideh Farhi’s post on the Informed Comment Global Affairs Blog for what the Russian visit means for Tehran.
It’s clear that if there were any diplomatic victories achieved in the meeting, they were all Iran’s. With Putin backing the Islamic nation’s assertions that its nuclear program is “peaceful” basically confirmed that if Washington is looking for partners to put the hard squeeze on Iran, Russia isn’t one of them.
For Russia, the trip is a reaffirmation that Russia will seek its own independent foreign policy. And ironically Putin came out somewhat like a peacemaker with his stress in dialog with Iran rather than sanctions. He stressed this last night during his annual question and answer session with the public. “Direct dialog with the leaders of states around which certain problems accumulate is always more productive and is the shortest path to success, rather than a policy of threats, sanctions, and all the more so resolution by using force,” he said.
That wasn’t the only blow to US prospects waging war against Iran. The attendees at the Caspian Sea Summit, which included Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev, Turkmenistan’s President Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, made a declaration that said “under any circumstances they would not allow other countries to use their territory for aggression and military attack against one of the parties.”
Welcome to the Great Game of the 21st Century.
{ 197 comments }
← Previous Comments
At that 65th anniverasary event, I recall the BBC reposting the same Stalin poster as “proof” of some kind of a sinister like return of evil in Russia.
“There’s no great effort to rehabilitate Stalin in Russia.”
There’s no need to. He was always popular, despite 50 years on anti-Stalin government propaganda (in the nonnegative use of the term).
If “popular”, it’s of a very nuanced kind.
Not really. “He beat Hitler and made the country into a superpower” is not nuanced.
Contemporary Russia isn’t such a monolithic society as some seem to suggest. When categorized between anti and pro-Stalin, the popular academy award winning Mikhailkov film Burnt by the Sun falls under the former.
Stalin didn’t beat Hitler as much as the civilian population did. In fact, Stalin screwed that process up.
The he raised Russia from ashes to superpower view is classic propaganda. Much was lost with his methodology. It incorrectly suggests that there weren’t other viable options.
Regarding a thread related issue:
Who Really Restarted the Cold War?
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid-2428
The proposal when viewed in its entirety (as opposed to isolating some aspects of it)…
Mike, you really have no clue, do you? The Soviet proposal “in its entirety” is contained in the bolded sentence of Litvinov’s quote above.
Do you even know who Litvinov was? Have you actually ever read the statement in question?
Yeah, I know who he was and try to reply more directly.
The Soviets made a firm offer to discuss an American, British, French and Soviet alliance against future acts like the Anschcluss. This was done before the appeasement at Munich. With the Soviets kept out of Munich, Chamberlin shot down the Soviet offer as the West appeased Nazi Germany.
Still talking bullshit after being wrong.
No Mike. You offered to quote an additional passage from Craig’s book, I took you up on your offer, and you have not obliged. This is not bullshit, it is verifiable fact.
Either you don’t have the book in your possession, or Craig does not make the claim that you say he does, or – most likely – both.
Yeah, I know who he was and try to reply more directly.
“Replying more directly” in this case meaning “repeat my previous comment verbatim”.
Not quite.
A selective quote claiming to negate a prior point isn’t often adequate enough to substantiate the given claim.
In such an instance, it’s appropriate to re-address what was raised.
Poor, poor Gordon Craig.
In his entire career, he only wrote one paragraph.
“Tim Newman on October 21, 2007 8:11 pm Still talking bullshit after being wrong.
No Mike. You offered to quote an additional passage from Craig’s book, I took you up on your offer, and you have not obliged. This is not bullshit, it is verifiable fact.
Either you don’t have the book in your possession, or Craig does not make the claim that you say he does, or – most likely – both.”
****
You’re off your rocker. I’ve the book, with Craig saying what I paraphrased. Page 707 quotes a French diplomat Robert Coulondre stating that a Soviet official told him that the Western appeasement coerced the USSR into making its own deal with Nazi Germany.
“Chrisius Maximus on October 21, 2007 8:24 pm Poor, poor Gordon Craig.
In his entire career, he only wrote one paragraph.”
***
Shows how much you don’t know.
I love how Mike has the debating style of a 10-year-old. It is the source of much mirth.
I recall Cicero using such elevated rhetorical techniques frequently in the Roman Senate, “I say to you, Tiberius Decimus — shows how much you don’t know! I am like rubber, and you are like glue — whatever you say to me, bounces off me and sticks on you!” Then he would sweep up the hems of his toga and retire, triumphant, to work on De Natura Deorum.
How long until he calls Tim a buttmunch, I wonder.
Not that I think Mike knows who Cicero was.
You’re off your rocker. I’ve the book, with Craig saying what I paraphrased.
Then oblige by delivering on what you earlier offered. Quote the relevant passages which mention the defence of Czechoslovakia as forming part of Stalin’s offer to the west.
Page 707 quotes a French diplomat Robert Coulondre stating that a Soviet official told him that the Western appeasement coerced the USSR into making its own deal with Nazi Germany.
This means nothing on its own. What special insight would a French diplomat have into the background of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? For all I know, Craig could well be using it to highlight that this view exists, before going on to demonstrate why it is false.
… Anshcluss… Anschcluss… Anchluss…
Mike, the correct spelling is Anschluss.
The Soviets made a firm offer to discuss an American, British, French and Soviet alliance against future acts like the Anschcluss.
This is better, but still incorrect — see the actual text of the Soviet proposal I posted above.
db, the text is in Russian.
I know, I know, but Mike wrote the other day that he was “brushing up on the language”.
I like how “learning the rudiments of” becomes “brushing up on.”
Learning a language has always a chance of becoming a-lingual instead of bi-lingual. I have encountered Russian immigrants here in the US that have very poor English but at the same time, they lost their Russian as well – boasting an accent, using corrupted English carbon copy words and even borrowing on phraseology, as in “возьми пятый хайвей”
I’ve noticed I’ve lost parts of my English. Or more precisely I will really have to think to remember the English word for something. I also use Russianisms in my English.
Woo-hoo! How do you say “sexy momma” in Irish, Ger?
You are quite right, Cyrill. As I wrote before, I know three languages but all of them imperfectly and by now I cannot say that I have a native language. It’s terrible. I blame it on my lack of talent for languages (sort of like some of us have more musical talent than others), a lack of formal schooling in languages, and, perhaps, a lack of discipline.
db
Your commentary on the Soviet offer is disingenuous. Unlike Sir Sakhalin, I’ve been correct in my fact based view that the Soviet offer included the defense of Czechoslovakia, as per its internationally recognized boundaries, which included the Sudetenland, Teschen and southern Slovakia.
Your quote of Litvinov appears to be different from what Gordon Craig quotes on page 701 of his previouslly referenced book. Either that, or it’s not a complete text.
Page 94 of E.H. Carr’s “International Relations Between The World Wars” (Harper & Row, Boston, 1947) notes Litvinov’s referencing of an existing Franco-Soviet agreement of the USSR coming to Czechoslovakia’s aid provided French involvement. Craig is referring to something additional to what Litvinov states in that instance.
Page 94 of George Kennan’s “Memoirs: 1925-1950″ (Atlantic, Little, Brown, Boston, 1967) notes the existing Soviet offer to defend Czechoslovakia with (IMO) unfair skepticism. During that period, the USSR had recently lost a proxy war in Spain. Czechoslovakia and the USSR were locked out of the 1938 Munich meeting, which essentially formalized the dismemberment of Russian/Soviet friendly Czechoslovakia. Chamberlin clearly went against the Soviet offer.
Ah! Averko has been silent for 24 hours whilst he runs around trying to find a source to back up his claims.
I am afraid I am loth to rely on your interpretation of what either Carr or Kennan are saying on the matter, given your hopelessly inaccurate interpretation of what Craig said in his book. This being the case, are you willing or able to quote what Carr and Kennan actually say with regards to Czechoslovakia in this context, taking care that whatever quotes you choose actually contain the word “Czechoslovakia” at some point?
Or am I wasting my time here?
Another good posting about it, which bring various views on the visit from Russian sources, including Nationalist ones is: http://foreignviews.com/2007/10/17/the-russian-view-on-nuclean-development-in-iran.aspx
Very interesting to see how it is talked about.
Wrong again Newman!
Averko has all of these books in his home library.
Averko has been enjoying the beautiful Indian summer like weather.
Hint: Averko has a life unlike some others.
Averko has all of these books in his home library.
Pozdravlyayu! Then it should be no problem to quote the relevant passages, should it?
Hint: Averko has a life unlike some others.
Ahem!
Top Commentators:
Michael Averko (1886)
Chrisius Maximus (1018)
Tim Newman (540)
Irishman (482)
Lyndon (378)
Chris (330)
ivanov (274)
W. Shedd (241)
Sean Guillory (216)
mab (172)
See first posted there for more insight.
Missing from that post is how I seem to get the most attention.
Perhaps some jealousy.
Missing from that post is how I seem to get the most attention.
In adult cricles, getting the most attention is not usually a positive thing, as anyone who has a stroppy, spoiled brat of a young child will tell you.
Your upbringing?
Chris,
would you believe, I dont know. ‘Cailin Deas’ is ‘Good-looking girl’. I’ll ask a mate of mine here in the college, who’s totally fluent. I love Sorcha Ni Cheide in particular – she’s in an Irish language soap-opera here, and she is hot, hot, hot.
Mike,
not to start a flame war here, but the reason you get attention is you post bullshit and drive everyone mad. I think myself that Sean Guillory should delete any comments you make in future about censorship. Its caused huge trouble here. I’ve been looking back ober some of the posts at home for entertainment recently and in many cases its obvious you’ve hijacked the thread and inevitably people like me and Tim/Chris etc tell you shut up. Mike, I’m saying this genuinely for your own good. There is no mass conspiracy against you or your views, and you’ll have a happier life if you drop this censorship stuff.
Over at SL I told you I’d pick you up a football jersey in Moscow besplatno. At least have the manners to reply.
Your commentary on the Soviet offer is disingenuous.
I haven’t commented on anything, I’ve merely posted the relevant quote from the primary source — the actual Soviet statement of March 17, 1938. Mike, what part of PRIMARY SOURCE do you not understand?
Your quote of Litvinov appears to be different from what Gordon Craig quotes on page 701 of his previouslly referenced book.
Why don’t you simply post a quote or two from Craig’s book so that we can see for ourselves if there is indeed any difference? Just do it.
“Perhaps some jealousy.”
I am trying to imagine what kind of person would be jealous of Mike and failing completely.
“Sir Sakhalin”
If Tim should ever decide to don a garish costume and fight crime, this would be a great superhero name for him!
“db on October 23, 2007 9:38 am Your commentary on the Soviet offer is disingenuous.
I haven’t commented on anything, I’ve merely posted the relevant quote from the primary source — the actual Soviet statement of March 17, 1938. Mike, what part of PRIMARY SOURCE do you not understand?
Your quote of Litvinov appears to be different from what Gordon Craig quotes on page 701 of his previouslly referenced book.
Why don’t you simply post a quote or two from Craig’s book so that we can see for ourselves if there is indeed any difference? Just do it.”
****
Do you understand that Tim Newman was WRONG for saying that the Soviets made an offer which would’ve theoretically defended Czechoslovak territory. Rather than say that he was WRONG, you choose this route.
I correctly paraphrased from Craigis book. Are you saying that he’s wrong? If so, prove it.
———————————————-
“Chrisius Maximus on October 23, 2007 11:25 am ‘Perhaps some jealousy.’
I am trying to imagine what kind of person would be jealous of Mike and failing completely.”
****
You for openers as shown by your ongoing manner here.
———————————————-
“Chrisius Maximus on October 23, 2007 11:27 am ‘Sir Sakhalin’
If Tim should ever decide to don a garish costume and fight crime, this would be a great superhero name for him!”
****
Note who came up with that one. Chris’ tag could be Moscow Misfit.
———————————————-
Excerpt:
“Mike,
not to start a flame war here, but the reason you get attention is you post bullshit and drive everyone mad. I think myself that Sean Guillory should delete any comments you make in future about censorship. Its caused huge trouble here. I’ve been looking back ober some of the posts at home for entertainment recently and in many cases its obvious you’ve hijacked the thread and inevitably people like me and Tim/Chris etc tell you shut up. Mike, I’m saying this genuinely for your own good. There is no mass conspiracy against you or your views, and you’ll have a happier life if you drop this censorship stuff.
Over at SL I told you I’d pick you up a football jersey in Moscow besplatno. At least have the manners to reply.”
****
Bullshit. I don’t make anyone reply to my comments. Comments like the above quoted is bullshit. Not discussing forms of censorship is in itself a form of censorship. The above quoted, Tim and Chris are in no position to tell me to shutup. The above quoted might’ve a “happier life” by not engagingin such troll like manner. I don’t seek favors from people who are repeatedly rude to me. I believe that to be a normal human reaction.
The above quoted, Tim and Chris are in no position to tell me to shutup.
No, were are not. We just wish you would.
Do you understand that Tim Newman was WRONG for saying that the Soviets made an offer which would’ve theoretically defended Czechoslovak territory.
Erm, it is you who is claiming this, not me. I am claiming that the Soviet offer was nothing to do with Czechoslovakia. Sheesh!
”I don’t seek favors from people who are repeatedly rude to me. I believe that to be a normal human reaction.”
Mike, I know you like Russian stuff like sports shirts and toy tanks and the like – and so do I. Thats why I offered to pick you up one. Apart from anything else they’re quite cheap in Moscow. If trying to be nice to you is wrong, then am guilty as charged.
… Are you saying that he’s wrong?
No, Mike, I didn’t say anything of the sort. I did ask you something, though:
Since you claim that the “quote of Litvinov appears to be different from what Gordon Craig quotes on page 701″, could you please post a quote or two from Craig’s book so that we can see for ourselves if there is indeed any differences? Just do it.
Nice to see that even as I lay recovering from pneumonia, that bickering and thread-hijacking remain a constant here.
For those who are actually interested in the Bush Administrations mechanations (too tired to check the spelling) regarding Iran in recent years, I recommend the following article:
http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107
It details efforts by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann to enter diplomatic talks with Iran, how close the US came to that, and how the Bush toadies essentially mucked it up and then attempted to censor Leverett from talking about it later in a New York Times op-ed piece.
Basically, I would say that any expansion of Russia’s role in international diplomacy in recent years are almost all a direct result of foreign policy arrogance and failures by the current US presidency.
In short, Bush should be declared a hero in Russia – from increased oil and gas prices, to foreign policy openings for Russia in the Middle East, and increased Rosboronexport sales worldwide, Russia has greatly benefitted from the utter incompetence of the Bush administration.
Sean’s blog is being attacked by pornographic haiku.
Anybody think there is maybe a connection between the NIE report, Bush’s support of Russia sending enriched nuclear fuel to Iran, the drop in violence in Iraq, whatever Bush and Putin said to each other at Kennebunkport, and whatever Putin said to Ahmadinejad? Like maybe there was a three-way backroom deal made?
I’m just sayin’…
There are always backroom deals around.
That’s why US “reaction” to nuclear fuel shipment was so easy.
All Soviet-US real relations were “backroomed”.
I’m just sayinn…
I think the whole thing was scripted, or has been for the last few months, so that the US could bow out and save face.
Yeah, I am increasingly convinced that 95% of what occurs in international agreements is worked out in those very backrooms. The stuff said in speeches and in press conferences is all smoke and mirrors.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 4 trackbacks }