Putin in Iran

“Welcome to the Great Game of the 21st Century.”

***

As per another thread, it’s interesting how some are suggestively accused of exagerating Russia’s importance in American foreign policy.

The above story was the lead one on the BBC and one of the lead ones in American mass media.

The presence of the major fossil fuel rich regional (central Asia, just west of it and Russia) leaders in Teheran indicates that it has a good deal to do with others besides Russia, Iran and the West.

Eurasia Strikes Back: No War With Iran Likely
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=363

That wasn’t the only blow to US prospects waging war against Iran.

I think the opposite is true, and this makes war on Iran more likely. The US has been desperately trying to build a united front against Iran’s nuclear program for a couple of years in the hope of bringing about sanctions on the country. With sanctions now looking out of the question, the US and Israel will now have to decide how to deal with the problem using other means.

I am not sure what Russia is hoping to get out of this, other confirmation – if any were needed – that its foreign policy consists mainly of doing the opposite to whatever the US wants. It either genuinely believes Iran is not developing an offensive nuclear capability, in which case it must be pretty sure of its sources and hoping to hell that they are right, or they hope that any future nuclear capability will be pointed well away from them.

It should be noted that it is not only the US which is worried about an Iranian nuclear capability, but the EU as well, especially France, Germany, and UK. In addition, the Arab Gulf states are extremely nervous. Russia’s actions here have pretty much scuppered any chance of resolving the issue peacefully, but no doubt this will be drowned in the cheers of Russia “standing up to to the US”.

FWIW, the “former US diplomat” I mentioned in another thread and who shall remain anonymous says he thinks that Putin and Bush are working something behind the scenes and that there is more to what is going on than meets the eye.

FWIW, the “former US diplomat” I mentioned in another thread and who shall remain anonymous says he thinks that Putin and Bush are working something behind the scenes and that there is more to what is going on than meets the eye.

This might well be true, with Russia paying lipservice to one of its clients in public, but not taking it any further – as they did with Hamas. It’s an unhelpful approach, but better than what meets the eye.

Iran is on the radar.

Saudi Arabia isn’t, eventhough it has purchased chinese made IRBMs (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/saudi.htm)
and quite probably backed Pakistan financially in nuclear weapons research. Saudi officials have previously toured the Pakistani defense industries, though both sides denying any transfer of nuclear weapons technology took place…

It’s amazing how one’s allies get a free pass (though the british libel courts are jolly useful too).

I guess it’s possible there is a behind-the-scenes deal between the US & Russia on this, and what Russia hopes to do is string Iran along on Bushehr while getting Iran to make concessions on the use of the Caspian (see Iranian bloggers’ suspicions on this).

My suspicion, based on nothing other than speculation, has always been that Russia loves the prospect of chaos in Iran, because it jacks up the price of oil. StabFond 4eva.

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.”

Speculation aside, I don’t see how any of that diminishes the chance of the US waging (unwisely, IMO) war on Iran. It’s not like the use of bases in any of those countries entered into US planning, and it’s not like they agreed on a mutual defense pact.

Olmert makes sudden visit to Moscow:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380593125&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

So much for the ieda that Russia doesn’t matter much.

Russia has relations with Israel and Iran. The US can’t say the same.

Who ever said Russia doesn’t matter much?

Not too long ago, someone said that Russia doesn’t matter much in American foreign policy.

At the very least, this has been suggestively said (if not outright) in some circles.

I assume you’re referring to my comment about how Russia is not high on the agenda in Washington and will not be a major factor in the 2008 US presidential campaign. Unless you’re semiliterate, neither of those statements means that Russia “doesn’t matter much.” I obviously think Russia matters quite a lot, given the amount of time I spend at SRB, on my own blog, and reading things about the place. My comment was that Russia doesn’t always get as much attention as it deserves from the US and that while people in Russia sometimes assume that it’s at the top of the US agenda, it’s not. What Putin seems to have realized is that Russia can get attention by being a spoiler, a pain in the ass or a “counterweight” to America. It’s a shame that the US has at times in the past 7 years given him such a good example of reckless unilateralism. Time will tell whether this method of attention-getting turns out to be fruitful for the international community and/or to the benefit of the Russian people.

Among American foreign policy folks, it does get a good deal of attention.

I’m very literate thank you.

Russia has relations with Israel and Iran. The US can’t say the same.

And this is supposed to reflect poorly on the US? No doubt we can also wheel out other countries, such as North Korea and Cuba, with whom Russia enjoys closer ties than the US.

There can be many ways to look at this, but I think the one that Sean suggests is the least likely one. Being ideologically stuck in the old zero-sum view of geopolitics and economics, Putin has a definite interest in preserving the status quo of instability in the region. The last thing his Russia wants is more pipeline routes from Central Asia. Messing in Chechnya and Georgia has revealed this purpose long time ago. This is arguably the one area where Russia and Iran would agree – and getting Iran’s full support against any trans-Caspian pipeline projects would be worth quite a bit for Putin and his oil hungry coterie.

Once again, short term interests of Putin Inc take precedence over long term interests of Russia not to have a nuclear armed messianic fanatic as a neighbor. Especially considering Russia’s own problems with Islam. I am definitely in a minority on this but I see Putin’s foreign policy as grossly short-sighted bordering on incompetence. As an old friend in Russian mass media lamented to me last time I was there – “even under Brezhnev we had friends, now we have none.”

I see Putin’s foreign policy as grossly short-sighted bordering on incompetence.

You can count me amongst that minority.

“even under Brezhnev we had friends, now we have none.”

That is true – I’ve heard it remarked a few times recently that Russia has no allies (Google found this on the subject). It sounds stark, but if you think about it, it’s true. There may be some countries with which it has shared interests that lead to a friendly relationship, but not really any real strategic allies (even within the CIS). Russia may not feel it needs allies at the moment, but at some point (though maybe not for a decade or three) Russia will wake up from the neftedollar binge with a splitting headache, look for someone to call to piece together what happened, and realize no one is taking its calls anymore.

I see Putin’s foreign policy as grossly short-sighted bordering on incompetence.

But – but – Russia has relations with Belarus and the DPRK!

Actually, I tend to agree with this – foreign policy under Putin seems at times to be driven by a truly childish desire to stick it to the US and to some of the “near abroad” countries which dare to raise their heads up. Though perhaps there are some clever intrigues he’s pursuing which are not public or which escape my powers of perception.

You can count me amongst that minority.
Not to start a mutual admiration society but come to California, Tim, we will break up a couple of cigars and a bottle of Lagavulin and I will make you shashlyk you can’t find your side of the Pacific (or Atlantic)

But – but – Russia has relations with Belarus
Funny you say this, Lyndon. The very next phrase in that lament from that old friend went something like “был у нас один друг не разлей вода батька Лукащенка, да мы и его похерели”

Not to hijack this, but I would like to set up a round table on Russia on my radio show sometime soon. Sean, Lyndon and Mab, would you like to participate? Email me cyrill@cyrillvatomsky.com if you are interested and we shall iron out details.

“Especially considering Russia’s own problems with Islam.”

****

Actually, Russia has had pretty good relations with Islam at large.

Putin attended a OIS (Organization of Islamic States) gathering and hinted that Russia might join it.

Actually, Russia has had pretty good relations with Islam at large.

No, it hasn’t.

Let’s start at around the 13th century, when the Mongol hordes invaded what is now Central and Western Russia, devastating the population with acts of utmost barbarity, and ushering in a period of almost 200 years during which the Russians suffered under the Mongol yoke. Following this, according to Peter Hopkirk in The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia, pg. 13:

“[T]he Russians were to develop a paranoid dread of invasion and encirclement which has bedevilled their foreign relations ever since. Rarely has an experience left such deep and long lasting scars on a nation’s pysche as this did on the Russians. I goes far towards explaining their historic xenophobia (especially towards Eastern peoples), their often aggressive foreign policy, and their stoical acceptance of tyranny at home.”

When the Mongols retreated, they left behind 3 widely seperated Khanates: at Kazan, Astrakhan, and Crimea. Ivan the Terrible stormed Kazan in 1553, massacring the defenders. Two years later, he did the same to Astrakhan. Only the Crimea was to remain as a Tatar city. The backlash against the Muslims of the East by Russia had begun.

Now, fast forward to about the mid-19th century to Russia’s expansion into the silk road Khanates of Samarkand, Kiva, Bokhara, Tashkent, Kokhand which are now in modern day Uzbekistan or near enough to it. At the time, these cities were among the holiest in the Muslim world, and certainly the most important sites for Central Asian muslims. To cut a very long and interesting story short, the Russians took these cities and surreounding countryside by brute force and deception, caring little for Muslim sensibilities and carrying out much of the activities under the banner of a civilising Christian mission. During this period, they were also undertaking a brutal war against the Muslim tribes in the Caucasus, which lasted on and off for several decades before Russia finally was able to claim the region as its own. It is worth noting at this point that the Caucasian Muslims tribes in the region were proven to be extremely difficult to conquer, employing guerilla tactics combined with fanatical religious-based determination – and yes, the Chechens were one of these Muslim tribes.

The Russians’ annexation of Central Asia ripped half of the heart out of Muslim Central Asia, and a good part of the Muslim world as a whole. The other half of the heart got ripped out and destroyed by the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution and subsequent Civil War. I once wrote a blopg posting on the Islamic nature of Central Asia at the time of the Civil War, and I extract this passage from my post:

[D]isillusioned Muslim nationalists in Kokhand set up a rival government to Tashkent, calling itself The Muslim Provisional Government of Autonomous Turkestan. On January 23rd 1918, they telegraphed the Tashkent Bolsheviks saying they intended to elect a parliament in which one-third of the seats would be apportioned to non-Muslims. In response, the Bolsheviks attacked the city and massacred somewhere between five and fourteen thousand Muslims.

Mikhail Frunze’s other military successes in the region were not known for their compassionate approach either, one could say.

During this time, many of the really hardline Muslims from the Ferghana valley area and other Central Asian areas, fled to no less a place than Saudi Arabia where they set about, not exactly starting up, but certainly radicalising the Wahhabist branch of Sunni Islam. The origins of fundamentalist Islam in Saudi Arabia are vague and varied, but the Soviet conquest of Central Asia certainly added a few more nutcases to the mix.

Now, enter Stalin. He had a bit of a sad-on about Muslims. He deported the Crimean Tatars (remember them from the beginning?) to Kazakhstan, where about 80% of them died of starvation and disease. As a people, they were finished for good. Their crime? One or two unsubstantiated rumours that they had aided the Germans during WWII. Ditto for the Chechens (as well of dozens of other Caucasian Muslim groups). The Chechens suffered terribly in exile. It is widely believed by historians that Stalin did not pick these two groups by accident: it was a deliberate strategy to rid Russia of the Muslim entities left over from the Mongol occupation, the Chechens of whom were the most troublesome towards the Soviets. This is expanded on further in Anne Applebaum’s Gulag, a History, pg. 387. The xenophobia and paranoia towards Muslims existing in Russian that I described earlier was evident in Stalin’s decision to carry out what was in effect genocide of two Muslim races. It was more by the resilience of the two groups than by design that they survived at all, many other smaller Muslim groups did not.

Now onto Afghanistan, which Russian troops entered in 1979 and for 10 years carried out an all-out and no-holds-barred war against the Muslim population, a war which included the flattening of the holy city of Herat by aerial bombardment, and a war which sent hundreds of thousands of refugees into neighbouring Pakistan. As far as losses in wars go, the Muslims lost more people than possibly any other war outside of Africa since WWII, Iran-Iraq excepted – and these losses at the hands of the Russians. For the last 6 centuries, Russia’s treatment of Muslims has been barbaric and bloody on almost every occasion.

Apologies about the length of the comment above, and the appearance that it has been copied and pasted from somewhere. It was copied and pasted from another forum a year or so back, but it was written in its entirety by me.

Not to start a mutual admiration society but come to California, Tim, we will break up a couple of cigars and a bottle of Lagavulin and I will make you shashlyk you can’t find your side of the Pacific (or Atlantic).

As it happens, I might be there after New Year. Our planned trip to Oz has fallen through due to lack of seat availability on the planes, so California might well be another option. If I come to SF, we’ll meet up for sure.

“Muslim entities left over from the Mongol occupation, the Chechens of whom were the most troublesome towards the Soviets.”

The Chechens — unlike the Buddhist Kalmyks — have nothing to do with the Mongols. And they didn’t even adopt Sufi Islam until around 1700.

Funny you say this, Lyndon. The very next phrase in that lament from that old friend went something like “был у нас один друг не разлей вода батька Лукащенка, да мы и его похерели”

Exactly – even with Belarus & NK, one can’t say Russia has a good relationship, just that they have some kind of relationship that’s better than what those pariah states have with most other countries.

Where Putin may be smart at least in a tactical way is that he is trying to use Russia’s oil/gas-based relative strength (which he must realize may be temporary) to change the rules of the game which developed in the ’90s when Russia was weak.

The goal is to get other countries to accept today’s status quo in Russia – to renounce dealing with Russia on the basis of values. In a sense, Putin’s foreign policy is also derived from the domestic situation and the desire to legitimize the centralization of power. By the way, these are not my ideas originally, I’m paraphrasing from a presentation I attended early this month by a Russian political scientist.

The same person noted that it is “bullshit” to repeat the mantra that Russian foreign policy is “interest based” without acknowledging that the interests it’s based on are those of the energy siloviki and made a few more interesting points:

- A key factor in Russian for. policy is the perception that the US’ role is declining
- Russia sees the US as the key actor and views even Europe through the prism of the US
- Lavrov’s doctrine is that Russia doesn’t follow the stable rules of the game (because they were cemented in the ’90s) but prefers to experiment with “network (setevaia) diplomacy”

Anyway, it will be an interesting winter, with issues like the CFE and Kosovo probably coming to a head.

One sided broaldy stated bullshit which ignores:

- the positives

- that some of the mentioned actions had little if anything to do with Islam

- the contrast with how other Euros have dealt with Islam.

Muslims did prosper in the Russian Empire, while maintaining their religious identity. Present day Russia formally recognizes Islam as a historically akin religion to Russia. That’s not so with Catholicism (a matter I don’t agree with).

In fact, not so long ago The Moscow Times had a review of a book noting the same.

Not all MT material is fully available on the net (subscriber fee) and its search engine has at times been incomplete.

There was never a Spanish like inquisition of Muslims in Russia. What happened to the Chechens wasn’t religion based. Otherwise, a number of other Mulsims would’ve faced the same kind of deportation treatment. Opposing so called “Islamo-Fascism” isn’t the same as opposing Islam at large. A point highlighted by (among others) Stephen Schwartz.

In the present, Slovenia has wrestled with itself over building one mosque in its capital where none exist. This as mosques are built en masse in Russia. Name me ONE Western leader who has attended the annual Organization of Islamic States conference.

“Anyway, it will be an interesting winter, with issues like the CFE and Kosovo probably coming to a head.”

****

How could a book entitled “The New Cold War” not go into detail about those two issues, which are high profile when discussing Russia-West differences?

“Actually, I tend to agree with this – foreign policy under Putin seems at times to be driven by a truly childish desire to stick it to the US and to some of the ‘near abroad’ countries which dare to raise their heads up.”

***

If true, he’s responding to the “truly childish desire to stick it to” Russia, as has been evident in some influential Western (with an emphasis on US based) circles.

Also Tim, the Mongols were not (and are not) Muslims. Genghis Khan was a shamanist.

This is defintely not a Muslim who is being described here (translation from Chinese):

I. РОДОСЛОВНАЯ И ДЕТСТВО ТЕМУЧЖИНА (ЧИНГИСА)
§ 1. Предком Чингис-хана был Борте-Чино, родившийся по изволению Вышнего Неба. Супругой его была Гоа-Марал. Явились они, переплыв Тенгис (внутреннее море). Кочевали у истоков Онон-реки, на Бурхан-халдуне, а потомком их был Бата-Чиган,

§ 2. Сын Бата-Чигана – Тамача. Сын Тамачи – Хоричар-Мерган. Сын Хоричар-Мергана – Аучжам-Бороул. Сын Аучжам-Бороула – Сали-Хачау. Сын Сали-Хачау – Еке-Нидун. Сын Еке-Нидуна – Сим-Сочи. Сим-Сочиев сын -Харчу.

§ 3. Сын Харчу – Борчжигидай-Мерган – был женат на Монголчжин-гоа. Сын Борчжигидай-Мергана – Тороголчжин-Баян-был женат на Борохчин-гоа, имел отрока-слугу, по имени Боролдай-Суялби, да двух скаковых меринов-Дайир и Боро. У Тороголчжина было двое сыновей: Дува-Сохор и Добун-Мерган.

§ 4. У Дува-Сохора был один-единственный глаз, посреди лба, которым он мог видеть на целых три кочевки.

§ 5. Однажды Дува-Сохор, вместе со своим младшим братом Добун-Мерганом, взобрался на Бурхан-халдун. Наблюдая с высоты Бурхан-халдуна, Дува-Сохор усмотрел, что вниз по течению речки Тенгелик подкочевывает какая-то группа людей.

§ 6. И говорит: “Хороша молодица в кибитке крытой повозки среди этих подкочевывающих людей!” И он послал своего младшего брата Добун-Мергана разузнать, намереваясь сосватать ее Добун-Мергану, если окажется, что она незамужняя.

§ 7. Добун-Мерган побывал у тех людей, и в самом деле там оказалась молодица, по имени Алан-гоа, красивая очень знатного рода и еще ни за кого не просватанная.

§ 8. А по поводу той племенной группы выяснилось так: Баргучжин-гоа, дочь Бархудай-Мергана, владетеля Кол-баргучжин-догумского, была выдана замуж за Хорилартай-Мергана, нойона Хори-Туматского. Названная же Алан-гоа и была дочерью, которая родилась у Хорилартай-Мергана от Баргучжин-гоа в Хори-Туматской земле, в местности Арих-усун.

§ 9. По той причине, что на родине, в Хори-Туматской земле шли взаимные пререкания и ссоры из-за пользования звероловными угодьями, Хорилартай-Мерган решил выделиться в отдельный род-обок, под названием Хорилар. Прослышав о знаменитых Бурхан-халдунских звероловлях и прекрасных землях, он теперь и пододвигался, оказывается, кочевьями своими к Шинчи-баян-урянхаю, на котором были поставлены божества, владетели Бурхан-халдуна. Здесь-то Добун-Мерган и просил руки Алан-гоа, дочери Хори-Туматского Хорилартай-Мергана, родившейся в Арих-усуне, и таким-то образом Добун-Мерган женился,

§ 10. Войдя в дом к Добун-Мергану, Алан-гоа родила двух сыновей. То были Бугунотай и Бельгунотай.

§ 11. У старшего же брата, Дува-Сохора, было четыре сына. Тем временем старший его брат Дува-Сохор скончался. После кончины Дува-Сохора, четверо его сыновей, не признавая даже за родственника своего дядю Добун-Мергана и всячески понося его, отделились, покинули его и откочевали. Образовалось особое поколение Дорбен. Отсюда-то и пошло четвероплемение Дорбен-ирген.

§ 12. Однажды, затем, Добун-Мерган взошел поохотиться на возвышенность Тогоцах-ундур. В лесу ему повстречался какой-то Урянхаец, который, зарезав трехлетку-оленя, готовил жаркое из его ребер, из верхних коротких ребер.

Etc.: http://altaica.narod.ru/SECRET/e_tovchoo.htm#X

“Actually, I tend to agree with this – foreign policy under Putin seems at times to be driven by a truly childish desire to stick it to the US and to some of the ‘near abroad’ countries which dare to raise their heads up.”

I really wonder where you get this stuff. Seriously.

“I really wonder where you get this stuff. Seriously.”

****

Perhaps from Michael McFaul, who has said the same.

LA is geared in a Carnegie/CSIS/Brookings direction

“This might well be true, with Russia paying lipservice to one of its clients in public, but not taking it any further – as they did with Hamas. It’s an unhelpful approach, but better than what meets the eye.”

My anonymous source says he thinks Putin and Bush agreed on something during the recent visit, which is why the US reaction has been so relatively muted.

Putin said the Bushehr plant would be continued “on schedule.”

Isn’t it already 6-7 years overdue?

I really wonder where you get this stuff. Seriously.

[First, note that I said the wounded pride / inferiority complex factor "seems at times" to be a policy driver. Obviously there are other factors (commercial, geopolitical, etc.).]

But where do I get that impression? Simply from reading Putin’s repeated statements ridiculing US failures in Iraq, especially in light of the Munich speech and the focus on certain issues not central to Russia’s interests which involve confronting “the West” (e.g., Kosovo, which as Lavrov stated to the Valdai people is one of two “red lines” for Russia, along with US missile defense); not to mention his delight at acting confrontationally towards tiny post-Soviet nations (“We can stick it to Georgia! Estonians are fascists! Resurgent Russia! No gas for you! Woot!”); and the propensity of members of his team to engage in fearmongering with respect to “Western intelligence services” supposedly trying to dismember Russia.

I recognize how appealing all of this may be domestically, and that Russia now feels it was kicked around in the ’90s, and that there are other interpretations, but I don’t need think-tankers to tell me that Putin’s swagger sometimes resembles that of a kid who has felt taunted by bullies for years and finally gets his hands on a weapon that allows him to be the bully.

LA is geared in a Carnegie/CSIS/Brookings direction

Mike, is there a reason you always feel the need to oversimplify things to the level of block letters written in crayon? Do you really think these organizations and the people who work in them are so monolithic?

“But where do I get that impression? Simply from reading Putin’s repeated statements ridiculing US failures in Iraq,”

Who doesn’t ridicule that?

(I’m really enjoying that smiley-face emoticon.)

Seriously Lyndon, can you really imagine Putin and Ivanov sitting down and thinking, “oooh, those darn Americans, we gotta stick it to them. And those Georgians too, they suck, let’s fuck them over for no reason.” I mean, they’re not comic-book characters.

Who doesn’t ridicule that?

Hey, I’ll happily ridicule Bush’s team for getting us into that mess. But please point me to repeated statements by any other G8 leader gloating about American failure in Iraq. It’s quite possible that there have been such statements, but I don’t follow the public statements of the German and French leaders that much.

Seriously Lyndon, can you really imagine Putin and Ivanov sitting down and thinking, “oooh, those darn Americans, we gotta stick it to them. And those Georgians too, they suck, let’s fuck them over for no reason.” I mean, they’re not comic-book characters.

Apologies for my imagined, cartoonish statements. As I said rather clearly, I thought, I certainly don’t believe that neftedollar intoxication (“dizziness with resurgence,” if you will, after feeling down for so long) and resentment of the former republics for wanting to break away from Russian influence are the driving forces behind foreign policy, but I believe they are factors that lead to unnecessary confrontations. Do you not think wounded ex-superpower pride has played a role in Putin’s policymaking at all?

I don’t think one has to be a comic-book character to make decisions based in part on emotional responses and strongly held convictions. Putin and Ivanov both feel that the loss of the USSR was a tragedy and that during the 1990s wound after pride-stinging wound was inflicted on Russia by “the West” (often eliding in this narrative the role of the Russians involved who then put Putin into power). They also make no efforts to conceal their scorn for people like Saakashvili and their irrational fear of a “color revolution” in Russia. Strong feelings like this can lead to excessively strident declarations which are taken as signals by people further down on the vertical of power (like, for example, the MVD officials who asked for lists of students with Georgian surnames).

In this context, I find relevant the public explanations for domestic policy failures or scandals, which on Putin’s watch seem to always involve external enemies. “Prices are going up – it’s because there are too many damn Chinese and Indians! Berezovsky killed Politkovskaya! Beslan was caused by external enemies of Russia! The Americans sank the Kursk!” (sorry for additional cartoonish statements, but sadly none of these is far removed from reality)

In addition, it seems like Russia sometimes takes steps which advance its idea of its interests (like Putin’s visit to Iran) and also have the effect of sticking it to the US. Perhaps they simply don’t consider the impact on US efforts to isolate Iran, but I doubt it – more likely, they feel like it’s OK to do things like this as some sort of payback for things like NATO expansion in the ’90s – surely you don’t think such things never cross the minds of policymakers. I do understand that to a certain extent it can be said that Russia, when it acts out of step with the int’l community on something like Iran, can be said to simply be responding to American unilateralism in kind – but does anyone think that’s productive?

Clearly we aren’t going to agree on this, but I don’t think what I’m suggesting – that superpower/imperial nostalgia sometimes leads Russia to be unproductively strident on issues that are tangential to its interests – is akin to portraying leaders as comic-book characters. Putin is human, right? – to pick up a thought from another thread, I’m sure he’s at least as human, and probably more so, than Stalin. So I don’t think it requires a cartoonish imagination to think that emotional, irrational factors sometimes have an impact on his policy decisions.

“Hey, I’ll happily ridicule Bush’s team for getting us into that mess. But please point me to repeated statements by any other G8 leader gloating about American failure in Iraq. It’s quite possible that there have been such statements, but I don’t follow the public statements of the German and French leaders that much.”

I’m not sure if any of the other G8 members, barring the US itself, are powerful enough to chance the political fallout that may come from making such statements.

Most of their populations would agree with them, though. Certainly in France and Germany.

“…and the propensity of members of his team to engage in fearmongering with respect to “Western intelligence services” supposedly trying to dismember Russia.”

Lyndon, there’s plenty of that to go around. The MSM doesn’t need to be directed to spin all sorts of yarns about Russia, doing it all happily by itself, though with the usual unnamed sources that security correspondents love to quote but cannot be readily verified. Who’s playing who?

As much as I’d like to think that Putin is ‘emotional’ in some of his thinking, I can’t. He’s a cold blooded ‘ex-’spy in my eyes. So is Lavrov and the other cronies. Putin is only one part piece on the chess board and I’m not entirely conviced that he’s the queen he’s been made out to be. History may well tell us he was the king.

Focusing on the past does not get what you want for the future unless it is part of a strategem to divert attention, much like the Chinese go on about Taiwan to keep the people’s minds diverted from the lack of freedom etc..

Putin and others are right that the US is on the decline, but this is exactly what makes the situation all the more dangerous. It could be part of a baiting strategy to get the US to overreact and expedite its decline. Macho chest beating is just the beginning (but very entertaining, like the Bush v. Najad, Punch & Judy show).

An attack on Iran would be perfect. The Iranians know that there will be no US forces on its soil (soldiers aren’t supposed to die these days), that already stretched forces will be stretched that much further (depending on exactly what they want to do), but if you will, death by a thousand cuts.

The Iranians will dust themselves off, much of the nation will rally behind that total clown Ahmedin Najad, even if it is short lived, and bolster the conservative powers behind Najad. You can forget about more ‘moderate’ politicos like Najad’s predecessor making any impact. Oil prices will sky-rocket, output may well be cut intentionally and even with a new administration in the White House, the damage, if ever, will take even longer to repair.

Go back one hundred years when the British Empire sat on top of the world on Queen Victoria’s death in 1901. Britannia ruled the waves and one fifth of the earth’s surface. The end could not be contemplated, let alone imagined…History had already long started to shift.

On a related note (I suppose), I was listening to the BBC last night about how bankrupt steel mills in Minnesota(?) that were bought up by the Chinese, their demand for steel voracious. It was noted that there was some disquiet amongst ‘americans’ of being beholden to the Chinese.

It’s a clear sign of much greater interdependence/globalization and that their ‘enemies’ are establishing themselves on the shores. War is less and less possible to enact at arms-length without blow back one way or another.

Russia could well be the biggest benefactor if Iran got bombed. The EU might too, if it can get its act together (slowly happening).

Muslims did prosper in the Russian Empire, while maintaining their religious identity.

Yeah. Sure they did. That stuff about Central Asia? I made it all up.

Chris,

Your comments I’ll take on board and stand corrected if need be.

No problem Tim! I think people have a tendency to see all the Russian/former Soviet Muslims as a unitary group with a common origin, and link them up with the Mongols, I guess because people link Tatars with Mongols and contemporary Tatars are Muslim, and they both come from the “East.” But really the history is a lot more complicated. I really don’t know, but I speculate that the Chechens picked up Islam from the Ottoman Empire (but why are they Sufis?). I also speculate that the Central Asians got it from the medieval Islamic Empire, which made its way into Afghanistan.

“Yeah. Sure they did. That stuff about Central Asia? I made it all up.”

I think it is yes and no. They were certainly willing to use lots of violence (like in Chechnya), but most of the Empire’s acquisitions in Asia were getting local khans and tribes to submit to them in exchange for protection against other threats, coopting local elites, that sort of thing. It also changes throughout history — Ivan the Terrible banned Islam in Tatarstan, but Catherine the Great brought it back and built lots of mosques in Crimea.

Also, Muslims were exempt from military service until 1916, when they started drafting them to fuel the war effort, sparking a revolt among the Kazakhs.

I’m not sure if any of the other G8 members, barring the US itself, are powerful enough to chance the political fallout that may come from making such statements.

Chris, note that I didn’t say anything about opposing the Iraq War or saying that it was a mistake (which obviously Chirac did, and the only “fallout” he experienced from the US was the comical renaming of French Fries at the US Capitol cafeteria) – just about rather undiplomatic remarks verging on gloating over America’s failure, such as Putin’s recent “They’ve learned to shoot there but they are not managing to bring order” statement. You seem to be suggesting that there’s some greater good accomplished by poking fun at another country’s military failure, and that we should be grateful that we have Russia willing to risk “political fallout” by speaking such truths to US power. [Incidentally, Putin as recently as 2004 stated that one of the US's justifications for the war (that Saddam was preparing to launch terrorist attacks on the US) might have been legit.]

The MSM doesn’t need to be directed to spin all sorts of yarns about Russia, doing it all happily by itself, though with the usual unnamed sources that security correspondents love to quote but cannot be readily verified. Who’s playing who?

So, because individuals in the Western MSM independently decide to run stories about Russia that you think are not objective, this makes it OK for Russian officials to make false, fearmongering statements about Western intentions with respect to Russia? I don’t see the connection. Wouldn’t it be more logical for Russia to try to correct the misconceptions which it thinks are being spread about it in the media, rather than countering with statements it knows to be false about “the West”? And what are these “yarns” about Russia, anyway?

As much as I’d like to think that Putin is ‘emotional’ in some of his thinking, I can’t. He’s a cold blooded ‘ex-’spy in my eyes.

True, it’s possible that I am focusing too much on public statements by VVP and Ivanov (which may indeed be made with domestic political calculations in mind), but it seems like they must be very good actors indeed to convey such contempt at times for the US and the people in the post-Soviet space that they believe are US “puppets.”

Actually, I can accept that anti-American statements might have made sense as a populist move when Putin was consolidating his power, but now that he is uncontestably popular, if he really was making them only for domestic political consumption, why then does he keep making them? Maybe they’re now for foreign consumption as well – who knows.

Anyway, it’s not like my thoughts on this are anything new. Piontkovsky from Dec 2005:

Пьянящий угар запредельных цен на нефть, неудач США в Ираке, урагана “Катрина”, французских бунтов, смены правительства на Украине крепко ударил в головы российских политических мыслителей: “Мы оказались на стороне Истории”.

Aleks: Putin is only one part piece on the chess board and I’m not entirely conviced that he’s the queen he’s been made out to be. History may well tell us he was the king.

I guess we’ll have to wait for historians. What’s your theory on who the power behind the throne is? It looks to me like Putin is at the top of the heap, at least at the moment, but of course things are not always what they seem.

Putin and others are right that the US is on the decline, but this is exactly what makes the situation all the more dangerous.

I tend to agree, and your scenario, while sort of fanciful, does not seem entirely unrealistic to me. Fascinating and frightening.

Here’s a question for discussion – how would Russia like to see the international order reshaped? We can tell that the Russian ruling elite dislikes (perhaps even despises) the state of affairs that developed in the ’90s and which sort of persists today by inertia but is increasingly fragile, a state of affairs where US influence is dominant. OK, Russia doesn’t like that. But what does it hope to gain by hastening the US’s fall from its pedestal? We hear about multipolarity, which may be a reality in the near future.

However, a US defeat in Iraq would be read by many as a victory for radical, fundamentalist Islam – isn’t that an enemy which the US and Russia share? This is what leads me to say that the foreign policy choices seem childish at times – Russia seeks to tear down the big guy, but does it really have a viable alternative to propose? Is there a coherent strategy?

On a related note (I suppose), I was listening to the BBC last night about how bankrupt steel mills in Minnesota(?) that were bought up by the Chinese, their demand for steel voracious. It was noted that there was some disquiet amongst ‘americans’ of being beholden to the Chinese.

Well, there’s nothing new under the sun – in the late ’80s, Americans were “disquieted” when the Japanese bought Rockefeller Center in NY and a lot of other things in the US; and it was a Russian company that first broke into the US steel sector a few years ago (this article about it is funny b/c it seems so stuck in the Soviet era).

[Can I ask why you put 'americans' in quotation marks?]

I actually think that the Chinese have been fairly brilliant at developing commercial ties all over the world in an inconspicuous (or not much remarked upon – except when they tried to buy Unocal) way. Sadly, the US sometimes seems stuck in the old paradigm – for instance, the recent establishment of AFRICOM, a military response to China’s increasing commercial influence – but I think something similar is true of Russia, it’s stuck in an old paradigm where relationships between states have to be of a zero-sum nature.

Sorry, I’ve rambled on again.

“Tim Newman on October 19, 2007 6:57 pm Muslims did prosper in the Russian Empire, while maintaining their religious identity.

Yeah. Sure they did. That stuff about Central Asia? I made it all up.”

****

At another thread, you essentially did that when incorrectly claiming what a Stanford academic concluded about a Soviet offer which Chamberlin refused. This despite your admitted not having read Gordon Craig’s book on the subject.

As for the matter of Muslims in Russia/Russian Empire, further examples have been presented at this thread to show that you were incorrect with your initial broad swipe like characterization.

Ah, Piontkovsky… you bring back memories from the days I used to copy-edit his columns… I could tell you funny stories…

Actually Lyndon, I’m not terribly emotionally involved in the subject and as I 1) like you and 2) don’t like engaging in polemics I’m not going to get into it.

Regarding Piontkovsky:

http://markmackinnon.blogspot.com/2007/09/new-face-of-russian-extremism.html

“On this see Robert Crews’ For Prophet and Tsar. I did a post about it last year.”

I think there is a popular, romantic idea that Empires are always built up purely by force of arms, are horribly intolerant, and all of their subject peoples hate them. I’ve finally gotten around to reading Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (in a highly abridged form — 1000 pages out of the original billion volumes) and ya know it just isn’t true.

I blame Marxism-Leninism and its obsession with “imperialism.” More precisely, I speculate that the “empires are evil” meme has its origins in the Social Democratic interpretation of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the idea that every nation should have a state. (If that were actually implemented, Russia, China and India would cease to exist. Majority Black areas of the US would have to break away. Etc.)

Fair enough, Chris, I can certainly appreciate that. And I freely admit that much of this may be a matter of opinion or perception, and that I do sometimes feel emotionally involved in these things – in the sense that the proliferation of anti-American sentiment in Russia saddens me, because I can remember when it was not thus. I am saddened in a somewhat parallel way by the way that America seems to have forfeited a bit of its moral authority in this century (and for what? can’t we fight terrorism without torture?) and in so doing made some of the classic tenets of anti-Americanism seem more credible.

“Fair enough, Chris, I can certainly appreciate that. And I freely admit that much of this may be a matter of opinion or perception, and that I do sometimes feel emotionally involved in these things – in the sense that the proliferation of anti-American sentiment in Russia saddens me, because I can remember when it was not thus.”

You know, in a way it almost makes me happy. I remember when I first came here and sometimes people would bow and scrape before me because I was a Glorious American (this was when the Cult of the Foreigner was still going strong). It was revolting. Finally they’ve gotten their sense of dignity back.

Now it’s just, “oh, you’re an American, big deal. I’ve seen a billion of them.” I like that much more.

I blame Marxism-Leninism and its obsession with “imperialism.”

For what it’s worth, I think it was Lenin who popularized the idea of the Russian Empire as a “prison-house of nations,” and superficially at least many of the Bolsheviks were from groups which had been marginalized under the Russian Empire.

“Lyndon on October 19, 2007 8:46 pm Fair enough, Chris, I can certainly appreciate that. And I freely admit that much of this may be a matter of opinion or perception, and that I do sometimes feel emotionally involved in these things – in the sense that the proliferation of anti-American sentiment in Russia saddens me, because I can remember when it was not thus. I am saddened in a somewhat parallel way by the way that America seems to have forfeited a bit of its moral authority in this century (and for what? can’t we fight terrorism without torture?) and in so doing made some of the classic tenets of anti-Americanism seem more credible.”

***

The previously referred to parallel biases are evident.

The so called “proliferation of anti-American sentiment in Russia” is quite understandable, while being relatively moderate in overall terms. The quoted sentiment relates to the often unfair and unchallenged Russia unfriendly sentiment prevalent on Capitl Hill; care of some small but influential special interest groups.

“Lyndon on October 19, 2007 8:53 pm I blame Marxism-Leninism and its obsession with ‘imperialism.’

For what it’s worth, I think it was Lenin who popularized the idea of the Russian Empire as a ‘prison-house of nations,’ and superficially at least many of the Bolsheviks were from groups which had been marginalized under the Russian Empire.”

****

One reason why Lenin isn’t so popular in present day Russia.

Pardon misspell in my post prior to the last one.

“For what it’s worth, I think it was Lenin who popularized the idea of the Russian Empire as a “prison-house of nations,” and superficially at least many of the Bolsheviks were from groups which had been marginalized under the Russian Empire.”

Yep. And he was part of the Social Democratic movement. It’s the late-19th-century idea that every nation should have a state, the paradigm into which the Soviets tried to force the Jews with Borobidzan.

There are distant echoes of this in Nazi Voelkish thinking and lots of other places in that era, I think. Zionism is part of that current. (I am NOT trying to equate any of these movements!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

“One reason why Lenin isn’t so popular in present day Russia.”

But, he is popular.

A Russian filmmaker I know recently made an interesting documentary about Birobidzhan, which by all accounts is a pretty depressing place. From the summary:

Despite their advanced age, the remaining citizens of Birobidzhan, preserve the well established rhythm of life. Boris still tends his small plot of land, naming his animals after Russian political leaders. “We felt a bit sorry when we sent Yeltsin for meat”, he writes to his son. “Your mum and I miss him”.

Remaining citizens? There are lots of people in the Jewish Autonomous Republic.

Good story, though.

Here’s a pretty thoughtful piece about the bilateral relationship from Rossiia v Global’noi Politike by Tom Graham.

Karaganov’s article in the same journal has a different take on things but is also interesting.

I was going to paste in excerpts, but I somehow overcame the temptation to do so. The articles are worth reading, though.

Birobidzhan is a fascinating historical phenomenon – its official website abbreviates Jewish Autonomous Region as JAR, but given the small percentage of Jewish residents, it seems like a bit of a misnomer. While there may be “lots of people in the Jewish Autonomous Republic” (about 191 thousand, 180 thousand of whom are Russian or Ukrainian) there don’t seem to be lots of Jewish people there, which I think was the implication in the story I excerpted above.

They were certainly willing to use lots of violence (like in Chechnya), but most of the Empire’s acquisitions in Asia were getting local khans and tribes to submit to them in exchange for protection against other threats, coopting local elites, that sort of thing.

The only accounts I have read about these events in Central Asia are Peter Hopkirk’s, and according to him it is pretty clear that most of Russia’s acquisitions were made by deception followed by brute force, or simply brute force. There was very little by way of willing submission and cooperation.

At another thread, you essentially did that when incorrectly claiming what a Stanford academic concluded about a Soviet offer which Chamberlin refused.

Heh! Yeah, sure I did Mike. Sure I did.

Finally they’ve gotten their sense of dignity back.

Wait a minute – sorry to return to this, but is it really a known as regaining a “sense of dignity” when you start blaming your country’s recent troubles and potential threats on elaborate conspiracies of “the West”? Isn’t that more commonly known as “scapegoating” or “passing the buck”?

Although such sentiments are of course not universal in Russia, sometimes they arise in absurd contexts. Once I even had a friend of a friend try to convince me that “Американцы навязали нам слово фак” with the intent of lowering the level of Russian culture, because of all the cursing in Hollywood movies and in hip-hop songs. Just try convincing someone with views of this sort that corrupting the morals of Russian youth is not exactly Hollywood’s first priority.

I understand the reaction to the ’90s excess of crappy American movies and TV shows, and I’m happy to see Russians producing their own nowadays, but it bothers me that the presence of anything American has the potential to be seen as something negative or something inserted by force from without (as opposed to the fact of it being, in the case of TV content, something ordered and slotted into the program by Russians). I also recognize that anti-Americanism in Russia is by no means exclusively top-down, but the way that it is fed by the leaders’ public statements is – while understandable due to the political utility of an “external enemy” – lamentable, in my opinion.

What’s funny is that I’ve found it doesn’t usually have an impact on my relationships with people who know me, know I speak Russian, respect Russia, etc. – it’s more a dislike of America and things American in the abstract.

You know, in a way it almost makes me happy. [...]

Now it’s just, “oh, you’re an American, big deal. I’ve seen a billion of them.” I like that much more.

On the whole, I agree with you that the ’90s-era fascination with foreigners was bizarre verging on unhealthy – it was mostly a result of the closed nature of society during the Soviet era. I’m fine with the fact that my crumpled pack of “American Dream” cigarettes and my memories of “American Cola” in Russian kiosks belong to history (or maybe not – this interesting blog post and comments thereto riff on American Cola and anti-Americanism in Russia); and I’m glad that most people are now neutral rather than fawning when they interact with inostrantsy. I do, though, think it’s unfortunate that the US was not able to make use of the early-’90s trust of things foreign to try to help Russia through the ’90s as much as we might have. Finally, as between xenophilia (if there is such a word) and xenophobia, I think the world would be better off with a proliferation of the former.

The so called “proliferation of anti-American sentiment in Russia” is quite understandable, while being relatively moderate in overall terms. The quoted sentiment relates to the often unfair and unchallenged Russia unfriendly sentiment prevalent on Capitl Hill; care of some small but influential special interest groups.

Mike, it is indeed “quite understandable,” but since you do not read or watch the media in which these ideas are being spread, I’m not convinced that you are among those able to understand it. I mean, do you really think that Russians who view America negatively spend a lot of time thinking about Capitol Hill and special interest groups?

I think the main emphasis is on negative portrayals and stereotyping (natural disasters and shooting sprees covered on the TV news, myth-making about the idiocy of Americans in general and American political correctness in particular, etc.), and to the extent that political actors are focused on, it’s not Congress or lobbyists but other actors – including, inter alia, the executive branch, the military that’s engaged in foreign operations, and the mythically powerful “spetssluzhby”; and often on actors which are portrayed as “American” but are not necessarily so, e.g. multinational corporations, the mythically monolithic “zapadnye SMI,” NATO, and post-Soviet leaders who are depicted as American “stavlenniki.”

“The only accounts I have read about these events in Central Asia are Peter Hopkirk’s, and according to him it is pretty clear that most of Russia’s acquisitions were made by deception followed by brute force, or simply brute force. There was very little by way of willing submission and cooperation.”

I haven’t read him, so I can’t judge his work. Anyway I am light-years from being a scholar in these matters, but it’s not my understanding.

Georgia is a case in point. King Irakli was afraid of the Ottomans, so he cast his lot in with the Russians.

I wrote:

“Georgia is a case in point. King Irakli was afraid of the Ottomans, so he cast his lot in with the Russians.”

Or the Kalmyks. The Russian Empire basically paid them to join the Empire as part of the Don Cossacks. Or the Cossacks themselves for that matter.

This tactic of paying people to stop fighting you seems to work well. It worked against the Cossacks and Kalmyks, and it seems to be working today in Checnya. Indeed isn’t it how they subjugated Chechnya/Dagestan in the 1800s — by giving Shamil a lot of money?

Georgia is a case in point. King Irakli was afraid of the Ottomans, so he cast his lot in with the Russians.

I count Georgia as the Caucasus, not Central Asia, and what I remember reading about the former is far more shaky, it being far more complicated what with Turkey, Persia, and a whole bunch of locals fighting amongst themselves and with Russia. So I’ll not argue with your point regarding Muslims in the Caucasus.

Georgia is a case in point. King Irakli was afraid of the Ottomans, so he cast his lot in with the Russians.

I thought that the Georgians originally agreed to be a Russian protectorate, and then the Russians decided to do away with that formality by just annexing Georgia about 20 years later. But of course history in that part of the world is often politicized and subject to numerous differing interpretations.

I’m not sure if Shamil’ sold out in a premeditated way, or if once he was captured he just realized that resistance was futile and decided to do as well as he could. From Wikipedia:

After his capture, Shamil was sent to Saint Petersburg to meet the Emperor Alexander II. Afterwards he was exiled to Kaluga, then a small town near Moscow. After several years in Kaluga he complained to the authorities about the climate and in December, 1868 Shamil received the permission to move to Kiev, a commercial center of the Empire’s southwest. In Kiev he was afforded a mansion at the Aleksandrovskaya Street. The Imperial authorities ordered the Kievan superintendent to keep Shamil under “strict but not overly burdensome surveillance” and allotted the city a significant sum for the needs of the exilee. Shamil seemed to have liked his luxurious detainment as well as the city as confirmed the letters he sent from Kiev.

The previously referred to parallel biases are evident.

How can this be so? I thought the west bloc was preventing their recognition?

Not having them formally recognized doesn’t mean that it’s a banned sport elsewhere.

———————————————-

“Mike, it is indeed ‘quite understandable,’ but since you do not read or watch the media in which these ideas are being spread, I’m not convinced that you are among those able to understand it. I mean, do you really think that Russians who view America negatively spend a lot of time thinking about Capitol Hill and special interest groups?”

****

Ever here of translation? Actually, Russian media has views like your own represented. On the subject of the FSU, it’d be eclectically nice for American mass media to be more open minded. A point shared by others besides myself. I’ve run into my share of educated Russians who come to Amercia and privately express amazement at the hypocrisy and ignorance about their country; coming from American media and academic elites. I believe that those Russians reflect more mainstream views of their country than Andrei Piontkovksy.

The point is Lyndon, your initial post on this point makes it seem like anti-Americanism suddenly started in Russia with no basis. You continue to pooh pooh the anti-Russian biases getting the nod on Capital Hill. As for your second guessing of my capabilities, how capable are you able to understand your biases in relation to some other views?

Russians at large know about the hypocritically warped bombing of Yugoslavia and the pious lecturing coming from the likes of Barosso (pardon missspell)and McCain.

———————————————-

“Chrisius Maximus on October 19, 2007 9:04 pm ‘One reason why Lenin isn’t so popular in present day Russia.’

But, he is popular.”

****

Perhaps for a very choice few, who think their numbers are great.

That’s “hear of translation”.

“The only accounts I have read about these events in Central Asia are Peter Hopkirk’s, and according to him it is pretty clear that most of Russia’s acquisitions were made by deception followed by brute force, or simply brute force. There was very little by way of willing submission and cooperation.”

****

Nice stereotype. How about those historically back stabbing Brits?

I’ve run into my share of educated Russians who come to Amercia and privately express amazement at the hypocrisy and ignorance about their country; coming from American media and academic elites.

Just like Canadians, Mexicans, Brits, French, Germans, Dutch, and every other nationality under the sun who go to America then? I’ve met enough Americans in New England bars who start lecturing me on “getting out of Ireland”. And I’m sure it’s not only America’s media which demonstrates laziness, incompetence, and hypocrisy in its reporting of other nations: it’s probably common to all countries’ media, and is most certainly applicable to Russian media.

Russians at large know about the hypocritically warped bombing of Yugoslavia

Hypocritical warp bombing? Yeah, I think that is one of the tech upgrades available to the GDI Orca aircraft in Command and Conquer 3.

Nice stereotype. How about those historically back stabbing Brits?

How about them? We are talking about Russian actions against Muslims in Central Asia, not British actions, erm, anywhere. Are you trying to change the subject again? I think you are!!

Not quite. Just highlighting your standards. You become comparatively defensive at the thought of Britain not behaving virtuous, much unlike your characterizations of pro-German Irish and brutish Russians. Besides, these threads frequently go off topic via what others besides myself bring up.

The extent of my Russian contacts isn’t limited and seems to correspond with the overall poll results and voting trends among Russians.

Few words about Putin and Iran.
It was meeting between four countries. With combined population and resources big enough to balance anyone (with China behind curtain). No matter what people in DC think about it.

War with Iran? You kidding. US has no money for this. And I doubt that Saudi Arabia or Emirates would pay for this. US citizens wouldn’t give up their SUV’s either.

I’m wondering why the so called west is so “concerned” about Iran? Is it paranoia?
A muslim state with nuclear weapons is in front of you, guys! It’s called Pakistan. And now they have their own Yulia Timoshenko there, who is promising to bring democracy there. Muslim Democratic Nuclear Caliphate.
Well I have to intention to ridicule US “democracy” in Iraq but ….

You tell ‘em.

Lyndon, tell Gutman, that his “film” is excellent piece of bullshit. At least a person I know recently told me this. And I tend to trust him – as he is my brother and he lives there….

“the ideas for my films were coming from Soviet leaders. I never had to make a choice. They used to order me and I used to execute. But somewhere deep in my mind I had an idea, a dream.” Pig’s proud thinking….

You become comparatively defensive at the thought of Britain not behaving virtuous, much unlike your characterizations of pro-German Irish and brutish Russians.

Erm, no I don’t. I am under no illusions what the British got up to in the establishment and maintenance of their empire. What I am “defensive” about is your involvement in threads repeatedly making the same tedious pattern:

1. Somebody says something about Russia.
2. Averko makes daft comment in response saying Russia is brilliant.
3. Twenty-five others produce one hundred and sixty years worth of documentary evidence to show Averko is incorrect.
4. Averko quickly changes the subject to how other countries, usually the US or Britain, have gone about their business.

In this case, it went as follows:

1. Sean writes about Putin and Iran.
2. Averko says Russia has enjoyed good relations with Muslims in the past.
3. I showed that Russia’s expansion into Central Asia involved the brutal killing of thousands of Muslims with the rest being forced into submission to Moscow rule, thus proving Averko wrong.
4. Averko quickly moves the discussion onto British behaviour somewhere, sometime.

And whilst we’re on the subject of being defensive, if you are going to try to portray Russia’s expansion of its empire as some noble venture free of deception, skulduggery, banditry, and bloodshed, then all I can say is that your grandad, or whoever it was you get your name from, didn’t half fill your young head full of shite when he sat you on his knee all those years ago.

The extent of my Russian contacts isn’t limited…

Erm, except that the extent of your Russian contacts is very limited to people you know only online, and you don’t actually work with, live with, or socialise with any Russian in the real world, save for a few who might be kicking around Long Island.

I’m wondering why the so called west is so “concerned” about Iran? Is it paranoia?

There is ample room for scepticism in the size of the Iranian threat being portrayed by Iran, but I think only an idiot would listen to the speeches of the Iranian president and read the reports from the IAEA and dismiss entirely western concerns as paranoia and nothing more.

Sorry, first line above should say:

There is ample room for scepticism in the size of the Iranian threat being portrayed by the USA…

You didn’t show anything Newman, other than your own inability to grasp different views from your limited perspectives.

Ditto your very incorrect view of my Russian friends and acquaintances.

You repeatedly make one sided assertions that overlook other fact based views on the given subject.

This latest misreprestation of yours being yet another example.

“Tim Newman on October 19, 2007 10:12 pm ‘At another thread, you essentially did that when incorrectly claiming what a Stanford academic concluded about a Soviet offer which Chamberlin refused.’

Heh! Yeah, sure I did Mike. Sure I did.”

****

Yes, you in fact did so.

Pardon misspell in my post prior to last one.

For clarity sake, Cyrill made some comment along the lines of Russia having problems with Islam.

I countered with an example to the contrary.

Along comes Newman with a series of one sided and sometimes incorrect points on the subject.

Others besides myself countered those posted claims with info. to the contrary.

For clarity sake, Cyrill made some comment along the lines of Russia having problems with Islam. I countered with an example to the contrary.

This is a telling insight into Averkian logic. Cyrill states a problem exists, Averko counters with an example to the contrary, presumably showing that the problem doesn’t exist, thereby proving a negative, which is a logical impossibility.

Others besides myself countered those posted claims with info. to the contrary.

Erm, no you didn’t. You just said announced that what I had written was bullshit without adding anything of further value.

Chris, being more knowledgable on the subject matter than you, made some counter points to what I had written, I replied, and a sensible discussion ensued. Fancy!

Tim is wrong again:

“Michael Averko on October 19, 2007 1:11 pm In fact, not so long ago The Moscow Times had a review of a book noting the same.

Not all MT material is fully available on the net (subscriber fee) and its search engine has at times been incomplete.

There was never a Spanish like inquisition of Muslims in Russia. What happened to the Chechens wasn’t religion based. Otherwise, a number of other Mulsims would’ve faced the same kind of deportation treatment. Opposing so called ‘Islamo-Fascism’ isn’t the same as opposing Islam at large. A point highlighted by (among others) Stephen Schwartz.

In the present, Slovenia has wrestled with itself over building one mosque in its capital where none exist. This as mosques are built en masse in Russia. Name me ONE Western leader who has attended the annual Organization of Islamic States conference.”

****

The last point in reference to Putin’s attendance at that event.

Note that Newman has yet to acknowledge being incorrect about what Gordon Craig said about a Soviet offer which would’ve defended Czech sovereignty in 1938.

He incorrectly and repeatedly denied such an offer existing.

For Newman, its okay for Cyrill to make a broad comment about Russians having problems with Islam.

Low and behold if someone challenges that point with examples.

Note that Newman has yet to acknowledge being incorrect about what Gordon Craig said about a Soviet offer which would’ve defended Czech sovereignty in 1938.

Note that Averko has yet to provide an quotation from a Gordon Craig work which even contains the word “Czechoslovakia”, let alone a quotation in which he refers to a Soviet offer to defend the place.

Also note that Averko in all probability has never seen the book in his life, hence he is able only to quote the same passage, again and again in the desperate hope that the words will magically morph into something which supports his spouted nonsense.

What happened to the Chechens wasn’t religion based. Otherwise, a number of other Mulsims would’ve faced the same kind of deportation treatment.

And herein lies the evidence that Averko hasn’t got a clue what he’s on about, nor has he read the piece I wrote which he is busy writing off as bullshit.

As I said in my piece, other Muslims were deported, notably the Ingush and Crimean Tatars. There may well be an argument that the deportations were not religious based, but stating that the deportations could not have been religious based because the Chechens were the only Muslims deported shows a staggering ignorance of the events which took place, and a staggering magnitude of fuckwittedness not to have read that this was pointed out long ago in the discussion.

Low and behold if someone challenges that point with examples.

I think we can chalk up the expression “lo and behold” as yet another that Averko uses without having a clue what it means.

“Perhaps for a very choice few, who think their numbers are great.”

If my “very choice few” you mean “the majority.”

How so? Like it or not, the ROC is a reasonably popular institution in contemporary Russia. This popularity includes many of those who rarely if ever go to church. Like it or not, the ROC made the last czar a saint. Like it or not, St. Petersburg voted to change back from its Communist name Leningrad. Many of those supporting the Leningrad name do so because it was the name of the city during the 900 day WW II siege and not because of any particular fondness for VIL.

———————————————-

Newman:

You now ask for quotes. I can give it to you. Or, you can try getting the book yourself. All of those points are within the quoted page 701 I gave. Moreover, it’s not like Craig is the only one recognizing those thoughts and facts.

You readily believe what some others say, despite their not being as well documented.

You’re being the “fuckwit” for suggesting the Chechens were deported primarily because of their religion. As previously noted, there’re were many other Soviet groups of Muslim origin who weren’t deported. Spain deported its entire (or came close to entire) Muslim population. Its reasoning had to do with Islam. The Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Russia never came close to expelling its entire Muslim population.

Unlike Catholicism, the Russian government recognizes Islam as a historically akin religion to Russia (as I said before, I’m of the view that both should be recognized). Based on this and other points, it’s way too broad to say that Russia’s relations with Islam is bad. Especially when compared to a number of other predominately Christian states.

I can give it to you. Or, you can try getting the book yourself. All of those points are within the quoted page 701 I gave.

Erm, I live on Sakhalin Island and getting hold of this book is going to be rather difficult. So I’ll take you up on your kind offer of quoting the relevant passages for me. Be sure to include the word “Czechoslovakia” this time. Incidentally, I am fully expecting you to for whatever reason not actually quote anything further despite your saying that you can give it to me, as I firmly believe the book is not and has never been in your possession. I’m also pretty sure Craig does not think that Stalin’s approach to Britain and France included the defense of the Sudetenland. Surprise me.

As previously noted, there’re were many other Soviet groups of Muslim origin who weren’t deported.

If this was previously noted, it wasn’t by you. You claimed that no other Muslim groups were exiled, a quite different claim from that above.

“How so? Like it or not, the ROC is a reasonably popular institution in contemporary Russia. This popularity includes many of those who rarely if ever go to church”

Gennady Zyuganov is an Orthodox Christian, you know.

The KPRF supports a number of core ROC stances.

———————————————-

Newman:

I’ve the book. In additon, I recall a European history professor of mine (whose specialty is German miltary history) having confirmed the mentioned pre-Munich appeasement offer by the Soviets. Others are aware of this historical point as well.

Unlike yourself, I’m correct on the mentioned pre-Munich Soviet offer.

“The KPRF supports a number of core ROC stances.”

Then the popularity of the Church does not provide evidence against the popularity of Lenin, now does it?

Is there a St. Lenin in the ROC? Like I said, like it or not, Russia’s last czar was made a saint by the ROC.

Among my CCCP warmup wearing Russian friends, Lenin isn’t fondly thought of.

When giving positive reference to past Russian political figures, I don’t recall Putin or the late Yeltsin ever mentioning VIL. On this point, Peter the Great seems to be the considerably more referenced.

Also, between the KPRF and United Russia, which of the two is more popular in Russia? Tack on the other Russian political parties and how they each view Lenin.

Just Russia concerns itself more with the ROC and doesn’t seem to have any comment on Lenin.

If I’m not mistaken, Steele recently had an article saying that Putin isn’t a Leninist and is against core Leninist views.

“Just Russia concerns itself more with the ROC and doesn’t seem to have any comment on Lenin.”

Putin lived in 80 years ago. Expecting Just Russia to thematize him is like expecting Al Gore to thematize Calvin Coolidge.

Lenin is popular. Face the music.

“If I’m not mistaken, Steele recently had an article saying that Putin isn’t a Leninist and is against core Leninist views.”

Somebody would actually write an article stating the obvious? There are almost no Leninists in Russia.

On the deportation issue — I am sure that being Muslim did not help the Chechens, Ingush, and Crimean Tatars, but the common factor that links the deported populations is that they were in areas occupied that the Germans got to (except the Volga Germans, who were deported in August 1941). Thus, no Germans in Dagestan, no people deported from Dagestan.

“Lenin is popular. Face the music.”

Maybe you’re hearing things. Being “popular” among some (not all) leftists isn’t necessarily the same as what the whole of society thinks.

Not getting where you substantiate Lenin being popular in contemporary Russia.

Among some other previously mentioned points, how do you explain Putin and the late Yeltsin’s reverance for Peter the Great, while not exhibiting any positive overview (at least from what I’ve seen and heard) of Lenin?

Besides the KPRF, how positive is Lenin viewed by the NBP and the likes of Anpilov (pardon any misspelling of the last named)?

BTW, in “Soviet like” Pridnestrovie, Suvorov’s legacy is more popular than Lenin’s. An image of him has replaced the hammer and sickle on the arm band worn by Prid’s armed forces.

“On the deportation issue — I am sure that being Muslim did not help the Chechens, Ingush, and Crimean Tatars, but the common factor that links the deported populations is that they were in areas occupied that the Germans got to (except the Volga Germans, who were deported in August 1941). Thus, no Germans in Dagestan, no people deported from Dagestan.”

****

An East German/Soviet (recall it as a collaboration) movie about a pre-Soviet German’s entry into Berlin in 1945 depicts a heroic Uzbek among the Red Army. I saw it many moons ago on PBS.

As per Chechnya and some other areas, national liberation movements aren’t always so connected to religion.

“Not getting where you substantiate Lenin being popular in contemporary Russia.”

By reading opinion polls and doing research. You know, that stuff you don’t do. Like this one: http://www.polit.ru/analytics/2007/09/21/stalinizm.html

You do know that Stalin is popular too, right?

Lenin still gets respect, but the age breakdown is interesting – see here.

And he is apparently more and more regarded as part of history – here, although those results allow other interpretations.

And this one, with a more detailed breakdown here and a summary report here – all in English, just for you, Mike! – shows that a majority of Russians rate Lenin’s role in history positively and consider him “a good person” (whatever that means). Those were from 2005, here’s another report on a survey about Lenin from 2004 with links to results from earlier years. Okay, I need to stop procrastinating like this.

War with Iran? You kidding.

Agreed. Judging by what happened, or rather not happened in Syria last month, there won’t be any war, since Iran is likely to have the same Russian made air defense system that did not even wake up to Israel’s raid.

A Muslim state with nuclear weapons is in front of you, guys! It’s called Pakistan.

The current leader of Pakistan did not repeatedly call for wiping out of Israel, did he? The current leader of Pakistan overthrew the previous leader in large part because Sharif was pushing in Sharia law way too hard. There is a world of difference between the two countries at the moment.

For clarity sake, Cyrill made some comment along the lines of Russia having problems with Islam.

And I did. Are you saying the Nord-Ost incident had nothing to do with Muslim terrorists?

“If I’m not mistaken, Steele recently had an article saying that Putin isn’t a Leninist and is against core Leninist views.”

Somebody would actually write an article stating the obvious? There are almost no Leninists in Russia.

This can be argued both ways. The key in Lenin’s understanding of capitalism was “Государственно-монополистический капитализм” – and this is exactly what Putin is building in Russia. One thing is to pronounce love for Lenin as it was done in the USSR, another is to follow his writings. Just a thought.

Tim, your words As I said in my piece, other Muslims were deported, are BS (sorry).

Those people were deported for same reason as Germans from Volga, Koreans from Far East and …. Japanies in US from to camps. I assume you know the last story.

Cyrill.
Pakistan is a muslim state in the first place. And chances that Musharaf won’t be able to talk anymore (it’s hard to do when you blown up in pieces) is very high.
You academic approach doesn’t work over there. Восток – дело тонкое (с)

You academic approach doesn’t work over there. Восток – дело тонкое (с)

It helps to know the subject though.

Pakistan is incredibly diverse and to lump it all into one Muslim state first and foremost is hardly accurate. The Southern area is way different from the North-Western border areas that are for all intends and purposes a separate nation within a nation.

Punjab and Sindhi comprise the majority of the population, almost half of it being urban. This is Musharraf’s support base, as well as the industrial and technology center of the country. Whatever happens in the North West Frontier Province is way different, but does not have much of a bearing on nuclear proliferation. It is not possible to create, store and operate nuclear devices with a semi-nomad infrastructure.

Unless the Taliban from the North take over Karachi and Lahore (hardly a possibility) Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is not in the hands of messianic leadership that is waiting for al-Mahdi to crawl back up from the well he has been hiding in. Hence the difference in approaches towards Pakistan and Iran.

“I thought that the Georgians originally agreed to be a Russian protectorate, and then the Russians decided to do away with that formality by just annexing Georgia about 20 years later. But of course history in that part of the world is often politicized and subject to numerous differing interpretations.”

In any case, if it hadn’t been incorporated into the Russian Empire, Georgia would have continued to be subject to the depredations of the other giant empire across the border, the Ottoman Empire, and its frequent slave raids. Sort of like how Ukraine was a favorite hunting spot for Ottoman slavers up until the last 1700s, this probably not coincidentally coinciding with Ukraine’s being incorporated into another big, powerful geopolitical entity. This was probably a bummer for the Sultan, who had to do without Ukrainian and Georgian women in his seraglio, but probably not for people in Ukraine and Georgia.

I was thinking today about how the Ottoman Empire seems to have almost completely dropped out of many contemporary popular narratives about the history of the region. I guess this is partly because since it no longer exists, we don’t think about it, and partly because it’s inconvenient for various nationalist narratives. I doubt a single geopolitical decision was made by any actor in the region at the time without thinking about the Ottoman reaction.

“Agreed. Judging by what happened, or rather not happened in Syria last month, there won’t be any war, since Iran is likely to have the same Russian made air defense system that did not even wake up to Israel’s raid.”

You’re assuming the Syrians turned the air defense system on, thus giving away its location.

“Lenin still gets respect, but the age breakdown is interesting – see here.”

Poor Mike. Lenin gets more respect than the beloved Nikolas II.

I’ve the book.

Yeah. Sure you do. Which is why you are unable to quote anything other than one passage which you probably hoiked off the Amazon free preview.

On the deportation issue — I am sure that being Muslim did not help the Chechens, Ingush, and Crimean Tatars, but the common factor that links the deported populations is that they were in areas occupied that the Germans got to (except the Volga Germans, who were deported in August 1941).

I am not trying to argue that the overiding reason for the exiling of the certain groups was that they were Muslim, my initial point was to unravel Averko’s bollocks that Russia’s relations with Muslims have been stellar throughout. I too am sure that being Muslim did not help these groups, but I am also unconvinced that suspected collaboration with the Germans – for which there isn’t much evidence, certainly not anywhere near enough to deport an entire population – was a handy excuse to exile troublesome peoples, an exile whose intent was arguably closer to genocide. It is worth noting that the non-Muslim groups, such as the Ossetians, which were occupied by the Germans didn’t suffer the same fate, and nor did the non-Tatars living in the Crimea. Whatever the motivations for the exiling of these peoples, I think it is rather hard to defend that their being Muslim was not a factor, and it is impossible to deny that Russia-Muslim relations at the time were lower than whaleshit.

… I’m correct on the mentioned pre-Munich Soviet offer.

No, Mike, you’re not. Not really. The Soviets did make an “offer”, but you clearly don’t really know what exactly they proposed.

To help you out, here is a quote from Litvinov’s statement of March 17, 1938 (bold mine):

“Нынешнее международное положение ставит перед всеми миролюбивыми государствами и в особенности великими державами вопрос об их ответственности за дальнейшие судьбы народов Европы, и не только Европы. В сознании Советским правительством его доли этой ответственности, в сознании им также обстоятельств, вытекающих для него из устава Лиги, из пакта Бриана — Келлога и из договоров о взаимной помощи, заключенных им с Францией и Чехословакией, я могу от его имени заявить, что оно со своей стороны по-прежнему готово участвовать в коллективных действиях, которые были бы решены совместно с ним и которые имели бы целью приостановить дальнейшее развитие агрессии и устранение усилившейся опасности новой мировой бойни. Оно согласно приступить немедленно к обсуждению с другими державами в Лиге Наций или вне ее практических мер, диктуемых обстоятельствами“.

Lyndon,

“So, because individuals in the Western MSM independently decide to run stories about Russia that you think are not objective, this makes it OK for Russian officials to make false, fearmongering statements about Western intentions with respect to Russia?”

No, it is not ‘ok’, but they are not ‘normal’ people we are talking about. Isn’t it the editors who decide what stories to run? As for ‘independent’, is it possible to be ‘independent’ if you work for the MSM? I know journos (print/av) who have had their stories pulled or butchered because it did not fit the editorial ‘line’ or some other such excuse. It’s a very dirty business.

As for political porky pies, didn’t someone important say something once about WMD’s in Iraq? Maybe the false statements that the missile shield has nothing to do with Russia, though there are american experts in this field who say that it isn’t true at all.

What strikes me is how people like Putin and Yanukovic can entirely change their image (in Yanukovic’s case, with the best american image consultant money can buy), and people seem to quickly forget who and how they once behaved (as someone mentioned earlier, the Kursk debacle). It is an image change, like a nice new suit, what is underneath is the same.

Why are Putin an co. so undiplomatic? It might be that they are annoyed, though my guess is that the talk about ‘red lines’ is true. The creeping expansion of NATO, interference on Russia’s borders (any bets on when Georgia will become a NATO member).

The chinese drew their red lines very early on, Tienamenn and the spy plane saga where they eye-balled the US (especially after the face they lost with their warmongering towards Tiawan in 1997(?) and the US sailed a couple of aircraft carriers up there to tell the Chinese off).

Only under Putin has Russia really been able to show what a pain in the ass they can be if the ‘West’ continues to ignore it (whether intentionally or not), so any ‘resistance’ or unpleasantness from the Russians is sold as Russia ‘re-asserting’ itself, or as Gaffney said, ‘trying to recreate the Soviet Union’.

I guess that Putin is trying to take every advantage he can possibly get, however noxious it may be. As for his pygmies saying unpleasant things, everyone does that.

“What’s your theory on who the power behind the throne is?”

I don’t know. I even question if there is a throne in any real sense and what the definition of power is. At a stretch, I guess that after the nightmare of the 1990s, those with influence had had enough of instability, which only limits the ability to gather power and money. A bit like how terrorists mellow and become ‘peacemakers’ after years of slaughter. They want something different.

If this was the idea, then Putin has delivered. He’s left most of the Oligarchs alone on the priviso that they tidy themselves up and keep their noses out of the Kremlin, with the notable ‘broken’ exceptions. Now that the Kremlin appears to have control of capital, it doesn’t need to beg.

Putin, the ‘Queen theory’:
Putin used the same strategy as Stalin. Put your men in the right place so when the time comes to act against the others more powerful than yourself, you can pull it off. These elevate ex-FSB oompah-loompahs are supposed to be the ‘glue’. As ex-KGB/FSB, they know the rules and understand the consequences. I don’t know enough to say if Putin has set-up competing groups of oompah-loompahs so that with deft managment, no group could ever be strong enough to challenge the throne (as Hitler did)

Putin, the ‘King theory’:
He was ‘chosen’ or suggested by/to Yeltsin by a very small group of Oligarchs who were quite ready to screw over the others if it made their gains permanent. A mutual trade-off of future financial security v. political security. They might even have been russian patriots! So, stability = money, legitimacy and the abilty to expand beyond Russia’s borders. Of course, this is assuming that they all stick to the agreement…

“how would Russia like to see the international order reshaped?”

It always was multi-polar, just a little skewed for a while. A blip on history’s timeline. I think that Russia wants to be at least treated as an equal in the world club. Like China, they belive in ’sovereignty’, i.e. you can meddle with other countries, but not too much such as sponsored color revolutions etc.

The UN was quite badly damaged during the 1990s and it was to no-one’s benefit. Once the Russians were effectively out of the game, the use of the UN as a balancing mechanizm, it was seen as more of an obstacle to certain foreign policy goals. In a real sense, it was in danger of becoming obselete as it less and less reflected the changing balance in the world. India is not a permanent member of the UN, France and the UK still are where it would be logical (but not necessarily make sense) that the EU has a seat, etc.

As for hastening the US fall, I don’t think Russia has actually done much, it’s just enjoying a bit of chest thumping. China is clearly the biggie, closely followed by India. Latin America and Africa are within visual distance.

“However, a US defeat in Iraq would be read by many as a victory for radical, fundamentalist Islam – isn’t that an enemy which the US and Russia share?”

Well, the fundamentalists would certainly say so, but apart from the propaganda value, it isn’t really the case, a bit like (I’m going on a limb here), Vietnam which was at least initially a much more nationalist sentiment (colonists out), the communists gaining strength as the ones who were actually doing something rather than talking.

I wonder that without the US in Iraq, what other strong focal point could the fundamentalists use to maintain cohesion, and more importantly, recruits who are willing to blow themselves up?

“does it [Russia] really have a viable alternative to propose? Is there a coherent strategy?”

Isn’t that the ‘multi-polar world’ that Russia has been calling for these last few years???

[Can I ask why you put ‘americans’ in quotation marks?]

It’s just because I can’t remember the exact words from the broadcast. The reporter said something like “there is widespread disquiet about Chinese influence” etc. etc. The report was one of a series by the BBC World Service about China and the world: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/142_chinas_world/page5.shtml

The reporter too mentioned US reaction to Japanese in the 1980s in the piece.

“Sorry, I’ve rambled on again.”

Nothing wrong with good quality and interesting rambling!

P.S. I don’t think that ‘the Russians’ are anti-American, they’re just anti-american foreign policy, especially all the preachy stuff. I discovered the same thing about the Balkans. The politicos and the media go all out and exaggerate the differences, but the average joe doesn’t fit into their maxims nor think the same.

“It is worth noting that the non-Muslim groups, such as the Ossetians, which were occupied by the Germans didn’t suffer the same fate,”

Well, the Kalmyks did.

It’s getting decidedly funky in the neighborhood.

The Turkish government is threatening ‘action’ against the PKK in Iraq and demand US help (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_iraq), the Kurds in Iraq demand US protection (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071019/FOREIGN/110190048/1003), Turkey, Iran and Syria are apparently to meet shortly and discuss their large kurdish minorities.

The PKK is threatening to blow up the Baku-Cehan pipeline, has sent oil prices through the roof: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L19752599.htm

How does this affect the US-Iran nexus? Well can the US bomb Iran and handle a crisis with NATO’s most important member? It’s all looking horribly complicated and has the potential to spin rapidly out of control.

Throw in to this that it could well bolster Kurdish demands for their own state, US support for Kosovo ‘independence’… Who is the US going to disappoint? The Turks or the Kurds? with Baku-Cehan at stake, would this be enough to let the Turks have a free-hand at the cost of Kurdish indpendence…

If the Turks are seen to be dealing brutally with the Kurds, it won’t say much for the west’s stance on ‘human rights’, nor help Turkey’s entry to the EU etc. etc.. What a can of worms!

On the deportation from the Caucasus in 1994, I still find it amazing that two chechens (Khasbulatov and Dudayev), both of whoms families were deported to Khazakhstan, were on opposite sides during the 1990s (what is Khasbulatov doing these days).

Still, despite all the horror commanded by Stalin or his acolytes, I’m quite impressed with how many ‘minorities’ have reached top ranks in government and military.

Dudayev used to be the commander of a bomber regiment based near Tallin, their job, to drop nuclear weapons on western europe.

Khasbulatov, chairman of the RF Supreme Soviet and then the duma. I strongly suspect that he was one of those advocating taking Dudayev down a peg by sending the army supported by sympathetic chechens (such as Gantemirov & Avtukhanov).

… what is Khasbulatov doing these days…

http://www.rea.ru/portal/main.nsf/0/B9EF3FA5D054C1DFC3256BBC0031C83A

”Khasbulatov, chairman of the RF Supreme Soviet and then the duma. I strongly suspect that he was one of those advocating taking Dudayev down a peg by sending the army supported by sympathetic chechens (such as Gantemirov & Avtukhanov).”

Aleks your suspicion is correct. He was hoping to become Chechen president himself seemingly.

DB – Where do you consistently get these gems of info? Credit to you.

Chris, some of my favourite Irish women:

Sorcha ni Cheide:
http://www.tg4.ie/Bearla/Dram/rion.htm
Sharon Ni Bhaoilean:
http://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_N%C3%AD_Bheol%C3%A1in
Sarah Kavanagh:
http://www.assetsmodels.com/female_models.php?model=168&i=8

Thanks for the ‘fo db! I should have guessed.

This is a good blog if you want to know what is going on in the world of nuclear proliferation: http://www.totalwonkerr.com/

If only Dudayev and his opposite numbers hadn’t been so pigheaded. The tartars proved to be much smarter, driving quite a hard bargain with the Kremlin for remaining nominally withing the Russian Federation.

Imagine, Chechnya would have been rolling in it (money, that is), with very low sulfur content oil literally leaking out of the ground, thus minimal refining costs. I think in soviet times it was the (or one of) prime source(s) of aviation gas used by the airforce.

Well, the Kalmyks did.

Fair point.

Tim said
I am also unconvinced that suspected collaboration with the Germans – for which there isn’t much evidence, certainly not anywhere near enough to deport an entire population – was a handy excuse to exile troublesome peoples, an exile whose intent was arguably closer to genocide.

It was excellent military solution – I mean deportation. Chechen insurgents were cut of any supplies, support and cover. In winter mountains.
And it was not genocide. Otherwise Stalin would have ordered to “unload” trains into Caspian Sea…
You think from the position of chair strategy. Stalin had no time nor resources to run kontrterroristicheckuju operaziju for years to get rid of “insurgents”. So he had to use “emergency” solutions. The loose whole country vs few hundreds thousands. It was WAR!
If someone would have started Second Front in 1943 – this wouldn’t have happened. Well this would have ment few hundreds of dead americans and british soldiers. So what would you choose, Tim?

PS. I didn’t hear about any Japanies insurgents in US. Why were they sent to camps? For the wrong shape of their eyes?

As for political porky pies, didn’t someone important say something once about WMD’s in Iraq?

Yes, they did. But there is no evidence that that person, or any person, knew full well that WMDs were not in Iraq but said there were anyway. As of February 2003, nobody outisde of Iraq knew for sure if there were WMDs in Iraq. Some say they knew for sure they were there, others say they knew for sure they weren’t. Most importantly, Hans Blix said in his speech to the UNSC in February 2003 that he did not know if they were there or not.

The reason why no politician has suffered the consequences of deliberately lying about the presence of WMDs in Iraq is because, despite the accusations, editorials, books, blogs, and millions of people saying otherwise, there is no evidence that anybody deliberately lied, and it ain’t true that they did.

Excellent, Aleks.
Still, despite all the horror commanded by Stalin or his acolytes, I’m quite impressed with how many ‘minorities’ have reached top ranks in government and military.

Do you remember the name of MVD Minister? Nurgaliev.
I doubt that he is really a Muslim but his relatives – most likely.

So Stalin The Horrible some day might not be considered more horrible than Churchill (by Madam Klio)

there is no evidence that anybody deliberately lied,
Tim, did you check White House site? I don’t think that “edit” President’s speeches of that times.

A can of worms indeed. The Turkey-Iraqi Kurd thing

Yes, Sean, indeed.
This is a trap that no one noticed in DC before going to “liberate”?

Hey Bobby, try Mosul.

Do you have some evidence you’d like to share, Sean? Or are you making guesses?

And isn’t the fact that the US is not acting before it has solid information a good thing? Or is this yet more inconsistency in what is demanded from the US?

Just to clarify what I am getting at above, we often complain that commentators make ill-informed, supposedly witty one-line comments about Russian affairs, yet seem to have an awful habit of engaging in such behaviour ourselves.

I have no better idea on what is going on amongst the Kurds than anyone else, but I am capable of thinking in a bit more depth than:

1. Kurds in Mosul are protected by Americans.
2. Therefore, Kurds in Mosul must be the ones carrying out terrorist attackes inside Turkey.

The first mistake is thinking all Kurds have the same goal, and Kurds in Iraq will be supporting terrorist attacks in Turkey. This is highyl doubtful. Iraq’s Kurds are as close as they have ever been to statehood, and they enjoy the support of the Americans at a time when it really matters. The Iraqi Kurds main and probably only priority is to secure an independent Kurdistan in the former Iraq, and not to worry too much (or at all) about gaining territory at the expense of Turkey. The Kurds in Turkey, on the other hand, will have the same aims they always had, to gain a state encompassing Turkish territory. So even with just 2 minutes of thinking applied, we can see that the Kurds will be split into two groups with differing priorities.

It can therefore be reasonably assumed that the Kurds in Iraq are not particularly happy about their brethren in Turkey threatening to blow up pipelines, etc. as this will upset the Americans, provide an excuse for Turkish intervention, and reduce the likelihood of them gaining a state. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Iraq’s Kurds are freely allowing terrorist attacks in Turkey to be based from Kurdish controlled Iraqi territory (although there will of course be a percentage who do).

It may be the case that the Iraqi Kurds are able to prevent their cousins in Turkey from using their territory for terrorist attacks, in which case it is almost certainly the case that the Americans will not be any more successful, probably because they will lack the necessary intelligence regarding exactly where those attacks are coming from. Or maybe the Iraqi Kurds have been successful in keeping their area clean of terrorists, forcing the bombers to operate out of Turkish territory, which they have been doing for years anyway. Either way, the Kurds on either side will know for sure what is going on, and will almost certainly not be passing this sort of intelligence onto the Americans in Baghdad.

And what d’ya know? Isn’t that exactly what Gates has said, that they (the Americans) don’t have solid information as to where the attacks are being based out of? But Sean, in California, obviously knows they are based out of Mosul, and assumes Gates is either thick or lying.

Next time we complain about lazy, ill-thought out comments regrading Putin and Russia, let’s be reminded of this, eh? FFS.

SOrry, mistake in the above:

It may be the case that the Iraqi Kurds are able to prevent their cousins in Turkey from using their territory for terrorist attacks,

should read:

It may be the case that the Iraqi Kurds are unable to prevent their cousins in Turkey from using their territory for terrorist attacks,

It was a joke.

Yes, I know: the supposedly funny part of which is the insinuation that a member of Bush’s gang is as thick as pigshit.

I think knock-knock jokes would show more originality.

“… what is Khasbulatov doing these days…

http://www.rea.ru/portal/main.nsf/0/B9EF3FA5D054C1DFC3256BBC0031C83A”

Oh, that’s right. This is a block and a half from my apartment. I think I saw his name on a course list.

“db on October 20, 2007 9:20 pm … I’m correct on the mentioned pre-Munich Soviet offer.

No, Mike, you’re not. Not really. The Soviets did make an ‘offer’, but you clearly don’t really know what exactly they proposed.

To help you out, here is a quote from Litvinov’s statement of March 17, 1938 (bold mine):”

****

No db, you’re the one who as usual is distorting things.

The proposal when viewed in its entirety (as opposed to isolating some aspects of it) seems to have been clearly made in opposition to the Austor-German Anshcluss. It called for a united Soviet, British, French and American stand in opposition to further acts of that type. Chamberlin refused it and proceeeded to let Czechoslovakia go.

———————————————-

“Tim Newman on October 20, 2007 8:55 pm I’ve the book.

Yeah. Sure you do. Which is why you are unable to quote anything other than one passage which you probably hoiked off the Amazon free preview.”

****

Still talking bullshit after being wrong.

———————————————-

Not all Kurds support the PKK which is the primary Kurdish group fighting the Turks. On the other hand, in a push come to shove scenario between the PKK and Turks, many non-PKK Kurds would no doubt be inclined to support the PKK.

———————————————-

Lyndon:

If Lenin is so popular, St. Petersburg would still be named Leningrad. That matter was voted on by the people of that city. Also, Putin and the late Yeltsin would be referencing him as a great Russian leader. Good to great language skills don’t necessarily transcend to analysis.

“If Lenin is so popular, St. Petersburg would still be named Leningrad.”

So, are the opinion polls (which I doubt you looked at) fabricated?

Have opinion polls ever been wrong?

This article offers different insight from what’s typically stated in American mass media:

Why Did Israel Attack Syria?
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook09272007.html

“Have opinion polls ever been wrong?”

My God, you’re an imbecile.

Thereby making you something well below an imbecile.

saying that lenin was an astute politician and less of a brute than Stalin doesn’t necvessarily have the same meaning as how some might terms being “popular”.

Several points were presented which contradict how popular some think Lenin to be in Russia.

Pardon the missed caps in my last post.

Think of all we could accomplish if we were to harness all of the energy contained in Mike’s mighty brain for the forces of good. We could, perhaps, toast bread.

As opposed to Chris having a toasted brain.

“saying that lenin was an astute politician and less of a brute than Stalin doesn’t necvessarily have the same meaning as how some might terms being “popular”.”

Stalin is even more popular than Lenin.

“Popular” having different meaning.

There’s no great effort to rehabilitate Stalin in Russia. Russian society has become far removed from Stalin’s totalitarian mindset. Adulation for Stalin isn’t widely evident at the annual May 9, Victory Day holiday, commemorating the defeat of Nazism. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged this after attending the 65th anniversary of the event in 2005. Albeit limited, admiration for Stalin can be found in his native Georgia. A point not to advertise because in some circles Georgia is supposedly more democratic than Russia.

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.