..
Another brilliant column by Glenn Diesen
Europe's 'Cuban Missile Crisis'
6 Dec, 2021 18:46 /
By Glenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenn_diesen.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has demanded guarantees from NATO that the US-led military bloc won’t expand further eastwards. Washington, however, has predictably ruled this out as a non-starter.
While Moscow sees more NATO members on its borders as an existential threat and a deliberate provocation, much of the West rallies behind the principle that countries have a “sovereign right” to join whichever factions and groupings they please. For many analysts, this is the fundamental principle of European security.
But Russia insists European security depends on limiting the expansion of military alliances and mitigating the oppositional format of the European security architecture. This dispute is at the heart of the standoff over Ukraine.
These competing views on the fundamental principle of European security are the result of a changing balance of power.
The bipolar era of the Cold War
The fundamental principle of a benign security architecture is that states should not enhance their security to the extent that it diminishes the security of others. This is based on one of the central concepts in international relations, the ‘security dilemma’, which recognises that if state A enhances its security at the expense of state B, then state B must respond in a manner that eventually undermines the security of state A. During the bipolar era of the Cold War, this was considered an uncontroversial reality and the point of departure for initiatives to ease tensions.
When Cuba exercised its sovereign right to engage in a military partnership with the Soviet Union, the US did not champion the principle of sovereign right to choose military partnerships. On the contrary, the US demonstrated it was prepared to start a nuclear war in 1962 to prevent Cuba from exercising its sovereign right to host Soviet missiles.
Any effort to establish a stable and peaceful European security order, from the Helsinki Accords in 1975 to the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in 1990, focused on the concept of the ‘indivisibility of security’, which is the principle of providing equal security to all nations. In a Europe consisting of rival military blocs, enhancing the security between East and West demanded the mitigation of the zero-sum relationship between the two military blocs.
Reducing the zero-sum format of European security to mitigate the security dilemma was the winning strategy that ended the Cold War in 1989, but, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and the principle of European security changed fundamentally.
The sovereign right to join military blocs
The Warsaw Pact was dismantled and the Soviet Union dissolved, which made NATO the only military bloc in Europe. By rejecting an inclusive European security architecture, Washington was able to monopolise security, as states could either have guarantees within the US-led military alliance or be left with uncertainty outside the tent.
With NATO being the only game in town, former truths about security were denounced. The fundamental principle of European security is now that states must have the sovereign right to choose membership in military blocs. In other words, they have the right to be in the bloc, no matter what anyone else thinks.
Peace derives from compromise and the constraining of rival military blocs, but NATO has rebranded itself as a liberal democratic institution and thus a ‘force for good’. No longer does peace depend on compromise and constraints, but rather on the compromising of values, and the acceptance of limitation on expansionism is deemed tantamount to appeasement. Any Russian concern about zero-sum bloc politics is dismissed as “paranoia”, a “zero-sum mentality”, and a “Cold War mentality”. Russian opposition to NATO expansionism is viewed simply as a rejection of democratic values and an indication of Russia’s expansionist intentions.
We are told that NATO is a liberal democratic institution that poses no threat to anyone, does not do zero-sum politics and cannot have spheres of influence. The term ‘sphere of influence’ used to infer ‘exclusive influence’ achieved by incorporating a state into a military bloc. NATO has now turned the meaning of this word on its head, as ‘sphere of influence’ is now used to mean Russia limiting the sovereign right of its neighbours to join the bloc.
George Orwell brilliantly summed up how propaganda turns language on its head to make dissent impossible: “War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength”. In the age of NATO hegemony, invasion is humanitarian intervention, coup is democratic revolution, subversion is democracy promotion, gunboat diplomacy is freedom of navigation, torture is enhanced interrogation techniques, sphere of influence is a ring of well-governed states, expansion of military blocs is European integration, dominance is negotiating from a position of strength, purging the media and political opposition in Ukraine is defending democracy against Russian hybrid war, and Russia’s demands for guarantees against NATO expansionism are an assault on democracy and sovereignty.
The entire principle of the sovereign right to join military blocs is premised on the bloc being the sole option. Both the EU and NATO refuse to cooperate with the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization for fear it may be perceived as legitimate. Similarly, Hillary Clinton announced that Washington was determined to “slow down or prevent” the development of the Eurasian Economic Union. The argument of sovereign choice is insincere if NATO is the only legitimate option.
The new balance of power
More powerful states will naturally embrace principles that remove constraints. Now the era of unipolarity is over and the world is transitioning to multipolarity, will the West accept a return to seeking peace by constraining military blocs? It seems fair to assume the term ‘sovereign right’ to join military alliances would disappear from the American vocabulary if Russia returned its nuclear missiles to Cuba or China developed a military alliance with states in Central America.
Putin and US President Joe Biden will speak on Tuesday, at a time when stakes are high. It may be the last chance to avert a modern-day European Cuban Missile Crisis.
US makes war promise to allies on ‘NATO’s eastern flank’
6 Dec, 2021 19:41
July 27, 2021. © REUTERS/Gleb Garanich
The US will not send troops into a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but is prepared to “bolster” NATO allies, Washington said ahead of the phone call between US President Joe Biden and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.
So, does that mean they will send massive amounts of weapons? Military Industrial oligarchs must be high-fiving each other.
“We do not know whether Putin has made a decision about further military escalation in Ukraine, but we do know he's putting in place the capacity to engage in such escalation should he decide to do so,” a senior Biden administration official told reporters in a background briefing on Monday.
The US is not seeking a scenario in which its military would be used in a conflict between Moscow and Kiev, but would be “prepared to bolster allies on NATO’s eastern flank,” the official said, according to Reuters. The idea of Russian troops preparing for an “invasion” into Ukraine, replicated in mainstream media over the past few days, has been rubbished by the Kremlin.
Biden intends to tell Putin there will be “very clear costs” if Russia attacks Ukraine, the official added. It was also revealed that US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, will speak to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky prior to the phone call with Putin, and Biden himself will call him afterwards.
Moscow has rejected claims by US intelligence that Russia is preparing to attack Ukraine in late January as “fake news.”
“We are seeing a lot of fake news about the allegedly planned ‘aggression’ of Russia against Ukraine being peddled,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RT in an exclusive interview ahead of the presidential phone call.
“We are seeing NATO exhibiting an extremely hostile stance, we are hearing rhetoric from [NATO Secretary General Jens] Stoltenberg, rhetoric of various representatives of the US,” saying that NATO can and will do whatever it wants and not recognize any of Russia’s “red lines,” Peskov added.
Meanwhile, he noted, there is not a single word of warning from the West to Ukraine not to attempt to resolve the dispute with two eastern provinces by force.
The two self-proclaimed Donbass republics, Donetsk and Lugansk, broke off from Ukraine after a Western-backed coup overthrew the government in Kiev in February 2014. The following month, Crimeans voted in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on arms sales revealed
6 Dec, 2021 15:04
© Reuters / Mohamed Abd El Ghany
The pandemic doesn’t seem to have affected the global demand for weapons, according to a new report, which reveals the defense industry’s top 100 companies made $531 billion in 2020 – 1.3% more than in the previous year.
Arms sales have been steadily growing for six consecutive years, and the economic hurdles caused by Covid-19 couldn’t reverse this trend, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) pointed out on Monday.
“The industry giants were largely shielded by sustained government demand for military goods and services,” with some countries even accelerating payments to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, Alexandra Marksteiner from SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program said.
The US maintained its lead in the sector in 2020. There were 41 American companies on the list, with five of them occupying the top five spots since 2018. The total earnings of US arms manufacturers last year reached $285 billion, growing by 1.9% compared to 2019.
$285 billion! Just think; you could do something useful with that money.
Chinese firms took second place, with total earnings of $66.8 billion, or 13% of the global arms sales in 2020. SIPRI attributed this success to Beijing’s military modernization program, which turned the local defense companies into “some of the most advanced military technology producers in the world.”
The 26 European weapons manufacturers showed “mixed results” last year, according to the Swedish researcher. The UK came third overall after China, with its seven companies in the Top 100 making $37.5 billion, which was a 6.2% increase from 2019. German firms saw their profits growing by 1.3% and reaching $8.9 billion, while the sales of their French counterparts fell by 7.7%.
The downward trend that began in 2018 continued for Russian arms manufacturers last year, the report claimed. The country’s nine companies in the Top 100 saw their sales decline from $28.2 billion in 2019 to $26.4 billion.
The setback could be explained by the conclusion of the State Armament Program 2011–20 and the diversification of the Russian defense industry, as firms were tasked with increasing their share of civilian sales to 50% by 2030, the authors said. They didn’t mention sanctions and pressure by Washington on countries that are looking to buy Russian-made arms among the possible reasons.
The reports by SIPRI “can’t be considered an objective source of information,” Russian military-industrial conglomerate Rostec said in response to the new figures.
“The Western analysts only rely on open sources and are unaware of the real picture,” it said in a statement. SIPRI also neglects the fact that most of the payments for Russian arms are being made in rubles, not dollars, while only being focused on profits, instead of counting the actual number of units sold.
Rostec’s earnings are steadily growing every year and production levels remain high, the statement insisted.
==========================================================================================
Ukraine wants US, UK & Canada to bypass NATO
6 Dec, 2021 08:41
© Reuters / Oleksandr Klymenko
The US, the UK, and Canada should “visibly” deploy troops in Ukraine near the Russian frontier as support for Kiev to deter a potential military conflict with Moscow, Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexey Reznikov has said.
Speaking to Toronto’s The Globe and Mail on Sunday, Reznikov called on “the Anglo-Saxon allies” to provide assistance to Ukraine outside of NATO structures, including sending more military trainers to the country.
“It would be nice if the Canadian instructors… would be deployed in Kharkiv, Mariupol, Kramatorsk, Odessa, and Zminiy Island,” the defense minister said. All the named locations are in the east and south of Ukraine, close to the border with Russia or on the Black Sea.
“Together with United Kingdom guys, with United States guys, in bilateral platforms, without NATO. Three flags – the flag of Canada, the flag of the United States and the flag of the UK – should be flying around these territories. It would also be a good sign for the Russians – that you are here,” he told the newspaper.
According to Resnikov, Kiev has focused on requesting help from the Anglosphere and does not expect military assistance from Germany and France, because these two nations intend to preserve their economic relations with Russia.
But he's OK with Canada, the USA, and the UK trashing their economic relations with Russia.
Reznikov’s request comes amid increasing fears over an alleged military buildup on the Russian border with Ukraine. Since the start of November, some Western media outlets have claimed that Moscow is planning an invasion of its neighbor. While the Kremlin has repeatedly denied the accusation, pointing out that Russia is simply moving troops within its own territory, Kiev has asked the US-led NATO bloc for military support in response.
However, according to some experts, Reznikov’s suggestion would only make things worse. Writing on Twitter, political analyst Vladimir Frolov slammed the idea.
“This will make things worse, not better, apart from being militarily pointless,” he said.
In recent times, Washington and its NATO allies have increased military activity in the area, including in the Black Sea. This has been a cause for concern for Moscow, which has repeatedly opposed foreign military presence in the region. Last week, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists that the bloc has been encouraging “unplanned drills… in the immediate proximity of [Russian] borders.”
Are they hoping to start something? Why the aggression? Why the provocation?
This is a little scary as the second most powerful person in the Canadian government is Chrystia Freeland, who is of Ukrainian background, and is not particularly level-headed when it comes to Ukraine, IMHO.
No comments:
Post a Comment