United States and Russia agree to a ceasefire and de-escalation zone in southwest Syria

The US together with Russia and Jordan have agreed to a ceasefire in the southwestern area of Syria. The ceasefire was reported after the meeting of Putin and Trump on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Hamburg. The meeting was exceedingly long lasting a full two hours and twenty minutes. There is also a more general ceasefire that came into force back at the end of December 2016. Despite many reported violations it appears to be generally holding. The UN Security Council passed a resolution last December supporting the ceasefire.

The ceasefire is to take effect on July 9 at noon Damascus time. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made the announcement after Trump's meeting with Putin. Lavrov said: “In this zone [in southern Daraa, Quneitra and As-Suwayda provinces] the ceasefire regime will take effect on July 9 starting 12:00 Damascus time. The US took an obligation that all the militant groups, located there, will comply with the ceasefire.” It remains to be seen if all the groups are willing to comply with the ceasefire. A separate agreement for a  de-escalation zone was negotiated by experts from Russia, Jordan, and the US in Amman the capital of Jordan. Lavrov said: “At first, the security around this de-escalation zone will be maintained with the help of Russian military police in coordination with the Jordanians and Americans.”

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said at a news conference that the ceasefire agreement indicates that the US and Russia can work together on the Syrian crisis. No doubt many critics of an accommodation of the US with Russia will be critical of this development even though any cessation of hostilities one would think is positive. It may pave the way for an eventual political solution. Tillerson said: "I think this is our first indication of the US and Russia being able to work together in Syria, and as a result of that we had a very lengthy discussion regarding other areas in Syria that we can continue to work together on to de-escalate the areas." The present deal is separate from a draft agreement worked out earlier this year during talks in Astana, Kazakhstan, sponsored by Iran and attended by Russia, Turkey, the Syrian government and some representatives of the armed opposition. A final agreement has yet to be signed.

Meeting between top US and Russian diplomats tense

(April 12) The meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was far from friendly. Later, Tillerson also met with Russian president Putin.

Lavrov warned Tillerson publicly against any further U.S. military strikes on the Syrian regime. No meeting with Russian president Putin was scheduled although after being kept waiting for two hours he finally did have a long meeting with Putin that lasted about two hours. Tillerson had a friendly relationship with Putin and Russia while he headed the oil giant Exxon but there was no friendliness on exhibit publicly at this meeting. Tillerson told reporters: “There is a low level of trust between our two countries. The world’s two foremost nuclear powers cannot have this kind of relationship.” Although Putin had a somewhat frosty relationship with Obama and Trump promised during his campaign that he would promote better relationships with Russia, Putin said: "One could say that the level of trust on a working level, especially on the military level, has not improved, but rather has deteriorated."

While Russia still claims that Assad was not guilty of the chemical attack near Idlib in Syria, Trump has not only blamed Assad but US officials have suggested that Russia was complicit knew of the attack and bombed a hospital in an attempt to cover up what happened. At the meeting, Tillerson stepped back from that accusation somewhat:Tillerson has in recent days blasted Russia for incompetence or complicity in the Syrian chemical attack, saying Moscow was not living up to the terms of a 2013 deal to help eliminate Assad’s stockpile of such weapons. But when pressed Wednesday, Tillerson said the U.S. had “no firm information to indicate that there was any involvement by Russia” in the specific attack on Idlib.

Trump has been trying to avoid the issue of Russian influence and interference in the election which he won. He has changed his tune entirely on Syria. During the election campaign he resolved not to become involved in costly foreign wars such as that in Syria. However, after the alleged chemical attack by Assad, he bombed Assad's airbase and now is returning to a position of supporting regime change, after just giving up the policy. As a result, instead of this meeting being the start of a detente between Russia and the U.S. it was a tense affair with neither side budging from their main positions. They both did agree that they should fight against the Islamic State but that is about all except that they would again activate mechanisms to ensure that U.S.-coalition, Syrian and Russian planes did not collide over Syria.

Tillerson held firm to the U.S. position that Assad was to blame for the chemical attack, while Lavrov just as firmly held that Assad was not responsible and that the gases could have been the result of the bombing of a rebel warehouse that contained chemicals stored by the rebels, or that somehow the rebels could have staged the event in an attempt to blame Assad and gain the support of the U.S. and other western countries for their cause. A variant on the Russian version is set out by retired U.S. intelligence officer Colonel Patrick Lang. Lang argues that the US had been contacted by the Russians and knew they intended to attack the chemical storage warehouse. Tillerson said: “That the recent chemical weapons attack carried out in Syria was planned, it was directed and executed by Syrian regime forces and we're quite confident of that. It's important that Assad’s departure is done in an orderly way so that certain interests and constituencies that he represents feel they have been represented at the negotiating table for a political solution.” Lavrov put forth the Russian position: "With regard to the use of chemicals in the territory controlled by the opposition, on numerous occasions the Syrian government and the Syrian servicemen have given us absolute evidence about the use of chemical weapons. This was not some kind of distant information but information from the site.” It should be noted that both parties agree that there was a Syrian attack on the site. The disagreement is whether the Assad government carried out a chemical attack.

In other developments, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem is next to visit Moscow from April 13-15 for talks with Lavrov. Maria Zakharova a spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry said that the foreign minister of Iran would meet with the two on April 14 for a three-way talk. No doubt the three will be discussing a response to the actions of the U.S.

Donald Trump annoys Russia with pledge he will establish Syrian safe zooes

U.S. president Donald Trump has announced that he will establish "safe zones" within Syria for people fleeing the civil war and terrorism. Earlier statements by Trump suggested he would be less involved in Syria.

By establishing safe zones, the U.S. would become even more involved in Syria. Trump seems completely indifferent to the negative reactions caused by his continuous announcements that appear to have often been made without consultation or without thought of their negative consequences. Trump repeated once again that the U.S. should have taken the oil from Iraq when it pulled out in 2011. This together with his announcement that Muslims from Iraq will be banned from the U.S. for at lest 30 days has fueled anti-U.S. sentiment in Iraq and could place US troops there in danger of attack. He has also told Mexican president Nieto not to come to the U.S. if he wont pay for Trump's planned wall. He might as well of told him not to come. That is what Nieto decided. Now Trump could be starting a direct confrontation with his supposed ally Russia by demanding safe zones in Syria.

The U.S. was invited to attend the Astana peace talks on Syria but Trump did not send anyone. Now without consulting Russia, he told ABC:“I’ll absolutely do safe zones in Syria for the people. I think that Europe has made a tremendous mistake by allowing these millions of people to go into Germany and various other countries. And all you have to do is take a look. It's… it's a disaster what's happening over there. I don't want that to happen here. President Obama and [former Secretaries of State] Hillary Clinton… and [John] Kerry have allowed tens of thousands of people into our country. The FBI is now investigating more people than ever before having to do with terror […] and it's from the group of people that came in. 'm gonna be the president of a safe country. We have enough problems,”

Russian spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov suggested that the U.S. should calculate all the possible consequences noting that the zones could further aggravate the situation for the refugees. He said that Russia had not yet been contacted about the safe zone plan. Apparently, Trump is expected to order the Pentagon and State Department to compile a plan for setting up the safe zones. However, the president did not present any details of his plan at the ABC news conference. A draft order apparently seen by Reuters said: “The Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense, is directed within 90 days of the date of this order to produce a plan to provide safe areas in Syria and in the surrounding region in which Syrian nationals displaced from their homeland can await firm settlement, such as repatriation or potential third-country resettlement.”

The setting up of the zones will increase U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war and require more air support and even boots on the ground to protect civilians. Apparently the draft has no details as to what might be required or even where they might be. Trump seems to be issuing pronouncements with no thought of what the consequences might be. Perhaps he wants to foster conflict between Turkey and Russia as Turkey has also suggested such zones but with quite different motives. The draft also suggests setting up safe zones in neighboring countries but Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey already have camps housing millions of Syrian refugees.

Turkey is apparently just waiting the outcome of Trump's pledge. Turkish foreign ministry spokesperson, Huseyin Muftuoglu, said: "We have seen the U.S. President's request for conducting a study. What's important is the results of this study and what kind of recommendation will come out." He noted that Turkey had suggested safe zones from the start.

The increased U.S. military presence in Syria as a result of the safe zones also increases the likelihood of accidental clashes with Russian forces operating on behalf of the Syrian regime. Russia urged caution with respect to the safe zone plan and noted it had not been consulted. The safe zone plan is said to be part of the larger directive of protecting the U.S. from terrorism,l the same plan that includes a temporary ban on refugees who are fleeing conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Somalia. The directive appears to be more concerned with the security of the U.S. than the needs of Syrian refugees. So far there is no sign of a reset of relations with Russia by Trump.

Russia and US to increase cooperation in Syria

John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State said on July 15 that Russia and the U.S. had agreed to cooperate in Syria against the Al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.

	1 of 2
Kerry said the cooperation was intended to "restore the cessation of hostilities, significantly reduce the violence and help create the space for a genuine and credible political transition." Kerry appeared alongside his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Moscow. Kerry did not give any details as to what exactly had been agreed upon.

. The decision to have greater military cooperation with Russia is causing divisions within the US government, with the Pentagon challenging the view that Russia could be trusted to fulfill its part of any agreement. Kerry's statement appeared to reflect awareness of this skepticism as he said: "I want to emphasize, though, they are not based on trust. They define specific, sequential responsibilities all parties to the conflict must assume with the intent of stopping all together the indiscriminate bombing of the Assad regime and stepping up our efforts against al Nusra."

CNN has obtained a draft of the proposed agreement which would allow targeting and carrying out joint airstrikes against both the Islamic State and also the Nusra Front. CNN claims that the agreement does not necessarily apply to attacks on ISIS, as each country would reserve the right to attack the Islamic State independently. As part of the agreement the Assad air force would be largely grounded except in certain circumstances.

Pentagon Press Secretary, Peter Cook, told reporters: "The secretary of defense has been clear that he has been skeptical of Russia's activities in Syria and we have reason for that. There's plenty of reasons for that skepticism, And I think he maintains that skepticism." The Defense Department would like to see guarantees that Russia will keep its end of the bargain.

As reported in Sputniknews, an article in the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, claims the new agreement could involve a reset in relations between Russia and the US, and an "arms brotherhood" in the battle against terrorism. The article claims: "The fact that President Barack Obama gradually gives up his original goal — the overthrow of Assad, and gives priority to the fight against Islamic State has become noticeable long ago. The planned new partnership with Moscow would consolidate this course" Moscow has long been seeking such military cooperation with the US in Syria. The new development has resulted in Russian media replacing criticism of Obma by describing him as a new partner of Russia in Syria. In early July, Russian president Putin said that Western states were partners in the fight against terrorism, and that Russia wanted to work closely with the US on international issues. Kerry visited Moscow on July 14 and 15 with the US offer of cooperation. The meeting also discussed the sharing of intelligence data on terrorism. Detailed discussion of the offer can be found in an article in the Washington Post.

US and Russia agree to measures to avoid accidents over Syrian skies

While the US and Russia agree on little with respect to Syria they have agreed to measures that will help ensure flight safety for the two countries during bombing sorties over Syria.

+ Add Image

Russian Colonel-General Andrei Kartapolov said: "All technical matters have already been agreed upon, with Russian and U.S. lawyers now cross checking the text of the document. We hope this document will be signed in the very near future." He said he wanted broader cooperation on Syria with the U.S. and other countries. Russia had asked to share intelligence with the US and for the US to suggest targets to strike. So far the U.S. has refused such cooperation. However, the U.S. realizes the necessity of avoiding unfortunate accidents over Syrian skies. A U.S. official , speaking anonymously, confirmed to Reuters that a memorandum of understanding between the two countries setting out basic safety procedures over Syria was being finalized.

Kartapolov also said Russia had established direct contact with the Turkish military in order to avoid any incidents near the Turkish border. He reported as well that he had established a hotline between a Russian base in Syria and the Israel air force command to coordinate on Syria flights.

At a recent news conference in South Korea, U.S. President Barack Obama said the only agreement with Russia on Syria was on how to avoid accidents in the air:“There’s no meeting of the minds in terms of strategy,” he said, which reflected a fundamental difference with President Vladimir Putin over the continuing rule of President Bashar Assad. President Putin believes if he continues to do what he has been doing over the last five years, and that is to prop up the Assad regime, that the problem will be solved.”Obama also said that all the parties had to sit down together to plan a political transition and stop the civil war. It is not clear though that the rebels or Assad are ready for such a move.

The U.S. and others have complained that the Russian bombing attacks have been aimed at many areas where the Islamic State is not operating but only rebels opposed to Assad. This is true, but as a recent article points out, many of those being attacked are radical jihadists who belong to the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra who seized anti-tank(TOW) missiles that had been provided to the hapless US-trained troops who twice ended up having US weapons seized by the Front. The missiles have also been provided to the Saudi and Qatar funded radical Islamist Army of Conquest that has been successful against Assad in Idlib province, capturing large areas. The Russian bombing is now primarily designed to degrade these forces so that Assad and allies can regain this territory. There are few "moderate" rebels left in Syria for the Russians to attack and certainly they are not the forces most feared by Assad.

US and Russian Defence ministers in talks on Syria

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu held talks on Syria. The Pentagon said the two discussed areas where U.S. and Russian "perspective overlap and areas of divergence."

+ Add Image

Russia together with Iran have long been allies of the Assad government in Syria and have provided considerable material help. The Lebanese group Hezbollah has also aided the regime by supplying many fighters. The extent of Russian forces on the ground is not clear, although they no doubt have special forces and trainers to teach the Syrians how to use equipment. The Russians have long had a naval base in the port of Tartarus in Syria.

Both the U.S. and Russians are anxious to prevent any possible conflict between U.S. and Russian forces. The U.S. and its allies have carried out an extensive bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Syria without ever seeking permission from the Syrian government to do so. Assad has tolerated these incursions. No doubt he could do little to prevent them and they help to defeat the Islamic State one of his many rebel enemies. At the same time, support for the Kurds by the U.S. helps a group which for tactical reasons has remained more or less neutral in attitude to the Assad government.

The Kurds appear more concerned with solidifying their hold on territory they occupy rather than fighting Assad. Very early on in the civil war the Assad regime decided to leave the Kurds alone, providing they did not seize territory from Assad or attack regime forces. This Kurd policy is just one more conflict the Turks have with the Kurds and the U.S., who supports them. The Kurds are gaining territory as the IS loses ground, creating a larger Kurdish area that will demand more autonomy or even independence in any political settlement. The Turks have agreed to join the fight against the IS and allowed the U.S. to use an airbase in Turkey but most of Turkish bombing missions are against Kurdish PKK positions in Iraq.

While the U.S. supports the Kurds against the IS in spite of their toleration of Assad, it draws the line at any coordination of its actions with Assad or to have the Russians also help out in the campaign. State Department spokesperson Mark Toner said that in the talks, the U.S. was trying to find out the intentions of Russia in Syria as there are reports of a military build-up including the arrival of tactical fighter planes. Toner said:“We’ve been very clear we don’t accept Russia’s premise that somehow Assad can be a credible partner in fighting ISIL. We reject that.” No doubt the U.S. worries about alienating Syrian rebels, even more by not only helping Assad but clearly cooperating with him. As far as the fight against the Islamic State is concerned, the help of the Assad regime and Russia would no doubt aid in defeating the group. In spite of differences the U.S., Syria and Russia have cooperated in the past. The disposal of Assad's chemical weapons was a successful operation by all three.

Carter emphasized that the military talks should go on with parallel diplomatic talks. The tasks of defeating the Islamic State and reaching a political solution should happen at the same time. One huge problem is that there is a disconnect with the transitional political groups set up by the west, many secular, and the mainly jihadist groups on the ground. The latter are not likely to pursue any political solution before the defeat of Assad, and any political solution reached without their agreement will be unenforceable.

Russia appears to be reinforcing its support for the Assad regime as it seemingly loses some ground against the rebels. The refugee crisis appears to be putting pressure on the west to stop the war and find a political solution if possible. Russia wants its ally to be in a relatively strong position when negotiations take place. This would explain the buildup described in the Wall Street Journal:Defense officials said over the past two weeks Russia has stepped up development of an airfield near the port city of Latakia by sending in housing for up to 2,000 people, attack and transport helicopters, artillery, tanks and armored personnel carriers. The jets, believed to be Sukhoi Su-27s, which are designed for air-to-air combat, could be used to challenge U.S. planes flying over Syria or to help Syrian forces defending the Assad regime.The buildup could also be used as a means of deterring the U.S. from any move to attack the Assad regime directl,y as rebels have long been urging. Given the Russian experience in Afghanistan and US experience in Iraq, the Russians may not want "boots on the ground" in Syria but will follow US policy of having special forces, trainers, and advisers. However, the Russians did say if Syria requested troops it would consider sending them. The Russians claim their military build-up is purely defensive.

Ex-Russian air force commander criticizes new U.S. Orbital Test Vehicle.

While the U.S. rejects any idea that this new vehicle has anything to do with placing weapons in space it is not surprising that others should see it otherwise. The U.S. is also developing a hyperfast missile which also has Russians and others worried about U.S. intentions. Most of the information about the X 37 B is kept secret another factor that arouses suspicions in other countries. This is from monstersandcritics.

Ex-Russian air force commander slams US "space plane"



Moscow - Former Russian air force commander Anatoly Kornukov has sharply criticized the US launch of an unmanned space craft, saying that Russia now needs to develop a new defence system against space and air attacks, Russian media reported Friday.
A rocket carrying the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, commonly referred to as the 'space plane,' took off from Cape Canaveral in Florida late Thursday.
The space craft will significantly increase US fighting power and shows that the country has ambitions to 'reach space and threaten us,' Kornukov argued.
'The US has completely spit on calls from Russia and the world to abandon plans for the deployment of weapons in space,' he said.
Moscow has to react with 'actions instead of words,' he added.
'The aggressors from space could turn Russia into something like Iraq or Yugoslavia,' Kornukov said, referring to the destruction caused by past US air raids in both countries.
The US Air Force has flatly rejected suggestions that the X-37 project could mark the beginning of the weaponization of space.

Russia claims no US nuclear deal in Copenhagen

This deal with Russia was one of the more positive aspects of Obama's foreign policy but even it seems to somewhat bogged down. However, it would seem that the issues are primarily technical so presumably they will be worked out eventually in the new year. THis is from presstv.



Russia rules out nuclear deal with US in Copenhagen

The START deal, which led to deep cuts in nuclear arsenals on both the US and Russia, expired on December 5, 2008.
Russia and the US will not manage to sign a nuclear arms reduction treaty by the end of the year, an informed source in Moscow says.

The report comes as Russia has clarified that any agreement on the issue will not be signed between the two countries' leaders on the sidelines of a UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen.

"The number of details that need to be agreed is such that it's physically impossible to do it all in the time left until the end of the year," Interfax quoted the Russian source as saying, AFP reported.

"Such delays shouldn't be dramatized, since Moscow and Washington are both equally keen on constructive [dialogue] and on coming up with a document that suits both sides," the source added.

The US President, Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev agreed in April to sign a new nuclear deal in order to expand the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) signed by former US president George H.W. Bush and then Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev.

The treaty, which led to deep cuts in nuclear arsenals on both sides, expired on December 5, 2008.

Later in July 2009, the two leaders agreed to decrease the number of their nuclear warheads between 1,500 and 1,675 within seven years.

The documents "may be ready for signing in January next year," the source noted.

The report comes a day after a US official told reporters on condition of anonymity that Washington would not have a replacement treaty on nuclear-arms cuts in place by the end of the year.

US officials, he said, "expect that the START talks are powering right through the weekend, they're going to go right up to Christmas [then] breaking for the holidays and coming back in January.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has accused the US of slowing down the nuclear talks, saying the agreement would not be signed on the sidelines of the Copenhagen summit.

"It's highly unlikely to happen in Copenhagen," Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow. "We still have a big workload — of a purely technical character — facing us."

"In the past couple of days we have noted a slowdown in the positions of the US negotiators in Geneva. They explain this by the need to receive additional instructions. But our team is ready for work," he added.

Obama calls Georgian Leader Saakashvili

This is from Reuters.
Eat your heart out Arroyo (Philippines) . Obama did not bother to call Medvedev, instead Medvedev called him. This may or may not be a bad sign as far as relations with Russia are concerned. It seems that some European countries are not too eager for Georgia to join NATO. Perhaps Obama might take a little less hostile stance to Russia but we will see. Obama has doubts about the missile defence system as well it seems. )Obama has not bothered to call India either.

Obama calls Georgian leader Saakashvili
Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:49pm IST
TBILISI (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has called Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to assure Moscow's outspoken foe of Washington's continued support, the Georgian leader's press service said on Tuesday.
Russia's chilly ties with the West cooled further after its war with Georgia in August, when Russian troops launched a massive counter-attack in support of rebels following Tbilisi's attempt to retake one of its breakaway regions by force.
The United States has led harsh Western criticism over Russia's speedy recognition of Georgia's breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and what it sees as Moscow's disproportionate use of force during the five-day war.
Democrat Obama, who defeated Republican presidential hopeful John McCain in a Nov. 4 election, called the Georgian leader on Monday, a spokesman for Saakashvili said.
"The conversation was friendly and touched upon future relations between Georgia and the U.S.," Saakashvili's press service said in a statement posted on the presidential Web site www.president.gov.ge.
"Obama underlined that he supports Georgia's territorial integrity and paid attention to the importance of continuing reforms in Georgia," it said. "Obama expressed the hope that the two leaders would meet in the near future."
Tbilisi's U.N. envoy said on Monday he expected Obama as a new U.S. leader would maintain strong U.S. support for Georgia's NATO ambitions.
Outgoing President George W. Bush had pushed for swift acceptance of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, a position that failed to win unanimous support among European NATO members and strained ties with Russia long before its war with Georgia.
With the Bush administration's influence wavering, U.S. and European officials have said Washington is now studying whether NATO could give Georgia something short of a formal path to membership to satisfy European opposition to offering Tbilisi a so-called Membership Action Plan.
© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved

Putin set to bait US with nuclear aid for Tehran

This shows that the conflict between the U.S. and Russia is heating up rather than cooling down. The U.S. should have known that any co-operation with the U.S. on Iran would be bound to be jeopardised if it continues to ignore any of Russia's complaints about U.S. activity on the missile defence system in Eastern Europe, the recognition of Kosovo, and the arming and training of Georgian armed forces. If Georgia ever does join NATO this is a recipe for disaster and a possible third world war.

Vladimir Putin set to bait US with nuclear aid for Tehran
Mark Franchetti in Moscow
Russia is considering increasing its assistance to Iran’s nuclear programme in response to America’s calls for Nato expansion eastwards and the presence of US Navy vessels in the Black Sea delivering aid to Georgia.
The Kremlin is discussing sending teams of Russian nuclear experts to Tehran and inviting Iranian nuclear scientists to Moscow for training, according to sources close to the Russian military.
Moscow has been angered by Washington’s promise to give Georgia £564m in aid following the Russian invasion of parts of the country last month after Tbilisi’s military offensive. Kremlin officials suspect the US is planning to rearm the former Soviet republic and is furious at renewed support for attempts by Georgia and Ukraine to join Nato.
Last week a third US Navy ship entered the Black Sea with aid bound for Georgia. Moscow has accused the Americans of using the vessels to deliver weapons but has failed to provide any evidence.

Justin Raimondo: To Russia with Hate

Since I just posted an Iraqi Communist article I thought that it would be "fair" to also post an American "libertarian" article. I always enjoy Raimondo even when I don't agree with him although in this article there is much I agree with. Raimondo is always provocative and interesting usually bringing out points that other commentators ignore or spin in an opposite direction. A good example is Ramindo's remarks about the recent demonstrators in Russia. The coming renewed cold war with Russia is on the back burner for the moment but it could flare up again at any time.

To Russia, With Hate
The War Party targets the Kremlin
by Justin Raimondo
The hate campaign against Vladimir Putin's Russia is really quite extraordinary, not only on account of its relentless ferocity but also because of its brazen reliance on rumor, exaggeration, and – all too often – utter falsehood. Take this piece by Cathy Young, recently downsized out of her longtime perch at the Boston Globe and relegated to the relatively obscure pages of Reason magazine, wherein she retails the latest anti-Russian hysterics:

"In March, Putin signed a decree merging two existing federal agencies – one for media oversight and the protection of culture, the other for telecommunications monitoring – into a single body, the Federal Service for the Oversight of Mass Communications and Protection of Cultural Heritage. It is perhaps no accident that the Russian word for 'oversight' used in the agency's name, nadzor, has a somewhat sinister ring for a Russian speaker: It commonly refers to the supervision of a prisoner. The new agency, which will start its work in about three months, will oversee and license broadcasters, the print media, and websites."

So, have any Russian Web sites been closed down? Well, um, no: it's just that some "Russian journalists have expressed strong concerns about this move, which they see as consolidating government control over the media." Yes, but what has actually occurred, aside from a bureaucratic "consolidation" of government agencies? Answer: nothing. Oh, to be sure, there is a lot of speculation that this could be preparation for the Russian government exerting control over the Internet:

"Roman Bodanin, editor of the political website gazeta.ru – which got an official warning for 'extremism' last year after writing about the Muhammad cartoons controversy – and Raf Shakirov, former editor of the daily Izvestia, who was sacked…"

Ah yes, sacked – another disgruntled journalist, discarded by his employer. He couldn't possibly have an agenda that has affected his objectivity, now could he? As for that warning about "extremism" – Russia is hardly alone in having laws against "extremist" rhetoric and other forms of "hate speech," but for some reason I don't think we'll see Young speak out against any of these legislative infringements on free speech any time soon.

Okay, so what about the new legislative moves by the Russians to "regulate" the Internet? Well, here's what Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has to say about it:

"The merger has been interpreted largely as an attempt to control the Internet, the only sphere of media and communications that is currently free of regulation. This lack of regulation has turned the web into an island of freedom of speech and the number of users continues to grow. But despite intense speculation that the authorities want to establish control over the Internet, the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications has maintained a hands-off policy to date.

"Most observers have leapt to the conclusion that the Internet is the main target of the merger, as legislators have repeatedly called for more stringent control. However, Boyarskov's words seem to corroborate the opinion of a smaller number of experts, who consider that the primary issue Russian officials are currently concerned with is the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting, which has huge political and economic implications. Those experts consider the anticipated consequences of the merger for the Internet, and for Internet service providers (ISP) specifically, as essentially a side effect."

The reality is that the Russian Internet is alive and flourishing, with an increasing number of sites reflecting an incredible ideological and social diversity. The technological reality is such that the Russian government couldn't control the Internet, even if it sought to do so: given a minimal technical competence on the part of the user, the wide-open nature of cyberspace is enough to defeat any would-be central planner or censor.

The complaints about the "consolidation" of the Russian media emanating from Young and the anti-Russia chorus are all about changes in ownership: the "oligarchs," who looted the Russian state in the wake of the implosion of Communism, lost control of Russian television and radio facilities, and these were bought up by a new group of owners, some of whom are pro-Putin – but so what? The Murdoch media empire is generally supportive of the Bush administration, and this made a big difference during the run-up to war with Iraq: remember how uncritical the American media was of government claims about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and Saddam's alleged links to al-Qaeda – but does that mean the U.S. government has taken over television, radio, and newspapers in this country? Of course not.

Conspiracy theories are an integral part of the new Russophobia, from the accusations that Putin ordered the nuking of Alexander Litvinenko to blaming the FSB (Russian security service) every time a Russian journalist stubs his or her toe, and Young relates a real doozy:

"A lengthy investigative report published in 2006 on the Russian Democratic Union website alleges that in the Putin years, political forums on the Russian Internet have been the target of deliberate, organized intimidation by pro-government forces. The article, by former St. Petersburg television and BBC Russian Service correspondent Anna Polyanskaya (now Paris-based) and two colleagues, cites disturbing evidence that these digital goon squads are not simply loud, obnoxious, and well-coordinated but quite possibly connected to the government. Their members often seem to have mysterious access to personal data about anti-Putin posters; on some occasions, they have posted disinformation intended to discredit the opposition a few days before these exact same canards are officially circulated by the government. The article also mentions instances of posts critical of the state being purged from site archives. Under the new oversight agency, it seems very likely that freedom on the Russian Internet will become an even more endangered commodity."

Again, this new "oversight agency" is no more intrusive than, say, the Federal Communications Commission, or the Federal Elections Commission, which has tried to regulate the political commentary of American bloggers during election season. But what about these mysterious Internet goon squads that have supposedly been unleashed by the neo-KGB from their headquarters in the basement of the Kremlin? Young gives us little or no reason to believe that these are government-sponsored activities: however, she does provide a link to the "investigative report" of the Russian Democratic Union. Too bad it's in Russian.

As for those "digital goon squads" – the goons over at Little Green Footballs are notorious in the American blogosphere for their knee-jerk support of U.S. government policies and goon-squad-ish behavior, but no one, to my knowledge, has ever accused them of being paid agents of the U.S. government. If every Internet phenomenon that seems "loud, obnoxious, and well-coordinated" is attributed to the action of some government, then I'm waiting for the Russian Democratic Union to examine the online antics of Charles Johnson and his infamous winged cyber-monkeys.

Young's is hardly the only "libertarian" voice that riffs on Dick Cheney's denunciation of Russia as "slipping" into "authoritarianism." At a time when the NATO alliance is pressing hard against the Russians, erecting a missile shield in Eastern Europe and scolding Putin for withdrawing state subsidies from oil exports to former Soviet republics such as Ukraine, the Cato Institute's Andrei Illarionov is literally calling for war on the Kremlin. At the end of a long peroration devoted to reiterating the all-too-familiar canards against Putin's Russia, he cites the neocons' favorite statesman – Winston Churchill, you ninny! – as follows:

"Let me conclude these remarks with words spoken by Winston Churchill about another great war for freedom:

I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.' We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
"That war for freedom was won. We may yet win, indeed we must win, this current war. But to win, we must work together."

Them's fightin' words, as they say, but is the Cato Institute really calling for a shooting war against the Russkies? Illarionov is no doubt indulging in a bit of hyperbole, but there seems little doubt that the "libertarians" over at the house that Ed Crane built are not all that averse to the deployment of a little "soft power" in the service of "regime-change" in Russia.

Illarionov defends the infamous "oligarchs," who were handed control of the formerly state-owned industries by Boris Yeltsin and his gang, as champions of "free enterprise" – but his favorite oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, is an "entrepreneur" more in the style of Al Capone than Hank Rearden. Khodorkovsky built up his Menatep Bank as a result of his connections to the old Communist Party and seized control of Yukos, the government-controlled oil company, by using his political influence to elbow out a lower bid on a technicality. Khodorkovsky spirited billions out of the country and stashed it away in foreign banks – much to the dismay of the International Monetary Fund, which discovered that a good deal of its "aid" to Russia had somehow found its way into those same foreign accounts. There has been at least one murder investigation linked to the Khodorkovsky empire, and strong-arm tactics come as naturally to this gang as they did to the old KGB.

Illarionov charges that the Russian state is employing "storm troopers" to beat and crush its opponents: the youth group Nashi is cited as one of the chief culprits. However, Nashi is not a government entity, but a private organization, which supports the politics of Putin's political party, just as the Young Republicans support President Bush – although there the parallels end, because we're talking about some very different politics. Here's Nashi demonstrating outside the U.S. embassy, denouncing the war in Iraq, calling on the American people to stop Bush from invading Iran, and warning that interference in Russia's internal affairs could lead to some unpleasantness:

"Nashi leader Vasily Yakemenko said the United States was causing bloodshed from Iraq to Afghanistan and warned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice against stirring tensions in Russia. 'If Condoleezza Rice escalates tension here, it's possible there will be a situation where people here could die too. The U.S. needs to think less about what is happening here and more about what is going on in Iraq,' he said."

A sign carried in the Nashi demonstration read: "American mothers, stop the fanatics from the State Department" – a remonstrance that many Americans, and not just mothers, can sympathize with.

The irony is that the charges of hooliganism aimed at Nashi are more properly directed at Putin's opponents, who, out of frustration at their complete inability to make a dent in the Russian president's popularity, have taken to showy – and often violent – displays of "dissent," such as the one that attracted a few thousand participants in St. Petersburg on Sunday. Headlines proclaimed the arrest of Gary Kasparov, the former chess champion, who heads up his own small political movement, but by far the biggest and certainly the most visible presence in this menagerie of malcontents was the National Bolshevik Party (NBP), an ultra-nationalist and racialist organization whose Fuehrer, Eduard Limonov, is a megalomaniac and a loon.

It's no accident that the name of the "dissident" coalition that organized the St. Petersburg march – and a prior conference – is called "the Other Russia," also the title of Limonov's political manifesto. NBP ideology is an eclectic mix of extreme nationalism, outright neo-Nazism, Stalinist nostalgia, trendy punkish nihilism, and an almost stylized authoritarianism, spiced up with a pan-Slavic "Eurasianism," which, if it ever came to power, would turn Russia into a giant North Korea. The NBP symbol – a black hammer-and-sickle in a white circle against a red background – is particularly loathsome, conjuring as it does two of the most murderous regimes in human history. Video and still photos of the April 15 demonstration show this disgusting symbol dominating the display of "dissent." As the main activist organization inside the anti-Putin Popular Front, the NBP is a truly sinister outfit.

When neo-Nazi demonstrators are dispersed in the streets of Germany, the U.S. government wouldn't dream of issuing an official protest: yet our State Department didn't hesitate to declare themselves "deeply disturbed" by police actions taken against violence-prone NBP demonstrators.

Anne Applebaum – chronicler of the Gulag and energetic opponent of authoritarianism – joins the "libertarian" defense of Limonov and his fellow neo-fascists, decrying their arrest (while mentioning only Kasparov, the useful idiot, by name). She compares the demonstration in St. Petersburg with one in Ukraine, where the pro-Russian Party of the Regions is camped out in the main square of Kiev to protest President Viktor Yushchenko's threat to dissolve the parliament and rule by decree until new elections can be held. That's the pro-Western "democrat," you'll remember, responding to attempts by the Ukrainian parliament to limit his power. His big problem at the moment is that members of his own party and its coalition partners have defected to the opposition. Imagine if Putin dissolved the Russian Duma on similar grounds – Applebaum and the new Russia-haters would have fits of self-righteous indignation.

Putin is no libertarian; he is also no monster. Russia is no utopia, nor is it a dictatorship. Contra Illarionov, it represents no threat to its neighbors, as long as those neighbors refrain from engaging in a provocative arms buildup while shielding themselves behind NATO's nuclear umbrella. It seems to me that needless provocations directed at the Kremlin, which is in no position to threaten American interests – and which is fighting on the same side as us when it comes to battling Islamic terrorism – are not at all useful, and, as Gary Hart has recently pointed out, are downright dangerous. "The mystery," says Hart, "is this: what forces are at work to demonize Russia, to isolate and alienate it from the West, and to continue to treat it as an enemy?"

The campaign to demonize Russia, and target Putin in particular, is motivated by the Russian president's angular stance against American hegemony, expressed forcefully in a speech to the Munich conference of European nations in February. Russia has opposed U.S. attempts to further destabilize the Middle East, selling defensive weapons to Syria and trying to mediate between the Iranians and the UN Security Council over the nuclear issue. Putin, in short, has failed to know – or keep – his place: this alone puts him in the cross hair of the War Party.

As the U.S. seeks to encircle Russia with a string of "color revolutions" from Ukraine to Georgia to the wilds of Central Asia, a geopolitical game is being played out, one that involves an increasing risk of violent conflict. The volatile mix of ethnic, religious, and political feuds that make life dangerous in the former Soviet republics is a veritable sandbox for the American regime-changers to play in, and the amount of trouble they can cause is considerable. The War Party's relentless campaign to further humiliate an empire already humbled and shattered is playing with fire – nuclear fire, to be exact. The Cold War was a bad idea to begin with; its revival is an even worse one.