For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken
Yesterday, Masoud posted a comment which I think deserves a separate post as an answer. Here is the comment in full:
The answer to the mystery of why the resolution seems so lopsided is simple: Russia is simply doing what it always does. I don’t believe Russia is interested in the primacy of international law as such, but rather in slowly reestablishing their place as one of the ‘leaders’ of the world, with an eventual goal of regaining an equal footing with the US, and maybe one day of even supplanting it. Russia isn’t playing the white knight over here. They are providing a service, and expect to be compensated appropriately for it in the future. If their client is not a position to pay up right away, they will seek mechanisms to ensure they eventually will have to. That’s why Russia wants to have the threat of Chapter 7 hanging over Syria: to ensure it’s future cooperation on all matters of arms deals, pipeline negotiations, basing rights etc..
First, began to reply in another comment, but then I decided that this is important enough to warrant a reply as a separate post. I want everybody else to really think hard about what I am about to say, regardless of whether this will be pleasant to the ear or not. So here is what I have to say to that:
Masoud: Russia is simply doing what it always does.
With all due respect, the main problem with your statement is that it is backed up by no facts, no logical demonstrations, only, as you yourself say beliefs (“I don’t believe Russia is interested in the primacy of international law as such, but rather…“). It can be used to dismiss Russia or paint it black, and it can be used to express frustration with Russia in general, or that latest agreement. What it cannot be used for is trying to understand what is actually happening.
Now, let’s first look at the implications and consequences of your statement.
When you write that Russia is simply doing what it always does you assume that, indeed, Russia has had a consistent behavior. Under Putin, Medvedev, Eltsin, Gorbachev, and maybe even the Tsars? While I would agree that under Putin Russia has had a consistent behavior any extension of this assumption further back in time can easily be proven wrong.
When you say Russia is simply doing what it always does you are also implying that a change in Russian policies is most unlikely. While this is possible (regardless of the unwarranted assumption this is based on), it also implies that Russian policies cannot change. A dangerous implication, and one based on a false premise.
The first thing which comes to my mind when reading your words is this: since Russia has ALREADY done more than the entire Arab and Islamic world taken together, then it is simply wonderful that it would continue doing so. After all, somebody needs to do something other than, say, bitching about Russia not doing enough.
And since Russia has ALREADY done more than the entire Arab and Islamic world taken together maybe somebody in the Arab and Islamic word will actually express a deep sense of gratitude for that, as well as a deep sense of shame that it takes Slavic Kufars to stand up and defend Syria while the Arab Faithful either do nothing or proactively help the Anglo-Zionists destroy Syria?
Of course, there is one big, but truly honorable and courageous exception to my criticism of the “Islamic” world: Iran. While the press is constantly focusing on Russia, Iran is also helping Syria in crucial, if mostly covert, ways. And as a non-state actor there is, of course, the truly shining and noble example of Hezbollah which is simply beyond reproach.
Speaking of Iran and Hezbollah. I find that kind of anti-Russian prejudice every bit as misguided and unfair as another one which literally poisons the Arab world: the hostility and outright racist phobia of some Arabs against the “Persians” which some Arabs seem to consider as foreign intruders into “their” Middle-East. Some particularly bigoted Arabs even transpose their hatred for the “Persians” towards Hezbollah and Hassan Nasrallah and that is, of course, just about the most stupid and unfair thing one can do. So how about dropping these simplistic categories and assumptions, and judge all these actors not by what they say, but what they actually do?
This being said, let me return to my argument here:
And I can’t help but wonder – where were the Arab and Islamic friends of Russia when Russia was fighting for its very survival as a nation? Where were the Arab and Islamic friends of Russia when the Ango-Zionists were robbing it at the tune of billions of dollars per year while Russians were dying in the millions to the total collapse of the state?
Oh yeah – there were in Chechnya. Helping the Wahabi head-cutters. The very same Wahabi head-cutters which are now tearing Syria apart.
 |
| Chechnia 1995 |
 |
| Syria 2013 |
So I hope that you will forgive me, Masoud, if I have no patience for the kind of ascribing of venal motives to Russia your comment expresses. While I cannot prove a negative, I just find your comment offensive. No, not because I believe that the entire planet has to now drown in tearful gratitude and hysterical admiration for Russia, not at all. But simply because there is a point were basic logic and moral probity demands that any one country (in this case Russia) be judged by the same set of moral standards as all the other countries.
Let’s also be clear here: Russia has enough petrol and gas not to give a damn about any pipeline going to Europe via Syria. Europe, in case you did not notice, is stuck in a recession, and that ain’t gonna change for the foreseeable future. Sure, Russia will gladly make a buck selling energy to Europe, but its real partner is China, with its immense market and commensurately immense need for energy resources. And what about Tartus? Well, its a nice little port. But it cannot accept large ships, but that can be solved by off-shore docking. But that’s about it.
So I am sorry if I break anybody’s illusions of self-importance here, but for Russia Syria is a “nice to have” at best. Not something worth taking too big risks for. Now a real, meaningful and functioning system of International Law is a real “must have” for Russia. It is far, far more important than Syria. I am absolutely baffled that somebody could fail to understand that. By the way, everything I have said in this paragraph also applies for China.
Anyway, here is what I want to submit to you: there is something fundamentally wrong, both logically and morally, to this constant stream of demands saying that Russia did not do enough or Russia must do more. Russia does not owe anybody in the Middle-East anything at all. Especially in the light of the, shall we say, less than noble of friendly attitude of the very same Middle-East towards Russia when Russia was in dire need of support. Furthermore, how is it possible that Arabs and Muslims don’t feel that there is a lot of bad Karma coming back towards them now, like Malcolm X’s “chicken coming back home to roost”?
Did you ever consider that from a Russian point of view, the following would be a most reasonable question to ask of the Arab and Islamic world: When is the last time you stood by us? When is the last time you showed us that you can be real friends? Or allies? Or partners? When is the last time one of your people actually took a risk to help or save one of us?!
And, finally, and most importantly this: if this is really how you see us, and if you are so unhappy and/or suspicious of us, would you prefer us to stop assisting Syria, stop arming it, withdraw our naval task force off from the eastern Mediterranean and abstain at the next vote UNSC? Would you prefer to deal with the current crisis only within the confines of your Ummah without us, Kufars, interfering with the Faithful?
In conclusion, let me make my usual disclaimer here: I did not write any of the above with the intention of offending anybody. For one thing, I am quite aware that the corrupt and immoral leaders of the Arab and Islamic world do not represent the Arab or Muslim people of the world. I also happen to know the kind of real gratitude shown towards Russia by many Syrians (and I am not talking about Assad or his ministers here: I am talking about the heroic Syrian soldiers who fight for their country every day). But yes, some of you will probably feel uncomfortable or even offended by reading what I wanted to get off my chest. If you are uncomfortable – then this is good, I hope that this might make you reconsider certain certitudes you might harbor in your heart and mind. But if you are offended, then I am sorry. I speak to you all in friendship, but also in truth. Finally, a look at the contents of this blog for the past 5 years will show you that I have spent a lot of time trying to do my best to defend not only the Arab people, whom I happen to immensely like on a personal level, but also Muslims, whom I consider to have been often judged very unfairly and superficially. But if I had the moral right to stand up for unfairly and superficially judged Muslims that also gives me the right to speak up when Muslims judge somebody else in an unfair and superficial manner.
One last question. Ask yourself: who benefits when Muslims are judged unfairly or superficially? And who benefits when Russia is judged unfairly or superficially?
Yep. The very same Anglo-Zionists!
You like to be their dupe? Not me.
The Saker
I strongly disagree with the idea that Syria is a nice-to-have thing for Russia. If that had been the case, the carrots and sticks the West brought to the table would have led to Russia trading Syria for something.
I think the issue is how Russia can avoid being in a weak position as the Anglo-Americans push for global domination. The gas to Europe is a huge deal, and that prevents the US from being more aggressive than it already is. If alternative supplies break that choke point, it will get ugly. Then add in a huge new supply of desperate men to recruit for destabilization inside Russia. Then add that Central Asia will be forced to move away from Russia as it’s a losing horse, well, really grim. Now trading Syria for Europe would be rational, but that’s not on offer.
Saker, exellent post.
You hit the nail on the head with the statement “functioning system of International Law“.
Anyone who has taken the time to understand President Putin can see one of the ideals he stands by is the rule of law.
Nice.
“When you say Russia is simply doing what it always does you are also implying that a change in Russian policies is most unlikely. “
First, thank you for all your write ups..
I’d have interpreted the comments as, Russia does what its interests at the time (or as perceived) by their decision makers. One way to highlight that, Russia is trying to stop US as a unilateral actor. And that is a good thing for most every one, except those in the western axis. However, ‘A’ question may be, what are the end objectives? If the end objective(s) are to maintain a ‘duo-lateral ‘ world order, or one run by the same group of p5 plus that other one. Or is the end objective a truly multi-polar/just world. The bet would be the first option. That would be good for Russia, not necessary good for the rest. ‘Perhaps’ those comments may need to be viewed as such.
“your statement is that it is backed up by no facts, no logical demonstrations “
for that you have to review Russia behavior visa-vi Iran and the nuclear issue, S300, etc over the many years. That much is very evident as Russia used its SC position (as well China) to use the various sanction regimes to their own benefits, as well as playing the axis powers. That is the reality in which objective policy makers plan accordingly. It is not about emotional response.
Dear Saker,
Let me start by saying that I come from Lebanon and I fully, unconditionally, totally, completely agree with every word you have written in this post on this very topic, and on many others as well, since I am a regular here.
I will tell you that I read the comment of this person you are replying to in this post yesterday, and I was as flabbergasted as you are, but I could tell right away where he is coming from, and how he was brainwashed by the utter disinformation being spewed daily about the Levant for the last 15 years, prior to the Wahhabi crazies descent on the Near East, in order to control this strategic piece of real estate, its rich cultures and its history, going back for thousands of years…. This is the dream of Wahhabistan, which they will never ever achieve, no matter how many Trillions they spend trying…
One simple point will debunk all the arguments made by this person, and that is the following:
Few years back, prior to the descent of the Wahhabi crazies of Al-CIAeda onto Syria and Lebanon and Iraq…, an offer was made to Syria by the emir of Qatar. He said in essence, “Leave Iran, scrap your arrangements with the Resistance axis, let us build a Pipeline from the Persian Gulf to Europe through Syria…, and I am here to offer you 20 Billion USD and as much in investments in Syria…in return for securing that Strategic understanding”!!!
The answer of the Syrian Government was NIET, and the very next week, ASSAD went to Russia and briefed Vlad Putin on the whole shebang being put on his table by Qatar.
I rest my case,
Best,
Joe
The West has no interest in a post-September 11 world of abiding by any international laws which stand in the way of piracy and brigandage. The ideology of the Neo-Cons appears to me to be global domination at any cost-to include limited nuclear war outside of Europe or North America. I do not understand how Russia and China can bargain with this and expect to have international law or norms followed. Syria is a target, Russia is a target, China is a target, Iran also a target for collapse and civil war. To some extent this seems to me to be not unlike the situation of the world with the Germans under Hitler. The question arises then, what next? Syria will be chopped into portions and Russia and China will continue to have to struggle with Jihadists.
Brilliant response, Saker. Well done.
This has opened up a whole new can of issues related to the already complicated situation surrounding Syria and the Anglo-Zionist imperialist agenda. Already the interesting comments have begun.
I particularly like the response from the Lebanese reader. I was not aware of Qatar’s attempt to bribe Assad until I read this. All the money in Saudi Arabia and Qatar sure doesn’t buy class or integrity- they act like common street thugs. I already have grown to have a deep respect for Assad and this information confirms to me that he is indeed honorable, as is Hesbollah.
As for what Russia’s ultimate objectives might be, I’m of the opinion that Putin, and probably most Russians, genuinely cares about the rule of law for more than just the sake of expediency or immediate self-interest. Seems to me there is a strong ethic in the Russian character. I think Russia’s determination to assist Syria runs deep for many reasons, ethics being one of them.
Russia has already done more than most to help Syria, but at this point they really can’t back down and let Syria go. To do so would be tantamount to saying that the Ango-Zionist war and economic machine with its Wahhabist lackeys can be jousted with but not defeated. As another reader said awhile back, this is the last chance saloon, right here, right now.
I think Putin is sincere in his wish for a multi-polar world; it’s the only way that International law has any real meaning.
If the supposed statement from the Russians to the US that “Syria represents to Russia what Israel does to the US” is any idea, then the enemies of Syria in the Islamic world are going to have a terrible view of Russia. No surprise.
As to the argument that Russian policymakers only care about having a Russian seat at the table where nasty decisions are made, well, the problem with that is that it is impractical. Russia doesn’t have the power to hold out, and needs Brazil, India, and whoever else to have a favorable approach to their proposals at the G20 or wherever. The arguments that Russia and China have behaved in a somewhat selfish manner regarding Iran are true, but trying to detonate the Anglo-American bombers is not an easy task, as we have seen with the whole chemical weapons situation. Compromise is necessary, even if unjust. If Russia had backed Iran more strongly, it is a reasonable bet that she would have been restricted in using Anglo-American banks. Then we would be closer to a big war, which seems to be what the aggressive faction wants.
i Saker,
First of all, thanks for taking the time to write such a heartfelt reply. The matters you discuss in this blog are at times close to a lot of hearts, and that can sometimes make it difficult to maintain ‘analytical distance’. But, then again, why should that always be necessary.
Before I write any further, I want to take the time highlight something which I thought would be obvious. When I voice a criticism of, or more accurately, make an observation about, Russia, I’m not talking about it’s ruling authorities, and not it’s culture, people, religion or any other aspect of it’s society. Of course, by writing this, I don’t mean to say that Russian society has no effect on it’s ruling system’s actions, or that Russia’s ruling elite is artificially detached from it’s wider population. Still a criticism of one really shouldn’t be taken as a criticism of the other.
You believe Russia shouldn’t be expected to act in a uniquely altruistic fashion in world affairs, and to be held to a higher moral standard than other states. I completely agree.
You believe that nonetheless, Russia is in certain respects acting in such a fashion. I disagree.
Zoom out of Syria for a second: What happened in Libya? Was Medvedev really under the impression that the US merely wanted to protect civilians in Benghazi? Did Medvedev really believe that Ghadaffi was a threat to peace and international security? Of course not. Maybe Medvedev did believe that the Western powers would have conducted much more limited bombing campaign and stopped well short of where they ended up, but that really is no good reason to have voted for a use of force resolution. Voting for the resolution, while being under no illusion of a Lybian peace threat to the international order really was in contravention of Russia’s responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council, any way you cut it. Now, you can say that no one really is expected to discharge their duties as a member of the UN security council in good faith, and it’s mean spirited to hold Russia to such a standard. Fine, I accept. But then how can you assert that the primacy of international law is a top priority for Russia?
A commentator already made a reference to the S-300. But let me recap: in 2007, Russia agreed to sell this system to Iran for a set sum, delivery to take place by 2009. The down payment was made, but delivery dates came and went. In June 2010, Russia authorized another outrageous anti-Iran resolution at the UNSC, and four months later, canceled the sale on the pretext that the UNSC resolution has banned the sale. Russia then claimed ‘Force Majeur’, and told Iran it was keeping the deposit and there as nothing it could do about it. Now, are those the actions of a country that values international law? After Iran filed suit in several international venues, Russia wound up refunding the deposit, but continued to claim their actions were legal and the sale of the S300 would violate the UNSC resolution that they themselves helped to draft and pass. Today, Putin is desperate to close another contract for the sale of that same ‘illegal’ system to Iran in order to avoid the embarrassment of an international ruling in Iran’s favor. When Iran persisted with it’s lawsuit, Russia threatened to unilaterally curtail it’s work on the Busher plant, drastically cut trade, and further abuse the UNSC mechanism to punish Iran for seeking the recourse of law. Now, again, I’m not trying to gin up some kind of anti Russian moral panic, but claiming that Russian behavior is somehow guided by principles of adhering to international law is silly.
…
Masoud
(Continued)
While we’re talking about Russia, Iran and UNSC resolutions, let me add this: On six separate occasions, Russia has voted for an anti-Iran resolution. On none of these occasions, was Russia actually concerned that the Iranian Nuclear program was anything other than what Iran has always claimed it was. On each of these occasions, Russia’s vote on this resolution was either bought with concessions from the west, or ‘paid forward’ in order to curry favor with the west, and by some credible accounts, Russia was even took the lead in drafting aggressive measures against Iran in order to punish it for not being sufficiently servile. And these resolution were passed mainly in Putin’s era as president. Again, Russia doesn’t owe Iran a thing, but pretending that it is acting uniquely ‘fair’ and ‘lawful’ manner towards the world is ridiculous.
Staying with the theme of Iran, there is also the matter of Russia’s unilateral reneging of it’s agreements about the status of the Caspian sea, and more distantly, it’s proliferation of Communist spies in Iran, it’s treatment of Iranian communist intellectuals who had fled to Russia(gulags), it’s anti-Iranian and anti-Muslim cultural initiatives in Azerbaijan and central Asia, and even further back we have various Imperial wars Russia fought against Iran, and it’s wielding of influence within the country in various ways that force Iran to balance it with Western powers etc…
I’ve stayed with the theme of Iran because it’s the country who’s history I’m most concerned with, though I’m fairly certain that it would be fairly trivial to construct similar laundry lists of ‘un-principled’ Russian behavior with regard to any given country on Russia’s periphery. Again, I’m not accusing Russia of being uniquely ‘bad’ in this context, but I’m trying to establish that there is in fact plenty of cause to continuity in Russia’s behavior across the Tsarist, Communist and Putin/Medvedev eras. The Elstin era is the only exception, largely because Russian largely ceased to act as an international actor during that period. Russia is a self interested actor, with plenty of cause to feel aggrieved against many of it’s neighbors, and little reason to trust any of it’s remaining neighbors. But it has never been a stalwart for the primacy of international law and decency, and nothing in recent Russian history indicates that it will. If Lavrov has come to an agreement with Kerry that seems to be in line with the characterization of Russian opportunism that I outlined above, and doesn’t fit the mainly altruistic motives you ascribe to Lavrov, well it might be because i’m more right about this than you would like to admit. And that doesn’t even make Lavrov a villain. I know you like to emphasize the differences between Putin and Medvedev, and I agree that your analysis is compelling, but at the end of the day, they are both aligned with overlapping critical masses of Russian economic elites, which, in my book, makes them much more similar than they are different.(Even though differences between them are real)
…
Masoud
(Continued)
And it’s great that you don’t hold Arabs and Muslims responsible for the doings of Saudi Wahabistan. I similarly don’t hold Russians responsible for all the troubles their former Communist elites visited on the world. If, for example, the ruling party in Syria was not so deeply influenced the ideologies espoused by Russia during the cold War, it likely wouldn’t have imported a whole host of practices, like extremist secularization, that has provided such fertile breeding ground for those Wahabists we all hate so much. I think the same is true for many areas much closer and formerly part of Russia itself, where to this day you need a government permit to enter mosque. But let’s not open up yet another can of worms.
I am not alone in admiring a great many things about Russia. The people of Russia are responsible for defeating Hitler. They successfully balanced against the US’ influence in world affairs for an incredible length of time, considering the great economic mismatch. My favorite professors happened to be Russian, my favorite textbooks were written by Russians. The greatest novelists in the world were Russians. Some of my favorite people in the world are Russian, and Russian state has at times made some great contributions to the struggles downtrodden people all over the world.
But, this doesn’t change the fact that the Russian state has also historically behaved opportunistically and mendaciously in advancing it’s own interests at the expense of, and leverage over, many other states in the world, and with it’s neighbors and near neighbors in particular, and is putting the same behavior on display, even today.
Masoud
@Masoud: thanks for your comment. Here I just want to clarify a few issues that I believe you have either ignored completely, or mis-categorized.
1) Ethics vs pragmatism:
I never said that Russia acts for ‘altruistic’ motives. And yes, countries do act in their pragmatic self-interest. HOWEVER,
a) Pragmatic self-interest is fully compatible with *decency*; not altruism, not sainthood, not heroic self-sacrifice, but simple straightforward *decency*
b) In most cases a smart pragmatist will realize that decency is in his country’s interest, at which point acting decently becomes a subset of pragmatism.
2) “Russia” vs “Russian faction X and Russian faction Y”
You never acknowledge that there are factions inside the Kremlin and that these factions have radically opposed agendas. If you have not done so, I would ask you to (re-)read these two:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/03/russia-and-islam-part-six-kremlin.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-power-struggle-inside-kremlin-is.html
There are, furthermore, many *more* factions than these two (mainly business and finance factions, military and intelligence factions, etc.) and what you refer to as “Russia” is just the “resulting vector” of the tug-of-war between ALL these factions. Why is that so important – because Iran can find valuable allies in some of these factions and dishonest foes in others. To just call them “Russia this, Russia that” is simple, convenient, and wrong. Example: Putin openly called the decision on Libya as stupid and crazy while Medvedev claimed that this has been his personal decision. In this case the conflict clearly became public, but even when its behind the scenes its always there.
3) Chechnia – Chechnia – Chechnia and again *CHECHNIA*:
That is one you are staying away from. I understand why. You probably think “this is one we are unlikely to agree on, so why mention it”. But that, in itself, tells me that you are also buying, to some degree or another, the official Anglo-Zionist narrative about Chechnia. Just for the record, let me repeat here that I believe THE prime culprit for this war was Eltsin and his Anglo-Zionist controlled regime. Having said that, what Putin did in the 2nd Chechen war is to save the entire Caucasus and all of Russia, really, from the an entire constellation of crazed Wahabi heat-cutters who were every bit as evil and vicious as the al-Nusria in Syria is today. Putin did what Assad is trying to do. And what did the Arab and Muslim world do? In the first case (Putin’s 2nd war) they supported the Wahabi crazies and in the second (Syria today) they either supported al-Nusra or did nothing.
So if we speak of ethics and morals, can we ALSO include in this discussion a comparison between, say, Medvedev betrayal of Iran and the UNSC and the entire Muslim Ummah’s betrayal of Syria today? (I do not speak of a Ummah’s betrayal of Russia because the Ummah owes Russia nothing, but I will notice that this Ummah did betray the Chechen people who suffered immensely under the rule of the Wahabis and then from the consequences of the 2nd war).
In conclusion, my beef with your argument is not that you do or do not admire Russia. It is that a) you overlook the fact that decency is part of a well-understood pragmatism b) that you simplify hte complex nature of the current Russian polity and c) that you apply to Russia a set of standards which you do not apply to the Arab and/or Muslim world.
Kind regards and many thanks,
The Saker
Saker,
I Completely and totally agree with your reasoning, and excellent response to Masoud. It is obvious from reading his comments that he is totally biased and is deliberately omitting the facts that do not fit his narrative… This is typical of certain people who use “clever & well articulated prose” for all the wrong reasons, in their attempt to distort, defame or cover-up other issues which they do not control or accept. But hey, people can disagree and still be civilized, but it is not the case in MENA, Chechnya and a whole host of other places for a long long time. Recent history of MENA and the Zio-Anglo-Empire is a series of fatal mistakes starting in the early 1900s…,including what happened in Russia in 1917 and beyond…and their terrible implications in MENA & elsewhere, but no one seems to have learned anything from past mistakes,…
Best,
Joe
@Saker and Masud
I agree with Masud’s argument about international law and its irrelavance to the Russians and the point he proves it with, the s300s.
I agree with Saker’s point that the Iranians should exploit factions within Rissia to their advantage.
But I feel that most often it’s not individuals who make decisions. There is a kind of collective consciousness of a nation or the way it ends up behaving. For instance now no matter what son of ibn Saud rules in Arabia their policies will remain more or less the same, like how the Israeli’s keep claiming that no matter which mullah rules in Iran… There are exceptions. Where strong individuals such Putin and yes even Obama end up steering things the way they feel is right.
I have a nagging feeling or say a hunch that the reason the America’s did not invade Syria was only because Obama is at the helm. I don’t like his speches, I don’t like his moral grandstanding, but I think he is up against tough folks and he’s taking them for a ride.
He delayed the strikes by waiting to see what the UK would do. When the vote went against Cameroon I think he felt he was safe. He smartly referred it to Congress, when APAC started convincing Congress, he bought time, he jumped at Lavarov’s offer and later called it off. He gave the Israelis what they wanted, he is getting rid of Syria’s chemical weapons. Benjamin D’israeli had done something similar when dealing with the Turks. He had got his way without firing a single round, just by moving ships.
I think he realised the seriousness of his opponents: Hizballah and Iran. He realised the consequences everywhere this conflict would bring. I don’t mention Russia here cause I feel he knows just as the Saker does of how important Syria is to them(the Russians) or how much the Russian’s will commit.
If Bush or Blair were leading we would have seen the neocons get their way. Obama has done anything and everything he wanted. He has done this slyly. He has fought the Iranians, the way Kubilai Khan fought southern China, economically. He has brought Khaminie to negotiate through Rouhani. Khaminie made a comment last week that sometimes a wrestler has to give way to his opponent. That is what I meant by collective consciousness. They are tweaking their behaviour with another President. But the outcome is more or less the same.
Obama has solved America’s problems by printing money. Something Idi Amin used to do and everybody used to laugh at him. But here everyone tells Obama, please keep printing.
Obama has continued bombing the Pakistanis. Bush would have draw more criticism. Who cares if Nawaz or Zardari or Kayani are in charge. Pakistan is America’s bitch. Everytime a few more civilians die the whores of Pakistan ask for more money to turn a blind eye. Collective consciousness.
I’m not as articulate as most of you and have trouble remembering dates, names, facts basically. So along with typos, grammar, syntax etc forgive everything else.
Putin addresses many of these issues himself at his recent appearance at the Valdai :
http://rt.com/politics/putin-russian-national-idea-077/
Dear Saker,
It’s not that I assert that Russian politics isn’t interesting and multifaceted. It’s that, for the purpose of squaring current Russian actions with it’s historical behavior, I don’t really need to. If you want someone to gaze into Putin eyes and declare he’s got a decent soul, go look up Goerge Bush. What counts, when analyzing Russia’s behavior as an international actor is precisely that ‘resultant vector’, who’s importance you dismiss. And it’s particularly important when that resultant vector has been pointing in more or less the same direction for a century or more.
You’re right to say that I had ignored Chechnia and a host of other issues in my last post. The general rule is that when you write something, you make decisions about what include and exclude, and the ultimate test of those decisions is how convincing your readers judged your piece to be as a whole. I can’t address every single issue in the world every time I open my mouth. Similarly you are under no obligation to address anything I’ve written(which I’ll note you didn’t). You don’t even have to address Russia’s massive arms deals with Israel, or Putin’s relative popularity as a world leader inside Israel itself. If I wanted to mirror your talking points, I could just as easily ‘demand’ that you ‘address’ this or that issue till the cows come home. But this isn’t productive. The world is a complicated place, and I don’t need to hear an apology or explanation from either you or Russia for every thing that it does. At the end of the day, none of it will have any effect on the validity of my general observations:
1. Russia has historically not been a state that is especially attuned to the provenance of Law in international relations.
2. There has been no dramatic internal change in Russia’s conception of itself over the last couple of years that would lead us to believe that this should change.
3. Russian behavior over the last decade and even the past couple of months is completely consistent with it’s historical trend.
Now, you want to know specifically about my views on Chechnia so here they are: Chechen Wahabist head cutters are no better and no worse than the Baluchi Wahabist head cutters that were organized to plague eastern Iran for the last decade, or those who are at the moment plaguing Syria from their bases in Turkey.
The Iranian response was consistent with the norms of international law. It centered around police and intelligence actions to identify and arrest the perpetrators, and more importantly massive cultural outreach to the communities who’s loyalties were targeted by these groups. This outreach was not only carried out on the media an political levels, but even on the level of military leaders and generals visiting far flung village elders with minimal security detail in order to build up mutual trust.
Russia’s response to Chechen terrorism, was more or less indistinguishable from America’s response to 911. I find both invasions and occupations to be illegal and immoral. And I think the continuation of either will only result in more pain for both the aggressor states and the states ‘guilty of’ harboring terrorists.
In the long run, I think Iran’s approach paid better dividends more quickly with the least loss of innocent life. I hope it’s an example that both Russia and Syria are able to learn from.
We’re not going to get anywhere with you demanding how come ‘The Muslims’ never helped Russia, when it imploded, and me demanding where the Slovs where when Russia was supporting Saddam against Iran. So let’s just agree to disagree, which shouldn’t be hard, because I think there is a lot that we actually agree on.
@Anonymous: BINGO! Finally, it came out:
Russia’s response to Chechen terrorism, was more or less indistinguishable from America’s response to 911. I find both invasions and occupations to be illegal and immoral.
The sentence above is exactly what is needed to further feed a very strong current in Russia which basically says “forget the Muslim world – they are hopeless and they will hate us no matter what”. Frankly, it if wasn’t for the Muslims *inside* Russia who not only think differently, but actually are willing to die in defense of the Russian “common house” I would be very tempted to agree.
Your comparison of Russia’s response to the Wahabi insurgency in Chechnia to the US response to 911 either so ridiculous or so dishonest that I am at a loss of words. It just makes me wonder why you don’t condemn the Syrian military for “invasion and occupation” of Homs, Aleppo or Qusayrs as “illegal and immoral” in the same breath (like most of the Ummah already did).
Over the years I have become disgusted with the absolute imbecility of the Palestinian political leadership. Recently, I have begun having very similar feelings for the Sunni-Arab world, except that I find it less stupid and more outright immoral. In both cases, I just basically feel like turning my head away in disgust and say “whatever – it’s not like the rest of the planet cannot go in living without you”.
Your past posts here lead me to believe (maybe mistakenly) that you are Iranian. If so, I very much hope and pray that you are a secular or very thinly religious one. To have a dedicated follower of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei write the kind of nonsense you wrote in your last post would really break my heart and discourage me even further. I most definitely refuse to believe that your views are representative of the views of a majority of Iranians or, even less so, of their leadership.
In conclusion, I have to tell you that I do not “agree to disagree”. While there are things, many things, upon which two persons can agree to disagree, fundamental moral and ethical issues are not part of them. Your statement above is not just an ‘opinion’, it is the expression of an ideological position which I won’t even bother refuting or qualifying. I will just say that we have nothing more to say to each other.
The Saker
@Saker and Masud
Two videos for you
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VV9Ga7Kcgcs
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VV9Ga7Kcgcs
It is very often faith that moves mountains. One of the reasons the Iranians and Hizballah think the way they do is because of their history, religion and convictions. They are not secular.
Mindfriedo
Forgive everything else
@saker and masud
I gave the wrong links earlier.
Please see these:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GRCssBSsSss
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Hq2wSaNWg
One video you can search as Amal 1984 and the other Southern Lebanon 1985
I think we should work on what is common between us. All our fingers are not alike but they function well together.
I feel that the Iranians and Hizballah fight so well because of their history, their faith, their beliefs and their ideals. They are not secular, but deeply religious. Their faith gives them strength and courage. They stop short of oppressing. And it is their Shia beliefs that stop them from this.
The Russians and the Americans have some sense of decency. They draw on Christianity and their culture for these.
The heart eaters and head choppers have precedents in history who they look up to. There were liver eaters, child murderers and head choppers in their past. It is blood that is showing through. Blood in the sense a system of beliefs.
I think the saker is right. They should have helped Putin fight the heart eaters. This is the first time Hizballah has crossed a frontier. It was necessary for them to do this, or they would not have. It’s now the time to fight or be killed for them. But owing to their beliefs I doubt they will cross their frontiers for the Russians. Even in their future. Perhaps right now, in many ways, they are fighting for Russia.
Oni Mindfriedo
@Oni Mindfriedo:I think we should work on what is common between us. All our fingers are not alike but they function well together.
Yes, I agree, and I have worked hard on this blog to try to do exactly that.
I feel that the Iranians and Hizballah fight so well because of their history, their faith, their beliefs and their ideals. They are not secular, but deeply religious
While Iranians come in all sorts of shades of piety, from the deeply religious to the secular communist, via the pro-US oligarchs and corrupted millionaires, I would very much agree that the reason for Hezbollah’s absolutely amazing achievements lies in their deep religious piety and faith. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is the only political figure out there whom I would really trust, by the way.
The Russians and the Americans have some sense of decency. They draw on Christianity and their culture for these.
Alas, I believe that neither the Russian nor the American rulers draw on Christianity as a source of morality. As for the Russian and American people, they also come in all sorts of shades of piety, and only a minority of them is actually really religious and the type of Christianity they adhere to has little or no commonality with the Christianity of Christ and His Apostles.
I think the saker is right. They should have helped Putin fight the heart eaters.
No. I actually never said that. I fully understand why and how the Muslim world was conned by the Anglo-Zionist propaganda and why they fully supported the insurgency. And here is the deal: I DO NOT BLAME THEM FOR IT. Nor do I blame them for supporting the KLA (a 100% terrorist and Mafia organization). No, AT THE TIME, it would have been impossible for them to act differently. I understand that. But now, in 2013, having seen the events in Libya and, even more so, in Syria, I find it absolutely UNFORGIVABLE to still parrot that stupid Anglo-Zionist propaganda. Besides, between 1995 and 1999 the conflict in Chechnia, ugly as it was, could not be blamed solely on one side or another. But by 1999 things got pretty damn clear. Just like in Syria, by the way, where initially even I supported the anti-Assad movement because I always have hated secularists, Baathists and I saw Assad as a willing collaborator to the US. But pretty soon things also became much clear and I threw my full support behind the Syrian military not because they were kind, saintly, respectful of human rights and gentle with civilians, but because they represented the ONLY alternative to the liver-eating Wahabis. Just as in 1999 the Russian military represented the only alternative to the liver-eating Wahabis. And when I hear somebody seriously compare that to 911 (an Anglo-Zionist inside job) I see that we will never join our fingers into a hand. At the time when Russia is doing more to help Syria than the rest of the planet combined it is the hight of hypocrisy and dishonest to compare the war in Chechnia to the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. Even crass ignorance cannot excuse that, not in 2013.
Coming back to your comment, I did not mean to say that Hezbollah or any other Muslim or Arab (or Iranian) should have come to Chechina and help Russia. No, not at all. The ONLY thing which I am saying is this: ANY honest and decent person, including Muslims, Arabs or Persian who is looking in horror at what is happening in Syria should find the courage in himself/herself to look back at the events in Chechnia and simply admit and say:”yes, we got it wrong then”. That’s it. That is ALL I am asking for. Not real aid. Not an apology. Not even an expression of regret. A simply admission of a fact.
… to be continued
…continued
In conclusion let me say this: if “they” whoever these “they” are (Arabs, Muslims or Iranians) don’t have what it takes to make that simple admission, then Russia should not spend any efforts into trying to find a common language with these folks, nevermind helping them. With “friends” like these, who needs enemies? Russia can simply keep a basically neutral stance towards them, with some mutually profitable commercial relations, and some cultural exchange – and that’s it. If “they” are really like that, then let “them” sort our their problems with Uncle Sam and Israel. Russia will have much better results forging closer ties and alliances with Kazakhstan, Armenia, China, India or ALBA countries, not only are these much more important partners (in terms of $$$) for Russia but they also share the Russian vision for a multi-polar international system rather than the “my Ummah right or wrong” knee-jerk reaction.
Bottom line: Russia does not need military aid. Not in 1995, not in 1999 and most definitely not in 2013. As Dmitri Rogozin always repeats: Russia wants to turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into partners, partners into friends and friends into allies. But if somebody is dead set in seeing modern Russia as “the other Shaitan” (as Ayatollah Khomeini *correctly* saw the Soviet Union) then let him/her hold to that belief and find his/her allies and friends were he/she wants.
Cheers,
The Saker
@Oni Mindfriedo:
I wanted to add one more thing here: when you wrote I think we should work on what is common between us. All our fingers are not alike but they function well together you were fundamentally correct. And I can assure you that there are people in Russia and outside Russia which very much agree with that. Inside Russia, I would give the example of Ahmad and Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnia and outside Russia I would give you the example of Sheikh Imran Hosein, but there are many more. Kazakhstan is the ultimate example of that – a country which is in majority Muslim, but which is even more favorable to a federation with Russia than Russia itself. So one “Russian-Muslim” “hand” which you want to see is definitely already a reality, the question is, to use your image, which fingers will or will not join it.
From my point of view, any Iranian fails to see that it is as absurd to see a continuity between the Soviet Union and Putin’s Russia as it would be to seek one between the rule of the Shah in Iran and the rule of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is just not a partner worth considering. I don’t think that most Iranians seriously think that, but if they do then its their loss, not Russia’s. As long as Iran is not an active enemy of Russia (as it would be under Anglo-Zionist control), Russia can see it as just a neutral neighbor and that’s it. No problem. Let them look at the neighborhood they live in and make their own conclusions whom they want as allies and friends (Turkey? Iraq? Oman? Afghanistan maybe? Pakistan? Turkmenistan?). In reality, they want to join the SCO. I guess that somebody in Tehran as a more sophisticated view of things, but whatever. The ‘hand’ is forming, for sure, but is a fully voluntary ‘hand’. If a finger wants to stay all alone and fight against the combined forces of the Anglo-Wahabi-Zionist-Ottoman world – then let them :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
@saker
Sorry for not reading your comments in detail. I never expected or meant Arabs/Iranians to fight for Russia. Or that Russia would need them. There is this concept that if you cannot stop oppression through actions, you should oppose it by words, and if not by words then in thoughts. There is also this other story where an ant helps a lion…
There is this other video where Iranians are fighting in Lebanon even before Hizballah was formed. And they were brave. By Iranians I meant the religious ones. I was in Iran when the 2006 war happened. There was a student I was living with for a few days. He did not like the religious elite, “the system” he had to live under. But he enjoyed watching HizbAllah fight. He felt proud. I have met atheist there, agnostics, liberals, intellectuals, bazarees, the hizballah types, the old guard, royalists. But their religion/culture has affected them all. Even their smugglers have a sense of decency. I went to a shrine there and asked for directions, the caretaker misunderstood me and asked are you hungry. And I have been in a Syrian transit lounge being deported and have had a gun pulled at me by a guard for trying to find something to eat. There is a selfishness I have seen in Arabs and a kindness in the Persians. Generalizing I know. But I have seen it repeatedly. Even in small organizations, offices, local bodies, sunnis tend to draw towards centers of power. They want to be part of the politics. I have seen Shias repeatedly shun it.
I have observed a difference in the behavior of Nizara Shias and Allawites as opposed to the twelvers. This again stems from a history of a value system that has come from their interpretation of history, their beliefs and their religion. The hasshishis used to kill ruthlessly, Hafez al Asad was ruthless in Hama: Minorities trying to survive. And on the other hand, Iranians being gassed by Saddam and not retaliating in kind.
Robert Fisk mentions meeting an Iranian student fighting for the PLO in Lebanon. When they asked him what you are doing here, he said he was training to overthrow the shah. They laughed at him then, at his audacity. I was referring to these Iranians, the same Iranians walking in Human waves to liberate Basra.
There is a conviction or belief that you see one side possess and you realize they will win. This is the conviction that the Israelis had when facing the Arabs in their war of independence. They fought then with the same conviction that Hizballah showed in throwing them out of Lebanon. I read that the Isrealis used to drive away ambushed armored cars of the Jordanians back then. Now, on the other hand, you here their leaders are afraid of a one state solution.
cont
@saker
I feel that Soviet Russia or Putin’s Russia, the Iranians will always mistrust the Russians. There is a lot of history between them. But I feel they are way smarter and realize the difference.
It is again how things hardly change. The Shah started their nuclear program, the Mullahs continue with it. The relations with the Arabs are the same. The war with Iraq was not very distinct from what could possibly have happened if the Shah was not overthrown. A kind of collective consciousness. It can be argued that there were more religious youth under the shah’s tyranny then there are now under shia theocracy.
But I’m going off topic again.
By Christian beliefs I don’t mean they are all religious or pious. I meant that you see it in their value system. They will talk about kindness, human rights, aid, guilt. They may have double standards but they try to show that they are morally sound. You won’t here similar arguments from China or India. They leave things alone and go about their business. They interfere less and seem to leave things to fate. They are not deeply religious but you can see how their respective religions/cultures affect their outlook.
The hand is forming, but it’s not voluntary. It’s out of necessity.
I like your articles and enjoy your blog. You are much more articulate and systematic then I am. I just have random thoughts I try to put across. Please keep up the good work.
Oni mindfriedo
@Oni mindfriedo: I feel that Soviet Russia or Putin’s Russia, the Iranians will always mistrust the Russians. There is a lot of history between them.
There is indeed. And I will gladly admit that most of that interaction in the past has been unpleasant for the Iranian people. From the 18th century on to the Soviet era the Russia and the USSR represented a threat to Iran and the southward expansion of the Russian Empire was rapidly replaced by a Soviet southward expansion. So, for 2 centuries the Iranians have lived under the threat of Russian and then Soviet imperialism. During these 2 centuries Russia saw at least 3 revolutions (1905, February 1917, October 1917), the collapse of 5 regimes (Imperial 1682-1917; Masonic Liberal 1917-1917; Communist 1917-1991; Zionist 1991-1999; Atlantic integrationists 1999-2012) and the emergence of a new regime, the “Eurasian sovereignists” regime of Putin whose future is still very unclear. To assume that all these regimes had the same policy towards Iran (or anything else) is just silly.
Furthermore, look at Chechnia again. God knows that the Chechen people suffered terribly from the Russian occupation from 1785 up to 2000. But then Chechens also had the wisdom to realize that in Putin they did not have an enemy, but a ally and, really, a protector, that Putin was neither Ermolov, nor Stalin or Eltsin. As for the Russian people, their plight at the hands of the Chechen was a much shorter one, but a terrifying one nonetheless. From 1993 through 1999 there was a constant slow-motion genocide against the Russians in Chechnia and most either left or were killed. I won’t even go into the vicious terrorist attacks committed by Chechens against innocent Russians many times over. But two things happened. The Russians finally got rid of most of their criminal thugs (the entire Eltsin regime) and the Chechens got rid of theirs (the entire Dudaev regime) and Putin and Ahmand Kadyrov made peace and joined forces against their common enemy. And through that struggle together the people on both sides finally came to realize that they did not have to be enemies, but that they could actually be allies, even friends. So if Chechens and Russians can do that – why not Iranians and Russians?
An alliance between Russia and Iran would be immensely profitable for both parties, and I hope that Iran will be accepted in the SCO. But make no mistake, Russia has far less need for Iran than Iran has of Russia. For one thing – Russia has no serious enemy at its borders. Even the US cannot take on Russia militarily. Better, Russia has some rock solid neighbors like China, Kazakhstan or Belarus. Now look at Iran, not only is if fully locked inside CENTCOM’s area of responsibility, it is surrounded by hostile neighbors or, at best, very instable neighbors. Iran really has no friends at all except for the governments in Baghdad and Damascus – both of which are fighting for their very survival. And Iran is right in the crosshairs of an ugly alliance of Anglos, Wahabis, Zionists and Ottomans.
So its all fine and dandy for the Iranians to say that they do not “trust” Russia, but having said that they are left completely alone (no, China will not have a policy towards Iran different from the Russian one – the SCO nations will act as one in such issues). Besides, “trust” is the wrong word anyway. What is needed is *understanding* of what took place in the Russian past and, even more so, how this past eventually yielded modern Russia. That understanding, in turn, will make everything else possible. But the comparison between the post-911 GWOT and the wars in Chechina is not only breathtaking in its idiocy, it also basically compares the US and Russia and puts them into similar categories. At this point I personally throw in the towel and give up any pretense of discussion.
I console myself with the thought that at least the current Iranian leadership is clearly more enlightened.
Cheers,
The Saker
@saker
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/gas-missiles-were-not-sold-to-syria-8831792.html
Interesting
Have you written about Yemen?
Mind friends
@Mind friends:Have you written about Yemen?
First, thanks for the very interesting link. I have great hope that with the time Russia has bought with the “Russian Gambit” more and more such evidence will be coming out.
As for Yemen – no, I have never written about it, not because I do not consider it important, but because of my profound ignorance about this country and its current situation. Sure, I know what everybody else with at least a little interest international affairs knows, but not much more. So, if you have any interesting articles or if you an somehow tie in Yemen into the events in the Middle-East, please email me and share anything you can with me. I am always eager to get educated :-)
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker