View Full Version : georgia shoots down 2 russian migs: russkies send in 150 tanks
30 cal slut
08-08-08, 07:39
interesting timing, what, with the Olympics and all.
jeez, i hope oil and ammo prices don't start shooting up. again. :rolleyes:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,399962,00.html
Georgian Official Reports Downing of 2 Russian Aircraft
Friday , August 08, 2008
Georgia claims it has shot down two Russian warplanes as violence escalates in the breakaway province of South Ossetia.
Russia has sent 150 tanks and armored vehicles into the territory as what started as a regional conflict between Georgia and separatists threatens to build into all-out war.
Georgian troops launched a major military offensive Friday to regain control over the South Ossetia and the president accused Russia, which has close ties to the separatists, of bombing Georgian territory.
A Russian official denied the bombing. But Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said the Georgian attack will draw retaliation and the Defense Ministry pledged to protect South Ossetians, most of whom have Russian citizenship.
An Associated Press reporter saw tanks and other heavy weapons concentrating on the Russian side of the border with South Ossetia and villagers were fleeing into Russia.
"I saw them (the Georgians) shelling my village," said Maria, who gave only her first name. She looked shocked and was reluctant to speak. She said she and other villagers spent the night in a field and then fled toward the Russian border as the fighting escalated.
The fighting in South Ossetia has raised fears of an all-out war that could draw in Russia, which has peacekeepers in the region. Putin said an unspecified number of the peacekeepers have been wounded.
NATO has called for an immediate end to fighting. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said he is seriously concerned about the fighting and that the alliance is closely following the situation.
Separatist officials in South Ossetia said 15 civilians had been killed in fighting overnight. Georgian officials said seven civilians were wounded in bombing raids by Russia.
South Ossetia officials said Georgia attacked with aircraft, armor and heavy artillery. Georgian troops fired missiles at the regional capital, Tskhinvali, an official said, and many buildings were on fire. The Russian news agency Interfax said a hospital was hit by Georgian shelling.
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said Russian aircraft bombed several Georgian villages and other civilian facilities.
"A full-scale aggression has been launched against Georgia," Saakashvili said in a televised statement.
He also announced a full military mobilization with reservists being called into action.
Seven civilians were wounded when three Russian Su-24 jet bombers flew into Georgia and bombed the town of Gori and the villages of Kareli and Variani, Deputy Interior Minister Eka Sguladze said at a briefing.
She said four Russian jets later bombed Gori, the hometown of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, but that raid didn't cause any casualties.
Saakashvili urged Russia to immediately stop bombing Georgian territory. "Georgia will not yield its territory or renounce its freedom," he said.
A senior Russian diplomat in charge of the South Ossetian conflict, Yuri Popov, dismissed the Georgian claims of Russian bombings as "disinformation," the RIA-Novosti news agency reported.
Russia's Defense Ministry denounced the Georgian attack as a "dirty adventure." "Blood shed in South Ossetia will weigh on their conscience," the ministry said in a statement posted on its Web site.
"We will protect our peacekeepers and Russian citizens," it said without elaboration.
Saakashvili long has pledged to restore Tbilisi's rule over South Ossetia and another breakaway province, Abkhazia. Both regions have run their own affairs without international recognition since splitting from Georgia in the early 1990s and built up ties with Moscow.
Most residents of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have Russian passports. An open war could prompt Russian to send in more forces under the claim of protecting its citizens.
Putin, speaking in televised remarks Friday during his trip to the opening of the Beijing Olympics, said Georgia's military action causes "grave concern and it will certainly lead to retaliatory actions."
Saakashvili said government troops have seized the outskirts of Tskhinvali and are fighting for control of the center. Georgian forces also have seized several villages around the capital.
Gen. Mamuka Kurashvili, a Georgian military officer in charge of operations in the region, said on Rustavi 2 television that Georgian forces were moving to "establish constitutional order in the region."
The leader of Russia's province of North Ossetia rushed to Tskhinvali. "We are jointly organizing defenses here," Teimuraz Mamsurov said in the city, according to the Interfax news agency.
Mamsurov said hundreds of volunteers from North Ossetia were streaming across the border into South Ossetia, Interfax said. It also quoted the separatist leader of Abkhazia as saying that some 1,000 volunteers from his region were heading to South Ossetia.
Georgian State Minister for Reintegration Temur Yakobashvili said Georgian officials were doing everything they could to avoid casualties and the destruction of property.
But Boris Chochiyev, a minister in the South Ossetian government, said that Georgian troops shelled the center of Tskhinvali with truck-launched missiles. He asked the Russian government to defend South Ossetians.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Boris Malakhov called on Tbilisi to commit itself to peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Yakobashvili said Friday that Georgia was ready to negotiate, but claimed the South Ossetian officials were dragging their feet in starting talks.
At the request of Russia, the U.N. Security Council held an emergency session in New York but failed to reach consensus early Friday on a Russian-drafted statement.
The council concluded it was at a stalemate after the U.S., Britain and some other members backed the Georgians in rejecting a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides "to renounce the use of force," council diplomats said.
"We think that this is a very serious error of judgment and political blunder," Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said of the council members' disagreement. "I hope that the Georgian side will reconsider its reckless actions in the area of the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict."
The Georgian attack came just hours after Saakashvili announced a unilateral cease-fire in a television broadcast late Thursday in which he also urged South Ossetian separatist leaders to enter talks on resolving the conflict.
Georgian officials later blamed South Ossetian separatists for thwarting the cease-fire by shelling Georgian villages in the area.
The fighting was the worst outburst of hostilities in the region since it won a de-facto independence in a war that ended in 1992.
Russia has soldiers in South Ossetia as peacekeeping forces, but Georgia alleges they back the separatists. Russia also was criticized by the West as provoking tensions by sending warplanes over South Ossetia last month.
Most of South Ossetia, which is roughly 1.5 times the size of Luxembourg, has been under the control of an internationally unrecognized separatist government since 1992. Georgian forces hold several swaths of it.
Relations between Georgia and Russia worsened notably this year as Georgia pushed to join NATO and Russia dispatched additional peacekeeper forces to Abkhazia.
Gutshot John
08-08-08, 08:10
Damn.
This could be a lot worse than gasoline and ammo prices.
Business_Casual
08-08-08, 08:22
I doubt it, I think this will stay localized. These are a couple of Moscow's puppet-regimes inside the territory of Georgia. The UN or whomever will threaten to send strongly-worded letters and Georgia and Moscow will ignore them.
M_P
As someone who checks news updates 20 times a day, somehow I didn't even see this coming. I knew there were tensions, but not to this extent.
What was the catalyst?
What was the catalyst?
Testosterone.
Nathan_Bell
08-08-08, 08:59
As someone who checks news updates 20 times a day, somehow I didn't even see this coming. I knew there were tensions, but not to this extent.
What was the catalyst?
What a mess, what Official ties do we have with Georgia (the country in the article not the state funny folk)?
Submariner
08-08-08, 09:00
What was the catalyst?
Vodka.
Gutshot John
08-08-08, 09:05
What a mess, what Official ties do we have with Georgia (the country in the article not the state funny folk)?
Georgia has been trying to join NATO.
IIRC it was also a potential base for SDI, but I can't point to a source.
Russia views NATO expansion as a threat. This could be an attempt to reclaim its superpower status.
It's a very shrewd move...not much anyone can do about it other than NATO (yeah right) and the other Republics.
CarlosDJackal
08-08-08, 09:06
What was the catalyst?
A fox eating a German Shepherd's food and peeing in its bowl.
Oh wait!! Wrong thread. :D
What was the catalyst?
- Russia/Georgia hate each other
- Russian / Russian Mob / South Ossetia corruption at the highest levels.
- Russia trying to flex there muscles again to prove they are "important & powerful" again. It's good for there own internal politics.
- ETC
Maybe the Russians will get there ass kicked like the first time they rolled into Grozny.
Nathan_Bell
08-08-08, 09:19
- Russia/Georgia hate each other
- Russian / Russian Mob / South Ossetia corruption at the highest levels.
- Russia trying to flex there muscles again to prove they are "important & powerful" again. It's good for there own internal politics.
- ETC
Maybe the Russians will get there ass kicked like the first time they rolled into Grozny.
If Russia wanted to do some useful chest thumping, why are they at their western frontier, when the real threat is at their eastern frontier? They have losts of very rich in natural resources land that the Chinese would lover to pump people into.
Oh, yeah. China would roll their idiotically huge army in and then Russia would have to drop nukes. That is why they are messing with the western frontier.
Gutshot John
08-08-08, 09:34
If Russia wanted to do some useful chest thumping, why are they at their western frontier, when the real threat is at their eastern frontier? They have losts of very rich in natural resources land that the Chinese would lover to pump people into.
Do you really want to piss off a billion Chinese?
There's no point in being a bully if you pick a fight with someone who can actually kick your ass.
This has been brewing for a while. Add to the mix that Russia feels NATO is encroaching on areas that traditionally were under their influence and you have a shitstorm waiting to happen. Definitely could have some implications for that immediate region. Look for oil to go up just for shits and giggles.
Jay Cunningham
08-08-08, 09:37
It should be funny watching these two military superpowers go at it.
There's no point in being a bully if you pick a fight with someone who can actually kick your ass.
The sad part is bullies purposefully avoid the guy who could kick there ass and go after easier targets. Let's hope Georgia turns this into another fiasco
South Ossetia is nothing but a land grab by corrupt Russians/Ethnic Russians from Georgia.
It's a nice place for them to avoid taxes, border controls, hide & launder money, not to mention steal every South Ossetian tax dollar they can get there hands on.
One of the Georgian military contingents here in Iraq is right down the street from me. About 1/4 mile. Wonder what they are thinking at this moment?
Nathan_Bell
08-08-08, 10:10
Do you really want to piss off a billion Chinese?
There's no point in being a bully if you pick a fight with someone who can actually kick your ass.
That was a bit of the point of my second sentence.
Russia has major demographic issues, not Japan bad, but bad none the less. They will lose their Eastern frontier unless they end up irradiating it in response to Chinese encroachment. They just do not have the population to deal with thier security, without the nuke threat against China.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
140,702,094 (July 2008 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 14.6% (male 10,577,858/female 10,033,254)
15-64 years: 71.2% (male 48,187,807/female 52,045,102)
65 years and over: 14.1% (male 6,162,400/female 13,695,673) (2008 est.)
Median age:
total: 38.3 years
male: 35.1 years
female: 41.4 years (2008 est.)
Population growth rate:
-0.474% (2008 est.)
Birth rate:
11.03 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Death rate:
16.06 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Net migration rate:
0.28 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2008 est.)
So I am failing to grasp WTF they plan to accomplish with the recent belligerence towars the West.
Gutshot John
08-08-08, 10:23
That was a bit of the point of my second sentence.
Russia has major demographic issues, not Japan bad, but bad none the less. They will lose their Eastern frontier unless they end up irradiating it in response to Chinese encroachment. They just do not have the population to deal with thier security, without the nuke threat against China.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
140,702,094 (July 2008 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 14.6% (male 10,577,858/female 10,033,254)
15-64 years: 71.2% (male 48,187,807/female 52,045,102)
65 years and over: 14.1% (male 6,162,400/female 13,695,673) (2008 est.)
Median age:
total: 38.3 years
male: 35.1 years
female: 41.4 years (2008 est.)
Population growth rate:
-0.474% (2008 est.)
Birth rate:
11.03 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Death rate:
16.06 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Net migration rate:
0.28 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2008 est.)
So I am failing to grasp WTF they plan to accomplish with the recent belligerence towars the West.
I understood and agreed, I was being a bit facetious.
It's interesting to note that the last time Russia sought to support one of its ethnic populations in a different country, the result was WWI. It was the same type of thing, Imperial Russia was a shadow of its former self and to prove it was still a world power it embroiled itself in WWI.
It smacks of desperation, but that doesn't mean it won't end badly.
I don't know if anyone has read the "Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman, but a very good read and relevant to what's going on with alliances etc.
Nothing would make me happier than to see China and Russia duke it out. I just can't imagine that either is that stupid.
AllAmerican
08-08-08, 10:45
We have 150 to 200 'advisors' in Georgia right now, this ain't that funny.
IMHO
FYI:
This has nothing to do with China.
Nathan_Bell
08-08-08, 10:57
FYI:
This has nothing to do with China.
Russia should have its eye on its eastern border not its western, as that is where the threat to Russia's sovereignty is, not from NATO working with Georgia. I realize the current CF is not involved with China, but it is a waste of resources for the Russians if they were truly concerned with their sovereign nation and not chest thumping.
Business_Casual
08-08-08, 11:07
Russia should have its eye on its eastern border not its western, as that is where the threat to Russia's sovereignty is, not from NATO working with Georgia. I realize the current CF is not involved with China, but it is a waste of resources for the Russians if they were truly concerned with their sovereign nation and not chest thumping.
Russia is well aware of the China threat and that border is very well defended. A lot of troops are stationed there in border posts.
ETA - the tanks in those pictures look like second-line T-72Ms (reactive armor). Unless I miss my guess, the troops are interior ministry troops and not even regular army. Shrug.
M_P
Heavy Metal
08-08-08, 11:12
That was a bit of the point of my second sentence.
Russia has major demographic issues, not Japan bad, but bad none the less. They will lose their Eastern frontier unless they end up irradiating it in response to Chinese encroachment. They just do not have the population to deal with thier security, without the nuke threat against China.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
140,702,094 (July 2008 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 14.6% (male 10,577,858/female 10,033,254)
15-64 years: 71.2% (male 48,187,807/female 52,045,102)
65 years and over: 14.1% (male 6,162,400/female 13,695,673) (2008 est.)
Median age:
total: 38.3 years
male: 35.1 years
female: 41.4 years (2008 est.)
Population growth rate:
-0.474% (2008 est.)
Birth rate:
11.03 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Death rate:
16.06 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Net migration rate:
0.28 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2008 est.)
So I am failing to grasp WTF they plan to accomplish with the recent belligerence towars the West.
If Russia wishes to survive, it needs to embrace NATO, not resist it.
Russia has major demographic issues, not Japan bad, but bad none the less. They will lose their Eastern frontier unless they end up irradiating it in response to Chinese encroachment. They just do not have the population to deal with thier security, without the nuke threat against China.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
140,702,094 (July 2008 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 14.6% (male 10,577,858/female 10,033,254)
15-64 years: 71.2% (male 48,187,807/female 52,045,102)
65 years and over: 14.1% (male 6,162,400/female 13,695,673) (2008 est.)
Median age:
total: 38.3 years
male: 35.1 years
female: 41.4 years (2008 est.)
Population growth rate:
-0.474% (2008 est.)
Birth rate:
11.03 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Death rate:
16.06 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Net migration rate:
0.28 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Wow, I had no idea Russia's population was so small overall, despite the break aways. Still, it certainly highlights Israel's problem as nightmarish.
If Russia wishes to survive, it needs to embrace NATO, not resist it.
Tom Clancy thought so too ;)
CarlosDJackal
08-08-08, 13:49
...So I am failing to grasp WTF they plan to accomplish with the recent belligerence towars the West.
Misdirection. Give your people a common enemy (ie: the United States) and you stand a better chance of gaining their support for whatever action you decide to take. If successful, you might be able to convince them that their poverty and hardships is the fault of their common enemy.
Sidewinder6
08-08-08, 14:10
From an American view, the current area in play is ~60 miles west from Pankisi Gorge, a central hotbed of jihadist movement and is also an area where strategic pipelines were heading to bridge the Caspian sea oilfields and the Black Sea where the shipping lanes begin.
This has larger implications for EU besides the whole discussion about the Bear making a comeback.
30 cal slut
08-08-08, 14:34
on a related note, this is pretty good for a chuckle.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080808091149AA3VGTk
RogerinTPA
08-08-08, 14:37
We have 150 to 200 'advisors' in Georgia right now, this ain't that funny.
IMHO
US Army SF, among other trainers, have been there for a while, http://www.infowars.com/?p=3834 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2249677.stm To include transitioning their army from AKs to M-4/M-16s. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_us_military Great...another reason to hike 5.56 ammo prices.:( As an ironic spin, Georgia should buy Wolf ammo!:p
I am not a subject matter expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn or whatever.:D
Anyway- local radio just featured an analyst/commentator guy who provided background making it look like Russia has been spoiling for reasons to interfere with Georgia and Azerbeijan(sp?). IIRC Georgia sits astride oil transport routes that bypass Russia proper.
AllAmerican
08-08-08, 17:56
I am not a subject matter expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn or whatever.:D
Anyway- local radio just featured an analyst/commentator guy who provided background making it look like Russia has been spoiling for reasons to interfere with Georgia and Azerbeijan(sp?). IIRC Georgia sits astride oil transport routes that bypass Russia proper.
The oil pipeline that goes to Turkey pumps over a million gallons of oil a day....
And I don't think it is a mistake that this is happening during the opening of the Olympics with the US being a little overstretched, military wise, also half of NATO does not want to get involved.....
As someone who checks news updates 20 times a day, somehow I didn't even see this coming. I knew there were tensions, but not to this extent.
What was the catalyst?
You've gotta alter what you read. Try www.globalresearch.ca, www.atimes.com and become intimately familiar with the book The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Oil Pipelines are one reason; our foreign policy is to isolate and deconstruct Russia and China thereby gaining absolute control over Eurasia. He who controls Eurasia controls the world - or so goes the "Mackinder Crowd".
NATO expansion to Russia's border is a direct threat; Kosovo, the Ukraine and Georgia (i.e., oil pipeline routes and military bases).
There's tons of information but it's not discussed worth a tinker's dam in the Mainstream Press, unfortunately.
Geopolitics and History happen to be a "hobby" of mine. This has been a 'great chessgame' - except the explosives and bullets are real; as are the tears.
Misdirection. Give your people a common enemy (ie: the United States) and you stand a better chance of gaining their support for whatever action you decide to take. If successful, you might be able to convince them that their poverty and hardships is the fault of their common enemy.
Actually, it's the reverse. We're placing NATO bases closer and closer to Russia's borders and proposing nuke bases. And if anyone reads our National Security Strategy documents and other think tank "white papers" you'd know that our goal is confrontation of both Russia and China and the desire to control Eurasia.
Sounds preposterous? Probably because no one's heard or read it prior...
A sample of the research available if you know where to look:
The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America's Ambitions in Eurasia
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
www.GlobalResearch.ca
September 23, 2007
“But if the middle space [Russia and the former Soviet Union] rebuffs the West [the European Union and America], becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South [Middle East] or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor [China], then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. The same would be the case if the two major Eastern players were somehow to unite. Finally, any ejection of America by its Western partners [the Franco-German entente] from its perch on the western periphery [Europe] would automatically spell the end of America’s participation in the game on the Eurasian chessboard, even though that would probably also mean the eventual subordination of the western extremity to a revived player occupying the middle space [e.g. Russia].”
-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” These precepts of physics can also be used in the social sciences, specifically with reference to social relations and geo-politics.
America and Britain, the Anglo-American alliance, have engaged in an ambitious project to control global energy resources. Their actions have resulted in a series of complicated reactions, which have established a Eurasian-based coalition which is preparing to challenge the Anglo-American axis.
Encircling Russia and China: Anglo-American Global Ambitions Backfire
“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force — military force — in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.”
-Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)
What American leaders and officials called the “New World Order” is what the Chinese and Russians consider a “Unipolar World.” This is the vision or hallucination, depending on perspective, that has bridged the Sino-Russian divide between Beijing and Moscow.
China and Russia are well aware of the fact that they are targets of the Anglo-American alliance. Their mutual fears of encirclement have brought them together. It is no accident that in the same year that NATO bombarded Yugoslavia, President Jiang Zemin of China and President Boris Yeltsin of Russia made an anticipated joint declaration at a historic summit in December of 1999 that revealed that China and the Russian Federation would join hands to resist the “New World Order.” The seeds for this Sino-Russian declaration were in fact laid in 1996 when both sides declared that they opposed the global imposition of single-state hegemony.
Both Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin stated that all nation-states should be treated equally, enjoy security, respect each other’s sovereignty, and most importantly not interfere in the internal affairs of other nation-states. These statements were directed at the U.S. government and its partners.
The Chinese and Russians also called for the establishment of a more equitable economic and political global order. Both nations also indicated that America was behind separatist movements in their respective countries. They also underscored American-led amibitions to balkanize and finlandize the nation-states of Eurasia. Influential Americans such as Zbigniew Brzezinski had already advocated for de-centralizing and eventually dividing up the Russian Federation.
Both the Chinese and Russians issued a statement warning that the creation of an international missile shield and the contravention of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) would destabilize the international environment and polarize the globe. In 1999, the Chinese and Russians were aware of what was to come and the direction that America was headed towards. In June 2002, less than a year before the onslaught of the “Global War on Terror,” George W. Bush Jr. announced that the U.S. was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.
On July 24, 2001, less than two months before September 11, 2001, China and Russia signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation. The latter is a softly worded mutual defence pact against the U.S., NATO, and the U.S. sponsored Asian military network which was surrounding China. [1]
The military pact of the Shanghai Treaty Organization (SCO) also follows the same softly worded format. It is also worth noting that Article 12 of the 2001 Sino-Russian bilateral treaty stipulates that China and Russia will work together to maintain the global strategic balance, “observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability,” and “promote the process of nuclear disarmament.” [2] This seems to be an insinuation about a nuclear threat posed from the United States.
Standing in the Way of America and Britain: A “Chinese-Russian-Iranian Coalition”
As a result of the Anglo-American drive to encircle and ultimately dismantle China and Russia, Moscow and Beijing have joined ranks and the SCO has slowly evolved and emerged in the heart of Eurasia as a powerful international body.
The main objectives of the SCO are defensive in nature. The economic objectives of the SCO are to integrate and unite Eurasian economies against the economic and financial onslaught and manipulation from the “Trilateral” of North America, Western Europe, and Japan, which controls significant portions of the global economy.
The SCO charter was also created, using Western national security jargon, to combat “terrorism, separatism, and extremism.” Terrorist activities, separatist movements, and extremist movements in Russia, China, and Central Asia are all forces traditionally nurtured, funded, armed, and covertly supported by the British and the U.S. governments. Several separatist and extremist groups that have destabilized SCO members even have offices in London.
Iran, India, Pakistan, and Mongolia are all SCO observer members. The observer status of Iran in the SCO is misleading. Iran is a de facto member. The observer status is intended to hide the nature of trilateral cooperation between Iran, Russia, and China so that the SCO cannot be labeled and demonized as an anti-American or anti-Western military grouping.
The stated interests of China and Russia are to ensure the continuity of a “Multi-Polar World.” Zbigniew Brzezinski prefigured in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperativesand warned against the creation or “emergence of a hostile [Eurasian-based] coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy.” [3] He also called this potential Eurasian coalition an “‘antihegemonic’ alliance” that would be formed from a “Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” with China as its linchpin. [4] This is the SCO and several Eurasian groups that are connected to the SCO.
In 1993, Brzezinski wrote “In assessing China’s future options, one has to consider also the possibility that an economically successful and politically self-confident China — but one which feels excluded from the global system and which decides to become both the advocate and the leader of the deprived states of the world — may decide to pose not only an articulate doctrinal but also a powerful geopolitical challenge to the dominant trilateral world [a reference to the economic front formed by North America, Western Europe, and Japan].” [5]
Brzezinski warns that Beijing’s answer to challenging the global status quo would be the creation of a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition: “For Chinese strategists, confronting the trilateral coalition of America and Europe and Japan, the most effective geopolitical counter might well be to try and fashion a triple alliance of its own, linking China with Iran in the Persian Gulf/Middle East region and with Russia in the area of the former Soviet Union [and Eastern Europe].” [6] Brzezinski goes on to say that the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition, which he moreover calls an “antiestablishmentarian [anti-establishmentarian] coalition,” could be a potent magnet for other states [e.g., Venezuela] dissatisfied with the [global] status quo.” [7]
Furthermore, Brzezinski warned in 1997 that “The most immediate task [for the U.S.] is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” [8] It may be that his warnings were forgotten, because the U.S. has been repealed from Central Asia and U.S. forces have been evicted from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
“Velvet Revolutions” Backfire in Central Asia
Central Asia was the scene of several British-sponsored and American-sponsored attempts at regime change. The latter were characterised by velvet revolutions similar to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia.
These velvet revolutions financed by the U.S. failed in Central Asia, aside from Kyrgyzstan where there had been partial success with the so-called Tulip Revolution.
As a result the U.S. government has suffered major geo-strategic setbacks in Central Asia. All of Central Asia’s leaders have distanced themselves from America.
Russia and Iran have also secured energy deals in the region. America’s efforts, over several decades, to exert a hegemonic role in Central Asia seem to have been reversed overnight. The U.S. sponsored velvet revolutions have backfired. Relations between Uzbekistan and the U.S. were especially hard hit.
Uzbekistan is under the authoritarian rule of President Islam Karamov. Starting in the second half of the 1990s President Karamov was enticed into bringing Uzbekistan into the fold of the Anglo-American alliance and NATO. When there was an attempt on President Karamov’s life, he suspected the Kremlin because of his independent policy stance. This is what led Uzbekistan to leave CSTO. But Islam Karamov, years later, changed his mind as to who was attempting to get rid of him.
According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Uzbekistan represented a major obstacle to any renewed Russian control of Central Asia and was virtually invulnerable to Russian pressure; this is why it was important to secure Uzbekistan as an American protectorate in Central Asia.
Uzbekistan also has the largest military force in Central Asia. In 1998, Uzbekistan held war games with NATO troops in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan was becoming heavily militarized in the same manner as Georgia was in the Caucasus. The U.S. gave Uzbekistan huge amounts of financial aid to challenge the Kremlin in Central Asia and also provided training to Uzbek forces.
With the launching of the “Global War on Terror,” in 2001, Uzbekistan, an Anglo-American ally, immediately offered bases and military facilities to the U.S. in Karshi-Khanabad.
The leadership of Uzbekistan already knew the direction the “Global War on Terror” would take. To the irritation of the Bush Jr. Administration, the Uzbek President formulated a policy of self-reliance. The honeymoon between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance ended when Washington, D.C. and London contemplated removing Islam Karamov from power. He was a little too independent for their comfort and taste. Their attempts at removing the Uzbek President failed, leading eventually to a shift in geopolitical alliances.
The tragic events of Andijan on May 13, 2005 were the breaking point between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance. The people of Andijan were incited into confronting the Uzbek authorities, which resulted in a heavy security clampdown on the protesters and a loss of lives.
Armed groups were reported to have been involved. In the U.S., Britain, and the E.U., the media reports focused narrowly on human rights violations without mentioning the covert role of the Anglo-American alliance. Uzbekistan held Britain and the U.S. responsible accusing them of inciting rebellion.
M. K. Bhadrakumar, the former Indian ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998), revealed that the Hezbut Tahrir (HT) was one of the parties blamed for stirring the crowd in Andijan by the Uzbek government. [9] The group was already destabilizing Uzbekistan and using violent tactics. The headquarters of this group happens to be in London and they enjoy the support of the British government. London is a hub for many similar organizations that further Anglo-American interests in various countries, including Iran and Sudan, through destabilization campaigns. Uzbekistan even started clamping down on foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) because of the tragic events of Andijan.
The Anglo-American alliance had played its cards wrong in Central Asia. Uzbekistan officially left the GUUAM Group, a NATO-U.S. sponsored anti-Russian body. GUUAM once again became the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldava) Group on May 24, 2005.
On July 29, 2005 the U.S. military was ordered to leave Uzbekistan within a six-month period. [10] Literally, the Americans were told they were no longer welcome in Uzbekistan and Central Asia.
Russia, China, and the SCO added their voices to the demands. The U.S. cleared its airbase in Uzbekistan by November, 2005.
Uzbekistan rejoined the CSTO alliance on June 26, 2006 and realigned itself, once again, with Moscow. The Uzbek President also became a vocal advocate, along with Iran, for pushing the U.S. totally out of Central Asia. [11] Unlike Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan continued to allow the U.S. to use Manas Air Base, but with restrictions and in an uncertain atmosphere. The Kyrgyz government also would make it clear that no U.S. operations could target Iran from Kyrgyzstan.
Major Geo-Strategic Error
It appears that a strategic rapprochement between Iran and America was in the works from 2001 to 2002. At the outset of the global war on terrorism, Hezbollah and Hamas, two Arab organizations supported by Iran and Syria, were kept off the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Iran and Syria were also loosely portrayed as potential partners in the “Global War on Terror.”
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iran expressed its support for the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. During the invasion of Iraq, the American military even attacked the Iraqi-based Iranian opposition militia, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK/MOK/MKO). Iranian jets also attacked the Iraqi bases of the MEK in approximately the same window of time.
Iran, Britain, and the U.S. also worked together against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is worth mentioning that the Taliban were never allies of Iran. Up until 2000, the Taliban had been supported by the U.S. and Britain, working hand in glove with the Pakistani military and intelligence.
The Taliban were shocked and bewildered at what they saw as an American and British betrayal in 2001 — this is in light of the fact that in October, 2001 they had stated that they would hand over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. upon the presentation of evidence of his alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Zbigniew Brzezinski warned years before 2001 that “a coalition allying Russia with both China and Iran can develop only if the United States is shortsighted enough to antagonize China and Iran simultaneously.” [12] The arrogance of the Bush Jr. Administration has resulted in this shortsighted policy.
According to The Washington Post, “Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago , an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table — including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.” [13]
The White House impressed by what they believe were “grand victories” in Iraq and Afghanistan merely ignored the letter sent through diplomatic channels by the Swiss government on behalf of Tehran.
However, it was not because of what was wrongly perceived as a quick victory in Iraq that the Bush Jr. Administration pushed Iran aside. On January 29, 2002, in a major address, President Bush Jr. confirmed that the U.S. would also target Iran, which had been added to the so-called “Axis of Evil” together with Iraq and North Korea. The U.S. and Britain intended to attack Iran, Syria, and Lebanon after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In fact immediately following the invasion, in July 2003, the Pentagon formulated an initial war scenario entitled “Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT).”
Starting in 2002, the Bush Jr. Administration had deviated from their original geo-strategic script. France and Germany were also excluded from sharing the spoils of war in Iraq.
The intention was to act against Iran and Syria just as America and Britain had used and betrayed their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. The U.S. was also set on targeting Hezbollah and Hamas. In January of 2001, according to Daniel Sobelman, a correspondent for Haaretz, the U.S. government warned Lebanon that the U.S. would go after Hezbollah. These threats directed at Lebanon were made at the start of the presidential term of George W. Bush Jr., eight months before the events of September 11, 2001.
The conflict at the United Nations Security Council between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente, supported by Russia and China, was a pictogram of this deviation.
American geo-strategists for years after the Cold War had scheduled the Franco-German entente to be partners in their plans for global primacy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski had acknowledged that the Franco-German entente would eventually have to be elevated in status and that the spoils of war would have to be divided with Washington’s European allies.
By the end of 2004, the Anglo-American alliance had started to correct its posture towards France and Germany. Washington had returned to its original geo-strategic script with NATO playing an expanded role in the Eastern Mediterranean. In turn, France was granted oil concessions in Iraq.
The 2006 war plans for Lebanon and the Eastern Mediterranean also point to a major shift in direction, a partnership role for the Franco-German entente, with France and Germany playing a major military role in the region.
It is worth noting that a major shift occurred in early 2007 with regard to Iran. Following U.S. setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as in Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, and former Soviet Central Asia), the White House entered into secret negotiatiations with Iran and Syria. However, the dye has been cast and it would appear that America will be unable to break an evolving military alliance which includes Russia, Iran, and China as its nucleus.
The Baker-Hamilton Commission: Covert Anglo-American Cooperation with Iran and Syria?
[I]“America should also strongly support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku in [the Republic of] Azerbaijan to Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean cost serve as [a] major outlet for the Caspian Sea basin energy sources. In addition, it is not in America’s interest to perpetuate American-Iranian hostility. Any eventual reconciliation should be based on the recognition of a mutual strategic interest in stabilizing what currently is a very volatile regional environment for Iran [e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan]. Admittedly, any such reconciliation must be pursued by both sides and is not a favor granted by one to the other. A strong, even religiously motivated but not fanatically anti-Western Iran is in the U.S. interest, and ultimately even the Iranian political elite may recognize that reality. In the meantime, American long-range interests in Eurasia would be better served by abandoning existing U.S. objections to closer Turkish-Iranian economic cooperation, especially in the construction of new pipelines...”
-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
The recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission or the Iraq Study Group (ISG) are not a redirection in regards to engaging Iran, but a return to the track that the Bush Jr. Administration had deviated from as a result of the delusions of its hasty victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, the Baker-Hamilton Commission was about damage control and re-steering America to the geo-strategic path originally intended by military planners that the Bush Jr. Administration seems to have deviated from.
The ISG Report also subtly indicated that adoption of so-called “free market” economic reforms be pressed on Iran (and by extension Syria) instead of regime change. The ISG also favoured the accession of both Syria and Iran to the World Trade Organization (WTO). [14] It should also be noted, in this regard, that Iran has already started a mass privatization program that involves all sectors from banking to energy and agriculture.
The ISG Report also recommends an end to the Arab-Israeli Conflict and the establishment of peace between Israel and Syria. [15]
The joint interests of Iran and the U.S. were also analysed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. The ISG recommended that the U.S. should not empower the Taliban again in Afghanistan (against Iran). [16] It should also be noted that Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the U.S., the Syrian Foreign Minister, and Javad Zarif, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, were all consulted by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. [17] The Iranian Ambassodor to the U.N., Javad Zarif, has also been a middle man between the U.S. and Iranian governments for years.
It is worth mentioning that the Clinton Administration was involved in the track of rapprochement with Iran, while also attempting to keep Iran in check under the “dual-containment” policy directed against Iraq and Iran. This policy was also linked to the 1992 Draft Defence Guidance paper written by people within the Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Administrations.
It is worth noting that Zbigniew Brzezinski had stated as far back as 1979 and again in 1997 that Iran under its post-revolutionary political system could be co-opted by America. [18] Britain also ensured Syria and Iran in 2002 and 2003 that they would not be targeted and encouraged their cooperation with the White House.
It should be noted that Turkey has recently signed a pipeline deal with Iran that will take gas to Western Europe. This project includes the participation of Turkmenistan. [19] It would appear that this cooperation agreement between Tehran and Ankara points to reconciliation rather than confrontation with Iran and Syria. This is in line with what Brzezinski in 1997 claimed was in America’s interest.
Also, the Anglo-American sponsored Iraqi government has recently signed pipeline deals with Iran.
Once again, America’s interests in this deal should be questioned, as should the high opinions being given about Iran by the puppet leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Something’s Amiss...
The media attention given in North America and Britain to the positive comments made about Tehran by Anglo-American clients in Baghdad and Kabul is sinister.
Although these comments from Baghdad and Kabul about the positive role Iran plays in Iraq and Afghanistan are not new, the media attention is. President George W. Bush Jr. and the White House criticized the Iraqi Prime Minister for saying Iran plays a constructive role in Iraq in early-August of 2007. The White House and the North American or the British press would usually just ignore or refuse to acknowledge these comments. However, this was not the case in August, 2007.
The Afghani President, Hamid Karzai, during a joint press conference with George W. Bush Jr. stated that Iran was a positive force in his country. It is not odd to hear that Iran is a positive force inside Afghanistan because the stability of Afghanistan is in Iran’s best interests. What comes across as odd are “when” and “where” the comments were made. White House press conferences are choreographed and the place and time of the Afghani President’s comments should be questioned. It also so happens that shortly after the Afghani President’s comments, the Iranian President arrived in Kabul in an unprecedented visit that must have been approved by the White House.
Iran’s Political Leverage
In regards to Iran and the U.S., the picture is blurry and the lines between cooperation and rivalry are less clear. Reuters and the Iranian Student’s News Agency (ISNA) have both reported that the Iranian President may visit Baghdad after August 2007. These reports surfaced just before the U.S. government started threatening to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a special international terrorist organization. Without insinuating anything, it should also be noted that the Revolutionary Guard and the U.S. military have also had a low-key history of cooperation from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
The Iranian President has also invited the presidents of the other four Caspian states for a Caspian Sea summit in Tehran. [20] He invited the Turkmen president while in Turkmenistan and later the Russian and Kazakh presidents at the August of 2007 SCO summit in Kyrgyzstan. President Aliyev, the leader of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan) was also personally invited during a trip by the Iranian President to Baku. The anticipated Caspian Sea summit may be similar to the one in Port Turkmenbashi, Turkmenistan between the Kazakh, Russian, and Turkmen presidents where it was announced that Russia would not be cut out of the pipeline deals in Central Asia.
Iranian leverage is clearly getting stronger. Officials in Baku also stated that they will expand energy cooperation with Iran and enter the gas pipeline deal between Iran, Turkey, and Turkmenistan that will supply European markets with gas. [21] This agreement to supply Europe is similar to a Russian energy transport deal signed between Greece, Bulgaria, and the Russian Federation. [22]
In the Levant, Syria is involved in energy-related negotiations with Ankara and Baku and important talks have started between American officials and both Tehran and Damascus. [23]
Iran has also been involved in diplomatic exchanges with Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Additionally, starting in August 2007, Syria has agreed to reopen Iraqi oil pipelines to the Eastern Mediterranean, through Syrian territory. [24] The recent official visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki to Syria has also been described as historical by news sources like the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Also, Syria and Iraq have agreed to build a gas pipeline from Iraq into Syria, where Iraqi gas will be treated in Syrian plants. [25] These agreements are being passed as the sources of tensions between Baghdad and the White House, but they are doubtful. [26]
Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are also planning on starting the process for creating an Iranian-GCC free trade zone in the Persian Gulf. In the bazaars of Tehran and amongst the political circle of Rafsanjani there are also discussions about the eventual creation of a single market between Iran, Tajikistan, Armenia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The American role in these processes in regards to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the GCC should be explored.
Under President Nicholas Sarkozy, France has indicated that it is willing to engage the Syrians fully if they gave specific guarantees in regards to Lebanon. These guarantees are linked to French economic and geo-strategic interests.
In the same period of time as the French statements about Syria, Gordon Brown indicated that Britain was also willing to engage in diplomatic exchanges with both Syria and Iran. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the German Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, has also been involved in talks with Damascus on mutual projects, economic reform, and bringing Syria closer to the European Union. These talks, however tend to be camouflaged by the discussion between Syria and Germany in regards to the mass exodus of Iraqi refugees, resulting from the Anglo-American occupation of their country. The French Foreign Minister is also expected in Tehran to talk about Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. Despite the war-mongering by the U.S. and more recently by France, this has all led to speculation of a potential about-turn in regards to Iran and Syria. [27]
Then again, this is part of the two-pronged U.S. approach of preparing for the worst (war), while suing for the diplomatic capitulation of Syria and Iran as client states or partners. When large oil and weapons deals were signed between Libya and Britain, London said that Iran should follow the Libyan example, as has the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
Has the March to War been Interrupted?
Despite talks behind closed doors with Damascus and Tehran, Washington is nonetheless arming its clients in the Middle East. Israel is in an advanced state of military preparedness for a war on Syria.
Unlike France and Germany, Anglo-American ambitions pertaining to Iran and Syria are not one of cooperation. The ultimate objective is political and economic subordination.
Moreover, either as a friend or foe, America cannot tolerate Iran within its present borders. The balkanization of Iran, like that of Iraq and Russia, is a major long-term Anglo-American goal.
What lies ahead is never known. While there is smoke in the horizon, the U.S.-NATO-Israeli military agenda will not necessarily result in the implementation of war as planned.
A “Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” — which forms the basis of a global counter-alliance — is emerging. America and Britain rather than opting for outright war, may choose to reel in Iran and Syria through macro-economic manipulation and velvet revolutions.
War directed against Iran and Syria, however, cannot be ruled out. There are real war preparations on the ground in the Middle East and Central Asia. A war against Iran and Syria would have far-reaching worldwide implications.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specialising on the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
[1] Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, signed and entered into force July 16, 2001, P.R. of China-Russian Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China.
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t15771.htm
The following are treaty articles that are relevant to the mutual defence of China and Russia against American-led encirclement and efforts to dismantle both nations;
ARTICLE 4
The Chinese side supports the Russian side in its policies on the issue of defending the national unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
The Russian side supports the Chinese side in its policies on the issue of defending the national unity and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China.
ARTICLE 5
The Russian side reaffirms that the principled stand on the Taiwan issue as expounded in the political documents signed and adopted by the heads of states of the two countries from 1992 to 2000 remain unchanged. The Russian side acknowledges that there is only one China in the world, that the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The Russian side opposes any form of Taiwan’s independence.
ARTICLE 8
The contracting parties shall not enter into any alliance or be a party to any bloc nor shall they embark on any such action, including the conclusion of such treaty with a third country which compromises the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party. Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow its territory to be used by a third country to jeopardize the national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party.
Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow the setting up of organizations or gangs on its own soil which shall impair the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contrasting party and their activities should be prohibited.
ARTICLE 9
When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.
ARTICLE 12
The contracting parties shall work together for the maintenance of global strategic balance and stability and make great efforts in promoting the observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability.
The contracting parties shall actively promote the process of nuclear disarmament and the reduction of chemical weapons, promote and strengthen the regimes on the prohibition of biological weapons and take measures to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and their related technology.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.198.
[4] Ibid., pp. 115-116, 170, 205-206.
Note: Brzezinski also refers to a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition as a “counteralliance” (p.116).
[5] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century (NYC, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993), p.198.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.198.
[9] M. K. Bhadrakumar, The Lessons from Ferghana, Asia Times, May 18, 2005.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GE18Ag01.html
[10] Nick Paton Walsh, Uzbekistan kicks US out of military base, The Guardian (U.K.), August 1, 2005.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1540185,00.html
[11] Vladimir Radyuhin, Uzbekistan rejoins defence pact, The Hindu, June 26, 2006.
http://www.thehindu.com/2006/06/26/stories/2006062604491400.htm
[12] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.116.
[13] Glenn Kessler, In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue, The Washington Post, June 18, 2006, p.A16.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
[14] James A. Baker III et al., The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward — A New Approach Authroized ed. (NYC, New York: Random House Inc., 2006), p.51.
[15] Ibid., pp.51, 54-57.
[16] Ibid., pp.50-53, 58.
[17] Ibid., p.114.
[18] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.204.
[19] Iran, Turkey sign energy cooperation deal, agree to develop Iran’s gas fields, Associated Press, July 14, 2007.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/14/business/ME-FIN-Iran-Turkey-Energy-deal.php
[20] Tehran to host summit of Caspian nations Oct.18, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), August 22, 2007.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070822/73387774.html
[21] Azerbaijan, Iran reinforce energy deals, United Press International (UPI), August 22, 2007.
[22] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War: Détente in the Middle East or “Calm before the Storm?,” Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), July 10, 2007.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6281
[23] Ibid.
It is worth noting that Iran has been involved in pipeline deals with Turkey and in negotiation between Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan in the possible creation of an energy corridor in the Eastern Mediterranean. These deals occurred in the same time frame that both Syria and Iran started talks with the U.S. after the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s report.
[24] Syria and Iraq to reopen oil pipeline link, Agence France-Presse (AFP), August 22, 2007.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Roger Hardy, Why the US is unhappy with Maliki, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), August 22, 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6958440.stm
[27] Hassan Nafaa, About-face on Iran coming?, Al-Ahram (Egypt), no. 859, August 23-29, 2007.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/859/op22.htm
You've gotta alter what you read. Try www.globalresearch.ca, www.atimes.com and become intimately familiar with the book The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
You have already been down this road recently, referencing the same wacky book. Few, including myself, agreed that the US wants control of the massive region. I asked you then to give one current example, you gave nothing but further references to the book.
Now, even worse, you also reference the global research site. As a result, you lose all credibility. Please don't push that crap here, it is insulting.
A fox eating a German Shepherd's food and peeing in its bowl.
Oh wait!! Wrong thread. :D
Hehehehe :D
Laughed so hard at that one I verped.
But this russia vs georgia thing = no good for anyone.
Wolverines!
ThirdWatcher
08-09-08, 04:01
I sure hope them Russkies don't burn Atlanta again. :D
You have already been down this road recently, referencing the same wacky book. Few, including myself, agreed that the US wants control of the massive region. I asked you then to give one current example, you gave nothing but further references to the book.
Now, even worse, you also reference the global research site. As a result, you lose all credibility. Please don't push that crap here, it is insulting.
Crap, eh? You've not read any of it. You've not been familiar with it. You've no desire to read any of it... Yet it's "wacky". But you also state that you "didn't see this coming". You also asked for "a curent example" when you've established a self-imposed ignorance of the entirety of the matter. And the material listed - which you're not at all familiar with - is somehow "insulting"... :rolleyes:
You're a very interesting guy. If you seriously study this was obvious from the Russia-Chechnya issues. But what do I know? I read things you aren't familiar with...
At any rate, when Boris Yeltsin drove the Soviet Union into the tundra it was obvious then that the Republics would try to become independent. Russia (not the USSR) had an agreement with the West to refrain from military build ups around it's former territory. The first elections put the same Communists in power - surprise, surprise. The West began moving towards Russia (Dagestan, Chechnya initially), then Estonia and Kosovo, then Georgia and the Ukraine then the threats of nukes. The "War on Terror"/"New Great Game"/Grand Chessboard placed the West all over Eurasia (look online to find a map of US bases surrounding Iran and bordering China & Russia). Putin has been a phenomenal leader for Russia as he has avoided warfare while rebuilding the nation. The Shanghai Cooperative Organization (not sure if that is correct) is a grouping of nations in the region to protect their mutual interests and Iran is a supposedly a member. Others state that they are not a full member but the intent is obvious. Turkmenistan is key for the West controlling large amounts of oil in the region. Russia just purchased all of Turkmenistan's oil at market price to sell to Europe. Russia supplies Europe with most of it's gas. The company is called Gazprom. It is the largest gas producer in the world. Look it up.
Are you aware of the huge naval presence we have in the Persian Gulf? My sources claim a potential blockade of Iran's imports but Russia also has one of it's fleets there. I think the West's fleet is larger ( I know it is ) in the region or it soon will be. Open source material state that two more aircraft carriers are headed there. I imagine that if the disparity of force is that great Russia is not willing to potentially lose parts of it's fleet... Now that we (and Israel - yes, go google, "Georgia, Israel, Russia, weapons"; okay, I'll provide a link since your "20 minute updates" so far haven't uncovered anything: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977390.html and http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1358 ) have initiated an act of war Russia will have two fronts to contend with and by default she must focus on the one closest to home while "isolating" Iran.
Brilliant "Check" by the west. Since China is hosting the Olympics it's not likely that she would be able to save face while massing military troops abroad.
So I'd seriously question your "20 minute check" sources if you've not been up to speed on this one.
Oh, Russia has made overtures to both Venezuela and Colombia - two large oil producing states. Both nations invited the Russian overtures. Do you not see? Russia and China are also making inroads into Africa (more China than Russia here). North Africa is oil rich; the Darfur issue is not as it is being reported; not totally. The West is supporting the violence and China will support the other side. Why? Oil concessions.
Henry Kissinger once stated, (and I paraphrase here): "Control the food and you control people; control oil an you control nations."
Insulting? The only thing insulting is self-imposed ignorance.
Another article that may have escaped your "20 minute scan" is from www.atimes.com
Russia Takes Control of Turkmen (World?) Gas
By M K Bhadrakumar
30July08
From the details coming out of Ashgabat in Turkmenistan and Moscow over the weekend, it is apparent that the great game over Caspian energy has taken a dramatic turn. In the geopolitics of energy security, nothing like this has happened before. The United States has suffered a huge defeat in the race for Caspian gas. The question now is how much longer Washington could afford to keep Iran out of the energy market.
Gazprom, Russia's energy leviathan, signed two major agreements in Ashgabat on Friday outlining a new scheme for purchase of Turkmen gas. The first one elaborates the price formation principles that will be guiding the Russian gas purchase from Turkmenistan during the next 20-year period. The second agreement is a unique one, making Gazprom the donor for local Turkmen energy projects. In essence, the two agreements ensure that Russia will keep control over Turkmen gas exports.
The new pricing principle lays out that starting from next year, Russia has agreed to pay to Turkmenistan a base gas purchasing price that is a mix of the average wholesale price in Europe and Ukraine. In effect, as compared to the current price of US$140 per thousand cubic meters of Turkmen gas, from 2009 onward Russia will be paying $225-295 under the new formula. This works out to an additional annual payment of something like $9.4 billion to $12.4 billion. But the transition to market principles of pricing will take place within the framework of a long-term contract running up to the year 2028.
The second agreement stipulates that Gazprom will finance and build gas transportation facilities and develop gas fields in Turkmenistan. Experts have estimated that Gazprom will finance Turkmen projects costing $4-6 billion. Gazprom chief Alexei Miller said, "We have reached agreement regarding Gazprom financing and building the new main gas pipelines from the east of the country, developing gas fields and boosting the capacity of the Turkmen sector of the Caspian gas pipeline to 30 billion cubic meters." Interestingly, Gazprom will provide financing in the form of 0% credits for these local projects. The net gain for Turkmenistan is estimated to be in the region of $240-480 million.
From all appearance, Gazprom, which was headed by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for eight years from 2000 to May 2008, has taken an audacious initiative. It could only have happened thanks to a strategic decision taken at the highest level in the Kremlin. In fact, Medvedev had traveled to Ashgabat on July 4-5 en route to the Group of Eight summit meeting in Hokkaido, Japan.
Curiously, the agreements reached in Ashgabat on Friday are unlikely to enable Gazprom to make revenue from reselling Turkmen gas. Quite possibly, Gazprom may now have to concede similar terms to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the two other major gas producing countries in Central Asia. In other words, plain money-making was not the motivation for Gazprom. The Kremlin has a grand strategy.
Coincidence or not, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin traveled to Beijing at the weekend to launch with his Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier Wang Oishan, an energy initiative - a so-called "energy negotiation mechanism". The first round of negotiations within this framework took place on Saturday in Beijing. There has been an inexplicable media blackout of the event, but Beijing finally decided to break the news. The government-owned China Daily admitted on Monday, "Both China and Russia kept silent on the details of the consensus they reached on energy cooperation in the first round of their negotiation in Beijing on the weekend."
Without getting into details, China Daily merely took note of the talks as "a good beginning" and commented, "It seems that a shift of Russia's energy export policy is under way. Russia might turn its eyes from the Western countries to the Asia-Pacific region ... The cooperation in the energy sector is an issue of great significance for Sino-Russian relations ... the political and geographic closeness of the two countries would put their energy cooperation under a safe umbrella and make it a win-win deal. China-Russia ties are at their best times ... The two sides settled their lingering border disputes, held joint military exercises, and enjoyed rapidly increasing bilateral trade."
It is unclear whether Gazprom's agreements in Ashgabat and Sechin's talks in Beijing were inter-related. Conceivably, they overlapped in so far as China had signed a long-term agreement with Turkmenistan whereby the latter would supply 30 billion cubic meters of gas to China annually for the 30-year period starting from 2009. The construction work on the gas pipeline leading from Turkmenistan to China's Xinjiang Autonomous region has already begun. China had agreed on the price for Turkmen gas at $195 per thousand cubic meters. Now, the agreement in Ashgabat on Friday puts Gazprom in the driving seat for handling all of Turkmenistan's gas exports, including to China.
Russia and China have a heavy agenda to discuss in energy cooperation far beyond the price of Turkmen gas supplies. But suffice it to say that Gazprom's new stature as the sole buyer of Turkmen gas strengthens Russia's hands in setting the price in the world gas (and oil) market. And that has implications for China. Moscow would be keen to ensure that Russian and Chinese interests are harmonized in Central Asia.
Besides, Russia is taking a renewed interest in the idea of a "gas cartel". Medvedev referred to the idea during the visit of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Moscow last week. The Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported on Friday that "Moscow finds the idea of coordination of gas production and pricing policy with other gas exporters to be too tempting to abandon". The daily quoted Miller as saying, "This forum of gas exporters will set up the global gas balance. It will give answers to the questions concerning when, where and how much gas should be produced."
Until fairly recently Moscow was sensitive about the European Union's opposition to the idea of a gas cartel. (Washington has openly warned that it would legislate against countries that lined up behind a gas cartel). But high gas prices have weakened the European Union's negotiating position.
The agreements with Turkmenistan further consolidate Russia's control of Central Asia's gas exports. Gazprom recently offered to buy all of Azerbaijan's gas at European prices. (Medvedev visited Baku on July 3-4.) Baku will study with keen interest the agreements signed in Ashgabat on Friday. The overall implications of these Russian moves are very serious for the US and EU campaign to get the Nabucco gas pipeline project going.
Nabucco, which would run from Turkey to Austria via Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary, was hoping to tap Turkmen gas by linking Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan via a pipeline across the Caspian Sea that would be connected to the pipeline networks through the Caucasus to Turkey already existing, such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.
But with access denied to Turkmen gas, Nabucco's viability becomes doubtful. And, without Nabucco, the entire US strategy of reducing Europe's dependence on Russian energy supplies makes no sense. Therefore, Washington is faced with Hobson's choice. Friday's agreements in Ashgabat mean that Nabucco's realization will now critically depend on gas supplies from the Middle East - Iran, in particular. Turkey is pursuing the idea of Iran supplying gas to Europe and has offered to mediate in the US-Iran standoff.
The geopolitics of energy makes strange bedfellows. Russia will be watching with anxiety the Turkish-Iranian-US tango. An understanding with Iran on gas pricing, production and market-sharing is vital for the success of Russia's overall gas export strategy. But Tehran visualizes the Nabucco as its passport for integration with Europe. Again, Russia's control of Turkmen gas cannot be to Tehran's liking. Tehran had keenly pursed with Ashgabat the idea of evacuation of Turkmen gas to the world market via Iranian territory.
There must be deep frustration in Washington. In sum, Russia has greatly strengthened its standing as the principal gas supplier to Europe. It not only controls Central Asia's gas exports but has ensured that gas from the region passes across Russia and not through the alternative trans-Caspian pipelines mooted by the US and EU. Also, a defining moment has come. The era of cheap gas is ending. Other gas exporters will cite the precedent of the price for Turkmen gas. European companies cannot match Gazprom's muscle. Azerbaijan becomes a test case. Equally, Russia places itself in a commanding position to influence the price of gas in the world market. A gas cartel is surely in the making. The geopolitical implications are simply profound for the US.
Moreover, Russian oil and gas companies are now spreading their wings into Latin America, which has been the US's traditional backyard. During Chavez's visit to Moscow on July 22, three Russian energy companies - Gazprom, LUKoil and TNK-BP - signed agreements with the Venezuelan state-owned petroleum company PDVSA. They will replace the American oil giants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips in Venezuela.
At the signing ceremony, Medvedev said, "We have not only approved these agreements but have also decided to supervise their implementation." Chavez responded, "I look forward to seeing all of you in Venezuela."
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Gutshot John
08-09-08, 14:12
Seriously, thanks for hijacking the thread.
If you're trying to make a point use something other than delusional ramblings of has-been diplomats from the Carter Administration or a nobody from India. Blaming the US for what's happening in Georgia is either profoundly stupid or pathologic dishonesty. I mean...not even Russia is doing that...perhaps they know something you don't.
It undermines your credibility and then you blame others for not agreeing with you and so you resort to tired ad hominems like "self-imposed ignorance" to compensate for your very real ignorance.
The information you provided is laughable in the extreme. "Wacky" is a rather kind adjective, I'd have chosen "disingenuous" but ultimately why would anyone take what you posted seriously since it's clearly biased...than you accuse others of bias?
Rrrrright. :rolleyes:
Seriously, thanks for hijacking the thread.
If you're trying to make a point use something other than delusional ramblings of has-been diplomats from the Carter Administration or a nobody from India. Blaming the US for what's happening in Georgia is either profoundly stupid or pathologic dishonesty. I mean...not even Russia is doing that...perhaps they know something you don't.
It undermines your credibility and then you blame others for not agreeing with you and so you resort to tired ad hominems like "self-imposed ignorance" to compensate for your very real ignorance.
The information you provided is laughable in the extreme. "Wacky" is a rather kind adjective, I'd have chosen "disingenuous" but ultimately why would anyone take what you posted seriously since it's clearly biased...than you accuse others of bias?
Rrrrright. :rolleyes:
Yep, "delusional" hunh? Ad hominem, perhaps. One thing you've not done is read our foreign policy "white papers", then.
Russia HAS BEEN and IS BLAMING THE USA, ISRAEL, THE UKRAINE and NATO. Try searching for articles online as opposed to blindly accepting Fox, CNN, etc. AGAIN... this has been an issue since 1992. WHERE WERE YOUR "PET THEORIES" THEN?????
Ad hominem claims are utter nonsense. If one willfully chooses not to seek then what else can one call it but self-imposed (no one is threatening you) ignorance (lack of knowledge)?
Yep, ALL of this information "laughable" [but you've probably not heard/reqad ANY of it before] but the reasons being promulgated (some here & most of the talking heads) is utter BS and shows it's either misinformation (here) or disinformation (mainstream media). Yet you free will choose to swallow it whole.
You attack the messenger when you SHOULD be researching and studying the material, but alas, I see I'm asking too much.
TackleBerry
08-09-08, 17:07
Seriously, thanks for hijacking the thread.
If you're trying to make a point use something other than delusional ramblings of has-been diplomats from the Carter Administration or a nobody from India. Blaming the US for what's happening in Georgia is either profoundly stupid or pathologic dishonesty. I mean...not even Russia is doing that...perhaps they know something you don't.
It undermines your credibility and then you blame others for not agreeing with you and so you resort to tired ad hominems like "self-imposed ignorance" to compensate for your very real ignorance.
The information you provided is laughable in the extreme. "Wacky" is a rather kind adjective, I'd have chosen "disingenuous" but ultimately why would anyone take what you posted seriously since it's clearly biased...than you accuse others of bias?
Rrrrright. :rolleyes:
If you think Brzezinski is a has-been then he's got you fooled. :D
Gutshot John
08-09-08, 17:31
You attack the messenger when you SHOULD be researching and studying the material, but alas, I see I'm asking too much.
You think you're the "messenger" but that's one more example of delusion of grandeur. You're not saying or providing anything new, simply the rehashed ramblings of the discredited.
Sorry but you really don't know enough to make an argument even worthwhile.
I'm not attacking anything, there is nothing there to attack. Perhaps you'd do well to follow your own advice.
Yep, ALL of this information "laughable" [but you've probably not heard/reqad ANY of it before] but the reasons being promulgated (some here & most of the talking heads) is utter BS and shows it's either misinformation (here) or disinformation (mainstream media). Yet you free will choose to swallow it whole.
Speaking of...
Only as an attempt to validate your opinions about our intentions in Russia, what are your thoughts regarding global research, who you previously referenced and recommended we visit?
Gutshot John
08-09-08, 18:11
If you think Brzezinski is a has-been then he's got you fooled. :D
Assuming of course Obama gets elected. :eek:
TackleBerry
08-09-08, 18:48
Assuming of course Obama gets elected. :eek:
He will. It's already been decided.
Now that the thread has descended into petty bickering, boys, I'm locking it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.