Terror in Chechnya

Reading Emma Gilligan’s Terror in Chechnya (Princeton University Press, 2010), with its shatteringly vivid yet objective portrayal of the disaster that overcame the small republic of Chechnya in the winter of 1994 and has continued more or less until the present day, one is struck by the realisation that in spite of this comprehensive document, with carefully researched references to military-historical and legal-juridical sources, there has still been no international investigation into the crimes that were committed during the course of the tragic conflict. Indeed, since 2010, the year of the book’s publication, the international community has placed the  issue of Chechnya firmly on the back burner, relegating it to the place it has traditionally occupied in the attention of a West that has been consistently anxious to avoid a confrontation with the Russian state.

Events in Syria have, however, begun to shake that centre of avoidance, with images from Aleppo in Idlib recalling the worst of the aerial assaults on Grozny, Samashki, Serzhen-Yurt, Benoy and elsewhere in the early stages of the Second Chechen War. And books like Terror in Chechnya – though it is almost in a class of its own – have gradually acquired a new relevance, as the world starts to consider once again just what is the nature of the sinister and hybrid regime that took hold of power in Russia so shortly after the demise of Communism, and that appears bent on flouting every norm of international law and jurisprudence. Emma Gilligan has been criticised for allegedly ‘confusing politics and morality’ by Western Russia ‘experts’ who have consistently failed to perceive that the Kremlin’s indifference to a rules-based international order is a threat not only to Russia and Russians, but also to the rest of the world. As a U.K. House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee recently noted in its report, “Russian foreign policy aims to undermine the current world order, prevent self-determination and independent decisions by neighbouring countries, which it sees as regime change, and to promote Russia’s world view as a legitimate alternative to western values. The Russian Government’s indifference to human rights, freedom of expression and the rule of law underpins its foreign policy challenge to the international order and lies at the root of the collapse in UK-Russia relations.”

The first expression of Russia’s new world view took place in Chechnya from 1994 until 1996 – a state that had formally declared its independence was invaded and subjected to physical destruction in a way that had not been seen since the Second World War. This set the scene for further devastation in the years that followed, for the process of ‘Chechenisation’, achieved through brute force, and for the preliminaries of an extension of the threat to Europe itself, first in Crimea and the Donbas region of Ukraine (in a military assault that shows no sign of subsiding) and then in Kaliningrad and the Baltics. For the countries of NATO and the West, the lessons of Chechnya have still to be learned – after a lengthy period of relative inaction in which the threat was sidelined and de-prioritised, the security issues raised by a resurgent and nationalistic Russia are now actual as seldom before, and the  details of the ways in which Chechnya was, at least temporarily, subjugated need to be studied.

Two options

Stratfor's George Friedman writes that

Sanctions or war remain the two options, and which one is chosen depends on Moscow’s actions. The leaks this weekend have made clear that the United States and Israel have positioned themselves such that not much time remains. We have now moved from a view of Iran as a long-term threat to Iran as a much more immediate threat thanks to the Russians.

Hat tip: Mari-Ann Kelam

Iran, Russia, Israel, the U.S. and the West

According to the Sunday Times, the purpose of  Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Moscow last month was to hand the Kremlin a list of Russian scientists Israel believes is helping Iran to build a nuclear warhead.

Another report, from opinia.us, suggests there are signs that the US State Department and the White House may have been duped by Russian propaganda experts into making the announcement of the cancellation of the Bush plan to build missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic on September 17. September 17 was the date of the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland at the beginning of WWII.

Obama on missile defence

"As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defence system that is cost-effective and proven."

President Barack Obama, April 5, 2009

Moscow-Tehran-Washington

Of all the analyses of the current stand-off between Russia and the U.S. over the Iran nuclear threat, those of Sky's Tim Marshall have struck me as being among the more perceptive. For one thing, it was Marshall who noted the presence of Russian officials, including the nuclear agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko,at the opening of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant - a development that cast strong doubt on the likelihood that Russia will co-operate with the other UN permanent five members to compel Iran to open up all its facilities for inspection - missile defence deal or no. Now, Marshall suggests, the last hope may lie with the prospects of talks between Tehran and Washington. Marshall has another article on the subject today in his blog.

No deal

The NY Times/Washington Post "secret deal" story appears to have been yet another bit of media noise raised by Washington lobbyists pressing for a softer U.S. policy on Russia, led by those who, like Senator Charles Schumer, would like to see a return to the past. At all events, the "deal" has now been denied by the person who is supposed to have offered it.

See also: Obama's Schumer problem

US Senators on Russia's Aggression

In the Wall Street Journal, Republican senator Lindsey Graham and Independent Democratic senator Joe Lieberman have published a joint statement on the Georgia crisis and the implications of Russia's aggression. They point to the growing evidence that Russia plans to repeat its actions in Georgia elsewhere among its neighbours, in the Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine and Crimea. Noting that any assistance plan to Georgia must include the rebuilding of its armed forces, including the anti-armour and defensive antiaircraft capabilities that have so far been denied to them, the senators look to the wider regional context, and stress that

Our response to the invasion of Georgia must include regional actions to reassure Russia's rattled neighbors and strengthen trans-Atlantic solidarity. This means reinvigorating NATO as a military alliance, not just a political one. Contingency planning for the defense of all member states against conventional and unconventional attack, including cyber warfare, needs to be revived. The credibility of Article Five of the NATO Charter -- that an attack against one really can and will be treated as an attack against all -- needs to be bolstered.

The U.S. must also reaffirm its commitment to allies that have been the targets of Russian bullying because of their willingness to work with Washington. The recent missile-defense agreement between Poland and the U.S., for instance, is not aimed at Russia. But this has not stopped senior Russian officials from speaking openly about military retaliation against Warsaw. Irrespective of our political differences over missile defense, Democrats and Republicans should join together in Congress to pledge solidarity with Poland, along with the Czech Republic, against these outrageous Russian threats.

A Russian threat to Israel

The Jerusalem Post writes that

Syrian President Bashar Assad has pledged to support Russia in its conflict with Georgia and said that Damascus was ready to consider deploying Russian Iskander missile systems in its territory, in response to the US missile shield in Europe.

Assad made the comments in an interview for Russia's Kommersant newspaper, on the eve of his official visit to Sochi for discussions with Medvedev.  

Iran's nuclear threat to Europe

General Henry A. Obering, who heads the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, says in an interview for Radio Free Europe that he expects Iranian missiles will soon have a range to target all of Europe:

“Iran is obviously investing a lot of money in developing and fielding more and more capable missiles of longer and longer range," Obering said. "It doesn’t make sense to me that they would be making those investments, unless they had a weapons-of-mass-destruction program to match up with that, because that would justify that investment. Without that, only flying a conventional warhead of even a thousand kilograms or whatever the payload size may be, would not make sense.”

Obering also questions why Iran, if it is only concerned about regional threats, is seeking missiles with ranges that would extend well beyond the region.

“When you reach 2,000 kilometers, that is well beyond a range that you would need for a regional conflict with Israel," he said. "Within even 1,300 kilometers, you could reach most of the U.S. bases in the region. So it doesn’t make any sense in a regional context for them to be developing longer and longer range weapons. So I think it adds to the urgency as to why it’s important that we signed the agreement with the Czech Republic ... and that we continue to make progress in the development of these capabilities.”

U.S. criticizes Russia over "bellicose rhetoric"

Via BBC:

The United States has criticised what it calls "bellicose rhetoric" from Russia over US plans to develop a missile shield in Europe.

Russia said it would be forced to react with military means if the US went ahead with its plan for a shield based partly in the Czech Republic.

The reaction was "designed to make Europeans nervous about participating" said a Pentagon spokesman.

Sphere of Influence

From today's RFE/RL Newsline:

RUSSIA STRESSES NEW DEMAND ON MISSILE DEFENSE...
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Ekho Moskvy radio on April 8 that Moscow wants a permanent military presence at planned U.S. missile-defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. Lavrov argued that "in all the many proposals [on missile defense], we are interested only in two things: the permanent presence of our officers and reliable technological means of monitoring" the sites. During his recent summit with U.S. President George W. Bush in Sochi, President Vladimir Putin referred to a possible permanent presence at those sites if "a global missile-defense [system] with equal democratic-style access to managing such a system" does not come to pass. Russia does not appear to have publicly stressed the issue of a permanent presence before, but Lavrov said on April 8 that it is a sticking point in negotiations over Washington's plans to station a radar base in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland. He argued that it is important for Moscow to see "second-by-second" where the radar is directed and what is happening at the interceptor base. In an apparent effort to split Washington from Prague just days after a U.S.-Czech agreement on the radar site was announced, Lavrov warned that Czech or Polish resistance to the Russian demand would "devalue" recent assurances given to Russia by the United States on missile defense. He complained that officials of the two countries, which were occupied by Soviet forces for decades, "don't even want to hear" about a permanent Russian presence at the sites (see "RFE/RL Newsline," February 27, March 7 and 20, and April 4, 2008). Lavrov mocked the U.S. offer of "reciprocity" in arranging occasional inspections of the sites by Russian officials based in Warsaw and Prague, saying that Russia has no intention of establishing its own bases in those countries or near the United States. Asked if Russia might set up military sites of its own in Cuba or Venezuela in response to the U.S. plans, Lavrov replied that Russia would rely on unspecified "military-technical measures" instead. PM

...PROVOKING CRITICISM IN POLAND
Foreign Minister Lavrov's demand on April 8 for a permanent Russian presence at planned U.S. missile-defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic came after the latest round of Russian-Polish consultations in Moscow failed to bridge differences, news agencies reported. Witold Waszczykowski, who heads the Polish negotiating team, told Poland's PAP news agency that Lavrov's demands are "too far-fetched." Referring to a possible permanent Russian military presence in Poland, Waszczykowski said that "we had that here already [in tsarist and Soviet times]. Such a solution will not be repeated." He added that the proposed missile-defense "installation could be accessible to visitors or inspectors, but we don't think there is any need for a permanent presence of Russian monitors there.... In addition to that, we have to establish a sort of mutual regime, with Polish inspectors having the right to inspect some Russian installations." Czech officials have repeatedly rejected the idea of any permanent Russian presence at the radar site, although they, too, would be willing to consider occasional visits by Russian officials. Czech Deputy Prime Minister Alexandr Vondra told the daily "Hospodarske noviny" recently that "we are willing to negotiate about Russian inspections, but definitely not in the form of a permanent presence of Russian soldiers in the Czech Republic." Some European observers suggested that Russia is keen to keep up its political momentum after the April 2-4 Bucharest NATO summit. Russia was widely seen to have used energy and political leverage over Germany, France, and some other Western European states to ensure their opposition to U.S. and Eastern European support for granting Membership Action Plans (MAP), an important step on the road to full NATO membership, to Georgia and Ukraine (see "RFE/RL Newsline," April 3, 4, 7, and 8, 2008). PM

RUSSIA AGAIN VOWS TO BLOCK NATO ENLARGEMENT
Foreign Minister Lavrov told Ekho Moskvy radio on April 8 that Moscow will do all it can to prevent NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia in order "to avoid an inevitable serious exacerbation of our relations with both the alliance and our neighbors." He repeated Moscow's long-standing arguments that NATO enlargement is rooted in "Cold War logic," that much of the Ukrainian public is opposed to NATO membership, and that the pro-Moscow leaderships of Georgia's breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions oppose Georgian membership. Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin wrote in the April 7 issue of the government daily "Rossiiskaya gazeta" that "all countries seeking to join NATO have to hold a referendum first. The decision has to be made by all Ukrainian citizens. Would they be prepared to send their boys to certain death in Iraq or Afghanistan for the sake of Atlantic solidarity?" "The Moscow Times" commented on April 9, however, that "Russia's main argument against NATO enlargement is that it would threaten its security. That is nonsense, and Russia knows it." The paper added that "the Kremlin has found that behaving like a spoiled child gets results: the right to influence developments in former Soviet countries. In other words, Russia is being allowed to reassert its sphere of influence -- a concept that should have been superceded by that of 'Europe Whole and Free,' which the entire European Union appeared to have embraced when communism collapsed." The daily stressed that "the crux of the matter is Europe's lack of political will to forge a unified stand toward Russia. This has led the Kremlin to pursue a classic 'divide-and-rule' strategy by tempting some big European countries into bilateral agreements -- particularly on energy issues -- that preclude a common EU position" (see End Note, "RFE/RL Newsline," March 17, 2008). Alluding to the Western European objections to MAPs for Georgia and Ukraine, Polish President Lech Kaczynski commented on the eve of the NATO summit that West Germany was allowed to join NATO in 1955 even though it claimed to represent, but did not control, all of Germany. The Polish daily "Rzeczpospolita" pointed out recently that Germany did not hold a referendum in 1990 on NATO membership for the former East Germany, where strong pacifist and anti-American sentiments might have led to a rejection of NATO accession. PM

RUSSIAN LEGISLATOR TOUTS CHINESE MILITARY COOPERATION, DESPITE FALLING TRADE
Colonel General Viktor Zavarzin, the head of the State Duma's Defense Committee, said in Beijing on April 8 that military cooperation plays an important role in Russian-Chinese relations, Interfax reported. He noted that "the total number of events at which key subjects in Russian-Chinese military cooperation are discussed is 30 to 35 a year. Chinese specialists are trained at Russian Defense Ministry academies. Direct ties between the respective military services [and] military academies...are improving." Zavarzin added that joint exercises and inspections take place along and near the two countries' common border. His remarks follow recent reports that Russian arms sales to China dropped by 62 percent in 2007 because China's industrial capabilities are beginning to approach those of its neighbor, and because it seeks more sophisticated technology than Russia is willing or able to offer (see "RFE/RL Newsline," March 31, 2008, and End Note, "RFE/RL Newsline," September 12, 2007, and March 12, 2008). PM