Russia said 5 Big no(s)
Ahmed Hany
July 20, 2009
Despite Russian agreement to allow the US to use its land and air space for supplying Western forces in Afghanistan, still there are obstacles that President Obama should tackle to reach some sort of partnership with the second global military power. The Russian stance could be summarized in five no(s) which are no for NATO extension to reach Russian borders, no for changing security policies in Europe, no for the Anti-missile shield in Poland and Czech Republics, no for the dollar to continue as the reserve currency and no for imposing more sanctions against Iran.
The US President Barack Obama said that the Russian Premier Putin should know that the past is different from the present in a gesture to Russia after Cold War era. Primer Putin responded by saying that he knows that the past is different from the future in a gesture to the recovery of Russia due to its revenues from the petrodollars. Then both sides have different views and perceptions about themselves and each other. This is not an ideological conflict. Therefore, President Obama has high hopes to dissolve these differences and President Medivedev said that he wants to develop the American-Russian relationship.
The Americans use the economy to measure their relations with Russia. After all it is the field of the soft power and it was the main cause behind the fall of the ex-Soviet Union. The Russians still see the military is the real balance between nations. These two types of thinking were clearly seen during Georgia War. In the early days of the war Bush-Cheney strategy was built upon imposing sanctions on Russia. The Russians responded by declaring withdrawal from the traditional weapons limitation in Europe, singing agreement with Caracas and Damascus about military and Navy bases. In fact both military and economy need each other in a balanced formula.
The economic crisis showed some facts. The most important is that the democratic systems and the free economy have the ability to correct faults. The US did not fall the way communism did for the Soviet Union. The democratic systems have the measures to nationalize and to transfer assets from the private sector to the public sector by buying them in a process that does not create social disturbances and chaos the way communism does by confiscation of assets. On the long term, this would empower the free market by democratically inducing corrective steps for the capitalism.
Russia was hit by the economic crisis like all other countries, however nationalization by confiscation was never thought by Moscow elite as a measure to deal with the crisis, another proof of the non presence of ideological differences. The fall of oil prices from one hundred and fifty dollars per barrel to less than forty one month after the crisis embarrassed the Russian plans to modernize and upgrade its army.
However, the economic crisis that came twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union made some kind of pragmatic approach between socialism and capitalism on state´s central planning level in Europe and Russia and to a lesser degree in the US. Europe was an advocate of cooperation with Russia. In fact the European stance encouraged both the US and Russia to resolve their differences.
It is clear that the Russian five no(s) are not their final stance. The no(s) about NATO, security in Europe and the anti-missile shield are bargain more than strategic defensive stances. NATO is already present in Turkey on the Russian backyard. Many Central Asian Republics have military accords with the US and some gave bases to the US. Strategic principals could not be applied with different measures between the Southern borders and the Western borders. Moreover the Russian approval for the American army to use Russian lands and air space to supply forces in Afghanistan with arms and other supplies shows clearly that Russia does not see the Americans as enemies anymore.
In fact the Americans use military projects to press on Russia and in reciprocal response the Russians try to attack in the economy territory by supporting the Chinese suggestion of having an alternative international currency for the dollar. In fact the Europeans were the first to talk about that directly after the economic crisis.
The last no is about imposing sanctions on Iran. Russia does not want to loose contracts about building reactors and other projects in Iran. In fact Western boycott of any country means developing the Russian and Chinese trade and investment in this country. However Russia might be the first to react if Iran test fired a nuclear devise.
President Obama thinks that economic cooperation and investment in Russia would be enough to dissolve their five no(s). The more he would talk about economy the more he would hear about military until both partners discuss the oil of Central Asia and who would have the final word about it. The German Minister of Defense said he hopes that Germany would withdraw in five to ten years from Afghanistan. Then plans for long fight and long stay are on the table. The Russians are sure that their army with other armies from Asia would continue fighting in Afghanistan if the West withdrew early.
If one thought about the Indian cooperation with both the US and Russia to modernize its army and to build a front that would be equal demographically for China, if one thought that Chinese goods embarrassed American and European goods in their markets and if one thought that the strategic threat to Russian Siberia comes from the Yellow Dragon, it would be easy to predict that Obama and Medivedev would start partnership negotiations. It would be difficult negotiations but both partners need each other.
The US President Barack Obama said that the Russian Premier Putin should know that the past is different from the present in a gesture to Russia after Cold War era. Primer Putin responded by saying that he knows that the past is different from the future in a gesture to the recovery of Russia due to its revenues from the petrodollars. Then both sides have different views and perceptions about themselves and each other. This is not an ideological conflict. Therefore, President Obama has high hopes to dissolve these differences and President Medivedev said that he wants to develop the American-Russian relationship.
The Americans use the economy to measure their relations with Russia. After all it is the field of the soft power and it was the main cause behind the fall of the ex-Soviet Union. The Russians still see the military is the real balance between nations. These two types of thinking were clearly seen during Georgia War. In the early days of the war Bush-Cheney strategy was built upon imposing sanctions on Russia. The Russians responded by declaring withdrawal from the traditional weapons limitation in Europe, singing agreement with Caracas and Damascus about military and Navy bases. In fact both military and economy need each other in a balanced formula.
The economic crisis showed some facts. The most important is that the democratic systems and the free economy have the ability to correct faults. The US did not fall the way communism did for the Soviet Union. The democratic systems have the measures to nationalize and to transfer assets from the private sector to the public sector by buying them in a process that does not create social disturbances and chaos the way communism does by confiscation of assets. On the long term, this would empower the free market by democratically inducing corrective steps for the capitalism.
Russia was hit by the economic crisis like all other countries, however nationalization by confiscation was never thought by Moscow elite as a measure to deal with the crisis, another proof of the non presence of ideological differences. The fall of oil prices from one hundred and fifty dollars per barrel to less than forty one month after the crisis embarrassed the Russian plans to modernize and upgrade its army.
However, the economic crisis that came twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union made some kind of pragmatic approach between socialism and capitalism on state´s central planning level in Europe and Russia and to a lesser degree in the US. Europe was an advocate of cooperation with Russia. In fact the European stance encouraged both the US and Russia to resolve their differences.
It is clear that the Russian five no(s) are not their final stance. The no(s) about NATO, security in Europe and the anti-missile shield are bargain more than strategic defensive stances. NATO is already present in Turkey on the Russian backyard. Many Central Asian Republics have military accords with the US and some gave bases to the US. Strategic principals could not be applied with different measures between the Southern borders and the Western borders. Moreover the Russian approval for the American army to use Russian lands and air space to supply forces in Afghanistan with arms and other supplies shows clearly that Russia does not see the Americans as enemies anymore.
In fact the Americans use military projects to press on Russia and in reciprocal response the Russians try to attack in the economy territory by supporting the Chinese suggestion of having an alternative international currency for the dollar. In fact the Europeans were the first to talk about that directly after the economic crisis.
The last no is about imposing sanctions on Iran. Russia does not want to loose contracts about building reactors and other projects in Iran. In fact Western boycott of any country means developing the Russian and Chinese trade and investment in this country. However Russia might be the first to react if Iran test fired a nuclear devise.
President Obama thinks that economic cooperation and investment in Russia would be enough to dissolve their five no(s). The more he would talk about economy the more he would hear about military until both partners discuss the oil of Central Asia and who would have the final word about it. The German Minister of Defense said he hopes that Germany would withdraw in five to ten years from Afghanistan. Then plans for long fight and long stay are on the table. The Russians are sure that their army with other armies from Asia would continue fighting in Afghanistan if the West withdrew early.
If one thought about the Indian cooperation with both the US and Russia to modernize its army and to build a front that would be equal demographically for China, if one thought that Chinese goods embarrassed American and European goods in their markets and if one thought that the strategic threat to Russian Siberia comes from the Yellow Dragon, it would be easy to predict that Obama and Medivedev would start partnership negotiations. It would be difficult negotiations but both partners need each other.
Print
Email
