The Return of Rasputin?

From the Telegraph:

Moscow police have discovered a brothel on the premises of a monastery whose abbot is thought to be President Vladimir Putin's spiritual adviser.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama To Medved: " It’s important" For Putin "To Give Me Space" Until After The Election

This brings up lots of issues - every one of them very troubling.

Clearly Obama is indicating that he can give Russia more of what they want from us if only they don't make waves before the election. And by implication, these same Obama plans would be very problematic if they became public prior to the election. So what is it - missle defense? Most likely. It is one area where we have a huge advantage and about which the Russians have been screaming like stuck pigs. So is Obama going to sell out our ABM capabilities to the Russians if he gets a second term?

Two, we may not have thousands of nukes pointed at Russia today, but anyone who thinks of that nation's government as benign or friendly to the U.S. is naive beyond all measure. This is the same Russian government that has helped build Iran's nuclear program, is now supporting the Syrian government with troops, and has all but annexed a part of Georgia. So just where can Obama possibly see our interests and those of Russia intersecting?

And lastly, of course, what is it that Obama can be telling foreign leaders that he is holding back from the electorate in advance of an election?

God help this nation if Obama is reelected. We will never recover.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

A 3 A.M. Phone Call From Georgia

Russia has now captured Gori and is within 35 miles of Georgia’s capital, Tiblisi. The 3 a.m. phone is ringing.

This is John McCain forecasting Russian aggression against Georgia. This video is from 1999.



John McCain, who has visited both Georgia and South Ossetia in the past, has been, as David Broder says, "prescient"



As Powerline points out, there is a tremendous amount at stake in Georgia. Georgia is a pro-Western democracy and it is home to an oil pipeline that allows former Soviet Republics surrounding the Caspian Sea to pump oil outside of Russian control. If we allow Georgia to fall, this will of necessity effect all of the other former Soviet nations, moving them out of sheer survival instinct back into the Moscow sphere. It will be a message that the West cannot be counted upon as an ally. And control of the oil pipeline from the Caspian sea would give Russia ever more total control over the West’s lifeline. To reiterate, this is a 3 true A.M. event.

In the wake of Russia’s naked aggression into Georgia proper with the intent of forcing the ouster of the democratic government, John McCain issued the following statement, setting out a plan to respond to Russia’s aggression:

. . . Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America.

"Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion. After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises.

"Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms. I've met with President Saakashvili many times, including during several trips to Georgia.

"What the people of Georgia have accomplished in terms of democratic governance, a Western orientation, and domestic reform is nothing short of remarkable. That makes Russia's recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming. In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia and the survival of its democratically-elected government are at stake.

"In recent days Moscow has sent its tanks and troops across the internationally recognized border into the Georgian region of South Ossetia. Statements by Moscow that it was merely aiding the Ossetians are belied by reports of Russian troops in the region of Abkhazia, repeated Russian bombing raids across Georgia, and reports of a de facto Russian naval blockade of the Georgian coast. Whatever tensions and hostilities might have existed between Georgians and Ossetians, they in no way justify Moscow's path of violent aggression. Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe.

"The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors such as Ukraine for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcomed the end of a divided of Europe, and the independence of former Soviet republics. The international response to this crisis will determine how Russia manages its relationships with other neighbors. We have other important strategic interests at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days; the operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia; and the integrity an d influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia.

"Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia and offered a ceasefire. The Russians responded by bombing the civilian airport in Georgia's capital, Tblisi, and by stepping up its offensive in Abkhazia. This pattern of attack appears aimed not at restoring any status quo ante in South Ossetia, but rather at toppling the democratically elected government of Georgia. This should be unacceptable to all the democratic countries of the world, and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression.

"Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government's actions will have for Russia's relationship with the U.S. and Europe. It is time we moved forward with a number of steps.

"The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion.

"NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO's future relationship with Russia, a Partnership for Peace nation. NATO's decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision.

"The Secretary of State should begin high-level diplomacy, including visiting Europe, to establish a common Euro-Atlantic position aimed at ending the war and supporting the independence of Georgia. With the same aim, the U.S. should coordinate with our partners in Germany, France, and Britain, to seek an emergency meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers to discuss the current crisis. The visit of French President Sarkozy to Moscow this week is a welcome expression of transatlantic activism.

"Working with allied partners, the U.S. should immediately consult with the Ukrainian government and other concerned countries on steps to secure their continued independence. This is particularly important as a number of Russian Black Sea fleet vessels currently in Georgian territorial waters are stationed at Russia's base in the Ukrainian Crimea.

"The U.S. should work with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and other interested friends, to develop plans to strengthen the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.
"The U.S. should send immediate economic and humanitarian assistance to help mitigate the impact the invasion has had on the people of Georgia.

"Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attacks, withdraw its troops, and enter into negotiations with Georgia. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world. World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity's progress toward respecting the values and security of free people

In contrast, Mr. Obama's initial reaction showed that he clearly lacked any sort of basic grasp into what was occurring and its ramificaitons. He issued a call for both the invaded country, and the invader, to "show restraint." This was his statement on August 8, answering the 3 A.M. phone call:

"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."

And here is George Will, comparing the reactions of both Obama and McCain:



Russia’s aggression is an indictment of soft power politics in a world where brute force is always an option. There is little doubt in my mind that the EU nation’s refusal to allow Georgia entry into NATO acted as a green light for Moscow’s aggression, not much different than the message by Sec. of State Dean Acheson’s remarks on our unwillingness to defend Korea over 60 years ago was the precursor to the Korean War. For those bent on domination, soft power standing alone - without both the will and ability to respond with force - is meaningless. As Stalin asked in 1935, "how many divisions does the Pope have?"

Powerline, commenting on the statement of John McCain quoted above, notes the need for a Western response to be backed up by threat of force:

All such measures--not to mention the usual diplomatic steps--are useful only to the extent that they involve the actual or potential use of force or meaningful economic sanction. Russia will not be deterred from trying to reassert control over the lost provinces of its empire by condemnations and resolutions. Frankly, I'd feel more confident that such measures would be undertaken or credibly threatened if McCain were President. President Bush once had the fortitude to deal with this sort of crisis, but seems to have lost it. As for Barack Obama, the less said the better.

For my money, we should have planes flying over Tiblisi at this moment. They would have to be U.S. planes. NATO is utterly useless at this point and needs either to be reformed or concluded to be replaced by individual agreements between the U.S. and those European nations still willing to fight for their survival. Only a handful come to mind.

Read More...

Summary only...

Russian Intentions Clarify

Any pretense that Russia was only defending the break away region of South Ossetia is now gone. Russia has bombed the Georgian capital and ground troops have crossed the border with Georgia and are now pushing towards the central Georgian city of Gori. This has vast implications far beyond the borders of Georgia.

The NYT is reporting that Russia has expanded the war beyond the borders of South Ossetia despite a Georgian withdraw from the region and diplomatic overtures to end their offensive:

Russia, emboldened by windfall profits from oil exports, is showing a resolve to reassert its dominance in a region it has always considered its “near abroad.”

The military action, which has involved air, naval and missile attacks, is the largest engagement by Russian forces outside its borders since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russia escalated its assault on Sunday despite strong diplomatic warnings from Mr. Bush and European leaders, underscoring the limits of Western influence over Russia at a time when the rest of Europe depends heavily on Russia for natural gas and the United States needs Moscow’s cooperation if it hopes to curtail what it believes is a nuclear weapons threat from Iran. . . .

CNN is reporting that U.S. Ambasador to the UN Khalilzad "told the Security Council that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili 'must go.'"

Russia's motives and the import to the West of its actions are analyzed by Chatham's House James Sherr in the Telegraph:

. . . Russia's brutal demonstration of power in South Ossetia, a breakaway region of its southern neighbour Georgia, marks the latest – and most alarming – sign of the Kremlin's determination to reclaim control over former Soviet states.

These former satellites have now been left in no doubt that Russia must be regarded as "glavniy", or number one, if they wish to avoid the fate of Georgia. Central to Vladimir Putin's nationalistic policy is a conviction that the power of the West – seemingly unassailable at the end of the Cold War – is on the wane. The current crisis demonstrates that the Cold War has not been replaced by common values between East and West, but by the revival of hard Realpolitik.

. . . The aim of Russia's policy, succinctly expressed in 1992, is to "be leader of stability and security on the entire territory of the former USSR". What has changed in recent years is not the aim – endlessly reiterated in 16 years of presidential declarations, "foreign policy concepts" and military doctrines – but the "correlation of forces". As Yeltsin declared to Russia's intelligence services in 1994, "global ideological confrontation has been replaced by a struggle for spheres of interest in geopolitics". Back then, Russia had little to struggle with. Today, that is no longer the case.

If Western interests are not to be irreparably damaged, we will need to understand that they are being tested on three overlapping levels: local, regional and global. Georgia is not just a square on a chessboard, but a country that is extremely important in its own right. For two reasons, the West cannot be indifferent to what happens there. First, despite the uncultivated instincts of its president, Georgia's political culture is fundamentally democratic, its people (80 per cent of whom support Nato membership) profoundly pro-Western, and its sense of national identity almost indestructible. Georgia can be defeated by Russia, but it can no longer submit to it, and therefore war between Georgia and Russia would be a frightening prospect even if no wider interests existed. Second, the only energy pipeline in the former USSR independent of Russian control passes through Georgia. There will be no meaningful energy security, let alone diversification of energy supplies, if these pipelines become vulnerable to sabotage, like those in Iraq, or to takeover by shadow businesses fronting for Russian interests.

But Georgia is equally important to Russia. Russia has only controlled the nationalities of the north Caucasus when it has dominated the south Caucasus. Despite the so-called "normalisation" in Chechnya, the north Caucasus remains, to Russia's leaders, the Achilles heel of the Russian Federation and, after the slaughter of schoolchildren in Beslan in 2004, a subject of nightmares for Russia's people. Russia's determination to hold sway in South Ossetia and Abkhazia must be seen in this light. But it also serves another purpose: as a means to deny Georgia admission to Nato. In their own right, these territories mean far less to Russia than they do to Georgia. So long as this is the case, Georgia risks finding itself hostage to Russian intentions, and so for that matter do the OSCE and Nato. And so Russia would like everyone to think.

"Everyone" includes Ukraine, whose government, like Georgia's, aspires to Nato membership. Unlike Georgia, Ukraine has no territorial conflicts, but it has a potential territorial dispute, Crimea. What is more, Russia's Black Sea Fleet – and along with it, its intelligence services – is authorised to remain there until 2017. In 1997, Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea was recognised by a treaty signed by Presidents Yeltsin and Kuchma. Yet after Nato's summit in Bucharest last April, President Putin let it be known that Crimea and other questions long regarded as settled could be reopened if Ukraine ceased to be a "friendly" (ie, non-Nato) state. After the events of last week, Ukraine is even more concerned about Russia's wish to destabilise it.

Russia's regional objectives are therefore straightforward. It aims to show its neighbours, by means of the Georgian example, that Russia is "glavniy": that its contentment is the key to "stability and security", and that if Russia expresses its discontent, Nato will be unwilling and unable to help. It aims to show Nato that its newest aspirant members are divided, divisible and, in the case of Georgia, reckless. It aims to show both sets of actors that Russia has (in Putin's words) "earned a right to be self-interested" and that in its own "zone", it will defend these interests irrespective of what others think about them. For Russia, the broader implications are also becoming straightforward. To its political establishment, to the heads of Gazprom and Rosneft, to its armed forces and security services and to their advisors and "ideologists", the key point is that the era of Western dominance is over.

Far from rejecting "globalisation", as Westerners might suppose, their view, in Foreign Minister Lavrov's words, is that the West is "losing its monopoly over the globalisation process". The Beijing Olympics are reminder enough that the cresting of what Russians call Western "democratic messianism" and the rise of "sovereign democracies" is not purely a Russia-driven process. But the West needs to know that Russia is determined to play a significant part in that process and that it is now able to do so.

The West will not have adequate responses to these events until it draws adequate conclusions. The first is that the era of democratic "coloured revolutions" is over. A few years ago, the Kremlin rightly feared that Georgia's Rose Revolution and Ukraine's Orange Revolution might destabilise the political elite in Russia itself. Today, the issue is whether these countries will be able to achieve their minimal objectives. Given today's harsh "correlation of forces", the issue for Tblisi is not whether it is right to use force against separatists but whether it is wise. The issue for Kiev is not whether its prime minister threatens its president but whether their divisions threaten the independence of the country. The issue for Nato and the EU is whether their "currency of influence" buys "stability and security" in this region and, if not, whether it is time to change it.

The second conclusion is that Nato must revisit the assumptions upon which its enlargement policy has been based. Contrary to the view that Nato remains a Cold War institution, the fact is that it has evolved too much. It moved east on the new-age assumption that Russia would adjust and gradually join us in addressing "common" (and distinctly soft) security problems rather than decide to pose a distinct set of hard and soft security problems itself. We now find ourselves confronting a zone of Realpolitik in partner countries, and some unnerving active measures in new member states – and virtually no one is prepared for it. Until recently, Nato was proud that it had no policy, let alone vision, for resolving the region's territorial conflicts beyond cliché: "autonomy", "respect for territorial integrity", "negotiation" "non-use of force". Until there is a policy, there cannot be a favourable outcome.

The third conclusion is that Russia is exasperated with the West and also contemptuous of it. In the Georgian conflict, as in the more subtle variants of energy diplomacy, Russians have shown a harshly utilitarian asperity in connecting means and ends. In exchange, we appear to present an unfocused commitment to values and process. Our democracy agenda has earned the resentment not only of Russia's elite but of the ordinary people who are delighted to see Georgia being taught a lesson. Our divisions arouse derision. Russians have no worries about the emergence of a unified EU energy policy, and they are losing their worries about a unified commitment to Nato enlargement. The war in South Ossetia, and the movement of conflict beyond it, should be a reminder that contempt has consequences.

The final conclusion is the need to focus on what is at stake. Is our relationship with Russia the most important issue? If so, what happens to that relationship if we demonstrate that brutality works and that "zones of interest" can be formed against the interests of the countries that reside in them? What happens to our wider scheme of interests in Central and Eastern Europe and the Black Sea and Caspian regions? Today, those questions are now being asked. But it is late to be asking them.

Read the entire article. (H/T BrugesGoup Blog)

Read More...

Summary only...

My Last Edition of Time Magazine

I've been getting this rag for I don't know how many years. And despite the fact that it is clearly a left of center magazine, I always did enjoy reading it. But while I can tolerate left wing diatribes, I've had it with Time. When, on the list of most influential and newsworthy folk, Time Magazine's editors rank General David Petraeus fifth behind not just Putin but Al Gore, than this rag is no longer worth another farthing.

Petraeus has single handidly turned a stumbling military effort and made it a success that our left not only refuses to acknowledge, but is still trying to subvert. This may be the most important event to occur in our lifetime in terms of the security of our nation. And it is a victory that comes in relation to a threat from radical Islam that our left of center folks are likewise pretending does not exist. To the extent Putin and Gore are more "newsworthy" than General Petraeus, that is only because our left wing MSM does not seem to consider success in Iraq newsworthy. What despicable sophistry.

A few months ago, in the list of 100 most influential people, our nation's President did not make the list. And in addition, Time is not renewing its contract with Charles Krauthammer. Add that to this latest outrage and, . . . well, I am just out of Time.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News From Around the Web

The big news of the day, Chavez loses his bid for dictatorial powers in Venezuela by democratic vote. Fausta’s Blog has the story. And here is a WaPo article on the loss. Given Hugo’s past, its amazing the official results of this vote came out as they did. So whither now, Hugo? Daniel Duquenal at PJM ponders the possibilities.


Not all putatitve dictators for life received bad news yesterday. Putin’s party won handily in Russia amid charges of large scale fraud.

Sudan has pardoned the British teacher, Gillian Gibbons, who caused untold damage to the delicate sensibilities of Salafists by allowing her class to name Muhammad’s teddy bear Muhammad.

“Last month, the Senate had to choose how to spend $400 million: health insurance for 173,000 children, or 1,056 pork projects. Pork won, 68-26.” It seems the Democrats’ promises to clean up Washington have not quite panned out. Unfortunately, this is a bipartisan malignancy. Suicidal Republicans desperately need to clean up their act on this one, also.

Men are simple creatures. Women often ask: ‘What underwear do you like to see me in?’ and the usual answer is: ‘Any underwear.’ Unless your relationship has been going so long that you have sex only on special occasions, such as the installation of a new Pope, then most men are just pathetically grateful to see women partially unclothed.” More hardhitting journalism from my favorite tabloid, the Daily Mail

France is “stunned by rioter’s savagery.” The left blames the rioting on social injustice. Sarkozy is of a different view.

Instapundit links to a fascinating post on one of the more corrupt practices in our legal system, judge shopping in politicly charged cases.

After much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects, it is now known that a noose and threatening letter left at a Baltimore Fire Department station two weeks ago was left by an African American employee who was having problems in his job.

Read More...

Summary only...

Veni, Vidi, . . . Verto? Taheri on Putin's Visit to Tehran

Amir Taheri is reporting that Putin paid his first eye to turban visit to Tehran expecting to find an ally against the West only to come away from the visit "dismayed." Perhaps Putin is finally getting a feel for just how suicidal Russia's provision of nuclear technology to Iran's theocracy may just be.

"This was the first time that Putin was talking to senior Islamic Republic leaders in a substantive and focused way," says a senior Russian official familiar with what happened. "The president found his Iranian interlocutor weird, to say the least. The Iranians mouthed a lot of eschatological nonsense and came close to urging Putin to convert to Islam. It was clear they lived in a world of their own."

Russian sources say that both Ahmadinejad and "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei gave the impression that they settle matters "in the metaphysical space" and with "the help of the Hidden Imam."

"The Iranians think they have already won," reports one Russian source who witnessed the visit. "So intoxicated they appeared with hubris that they did not even ask Putin to help them ward off further United Nations sanctions."

Ahmadinejad gave the impression he sought neither advice nor support from the Russians. All he wanted was to project the Islamic Republic as the regional superpower and invite Putin to acknowledge its new status. "It was as if Russia needed Iran, not the other way round," says the Russian source. "Putin was taken aback. He had not expected what he heard." . . .

. . . [O]nly days after his Tehran visit, Putin instructed the Russian delegation at a session of the Five Plus One group (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) to agree to devise new sanctions against Iran.

. . . None of this means that Putin won't use the Islamic Republic in his power game against the Western democracies. But his trip may have helped him understand the limits of playing the Khomeinist card. A member of Putin's entourage sums up the Russian leader's visit to Tehran: "He came, he saw, he was dismayed!"

Read the entire story here. Why is this sounding more and more like the old joke about the scorpion that asked the frog to take him across the pond on his back? It would be a bit humorous were it not potentially existential.

Read More...

Summary only...