World Watch

I would imagine that most people have at least of heard of the 'Star Wars' progam, or to give it its official title, 'the strategic defence initiative'. To put it in simple terms, it is the positioning of ballistic missles (amongst other weapons) at strategic points both on land and in space to intercept and destroy nuclear missiles. The United States (whose initiative this is) has positioned these sites in strategic positions, and most recently has agreed with Poland, after two years of negotiations, to position 10 interceptor missiles in the country.

In response to this Act, Russian General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, Deputy Chief of Staff has been reported as saying:

"By hosting these (anti-missile shields), Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority."

Now lets make it perfectly clear at this point, that the missiles to be stationed in Poland are NOT nuclear weapons. They are not even offensive weapons. They are defensive weapons designed to 'Protect the United States and its allies from nuclear attack'.

Why does Russia care about the positioning of defensive systems in Poland unless it actually plans to use its own offensive systems? Maybe it is simply jealous that previously Warsaw Pact countries are getting into bed with America and NATO and are increasingly moving to the West for support and away from their old masters in Moscow? This seems like an opportune time to state that when Poland was a member of the Warsaw Pact, it had well over 200 nuclear (offensive) weapons based in it, and seeing as Poland is not a nuclear power, I wonder whose missiles they were?

We are seeing a response from Russia completely out of proportion with the acts of Poland and the US. Russia has threatened one of its neighbours with a nuclear attack simply for the crime of allowing one of its allies to position defensive military hardware on its soil.

Whatever the reason for such a blatant threat it is a totally innapropriate remark to make, be it to scare Poland to backing out of the plan or to antagonise the US. It can be understodd that any country with its own nuclear arsenal becomes a legitimate target for attack in the event of a nuclear war, but countries with no nuclear weapons? Countries with only defensive weapons?

Reagan's 'Evil Empire' may not have the power to strike back yet, but it is well on the way, and if countries like Poland and Georgia cave in to bully-boy tactics, if organisations like NATO don't stand up and be counted soon, then it will have won without firing a shot.

Today we learn that the international community is (finally) responding to the Russian invasion of South Ossetia and Georgia. President Bush (who has actually gone up somewhat in my estimation since this) has already sent military hardware (albeit only to deliver humanitarian aid) to the region and has warned the Russians that its ties to international organisations could be frozen. The Bear has awoken Uncle Sam, and he aint happy.

Possible reactions could include Russia's removal from the G8 group of countries, cutting of ties with the EU, refusal to continue their application to join the WTO and to remove them from the OECD. These are quite severe penalties for a country increasingly seeking to be seen and treated as a modern economy.

Far more active than this is the reaction of the Ukranian government who have threatened to blockade the Russian Fleet in the Black Sea as an act of support for the Georgians. But Ukraine on its own is no match for the economic and military behemoth that modern Russia is becoming, it needs the support or at least approval of the rest of the Western nations, particularly the US, the EU and other former Soviet republics.

The Russians have not made any friends through their actions so far, but are the penalties tabled enough to deter them from carrying on, or will they need to be toughened up and put into practice?

Let's hope that this (relatively) prompt action will be enough to cease any territorial ambitions that the Kremlin nutures, as the last thing anyone wants is another international conflict.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feel free to comment on this article or address any points of view raised. Please do not copy this article without prior written permission of the author.

The world is well aware that the Cold War ended well over a decade ago with the coming of democracy to Russia, the collapse of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin wall. Things got a bit warmer.

Things got a bit colder when Putin came to power, he was a cold warrior, an ex-KGB man brought up on a diet of hard-line communism and anti-western feeling, but he was elected after all, when his term(s) were up, he would be gone. Unofortunately for Medvedev (and the West, and some may argue Russia) this was not the case and it is still quite clear who pulls the levers at the Kremlin.

Things (certainly in my view) got a damn sight colder this week when Russia invaded South Ossetia and then continued into Georgian sovereign territory.

Are we seeing a rise in neo-imperialism in the East? The answer to this I believe is yes. The Russians, and more particularly the USSR had direct, or certainly indirect control of huge swathes of non-Russian land for large parts of history, ending quite abruptly with the fall of Communism, where not only did movements such as Lech Walesa's Solidarity (in Poland) wrest eastern Europe from their iron grip, but breakaway republics actually began to split away at Russia itself.

A bitter pill indeed to go from one of the worlds two acknowledged superpowers to quite clearly 'the sick man of Europe', and one that clearly left Russian politicos smarting.

Now Russia is on the economic up and up, why not flex its muscles a bit, show the West that it is once again taking its place as a super-power. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Why not combine a show of strength to the west with retrieving lost territory?

Clearly Russia does not want to provoke a war with NATO (yet?) and so ceasefire was held, but the point was made. Russia can control its neighbours both indirectly (Energy supplies) and directly (through military force). How much longer until it no longer fears the West at all and feels able to fulfil its 'right' to rule over its former 'Evil Empire'.

Territorial ambitions that start small, at least to the observer, should be watched with just as much vigilance as ones that are large. Hitler started small. Hitler took a bit more. And a bit more. Empire by attrition. We waited too long to stop him. Let's not allow the same mistake twice. Early on, a reprimand will suffice to stifle over-zealous ambitions, wait too much longer and a full scale war is needed.

One sincerely hopes that this will be the end of Russia's territorial ambitions over its neighbours, breakaway republics or not, but one can not know what will happen next.

Surely the best way of showing Russia that NATO still has some game left in it is to listen to the Georgian's requests and to station a NATO garrisson in the region. Not to fight to Russia, but to warn Russia, to make Russia think twice. Act quickly and prevent the potential renewal of a Cold War, or worse a real war.

Let's hope it starts to warm up soon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please feel free to comment on this article or to address points raised within. Please do not reproduce this article without prior written approval of the author.