When the
Russian bears growls, it’s best to pay attention. Vladimir Putin’s
harsh criticism of US military and foreign policy on 10 February
should have set off alarm bells in the west.
But senior
US officials are so obsessed with Iraq, and so used by now to
having Moscow agree to whatever Washington wanted to do around
the globe, even in Russia’s backyard, they mostly shrugged off
Putin’s warnings. The US and British media self-righteously
blasted the Russian leader for daring to question the Pax Americana.
In his
startlingly blunt speech at a security conference in Munich,
Russia’s president accused Washington of seeking world domination,
undermining the UN and other international institutions, trying
to monopolize world energy sources, destabilizing the Mideast
by its bungled occupation of Iraq, and unleashing a new nuclear
arms race by planning to deploy anti-missile systems in Eastern
Europe.
Russia
has long fumed over NATO’s advance to its western borders, and
Washington’s attempts to replace Moscow’s influence in Ukraine,
the Caucasus, and Central Asia. This writer has long maintained
that while one deeply sympathizes with the desire of East European
states to take shelter from old foe Russia by joining NATO,
pushing the alliance to Russia’s doorstep was dangerously provocative
and militarily ill-advised.
“He who
defends everything,” said Frederick the Great, “defends nothing.”
The Baltic states are indefensible; Bulgaria and Romania military
liabilities, as Germany found in World War II. Bulgaria and
Romania were inducted into NATO because the US Air Force wanted
use of their Black Sea air bases as part of its air bridge to
the Mideast and Central Asia.
President
Putin certainly merits strong criticism for his fabricated war
against independent Chechnya and massive human rights violations
there, and for his increasingly authoritarian rule – ironically,
the same charges many also level at President George W. Bush
over Iraq.
But Putin
is right when he warns that the Bush Administration has undermined
the UN, made a dangerous mess in the Mideast, and threatens
to ignite a strategic arms race by modernizing the US nuclear
arsenal and planning to deploy ballistic missile defense systems
(BMD) in Poland and the Czech Republic.
In response,
Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, chief of Russia’s Strategic Missile
Forces, warned US BMD plans may compel Russia to withdraw from
the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a cornerstone
of US-Russian détente, and deploy a new generation of intermediate-range
missiles aimed at Europe.
However,
it remains unclear amidst all the ruckus how a US BMD system
in Poland and the Czech Republic would threaten Russia’s long-range
missiles, which are mostly based in silos or on rail cars in
central and eastern Russia, whose normal trajectory would be
over the Arctic regions, not Eastern Europe.
The Russians
scoff at US claims its new BMD systems in Poland and the Czech
Republic are designed to stop missiles from Iran and other unspecified
“rogue” states. They certainly have a point. Why on earth would
Iran fire missiles at Warsaw or Prague if it had them? A propos,
Iran’s longest-range missile, Shehab-3, which carries a conventional
warhead, is about 800 miles. The expected range of the Shehab-4
under development is 1,200–1,300 miles, not enough to even reach
Eastern Europe.
The new
US BMD strategic systems, says Moscow and some western defense
analysts, are part of the Bush/Cheney Administration’s profoundly
destabilizing efforts to erect anti-missile defenses in Alaska,
Europe, and elsewhere around the globe that are intended to
nullify the nuclear arsenals of Russia and China.
The White
House appears to be heading away from the traditional balance
of mutually assured destruction and toward absolute nuclear
supremacy. Given the faked war against Iraq, and Bush and Cheney’s
strident talk about “pre-emptive strikes against threatening
nations,” the Russians are understandably uneasy. Their nuclear
arsenal remains the leading strategic threat to the United States.
Putin’s
angry speech is a warning that a reviving Russia will not allow
the US to attain unchallenged world nuclear, political, or energy
domination. China echoes this warning. Ironically, high world
oil prices caused in good part by Bush’s disastrous invasion
of Iraq have boosted Russia’s oil-based economy, allowing Moscow
to modernize its run-down armed forces.
Putin’s
speech also suggest Russia will take a more active role in the
Mideast. This could be a positive development given the striking
inability of the Bush/Cheney Administration to separate itself
from the policies of Israel’s right wing parties and return
to its traditional somewhat more balanced Mideast role.
Some
Europeans also quietly welcomed Putin’s speech. There is growing
irritation in the EU and NATO – what former US National Security
chief Zbigniew Brzezinski cruelly terms “America’s vassal states”
– at being brusquely ordered about by Washington and told send
troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
History
repeatedly shows that when one nation becomes too dominant,
others will join forces to oppose it. Russia and China are drawing
closer together to challenge American power. President Putin
has said “enough.” A new Cold War? Not quite yet, but there
are plenty of alarming portents.