Reset Button

The Presidential Campaign and America's Strength Abroad

Jorge Benitez — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:55:17 -0600

From David Ignatius, the Washington Post: The foreign policy theme that should dominate this year’s presidential campaign is “American renewal.” Each candidate claims to have a strategy for halting the nation’s decline, but their versions often amount to “more of the same” — which ain’t gonna work.

For a bracing discussion of what a revival of U.S. power would actually require over the next few decades, I recommend a new book, “Strategic Vision” by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. . . .

To achieve this revival, Brzezinski argues that the United States needs to work closely with a democratizing Russia and Turkey (assuming they continue on that path) to build what he calls a “larger West.” If the United States tries too boldly to go it alone or too meekly to accommodate the rising powers, it’s headed for trouble. . . .

The problem with the GOP version is that America is already muscle-bound to a fault. To exercise power effectively, it needs good allies. If Brzezinski is right and a “larger West” requires cooperation with Russia and Turkey, then some of the GOP rhetoric about exceptionalism is counterproductive — little more than vain boasting. Obama has actually begun the job of cultivating these new partners, with his 2009 “Russia reset” and his patient diplomacy with Turkey. . . .

As for Obama’s strategic vision, he talks a better game than he plays. . . .

Blaming congressional deadlock isn’t a strategy, it’s an excuse. Obama was elected to make government work again. If he can’t do it, someone else should try.

A similar criticism applies to Obama’s foreign policy. He raised hopes at home and abroad because he proposed to resolve festering problems, such as the Palestinian issue. In reality, he flopped. His Afghanistan policy is a muddle, and that’s being charitable. In this campaign, Obama needs to explain how he will lead America past the old slogans and status-quo policies into an era of genuine national revival. (graphic: Freedom's Lighthouse)

NATO concerned about build up of Russian forces near its borders

Jorge Benitez — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:03:27 -0600

From AFP: NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen Thursday urged Russia to refrain from building up its military near the alliance’s borders, saying it was a concern for the 28-nation organization.

Rasmussen questioned Russian moves to bolster its forces in its Kaliningrad territory, which borders NATO members Lithuania and Poland, both part of Moscow’s Cold War-era stamping ground.

“These Russian statements are of course a matter of concern for NATO allies,” he told reporters in Lithuania’s capital Vilnius. “It is a complete waste of Russian financial resources, because it is a buildup of offensive military capacities directed against an artificial enemy, an enemy that doesn’t exist,” he said.

“NATO has no intention whatsoever to attack Russia,” he added, speaking alongside Lithuania’s President Dalia Grybauskaite.

Moscow has warned that it plans to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, and earlier this month, Russian media reported that an S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft missile system would go into service there in April. . . .

Rasmussen said it was time for a reality check.

“It doesn’t make sense to build up offensive military capacities in the Kaliningrad region. I would encourage the Russians to face a new reality, we are not enemies, we are not adversaries, we should be partners and it would be of mutual benefit if we develop peaceful cooperation,” he said. (photo: Office of the President of Lithuania)

Rogozin: Russian diplomats and spies must "prevent the Americans from being alone with the Europeans"

Jorge Benitez — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:24:49 -0600

From Russia Today: [Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry] Rogozin, Russia’s former Permanent Representative to NATO, told officers of the Aerospace Forces in the restricted area of Krasnoznamensk that no matter what type of political system Russia has the western military bloc will not change their views.

"No matter what Russia may be – imperial, communist or democratic – they see us with the same eyes as they did in the previous centuries," he said. . . .

[A]ccording to Rogozin, America asserts its military presence on the continent by any means possible, while Russia is held at a distance.

“America must be represented in Europe by hook or by crook,” he said. “Russia must be held at a distance – and the farther the better.”

This warped formula forces Russia into the position where it must keep a watchful eye on what is happening behind the scenes of US-led military bloc.

“Hence the mission of Russian diplomats, military diplomats and intelligence officers is the opposite: they must be inside all the time and prevent the Americans from being alone with the Europeans,” he said. (photo: RIA Novosti)

Medvedev: Missile shield remarks forced measure, not electoral rhetoric

Jorge Benitez — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:59:19 -0600

From RIA Novosti: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Thursday plans to put offensive weapon systems on Russia's borders to counter a planned European missile shield were not electoral rhetoric but a forced measure.

"The statement has no tactical or pre-election implications, as some opposition members put it," Medvedev said. "It was a thoroughly considered decision, and, to put it bluntly, I was in fact forced to make it. . . ."

"All our military specialists are convinced that the proposed European missile shield configuration will impair the world's strategic parity and the relations that we recently had, including the [New] START Treaty," Medvedev said. . . .

Medvedev said on Tuesday the radar in Kaliningrad, capable of monitoring missile launches from the North Atlantic, as well as the U.S.-backed future European missile shield, should be treated by the West as the "first signal" of Russia's readiness to counter "threats" posed by NATO's missile defense plans.

"Other measures have also been announced," he added. "If the events continue to unfold in this direction, we will have to respond. And we have both material and military bases for it." (photo: Sergey Guneev/RIA Novosti)

How NATO is Perceived in Russia (or Lessons in Optimism)

Jorge Benitez — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:22:14 -0500

From Robert Pszczel, the New Atlanticist: Exhibit one – the Levada Center opinion poll conducted in January 2011 showed NATO being described as an adversary by 23 percent of Russians (Chechen rebels came first on that list with 43 percent, followed by USA with 28 percent).

Exhibit two – on any given week you can expect Russian newspapers running stories which in their titles speak about “demise of NATO”, “criminal bombings of civilians by Allied planes” or “NATO rejecting Russian proposals” and so on.

Exhibit three – this time from my own experience in Russia. At the end of a long TV programme in which I discussed the problem of international terrorism with other invited guests I was informed by the anchor that results of the phone-in to the studio were so unfriendly to the organisation I represent that he preferred not to read them on air. . . .

And there are visible signs that interest in filling in these gaps is picking up.

The same newspapers which use rather negative headlines for their stories about NATO devote a lot of space to details of NRC (NATO-Russia Council) cooperation and print very sophisticated analyses of Allied policies and actions. Each newsworthy project conducted jointly by NATO and Russia gets very good coverage.

This was the case with a first ever live counter-terrorist exercise being part of the Cooperative Airspace Initiative (CAI) held this year. All TV channels in Russia showed pictures of Russian fighter planes escorting a Polish transport plane, and later performing a similar job with their Turkish counterparts. Russian viewers also saw reportages from a successful demonstration of Russian and Allied naval skills during the Bold Monarch submarine rescue demonstration off the coast of Spain.

This is very important from the point of view of the general public which is becoming more aware of the real consequences of historic conclusions of the Lisbon Summit last year when President Medvedev and Allied leaders decided to set off on the path towards strategic partnership. As the cooperative agenda gets more and more crowded with each passing month, the opportunities to notice the benefits of new partnership will grow too.

Partnership projects connected with a shared task of stabilising Afghanistan (transit agreements, helicopter support to Afghan authorities, joint training of counter-narcotics experts from the region and so on) are seen as good stories. So is the common Russian-Allied effort to develop technologies able to detect improvised explosive devices and other ways of pooling expertise to fight terrorism. Cooperation in such areas as counter-piracy, civil emergency planning or facing up to such security challenges as WMD proliferation are appreciated by Russian public opinion.

Moreover, the high tempo of political dialogue – foreign and defence ministers’ meetings, invitation for all NRC ambassadors to a meeting with President Medvedev in Sochi, as well as the growing pace of inter-parliamentary exchanges – all contribute a lot to changing the public mood related to engagement with NATO. This visible political desire to move constructively forward shows to ordinary Russians (and people in the Allied countries) that their leaders are ready to work towards a strategic partnership, a modern relationship befitting our times.

Is this enough to do away with the stereotypes and unfair perceptions of NATO? Can one convince our Russian partners that NATO is definitely an instrument for international peace, stability and it seeks friendship with Russia? Not straight away of course. More dialogue, more down to earth debates and more concrete joint work are needed to register a satisfactory and durable change. However, each partnership project brings us closer to that goal.

Robert Pszczel is Director of the NATO Information Office in Moscow. The opinions expressed are those of the author alone. This was originally published at the NATO Review. Photo credit: SCAN.

Moscow draws up blacklist of US officials in response to US ban against Russians

Jorge Benitez — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:59:18 -0500

From RIA Novosti: Moscow has prepared a blacklist of U.S. officials who will be banned from travelling to Russia in response to a U.S. blacklist of Russian officials linked to the controversial death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in detention, Russian daily Kommersant reported on Wednesday. . . .

The Russian blacklist consists of several dozen U.S. officials, including those linked to the trials of Russian businessman Viktor Bout, who is prosecuted in the United States on charges of arms trafficking, and Konstantin Yaroshenko, a Russian pilot convicted of drug dealing in the United States, Kommersant said, quoting unidentified officials. . . .

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told Kommersant that a "draft" blacklist of U.S. officials was being discussed, which included "people linked to problems in Russian-U.S. relations, including those on humanitarian tracks."

"Any U.S. citizen responsible for violating the rights of Russian citizens may be included in this list," Ryabkov said. He described the U.S. move to introduce sanctions against the Russian officials as a significant blow to bilateral relations. (photo: Reuters)

How U.S. sanctions can promote human rights in Russia

Jorge Benitez — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:24:55 -0500

From the Editors of the Washington Post: Last month the Obama administration disclosed it had taken a significant step toward balancing its policy toward Russia, which has focused heavily on striking deals with the authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev while mostly ignoring issues of corruption and human rights. In a letter to Congress, the State Department disclosed that several dozen Russian officials implicated in a notorious corruption case that led to the persecution and death of a Russian lawyer had been banned from traveling to the United States. . . .

Pressure from the United States and the European Union — which is also considering sanctions in the Magnitsky case — could help those in Russia who want to combat the culture of criminality that has spread throughout government in the Putin era. But the Obama administration’s action was reluctant; it moved under pressure from Congress, where pending legislation would require a freeze on assets as well as a ban on visas for officials involved in the Magnitsky case and other major human rights cases. The State Department’s letter disclosing the travel ban urged Congress to drop the bill, arguing it could cause Moscow to cease cooperating on sanctions against Iran or in transporting materiel to Afghanistan.

Accepting that argument would mean agreeing with the proposition that the “reset” of relations with Russia means that officials guilty of crimes such as theft, torture and murder must be allowed to travel to the United States and deposit stolen funds here. In fact, the Kremlin will act according to its perceived interests in Iran and Afghanistan, regardless of such decisions. Russia will never be a reliable U.S. partner until cases such as that of Sergei Magnitsky are subject to the rule of law. (photo: RIA Novosti)

Russian Reset a Cold War Restart

Jorge Benitez — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:09:08 -0500

From Ariel Cohen, the National Interest: [Russia' Ambassador to NATO Dmitry] Rogozin also raised the issue of legally binding “reliable assurances” that a NATO system does not pose a threat to Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces.

However, Sen. Kyl noted that Russia is not willing to provide equally binding assurances that its ICBMs are not aimed at America. In fact, the only targets Russia can hit with its hundreds of heavily protected and mobile ICBMs are in North America. All others are much closer and can be targeted with the type of intermediate-range ballistic missiles the USSR and the United States gave up under Reagan and Gorbachev. The real assurances of Russia’s peaceful intentions would be the total destruction of such ICBMs, which is unrealistic.

Furthermore, Rogozin asked that Moscow and Washington operate two regional missile-defense systems—with full Russian access to U.S. early warning data and other sensitive information including U.S. system architecture. “What they can’t get through espionage, they want to get through a [missile defense] agreement,” the official present at the meeting told me. And Russia wants the United States to agree not to shoot down any missiles over Russian territory.

This is an untenable demand. When a missile is in the air, the United States should not be restrained from intercepting it just because it is launched over Russian territory.

The bottom line: Moscow is seeking ways to limit U.S. missile defenses as it did during the Cold War. . . . (photo: Reuters/Xinhua)