Let’s be friends, Guys
Vladimir Putin's remark just about sums up the NATO Summit that ended today in Bucharest. "Let’s be friends, guys, and be frank and open,” he told reporters on the topic of whether a new cold war was in the making. The sentiment will carry over into Sunday's meeting between Putin and President Bush in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, where the two leaders will sign an affable "Strategic Framework" agreement.As those familiar with the ways of Moscow know, such empty, toothless pacts -- known as the "protocol" in that part of the world -- are what companies and countries sign when they can't agree to anything conclusive.
In short, the NATO gathering ended with the U.S. attempting to dress up a setback against Putin as by and large a show of unity by Europe.
Bush put much on the line by announcing that he would seek to push forward Ukraine's and Georgia's bids to join NATO. But what did he walk away with? European agreement to a missile defense system that doesn't work. European agreement to add troops to a conflict -- Afghanistan -- about whose merits there's almost no disagreement anywhere in the world.
On the question of Ukraine and Georgia, Europe buckled, at least for now, to Putin's objections to their obtaining so-called MAP -- or Membership Action Plan -- status.
So Putin closed out another week of diplomatic triumphs. There will be no advance for now in NATO's expansion to the Russian border. And, with Bush's appointment of a harmless old family friend this week as Eurasian energy czar, there will be no serious challenge to Putin's policy of dominating European energy.
As for the Strategic Framework agreement to be signed Sunday, it's Putin's stated sentiment on paper -- gosh, can't we be friends?
I personally think that Georgia and probably Ukraine will eventually join NATO as full members. But it could be going more smoothly.
For a solid commentary on the spectacle from the perspective of Germany, this piece by Ulrich Speck at RFE-RL is highly recommended reading.
Photo: StuSeeger
Rights: Creative Commons
5 Comments:
Is it really inconceivable that Chancellor Merkel was entirely correct that Georgia and Ukraine do not meet the requirements for being offered a MAP? Is it not the case that President Bush was being nothing more than his usual, petulant, German-Chancellor-shoulder-groping self when he continued pressing MAPs for countries that don't qualify for them? And on Putin's "Pipeline wars" victory, well, we should just deal with the idea that all the media vituperation directed at him personally and Russia generally will not bring back the days when Yeltsin rolled over and showed his belly on demand.
Please forgive my simplicity, I'm not a geo-strategist nor do I play one online.
I fail to understand why double-standards are constantly being applied to nations and their leaders on questions considering geo-strategy.
Putin is a "war-monger", wants a "cold war" and what not, because he is worried about a former enemy alliance cornering his country's borders from all sides (i.e. NATO via Ukraine, Georgia, Finland, Estonia, the Stans, etc.) and hampering access to strategic energy sources or pipelines.
Now, how would US feel if Russia started building a missile defense base in Cuba in order to protect US from a missile attack from Venezuela?
If Russia & China started having negotiations with Mexico and Canada about joining Russian-Chinese military alliance and start allowing Russochinese military based on their land?
Or if the Chinese wanted to buy the access to Panama canal?
I'm sure American and EU officials would just tone down the rhetoric, discuss the issue friendly and see this as a positive development in the coming multi-polar world.
I fail to understand how demonizing one side and not accurately judging some others somehow improves on one's geo-strategical analysis.
But then again, I'm just a simpleton.
Please advice.
- Antti K.
Welcome Antti K. You raise a number of issues that I think are separate, and I'll reply that way.
First, as this blog has noted repeatedly since its inception a year ago, Putin is not a belligerent -- the points he raised in Munich and elsewhere regarding unipolar U.S. foreign policy in fact were by and large accurate; Washington simply has a thin skin when it comes to criticism being directed its way. He is, however, a rival. That is not demonization, but the stark truth. First and foremost, Putin is a consummate player of market economics, which one sees in the pipeline war. Russia's goal: to dominate the European natural gas supply, with the market and, by extension, political influence that comes with it. I argue that it is contrary to Europe's and America's best interest for Europe to be dominated by one natural gas supplier, specifically one with historical political ambitions outside its borders.
Should NATO expand to Russia's borders? Should Bush have pushed Ukraine's and Georgia's MAP status last week? To the first, given Ukraine's and Georgia's application to the alliance, my own opinion is yes. The rationale is Russia's intention to influence the politics of these countries -- in Ukraine's case to select who will be president, and in Georgia's, to keep it down. NATO is a threat to Russia in one manner of speaking -- it threatens Moscow's continued leverage over other former Soviet bloc states. This again is not demonization, but a reading based on my own eleven years of living out there, and five additional years of traveling back and forth and watching it from the States.
As to the timing of Bush's NATO campaign: I agree that it was, and continues to be, show-boating. As Merkel stated, a compromise was already set under which Ukraine and Georgia would obtain MAP status later; there was no reason to raise yet another aggravating issue right now.
I've written on the missile defense issue previously. This is an unnecessary irritant in U.S.-Russia relations -- the system is unproven. Whether or not there is reason to build it is irrelevant until it's shown actually to work.
I will leave it to others to reply to the comparisons with others' actions in the western hemisphere.
Thanks for the comment and best, Steve
Thanks for the comments and clarification.
From my simple reading Mr. Putin's administration has proved to be much more shrewd and effective in these matters than usually given credit for.
Do I like that? No, because I live in a country that is 100% dependent on natgas imports from Russia. Other than that, we have a little history of skirmish with Russia, which is not easily forgotten.
However, from the purely energy access point of view, I do not understand what can be gained by not maintaining a working relationship with Russia, but by demonizing and siding with Cheney et al and their purposefully aggrevating and non-diplomatic rhetoric.
How is US going to provide natgas to Europe when their own base is dwindling and Canada is soon to follow (ref. geological data from USGS and their Canadian counterpart)?
How is UK going to do that with their own resources dwindling and the government scrambling to open new coal plants and renew nuke power?
The LNG capacity issue is a total fiasco and even if it gets built (I'm doubtful), we as Europeans will be be fighting with Americans, Asians, all of the rest of the bunch. I'm sure Qatar will be happy to sell to the highest bidder (US) and Iran will just pipe it to whoever occupies their land :)
Now, if we are going to still be needing natgas and I know from the energy field that we will be needing it for some time to come, I think it would be wise to secure access to it. But, it is already secured!
Now, I know that it's not a fungible commodity in the same sense as oil due to pipeline issues and that LNG situation is very likely NOT going to solve this for the next 10-15 years at least.
Russia knows this too.
So, they can't pipe it elsewhere (in same quantities) nor can they get the same price from most other customers.
So, they can of course always try and extort more price, but that will only work for so far.
I think the issue is should be on 'What's after natgas', esp. considering the recent findings by IEP about the Russian natgas resource base depletion and infrastructure rot.
Why spend so much time on securing access to a supply that has already been secured in some ways and the base of which is in serious doubt?
It this just 'panem et circenses' for the political circles and watchdogs, while the real game is being played elsewhere in another field?
Sometimes I just don't understand. Correction, make that _most_ of the time...
Antti K.
Hi Antti K.: As you suggest, these issues do suffer from hyperbole and factual misconduct. Russia's demise as a natural gas power is one overblown issue -- its fields are in decline (as most around the world are), but it has commissioned German experts to seal up the leaking pipes and pumps, and reduce the flaring. Big fields are coming, including Shtokman. It has in addition tied up much supply from Central Asia. So I wouldn't count out Russia for quite a few decades.
The suggested ameliorative is to diversify the supply, not cut off Russia. It's to ship, in particular, Turkmen natural gas to Europe. The U.S. has so bungled this proposal, however, that it looks unlikely to happen.
Ultimately, however, we are not discussing natural gas per se. It's what has been purchased with it. And that's the confidence and wherewithal to go out on the world stage and make demands that until now could be ignored because Russia was on its knees economically.
There is a sea-change in Russia's geopolitical position, one evidenced by how it was treated at NATO and subsequently by Bush in Sochi.
Again, I think demonization is an over-used an inaccurate word. If Putin wants to brandish that word, let's discuss his rhetoric regarding the Georgians and the Chechens.
At least on this blog, the issue is that, regardless of how cozy one can hope to get, Russia and the West have had demonstrably competing interests and positions on key issues.
You're right that Putin is an exceedingly skilled geostrategist. The West needs to accord him that respect, particularly in terms of how it formulates its answer to the Russian challenge.
Thanks for the comment and best, Steve
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home