Putin attacks West ahead of G-8 summit - 2007

Putin attacks West ahead of G-8 summit


President Vladimir Putin called himself the world's only "absolute and pure democrat" in an interview published Monday, and launched scathing attacks on the U.S. and Europe ahead of this week's Group of Eight summit. At the same time, the 54-year-old Putin hinted that he may not be ready to leave the public stage after all when his second term expires next year. "I am far from pension age and it would be absurd just to sit at home doing nothing," he told a group of reporters invited to dinner over the weekend.

Despite Russia's agreement last month to tone down the rhetoric, Putin's statements exposed vast gaps between Russia and the West ahead of this week's Group of Eight summit. He called Britain's decision to demand the extradition of the man suspected of killing former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko with a radioactive poison an act of "stupidity." The interview touched on much that the rest of the world finds disturbing about Putin's Russia: the backsliding on democracy, the increasing assertion of military power, the general perception of a leader who feels immune to international criticism. To the many Westerners who say he has rolled back Russia's democratic reforms, Putin responded with the startling assertion that he is the world's one true champion of democracy.

"I am an absolute and pure democrat," Putin said. "But you know what the misfortune is? Not even a misfortune but a real tragedy? It's that I am alone, there simply aren't others like this in the world." The transcript noted that Putin laughed when making that comment, suggesting he was joking. A few moments later he added: "After the death of Mahatma Gandhi, there's nobody to talk to." Sandwiched between his acid criticisms and ironic assertions was a brief but brutal criticism of the West.

"We look at what has been created in North America — horror: torture, homelessness, Guantanamo, detention without courts or investigation," he said. "You see what's going on in Europe: harsh treatment of demonstrators, the use of rubber bullets, tear gas in one capital, the killing of demonstrators in the streets in another," he added, in an apparent reference to the death of an ethnic Russian in the Estonian capital during protests over the removal of a Soviet-era war memorial.

Rather than try to soothe nerves before the G-8 summit in Germany, Putin repeated, and even amplified, recent Kremlin criticism of the United States — including his allegation in February that the United States was engaging in a "hyper-use of power," and Russian officials' denunciation of purported Western attempts to destabilize Russia by funding pro-democracy groups. The Russian president's comments came despite last month's agreement between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to tone down the rhetoric on both sides. Much of the toughest talk from the Kremlin has focused on U.S. plans to build a missile-defense system in Europe, which Washington insists is aimed at preventing attacks by rogue states such as Iran and North Korea rather than Russia. Putin renewed the verbal offensive in his weekend interview, in chilling comments that evoked the balance-of-terror language of the Cold War.

"We are being told the anti-missile defense system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you, to say the least?" a clearly irritated Putin said. "If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response," Putin said. "What kind of steps? We will have to have new targets in Europe." These could be targeted with "ballistic or cruise missiles or maybe a completely new system."

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, asked aboard Air Force One about Putin's comments on the missile shield, said there has been "some escalation in the rhetoric." "We think that that is not helpful. We would like to have a constructive dialogue with Russia on this issue. We have had it in the past," Hadley said. Russia's relations with the West also are troubled by its refusal to turn over Andrei Lugovoi, the man whom Britain says it has enough evidence to charge in last year's fatal poisoning of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko. The case raised fears that Moscow has returned to its Soviet-era practice of killing dissidents abroad.

Russia refuses to turn over Lugovoi, saying its constitution forbids extradition of Russian citizens to face prosecution abroad. Putin called Britain's demand "stupidity." "If they didn't know (about the constitutional prohibition) it's a low level of competence and thus we have doubts about what they're doing there," Putin said. "And if they knew and did this, it's simply politics. "This is bad and that is bad — from all sides it's just stupidity," Putin said.

Putin, less than a year away from the end of his second and final four-year term in office, told reporters he believes Russian presidents should serve longer terms. But he did not say whether he believes his current term should be extended.

Over the years, he has consistently rejected suggestions that the constitution be amended to allow him to seek a third consecutive term, and during his annual address to parliament in April said it would be his last as president. But Putin's ambiguous comments seemed certain to feed speculation that he would seek to stay in power beyond the spring of 2008. At the very least, his suggestion could discourage other G-8 leaders from treating him as a lame duck. "Four years is a fairly short time," Putin said. "It seems to me that in today's Russia five, six or seven years would be acceptable, but the number of terms still should be limited."

Russia is scheduled to hold presidential elections in March. Putin, who was re-elected in 2004 with more than 71 percent of the vote, has presided over one of the most prosperous periods in Russian history and enjoys sky-high approval ratings. Putin has not publicly said whom he would prefer to see succeed him — an endorsement that would carry immense influence, since that candidate could instantly expect the support of the Kremlin and its allies. Some leaders in post-Soviet states have called referendums to approve extension of their terms. But these moves have been widely criticized abroad as naked power-grabs. While Putin seems increasingly to scorn his Western critics, the move would create an uproar that he might not want to face.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2883535.shtml

RUSSIA STILL SEES WEST AS PRIMARY ENEMY


During an extended interview with Western and Russian journalists before this week’s G-8 summit in Germany, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that if U.S. missile defense elements are deployed in Europe, "We will be forced to take adequate steps in response." Putin elaborated: "New targets will appear in Europe. The systems that may be used to destroy these targets our military believe to be a potential threat to Russia -- by ballistic missiles cruise missiles or something else -- is a technical issue" (www.kremlin.ru, June 4). This is the first time since the end of the Cold War that a Russian leader has openly threatened to target Europe with nukes. Previously, Putin and his predecessor Boris Yeltsin had proclaimed Russia to be an integral part of Europe. In 1994, Yeltsin and U.S. President Bill Clinton signed an agreement to de-target ballistic missiles of both countries away from each other. Later, a similar de-targeting agreement was signed with other nuclear states -- Great Britain, France, and China. These agreements still stand, and Putin may have forgotten he must first legally revoke them before targeting.

In Russia, the Western fuss about Putin's nuclear threats was received with some surprise. The chief of the Strategic Rocket Force, General Nikolai Solovtsov, told journalists, "If a decision is taken, we will be able to target U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic" (see EDM, February 21). Putin in fact said, "New targets will appear in Europe." This clearly implies that other targets for nuclear strikes in Europe have been instituted before. The United States and NATO are indeed Russia’s prime enemies. The Russian military continues to prepare to fight the West and performs major military exercises simulating such encounters. In 1999, after the NATO bombardments of Yugoslavia over Kosovo, the Russian military staged “Zapad-99,” a large-scale exercise with a scenario whereby NATO imposes an air/sea blockade of the Kaliningrad enclave and then begins an offensive with bombers and cruise missiles. The Russian conventional defenses are breached and, to resolve the situation, Moscow carries out a "preventive" nuclear attack using four long-range cruse missiles launched by strategic bombers. Two nuclear warheads hit targets in Western Europe and two in the United States. The decision to use air-launched nuclear cruise missiles is preferable, because even a limited launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles could trigger an immediate launch of U.S. ICBMs.

The Zapad-99 exercise ended with Russia victorious. Baffled by the limited preventive nuclear strike and faced with the choice to either begin an all-out global nuclear war or back down, NATO stopped its attack on Kaliningrad. After Zapad-99, Moscow accepted that preventive nuclear strikes would be the best way to stop a NATO attack that Russia’s weak conventional forces cannot repulse. In May 2003 a Russian naval task force in the Indian Ocean conducted a war game that included the interception and sinking of a U.S. aircraft carrier group. Russian strategic bombers simultaneously simulated an attack with nuclear long-range cruse missiles on the U.S. base at Diego Garcia. This exercise was performed to demonstrate the capability to stop a U.S.-led attack against a Russian ally in the region. Scenarios of a possible U.S. and NATO military invasion are not only routinely run during war games, but also constantly hotly discussed by Defense Ministry-connected think tanks and defense analysts in Moscow (Voyenno promishlenny kuriyer, April 14, 2004; Arms Control Today, April 2004). At the same time, there is a problem in finding a delivery system to use in a nuclear attack on Europe. Russian ICBMs are designated primarily to hit far-off U.S. and Chinese targets. During the Cold War intermediate ballistic missiles, like the Pioneer (SS-20), were deployed to target Europe, but the 1987 INF treaty destroyed all such weapons.

Today’s war games use long-range strategic cruise missiles as a substitute weapon to hit Europe. Putin considers the question of whether or not to use cruise missiles or something else in such attacks to be a technical, not legal, problem. In the interview Putin stated the intention to abrogate the INF treaty. This could solve the "technical problem" of how to nuke Europe. Putin added, "The INF issue is not connected directly to U.S. plans to deploy MD in Europe, but we will find responses to this threat and the other one" (www.kremlin.ru, June 4; EDM, February 21). Putin's threats are probably aimed at Europeans -- the Poles and Czechs in particular -- to frighten them into refusing to allow Washington deploy U.S. missile defense elements. In the same interview Putin proclaimed himself to be a “friend of the U.S." Apparently, Putin believes in friendship based on threats. Inside the Russian ruling elite open threats or the actual use of limited force are the trump cards in any negotiations. But in dealings with the West, Putin's natural political tendencies constantly backfire, as do Putin's jokes. In the interview, Putin announced that after the death of Indian spiritual and political leader Mahatma Gandhi, he "does not have a person to speak with." That was evidently a joke, especially as Gandhi was killed in 1948. In the same dispatch Putin also said, "Ukraine is sliding into tyranny," while in fact Ukrainians have decided to settle their political crisis through national elections. Was this another joke? Or does Putin hate free elections that much?

Source: http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372210

No comments:

Post a Comment

Dear reader,

Arevordi will be taking a sabbatical to tend to personal matters. New blog commentaries will henceforth be posted on an irregular basis. The comments board however will continue to be moderated on a regular basis.

The last 20 years or so has also helped me see Russia as the last front against scourges of Westernization, Globalism, American expansionism, Zionism, Islamic extremism and pan-Turkism. I have also come to see Russia as the last hope humanity has for the preservation of classical western civilization, Apostolic Christianity and the traditional nation-state. This compelled me to create this blog in 2010. Immediately, this blog became one of the very few voices in the vastness of cyberia that dared to preach about the dangers of Globalism and the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance, and the only voice preaching the strategic importance of Armenia remaining within Russia's orbit. From about 2010 to 2015 I did monthly, at times weekly, commentaries about Russian-Armenian relations and Eurasian geopolitics in general. It was very difficult for me because I had no assistance from anywhere. The time I put into this blog therefore came at the expense of work and family. But a powerful feeling inside urged me to keep going; and I did. When Armenia joined the EEU and integrated into Russia's military structures a couple of years ago I finally felt a deep sense of relaxation, as if a very heavy burden was lifted off my back. And when Prime Minister Karen Karapetyan reemerged in Armenian politics, I finally felt that my personal mission was accomplished. I therefore felt I could take a step back as I really needed the rest.

Simply put: I have lived to see the institutionalization of Russian-Armenian alliance. Also, I feel more confident now that Armenians are collectively recognizing the strategic importance of Armenia's ties with Russia. Moreover, I feel satisfied knowing that, at least on a subatomic level, I had a hand in the outcome. As a result, I feel a strong sense of mission accomplished. I therefore no longer have the internal urge to continue as in the past. In other words, the motivational force that had propelled me in previous years has been gradually dissipating because I feel that this blog has lived to see the realization of its stated goal.

Going forward, I do not want to write merely for the sake of writing. Also, I do not want to say anything if I have nothing important to say. I feel like I have said everything I needed to say. Henceforth, I will post seasonal commentaries about topics I find important. I will however moderate the blog's comments section on a regular basis; ultimately because I'm interested in what readers of this blog have to say and also because it's through readers here that I am at times made aware of interesting developments. To limit clutter in the comments section, I kindly ask all participants of this blog to please keep comments coherent and strictly relevant to the featured topic of discussion. Moreover, please realize that when there are several anonymous visitors posting comments simultaneously, it becomes very confusing (not to mention extremely annoying) trying to figure out who is who and who said what. If you are here to engage in conversation, make an observation, express an idea or just attack me, I ask you to at least use a moniker to identify yourself.

Please appreciate the fact that I have put an enormous amount of information into this blog. In my opinion, most of my blog commentaries and articles, going back ten-plus years, are in varying degrees relevant to this day and will remain so for a long time to come. Posts in this blog can therefore be revisited by longtime readers and new comers alike. I therefore ask the reader to treat this blog as a depository of important information relating to Eurasian geopolitics. Russian-Armenian relations and humanity's historic fight against Globalism and Westernization.

Thank you for reading.