Rally Around the Flag, Boys!

Today, Monday, 21 September 2009, President Barack Obama is coming to our area to rally the faithful. He is going to be spending less than three hours here, arriving at 1100 and departing by 1330. Yes, indeed, he is arriving on his plush VC25A (“Air Force One”)… for what earthly reason, one wonders. After all, New York State is a reliable and trustworthy “blue state”. Of course, most speculation is that he is here to order Gov David Paterson not to run next year… he is virtually certain to lose, and BO does not wish his undertow to carry down other Democrats (one friend of mine says, “Just you see! It’ll be a ‘goombah special’. Rudy Giuliani versus Andrew Cuomo! What a fight!”). However, it is interesting that BO feels the need to buck-up the troops in what is perceived by all as one of the most solid of his bastions.

An analogous situation has occurred in the current OCA affair. As everyone knows, the basic unit of time for a parish is not “days”, but, rather, “weekends”. In the past six months, that is to say, in the last 26 “weekends”, Jonas Paffhausen has been to our parish once (on Saturday 30 May) and one of his minions was here on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Considering that the rector, Igor Burdikoff, is one of the main members of the archpriestly cabal at Syosset, this is “interesting” (he is their “attack dog”, being widely-known for his unscrupulous and nasty attitude towards all those viewed as enemies of the cabal).

When his minion was here, he bleated, “Everything has changed! You can send your money now!” I kid you not! That is exactly what he said! I do daresay that that was not the statement of someone secure in their position and sure of their popularity. Rather, it was a cry of despair! “Why don’t you trust us? We need cash! We need it now!” One can see him rattling his alms-bowl piteously, can’t you? When a high-powered lackey is sent to one of the “secure parishes” to rally the troops, the situation is very bad, very bad, indeed.

Apparently, this was not enough to bring the desired result. I am going to be treating this episode in greater depth in the piece I am writing on my memories of the last thirty-odd years in the Church… trust me, it is important, important enough to make one reject Jonas Paffhausen completely and without reservation. True, not as important as the fact that Mr Paffhausen refuses to disown Gleb Podmoshensky and issue an apology for his deep involvement in Podmoshensky’s dabbling in Russia (the OCA is coy… Russki Palomnik was not an official publication… it was Podmoshensky’s separatist rag… do note that Paffhausen was involved in that up to his neck (along with other HOOMies such as his friend and former classmate Gerasim (whom he wishes to make a bishop, I might add)).

Therefore, he came to Iggy’s parish personally on 30 May. This was a “church dedication”… it was the strangest of such that I have ever seen or heard of. Firstly, only four weeks notice was given. Secondly, the present starosta was not there, and the former starosta and his wife were not, either (Iggy treated them like guvno, friends and neighbours). Thirdly, it was the most sparsely-attended ceremony of that sort in my knowledge. Of 165 people on the books, only 30 parishioners showed up, and the balance of the attendees (there were 80 people in all, I saw licence-plates from Jersey and Connecticut out in the car-park) were from out of town. There is much more, but, as I treat this episode at some length in my memoir, I don’t wish to do so here. Of course… the BO news gave me an excuse to issue a “teaser”, and all those in-the-know can tell from what I have said so far that this was a rather unusual event.

Paffhausen made it clear that he supports Iggy without reserve. Oh… Iggy was the former treasurer of the Diocese of New York and New Jersey. He was forced to resign after 125Gs were found missing and unaccounted for. An actual audit is being opposed by the lot at Syosset. Why? What does Tassos mean when he says that the truth about the financial shenanigans of the cabal “would destroy the Church?” Why is he covering up for Burdikoff, in particular? Why is Paffhausen supporting such a man? Interesting, no?

So (one can see the late Aleksei Mikhailovich saying “tak”)… two visitations in 26 weekends… whew! That means that Syosset is not sure even of Iggy’s parish (which should be the most “solid” of the lot, one would think). Paffhausen’s grip on power is very weak, so weak that he must attend to a “solid” location twice in six months. How much longer does the HOOMie have left… one wonders.

A priest-friend of mine said in an e-mail to me, “There is a civil war going on for the heart of the OCA. There are heaps of information and disinformation”. This is indubitably so. We should speak openly of this and not be afraid of the personal attacks that people like Burdikoff, Karlgut, Garklavs, Kishkovsky, and their minions would level against us (remember Paffhausen keeps his silence regarding Raymond Velencia, a priest who broke the customary and expected confidentiality of confessions and counselling). Yes, I know that this shall mean that Internet trolls shall issue forth “the truth” concerning not only me, but, all those who speak out. Remember the brouhaha concerning Mr Nescott… they did their best to vilify him (and he was a former judge with no known public “sins” on his plate)! What noisome nonsense! Why do we put up with it?

Who is willing to stand up and be counted? I am… knowing full-well how unpleasant it might be. God knows that I don’t enjoy such… no one does. However, there come defining moments. This is one such.

Remember, “The truth shall set you free”; it shall not “destroy the Church”. What shall be done of those who say the latter? Hmm…

Barbara-Marie Drezhlo

Monday 21 September 2009

Albany NY

“Europe should keep in mind that Russia protects it From an Islamic Deluge”

Natalia Narochnitskaya (1948- ), prominent Russian historian, anti-globalism activist, former diplomat and RF Gosduma deputy

Editor’s Foreword:

Fr Andrew Philips has an interesting article on his website Orthodox England drawn from the following article. I present a translation of the whole, to give it all in context. Thank you, Batushka Andrew, for leading me to this interesting piece! Without you, I would not have known of it!

***

A conference was held yesterday at the University of Complutense in Madrid, and Natalia Narochnitskaya, the head of the Russian Fund for the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in Paris, was one of the most eminent participants. She warned the conference that she was worried concerning the Eurasian strategies of the USA, saying that she saw them as stratagems by which America was attempting to gain control of all global energy resources. In addition, she noted that “Europe was in decline due to its nihilism and lack of values” and that the European Union pursues a policy of “reviving ancient autonomies”. Ms Narochnitskaya, a former deputy of the RF Gosduma from the nationalist Rodina bloc in 2003-2008, a left-wing nationalist faction that became part of Prime Minister Putin’s party United Russia, is known for her views opposing globalisation and similar contemporary currents. Today, she submitted a report, From Historical Russia to Contemporary Russia, prepared by the Institute for Democracy and Development, which examines the image of Russia found in the Spanish press article, Russia Returns.

***

Interviewer:

Churchill once said of Russia: “Russia is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma”.

The Baptism of Grand Princess Olga (Part One of the Triptych “Holy Rus”) (Sergei Kirillov, 1993). This contemporary painting illustrates the ancient ties that Russia had with Constantinople New Rome. It is why we Russian Orthodox refuse to kowtow to the Pope of Rome and his megalomanic conceits.

Natalia Narochnitskaya:

Russia is charting its own course. Without a doubt, it is absolutely clear that Russia is an integral part of European civilisation, but, we should not see that as being restricted to only to its western currents. Russia is also the successor of [Constantinople New Rome]. The future of Russia is the future of Europe.

Interviewer:

Do you see Messrs Medvedev and Putin as the leaders [of this movement]?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

The West incessantly accuses us of a lack of separation of powers. However, today, we have a real separation of powers. We are speaking of two very strong leaders.

Interviewer:

Would you bet that Mr Putin will be the president in 2012?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

That is not my decision.

Interviewer:

Could the present economic crisis cause a new revolution in Russia in the 21^st century?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

No, Russia is finished with revolutions. Today, the Communist Party is fully incorporated into the political system of the country.

Interviewer:

Can a democracy on the Western model exist in Russia?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

In the West, the word “democracy” implies a philosophy of liberal democracy. In Russia, we see it differently. Not so long ago, we conducted an opinion poll to find out what [the Russian public] considers an unpardonable offence. 92 percent of respondents answered that “Treason to the Motherland” was such an offence. We have a different definition for democracy than you do.

Interviewer:

Why is there no pluralism in the Russian political system?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

Indeed, we do lack pluralism in that sense of the word, as Western-influenced liberals described it in the 90’s. Russians placed high hopes on them, but, they discredited themselves. Today, Russians identify them as the enemies of the people.

Interviewer:

Are Russians nostalgic for their [lost] empire?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

Russians understand that, in the absence of a strong Russia, a new Roman Empire, which is founded on a heap of printed dollars, is now bombing other countries. Faced with such a threat, we turn to our experience. Furthermore, because of its size and uneven development, Russia must have a sphere of influence, otherwise Russia would collapse. Today, Russia is ready to ensure that it will exert more power than in Soviet times.

Interviewer:

What do you think à propos the new “emperor”, Barack Obama?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

Today, the American political élite very much need Mr Obama, as they are attempting to rebuild their ambitions, which were undermined by Mr Bush.

Interviewer:

Between 1982 and 1989, you worked in the UN Secretariat. What are your impressions of the United States?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

The United States represents a civilisation that is devoid of culture. However, Americans are a nice, receptive, and surprisingly innocent people. However, a very strong ideology impels them, and their greed for the almighty dollar generates a predatory instinct in them vis-à-vis their relation to the rest of the world.

Interviewer:

What is the main problem facing Russia?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

The demographic crisis.

Russian Orthodox faithful at services, at communion

Interviewer:

Today, it seems that “Holy Russia” is being reborn. Once again, the churches are filled with people…

Ms Narochnitskaya:

In contemporary Russia, the words of Jesus Christ are more powerful than the words of Trotsky and Lenin. Today, in Russia, former Komsomol members go on pilgrimages to holy places.

Interviewer:

Are Russia and Europe condemned to misunderstanding because of energy disputes? Is it causing a new “cold war” today?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

No, the discussion has not led to a so-called “cold war”. Rather, the EU is agitated because it understands all-too-well its dependence on Russian [energy supplies]. Of course, the EU would rather have Russia dependent upon it, but, we should aim to have our relations reasonably interdependent, although there are questions that unite us and there are disputes that separate us.

Interviewer:

You described the conflict in Chechnya as a “criminal revolt”. What do you think about the fact that the largest mosque in Europe was built in Chechnya?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

I think that Europe should keep in mind that Russia protects it from an Islamic deluge.

26 May 2009

ABC.es

As quoted in Narochnitskaya.ru

http://narochnitskaia.ru/cgi-bin/main.cgi?item=1r300r090601130700 (in Russian)

Editor’s Afterword:

In his recent trip abroad, US President Obama had the gall to lecture both Prime Minister Putin and Pope Benedict. Needless to say, neither man was impressed by the American popinjay. In fact, Mr Putin went from meeting Mr Obama to a meeting with Russian bikers, who were preparing to go on a mass bike rally in the Ukraine to celebrate the Russian Black Sea Fleet and the liberation of Sevastopol in the 2^nd Great Patriotic War. Mr Obama bleated about how “spheres of influence should not exist in the modern age”. Well, Vova gave the bikers a large Russian flag to fly during their motorcade through Little Russia.  Bully for Vladimir Vladimirovich! By his actions, he told that posturing American loud and clear, didn’t he? (Pope Benedict didn’t give in to The Greatest Hope of All Time either. I doubt that BO shall get the message, though. His messianic and self-righteous sort is DENSE.)

From the above, it is clear that Ms Narochnitskaya shares Mr Putin’s views completely. In fact, it is a point-of-view shared by virtually all educated Russians, save for a small minority that is in thrall to Western notions. Americans should shake themselves loose and SEE what is happening. Messrs Obama and Biden (the latter was in my area on Thursday last saying such to the true believers) are both croaking, “Recovery is just down the road!” If you believe that one, boy-oh-boy, do I have a wonderful one-owner bridge just for you!

Remember… iniquity and lies only triumph when we are quiescent. The truth SHALL set you free…

Iran Cannot be Swapped for Missile Defence

The Obama administration made no attempt to offer Russia a deal to make concessions over the deployment of a missile defence system in Europe in exchange for Russia’s cooperation on the “Iran issue”. President Obama himself drew a line under the issue at a press conference held on Wednesday, following his meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. What could this deal, or “trade-off”, have looked like? The media supposed that the United States would “forget” about deploying interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe on condition that Russia “formed a common front with the U.S.” in the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear and missile problem.

The proposal looked meaningless and crudely simplistic from the very start. Russia’s security interests call for a comprehensive discussion of a vast region comprising Iran, the Caspian, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In all these situations, many of which affect Moscow’s interests, Iran plays a key role. For the US, Russian support on the Iran issue is very important, because, as it loses leverage over the situation, America needs the support of a country that commands authority in the Middle East to preserve its levers of influence. At the same time, it hardly makes sense for Russia to give up its authority by directly supporting the US, for then Russia would risk losing much of its political clout built up in recent years in the relations with Middle East and Central Asian countries. Granted, these issues can and must be discussed, but, not in terms of “supporting” the US, but, in terms of a new American policy in the region.

The missile defence problem has nothing to do with Iran, but, it cannot be separated from Russia’s relations with NATO countries. It is impossible to pluck the issue of missile defence out of the whole range of security issues in Europe. The US promise not to deploy a missile defence system in Eastern Europe is not an adequate replacement of talks on the security system in Europe. At the end of the day, the possible deployment of American bases with strike weapons in the new NATO member countries is no less of a threat than the deployment of a missile defence system or the possible accession of Georgia and the Ukraine to NATO. Finally, the problem of missile defence is closely linked with the issue of preserving the nuclear and missile parity between the two countries, which has been the subject of a lively discussion in connection with reports about the US initiative on drastic cuts of nuclear arsenals. The agreement between Russia and the US on further nuclear arms cuts must include limitations on the development of missile defence systems, not only in Eastern Europe, but, throughout the world. Ideally, it should impose a total ban on the development of strategic missile defence systems and allow only the creation of theatre missile defence.

One should also bear in mind that in the current situation the “price” of the missile defence system as a bargaining chip has diminished significantly. In pre-crisis times, such expenditure for the US, though significant, was not unmanageable, and the prospects of creating a massive missile defence deployed in key points in the world looked quite realistic. But, tomorrow, it may very well happen that the US will have to scrap its plans of a missile defence system without any negotiations disguising the fact with fine words about “additional tests” and “development of a more sophisticated system”. The real reason would be simply that there will be no wherewithal to pay for such a huge project. That is a circumstance to be borne in mind too.

On balance, an Iran-missile defence deal plucks both problems out of the political and economic context without solving either. To repeat, the two issues can and must be discussed between Russia and the US, but, each in the framework of its range of problems. Iran, as part of the overall range of issues in the Middle East and Central Asia, and missile defence as part of the issues of European and world security. The current situation objectively favours an agreement between the two countries as both the Russian and American administrations have shown a readiness to negotiate, including on key issues.

5 March 2009

Ilya Kramnik

RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090305/120440000.html (in English)

Editor’s Note:

All too many Americans have only a cartoonish image of Iran. Iran is, not to put a too fine point on it, the largest single and most powerful state in the Middle East/Persian Gulf region. Therefore, its foreign policy often comes into conflict with that of the USA. Since the fall of communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe, certain Western forces looked about for a new “evil empire”. North Korea is too small. The PRC is too large. Iran is “just right” (shades of the Three Bears!). Just as ordinary life went on in the USSR; it does so in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

To make total sense of Mr Kramnik’s argument, one must understand that most educated Russians hold the view of the 19^th century historian Sergei Solovyov, that is, that the world is made up of several interlocking and interdependent, yet, fully distinct, “civilisations”. For instance, there is a “Western” civilisation headed by the US and Western Europe, with its roots in Catholicism and Protestantism. “Orthodox” civilisation is focused on the main Orthodox nation-state, Russia. “Indian” civilisation is found mainly on the subcontinent (and some Southeast Asian areas as well); “East Asian” civilisation focuses on Japan, China, and Korea; and “Latin American” civilisation envelops the Spanish and Portuguese language areas in the Americas. Each of these civilisations have their own spiritual, human, and political values, and most of the problems of the last twenty years have come from the attempt of the Western bloc led by the USA to impose its values by force on the entire world.

There is one other major world civilisational area (to use the Russian academic term). That is, the Islamic civilisation. Today, there are two contenders for leadership of this bloc, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran is a de facto ally of Russia and the KSA is a de jure ally of the USA. We have to understand that just as we see different “cultures” in London, New York, and Paris, but, one can see their common roots in Catholic/Protestant Europe, in like fashion, although there are differences in Casablanca, Cairo, Riyadh, and Teheran, they are tied together by their roots in Islam. The question today is simple. Shall Iran become the leader of the Islamic world or shall Saudi Arabia? That is what lies behind the whole mess over Iran.

The conservative social and spiritual values of the Russian and Iranian leaderships are in sync. They are both in opposition to the liberal West. Do not forget that Muslims and Orthodox have lived together in peace in Russia for centuries. Russia does not fear Iran, and vice versa. Both see the other as different cultures, not to be interfered with. The USA, however, is miffed that Iran not only rejects Western liberalism, it also “exports” its Islamic view of the world to other Islamic societies (How dare they! Only America has the “right” to “export” its values and notions!). Therefore, any American attempt to get Russian approval for its plans to “put Iran in its place” is doomed to failure. The social and political visions of Orthodoxy and Islam are congruent on virtually all points, and both are in opposition to liberal radical ideas from Western sources. So, this makes the Islamic and Orthodox civilisations “natural allies” against the West.

Obama’s initiative is doomed to failure. However, Russia would agree to act as an “honest broker” between Iran and the USA. God willing, the USA shall accept such assistance. Shall Americans give up their notion of exporting “democracy” to the world? One would hope so…

Personal PS from the editor:

I have been posting sparsely lately because of health problems. However, I have the good habit of listening to my doctor; so, I am resting a bit and getting myself back into shape. Thank God, it did not result in something serious; I can put things right with rest, exercise, and “taking my medicine”. Gotta run… well, walk, actually… I’ve been skimping on the exercise, it’s one of the reasons I got into the fix that I’m in. Do listen to your doctors… they are trying to help you, after all. Thanks, Dr Karen! Now… better put on my Nikes and get out there! See ya later!

Obama “Ready to Drop Missile Shield Plans in Return for Russian Help on Iran”

US President Barack Obama (1961- ) and President Dmitri Medvedev (1965- ). Is the era of neocon sabre-rattling and hubris over? God willing it is… it is in Mr Obama’s hands now… shall he stay the course?

Washington told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran’s nuclear programme would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary, a Russian daily said on Monday, citing White House sources. US President Barack Obama made the proposal on Iran in a letter to his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev, Kommersant said, referring to unidentified US officials. Iran’s controversial nuclear programme was cited by the US as one of the reasons behind its plans to deploy a missile base in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic. The missile shield was strongly opposed by Russia, which views it as a threat to its national security. The dispute has strained relations between the former Cold War rivals, already tense over a host of other differences. The leaders exchanged letters and had a telephone conversation since Mr Obama was sworn into office in January, Kommersant said. The first high-level Russia-US meeting will take place later this week, when Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meets with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Geneva. Moscow has not yet responded to the proposal by President Obama, the paper said, adding that a decision was unlikely to be made during the meeting of Mr Lavrov and Mrs Clinton.

The issue is likely to be discussed when Presidents Obama and Medvedev meet in London on 2 April on the sidelines of the G20 summit of world leaders to address the financial crisis. Earlier reports said Mr Medvedev had also invited the US leader to visit Russia and the date of Mr Obama’s first visit to the largest country in the world could be announced in the British capital. In an interview on Sunday with Spanish media, Mr Medvedev said he hoped to discuss the issue of missile defence with Mr Obama in London. He also said he hoped the new US administration would display a “more creative approach” to the issue than its predecessors. “We have received signals from our American colleagues”, Mr Medvedev said. “I expect those signals will turn into specific proposals. I hope to discuss the issue, which is extremely important for Europe, with US President Barack Obama”.

The United States and other Western nations suspect Tehran of secretly seeking nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programme is purely aimed at generating electricity. However, unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, Mr Obama has stated a preference for diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute. U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on NBC television on Sunday that the Islamic Republic was not close to building a nuclear bomb. “They’re not close to a stockpile, they’re not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time”, Mr Gates said. He also said that the while more sanctions should be imposed against Iran, the door should not be closed to diplomacy.

2 March 2009

RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090302/120375219.html (in English)

The Expulsion of the Super-Hawks

Vice President Richard Cheney of the Bush Administration was wheeled out of the White House last January. Symbolic, isn’t it? He was followed out by his team-mates, the super-hawks who had for eight straight years been mapping out US policy. Judging by what the Obama Administration did on arrival in the White House; their departure was one of the most important results of last year’s presidential election. George W. Bush was taken hostage by a closely-knit group of neo-conservative friends whose political creed was defined in the late 1990s. Their initially-classified manifesto for the new American century advised Washington to use force without paying attention to the United Nations and allied countries. It said it was up to the United States to make decisions on the use of force in, for example, attempts to overthrow unfriendly governments. Allies of the United States of America were simply expected to tag along. Their manifesto was co-authored by then Defence Secretary Dick Cheney, would-be Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and a close friend of George W. Bush’s, Paul Wolfowitz.

It was, since 2002, known as the national defence strategy of the Bush Administration, or, simply, the Bush doctrine. It rests on three main pillars, unsurpassed military superiority, a concept of preventive warfare that allows America to take military action before the USA happens to come under attack, and willingness to counterbalance unsuccessful attempts to forge alliances with unilateral efforts. This brain-child of the Bush-Cheney team was handed down to the Obama Administration. It has not been rejected formally, which is why, the principle of political continuity says, it remains a working document. What the Obama Administration decides to do with it poses quite an important question.

Another thing the Obama Administration has inherited from the string-pulling Cheney team is the lost war in Iraq. Orders for the invasion of Iraq, which placed an unbearable burden on the US economy and helped trigger off the economic crisis, were given by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Vice President Cheney never tired of insisting on continued warfare. Mr Cheney wanted to cash in on the war in Iraq because, with Saddam Hussein dead and gone, his Halliburton Corporation would assume control of large fields of Iraqi oil. The super-hawks, who nested on Washington’s Mount Olympus, bear moral responsibility for those changes for the worse in Russian-US relations which left a negative imprint on the global situation.

What seemed to have sunk into oblivion, the words “Cold War”, were brought back to life by Mr Cheney, whose Vilnius address of about three years ago is, stylistically and as a matter of fact, a relic of the Cold War. Vice President Cheney’s Vilnius address spelled the first, although not the last, top-level attempt to meddle in the internal affairs of Russia and an unvarnished verbal attack on that country. The infamous departure of the incomparable Bush-Cheney Administration wrote the finis to abortive efforts to realise the neo-conservative agenda. I do hope that the politically-disconnected relics of the Cold War were, together with the politically-bankrupt Dick Cheney, wheeled out of the American corridors of power. I do not think I will have to wait long before I see whether the Obama Administration is really capable of pressing the reset button in politics and adding an element of constructiveness to the policies of the United States.

20 February 2009

Valentin Zorin

A View from Moscow

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=40858&cid=170&p=20.02.2009 (in English)

Obama Administration Hopes for Positive Relations with Russia

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (1947- )

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hopes for positive relations with Russia. Secretary Clinton is planning an early meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. She sees their meeting as a link in the chain of the White House’s efforts for multifaceted cooperation with Russia. Secretary Clinton’s words echo what Vice President Biden said at the Munich conference on global security. In Vice President Biden’s view, Russian-US relations tended to drift in the wrong direction and time had come to arrest this dangerous tendency. Time had come to push the reset button in bilateral relations and readdress initiatives for joint ventures, Mr Biden said.

Action gives weight to those positive statements. Senior members of the Obama Administration, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns and Security Council Director for Russian Affairs Michael McFaul, were quick to pay early visits to Moscow. Preparations are underway for a Russian-US summit, which is to take place on the second of next April, in London. The agenda of the forthcoming summit features many points, first and foremost, moves to update the first treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons, commonly known as START-1.

Because the old START Treaty expires on 5 December 2009, Moscow says START negotiations should begin right away. It sees the yet-to-be-phrased agreement as an updated version of the old one, but, insists on a new ban on the deployment of strategic offensive weapons in countries other than Russia and the United States and on the demilitarization of outer space. Presidents Medvedev and Obama are likely to discuss that and the latest developments in Afghanistan, the Iranian problem, US plans for antimissile defence in East Europe, and ways to fight the global economic crisis. It takes presidential goodwill, the will to promote partnership in efforts to settle the world’s biggest problems, to streamline relations between Russia and the United States of America. Hope will give way to disillusionment unless the two national leaders are quick to show goodwill.

18 February 2009

Eduard Sorokin

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=40724&cid=56&p=18.02.2009 (in English)

United States Offers Security Deal to Russia

Test-firing of Iranian missiles

The new US administration said it would reconsider its plans to deploy parts of its missile defence shield in Central Europe if Russia successfully dissuades Iran from making a nuclear bomb. US concerns have been running high since Iran orbited a satellite a few days ago, proving it was capable of launching long-range missiles. [US President Barack] Obama’s policy is different because he is open to talk with Moscow about combining efforts of Russia, the United States, and other countries to strengthen common security. The Americans believe this policy could help remove suspicions that their “shield” is aimed against Russia. Russian military analysts, even radically-minded ones, think that Russia is quite capable of influencing Iran, through assistance for its nuclear programme and through conventional weapons supply deals, especially involving air defence equipment.

However, certain experts believe the current delicate situation should be handled within the general scheme of US-Russian interaction, not only with relation to Iran’s nuclear problem. Russia and the United States are currently probing each other’s resolve on the key issues, including nuclear disarmament and missile defence. America may soon propose a profound cut in nuclear potentials, in a bid to trade off its planned missile shield against Russia’s real nuclear potential. However, given the current financial situation, the shield might never be built, especially given its questionable workability. If Russia accepts the proposal, it will be compelled to join the conventional arms race, just to keep up its status. So far, the United States has not abandoned a single decision, such as NATO expansion, moving its missile bases from Western to Eastern Europe, militarization of outer space and the Arctic, or military operations outside NATO’s zone of responsibility. Moreover, Washington is continuing its strategic dialogue with China. Therefore, many Russian analysts are wary that the proposal that Russia should try to persuade Iran might also be a trap.

17 February 2009

Vremya Novostei (News Time)

As quoted in RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090216/120166920.html (in English)

Global Economic Crisis Seen as Top Security Threat to America

US intelligence agencies reported this week that the global economic crisis has become the biggest US national security concern. The crisis, the report said, is causing instability in a quarter of the world’s countries and threatening destructive trade wars. Thus, the global economic turmoil has apparently upstaged world terrorism in the intelligence agencies’ latest assessment of threats to the United States. That dramatic shift is apparently a reflection of the depth of the unfolding recession, but, also, by implication, of the progress made in the war against terrorism and the Obama administration’s enlarged definition of national security.

National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told a Senate panel this week that if the crisis lasts more than two years, it could cause some nations’ governments to collapse. A former war-fighting Navy commander-turned-National Intelligence Director, Mr Blair told startled Senators that a number of allies the United States depends on might no longer be able to afford to meet their own defence and humanitarian obligations. Mr Blair said the financial meltdown, which started in the United States and quickly spread to other countries, already has eroded confidence in American economic leadership and belief in free markets. “Time is probably our greatest threat. The longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to US strategic interests”, he told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. Blair’s lengthy statement opened with a detailed description of the economic crisis. It was in sharp contrast to such national threat briefings in the previous years, which focused first on traditional threats and battlefields like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

One reason for the new ranking, according to experts, is progress made in the last year against al-Qaeda. A year ago, this terrorist group was said to have reconstituted its operations in the lawless tribal area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But, apparently, that has changed. Mr Blair admitted, however, that the organisation is far from beat, but, said that sustained pressure to force al-Qaeda out of the tribal areas could seriously undermine the organisation. The US intelligence chief also made it clear the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and that the Taliban insurgency has expanded despite US and international efforts to stem it. He laid much of the blame for this on the government in Kabul, which was unable to provide basic services and gainful employment, which he said erodes its legitimacy and increases the influence of the warlords and the Taliban.

In former days, the emphasis in a report of this sort fell on the analysis of external problems the United States was confronted with. These concerned anti-terrorism effort, the danger of the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and political confrontation with separate governments and states. Now, the emphasis has shifted to economy. Economic issues are causing the greatest concerns, and not only with American intelligence. President Obama, too, is calling for urgent measures to save the US economy. Otherwise, the USA is in for a disaster.

According to Mr Blair’s report, by 2025 China and India will outstrip in GDP growth all other countries, except for the United States and Japan. Based on the results of annual GDP growth rates in 2007, China outstripped the United States 6 times and India 4-and-a-half times. The European Union is ahead of the United States by 1.5 times. This is clear evidence that the idea of a unipolar world is falling into oblivion under the impact of a powerful financial and economic crisis that struck in 2008 and is still going on. As the worlds unfolds towards multi-polarity, experts talk of the growing economic potentials of Russia, Brazil, and South Africa. Some experts expect a fast pace of economic development in Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Group-based economic and political centres will spring up, and even though the centres will follow an uneven pattern of development, the system of their existence will stay steady.

As a result, we are witnessing a new turn in global development. The world was multi-polar before the Second World War, and it became bipolar after the war, split by a confrontation between two super-powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the world was unipolar for some time, with only one super-power left, the United States. Now, there is yet a new turn in history. Whilst the United States continues to stay the most politically, economically, and militarily powerful country, new global centres are emerging, whose influence will grow steadily. Mr Blair acknowledged this in his report to the Senate.

14/16 February 2009

Yuri Reshetnikov

Eduard Sorokin

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=40552&cid=87&p=13.02.2009 (in English)

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=40564&cid=87&p=16.02.2009 (in English)

Editor’s Note:

These two articles were so interrelated that the only logical thing to do was to conflate them. There’s a new world ’round the bend… what it shall bring, no one knows, certainly, not me! Does anyone have a working crystal ball to be let out?

Who Is To Blame?

Alan Greenspan (1926- ), former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve System. He is only a scapegoat, the real culprits were Bush and Cheney. Thank you, George and Richard! We just LOVE the prosperity you bequeathed us!

Policymakers and political columnists identified the man who bears the blame for the perilous condition of the American and the global economy. 82-year-old Alan Greenspan, who spent a decade-and-a-half at the helm of the Federal Reserve System of the United States, was assigned the role of the scapegoat. An influential American magazine covering money and capital investment, Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, blames the financial bubble which burst to trigger off the crisis entirely on Mr Greenspan. Alan Greenspan opens the culprits’ list of the British Guardian. Financial darling of three Presidents of the United States, Mr Greenspan doubtlessly bears his share of blame for the irresponsible and dangerous moves which resulted in the current crisis. So does money-grubbing Wall Street. But, it would be unwise and improper to put all the blame on the handful of people whose names were listed in this negative context by the western media. It is not intentional or unintentional moves by certain individuals, but, rather, a chance combination of a few important factors that triggered off the crisis.

Current developments show that the unbearable burden of the arms race played the biggest role in this chance combination of several factors. A refusal to spend billions of dollars on a drawn-out arms race is what enabled the Clinton administration to hand a definitely surplus budget down to George W. Bush. It is considered bad manners on the banks of the Potomac to discuss the uncalled-for U-turn that the Bush-Cheney team was quick to execute for the purpose of re-starting the arms race. It is important to point out, though, that military spending ballooned two years before the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington and three years before the invasion of Iraq and the beginning of full-scale action in Afghanistan. The Bush administration decided to re-start the arms race before launching any antiterrorist action; it was used as a smokescreen for this arms race.

US military spending grew 62 percent under the Bush administration. No other administration of the post-World War II years allocated so much money for the Pentagon. The military spending of the United States tops the sum total of the military budgets of all other nations taken together. As a result, the surplus budget of the pre-Bush years gave way to a steadily growing budget deficit. Because of the reckless attitude of the Bush-Cheney team, the United States started living on borrowed money. Its 10 trillion dollar (351.939 trillion roubles. 7.816 trillion euros. 6.999 trillion UK pounds) public debt will weigh down as a heavy burden on this and, experts say, at least two more generations of Americans. With billions of dollars disappearing in the black hole of two wars, there was no way to avert the crisis.

The bankrupt Republican administration chose a very special way to show its friendly regard to those who would bow it out of the White House. What it made sure to do before bowing out was to saddle the Obama administration with a mammoth 3 trillion dollar (105.582 trillion roubles. 2.345 trillion euros. 2.1 trillion UK pounds) budget for 2009. More than half a trillion dollars (17.597 trillion roubles. 391 billion euros. 350 billion UK pounds) is meant for the Pentagon. In other words, the arms race is to continue. It was said at the Senate hearings into this year’s budget that the first thing the administration to come would have to do is clear the mess left by the outgoing team. Will President Obama be able to clear this mess? Will he agree to do what his predecessor expects him to do, continue an arms race that threatens the world and weighs down, as an unbearable burden, on the American economy? The course of domestic and international developments depends, in a great measure, on his answer to that question.

14 February 2009

Valentin Zorin

A View from Moscow

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=40548&cid=170&p=14.02.2009 (in English)

Can President Obama Handle the Crisis Alone?

US President Barack Obama (1961- ). Shall he rise to the occasion? God willing, he shall.

The American magazine Newsweek published an article by its former senior editor Andrew Nagorski, entitled Missions Critical. After taking a look at problems facing new US President Barack Obama, the author makes the stunning conclusion that Mr Obama may not be able to handle the current crisis alone. Mr Nagorski compares President Obama with the pilot of a huge airliner with little flying experience who, try as he might to make a soft landing, will still need help from more experienced co-pilots, foreign heads of state, who can fly their own missions. Here, mutual understanding and a mutual desire to help are of great importance. In dealing with the global financial crisis, Mr Obama and every other major political leader face a dual task, the author said. The first part concerns determining the size and scope of stimulus packages, while the second, equally-vital part, is about instilling public confidence that the proposed measures will actually produce results and allow for a soft landing.

Speaking about key foreign policy challenges, Mr Nagorski focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan. For one, he warned that European leaders are not enthusiastic about Washington’s calls to send reinforcements to NATO’s troop contingent in Afghanistan. The latest opinion polls in Europe show that most Europeans are strongly opposed to upping their involvement. The sad experience of the Afghan campaign shows that military force alone is not enough to establish a lasting peace. More than fresh troops are needed. The international community needs to pour more aid into Afghanistan and Pakistan to deal with humanitarian problems and encourage their long-term economic development, Mr Nagorski remarked.

Touching upon Iran, he said that in order to find a way for Russia and NATO to cooperate in dealing with a potential missile threat from that country, focus should be reframed to assess Iran’s real nuclear capability, both in terms of producing weapons and of delivering them. In Mr Nagorski’s opinion, there is reason to believe that Moscow wants to cooperate with the West on far more than just Afghanistan; in fact, it wishes to do so regarding a wide range of issues, including nuclear disarmament. Looking at US-Chinese relations, Mr Nagorski acknowledged some difficulties, but, said the two countries equally need each other, particularly when it comes to trade-economic issues, and need to work in tandem to address the current financial crisis.

Continuing the “pilot” metaphor, the Mr Nagorski suggested that President Obama “may already need to make some adjustments in his early flight plan”, since even the “most skilful pilot recognises that flying is always dangerous”, particularly in volatile weather. The article’s headline, Missions Critical, brings to mind a popular TV series, Mission Impossible, whose characters fight their way through the most difficult situations. Let’s hope we can manage it in real life as well.

11 February 2009

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=40341&cid=57&p=11.02.2009 (in English)