Posts
In trying to find material to back up the story about the Russian liberal opposition's relationship with the US embassy I have been able to dig up the following which all relate to the leak of diplomatic cables from Stratfor
These stories run a risk of being lost, so here they are.
WikiLeaks cable exposes NATO war plan against Russia
These stories run a risk of being lost, so here they are.
WikiLeaks cable exposes NATO war plan against Russia
US
State Department cables released by WikiLeaks have unveiled secret
NATO plans for a US-led war against Russia over the Baltic states.
WSWS,
2
December, 2010
The
cables, first reported by the Guardian newspaper Tuesday and posted
on the WikiLeaks site, underscore the growing geo-strategic tensions
between the US and Russia even as the Obama administration has
emphasized a “reset” in relations that was supposed to overcome
the conflicts left over from the Bush administration.
The
secret plans spell out preparations for a full-scale war with Russia
that would see the immediate deployment of nine divisions of US,
British, German and Polish troops in the event of any Russian
incursion into the former Soviet Baltic republics.
The
plans also specify German and Polish ports that would be used to
receive naval assault units and US and British warships destined for
battle with Russian forces.
Despite
these details, there is no indication in the cables of the
potentially catastrophic implications of such an armed clash between
the world’s two largest nuclear powers.
While
some analysts in Moscow insisted that Russian intelligence was well
aware of the contingency plans, their public exposure by WikiLeaks
prompted statements of protest by Russian officials and demands for
an explanation from NATO.
The
contingency plans that would send US troops into combat against
Russian forces were developed in the wake of the Russian-Georgian
clash of August 2008 that followed Georgia’s unsuccessful attempt
to overrun the breakaway territory of South Ossetia.
As
the cables spell out, the governments of Latvia, Estonia and
Lithuania, which were brought into the NATO alliance in 2004, began
to lobby US officials for the development of a NATO strategy for the
defense of their territories against a Russian attack.
The
US embassy in Latvia began by informing Washington about the concerns
of the government in Riga even as the fighting was going on in South
Ossetia. An August 15, 2008 message cited discussions with Latvian
leaders who expressed the sentiment that “this could easily be
them” and reported “Latvians are beginning to worry if membership
in (NATO) provides them the assurances of their security that they
had hoped for.”
The
documents, marked secret and classified, trace the evolution of US
policy from these first demands by the Baltic states in the wake of
the Russian-Georgian conflict through to the actual elaboration of a
contingency plan for a military confrontation with Russia that was
secretly adopted in January 2010.
The
cables indicate that US officials were anxious not to publicly
antagonize Moscow, even as they sought to put into place the war
plans demanded by the Baltic states. A report classified as secret
from the US ambassador to NATO, recounting a meeting with the three
Baltic state ambassadors, asserts, “We are not returning to the
cold war.”
NATO
and Russia had established formal relations in 1997 based on an
agreement that explicitly stated, “NATO and Russia do not consider
each other as adversaries.” The problem confronting US officials
was how to draft a policy that clearly cast Russia as an enemy
without upending ties with Moscow.
In
a cable drafted in October 2009, US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder
spelled out the problem. “Leaders in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
are pressing hard for NATO Article 5 (which compels all NATO states
to come to the defense of any other member state under attack)
contingency planning for the Baltic states,” he began, noting that
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had
already stated their support for such plans.
The
problem, Daalder pointed out, was that such plans “would require
specifying Russia as a potential threat,” something which Germany
and other NATO member states opposed. He wrote: “As we saw during
the debates over the Russia-Georgia war, many Allies will take great
pains to avoid even the suggestion that the Alliance and Russia are
on a course toward a new Cold War.”
He
suggested that Washington could get around the evident contradiction
by expanding an existing contingency plan for the defense of Poland
to include the Baltic states or by adopting “generic plans” for a
NATO response to aggression that would not name the states involved
but would be applicable to the Baltic countries.
Among
the concerns expressed by Daalder was that in the absence of a
contingency plan, the Baltic states would not trust NATO for their
defense and “will have to consider developing a force structure
focused on territorial defense rather than on expeditionary
capabilities.” The specific “expeditionary” role that the US
ambassador had in mind was the deployment of Lithuanian, Latvian and
Estonian troops in the US-led war in Afghanistan.
The
cable indicates that it was Germany that first raised the suggestion
that the contingency plan for Poland—codenamed “Eagle
Guardian”—could be widened to include the Baltic states. This was
the path that Washington ultimately backed. NATO approved the plan on
January 22, 2010 but made no public announcement.
A
January 26 cable signed by Hillary Clinton from the State Department
to US diplomats in NATO countries and to the American embassy in
Moscow spelled out the need to maintain strict secrecy in relation to
the agreement.
“The
United States believes strongly that such planning should not be
discussed publicly. These military plans are classified at the NATO
SECRET level,” the cable states. “Public discussion of
contingency plans undermines their military value, giving insight
into NATO’s planning processes. This weakens the security of all
Allies.”
The
document adds: “A public discussion of contingency planning would
also likely lead to an unnecessary increase in NATO-Russia tensions,
something we should try to avoid as we work to improve practical
cooperation in areas of common NATO-Russia interest.”
The
cable concludes with recommendations for dealing with any media
inquiries on the contingency plans. Such non-answers as “NATO does
not discuss specific plans” and “NATO is constantly reviewing and
revising its plans” are suggested. The diplomats are instructed to
stress that NATO planning “is not ’aimed’ at any other
country,” which in this case it most definitely was—at Russia.
Russia’s
ambassador to NATO said Tuesday that Moscow would demand that the
Western alliance abrogate the Baltic contingency plan, saying that
the plan stood in direct contradiction to assurances given at the
recent NATO summit in Lisbon.
“We
must get some assurances that such plans will be dropped, and that
Russia is not an enemy for NATO,” said the Russian envoy, Dmitry
Rogozin. “I expect my colleagues from the NATO-Russia Council to
confirm that Lisbon has made all the difference.”
Rogozin
dismissed NATO’s claims that the contingency plan was not aimed at
any one country. “Against whom else could such a defense be
intended?” he asked. “Against Sweden, Finland, Greenland,
Iceland, against polar bears, or against the Russian bear?”
Meanwhile,
the Guardian quoted an unnamed official at the Russian foreign
ministry as saying that the documents had provoked “a lot of
questions and bewilderment.”
“Russia
has repeatedly raised the question about the need to ensure that
there is no military planning aimed against one another,” the
source said.
The
revelations have surfaced under conditions of mounting tensions
between Washington and Moscow over the US Senate’s failure to
ratify a new START treaty on nuclear arms reduction and differences
over Washington’s drive to set up an anti-missile network in
Europe.
Cooperation
between Moscow and Washington notwithstanding, the US war in
Afghanistan and the strategic drive by US imperialism to assert its
hegemony in Central Asia are an inevitable source of conflict.
Underscoring
these growing tensions, the Russian navy reported Wednesday that US
and Japanese forces suspended war games in the Sea of Japan after two
Russian Ilyushin-38 anti-submarine aircraft flew over the area.
“The
area is our zone of responsibility,” said Roman Markov, a spokesman
for the Russian navy. “The airplanes carried out a planned flight
in an area of the Russian Pacific Fleet’s regular activity. Our
pilots did not violate any rules of international air space.”
The
military exercise involves some 34,000 Japanese and more than 10,000
US military personnel along with scores of warships and hundreds of
aircraft. They were suspended out of concern that the Russian
aircraft could gather secret data on US and Japanese capabilities.
Relations
between Moscow and Tokyo have soured in recent weeks over the dispute
between the two governments over the control of a string of islands
stretching south of Russia’s Kamchatka peninsula. Known in Russia
as the Southern Kuriles and in Japan as the Northern Territories,
they were seized by Soviet forces in World War II.
Last
month, Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev made a brief surprise
trip to one of the islands, provoking angry protests from Japan. Last
weekend, in an apparent response, Japan’s Foreign Minister Seiji
Maehara flew past the islands on a Japanese coast guard plane. An
unnamed Russian official responded to the fly-by: “No one, Japan
included, is banned from admiring the beauties of Russian nature.”
Other
dispatches released by WikiLeaks point to the tensions within the
NATO alliance over relations with Russia. In particular, a February
2010 cable from the US embassy in Paris records a clash between US
Secretary of State Robert Gates and France’s Foreign Minister Herve
Morin over French plans for arms sales to Moscow.
Gates,
the cable reports, “raised US concerns over sales of a
Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia as sending a mixed signal
to both Russia and our Central and Eastern European allies.” The
Pentagon chief went on to recall that while French President Nicolas
Sarkozy had negotiated the ceasefire agreement that ended the
fighting between Russia and Georgia in 2008, Moscow had not lived up
to the agreement.
Morin
replied, according to the cable, by asking “rhetorically how we can
tell Russia we desire a partnership but then not trust them.”
The
cable also quotes Morin expressing the view that “a European
Missile Defense system is both unwise and unnecessary,” adding that
Gates “refuted Morin’s contention.”
An
appended note indicating back-channel discussions between US and
French officials states: “Following the meetings, Morin’s
critical comments on Missile Defense were disavowed by senior
officials at the MoD and the MFA, who said that his views were his
own and that the U.S. should essentially ‘erase’ what he had just
said.”
John
Laughland, director of studies at the Institute of Democracy and
Cooperation, believes that the parliamentary opposition in Russia
does not have enough support in the country and that is why they are
seeking help elsewhere.
Some of the video material which accompanies this article are no longer available
US
snubbed Russian opposition pleas for help
RT,
22
January, 2011
Russian
opposition leaders and human rights activists pleaded with top US
officials to support their plans for political and social change, but
the request was apparently given short-shrift by Washington.
Russia's
Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, which obtained fresh files from
WikiLeaks, reports that the group was consistently critical of the
Kremlin and wanted American help for reform.
The
members of the opposition accused the US leadership of turning a
blind eye to observance of human rights in Russia while at the same
time seeking financial aid from America and even demanding US
ideological involvement in their activities.
Those
demands were voiced on a visit to Moscow by Michael McFaul, Special
Assistant to The President for National Security Affairs and senior
director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the United States
National Security Council. He met with opposition leaders at the
residence of the American envoy to Russia in Moscow.
The
opposition asked the US to be more critical of civil rights
violations taking place in Russia, but not “Bush-like critical”.
Those
who were present at such meetings at the US embassy in Moscow also
showed some evolution of their opinions over the years. Previously,
during George W. Bush’s presidency, they asked the US for softer
criticism towards Russia, but these days it is a different story.
They seem to believe that there is a lack of harsh critics of Russian
policies on America’s part. They even proposed discussing Russia’s
internal affairs in the format of representatives from the Russian
and American governments and Russian NGOs, but Michael McFaul
rejected the idea.
According
to the reports, the opposition said: “Washington should pay more
attention to significant incidents related to freedom of assembly in
Russia. To solve problems in Russia's civic society, parties should
sit down at the negotiation table – both Russian and US
governments, and representatives from NGOs.”
The
US’ response was, “It is up to Russian activists to build up
their relations with their administration, without relying on
America.”
Leaders
of the Russian opposition also believe that the recent reset of
Russia-US relations has had a negative influence on human rights in
Russia. Activists, especially in the North Caucasus, have been saying
that after the murder of Natalya Estemirova in 2009 the head of
Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, was given a “carte-blanche for other
murders” and should be recognized as a persona non-grata by the US.
Michael McFaul answered that he does not see that happening and said
the US would never turn a blind eye on human rights violations in
domestic issues in Russia and would express its concerns out loud.
The
report prepared by John Beyrle, the American ambassador to Russia,
concluded that the opposition in Russia is unsustainable and
immature. He also reported that some members of the opposition asked
for American help in registering new political parties. The
ambassador also reported that the opposition sees the possibility of
Vladimir Putin once again running for presidency as the biggest
threat to Russia-US relations and that America should be involved to
prevent that from happening. Michael McFaul rejected the idea of
American involvement in such activities altogether.
Oppostion:
“To further improve relations between Russia and the US, the Obama
administration has ostensibly refrained from vocal support for
democratic reform.”
US:
“Civil society activists in Russia are unaware of the contours of
the US approach to human rights and its record of public statements
and speeches. Russia's 'democrats' remain in near-terminal disarray –
constant personality disputes, disagreements with the Kremlin,
differences over the viability of political activity.”
In
his report to Washington, ambassador John Beyrle proposed that the US
should make its position on human rights issues and democracy in
Russia more clear to the members of the Russian opposition and
explain to what extent the US is willing to be involved in Russia’s
domestic issues.
Michel
Chossudovsky from the Center for Research on Globalization said it is
no surprise that Russian opposition parties come knocking on the door
of the US embassy.
“The
involvement of US officials with opposition parties against the
Russian government should come as no surprise. The Russian government
is a government which states its point of view. If the United States
doesn’t like this point of view, it will attempt to weaken or
destabilize the existing government – or [push for] regime change
as it has in countries around the world. And how does it undertake
regime change?
They
establish links with opposition political parties, and of course
these opposition groups are often financed directly by US
foundations, including the National Endowment for Democracy and
Freedom House. The National Endowment for Democracy is really an
outgrowth of the CIA.”
John
Laughland, director of studies at the Institute of Democracy and
Cooperation, believes that the parliamentary opposition in Russia
does not have enough support in the country and that is why they are
seeking help elsewhere.
“[WikiLeaks]
documents show frustration on the part of these groups with the new
Obama foreign policy – the “reset,” he said. “These
opposition leaders and NGO leaders are going to the Americans and
saying that they don’t feel the denunciation is active enough. They
are the ones asking for more and the Americans, in these documents at
least, are being slightly reserved and saying that in fact they are
already doing as much as they can.”
Investigative
journalist Webster Tarpley believes that the Russian opposition needs
to retool, to get some actual positive ideas, and not simply be the
“long arm” of a foreign power.
“You
look at that opposition and you seem to think, ‘what do they stand
for?’ They seem to be a group of people who are only united by
their hatred of Prime Minister Putin. ‘De-Putinization’ is the
only thing they have to offer. They seem to wait around for murders
to occur and then blame it on Putin – a kind of knee-jerk
reaction,” he said. “I don’t see an economic program, I don’t
see anything constructive, I don’t see anything that could help the
future of a
Evidence
of the controversial site WikiLeaks: «Washington Regional Committee"
was executive committee
Свидетельства
скандального сайта WikiLeaks: «Вашингтонский
обком» оказался райисполкомом.
19
January, 2011
US
one way or another is trying to manage what is happening in Russia
"How
often do we hear the expression "the Washington Regional
Committee”, which should mean that the US is somehow trying
to manage what is happening in Russia . If not the
entire state apparatus, then certainly at least Moscow liberals, the
fifth column, which, according to one well-known expression, "The
embassy’s jackals" ... But seems to be no trace of the
instructions which, many believe, the Americans give our politicians
human rights activists and journalists. "Where is the
Washington Regional Committee?" - the writer and journalist
Leonid Mlechin Ironically inquired a few weeks ago, having read the
first "release" secret dispatches published by WikiLeaks.
The
colleague was in a hurry. Exactly to the exit of some of our New
Year's bullpen opposition secret telegrams sent to Washington from
the US Embassy in Moscow a year ago have come into the
disposal of “Komsomokskaya Pravda”
США
так или иначе пытаются руководить тем,
что происходит в России
«Как
часто у нас звучит ерническое выражение
«вашингтонский обком», что должно
означать: США так или иначе пытаются
руководить тем, что происходит в России.
Если не всем государственным аппаратом,
то уж по крайней мере московскими
либералами, пятой колонной, которая, по
одному известному выражению, «шакалит
у посольств»... Но вроде бы нет и следа
указаний, которые, как многие уверены,
американцы дают нашим политикам,
правозащитникам или журналистам. «Где
же вашингтонский обком?» - иронично
вопрошал несколько недель назад писатель
и журналист Леонид Млечин, прочитав
первый «выброс» секретных депеш,
опубликованных сайтом WikiLeaks.
Поспешил
коллега. Аккурат к выходу некоторых
наших оппозиционеров из новогодней
кутузки в распоряжении «КП» оказались
секретные телеграммы, отправленные
в Вашингтон из посольства США
в Москве ровно год назад (архив
с оригиналами (13,97 Кб) можно скачать
здесь).
Russia Hinders McFaul & His Protesters
US
Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul funded and organized protesters
in Russia. Russian TV journalists asked why they came to see
him. http://youtu.be/yf3LjntNX20
=
This may be the visit to the US embassy referred to
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.