tdaxp

Great news for the world, as Russia continues to lash out at her former satellites.

Tom has compared Vladimir Putin to the founder of Singapore, but a closer analog would be Hosni Mubarak: a security-sector insider able to neutralize mainstream opposition, unable to neutralize violent radical opposition, and most notable for slowly destroying his state's ability to project power.

Two stories, two maps.

The first: the European visa-free zone increased, incorporating many of the new EU members. Germany and Austria no longer have guarded frontiers, formerly having checkpoints on the Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, and Slovene borders. Russia now borders the four members of the visa-free zone: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland (in addition to Finland and Norway).



The second is the continued dismemberment of the Russian client state, Serbia, at the hands of Brussells (and Washington, and Berlin, and...). When Kosovo declares independence, which is already a few months overdue, Serbia will find itself surrounded by eight countries -- three of whom are already in the EU, another (Croatia) which will probably be the next EU member, and the rest looking for eventual EU integration.

Relatedly: Vladimir Putin, who has been invaluable in accelerating Europe's rise, is Time's Man of the Year.

Earlier this year, Catholicgauze posted "The United Caliphates of Europe," which he had earlier presented at the yearly meeting of the Association of American Geographers in San Francisco.

For those who messed it, another lesson in the danger of importing Islamic microsotates is from in the International Herald Tribune's "France stunned by rioters’ savagery (hat-tip to Glenn):

In retrospect, it was not a good idea to have left his pistol at home. Called to the scene of a traffic accident in the Paris suburbs last Sunday, Jean-François Illy, a regional police chief, came face to face with a mob of immigrant youths armed with baseball bats, iron bars and shotguns.

What happened next has sickened the nation. As Illy tried to reassure the gang that there would be an investigation into the deaths of two teenagers whose motorbike had just collided with a police car, he heard a voice shouting: “Somebody must pay for this. Some pigs must die tonight!”

The 43-year-old commissaire realised it was time to leave, but that was not possible: they set his car ablaze. He stood as the mob closed in on him, parrying the first few baseball bat blows with his arms. An iron bar in the face knocked him down.

“I tried to roll myself into a ball on the ground,” said Illy from his hospital bed. He was breathing with difficulty because several of his ribs had been broken and one had punctured his lung.

His bruised and bloodied face signalled a worrying new level of barbarity in the mainly Muslim banlieues, where organised gangs of rioters used guns against police in a two-day rampage of looting and burning last week.

As the European Union follows the United States in adding members to increase its labor and land, Brussells must be careful to minimize its exposure to whatever is wrong in Islamic cultures. The West Balkans and Ukraine are logical next steps for integration. Contra Secretary Miliband (hat-tip to Tom), integration of Muslim countries, such as Turkey, or states that may be Islamic by the end of the century, such as Russia, should be delayed for the time being. (Economic and business ties, of course, can expand and their natural rate.)

My blogfriend Ry emailed me a Stratfor analysis entitled "Geopolitical Diary: Russia's war of words with Georgia."

The article describes Russia's scelerotic attempts to regain influence throughout the former Soviet bloc. Two things are clear: Russia is against democratization throughout eastern Europe and central Asia, and is becoming exactly as incompetent as an oil- and natural-gas- exporting country is expected to be. (When was the last time you saw geopolitical brilliance out of Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela, or...).

Unfortunately, Russia is able to hold American policy hostage because of her clientele with Iran. Whenver Russia wants America to look away, she supports this- or that- Iranian program, forcing Washington to make a deal to get the bear off her back.

A weakened Iran, of course, would hold less interest in the world, allowing America to focus on a "9/12" policy of supporting globalization and democracy.

Two of the best reasons not spoken for a war with Iran are that it would bring in China and push out Russia.

The latter first: Iran has been transforming into a Russian client state, and this relationship is enormously profitable to Russia. By supporting the Islamic Republic, Moscow is able to distract Washington from more important goals throughout eastern Europe. The fate of the soft revolutions against authoritarianism and the expansion of Europe as far east as possible simple matter to us far more than does the particular fate of Iran, or even the Shia generally. As long as Moscow is able and willing to provide Iran cover, our important work in Ukraine, and Georgia, and beyond that in Belarus and Kazakhstan, is set back. If Iran in chaos is the price that needs to be paid for expanding the European Care and crippling Russia's ability to cause mischief, then those benefits alone mean a positive ROI (return on investment).

The former last: One of the many reasons that America had trouble expanding the coalition of the willing to include Iran and China is that the Asian states are accustomed to free-riding of American efforts in the Gap (the Muslim world and Africa). Unfortunately, much of the hard work in shrinking the Gap relies less on stealth bombers and more on boots on the ground. American labor is simply too expensive to allow Washington to field a 200,000 man army a quick and successful Iraq stabilization may have required, and similarly too expensive to do much good throughout Africa. Critics of strikes on Iran often say that such a war would invite increased attention to the third world from China and India. I say good. We need the powers of the New Core as partners. If the Iran War enables that, then the struggle is worth it.

I'm no fan of Belarus's dictator, Alexander Lukashenko. He is a third-rate goon in the mold of Slovak strongman Vladimir Mecier. I've previously called for Lukashenko's overthrow. However, while Belarus is a beach of authoritarianism to the island of democracy that is Europe

But Russia is much, much, much more dangerous than Belarus could ever be. Indeed, seen in the proper context, Belarus is infinitely more useful if she is a buffer to Russia than if she serves that Bear



Roll back Russia. Support Belarus.



Democracy can come to a Belarus free of Russia faster than it can come to a Belarus that belongs to Russia. Europe and the west must take Russia's blackmailing of Belarus as the opportunity it is to splinter Moscow's hold on the Eurasian Heartland.

Don't let Russia threaten Belarus.

The death of Alexander Litvinenko reminds us how fortunate the world is for Vladimir Putin. An infinitely less bloody version of Stalin, his combination of political mastery and strategic incompetence guarantees us a safe Europe, a safe Asia, and a safe world.

Russia is situated in the Heartland of Eurasia, a "pivot of history." The lands of central Eurasia are protected from the oceans by the frozen Arctic Sea. They are also thus protected from the liberating force of trade. Central Eurasia has brought Europe and Asia pestilence, plague, war, invasion, and death. When Central Eurasia is strongest -- as under Czar Alexander I -- Europe is forced in authoritarian reaction. When Central Eurasia crumbles -- after World War I and the Cold War more recently, the European community expands and liberty (and the market) moves forward.

Therefore, we are thankful for Vladimir Putin. He ruins Russia's image as if he is a double-agent, weakening his country before micropowers and allowing satellite after satellite to be humiliated.

Vladimir Putin is continuing the disintegration of the Russian Empire that has occured since 1815 (with only a brief respit in the 1930s and 1940s). Because of Putin, Russia's "wins" are measured in individual bodies while Russia's losses are those nations freed from the Bear's grip.

Good.

"Debating Russia's Discorporation," by Mark Safranski, Zen Pundit, 19 April 2005, http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2005/04/debating-russias-discorporation.html.

Following up a debate on what Russia's disintegration would mean, Mark opines

Dan's connectivity observations regarding what we might call the first great centrifugal wave of nationalism that rocked the Soviet empire concerned true nation-states, all of which had previous experience with political independence, however briefly and long cultural histories. Georgian and Armenian historical memory stretch back to antiquity, the Ukranians to Kievan Rus, St. Cyril and Byzantine tutelage in Chritianity and civilization. A few of the original memnbers of the Commonwealth of Independent States like Belarus, Moldova and Tadjikstan have somewhat shakier national pedigrees but all of them outshine the potential aspirants of the second centrifugal wave battering Russia, of which the Chechens are but the cutting edge.

Currently Becker and Posner are debating the viability of small states, arguing in the main that the current world economic and political climate is more receptive to the survival of small polities. I agree provided the polities come with good governance - something I have grave doubts can be achieved by numerically tiny peoples like the Ossetians, Kalmyks, Mingrelians, Abkhazians who are little more than tribes yearning for flags, dominated politically by mafiya oligarchs and ex-Communist thugs.

Perhaps a free Tartarstan can make the grade, being larger and having oil but I don't forsee a Yakut, Daghestani or Ingush state anytime soon petitioning for admittance to the WTO. They simply aren't yet playing in the same civil society league that the Lithuanians were in in 1990 and at present the retreat of Russian power from these territories today is apt to spawn a constellation of failed states - a subsaharan Africa on the Caspian.

Mark's write that dozens of microrepublics would be a disaster. Such a scheme is based on the federal components of Russia - its 89 parts. While Tartarstan and Kaliningrad may be viable, another model would be Russia's federal districts



The Far Eastern Federal District was independent shortly after the Russian revolution, and many of the other districts have attributes of stable states.

Mark also has another point: Russia contains "Core," "Seam State," and "Gap" elements depending on geography. One solution would be to continue yoking these areas together under Moscow's leadership. Another would be allowing discorporation, followed by a multilateral effort to connect everybody.

Why should only Russia be worried about Dagestan or Inguishtina? Why aren't EU, NATO, or even Indian troops helping to connect the Caspain Sea littoral?

I am not saying we must collapse Russia, or press for this outcome. But such a future, it is happens, is not worth fighting.

Update 27 October 2005: Mark at Zen Pundit watches Russia die.

"Russia Tells Pakistan: India 'Deserving UNSC Candidate'," Daily Times, 31 March 2005, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_31-3-2005_pg7_45 (from The Acorn).

I blogged before on Russia's responsible attitudes toward China. Part of the reason is Russia is excellently placed for Asia's future -- Moscow's Cold-War-Era times to New Delhi should come in useful. The latest good news? Russia support's India's quest for a United Nations permanent seat:

Russia told Pakistan on Wednesday that India was a “deserving candidate” for an expanded UN Security Council seat, PTI reported. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s special envoy Riaz Khokhar was told this when he called on Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov, PTI said. Khokhar met Saltanov to convey President Musharraf’s personal message to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The conversation focussed mainly on international and regional issues. “In the context of a upcoming UN reforms the Russian side affirmed the well-known consistent and principled position of Russia on expanding the UN Security Council membership. Moscow sees India as a deserving candidate,” said Russian sources, reiterating Putin’s statement in December last that Russia would back a permanent UNSC berth for India. However, Saltanov called for a consensus on UNSC reforms.

The Acorn adds his thoughts

Moreover, by leaking news of what was supposed to be a ’secret meeting’ the Russians did not lose the opportunity to score points in New Delhi.

"Ending the EU Arms Embargo: The Repercussions from Russia," by Stephen Blank, Jamestown Foundation, 29 March 2005, http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=408&issue_id=3280&article_id=2369496 (from Simon World).

"From Bill Roggio's Assignment Desk," by Bill Rice, Dawn's Early Light, 30 March 2005, http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/03/from_bill_roggi.html.

Two stories touching on China. One retorts an article on India snubbing the US by buying arms from other countries for a little less than a billion. Reading the article, though, reveals no mention of advanced US arms. Rice's response:

The $746 million would likely not be paid out in one current defense budget year, and only represents 5% of 2004-2005 Indian defense spending of US $15 billion [February 5, 2005 Asia Times]. The same article hints at a possible purchase of 126 US F-16s: "The Indian defense community's wish list is long, which they feel is necessary to modernize the country's armed forces. These include a proposal to purchase F-16 fighter jets, Scorpene submarines and long-range rocket systems. The proposal to buy 126 F-16s - at $25 million each over five years - will itself cost the exchequer $3 billion. "

And that doesn't even mention the advanced and expensive F-18!

But while Indo-American military connectivity is definitely a good thing, the Sino-European deal is not.

First, Brussels may be less responsible than Moscow

Since 1989, Russia has been China's virtually exclusive supplier of military arms and assistance to the tune of $2 billion annually. China, however, wants to receive the technology and know-how to build these weapons indigenously so as to minimize its exclusive dependence on Russia. Since the Russian defense industry would collapse without the Chinese and Indian markets, it has had little choice but to oblige China's requests. Thus, China now has the capability to make much of the Russian-type weaponry through technology transfer. To the degree that China can get top of the line weapons and communications/information technology that it needs (and in many cases better quality weapons and servicing) from Europe, the Russian defense industry will take a severe blow. Indeed, Beijing probably hopes to obtain technologies and capabilities that it cannot get from Russia since Moscow has been reluctant to sell top of the line systems to China.

Second, it risks turning an emerging democracy into a servant of an emerging economy

Last year, China already joined the EU's Galileo project to tap into European developments in space and satellite technology. While there has been no official statement from Russia about the EU's impending decision, there is clearly considerable unease as to what it may portend for the Russian defense industry – and for Moscow, which clearly displays considerable ambivalence about China's future goals. This unease feeds into a broader sense that Russia cannot regulate the consequences of China's growth and might face a creeping "satellization" vis-à-vis Beijing if it loses still more leverage.

Third, it empowers the worst people in the Chinese leadership

Thus, Beijing has the opportunity to not only pit the EU against Washington diplomatically, but also against Moscow with regard to arms sales and technology transfer. China is already attempting to exploit this trend. In late 2004, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov successfully proposed joint Chinese-Russian maneuvers to Beijing. Russia wanted to conduct joint anti-terrorist operations in China's troubled Xinjiang province, a move that made strategic sense given Xinjiang's unrest and proximity to Central Asia. However, China has recently insisted that the operation involve large-scale conventional forces in anti-landing operations and take place on China's coast. That orientation would recast the joint maneuvers as a rehearsal for an invasion of Taiwan, not an anti-terrorist exercise.

Fourth, besides confirming CCK-Style Cravenness in Europe, in keeps war profiteers in business on the shrinking continent

However, it is also clear that individual members like France, Germany, and Great Britain are also pushing strongly to end the embargo. Although their individual motives vary, these countries have a common desire to rescue their ailing defense industries (which are finding it ever harder to compete in what is today an arms buyers' market) by opening up to China and India. Likewise, they all hope to cash in on China's economic growth and would seem willing to sacrifice their standing on human rights and democracy to gain these profits and expand their influence with China.

The only good news from the article? Pace Blank, China is improving

Second, there is no sign that China's overall human rights record has improved despite the changes in the country since 1989. While China may be a much more prosperous and even freer country, none of those freedoms are anchored in stable legal human rights and can be removed at any time. Removing the embargo gives China a "good housekeeping seal of approval" and rewards China's continued obstruction of democratic reform. At a time when the rhetoric and policy of promoting global democratization is trump in Washington, as shown in President Bush's second inaugural speech, for the EU to reward China's trampling of human rights hardly signifies a willingness to cooperate with America.

Economic liberalization is the cornerstone of stable democracy. Economic freedom is the cornerstone of political freedom. China is getting better. In spite of Europe.