<tit>
AMERICA'S DEFEAT IN IRAQ WILL COST RUSSIA<stl>Total chaos moving in to replace the mono-polar world
<aut>Alexander Khramchikhin, Director of the Department of Analysis of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis
<src>Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, No 46, December 15 - 21, 2006, p. 1
<sum>The world is in chaos. Russia is wide open for an attack.</sum>
<cov>CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEFEAT OF AMERICA IN THE MIDDLE EAST: TOTAL CHAOS AND TERRORIST ATTACKS ON RUSSIA FROM THE SOUTH
What is happening in the world nowadays is no less momentous than the events of the late 1980's and early 1990's were. The bipolar world crashed then, to be replaced with mono-polar. It is the mono-polar world that is collapsing now and being replaced with chaos instead of the multi-polar world which is a pet idea of many Russian and foreign strategists.
I have already stated more than once that the United States lost the war in Iraq because of a gap between the aim and the means. This war was essentially an attempt to bully a country into accepting democracy and freedom, based on an erroneous assumption that it is sufficient to dethrone a dictator and democracy will emerge all by itself.
This assumption could have been correct once, in 1991. Bush Sr. failed to carry it out and "set up" his son. Iraq was an undeniable aggressor in 1990 (all countries even including Arab ones recognized it). It was therefore defeated quite legitimately, even with the help from armies of some Arab countries (Saudi, Egyptian, and Syrian). As a matter of fact, a great many Iraqis were prepared to take the defeat adequately. No wonder mass anti-Saddam rallies began all over the country. Unfortunately, US President Bush became involved with petty matters. He didn't finish Hussein off but certainly betrayed whoever had mutinied against the dictator. This is what the Iraqis have never forgiven the Americans.
The 2003 defeat was taken throughout Iraq differently - as a foreign aggression NOT supported by the majority of the international community and specifically by the countries whose armies had fought Saddam 12 years earlier. Moreover, the Americans even failed to occupy Iraq properly.
Strategy was wrong, and the tactic doubly so. These days, Washington openly admits that it lacked any specific plans for what was to be done with Hussein out of the picture. Occupation of the country by inadequate forces, inability to close the Iraqi borders to terrorists, absence of anything even remotely resembling the Marshall Plan, and inability to comprehend religious, ethnic, and clannish controversies in their complexity - this is but an incomplete list of Washington's grave errors.
As a result, the Iraqis abandoned the battlefield in no time at all but initiated guerrilla-terror warfare against the occupiers and one another.
Election in the US Congress won by criticism of Bush's failure in Iraq, the Democrats lacked even an erroneous policy with regard to this country. (The Republicans have a policy which is apparently erroneous, but the Democrats do not have any at all.) Unlikely that they are ready to run away home, much less so to suggest a reasonable alternative to Bush's policy if they choose to stay. It is clear in the meantime that reduction of the contingent will only worsen the general state of affairs because it is precisely the shortage of personnel that is America's bane in Iraq nowadays. Aggravate the problem artificially, and the losses will only mount. Better to run away without delay.
It was quite plain two years ago that the United States had a way out of the Iraqi blind alley. It could leave and abandon the country to Iran and Syria, its bitter enemies. It would have saddled them with all Iraqi problems and, hopefully, engineered a clash between the two and probably even with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It dawns on Washington now, gradually. Even on the Democrats, perhaps.
Losing Iraq, Washington is also losing Afghanistan even though the initial situation in this country was much more advantageous for the United States. The whole world took its operation in Afghanistan as a legitimate and warranted response to the 9/11 outrage. Moreover, there was an active armed resistance to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan itself, and this resistance helped the Americans score a victory fast.
Once again, however, they decided that democracy would emerge and mature all by itself. Moreover, the Americans' determination to become involved in the Iraqi escapade compelled them to leave Afghanistan to their absolutely inadequate allies in this country. As a result, the situation in Afghanistan nowadays is back to what it was like in the middle of the 1990's, the situation that elevated the Talibs to power in the first place. Once again the population of Afghanistan is seeing the Talibs as salvation from chaos and never-ending tribal strife.
Consequences of the American invasion of the Middle East will be more dramatic than those of their Vietnamese antic. Cruel as they undoubtedly were, Vietnamese Communists were more civilized and reasonable than Islamic radicals currently shooting at the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Save for Ho Shi Ming's comrades-in-arms and followers, Vietnam's ambitions spread only to Laos and Cambodia at best and not to all of the world as the Islamists' do. Finally, the bipolar world of the 20th century was more stable than the world we live in now, the one that is anything but mono-polar.
America is generating a new psychological syndrome and losing its ability to fight all at the same time. Whenever one cannot prosecute the culprit, he cannot aspire for global domination which should be patently clear. Pyongyang and Tehran know it. Wars in North Korea, Syria, and Iran are off the American agenda now, have been off for some time. These wars are possible only if these countries attack the Americans which is essentially impossible. There is of course the option of "going down with guns blazing" but it is unlikely. Pulling out from Iraq for good, the United States will bomb Iran and perhaps Syria. Its probability, however, is estimated at less than 1%.
Blow at America's morale delivered by the Iranian fiasco will be worse than the Vietnamese one because losing the status of the one and only always hurts. And because there will be nobody to replace the United States as the one and only.
"Strengthening of Russia's positions in international affairs" and "growth of Russia's influence worldwide" exists only in the Kremlin's propaganda. Not a single example is to be recalled to substantiate these claims concerning "strengthening" and "growth". Moscow lost the positions it retained in the 1990's. Withdrawal from Cuba, Vietnam, Kosovo, Georgia (this one resembling flight more than anything else), from the Tajik-Afghani border, transfer of the strategic islands in the Amur River to China - these are episodes of the so called "strengthening" and "growth".
Russia is forced to defend itself even in the Commonwealth where its closest allies like Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Armenia are turning their backs on it. Russia's sphere of influence in the world is restricted to its own territory. Russia's foreign policy has reverted to "petty brawls" with countries like Georgia, Latvia, Moldova, and Poland and to extremely clumsy attempts to "blow the horn" that inevitably backfire and make foreign countries turn away from Moscow in disgust. A new "sanitary cordon" is taking shape along the borders of the "strengthening" Russia. The veto power in the UN Security Council is probably the only foreign political resource left Russia nowadays. It is, however, a resource whose importance goes up with America's defeat.
"Picking up" the countries that turn away from Washington and Moscow alike, Beijing is busily composing its own orbit of influence. China is not ready for the status of another "center of power" for the time being, however, the assumption its reaction to North Korean nuclear tests only proves. Pyongyang seems to have shed China's control over it and that is something Chinese leaders never expected to see happening, confident as they were that the DPRK didn't have any choice.
There is a pressing problem on the border with China, 600 kilometers from the capital. Kim Jong Il and Co are no longer content with being peons facing the prospect of annexation which the Chinese have been discussing almost openly. Like Washington, Beijing found itself in a trap. DPRK must be punished but how? Besides, the North Korean missiles will probably never make it to America. Reaching Beijing, however, is something they could be counted on at any moment.
China is a superb strategist whose leaders think in terms of centuries and that is probably why it is sometimes defeated tactically when it proves unable to react to sudden changes in the situation. Perceiving the United States as its prime enemy in the future, Beijing knows better than to wish it failure right here and now. China is not ready yet for the role of manager of global chaos: it lacks experience in big-time geopolitical games.
India is even less ready for the status of a "center of power". Possessing colossal demographic, economic, scientific, and military potentials, it does not perceive itself as a global leader. New Delhi's foreign political concept is highly insecure and tentative at this point. Viewing Islamic countries and China as its principal adversaries and seeing Russia weak and inadequate, India shifted its bearings to the United States. But the United States failed.
Europe as such is not a fully fledged subject of international politics. Obsessed with pacifism, the European Union is in the grips of an unprecedented crisis of self-identification. It is trying to stomach first, new members from East Europe and second, millions of immigrants from Asia and Africa. France, Germany, Great Britain, and Poland uphold absolutely different views on central foreign political issues, and that does not help matters either.
Neither can the Islamic world be viewed as a center of power - or pole if you prefer. It is divided even worse than Europe is, it is technologically helpless, it is subjected to unprecedented pressure from beyond (from the United States, first and foremost) and from within (from radicals and "street elements"). The Middle East is embodiment of the chaos all of the world may plunge into one fine day. Weakness of Israel plainly revealed in the recent war in Lebanon serves as an additional factor of destabilization. The situation may be reverting to what it was like in the late 1940's and Israel may eventually find it necessary to defend its very existence. This new war where the religious factor will be instrumental promises to be more vicious than anything mankind has known so far.
Washington received another blow in Latin America, a blow as crushing as the one in Asia, and absolutely unexpected at that. Regarding the region as its backyard, the United States seems to have forgotten all about it with the Cold War gone. Hence the colossal "red wave" sweeping over the region nowadays.
This new Latin American Socialism with a large dose of anti-American thrown in (not even the Middle East hates the United States with the intensity displayed in this so called backyard) may prove more lasting and stable than the late Soviet one. It is not something forced from beyond as in the late USSR and particularly in East Europe. It is heartfelt by the overwhelming majority of the population of Latin American countries and that makes it democratic. Latin American diaspora in the United States itself is growing fast, and that does not make things any easier for Washington. A great deal of representatives of this diaspora may become the fifth column in America itself.
Venezuela, America's major oil supplier, is Washington's enemy now, but even that may look like child's play compared to what is happening in Mexico. Another major oil supplier to the United States, Mexico is the principal supplier of wetbacks. Split by the latest presidential election, Mexico is on the threshold of a civil war now. From the American standpoint and for America, it will be immeasurably worse than Iraq. In the meantime, we cannot very well expect appearance of a "Socialist community" in Latin America because this New Left are much too different for that. Their differences only worsen the general chaos.
As for Tropical Africa, it does not even need to descend into chaos. It has been there since the collapse of the colonial system.
We shall probably forget about non-proliferation regime as DPRK has confirmed and Iran will probably confirm too in the near future. First, nuclear weapons embody technologies of the 1960's and thinking that they may be contained is the height of stupidity. Second, the regime as it is does not suggest any way to punish violators. Responding to developments in Iran and North Korea, other countries will aspire for the status of nuclear powers - Saudi Arabia (if it is not one yet), Egypt, South Korea, and Japan. Aware of pointlessness of relying on the United States and faced with the Chinese and Korean threats, this latter is already building fully fledged armed forces instead of the so called "self-defense" ones.
Even Nigeria is talking nuclear weapons! Unable to make them on its own, it nevertheless can buy them elsewhere. Moreover, it has discussed it with Pakistan almost openly. Pakistan in its turn is talking to Washington from a position of strength too. Islamabad knows that the United States needs Pakistan much more than vice versa. No NATO operation in Afghanistan is possible without Islamabad's benevolent consent. And if it is radicals who come to power in Pakistan which is not at all impossible, we'll be dealing with a country with larger than Russian population (147 million), nuclear weapons, and delivery means.
Global chaos is made all the more confusing by the fact that sovereign states are not the only subjects of international politics anymore. There are all sorts of terrorist, insurgents, and even criminal groups whose strength and influence matches or even exceeds those of some sovereign states, the groups that may even establish their own quasi-states. Al-Qaeda is a textbook example and Hezbollah is another. It defeated the Israeli army this summer. It is about to topple the government of Lebanon, these days.
Radical Islamists the United States is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan became what they are long before the Yankees appeared there. As far as they are concerned, the Russians are as much their enemies as the Americans. In any case, it is better for us that these people kill the Americans and that the Americans kill them sparing us the necessity. Moreover, it will certainly benefit Russia to have this state of affairs last as long as possible. If the United States pulls out, their enemies in these countries are highly unlikely to resume their "peaceful and creative labor" which they do not like anyway. At best, they will start killing one another. At worst - a more likely option - they will turn outwards, considering themselves winners.
No longer will the only pole in the world, the United States easily defend itself and its own territory. Europe will capitulate but it has its own problem. Russia in its turn is wide open for attack, not ready to defend itself from both the military and psychological standpoint.
Moreover, it will only be logical for the new administration in Washington to "channel" Islamic aggression to the north, i.e. to Russia. Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are much closer to Russia than to America or even Europe. Moscow made itself America's enemy all over again in the last three years (without any necessity to do so) and America therefore does not feel any need to value it or care about it. Russia is a tasty slice of the pie for Islamists, the tastiest of all.
As a result, return to the traditional arrangement is all the more probable, the one where Russia will shed its blood for America and not the other way round. And given the true shape of the authorities, army, ethnic and religious relations, and society's morale (the true one, not what the Kremlin's propaganda is presenting as it), repelling a major aggression from the south will be a chore.
<tit>
US DOLLAR WILL KEEP GETTING CHEAPER IN 2007Analysts of investment banks say that in 2007, the US dollar will keep getting cheaper against the rouble and the euro but not as fast as in 2006. Majority of them forecast that in a year the dollar will cost about 26 roubles.
Year 2006, was the worst for the dollar in Russia. The dollar has been getting cheaper since 2003, when on January 9, it reached the maximum of 31.88 roubles. At the beginning of 2006, dollar exchange rate amounted to 28.48 roubles and by May its exchange rate fell below 27 roubles for the first time since 2000. On December 18, the Central Bank set the exchange rate at 26.33 roubles. In 2006, dollars already lost 8% or more than in 2003 (7.33%). Population is getting rid of dollars and in exchange offices of Moscow it is almost impossible to sell dollars at an exchange rate higher than 26 roubles.
The nominal exchange rate of the rouble to the bi-currency basket of the Central Bank (consists of dollars by 60% and of euros by 40%) grew stronger by 4.2%.
Experts are convinced that the situation will not change fundamentally in 2007 and dollar depreciation and, correspondingly, rouble appreciation will continue, although at a slower speed. Analysts of Credit Suisse, ING, Alfa-bank, Vneshtorgbank and investment company Troika Dialog forecast that by the end of 2007, the dollar will cost 26 roubles. There are even more aggressive forecasts: 25.40 roubles from MDM-bank, 25 roubles from Renaissance Capital and 24 roubles from UBS.
The polled analysts presume that throughout 2007, the value of the bi-currency basket will be stable and the Central Bank will not have a need to strengthen the rouble dramatically.
<ref>Vedomosti, December 18, 2006
