SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
the nato chief polishes turds with der spiegel, about "not" setting more bear traps...
'We Don't Want a New Cold War'
SPIEGEL speaks with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about the alliance's response to Russian aggression, the growth of member state defense spending and whether Turkey still shares the organization's values. SPIEGEL: Mr. Secretary General, three former high-ranking NATO generals have sharply criticized the alliance's Russia policy. They wrote that NATO has "too often acted like a homeowner who sets the alarm once the burglars have left." What is your answer to that criticism? Stoltenberg: NATO is the most successful alliance in history. Thus far, we have prevented war through a combination of strong defense and deterrence. Now we are positioning ourselves to address the challenge presented by an increasingly confident Russia. We have enhanced our presence in the eastern part of the alliance to a greater degree than any time since the Cold War and sent a strong message to potential adversaries. SPIEGEL: This enhancement is exactly what the generals are criticizing. They say it isn't credible because NATO has sent too few soldiers to the Baltic States and that Russia is in a position to block or impede reinforcements any time it wants. Stoltenberg: Our exercises have demonstrated the opposite to be true. We have just successfully completed the Brilliant Jump maneuver and transferred a Spanish brigade to Poland where it participated in a mission with units from Germany, Great Britain and many other countries. SPIEGEL: Maneuvers are one thing, but reality is often quite another. Estonian Prime Minister Taavi Roivas has demanded that NATO troops be permanently stationed in his country. Stoltenberg: We have developed detailed plans combining several elements for the defense of our Eastern European partners. At the NATO summit at the beginning of July in Warsaw, we will determine how to credibly defend ourselves in the future as well. Our planning staff has proposed sending battalion-sized units to various countries in the eastern part of the alliance which could be quickly reinforced in an emergency. We will improve our infrastructure and position materiel and reinforcements in the region. We have already opened eight small headquarters in the eastern part of the alliance area and the NATO rapid reaction force has been tripled in size, to 40,000 troops. SPIEGEL: NATO has been careful about sending more troops into its eastern member states because it wants to remain in compliance with the NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations. When it signed this agreement, NATO wanted to create a new foundation for the relationship between Russia and the West. Will that agreement be sacrosanct forever? Stoltenberg: We comply with our international obligations and with the NATO Russia Founding Act. Our stronger presence in the east in the form of rotating troops, combined with the ability to bring in reinforcements in the case of a serious incident, is the right, balanced mixture and is in keeping with the counsel of our military planners. We can deploy NATO soldiers from Germany, Spain or Norway all over the world on extremely short notice, including to the Baltics. And don't forget one thing: We are no longer in the Cold War. Back then, there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers permanently stationed at NATO's borders. Today, the decisive factor is rapid deployability. SPIEGEL: Are we understanding you correctly: The NATO-Russia Founding Act will not be touched? Stoltenberg: It specifies that there will be no stationing of substantial combat units in the eastern areas of the alliance. Our plans are below this threshold in every way, regardless how one interprets this agreement. SPIEGEL: And if the security situation changes? Stoltenberg: As Secretary General of NATO, there is a limit to the number of hypothetical questions that one can answer. Anything else creates confusion. But I would like to say one more thing on the subject of Russia. SPIEGEL: Please. Stoltenberg: Our answer to the new security situation, precipitated by a more aggressive Russia, is defensive and it is proportionate. We have made it clear that we do not want any confrontations. We don't want a new Cold War. We are working to establish a more constructive relationship with Moscow. SPEGEL: How do you intend to establish one? Stoltenberg: By continuing to seek a dialogue with Russia, and to strive for more transparency and predictability. The danger of an incident taking place has grown with the increased Russian military presence on our borders. Just take, for example, the Russian fighter jet that was shot down at the Turkish border or the risky flight maneuvers by Russian warplanes over the Baltic Sea. We should try to prevent these kinds of incidents if possible and when they do take place, make sure that they don't spin out of control. SPIEGEL: The alliance faces the challenge of having 28 member states that need to agree. In Russia, only one person makes the decisions: Vladimir Putin. Stoltenberg: When it's necessary, we can also make decisions very quickly. Think about our mission in the Aegean, which the Germans pushed for. We made the decision in a few days and our ships were on site within 48 hours. It is a strength, not a weakness, that NATO is an alliance of 28 open, transparent and democratic societies. History shows that democracies have forged the strongest military alliance that has ever existed. SPIEGEL: Polls show that 60 percent of Germans don't want to risk a war with Russia in order to defend other NATO partners like the Baltic States. Is public opinion in Germany a problem for NATO? Stoltenberg: People have different views in democracies. For me, as NATO secretary general, it is important that the alliance has shown that it makes decisions that can then be implemented. SPIEGEL: Independently of what the people think? Stoltenberg: In democracies, of course, you are dependent on the support of the citizens, because parliaments and governments need to be elected. But if you look at the past seven decades, we were always able to adapt to new challenges, and that is a product of democratic decision-making. SPIEGEL: We agree that Putin's autocracy shouldn't be a role model. But militarily, he has repeatedly been able to take the West by surprise in the past few years. Stoltenberg: In the end, democratic societies are stronger and more resilient than any autocracy. And more adaptable too. We have reacted to the changed security situation very quickly, after all, and our collective defense efforts have become more robust. That is a fundamental change. SPIEGEL: For years, NATO member states have repeatedly pledged to invest 2 percent of their gross domestic products into their defense budgets. But they aren't following through. Stoltenberg: There too we are seeing a shift. Last year, the trend of shrinking defense spending came to a halt after many long years. The forecasts for 2016 indicate that we will once again see increased defense spending among European NATO allies for the first time. The situation is still mixed, but things are improving. SPIEGEL: It isn't just Russian troops that are seen as a threat, primarily by Eastern European allies. Western intelligence services also believe that Moscow is behind some cyber-attacks. Has NATO underestimated this threat? Stoltenberg: No, we have strengthened our capabilities in order to protect our own NATO networks. We have also strengthened collaboration among allies, because they must first protect their own networks. We have established teams of experts that can help member states when they are attacked. And we have made a very important decision: A cyber-attack can be considered an armed attack according to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and thus trigger the collective defense clause. SPIEGEL: What response does the alliance have to the information war that Moscow is leading against the West? Stoltenberg: We are, indeed, registering a lot of propaganda, but our reaction to propaganda cannot also be propaganda. SPIEGEL: What then? Stoltenberg: The truth. In the end it will prevail. I am 100 percent convinced that an open society like that of Germany will ultimately be able to push facts through against the propaganda. It may be that opinion polls show a mixed picture, but at the same time, approval for NATO is growing. It means we must be doing something right. SPIEGEL: You have pointed out several times that NATO is an alliance of 28 democracies. One important member state is Turkey. Does it fit into the picture? Stoltenberg: NATO is based on shared values. Democracy, individual civil liberties and the rule of law. In public and also in meetings with the allies, I have repeatedly pointed out how crucial these common values are. They are the basis for our unity, and unity is the most important basis for our strength. SPIEGEL: Does the Erdogan regime in Turkey fulfill these requirements? Stoltenberg: These values are fundamental to NATO, and they are also very important for me. And in various meetings with the allies, I repeatedly point to them. SPIEGEL: That is an extremely diplomatic answer. Stoltenberg: (laughs) In my position, I also see myself as a diplomat. SPIEGEL: You have promised predictability and transparency. Those are two things don't seem to be very important to your NATO ally, Turkey. Stoltenberg: They apply to all allies, and Turkey is part of our effort to improve our diplomatic dialogue with Russia. SPIEGEL: Russia's intervention in Syria clearly took the West by surprise. Did NATO underestimate Moscow's military capabilities? Stoltenberg: We are living in a world in which developments are harder to predict and one that has become more uncertain. In such a world, you must be prepared for the unpredictable. Nobody predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall or the Arab Spring. SPIEGEL: What does that mean for NATO? Stoltenberg: That we need new capabilities. Enhancing our armed forces, more reconnaissance, more surveillance. We will soon be stationing new, state-of-the-art surveillance drones in Sicily. SPIEGEL: In order to monitor the streams of refugees from Libya? Stoltenberg: That depends on where the drones will be needed. When it comes to Libya: We have offered the new government help if it wants it. I've spoken with the Libyan prime minister. He wants to send a team of experts to Brussels and then we will see how Libya can be helped. SPIEGEL: Is that NATO's new line? No more deployments of its own, only helping other countries? Stoltenberg: We must also be in a position to make troops available in the future, as we did in the Balkans and Afghanistan. But at the same time, the focus will increasingly be on putting local troops in a position to ensure stability in their countries. We are working together with Iraq to train Iraqi troops in the fight against terror. In Afghanistan we have ended our combat deployment after 12 years, but we still have 12,000 NATO soldiers stationed there. Now we are tasked with helping the Afghans ensure their own security. In the long term, that makes more sense. SPIEGEL: Mr. Secretary General, thank you for this interview.
Who is aggressing whom?...
|
User login |
western media — frothing up like a rabid dog...
Some years ago, RT’s editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, was quoted by Germany’s Der Spiegel as saying: “There is no objectivity - only approximations of the truth by as many different voices as possible.” Simonyan was making a point about Western media’s coverage of Georgia during the brief 2008 conflict and responding to accusations of bias on Syria.
The RT chief was widely taken to task for her assertion, even if she was only stating the obvious. It’s perfectly clear that in a conflict involving Russia, a Russian broadcaster will present a Russian interpretation of events – in the same way that American and British media saw the Iraq war from the perspective of their own forces and interests. For obvious reasons, the likes of the BBC, CNN and ITV didn’t have reporters “embedded” with Iraqi forces. However, they had plenty of them inside British and American battalions.
Often, when RT gives airtime and column inches to perspectives outside the mainstream, it is accused of “one-sided propaganda,” “weaponizing information,” launching “hybrid war” and numerous other indictments. One of RT’s biggest critics is the BBC, Britain’s own state-funded broadcaster, which is delighted to give plenty of space to RT bashers.
The one-eyed man is king
In a recent report, the BBC’s Tim Whewell asked: “Is Vladimir Putin really trying to break up the EU?” The premise was ripe for a truly insightful and fascinating analysis if it had included a range of opinions. Or just a couple of different takes. However, Whewell only allows one voice, on the three-minute clip: that of Anne Applebaum, a lobbyist for the CEPA and Legatum policy advisories, who occasionally moonlights as a journalist.
How pro-EU/NATO lobbyists posture as neutral observers to scare the public
Applebaum, whose work is funded by American defense contractors, the US Department of Defense and a New Zealand investor with a murky history in Russia, has been a prominent anti-Russia activist for years.
Asking Applebaum, who has built a lucrative career from opposing Moscow, to evaluate Russian policy is akin to seeking Jeremy Corbyn’s opinions on Margaret Thatcher. You know exactly what you’re going to get. The BBC surely knows this.
To make matters worse, it attributes her to the academic-sounding “Legatum Institute,” without outlining the lobby group’s objectives or backing.
Applebaum’s “expert opinion” also fully echoes Whewell’s own fear-mongering narration, which amounts to: “The Russians are coming to get you.”
Reality according to the BBC
The video report insists that the West couldn’t possibly implement anything akin to alleged Russian actions in Europe inside Russia, to balance the so-called info war. This is simply absurd because the BBC, Germany’s Deutsche Welle and America’s RFE/RL all currently have Russian-language messaging services available in Russia. Then there are Western social media trolls, sorry, “Facebook warriors,” who enjoy uninhibited entry to Russian social networks.
Let’s dig a little deeper on the information front.
RFE/RL boasts that its Radio Svoboda "is the leading international broadcaster in Russia," and celebrates its social media success and reach on its own home page. Currently, the US state-funded broadcaster is planning to magnify its presence in Russian regions. Among its new programs will be documentaries, analytical TV spots, interviews and 'humorous' shows. They also air "Current Time," a collaboration between RFE/RL and the Voice Of America, which offers pro-Washington messaging to Russian speakers.
American state media partners with neocon smear blog: RFE/RL falls from the moral high ground
In addition, RFE/RL owns the Interpreter, a blog that doesn’t even try to veil its anti-Russia stance. It is headed by a lobbyist for NATO's Atlantic Council appendage. The Interpreter is also a useful tool for throwing mud at genuine Western Russia experts, who are often conciliatory to the country, thus handicapping them in impacting public opinion.
The US embassy in Lithuania is busy sponsoring "education in journalism" programs in Russophone areas, added to RFE/RL's similar, Prague-based scheme. It's also important not to forget 'Meduza," a Riga-based, Russian-language breaking news and opinion website, which refuses to reveal its funding sources.
History Rewritten
Then, of course, there is a decades-long history of Western interference in Russian public life.
Back in 1996, Time Magazine loudly proclaimed that Americans helped Boris Yeltsin ‘win’ that year’s controversial vote.
In 2009, President Obama met unelected Russian opposition activists in Moscow, in a move that amounted to demonstrative interference in Russia’s domestic politics. Just imagine the reaction if his then Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, had hung out with “Occupy Wall Street” protestors in New York? Would that not be widely seen as an endorsement of a particular constituency?
This link leads to a list of Russian organizations that were funded by the CIA in 2009. They range from the "Agency of Social Information" to the "Support Fund for Freedom of Information initiative" to "Lawyers for Civil Society".
McFaul receives Russian rights activists at first meeting as US ambassador
There are numerous Western think tanks (often indistinguishable from lobby groups) that focus on Russia. For instance, this weekend, there is a conference taking place in Washington, featuring a variety of Russian exiles and also some Ukrainians and Americans. It is dedicated to removing, sorry, reforming Russia’s political system. Foreigners on foreign soil working out ways to more effectively interfere in Russia? Of course, according to the BBC, things like this simply do not exist.
What a cornucopia! Yet Applebaum still claims that the West hasn't been able to use "soft power" in Russia.
Carte Blanche
Although every news outlet is prone to reflecting its point-of-origin outlook, when it comes to Russia coverage the extent to which the BBC likes to stoke fears of the Big Bad Russian threat still sometimes manages to surprise. This latest video, however, really cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria by making Europe’s favorite boogieman not just large and powerful, but invisible and unstoppable.
You see, occasionally, bad things happen in Europe. Floods of immigrants, cyber-attacks, the rise of political groups unfriendly to Brussels. Sometimes there isn’t a clear guilty party because a variety of factors influence the drift. At other times the perpetrator is entirely unknown. An unseen dark force only adds to paranoia. But worry no more, because the BBC’s got you covered: just blame it all on Russia, even if there’s no proof!
Cyber-attacks on Estonia, Germany and Bulgaria blamed on Russia? There is no proof that Russian has ever launched these assaults on foreign states, but America's penchant for cyber-attacks on Iran, for one, has been well documented. How do we know there’s no proof that the Russians did it? Because the BBC video says so!
BBC whips up anti-Russia hysteria to apocalyptic levels
Political parties in Hungary and Germany taking Kremlin cash? Well, there’s no actual evidence, says the BBC. But sure, let’s add that to the compilation video of “things we can’t prove Russia does but are solid proof that Russia is destroying Europe!” Compare this to America's funding of Romania, where it has just opened a shiny new missile base, which is documented on its own embassy's website.
“No comparison” indeed.
The BBC video concludes with an ominous-sounding statement: “If they can’t prove that Putin is waging [hybrid war], it’s because, by definition, hybrid war can’t be proven.” It’s unclear who granted the BBC the power to redefine words and concepts such as “hybrid war,” as the term is widely accepted to mean simply a mix of different types of warfare. While Whewell says the words with aplomb and don’t-you-dare-question-it authority, the definition is negated by discussion earlier in the piece of a bank loan to a French party as evidence of Russia’s nefarious activities.
However, word games aside, Whewell’s pronouncement is indicative of a worrying new trend in the Western establishment’s approach to Russia. If you no longer need any evidence to assign guilt, there’s no limit to the guilt that can be assigned. This philosophy is effectively granting carte blanche to the “blame Russia” set.
The BBC message is loud and clear: the Russians are coming. The fact that we can’t prove it is in itself the proof. Be very afraid.