Was the “Russian Spy Scandal” roll up just another White House screw up?

The whole escapade makes no sense. With the exception of the “money man” Christopher Metzos who escaped, none represented a threat. It would have been far better to keep the remaining 10 under observation, as they had been for years. So the question is why did the FBI roll the operation up at this time?

We tend to think operations like this are well thought out and run according to plan. But it is more likely this was an enormous screw up between the FBI and the White House. First, no FBI director in his right mind would conduct such an operation without first notifying the White House. It just doesn’t happen.

There was a sense of urgency however. Metzos was planning to leave the country and he was the one person who had some value. He knew the purpose of this group and he probably had contact or knowledge of other groups in the US. My guess is the FBI’s request for action languished on somebody’s desk at the WH or even made it to the President’s reading folder without action. When it became apparent Metzos was actually leaving the country, likely there was a flurry of activity but with a decision that came too late capture him before he boarded his flight.

The rest is history. At our request he was detained in Cyprus, granted bail and slipped away. The whole spy swap charade appears to be an afterthought. None of the four swapees are US operatives. It’s just an after the fact cover to give some rationality to all of this.

Russia looks at its declining population

Russia has a major problem with population loss. Today’s Moscow Times reports on a study (Babel fish translation here) which addresses the causes, consequences and potential cures for its declining population. At present, even with immigration, the population of the Russian Federation is declining by almost a million people a year, she writes, and consequently it is time to pay close attention not just to the overall figure but to the specific consequences of the depopulation of the country. The population of the Soviet Union, when it was disbanded in 1991, was 293 million. The population of the new Russian Federation has since declined from 148 million to 141 million, and is projected to be 111 million by 2050. A low birth rate, a high death rate, high abortion rate and lack of immigration are the prime causes. Alcoholism is the major reason for the short life expectancy among Russian men (59 years) compared to 72 for women. The Times goes on to outline some of the major concerns of depopulation including a “demographic shift in national composition and national traditions,” the threat to maintaining its territorial integrity, the dilution of young productive members of society by older social dependants and tensions between young and old over who supports whom. The study postulates a number of solutions, some of which are lost in translation: And tenth, she concludes, the depopulation of Russia is likely to produce a variety of demands, not now in evidence, to engage in such “fantastic” population-boosting measures as state-supported “incubator” children, “hybridization of embryo” (artificial insemination??), cloning and greater efforts to extend life spans and working lives. Not mentioned in the article or the study is the “brain drain” of the more intelligent and productive members of Russian society to Western Europe. When a society feels there are diminished opportunities where they live, they stop having children or they vote with their feet. Both are now happening in Russia.

The Poles and Old Europe.

In an article yesterday uncharacteristic of it, the New York Times points out the dramatic change of attitude Russia’s invasion Georgia has had on the Poles. From reluctance to accept a missile shield on their territory, they have instantly reversed positions and signed an agreement to allow it. The article points out the lack of faith Poles have in “Old Europe,” and the need to tie themselves to the US. "

But since the Georgia crisis, this largest of post-Communist European Union members has moved to cement its relationship to action-oriented America and not just the tentative bureaucracies of Europe and NATO. " "The Russian invasion reminded Poles once again how quickly and dangerously Eastern Europe can divide. Poland is struggling to show that it will not fall behind the faint old lines of the cold war, which may have seemed foggily forgotten in the West since the Berlin Wall fell but are remembered all too well here. "

The article goes on to explain Poland’s memories go beyond the cold war era, but back to their invasion by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939 when they were left to defend themselves, despite a treaty with Great Britain and France. They fell in 4 weeks, and lived 50 years under the subjugation of a foreign power.

"It is not a cold war mindset that drives Poland, Mr. Sikorski said, but one that harks all the way back to World War II, when, despite alliances with Britain and France, Poland fought Nazi Germany alone, and lost. " "It was “the defining moment for us in the 20th century,” Mr. Sikorski said. 'Then we were stabbed in the back by the Soviet Union, and that determined our fate for 50 years.' " 

"As a result, Poland’s foreign policy is stamped by mistrust not only for Russia’s ambitions but also for hollow assurances from its own allies."

The last comment (bold) is a zinger directed at France and Germany. You have to remember France pulled its military out of NATO in the 1960’s, knowing that any Soviet attack would have to come through Germany and be fought there primarily by Americans and Germans. During the cold war France played footsie with the Soviets with the dream of establishing a French and Soviet hegemony from the Urals to the Atlantic. Germany, likewise, now feels the comfort of a Polish buffer. Both have gone soft.

There is nothing like recent memories to reinforce the fears of Russian domination when you are on the front lines, as Poland now is. For those who believe doing away with anti-missile technology and cutting our military to the bone is the way to make other nations love and respect us, think again. For those who believe our military prowess doesn’t make friends, think again.

What is Putin's next move?

I am not optimistic the Georgia situation will be resolved successfully. Here's why. Already successive deadlines have passed for Russia to remove their troops, as agreed. They haven’t budged. It appears to be the big stall. And they aren’t stalling because they’re waiting to top off their tanks to return to the motherland. Already there are reports of surface to surface missile installations in South Ossetia capable of hitting Georgia’s capital Tbilisi. Their troops are digging in within artillery range of Tbilisi and they still hold Gori. Fox News reports troops near Gori are demanding western media show Russian press credentials, meaning the Russians are now free from prying eyes. But it’s more than just that.

It’s just not in Putin’s nature to give in. Putin sees himself as the person who will lead his country superpower status again, following in Stalin’s footsteps. He has resumed provocative Tu-95 Bear overflights of NATO exercises, a relic of the cold war. He wants the sovereign republics that were part of the Soviet Union back in the fold by any means. He rigged elections in Ukraine and Georgia only to see them undone in popular uprisings and legitimate elections. In Ukraine’s follow-up election, Russian agents poisoned the popular candidate Victor Yuschenko with a massive dose of dioxin, but failed to eliminate him. He won convincingly in a major defeat of Putin’s agenda.

Putin has eliminated political and media opposition. Too many writers critical of Putin have been murdered for it to be accidental, the best known, Anna Politovskaya. She had written a series of highly critical articles on Russia’s brutality in Chechnya. All TV networks are now in government hands. Newspapers have been shut down for hostile reporting and state advertising withheld. A new extremism law is being used to curb criticism of public officials.

Anyone who models himself after Stalin won’t exhibit weakness. Truces are for rearming. Most likely we will see a massive swift assault on Tbilisi to remove the vestiges of Saakashvili’s government. Count on it.

Strobe Talbott, now a voice of reason

Strobe Talbott, was a correspondent for Time Magazine during the 1980’s. He was an apologist for the Soviet regime and is considered by some to have been a willing dupe of Soviet intelligence, or even worse. In the May 21, 1984 issue of Time he wrote this:

“The Reagan Administration has made a bad situation worse in two ways: first, by convincing the Soviet leaders that the U.S. no longer accepts military parity as the basis for relations with Moscow; second, by challenging the legitimacy of the Soviet regime, calling the U.S.S.R. an ‘evil empire’ doomed to fail.”

He missed the mark about the “evil empire” as subsequent events would prove. It failed when Boris Yeltsin, standing atop a tank in front of the Russian White House (Parliament building) put down a military coup intended to perpetuate the old order. Now in a stunning reversal, Strobe Talbott thoroughly dissects Russia’s reasoning for invading Georgia in today’s Washington Post. The Russians are trying to equate it to NATO’s intervention in Serbia and the establishment of a separate state of Kosovo.

“Russia has been justifying its rampage through Georgia as a ‘peacekeeping’ operation to end the Tbilisi government's "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" of South Ossetia. That terminology deliberately echoes U.S. and NATO language during their 1999 bombing campaign against Serbia, which resulted in the independence of Kosovo.”

He goes on. “

This analogy turns reality, and history, upside down. Only after exhausting every attempt at diplomacy did NATO go to war over Kosovo. It did so because the formerly "autonomous" province of Serbia was under the heel of Belgrade and the Milosevic regime was running amok there, killing ethnic Albanians and throwing them out of their homes. By contrast, South Ossetia -- even though it is on Georgian territory -- has long been a Russian protectorate, beyond the reach of Saakashvili's government.”

And finally.

“Yet it now appears that beyond the undisguised animosity that Putin bears toward Saakashvili, he and his government regard Georgia's pro-Western bent and its aspiration to join two Western institutions, NATO and the European Union, as, literally, a casus belli. If that is the case, the next U.S. administration -- the fourth to deal with post-Soviet Russia -- will have to reexamine the underlying basis for the whole idea of partnership with that country and its continuing integration into a rule-based international community.”

Read it all.

Russia's ultimate weapon

President Bush has castigated the Russians for their invasion of Georgia. It is now obvious that Russia, despite assurances to the West, wants total control over the entire country, not just the disputed territory of South Ossetia. This fits with predictions Putin would continue his efforts to rebuild the Russian empire to include the republics lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Already the southern tier, the “stans,” (Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have been brought into the fold through Russia’s gas pipeline monopoly and political intrigue.

The two remaining thorns in Putin’s side are the former Soviet republics Georgia and Ukraine. The Russians rigged elections in both countries but failed when popular uprisings invalidated them and resulted in pro-Western democracies. The Ukrainian election was particularly nasty with the unsuccessful poisoning of now President Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin. As we have seen, the current Russian regime will stop at nothing to eliminate its political enemies and critics.

Despite Bush’s protestations, there isn’t a lot we can do to change the outcome. Geographically Georgia is remote, on the eastern end of the Black Sea. Aircraft carriers are banned entry by the Montreaux Convention, not that we would want to conduct naval operations there. There just isn’t enough sea room. The only contiguous friendly country is Turkey and the distance from Istanbul to Tbilisi is over 800 miles.

But the most serious problem is our European allies. Never known for their backbone when it comes to facing down enemies, their overwhelming reliance on Russian natural gas has added to their timidity. Fifty years of American protection has allowed continental military forces to atrophy and grow soft. Even the British have lost their zeal for combat. In Iraq, they cut deals with al Sadr’s militias, abandoned their base in Basra and retreated to the exurban safety of the airport. The highly criticized Iraqi Army cleaned house in a few days, a job the Brits wouldn’t and couldn’t handle.

How bad is Europe’s reliance on Russian gas? Enough that people will freeze if they play tough. Here’s how dependant they are (2005 figures): Germany 30-39% France 20-25% Poland 62% Italy 25-28% Bulgaria 97% Czech Republic 79%

The thought of chilly winters no doubt colored Germany’s Angela Merkel’s decision last week to veto NATO membership for Georgia. And it sent a signal of weakness to the Russians. Unless Europe can diversify their gas suppliers, they will forever be beholden to the Russians. Who would ever have thought Russia’s economic might would be more potent then their 50,000 tanks during the cold war in their quest to subdue Europe?