Moscow seige brings Iraq war closer

We awoke this morning to a subtle shift if the world balance of power. The events that are unfolding on our screens from Moscow have brought about this shift, but as yet the wider ripples of consequence have not been picked up by any media commentary I have seen. The quantum butterfly that has spread and flapped its wings in Moscow is about to cause a storm on the other side of the world.

It is too soon to draw substantiative links between this latest outrage and Al-Quaida, but the spin being placed on the issue by Vlaidimir Putin, who cites "foreign influence" in the matter, is heading along these lines and historical links between the Taliban and the Chechens are undeniable. In the 90's Al-Qaida nearly chose Chechnia as their strong-hold instead of Afghanistan. The release of Muslim hostages and the video of demands that has been released to Al-Jazeera (who seem to be on first name terms with every terrorist in the world) have done nothing to discredit this link.

Regardless now of whether or not such a link is ever proven, or even exists, Moscow now finds itself in a position where labeling the Chechens part of the Axis of evil is politically expedient. By doing so Moscow hopes to maintain some moral highground in the eyes of the international community for the backlash that this attrocity will no doubt provoke. Vladimir Putin would be committing political suicide by not reacting to the outrage that will be felt by Muscavites, and the key to international support for action against the Chechens is linking Chechnia with the Axis of evil. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the matter this is already happening and is the cause of the subtle change in world politics that I alluded to.

This article is not about the Chechen war. Nor is it about the rights and wrongs of any future coalition involvement in Iraq. We have already discussed the later issue at length on these boards, and my knowledge of the former is too limited to make any comment other than that Moscow is unlikley to give up it's main source of oil. But if anthing, this attrocity (coupled with other recent Chechen acts, including the death of over 100 troops on a downed helicopter) is more likley to steel popular opinion in Moscow to step up it's supression of Chechen independance in the same way as 9/11 steeled the resolve of Washington against Iraq.

What I want to draw attention to is that Moscows attempts to lay the current outrage at the door of Al-Quadia and the resultant alignment with the US in the rhetoric of the "War on terror" is likley to have a substantiative effect on the Russian vote in the UN security council in the matter of the US proposed resolution on Iraq. In return for US compliance in Russias dealings with Chechnia, Moscow, who could have vetoed the resolution is now unlikley to do so. Moscow is also likley to exert pressure on the non-permenant members of the UN security council that fall within its political sphere of infulence to follow it's lead (I'm especially thinking of Bulgeria here, but there may be others - China? Probably not but who knows.).

The permanent members of the Security Council are France, US, Britain, Russia and China. I think we know where the UK and US stand. China will still probably abstain. Russia has no option now but to tow the US line for fear of international condemnation in it's dealings with the Chechens. France; well who knows what the French are likley to do. Besides the five permanent members, there are 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council: Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria. A resolution cannot pass unless it has at least nine votes in favor and no veto from a permanent council member, but the evernts in Moscow have brought us one step closer to the brink.

This escalation of the 'War or terror' is as yet subtle, but the shift in the balance of world power that this represents may very well turn into a key event in history books in the next century, if there is anyone left to read or write them.

And the plot thickens!

Quote:

---

In the 90's the Taliban nearly chose Chechnia as their strong-hold instead of Afghanistan.

---

I was curious if you were getting the Taliban and Al-Qaida mixed up there. But a fine piece all around.

Mahakaal > Oops. Yes. thx. Typo duly ammended.

hello,
Actually I don't think that the siege brings the war closer to irak. The war with irak will happen for whatever reasons already discussed in the other threads... but that will not happen today not tomorow.
The fact is that the economical situation ios just too bad right now for the us to be able to afford a war in irak alone. Since the us are pretty much alone they will have to bear the cost of the intervention alone and the us economy cannot handle some $100-120 bn alone. The interest rate are jsut too low for that. On the other hand as soon as the interest rate will get back up and that the econmy will be doing better (sometimes after christmas... ? hopefully) then irak will intervened upon.
I think it funny to see how the reporting of the reporting of what is going on in Tchechnia is different form what the time is, a while ago it was supposed to be an indepandance war even supported by some western countries and then well you read the first post ...
Could it be that the perception of what goes on is simply affected by what the politics expects from one another ? could it be the case right now ?

nabylbt >

Mon argument était simplement que les événements Ã* Moscou effectueront la position Russe dans la prochaine voix de conseil de sécurité sur l'Irak. Je suis incertain où les économiques américaines, ou les droites et les maux du conflit dans Chechnia sont appropriés Ã* cet argument.

or could it be a stall for time. with russia more likly to vote for action, the us and uk are now in a position where we will have to wait for a sec council vote or look like total barbaric aggressors in everyones eyes. Where as, if it looked like action was not going to happen we could move now and somewhat justify our actions. I wonder what suprises they'll have in store for us as we do things according to their schedule.

For a very insightful look into what's going in Iraq and the Central Asian states, you guys should get "The Grand Chessboard:American Primacy and it's Geostrategic Imperatives", by Zbigniew Brzezinski. We've had troops in Uzbekistan and the like since way before the sep 11th attacks.

Quote:

---

Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues , except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat .....

....Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above.....

---

It's a chilling read from a man who carries tons of influence.

I think i'm going to order that book, I don't know context of how this was written but it seems approriate.

I think that the reason for the us troups in the "Uzbekistan and the like" goes back at teh agreement they signed when they decided to give up nuclear arsenals from the ussr no ?

I'm not sure nabylbt, so you might be right. IMO the purpose of the troops being in C. Asia is to "contain" China on the East, and Iran on the West.

For those who dont know who Brzezinski is visit the link below. Incidentlly he also happened to be the first directer of the Trilateral Commission. He's a regular somebody in the "halls of power". http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war...es/brzezinski/

We're just pissing more people off by blindly following the Govt.

The taliban and the Al Qaida group have much similiarities and much to offer each other, which is why they are often very closly linked. They have extremely strong ties and have been basically 'best-friends'. Al Qaida can offer the Taliban money, which could have played a factor in why they didn't turn in Bin Laden, althought there are loads of reasons. The Taliban (used to) be able to offer power and political 'pull'. As of now, they could offer military assistance, which in turn makes these two groups somewhat strong. If the Taliban went into war (like they did) I'm sure Al Qaida would definitely back them up in anyways possible. More than likely, theys ent soliders to them while battling the Northern Alliance. So yes, I could see that Al Qaida and the Taliban Regime are not the same, but when it comes to operations, wars, or anything of the like, the two are tight as anything.