Moscow Will Cooperate With Polish Force in Iraq

Agence France Presse | Wednesday, Jun. 11, 2003. Page 2

[RussianConservative]

Agence France Presse WARSAW, Poland -- Russia has agreed to cooperate with a Polish-led force responsible for security in southern Iraq, Marek Siwiec, the head of Poland's national security bureau, said Tuesday.

Quoted by the PAP news agency after meeting with Security Council chief Vladimir Rushailo, Siwiec stressed that the Russian soldiers would not take part in the Polish-led unit.

Saying Russian structures were present in Iraq, he said, "for that, the experience of Russians can be useful in our future mission."

It was not clear exactly what kind of support Russia would bring.

Poland, a key European supporter of the United States during the Iraq war, has been given command of a stabilization force in a zone spread over 80,000 square kilometers between Basra and Baghdad -- roughly a quarter the size of Poland itself.

Poland said last week that the force had been formed and that more than 15 countries would take part.

Rushailo on Tuesday reiterated Russia's line that the war in Iraq was a mistake.

He said, however, that it was time to start rebuilding the country.

He added that Polish soldiers might come up against armed groups and criminals.

"Russia has experience in action in Afghanistan and also has experience in carrying out anti-terrorist operations in Chechnya," Rushailo was quoted by Itar-Tass as saying.

"And we think that interaction between the Russian and Polish defense ministries, special forces and law enforcement agencies may lessen the number of victims there to the greatest extent possible, both among the civilian population and the representatives of international forces," he said.

Poland has said the force will be on the ground by July and fully operational by the end of August.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

"Russia has experience in action in Afghanistan and also has experience in carrying out anti-terrorist operations in Chechnya," Rushailo was quoted by Itar-Tass as saying.

Those are two wonderful success stories to put on your resume. Why not let Saddam do the job? He kept things quiet quite well.

[marron]

There are some interesting things going on, I haven't completely figured them all out.

Bush saw from the beginning that he needed Russia as a counter-balance to the EU, and has been looking for a way to team up with Putin. As things have developed, the former east-block has been looking for an alliance directly with the US as a counter-balance to the EU as well. They want to join it, but they don't want to be lost in it, hence our budding alliances with Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, et al.

Putin, for his part, seems to be trying to keep his options open, flirting first with the Chinese, then with the EU, then with the Arabs, but always maintaining his relationship with Bush either out of "strategery", or sincerity, or an amalgam of both. He was the first to come forward after 9/11 with concrete help, opening Russian airbases, and airspace, and territory to us, and using his influence in Central Asia on our behalf, before we even asked, and Bush (and the US) have not forgotten it.

The worst moment came when Putin took the EU's side over the Iraq war, and was clearly favoring Saddam. But Russia has long-standing relations with Iraq, and it was unsurprising that the war there would be painful, if not for Putin personally, certainly for some of the Russian high command. But neither he nor Bush seem willing to let that spoil an otherwise growing relationship. It may be too early to call it friendship, there are too many crises on the horizon and its not clear which way Russia will tilt when the time comes. But at least from where I sit, Russia's interests and ours seem to be in enough harmony, on enough issues, that it is worth making the effort.

[RussianConservative]

First, Chechnya, with exception of terrorist bombings, is secure...but by your standard then Isreal abysmal failure too. Also, it is called, lessons learned and from what obvious, US not having all great success in Afghanistan (outside Kabal...and even there...just ask Germans) or Iraq with daily attacks and casualties.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Don't be so defensive about Chechnya, your point about Israel is a good one, leave it at that. Afghanistan has been a success, its just there is a black hole of press coverage from there because its such Bad News for anti war types. The prewar conditions, the current optimism. The new found Capitalism. Afganistan has become a secret unless someone is getting blown up there.

As for saying the German were killed, I don't know if you go the memo, but there are no Germans, only EU Peacemakers. If I was a Taliban I would target those first too.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Ping, thought you would enjoy the irony.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I like your analysis-summary of the situation in Russia. However, I am not convinced that Russia has given up its old ambitions. They may have just decided that Communism is not the best way to make money. Although the US is obviously the dominant power in the world there are still many factions with which they can ally themselves in opposition to us. Stealth is probably the new Communist watchword.

They have also learned, as has most of the world, that if you show promise but don't totally commit, you can milk the US for lots of money. They are already doing that with the "help us destroy our weapons program".

It seems so obvious to me that Russia's unabashed alliance with, and support of, the USA is the best road for their future. That is, unless they have not abandoned their old ambitions. Their actions seem to indicate the latter.

[marron]

Stealth is probably the new Communist watchword.

I actually don't disagree with anything you say. The whole picture is free-flowing, and although I make a habit of making predictions in print, exactly how all this is going to play out is beyond me. But watching it unfold is absolutely fascinating.

And you are right, complicating the picture is the fact that Communism in Russia never died, and what is more, it has taken root in Brussels, and for that matter, given the chance, approximately 50.01% of Americans would vote Communist in a heartbeat. If he plays the sax, they might even re-elect him.

In a weird way, part of what is happening is a struggle between the new, three-piece-suit communists versus the old stalinists, versus the 49.99% American remnant (and their counterparts scattered about the world). Part of the problem for the "remnant" is finding each other, linking up, and acting in concert. We spend half our time running for cover, but amazingly when we turn and fight, whole planets shift on their axes.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

We spend half our time running for cover, but amazingly when we turn and fight, whole planets shift on their axes.

That is why they push the PC and moral relativism stuff, to make us cautious and unlikely to confront them for fear of looking evil. Ain't that a kick, feeling guilty about looking evil to evil.

[RussianConservative]

Communism in Russia dead and its geriatric wardens die all the time...old age. When I tell fellow Russians Americans paranoid of communism returning, it worth a lot of laughs at silly Americans. Reality is far from American paranoia.

[RussianConservative]

Further, much more chance of America communist then Russia returning to it.

[marron]

Communism in Russia dead and its geriatric wardens die all the time...old age.

Ideological Marxism survives only in Western Europe and in US academia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Communist center of gravity shifted west... way west, to Brussels.

Which is why the US looks to Russia as a counter-balance to the EU.

Our primary worry in the old communist world now is China. Communism is passing away there, as well, and I am an optimist for the long term. The short-to-medium term is another matter. The Chinese officer corps is very nationalist, and think they could beat us, and would like to give it a shot. The battleground will likely be Latin America, and inside our own political arena (China pays well).

There exists an outside chance of conflict over Taiwan or Korea, but I doubt it. First, I believe China will contain Pyongyang, and secondly, I doubt we will fight for Taiwan. We have already, in effect, told Taiwan that; we told them that, engaged as we are in Iraq, if war comes, we can not help them. They will take the appropriate measures to help themselves, and we will help with that. But there will be no direct conflict between US and Chinese military forces.

But while we may have a low-level Cold War with them over the next few years, their system will continue to evolve, we will continue to trade, and with a little luck and some care on our part, we will get through it. Things will be a little dicey over the next 10 years, but to me they look good long term. As in Russia, the old ones are dying, and the young Chinese aren't afraid to compete with us non-militarily.

[RussianConservative]

Chinese not communists, only in name. They are autocrats. But chinese not change regardless of what government...culture is culture.

[marron]

Chinese not communists, only in name

I agree. Chinese communism looks a lot more like classic fascism. Nationalist, and autocratic. A lot of interesting opportunities there, but in the short term we are going to have some trouble. I think Russia faces a similar situation with China. Opportunity, but you'd better watch your back door.

[RightWhale]

Further, much more chance of America communist then Russia returning to it.

Russia won't return to communism, but America won't become communist, either. We're doing okay on compassionate conservatism, which you might call pragmatic socialism.