The Sunday Funnies

The story of Ivan Itchybuttock

CLICK HERE to have your mind read by the deviously inscrutable Russian Magic Square (thanks to RussianEnglish).

More Truth is Funnier than Fiction
Soviet Russians Duped into Planting a Living Swastika

The New York Times reports:

The forest stands overhead in the dusty mountain air, a dense composition of fir trees on a slope, planted by labor gangs decades ago. Its right angles are sharp and clear, forming a square cross with an upraised arm on one side and a turned-down arm on the other. Viewed from this remote village, the effect strongly suggests a living swastika, a huge and chilling symbol, out of place and time.

This is the so-called Eki Naryn swastika, a man-made arrangement of trees near the edge of the Himalayas. It is at least 60 years old, according to the region’s forestry service, and roughly 600 feet across. Legend has it that German prisoners of war, pressed into forestry duty after World War II, duped their Soviet guards and planted rows of seedlings in the shape of the emblem Hitler had chosen as his own.

More than 20 years later, the trees rose tall enough to be visible from the village beneath. Only then did the swastika appear, a time-delayed act of defiance by vanquished soldiers marooned in a corner of Stalin’s Soviet Union. For all the tidiness of legend, however, the tale is not quite true. The provenance of these trees presents a more complicated mystery than a silent subterfuge in a forgotten prison camp. The theory about the prisoners has survived for years, in part because about 1.3 million German soldiers have been missing in the former Soviet Union since the war, according to the German Red Cross. Many were forced to work. They mined uranium and coal, toiled on farms, erected buildings and built roads, railways and canals.

As many as 30,000 of them were sent to Central Asia, the German Red Cross says. The symmetry in the tree line, evidence of their defiance, by this telling, may be the Third Reich’s only practical joke. But aside from the presence of the tree formation itself, unraveling the origins of the lost Nazis’ presumed insubordination is a chore undercut by time. History has become malleable, a yarn by turns sinister, wry, clever and Soviet. It is also warped by errors, a cover-up, competing theories and lies. Yedil Musayev, a teacher, said the trees were planted in the 1940’s by Kyrgyz laborers from the sprawling Lenin Collective Farm, which managed the region’s high plateau. The farm’s managers consisted of Russians and Europeans, he said, sent to distant posts to battle illiteracy and improve efficiency.

Unbeknownst to the Kyrgyz laborers, he said, their forestry supervisor was an ethnic German who had been exiled to the east, as were many Germans during the war. He was a Nazi sympathizer, Mr. Musayev said. The forest was his design

Sultanbek Kandibayev, director of the regional forestry service, gave a different version, saying the trees were planted in 1953, after Stalin’s death, under the supervision of a woman who was a German nationalist.

Ulambek Sheripov, a deputy director, added detail, saying the woman hid her plans by having the slope planted a patch at a time. But he disagreed with his director about when the plantings occurred, saying a survey in 1991 estimated the trees were 50 years old at the time, meaning they were most likely planted before 1953.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Harbinger of Terror: Russian Market Down Over 6% in 10 Days

As RTS data shows above, the Russian stock market has taken yet another nosedive. After having held steady at 1650 for nearly two weeks, the RTS Index plunged 100 points to 1550 over the last ten days, and in fact got a bit below that level before recovering. As the price of oil has fallen and the price of gas at the American pump dropped significantly, the Russian stock market, wholly dependent on oil, has suffered. Without oil, there is no real value in the Russian market at all. In other words, it is directly in the interests of investors in the Russian stock market to see turmoil in the Middle East, jacking up oil prices and protecting their investments. Thus, we should not be surprised to see Russia’s corporatist Kremlin fomenting that turmoil by giving diplomatic cover to Iran while supplying them nuclear technology and by supporting the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist organizations. Could Russia be supporting terrorist activity in Iraq? We can’t be sure yet, but Russia not only opposed the Iraq invasion it provided U.S. military secrets to Sadaam while it was in progress, costing American lives. This is the signal hallmark of the New Cold War. We should not be surprised to see new outbreaks of instability and terror in the Middle East as the Russian market continues to plunge.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Cold War II: Felgenhauer on Neo-Soviet Russia’s Violation of the Nuclear Arms Accords

Writing for the Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor, the brilliant Pavel Felgenhaur exposes Neo-Soviet Russia backsliding on the nuclear arms accords.

On Sunday September 10, during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin aboard the Baltic Fleet’s flagship, the destroyer Nastoychivy, at the naval base Baltiysk, Kaliningrad, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov made public that Russia has apparently abrogated a major nuclear arms control agreement.

During the meeting, Ivanov reported to the president the successful test launch of two submarine-based ICBMs: one from the Pacific Ocean by nuclear sub Svyatoi Georgy Pobedonosets, the other from the North Pole by the Yekaterinburg nuclear sub. Both launches were aimed at a test range in Arkhangelsk region, and Ivanov reported that the ICBM warheads had successfully hit their targets (Interfax, September 10).According to Ivanov, the launch from the North Pole area was the first of its kind in 11 years. It is clear that this test launch imitated an attack from U.S. territory and that the Russian Navy has resumed Cold War training exercises that were previously abandoned.

Then came the real sensation: Putin asked how many Russian nuclear subs were at sea. Ivanov reported: “Today, there are eight nuclear-powered submarines at sea on combat patrols. Five of them are strategic and three are multipurpose, but each of them has nuclear arms aboard” (Interfax, September 10). Ivanov made the statement and then repeated it once again unequivocally, as broadcast the same day by Russian government’s Rossiya television channel: “The subs have different tasks — some are armed with ICBMs, others are multipurpose — but each of them has nuclear weapons aboard.”

Ivanov’s statement is highly significant, because under existing agreements it is illegal for Russia to deploy non-strategic nuclear weapons on board attack (multipurpose) subs.On September 27, 1991, U.S. President George H.W. Bush announced drastic cuts in non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons and invited the Soviet Union to follow his lead. Ten days later Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to do the same. In January 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian President Boris Yeltsin officially committed Russia to continue tactical nuclear disarmament.

The non-strategic arms limitation agreements required the total destruction of all nuclear artillery shells, tactical land-based missile warheads, and nuclear land mines. They also mandated the partial destruction of anti-missile and anti-aircraft defense missile warheads, non-strategic naval nuclear weapons, and Air Force and Naval Air Force bombs. All the nuclear weapons left after the partial destruction and, in particular, all non-strategic naval weapons were to be detached from delivery systems, taken off ships and subs, and placed in centralized storage facilities away from naval and other military bases. The only exceptions were Air Force tactical bombs that were allowed to be deployed at storage facilities near air bases (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Nuclear Status Report, www.ceip.org).

Great Britain later joined Russia and the United States in removing non-strategic nuclear weapons from ships and subs. All cuts of tactical nukes were to be completed by the end of 2000, and only strategic ICBM warheads could be deployed at sea. On April 25, 2000, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov (now secretary of the Russian Security Council) told the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York that Russia had “practically completed cuts” in compliance with its nuclear non-strategic obligations.The tactical nuclear limitation agreements are not a formal treaty, and no compliance verification mechanism ever existed. Despite statements to the contrary, questions about Russian compliance with non-strategic nuclear disarmament have been raised.

Unlike U.S. naval-based, long-range cruise missiles, their Russian (Soviet) equivalents — the Granat and Granit — were not designed or ever tested to carry conventional warheads. Still Russian attack subs continued to deploy these missiles at sea, which did not make sense if only their nuclear tips continued to be in place despite official pledges.However, now the time for speculation is over. Ivanov’s statement, made in front of reporters and President Putin reveals unequivocally that Russian attack subs are being deployed “on combat patrols” against NATO ships with battle-ready non-strategic nukes onboard.

Russia is clearly cheating now and may have been cheating on its signed tactical nuclear arms control promises all along.Ivanov’s de facto abrogation of the non-strategic arms limitation agreement comes at a time when military-to-military relations with the West are at an all time low. Last week prearranged peacekeeping and anti-terrorist military exercises that were scheduled to take place this month in Nizhny Novgorod oblast (U.S.-Russian) and Pskov oblast (NATO-Russian) were suddenly cancelled. Ivanov’s announcement of the battlefield redeployment of non-strategic nukes was hardly a simple slip of the tongue. As the incumbent regime in Russia is preparing for parliamentary elections next year and presidential ones in 2008, anti-NATO and anti-American rhetoric is being supplemented by official anti-Western military actions.

The collapse of the existing tactical nuclear limitation regime is not in Russia’s national interests, since the United States and Great Britain have the capability to deploy tens of times more naval nuclear long-range cruise missiles and other non-strategic nukes than does Russia. But it would seem that the Kremlin is still ready to risk drastically worsening relations. Increased military tension may facilitate a nationalistic anti-U.S., anti-NATO surge of public opinion in Russia that might help carry someone like Ivanov (or whomever Putin chooses) into the Kremlin as the new president.

For more detail, click here.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Cold War II: Felgenhauer on Neo-Soviet Russia’s Violation of the Nuclear Arms Accords

Writing for the Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor, the brilliant Pavel Felgenhaur exposes Neo-Soviet Russia backsliding on the nuclear arms accords.

On Sunday September 10, during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin aboard the Baltic Fleet’s flagship, the destroyer Nastoychivy, at the naval base Baltiysk, Kaliningrad, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov made public that Russia has apparently abrogated a major nuclear arms control agreement.

During the meeting, Ivanov reported to the president the successful test launch of two submarine-based ICBMs: one from the Pacific Ocean by nuclear sub Svyatoi Georgy Pobedonosets, the other from the North Pole by the Yekaterinburg nuclear sub. Both launches were aimed at a test range in Arkhangelsk region, and Ivanov reported that the ICBM warheads had successfully hit their targets (Interfax, September 10).According to Ivanov, the launch from the North Pole area was the first of its kind in 11 years. It is clear that this test launch imitated an attack from U.S. territory and that the Russian Navy has resumed Cold War training exercises that were previously abandoned.

Then came the real sensation: Putin asked how many Russian nuclear subs were at sea. Ivanov reported: “Today, there are eight nuclear-powered submarines at sea on combat patrols. Five of them are strategic and three are multipurpose, but each of them has nuclear arms aboard” (Interfax, September 10). Ivanov made the statement and then repeated it once again unequivocally, as broadcast the same day by Russian government’s Rossiya television channel: “The subs have different tasks — some are armed with ICBMs, others are multipurpose — but each of them has nuclear weapons aboard.”

Ivanov’s statement is highly significant, because under existing agreements it is illegal for Russia to deploy non-strategic nuclear weapons on board attack (multipurpose) subs.On September 27, 1991, U.S. President George H.W. Bush announced drastic cuts in non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons and invited the Soviet Union to follow his lead. Ten days later Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to do the same. In January 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian President Boris Yeltsin officially committed Russia to continue tactical nuclear disarmament.

The non-strategic arms limitation agreements required the total destruction of all nuclear artillery shells, tactical land-based missile warheads, and nuclear land mines. They also mandated the partial destruction of anti-missile and anti-aircraft defense missile warheads, non-strategic naval nuclear weapons, and Air Force and Naval Air Force bombs. All the nuclear weapons left after the partial destruction and, in particular, all non-strategic naval weapons were to be detached from delivery systems, taken off ships and subs, and placed in centralized storage facilities away from naval and other military bases. The only exceptions were Air Force tactical bombs that were allowed to be deployed at storage facilities near air bases (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Nuclear Status Report, www.ceip.org).

Great Britain later joined Russia and the United States in removing non-strategic nuclear weapons from ships and subs. All cuts of tactical nukes were to be completed by the end of 2000, and only strategic ICBM warheads could be deployed at sea. On April 25, 2000, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov (now secretary of the Russian Security Council) told the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York that Russia had “practically completed cuts” in compliance with its nuclear non-strategic obligations.The tactical nuclear limitation agreements are not a formal treaty, and no compliance verification mechanism ever existed. Despite statements to the contrary, questions about Russian compliance with non-strategic nuclear disarmament have been raised.

Unlike U.S. naval-based, long-range cruise missiles, their Russian (Soviet) equivalents — the Granat and Granit — were not designed or ever tested to carry conventional warheads. Still Russian attack subs continued to deploy these missiles at sea, which did not make sense if only their nuclear tips continued to be in place despite official pledges.However, now the time for speculation is over. Ivanov’s statement, made in front of reporters and President Putin reveals unequivocally that Russian attack subs are being deployed “on combat patrols” against NATO ships with battle-ready non-strategic nukes onboard.

Russia is clearly cheating now and may have been cheating on its signed tactical nuclear arms control promises all along.Ivanov’s de facto abrogation of the non-strategic arms limitation agreement comes at a time when military-to-military relations with the West are at an all time low. Last week prearranged peacekeeping and anti-terrorist military exercises that were scheduled to take place this month in Nizhny Novgorod oblast (U.S.-Russian) and Pskov oblast (NATO-Russian) were suddenly cancelled. Ivanov’s announcement of the battlefield redeployment of non-strategic nukes was hardly a simple slip of the tongue. As the incumbent regime in Russia is preparing for parliamentary elections next year and presidential ones in 2008, anti-NATO and anti-American rhetoric is being supplemented by official anti-Western military actions.

The collapse of the existing tactical nuclear limitation regime is not in Russia’s national interests, since the United States and Great Britain have the capability to deploy tens of times more naval nuclear long-range cruise missiles and other non-strategic nukes than does Russia. But it would seem that the Kremlin is still ready to risk drastically worsening relations. Increased military tension may facilitate a nationalistic anti-U.S., anti-NATO surge of public opinion in Russia that might help carry someone like Ivanov (or whomever Putin chooses) into the Kremlin as the new president.

For more detail, click here.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Cold War II: Felgenhauer on Neo-Soviet Russia’s Violation of the Nuclear Arms Accords

Writing for the Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor, the brilliant Pavel Felgenhaur exposes Neo-Soviet Russia backsliding on the nuclear arms accords.

On Sunday September 10, during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin aboard the Baltic Fleet’s flagship, the destroyer Nastoychivy, at the naval base Baltiysk, Kaliningrad, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov made public that Russia has apparently abrogated a major nuclear arms control agreement.

During the meeting, Ivanov reported to the president the successful test launch of two submarine-based ICBMs: one from the Pacific Ocean by nuclear sub Svyatoi Georgy Pobedonosets, the other from the North Pole by the Yekaterinburg nuclear sub. Both launches were aimed at a test range in Arkhangelsk region, and Ivanov reported that the ICBM warheads had successfully hit their targets (Interfax, September 10).According to Ivanov, the launch from the North Pole area was the first of its kind in 11 years. It is clear that this test launch imitated an attack from U.S. territory and that the Russian Navy has resumed Cold War training exercises that were previously abandoned.

Then came the real sensation: Putin asked how many Russian nuclear subs were at sea. Ivanov reported: “Today, there are eight nuclear-powered submarines at sea on combat patrols. Five of them are strategic and three are multipurpose, but each of them has nuclear arms aboard” (Interfax, September 10). Ivanov made the statement and then repeated it once again unequivocally, as broadcast the same day by Russian government’s Rossiya television channel: “The subs have different tasks — some are armed with ICBMs, others are multipurpose — but each of them has nuclear weapons aboard.”

Ivanov’s statement is highly significant, because under existing agreements it is illegal for Russia to deploy non-strategic nuclear weapons on board attack (multipurpose) subs.On September 27, 1991, U.S. President George H.W. Bush announced drastic cuts in non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons and invited the Soviet Union to follow his lead. Ten days later Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to do the same. In January 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian President Boris Yeltsin officially committed Russia to continue tactical nuclear disarmament.

The non-strategic arms limitation agreements required the total destruction of all nuclear artillery shells, tactical land-based missile warheads, and nuclear land mines. They also mandated the partial destruction of anti-missile and anti-aircraft defense missile warheads, non-strategic naval nuclear weapons, and Air Force and Naval Air Force bombs. All the nuclear weapons left after the partial destruction and, in particular, all non-strategic naval weapons were to be detached from delivery systems, taken off ships and subs, and placed in centralized storage facilities away from naval and other military bases. The only exceptions were Air Force tactical bombs that were allowed to be deployed at storage facilities near air bases (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Nuclear Status Report, www.ceip.org).

Great Britain later joined Russia and the United States in removing non-strategic nuclear weapons from ships and subs. All cuts of tactical nukes were to be completed by the end of 2000, and only strategic ICBM warheads could be deployed at sea. On April 25, 2000, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov (now secretary of the Russian Security Council) told the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York that Russia had “practically completed cuts” in compliance with its nuclear non-strategic obligations.The tactical nuclear limitation agreements are not a formal treaty, and no compliance verification mechanism ever existed. Despite statements to the contrary, questions about Russian compliance with non-strategic nuclear disarmament have been raised.

Unlike U.S. naval-based, long-range cruise missiles, their Russian (Soviet) equivalents — the Granat and Granit — were not designed or ever tested to carry conventional warheads. Still Russian attack subs continued to deploy these missiles at sea, which did not make sense if only their nuclear tips continued to be in place despite official pledges.However, now the time for speculation is over. Ivanov’s statement, made in front of reporters and President Putin reveals unequivocally that Russian attack subs are being deployed “on combat patrols” against NATO ships with battle-ready non-strategic nukes onboard.

Russia is clearly cheating now and may have been cheating on its signed tactical nuclear arms control promises all along.Ivanov’s de facto abrogation of the non-strategic arms limitation agreement comes at a time when military-to-military relations with the West are at an all time low. Last week prearranged peacekeeping and anti-terrorist military exercises that were scheduled to take place this month in Nizhny Novgorod oblast (U.S.-Russian) and Pskov oblast (NATO-Russian) were suddenly cancelled. Ivanov’s announcement of the battlefield redeployment of non-strategic nukes was hardly a simple slip of the tongue. As the incumbent regime in Russia is preparing for parliamentary elections next year and presidential ones in 2008, anti-NATO and anti-American rhetoric is being supplemented by official anti-Western military actions.

The collapse of the existing tactical nuclear limitation regime is not in Russia’s national interests, since the United States and Great Britain have the capability to deploy tens of times more naval nuclear long-range cruise missiles and other non-strategic nukes than does Russia. But it would seem that the Kremlin is still ready to risk drastically worsening relations. Increased military tension may facilitate a nationalistic anti-U.S., anti-NATO surge of public opinion in Russia that might help carry someone like Ivanov (or whomever Putin chooses) into the Kremlin as the new president.

For more detail, click here.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Cold War II: Felgenhauer on Neo-Soviet Russia’s Violation of the Nuclear Arms Accords

Writing for the Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor, the brilliant Pavel Felgenhaur exposes Neo-Soviet Russia backsliding on the nuclear arms accords.

On Sunday September 10, during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin aboard the Baltic Fleet’s flagship, the destroyer Nastoychivy, at the naval base Baltiysk, Kaliningrad, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov made public that Russia has apparently abrogated a major nuclear arms control agreement.

During the meeting, Ivanov reported to the president the successful test launch of two submarine-based ICBMs: one from the Pacific Ocean by nuclear sub Svyatoi Georgy Pobedonosets, the other from the North Pole by the Yekaterinburg nuclear sub. Both launches were aimed at a test range in Arkhangelsk region, and Ivanov reported that the ICBM warheads had successfully hit their targets (Interfax, September 10).According to Ivanov, the launch from the North Pole area was the first of its kind in 11 years. It is clear that this test launch imitated an attack from U.S. territory and that the Russian Navy has resumed Cold War training exercises that were previously abandoned.

Then came the real sensation: Putin asked how many Russian nuclear subs were at sea. Ivanov reported: “Today, there are eight nuclear-powered submarines at sea on combat patrols. Five of them are strategic and three are multipurpose, but each of them has nuclear arms aboard” (Interfax, September 10). Ivanov made the statement and then repeated it once again unequivocally, as broadcast the same day by Russian government’s Rossiya television channel: “The subs have different tasks — some are armed with ICBMs, others are multipurpose — but each of them has nuclear weapons aboard.”

Ivanov’s statement is highly significant, because under existing agreements it is illegal for Russia to deploy non-strategic nuclear weapons on board attack (multipurpose) subs.On September 27, 1991, U.S. President George H.W. Bush announced drastic cuts in non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons and invited the Soviet Union to follow his lead. Ten days later Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to do the same. In January 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian President Boris Yeltsin officially committed Russia to continue tactical nuclear disarmament.

The non-strategic arms limitation agreements required the total destruction of all nuclear artillery shells, tactical land-based missile warheads, and nuclear land mines. They also mandated the partial destruction of anti-missile and anti-aircraft defense missile warheads, non-strategic naval nuclear weapons, and Air Force and Naval Air Force bombs. All the nuclear weapons left after the partial destruction and, in particular, all non-strategic naval weapons were to be detached from delivery systems, taken off ships and subs, and placed in centralized storage facilities away from naval and other military bases. The only exceptions were Air Force tactical bombs that were allowed to be deployed at storage facilities near air bases (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Nuclear Status Report, www.ceip.org).

Great Britain later joined Russia and the United States in removing non-strategic nuclear weapons from ships and subs. All cuts of tactical nukes were to be completed by the end of 2000, and only strategic ICBM warheads could be deployed at sea. On April 25, 2000, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov (now secretary of the Russian Security Council) told the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York that Russia had “practically completed cuts” in compliance with its nuclear non-strategic obligations.The tactical nuclear limitation agreements are not a formal treaty, and no compliance verification mechanism ever existed. Despite statements to the contrary, questions about Russian compliance with non-strategic nuclear disarmament have been raised.

Unlike U.S. naval-based, long-range cruise missiles, their Russian (Soviet) equivalents — the Granat and Granit — were not designed or ever tested to carry conventional warheads. Still Russian attack subs continued to deploy these missiles at sea, which did not make sense if only their nuclear tips continued to be in place despite official pledges.However, now the time for speculation is over. Ivanov’s statement, made in front of reporters and President Putin reveals unequivocally that Russian attack subs are being deployed “on combat patrols” against NATO ships with battle-ready non-strategic nukes onboard.

Russia is clearly cheating now and may have been cheating on its signed tactical nuclear arms control promises all along.Ivanov’s de facto abrogation of the non-strategic arms limitation agreement comes at a time when military-to-military relations with the West are at an all time low. Last week prearranged peacekeeping and anti-terrorist military exercises that were scheduled to take place this month in Nizhny Novgorod oblast (U.S.-Russian) and Pskov oblast (NATO-Russian) were suddenly cancelled. Ivanov’s announcement of the battlefield redeployment of non-strategic nukes was hardly a simple slip of the tongue. As the incumbent regime in Russia is preparing for parliamentary elections next year and presidential ones in 2008, anti-NATO and anti-American rhetoric is being supplemented by official anti-Western military actions.

The collapse of the existing tactical nuclear limitation regime is not in Russia’s national interests, since the United States and Great Britain have the capability to deploy tens of times more naval nuclear long-range cruise missiles and other non-strategic nukes than does Russia. But it would seem that the Kremlin is still ready to risk drastically worsening relations. Increased military tension may facilitate a nationalistic anti-U.S., anti-NATO surge of public opinion in Russia that might help carry someone like Ivanov (or whomever Putin chooses) into the Kremlin as the new president.

For more detail, click here.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Cold War II: Felgenhauer on Neo-Soviet Russia’s Violation of the Nuclear Arms Accords

Writing for the Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor, the brilliant Pavel Felgenhaur exposes Neo-Soviet Russia backsliding on the nuclear arms accords.

On Sunday September 10, during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin aboard the Baltic Fleet’s flagship, the destroyer Nastoychivy, at the naval base Baltiysk, Kaliningrad, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov made public that Russia has apparently abrogated a major nuclear arms control agreement.

During the meeting, Ivanov reported to the president the successful test launch of two submarine-based ICBMs: one from the Pacific Ocean by nuclear sub Svyatoi Georgy Pobedonosets, the other from the North Pole by the Yekaterinburg nuclear sub. Both launches were aimed at a test range in Arkhangelsk region, and Ivanov reported that the ICBM warheads had successfully hit their targets (Interfax, September 10).According to Ivanov, the launch from the North Pole area was the first of its kind in 11 years. It is clear that this test launch imitated an attack from U.S. territory and that the Russian Navy has resumed Cold War training exercises that were previously abandoned.

Then came the real sensation: Putin asked how many Russian nuclear subs were at sea. Ivanov reported: “Today, there are eight nuclear-powered submarines at sea on combat patrols. Five of them are strategic and three are multipurpose, but each of them has nuclear arms aboard” (Interfax, September 10). Ivanov made the statement and then repeated it once again unequivocally, as broadcast the same day by Russian government’s Rossiya television channel: “The subs have different tasks — some are armed with ICBMs, others are multipurpose — but each of them has nuclear weapons aboard.”

Ivanov’s statement is highly significant, because under existing agreements it is illegal for Russia to deploy non-strategic nuclear weapons on board attack (multipurpose) subs.On September 27, 1991, U.S. President George H.W. Bush announced drastic cuts in non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons and invited the Soviet Union to follow his lead. Ten days later Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to do the same. In January 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian President Boris Yeltsin officially committed Russia to continue tactical nuclear disarmament.

The non-strategic arms limitation agreements required the total destruction of all nuclear artillery shells, tactical land-based missile warheads, and nuclear land mines. They also mandated the partial destruction of anti-missile and anti-aircraft defense missile warheads, non-strategic naval nuclear weapons, and Air Force and Naval Air Force bombs. All the nuclear weapons left after the partial destruction and, in particular, all non-strategic naval weapons were to be detached from delivery systems, taken off ships and subs, and placed in centralized storage facilities away from naval and other military bases. The only exceptions were Air Force tactical bombs that were allowed to be deployed at storage facilities near air bases (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Nuclear Status Report, www.ceip.org).

Great Britain later joined Russia and the United States in removing non-strategic nuclear weapons from ships and subs. All cuts of tactical nukes were to be completed by the end of 2000, and only strategic ICBM warheads could be deployed at sea. On April 25, 2000, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov (now secretary of the Russian Security Council) told the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York that Russia had “practically completed cuts” in compliance with its nuclear non-strategic obligations.The tactical nuclear limitation agreements are not a formal treaty, and no compliance verification mechanism ever existed. Despite statements to the contrary, questions about Russian compliance with non-strategic nuclear disarmament have been raised.

Unlike U.S. naval-based, long-range cruise missiles, their Russian (Soviet) equivalents — the Granat and Granit — were not designed or ever tested to carry conventional warheads. Still Russian attack subs continued to deploy these missiles at sea, which did not make sense if only their nuclear tips continued to be in place despite official pledges.However, now the time for speculation is over. Ivanov’s statement, made in front of reporters and President Putin reveals unequivocally that Russian attack subs are being deployed “on combat patrols” against NATO ships with battle-ready non-strategic nukes onboard.

Russia is clearly cheating now and may have been cheating on its signed tactical nuclear arms control promises all along.Ivanov’s de facto abrogation of the non-strategic arms limitation agreement comes at a time when military-to-military relations with the West are at an all time low. Last week prearranged peacekeeping and anti-terrorist military exercises that were scheduled to take place this month in Nizhny Novgorod oblast (U.S.-Russian) and Pskov oblast (NATO-Russian) were suddenly cancelled. Ivanov’s announcement of the battlefield redeployment of non-strategic nukes was hardly a simple slip of the tongue. As the incumbent regime in Russia is preparing for parliamentary elections next year and presidential ones in 2008, anti-NATO and anti-American rhetoric is being supplemented by official anti-Western military actions.

The collapse of the existing tactical nuclear limitation regime is not in Russia’s national interests, since the United States and Great Britain have the capability to deploy tens of times more naval nuclear long-range cruise missiles and other non-strategic nukes than does Russia. But it would seem that the Kremlin is still ready to risk drastically worsening relations. Increased military tension may facilitate a nationalistic anti-U.S., anti-NATO surge of public opinion in Russia that might help carry someone like Ivanov (or whomever Putin chooses) into the Kremlin as the new president.

For more detail, click here.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Russia, Third World Nation, Humiliates Disabled British Lord

Coventry reports:

STRATFORD district councillor Sir William Lawrence has slated Russia’s provisionfor disabled people as “absolutely Third World” after coming a cropper during a visit to Moscow. Sir William, who is also a governor at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, was visiting the country in his capacity as national chairman of the British Toilet Association, which seeks to raise the standards of public loos. Sir William, who needs to use a wheelchair after suffering polio as a child, suffered a fall at the Holiday Inn, in which he damaged his knee. He said he was then carried through Moscow Airport on a makeshift “stretcher”. He said: “Somebody got the bright idea of getting a fork-lift truck and physically lifting the ambulance up to the plane doors and getting me in that way. They then started dragging me across the floor of the plane on a metal sheet nailed to two bits of wood. Flight operator Lufthansa has pledged to investigate the matter. Sir William, who is now recovering in Warwick Hospital, said: “The reality is that Moscow is absolutely Third World when it comes to the disabled.”

La Russophobe has already reported how the Toilet Conference revealed a first indication of Rusisa’s third-world status, the fact that “about a third of Russian homes still have an outhouse. And as for public toilets, port-a-potties are state of the art. Russia has few public restrooms.” You can add into the mix sewage treatment plants, one of which exploded yesterday outside Moscow killing at least one person and depriving the countryside of water services.

Now we have a second indication from the Conference in Russia’s barbaric treatment of the disabled. Shall we tick of some more? Let’s:

#3 — Orphanages & Mental Institutions

#4– AIDS/Homosexual policy & Medical Care & Adult Lifespan

#5– Elections

#6 — Per Capita GDP

#7 — Environmental Policy

#8 — Military Conscription

#9 — Roads & Public Buses

#10 — Official Corruption

When we review our list, we must ask what in what categories Russia is NOT a third-world state. Here the list is shorter: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and High Culture (opera, ballet, literature, etc.). Now, gentle reader, you decide which list outweighs the other.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !