A couple of years ago, I took a mid-winter break in India with the modest intent of catching the sun, warming the old bones in semitropical waters and sampling the culture of the country’s southwest, Kerala State, famous as the historic center of the spice trade and of having been the first landfall by Portuguese navigators, whose presence over a couple of centuries is still felt there in surviving architectural monuments.

I went there partly under the influence of the Incredible India advertising campaign which the Indian state has promoted rather heavily on Euronews and other media. Partly it was the influence of a 1997 novel by Arundhati Roy, one of India’s first great women writers, winner of a Booker Prize for The God of Small Things, which highlighted, among other points, Kerala’s status as the most literate part of India owing to long rule by the Communist Party.

As it turned out, what I experienced in India was one lengthy economics-political lesson on the dysfunctionality, incompetent governance and general chaos of the country, even in its richest city, Mumbai, where I spent several days, not to mention in provincial Kochi in the South. Day by day I came to understand why so many educated and middle class Indians have chosen to leave their homeland and take up residence on our shores, returning only periodically as visitors to the 5-star resort hotels where I stayed. I wrote up my observations rather fully in an article to which I now refer the reader – https://wordpress.com/post/gilbertdoctorow.com/241

Precisely because of the inflated image of India as the world’s largest democracy, and because of the presently quite negative image of Thailand among our European and American elites over its human rights record, ruling military junta and other violations of our values, I imagined as I set off on my 17 hour journey to Bangkok that besides sun and surf, my two weeks in the capital and on Phuket island in the south of the country could be instructive and not only pleasurable.

On that score, my hunch was correct and in this short essay I will explain what exactly was, is and obviously will long be the attraction of Thailand for tourism and also for real-life instruction in why our values can be dead wrong. Indeed, their values are the only ones that are relevant to judge the Thais, until such time as the peoples and religious groups populating Thailand may become more closely integrated in terms of wealth and cultures, and their system of governance evolves accordingly.

It was said of Henry Kissinger by way of criticism that he never met a dictator whom he did not like. A bit of exposure to the joys of Thailand under military rule might be the best antidote to such smirky remarks.

Finally, by way of introduction and in keeping with the general focus of my essays on Russian affairs, I have some words to say about Russians in Thailand.

Of all the European nations, the Russians are perhaps the most consistent in choosing locations for their holidays based on value for money, climate and general hospitality. With Russians, these considerations usually outweigh whatever terrorist threats, tsunamis or other mishaps may threaten any given tourist destination, not to mention the politics of that destination, which is furthest from their minds. The only way they could be dissuaded from traveling en masse to the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh after the terrorist bombing of one of their aircraft several years ago was for the Kremlin to order a halt to all charter flights to Egypt.

Given the priorities of Russians on vacation, it came as no surprise that two years ago I found almost no Russians in India on my visit there. The one Russian couple whom I met at the poolside cafe of the swank Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai were there only because their planned cruise was cancelled. They explained to me that with respect to India Russians only book Goa. That former colonial enclave, otherwise integrated into the Indian state, does not have dry laws as so many other states do.  Unavailability of liquor aside, it may also be that Russians are not favorably impressed by the general ugliness and poverty of India, realities which they are happy to have left behind in their own past from twenty five years ago.

By contrast, Thailand is awash with Russians, mostly those coming for a couple of weeks of sunshine as I did, but also those who have settled down and run hotels serving their fellow countrymen among other businesses. In Bangkok, the airport information panels are written in Thai, English and Russian. The billboards positioned along major highways warning visitors not to blaspheme by showing lack of respect for the image of Buddha are rendered in Russian as well as English versions.

In Phuket, restaurants, hotels and other public services all have menus and general information in Russian. Often they have some Russian-speaking local staff. In this regard, Russians have largely displaced Germans, British, and Scandinavians who had the resorts to themselves in the period twenty years ago when I first visited here. In our family-oriented Kamala Beach, young Russian couples with their toddlers predominated. Their accents told me they came not from Moscow or St Petersburg but from provincial Russia. And so Phuket has become a kind of “Sochi South” during the harsh Russian winter.

But then again, Russian-Thai relations did not begin last week. Siam as it was formerly known, had a special relationship with Russia going back to the 19^th century. Their King Chulalongkorn met with Tsar Nicholas II in St Petersburg during his first Grand Tour in 1897. And one of his sons studied in the Russian Page Corps, married a Russian lady and brought her back to the royal court. In that period the Siamese also had close relations with Germany and England.

The other big tourist flow in Thailand today is Chinese from both mainland China and from the worldwide Chinese diaspora. That flow builds on still deeper historical roots.  The Chinatown in Bangkok is ancient and vibrant today. Indeed, overall Chinese account for 15% of Thailand’s population of 68 million.

Since the mainland Chinese visitors tend to come in groups and are shepherded into dedicated hotels and restaurants and since their tour buses take them to the interior for elephant rides and to shopping rather than leaving them in peace on the beach, their presence is not felt as clearly as the Russians. Of course, the Chinese, like the Russians, are quite indifferent to local politics.

* * * *

 

My single greatest impression of this visit was the sheer delight of smiles. The climate is, of course, a factor.  As I know very well from living in Belgium, on a good day of spring or summer when the sun happens to be out, even generally dour Belgians become animated and sociable, and…may share a smile.

The near equatorial climate of Thailand ensures plenty of sun and warmth. And then we are told there is the influence of Buddhist culture, with its emphasis on getting along and giving no offense.  While these ever-present smiling faces of the Thai may be a culturally imposed mask, that in no way diminishes their effect on the visitor who, willy-nilly, responds in kind. I have not smiled as much in the preceding six months in Northern Europe as I did in two weeks in Thailand, with all the related impact on my sense of wellbeing.

My first visit to Bangkok was back in 1996, and upon entering the city again on the route from the new airport to the center of town, I was amazed by how it has changed. What had been a low-rise city now enjoys a skyline punctuated by dozens of high office and residential towers in all directions, with construction cranes visible at every turn of the highway.

Official statistics indicate that in the twenty plus years leading up to the Asian financial crisis of 1997 which began there, Thailand enjoyed one of the world’s most dynamic economies. To be sure, the time of political turbulence that began in 2004 and the military coups d’état of 2006 and 2014 brought down the pace of economic growth, though it remains enviable on a world scale today. The export led economy is diversified across agriculture, fishing and industrial manufactured goods including cars; it is world-beating in certain sectors. Unemployment is negligible and, as I say, the cranes attest to an ongoing construction boom, at least in the capital, which now has a recorded population of more than 8 million in the city limits and 14 million in the greater metropolitan area.

Bangkok is not a pedestrian-friendly city. The multifunctional tower complexes, like the new indoor malls and longtime specialized street markets are islands in a sea of vehicular traffic. In this respect, it is not very different from Los Angeles, from Moscow back in the ‘90s or from a great many other major cities in the developing world.  On side streets in particular sidewalks may be non-existent and only tourists and construction workers make their way on foot. Moreover, the six-lane or eight-lane thoroughfares which divide up the city have no pedestrian overpasses or underpasses, so that getting from one side to another is problematic.

The islands of glittering towers are set back from the boulevards in open plazas. The prestigious districts such as the foreign embassy quarter where my high-rise hotel was located, are uniformly well landscaped and well-guarded, with security personnel quite visible.  In this regard, Bangkok is in total contrast with what I saw in India.

In Mumbai no building or street was so wealthy as to be spared the clutter of shanties and the milling to and fro of the homeless at street level. The notion of women going out alone in Mumbai was unthinkable for security reasons. The situation was so dire that even the city’s beautiful public beaches were totally empty due to widely reported youth gangs of rapists who descend on the city center each day from the hinterland. As for Indian women, their bird in a gilted cage status contributes to the mobility problems of the middle and upper class ladies whom I encountered everywhere.

Nothing of the sort could be said of women in Bangkok, not to mention the southern resorts.  Moreover, the integration of women into the labor force at all levels was striking.  Even on the construction sites, women wearing hard hats were ubiquitous. And in many restaurants, there was no question but that the real boss was the hefty lady running the barbecue or standing behind the cash register.

Throughout Bangkok, taxis were plentiful, mostly recent vintage Toyotas manufactured locally.  Add to that the fleet of tuk-tuks. These were originally simple open sided vehicles propelled by two-stroke scooter motors but they are now evolving from three wheel to four-wheel versions and are beginning to approach pick-up truck chassis status.  Then there are the traditional passenger vaporetti on the Chao Phrava River that snakes its way through the city center.  But the most impressive urban transit is the elevated metro, the BTS Skytrain.

The air-conditioned Skytrain is vitally important for getting from one end of far-flung Bangkok to another in predictable time given the ever-present vehicular grid-lock on the ground. The ticket prices are not cheap and yet the trains are well filled, as I discovered.  The atmosphere on board was polite, with no pushing. The public address system reminded riders in both Thai and English that they should give up seats “to those in greater need.” By all appearances, this advice was being followed by fellow riders.

Bangkok is a center of commerce, industry and services. One specific niche which bears mention is medical services.  “Medical tourism” represents a tourist flow all by itself, and its significance was striking even in my brief sojourn in the capital.  As it turned out, my high-rise apart-hotel is part of the medical services industry. Many of its rooms appear to be occupied by long-term residents from abroad, elderly and disabled men in particular, who are taken on their short walks at ground level each day by their Thai health-carers. I discovered on a short walk in the blocks adjacent to my hotel that  the second and third floors of a nearby multifunctional office tower are entirely occupied by small medical centers specialized in cosmetic surgery.  Thailand is known as a world’s leading center for sex-change operations.

 

After the tumult of Bangkok, Phuket was as relaxing a resort island as one could hope for.  It very quickly recovered from the reputational and physical damage of the December 2004 tsunami that put it on the world news at the time.  Today there are more than 9 million visitors to Phuket a year and the region is a significant contributor to the 15% of the Thai GDP that derives from tourism.

Early January is peak season for Phuket, and yet tourist facilities were not strained.  Our beach at Kamala always had free lounge chairs for hire and was perfectly clean.  Restaurants had no lines for seating and the featured seafood for evening meals – locally caught sea bass, red snapper, bonita tuna, crabs, rock lobsters and giant tiger shrimp – were fresh and prepared by the chefs with care.

Going back to my first visits here in 1996 and again at the turn of the millennium in 2000, Thailand and Phuket in particular was not cheap.  It is not cheap today, with prices in the major international hotel chains on the Kata beach very similar to those you might find in the Caribbean or in the Gulf States at peak season. However, four and three star accommodations in less known beaches may be a third less expensive and offer outstanding value.

Whatever the category of lodgings, all visitors to the Phuket resorts enjoy the unforgettable celebration of New Year’s arranged by the local authorities.  Thousands of Chinese lanterns are launched from the beaches and create magical constellations as the wind carries them to and fro on their ascent.  The midnight fireworks up and down the coast is a great treat.

I mentioned already that Kamala beach where I stayed with my grandchildren is family oriented.  However, Phuket is welcoming to all kinds of tourists.  At the far end of Kamala, there is a large complex of discos that draws in a numerous gathering of singles every day and night.  From hearsay, I understand that densely settled Patong Beach twenty minutes by tuk-tuk from Kamala always had its attractions for sex tourism. Judging by what you see in bars, fresh or not so fresh young Thai women are  available there for two week romances with middle aged European visitors.

One of the changes to note on Phuket from the time of my last visit in January 2000 is the “coming out” of Islam.  Officially Thailand is 94% Buddhist and 4% Islamist.  But until the nation’s period of civil disturbances began in the Muslim south in 2004 there was no way to know for sure who was who.  Today, one does not have to guess. The substantial Muslim minority in Phuket is visible by dress of the women, or from the ‘As-salamu alaykum’ exchanges between men that you can overhear on the street. . That said, you do not see many mosques, do not hear muezzins such as have taken over the days and even the nights in India’s Kerala State, as I discovered.

In conclusion, Thailand today embodies a strong argument in favor of an open-minded approach to national traditions and systems of governance that are different from our own. The Davos Culture notion of a single set of tracks leading all nations to an identical set of values in the foreseeable future is patently mistaken. What counts more for the vast majority of people is competent economic management bringing growing prosperity to all and a spirit of tolerance that allows all citizens to enjoy their private lives in peace.

 

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2019

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the surprising pro-détente feelings of Belgium’s French-speaking social elite who openly criticize the anti-Russian policies being pursued by the government here, in line with the EU consensus. My comments were based on conversations I had with a good many participants in a Russia-themed gala dinner at the country’s most prestigious gentlemen’s club in downtown Brussels. The fact that such a dinner could be held and that its more than 160 seats were sold out speaks for itself.

https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2019/01/13/how-will-belgian-elites-align-in-the-may-2019-european-and-national-elections-defined-by-rising-populism/

For the record, my interlocutors were retired senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, administrators working for the royal family, successful entrepreneurs in the financial services industry and a number of barons and lesser members of Belgian noble families.

In what follows here, I offer impressions of another sampling of Belgian society, this time diplomats in active service and the middle level or senior managers of Belgian corporations with large investments and ongoing business in Russia.  The occasion was a gathering last night of the relevant Chamber of Commerce dedicated to commercial ties with Russia and celebrating the new year with speeches and cocktails. The atmosphere was subdued. One might say funereal, given how the numbers of business members in the Chamber has plummeted in recent years so that trade related bureaucrats from both Belgian and Russian sides now outnumber genuine people doing business, and fonctionnaires serving time are not an outspoken bunch.

The key to understanding what occurred and why Belgian business will do absolutely nothing to pursue its own interests in trade with Russia in the face of an anti-Russian Belgian and EU foreign policy may be found in the opening remarks to the assembly by Belgium’s ambassador to Moscow.

It must be said that the given ambassador is an upbeat and very sociable person, who deftly blends sports and other human interest trivia into his speeches.  He mentioned his hosting in his Moscow embassy Belgians who came to cheer on their Red Devils during the FIFA World Cup this past summer. No doubt he is a genial host.

The problem is that for a position of such potential political importance in one of the world’s key cities for diplomacy, the Kingdom of Belgium chose as its ambassador a person who, by his own admission last night, is just beginning to speak a bit of Russian after two years on the job. There is so much of interest around him he said, so much to learn that he would like to have another ten years to immerse himself in Russian life.

His openness of spirit is laudable, but his admitted ignorance of a country that is not exotic and sits at the doorstep of Europe does not speak well of the professionalism of the Belgian foreign service. By contrast, the Russian ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium, who also spoke to the assembly, has full mastery of French and English, if not Flemish, and enters into direct dialogue with all leading figures in Belgian society without the assistance of interpreters or seeing-eye dogs.

Given the institutional biases of the staff he would take over upon assuming office, the Belgian ambassador to Moscow is a faulty instrument for detecting nuanced intelligence on what is going on in the country of his assignment, which could and should be part of his job in this age of omnipresent propaganda and megaphone diplomacy.

Be that as it may, this likable man opened his speech with a compliment to his hosts and to the audience, remarking that trade relations are an important positive influence on political relations between states.  Sadly, as he made clear in what followed, he got cause and effect backwards.

In effect, during 2018 Belgian trade with Russia fell by 8%.  According to the ambassador, a good part of the story was the worsening perception of Russia in Belgium due to two events:  the Skripal affair in the spring and the Kerch Straits incident in the autumn.  Since he is the spokesman for the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs which has an unequivocal, never questioning view on ‘bad boy’ Russia as Washington, D.C. and  fellow Member States of the EU decide, the best he tries to do is to keep open lines of communication with Moscow so that both sides can set out at length what their respective views are on any given issue.

Compared to thinking in Washington, which since 2014 if not before has been hell-bent on totally isolating Russia and cutting all lines of communication, we may say that the role assumed by the Belgian Ambassador to Russia is enlightened even if it is unproductive of change.

In this regard, the ambassador is only doing on a regular basis what the Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel did a year ago when he paid a visit to Moscow and held lengthy talks with his counterpart Dmitry Medvedev and with President Putin.  We are told that relations were cordial on that visit.  But by the nature of the constraints set by Belgian political elites and by the EU, nothing more than briefly improved atmospherics and photo opportunities could result.

Then there was the spring visit to Moscow and St Petersburg by the mayor of Antwerp, leader of the country’s largest single political party, the NV-A, together with a substantial Flemish business delegation.  Here there were concrete commercial topics to be discussed including shared interest in the diamond trade, supplies of Russian petroleum and development of the port of Zeebrugge to receive Russian liquefied natural gas. However, as already mentioned, the impact on actual trade figures was zero due to worsening numbers in other sectors where the ongoing EU sanctions and Russian embargo bite.

Looking to prospects for 2019, the Belgian ambassador to Moscow did not hold back the ugly truth.  Everything will depend on what new sanctions the United States decides to impose on Russia. Belgium and the EU will swallow this bitter medicine whole, given the extraterritorial effect of United States legislation and jurisdiction.  Not even a whimper of complaint on his part. Nor did I notice any rush of the few business leaders in attendance to ask the ambassador for details during the cocktail.

And so, the activities of the Chamber of Commerce, which has a full agenda of official visits to Russian regions, and hosts the periodic Russian business delegations to Benelux, are form without content. It will take a change in government from the complacent center-right, center-left to the “populist” parties on the left and right fringes which denounce the status quo in foreign policy just as in domestic policy before any real prospect for improved political and commercial relations with the big neighbor to the East can be hoped for.

 

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2019

In this short essay, I intend to demonstrate that not all is lost in Europe for the cause of reason and independent thinking on matters of war and peace, life and death, even if in the United States elites of all kinds have succumbed to mind-numbing conformism and adulation of global hegemony.

To be specific, I am saying that French-speaking Belgian social and business elites are at odds with Belgian political elites over the course of foreign policy. What remains to be seen is how this divergence of views may play out in the forthcoming Belgian and European elections of May 2019 as these various elites compete for votes amidst the full blast of rampant populism.

Will the French-speaking social and business elites find allies in the non-Establishment, i.e. non-centrist parties and so throw out incumbents and bring in new policies with the help of the Street?  Or will the politicians in power outmaneuver both the Street and the social-business elites in Brussels and Wallonia to smother debate with the help of mainstream media, thereby staying in control of policies that are leading us to war on the Old Continent?

Apart from the rare breaking of ranks with the USA over George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, for which the then Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt paid dearly by the quashing of his European level political ambitions, Belgium’s foreign policy has for more than 70 years been staunchly and unquestioningly pro-American.  And how could that official policy be otherwise in the country that is home to NATO and to the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE)?

However, for well-grounded reasons which they are not hesitant to share, the French-speaking Belgian social and business elites reject the way ‘alliance’ has meant a slavish “yes” by which the Belgian federal government makes no pretense at sovereignty but accedes to every Diktat from Washington. Nowhere is the rejection of official policy more evident than in the question of how relations with Russia are being conducted.

Put simply, the social and business elites view Putin’s Russia as an inescapable geopolitical factor on the European continent which must be accommodated  in a common security architecture and not baited, subjected to unilateral economic sanctions and challenged militarily at its borders, as is presently the case. They believe in the salutary effect of mutual trade, mutual cultural and other exchange between Europe and Russia, living as we all do in close proximity and having critical interdependencies.

Unlike Americans, Belgians tend to have a long memory.  Russia has been part of their historical consciousness ever since Peter the Great opened his Window to the West by moving his capital from Moscow in the Russian heartland to the shores of the Gulf of Finland, and even earlier, when he first visited the towns of Liege and Spa in what is now called Belgium during his grand European voyage in the spring of 1717. The tricentenary of that visit was duly celebrated in festivities sponsored by the Spa mineral water bottlers, one of whose springs is named for the Russian tsar.

Thus, from the early eighteenth century, Russia was seen in these lands as a Great Power which participated actively in the fateful historical events that gave rise to modern day Europe including the Napoleonic wars, World Wars I and II. In both world wars, Russia fought on the same side as the peoples of Belgium.

Of course that perception of Russia in Belgium turned darkly negative following the Revolution of 1917 when Belgian industrialists lost a major market for their tramways and other engineered products, when bondholders of Russian imperial securities lost their capital and when this little country took in a large contingent of White Russian refugees including tsarist generals and scions of the great noble families of the Empire. We may assume that during WWII, Belgians followed with interest and sympathy the Red Army’s struggle against Nazi Germany even if the country was finally liberated by American and not Russian soldiers. After WWII, the onset of the Cold War reignited antipathy here to the Kremlin.

Belgian views of the big neighbor to the East changed once again, in a very positive direction, after the collapse of Communism and the rise of the Russian Federation as successor state with democratic aspirations and mixed market economy. With skepticism at first, then with growing enthusiasm, the local Russian diaspora also joined in this new appreciation of possibilities for cooperation with Moscow. Consequently, Belgian social and political elites, including the core of Belgians with Russian family roots, have been highly critical of the American led efforts to demonize Putin and Russia in the new millennium. Given their frustration with the often parlous state of political life in their own country, over family dynasties in power, the Belgian business and social elites take with a grain of salt all of American ranting about authoritarianism in Russia.

What are my sources of information supporting my generalizations about the current split in elite thinking here over foreign policy and in particular over policy towards Putin’s Russia? They are the conversations I had with numerous business people, retired diplomats, persons close to the monarchy and society personalities at a special Russia-themed gala dinner held in the most prestigious gentlemen’s club of French-speaking Belgium on 7 January 2018 and once again last Friday, 11 January 2019. The black tie event was timed to fall between the celebration of Russian Christmas and New Year’s according to the Julian calendar observed by the Orthodox Church. The host club’s name includes the designation “royal” which nails down its claims to national relevance in Belgium.

A year ago, I published detailed notes of what I heard at the Russian soirée in an article entitled “Celebrating Russian Christmas in Brussels. High Politics and High Society Meet in the Grand Dining Room.”  I will not repeat myself here, but urge the reader to consult the article by following the link https://wordpress.com/post/gilbertdoctorow.com/274

 

Taking a step backward, I now wish to explain the point set out at the very beginning when I mentioned the “Street,” meaning the broad electorate, as the force to be won over to otherwise marginal parties by those parties’ possibly espousing the views of the business and social elites in favor of a foreign policy of Peace as opposed to War. On what basis, you may ask, do I believe that the Street could pay attention to such an appeal and cast its vote accordingly?

Here I rely on my nose to the wind.  In decades of daily life in Belgium, I have yet to find someone in the working classes who trusted the good intentions and competence of our federal government or of the mass media.  Specifically as regards Russia, the thinking of ordinary folks has been remarkably consistent, whether my interlocutor has been a French speaker or a Fleming.

When I get back to Brussels from one of my periodic trips to Russia, I may mention where I have been to my postman or to the owner of the little convenience shop on the corner, among other occasional contacts.  Their consistent response is “Putin,” thumbs up. Unlike friends and acquaintances in the middle classes, and still more in the academic community, I have never once encountered a Russophobe among the Street.

 

* * * *

 

The reader will note that I opened this essay by precisely identifying “French-speaking business and social elites” whom I take to represent the 40% of the country’s population  living in Brussels and Wallonia, two of the country’s three regions.  I focus attention on these French-speaking elites because they are the ones with whom I am in direct contact and about whom I have specific personal experience that constitutes the raw inputs for this essay.

As regards, the 60% of the country’s population in Flanders, the third Belgian region, I do have personal contact coming from occasional exchange of views with Flemish businessmen in the Belgian-Luxemburg Chamber of Commerce for Russia.  However, my interlocutors there are usually middle management people who do not pay close attention to politics or are afraid to express independent views at odds with the government.  And so I draw my conclusions on Flanders by triangulation, based on what their politicians are saying and doing rather than on what is going on in society. In this domain, there was one outstanding case of disagreement with the foreign policy of the federal government that merits attention.

One year ago, ahead of the planned visit of the Belgian Prime Minister to Moscow, a leader of the Extreme Right, nationalist Vlaams Belang (The Flemish Interest) party, Filip Dewinter, introduced a resolution into the Belgian parliament calling for the lifting of anti-Russian sanctions.  The resolution urged the Government to petition the European Parliament in this matter.

Upon reading about this unusual initiative, I placed a phone call to Dewinter to better understand who he was and what he hoped to achieve.  Whereas his party is condemned by mainstream Belgian politicians for its pursuit of Flemish independence and for what are called xenophobic policy orientations, by his remarks in this telephone interview Dewinter impressed me as a sophisticated internationalist with a good grounding in business who stood opposed to the economic hardship inflicted on Flemish farmers and industry by the EU sanctions against Russia and the Russian counter-sanctions they elicited.

In the same period, I reached out to the leadership of the largest Flemish political party, the N-VA (New Flemish Alliance) to enquire whether they would support Dewinter’s resolution in parliament. N-VA chief Bart de Wever did not respond to my enquiry, nor did his party take any action whatsoever in support of the call to lift sanctions, so that it failed to gain any traction in the parliament.

I assume that this outcome followed from the N-VA’s participation in the ruling coalition government, where it had control of several ministerial portfolios but not of the Foreign Ministry, where the centrist Francophone Didier Reynders of the Mouvement Reformateur (MR) party had, since coming into office in 2012, pursued a “go with the flow” policy of backing each and every directive coming from Washington.

Be that as it may, De Wever made his own demonstrative statement in favor of good commercial and other ties with Russia when in April of this year he took a large delegation of businessmen from his home base of Antwerp, where he is mayor, on a trip to St Petersburg and Moscow.  A press release issued at the time by the Port of Antwerp, explained that the aim of the mission was:  “to consolidate and expand the close trade relations between Russia and Antwerp and its seaport. Russia has indeed been one of the most important trading partners for decades.”

Now that the N-VA has pulled out of the ruling coalition with the Francophone centrists, bringing down the government of Charles Michel, and setting the way for new parliamentary elections in May 2019 , it will be interesting to see if they present to their voters a less America-centered and more Belgium centered foreign policy platform.

In conclusion, I believe there are interesting developments afoot in Belgian politics as we enter the 2019 electoral campaign. Commentators across the political spectrum are speaking about the rise of populism and euro-skepticism.  On the Left of our politics, judging by the results of the nationwide local government (communal) elections last autumn, populism seems to spell the rise of The Greens, an environmental, alternative political force that has no clear foreign policy.  On the Right of our politics, it remains to be seen if the alternative parties of the Extreme Right will have the vision and the ability to take to voters the foreign policy views of the social and business elites and thereby capture for themselves a wholly new portion  of the electorate.

 

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2018

Dear Reader, the following expose of cowardice and conformism  at the head of a young and seemingly kindly internet platform that collects and passes along donations for worthy causes is offered as a caution to the idealists among us that the Deep State easily finds collaborators in its crimes of global hegemony at every corner of our society.  The sanctimonious young appear to be doing no better than worn down and obsequious old timers in staying clear of its clutches.

This story did not originate as an exercise in investigative journalism.  On the contrary, it imposed itself on us. “Us” is not the royal “we” – it is collectively myself and the editor-in-chief, publisher of Russia Insider  Charles Bausman when we pursued a Comment posted by a reader of my December article about seriously ill Russian speaking prisoners in Ukrainian detention centers who are being denied not merely due process but urgently needed medical care:

https://russia-insider.com/en/maltreated-prisoners-war-and-prisoners-conscience-rotting-ukrainian-jails-list/ri25621

The Comment said in part: “Go Fund Me would be worth a try…”

Raising funds to assist the miserable unfortunates in question was not in our original game plan, which was merely to publicize their fate and so bring pressure on the Ukrainian authorities to take remedial action.  However, the suggestion seemed to be a very good one, and Bausman put his team to work to open an account on GoFundMe, setting a modest target of 3,000 euros to procure medical treatment and possible legal aid.

The account was duly opened and stayed “on air” for perhaps 24 hours, when it suddenly disappeared and in its place the original account link led instead to a screen explaining that the account page did not exist.

That was quickly explained by management of GoFundMe in an email to us, saying they required further information about our intentions before they could lift their suspension order on the account.

Quote

Community Management Team (GoFundMe) Dec 19, 12:01 PM PST Hello, Thanks for following up with us. My name is Molly from the Community Management team at GoFundMe and I wanted to touch back to you and let you know we are currently reviewing your campaign. To continue, we will need more information to verify whether this campaign falls within our Terms of Service. Please reply to this email at your earliest convenience with the following information: ·         What is your relationship with the beneficiaries? ·         Please provide a full list of the legal names of each of your beneficiaries who will be receiving funds/support ·         Please confirm where your beneficiaries are location (city and country) ·         Please confirm the name and address of facility where your beneficiaries are currently being held ·         Confirm how funds will be spent – please be as specific as possible, including information regarding the names of any organizations or businesses who will be handling or receiving funds at any point in time ·         Please provide an email on which we can reach out to your beneficiary, if necessary. This would be the full name and email address of any main points of contact you have with the beneficiaries ·         How will you send the funds to your beneficiaries? Please include the names of any banks or money transmitters you will use. Once you reply to this email with the requested information, our Community Management Team will review your campaign within one business day. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. Regards, Molly Community Management Team

Unquote

 

We came right back to them with all the detailed information they sought about the detainees/beneficiaries of our fund-raising . We stated unequivocally that our purpose was strictly humanitarian. We explained that persons in an EU embassy in Moscow who provided the list of detainees which we published would also assure the transfer of funds to the beneficiaries in Ukraine and we could provide the bank account details of the intermediary.

In fact, the diplomatic employee in Moscow is a friend of one of my good friends in Brussels, so we acted in perfect confidence that the claims being made and the means of intervention being proposed were honest, legitimate and likely to be effective.

After our response was sent off to GoFundMe, not one day, but two weeks passed before their Judgment of Solomon came back to us:

Quote

The GoFundMe Team (GoFundMe) Jan 2, 3:57 PM PST Dear GoFundMe Customer, We are writing to inform you that your GoFundMe account has been removed due to sanctions involving an unsupported country and a violation of our Terms & Conditions. The content of your campaign falls under our “Conditions of Use” section. You can view our full Terms & Conditions by clicking this link. Unfortunately, our Terms and Conditions, along with strictly enforced policies from the payments industry and the Office of Foreign Assets Control, prohibit GoFundMe from allowing you to continue raising money on our site. Regards, The GoFundMe Team Visit our terms: www.gofundme.com/terms

Unquote

As for an “unsupported country” and the “Office of Foreign Assets Control,” well we can decipher those points pretty well without help.  The “Terms and Conditions” are another matter.  As Charles Bausman soon found out, that document comes to 10,000 words, so it is anyone’s guess what exactly they claim we would be violating with our proposed fund-raising.

There is no need to belabor the point.  Pseudo-patriotism is written all over the servile face of the GoFundMe Team.  Couldn’t have been uglier had we been dealing with Zuckerberg’s Facebook boys and girls.

Nonetheless, the publication effort relating to my original article as disseminated by Russia Insider was not in vain.  A week later, the friend’s friend in Moscow wrote to us that the first named sufferer on our list was finally scheduled for a much needed operation on his leg, which she attributed to the public shaming of the Ukrainian authorities.

 

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2018

Survival in the Age of Trump is today on many minds.  For some, the issue is whether our whimsical, volatile president will undo 70 years of alliance (read: empire) building here and now.  For others, it is whether he will finally realize his campaign promises to be the Great Disrupter and fulfill the wishes of the vast majority of the American public to live at peace with the world.

The turning point was Donald Trump’s announcement a week ago on Twitter that he ordered the U.S. military to withdraw the 2,000 or so American ground troops from Syria.  This was initially greeted with skepticism by our dissident community and also by one international actor which is very interested in avoiding confrontations, not to mention armed conflict with the United States on and over Syrian territory, namely the Russian Federation.

But the shrill denunciations that the announcement precipitated among US political elites and media, followed by the resignation of the U.S. Secretary of Defense, “mad dog” General James Mattis the day after the announcement, made it plain that the withdrawal order will be implemented within thirty, sixty or, at the outer limit, ninety days. Moreover, the U.S. military further released to the public the news that following the removal of U.S. ground troops in Syria the American air offensive in Syria would come to an end.  And it was confirmed that the President had ordered the American military presence in Afghanistan to be halved, meaning the departure of 7,000 soldiers according to a timetable still to be defined.

In summation, it was an eventful week. The President effectively had kicked over the beehive of his enemies in the nation’s capital. He had gone against virtually the entire foreign policy Establishment across the land, and against the mainstream media.  High decibel speculation erupted in the press on where next this President will draw down American troops and what that means for the entire posture of the US global “alliances.”  Will the troops stationed in Japan and South Korea questioned by Trump since the electoral campaign be next to undergo a haircut?

Western commentators on the Trump administration are calling him not merely a juvenile in the White House but a “crackpot” and someone utterly “unpredictable.” His alleged unpredictability makes him all the more dangerous to national security in their view. This personality trait also makes him a blood brother of Vladimir Putin, whom our media constantly accuse of unpredictability, though his every action may easily be anticipated by anyone who follows closely his public speeches.

Of course, none of Trump’s latest moves was truly “unpredictable.”  Withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan was embedded in his 2016 electoral platform.  Since taking office, he has acted to implement nearly all of his campaign promises with respect to domestic policy.  Now that the midterm elections are behind him and his control of the Senate is assured, Trump has undertaken to realize his promises on foreign affairs.

It is to be noted that the most controversial of his electoral pledges, to normalize relations with Russia, remains off the table.  Considering how the Democrats and his opponents within his own party have made Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin, the cudgel in their attacks on his presidential powers, we may expect that any move on Russia will come at the very end of Trump’s “to-do” list if it remains there at all.

The Russians’ skepticism over Trump’s announced pull-out from Syria has not been dampened notwithstanding the departure of General Mattis.  Indeed, the scenario of two steps forward and one step back seems to be a valid description of actions of this administration.  During yesterday’s surprise visit to American forces stationed in Iraq, Trump mentioned in passing that they may be used for operations in Syria “against ISIL.”  We may assume that their interventions will have more varied objectives than combatting terrorism across the border.

If we step back from the specifics of the past two weeks and look at the foreign policy impact of Donald Trump’s presidency more broadly, we are faced with a number of conflicting facts.   These contradictions may explain how he been able to hold onto power…and to stay alive thus far while going up against the Deep State in ways that put the entire structure of American global hegemony in peril.

At times, everyone in turn, foes and would-be friends, see before them a Trump they can support even if they revile him for his other facets exposed at other moments.  I, for one, have gone through a cycle of repulsion and admiration. Repulsion was strongest following Trump’s utterly unacceptable, if not insane speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2017 threatening North Korea with annihilation. Admiration for his bravery came in the past week following the announcement on withdrawals.

For those of us who would like to support this President in his foreign policy initiatives, the problem is the way he justifies his actions:  they are founded on lies and prevarication.  Moreover, he clearly does not give a hoot about the lot of us. He is not open to advice from us….or anyone else outside a very circumscribed number of loyalists with whom the shares ideas, when he is not simply following his own “gut instincts” in the tradition of captains of the entrepreneurial, as opposed to corporate business world from which he hails.

However, it is also true that in his own way, Trump the Great Disrupter is doing far more to achieve the dismantlement of the American Empire than any of us.  We in the dissident community have not found our audience.  The broad public in the United States and in Europe does not “get it.”  There is among us vast concern over possible accidents, leaks at atomic power stations.  A new Chernobyl or Fukishima is lurking around the corner.  Hence, the rising strength of the Green Parties, which have common environmental objectives but no common foreign policy. And yet, the dangers of nuclear war which have been rising year after year and will become most acute if and when the US installs nuclear armed cruise missiles in Europe, as seems highly likely, go unnoticed by our slumbering public.

Donald Trump is the Ugly American incarnate.  More so than even Dick Cheney or George Bush the Younger.  His boorish manners and in-your-face self-promotion puts to shame the servile European, Japanese and other spittle-lickers who have profited from their associations with Washington at the expense of their compatriots. These would-be friends of Washington have nowhere to hide from the disgrace Trump metes out to them before their own peoples.  All of this is good and necessary medicine to set the world on its way towards a multipolar future.  Far more than we “American dissidents” have been able to muster.

Therefore, I can only say ‘godspeed’ to Donald Trump in the New Year 2019.  May he willy-nilly continue to do God’s work.

 

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2018

To readers who are estranged from the comfortable complacency of the political center and who were initially skeptical of the first media reports yesterday that Trump had ordered complete withdrawal of US ground troops from Syria, I say:  there is no deception here, the news is authentic. Trump has finally found his backbone after months of giving in to his Neocon advisers and hawkish generals – we are leaving.

The reality and seriousness of Trump’s decision is confirmed by the shrill intensity of its condemnation by the Democratic (liberal internationalist) and Republican (Neocon) opposition to what Trump announced.  For a starter, may I suggest that the reader go to The Washington Post and take a look at the invective from Victoria Nuland, the leading Cold Warrior at State during Obama’s tenure in office and the author of the coup d’etat against the legitimate government in Kiev that has brought us into our present dramatically heightened international tensions.

And the media drum beats for Trump’s scalp pick up where our Establishment politicians leave off.  Not just in US media but here in Europe in the oh-so- independent and sophisticated BBC World news, for example.  In this morning’s Briefing program, the BBC’s Washington reporter explains how Trump yet again has shown his disruptive character by this move which runs against the expert advice of all his generals and political advisers and cedes Syria to Russia and Iran!

Disruptive!  Allow me to put such an anodyne and objectively correct assessment into context, given that the reporter meant it as a slap across the wrist for Donald, as if he were the juvenile caricature his many enemies choose to hang around his neck.

I am a great enthusiast for a couple of almost unique pillars of US and UK democracy:  the first past the post principle in designating the winners of elections and the winner takes all notion of governance following the elections.  To anyone who finds these principles unexceptional, I must explain that they run directly against the operative principles of many if not most nations on the Continent, where progressive political theories stressing consensus and inclusiveness have given us executives and legislatures which are utterly incapable of being disruptive. What we get here in Old Europe tends to be coalition governments or power-sharing in which parliamentary majorities are hobbled together by distributing the spoils of office, assigning ministerial portfolios with utter disregard for policy coherence or the competence of the appointees. The stasis in policy results in voter apathy and works directly against the vibrancy of democracy.

The fact is that polarization and disruptiveness are what the whole democratic process is supposed to be about.  Throwing out the bums is one side of the story; throwing out bum policies is the other side of the story.  Anyone questioning this, as all of Trump’s critics do, is arguably subverting our democracy, not defending it.

The election of Donald Trump was supposed to result in both sides of the disruption story being realized. His foreign policy, which exposed him to gratuitous attacks and about which he could have but chose not to be silent during the campaign, was precisely for cardinal change in the way foreign policy is conducted. And, notwithstanding the way his enemies in the political elites and in the mass media pilloried him for these positions, he won the 2016 election fair and square.

Trump had called for a move away from war, towards accommodation with adversaries like Russia, for ending the unnecessary and never-ending wars initiated by the previous administrations while improving America’s big stick – allocating new funds to modern equipment and weapons systems.This put Trump in the framework famously set out by President Teddy Roosevelt a hundred years ago.  Roosevelt, it will be remembered, was The Realist American president and together with Richard Nixon was a direct ideological forerunner of Donald Trump. Roosevelt’s nemesis, Woodrow Wilson, was the direct ideological forerunner of all the Idealist  hot-war fighting presidents we have had in between.

As we know, Trump in office has been a mess.  His utter inexperience in running organizations larger than his own Trump Organization with its 12 loyalist direct reports has shown up at every turn.  His management style, based on the principle of keeping one’s friends close and one’s enemies still closer, has rendered him utterly surrounded by policy enemies who have largely run away with the show on all elements of foreign policy.

It is hard to say what precipitated this latest turn in direction of POTUS 45, but it could conceivably have been the disastrous sentencing hearing of his former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, during which the full mania of the anti-Trump warriors was presented with perfect clarity: a policy characterized by vicious partisanship and indecent mob mentality that we have charitably called McCarthyism.  Let us hope that he stands firm now, throws out more of the bum policies as well as bum individuals he inherited or appointed, and proceeds from Syria to an about face on Russia and much more.

 

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2018

In the past two weeks, the United States and NATO countries have opened still another line of attack on Russia in their ongoing high pitch information war:  the seizure by the Russian navy of three Ukrainian vessels attempting unsanctioned entry to the Kerch Straits, together with the arrest of their crews who have been treated medically, as necessary, and dispatched to a prison in Moscow for interrogation.

In light of the sound and fury over the Ukrainian sailors,  it seems to me that the moment is especially opportune to bring to the attention of the world community, and in particular to the attention of Amnesty International,  the Council of Europe and other institutions and political forces defending the cause of human rights the following inhumane treatment by the government in Kiev of prisoners of war and prisoners of conscience.  Here the objective is not to score propaganda points but to secure urgently needed assistance to named individuals currently in Ukrainian detention centers.

As happens in cases like this, I received the list from friends of friends serving in the Moscow embassy of an EU country. Accordingly I have every reason to believe in its accuracy and impartiality.

List of prisoners of war and political prisoners in Ukraine who are in need of urgent medical assistance and material aid

1. Medical care is not being provided.2. Their cases are not really being examined by the courts. The cases are being transferred from tribunal to tribunal, where the court sessions only consider the question of extending the preventive detention measures.3. Complaints have been filed with international organizations with respect to numerous violations of human rights law, namely :  abuse of power of the forces of law and order, violations during the examination of files by the judges (at all stages of the judicial proceedings). Ukrainian government authorities have responded in a formalistic manner and propose to investigate the violations (practically none of these cases has been brought to trial).

 

	Last name, first name	Date of birth	Place of arrest and articles of the Ukrainian Criminal Code mentioned in the charges filed	Circumstances of the detention	State of health
1.	SEDIKOV Alexey Sergeevich	10.10.1979	Sentenced to 11 years in prison Art. 258-3 part. 1, Art. 28 part. 2 Art. 437 part. 2, Art 263 part. 1	Captured and gravely wounded near the lines of demarcation, during inspection of the implementaiton of the Minsk Accords. Tortured and refused medical assistance.	Urgently in need of surgeryt.
2.	DOLGOCHEÏ Ruslan Bronislavovich	25.12.1973	Odessa – Temporary Detention Center		Acute pain in the vertical column (lumbar region);  cardiovascular and gastro-intestinal pain.
3.	DOLGOCHEÏ Vladislav Ruslanovich	24.04.1996	Odessa – Penal Institution No. 24 Art. 258 part. 3,4, Art. 113 – Art. 263 Arrested on 05/07/2015	Torture	Cerebral lesions.
4.	KHITROV Denis Vassilievich	28.04.1977	Odessa – Temporary Detention Center. Art. 111 part.1 Arrested on 19.03.2017	Torture	Gastro-intestinal illness(gastritis) Failing eyesight
5.	BOBOVA Elena Grigorievna	26.04.1972	Odessa – Temporary Detention Center Art. 111 part.1 Arrested on 19.03.2017	Subjected to physical and psychological abuse. Persons close to him have received death threats. . Was forced to sign confessions	Respiratory system ailment (oblation of a lung)
6.	PIKALOV Valery Valerievich	19.07.1975	Odessa – Temporary Detention Center Art. 111 part.1, Art. 263 Arrested on 19.03.2017	Physical force used during his arrest. Illegal seizure of property (gold and silver jewelry belonging to his aged mother.	Stomach ulcers
7.	MELNITCHOUK Piotr Nikolaevich	12.07.1972	Odessa – Temporary Detention Center. Art. 111 part.1, Art. 263 Arrested on 19.03.2017	Physical force used during his arrest.  Citizen of the Republic of Moldova. According to the provisions of the law. art. 111 cannot be applied to foreign citizens.
8.	LOGUNOV Mekhty Féofanovich	21.05.1934	Art. 111 part.1
9.	PIDMAZKO Evgueny Sergeevich	1969	Odessa – Temporary Detention Center  No.21 – Art. 258
10.	GAÏDANOV Ivan Konstantinovich	06.02.1981	Odessa – Temporary Detention Center No. 21 Art. 258-3 part.1 Art. 263 part.1 Interned since 11.10.2017		Stomach ulcers, chronic illness of  duodenum, urinary lithiasis. Urgently needs treatment
11.	MAZUR Oleg Vladimirovich	02.08.1965	Odessa – Temporary Detention Center No. 21 Art. 258-3 part.1, Art. 113, Art. 263.  Interned since 2015		Acute infection of lymph ganglions, oedema in limbs, astro-intestinal illness.
12.	ZJIGALO Aleksandr Ivanovich	03.08.1966	Odessa – Temporary Detention Center  No. 21 Art. 111 Interned since 27.05.2018	Was arrested on 27.05.2018 by the Ukrainian Security Service on suspicion of collaboration with the Russian FSB.
13.	BACHLYKOV Sergey Aleksandrovich	27.10.1986	Kharkov – Temporary Detention Center. Art. 258 part.3, Art.263	Physical force used during the arrest and during the interrogation.
14.	DVORNIKOV Vladimir Nikolaevich	13.06.1978	Kharkov – Penal Colony No. 43 – Art. 258 part.3 Art. 263 part.1 Interned since 26.02.2015	Physical force used during the arrest. Under torture was forced to admit to having committed a terrorist act in Kharkov.	Brain concussion
15.	TITYUTSKIY Viktor Viktorovich	05.05.1982	Kharkov – Penal Colony No. 43 Art. 258 part.3, Art. 263 part.1 Interned since 26.02.2015	Physical force used during the arrest. Mock execution during his arrest.
16.	CHUMAK Vyachelav Aleksandrovich	19.10.1975	Kharkov –Temporary Detention  Center.	Arrested without witnesses present. Valuables were stolen during the arrest. Subjected to torture.	Critically ill. Before the arrest, he was wounded in the head and vertebral column during a car accident. Requires treatment. Pain in the head and spine.
17.	EVTUKHOV Vyachelav Viktorovich	12.11.1981	Kharkov – Penal colony Art. 250 part.8, Art. 263, Art.258	Physical and psychological pressure. Confession made under torture.
18.	VESELOV Sergey Aleksandrovich	29/01/1980	Kharkov – Temporary Detention Center.

 

 

There is more than a dollop of irony in the release yesterday by Dmitri Peskov, press secretary to Vladimir Putin, of two email letters addressed to himself and to the Russian presidential administration back in January 2016 requesting assistance with the projected residential skyscraper, Trump Tower Moscow, that the Trump Organization was then negotiating with its business partners in the Russian capital. They were in need of land rights and building permits.

There is every reason to believe that what we are now seeing is the Kremlin turning on Trump and facilitating his removal from office.  This is suggested by the timing of Peskov’s release of documents and comments on what further transpired. Peskov’s speaking out follows closely the admission by Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen that he had lied to Congress over the project in Russia. At issue is the timing of Cohen’s solicitations in Moscow on Trump’s behalf.

Cohen had previously testified that the project died in January 2016. Now it is clear he pursued the presidential administration in Moscow well into the spring, during the American primaries, and perhaps as late as June, 2016, when Trump was already the Republican candidate. Though not confirmed by Peskov, there are suggestions circulating in social media that Trump’s minions intended to proposition Putin with a free penthouse atop the Trump Tower in exchange for land and permits.

Regrettably, the whole story of Cohen and the tower project in Moscow rings true, right down to the plans to bribe the Russian President.  Donald Trump’s multibillion dollar real estate empire was managed by an inner circle of long-time associates whose main value to the boss was personal loyalty not competence.

The story also rings true to the “transactional approach” to government business that Trump’s critics have decried.  The deal allegedly on offer to Putin betrays deep cynicism, the conviction that Donald’s interlocutors are as corrupt as he himself appears to be.

But there is still more in the bones of this scandal in formation to pick over.

Another feature of Donald Trump’s business life that is highly relevant to our understanding of what happened is the way he always has been surrounded by fortune seekers.  That comes with his being a wealthy private entrepreneur rather than a corporate executive of a publicly listed company. Some of these opportunists have come to him with product ideas that were later branded as “Trump” and brought him incremental wealth.  Others were no more than braggards and phonies who have only brought him trouble.  It would appear that one such adventurer is Felix Sater, who was involved in this and prior attempts to sell Trump in Russia and who now is spreading the story of the 50 million inducement to Putin in 2016 for help with the residential building.

There can be little doubt that the outreach to “Russian oligarchs” whom such people alleged were close to Putin and “fix” a deal was empty of content. Hence the failure of the project to gain traction on the Russian side.

In a number of ways the failure of the 2016 bid to build a Trump Tower in Moscow brings back memories of Trump’s hopes for a real estate deal in Moscow back in 1996. Though mainstream reporting claims that Trump was for 30 years seeking to build a residential tower, my own inside information from a friend who was at the time in Trump’s entourage, tells a different story. In 1996, they flew into Moscow in his private jet hoping to cut a deal. However, it was not residential in nature: rather it was to convert the then derelict building opposite the Kremlin into a casino and hotel. Trump had dinner with one of Mayor Yuri Luzhkov’s celebrity friends, the sculptor Tseretelli. Tseretelli was supposed to be the intermediary to the Kremlin decision-makers. That was all just a tall story by people seeking to ingratiate themselves with Trump. On the spot, in Moscow, Trump understood he had been tricked by his fixers. And he left Moscow, not to come back until the Miss Universe pageant. The building in question is now home to the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament.

It is quite astonishing that Trump did not understand in 2016 that he could no longer afford to work with and through shady opportunists when he shifted gears from private businessman to candidate for the U.S. presidency. That, all by itself, points to a stunning lack of judgment.

The most charitable interpretation for Trump that one can put on the whole affair is that it demonstrates his own disbelief  in possible victory in the November elections. His team was allowed to fish in Russian waters for economic advantage to the Organization that would come when he returned to private life.

The case surrounding Michael Cohen stands the arguments of the Russia-gate accusers on their head, though American mainstream media seem not to follow the dotted lines where they inevitably lead. What we have here is the minions of a US presidential candidate trying to take in hand a Russian president and also incidentally exposing the Russian to potential black-mail over bribe-taking. It is mind-boggling.

Quite possibly the Kremlin now wants to sink Trump. If Special Prosecutor Mueller can extract from Cohen and others the critical details that are now hearsay, meaning the supposed trade-off of a penthouse for land and building permit, then Trump will go down. For attempted collusion.

I think Moscow understands that apart from the lunatic Hillary, Donald is now the worst man for them as occupant of the White House. Trump is in it up to his neck and is acquiescing to all the wish list of the Russia haters on the Hill.

Does Russia actually control who sits in the White House?  We may find out in the coming days.

 

© Gilbert Doctorow, 2018

The European-Russian Forum, Brussels, 26 November 2018

Most of what we find in the Western mass media, and even in specialized daily digests and periodicals devoted to Russian affairs tends to fall into the extremes of Russia-bashing by the vast majority or pro-Russia cheerleading by tiny fringe groups who otherwise are unhappy with US global hegemony.

By way of example, I point to how Vladimir Putin’s roll-out of Russia’s latest and unrivaled strategic weapons systems in his 1 March 2018 speech to a session of the joint houses of the Russian Parliament were received in the West.

Many commentators insisted soon afterwards that the Mach 20 Avangard and other nuclear armed systems presented in Putin’s video clips were a bluff directed at his home audience for the sake of the forthcoming presidential election, not directed at Washington; that Russia is incapable of such breakthroughs on an industrial scale and poses no consequential military threat.  Meanwhile, dissenters from Washington’s unipolar world concept expressed joy at the Russians’ claim to having restored nuclear parity with the United States, validating the Mutually Assured Destruction balance that kept the peace for much of the last half century. On this basis some began clamoring for Putin to adopt a tougher stance in confrontation with the West up to and including clash of arms.

The 12^th European-Russia Forum which was just held in the European Parliament, Brussels brought sobering realism to bear on the questions of whether we are headed into war with Russia, whether it can be limited in destructiveness and regional in scope or will quickly escalate to the global level with nuclear exchanges, and appraising what kind of outcomes we may anticipate. Speeches and discussion steered right down the neutral middle on all of these questions, and were unusually illuminating.

Before going into some detail on who said what, I am obliged to direct attention to the sponsors of this event in the European Parliament and to the participants in it.

The European Parliament building is an enormous complex comprising the offices of the 751 MEPs, a vast auditorium for their plenary sessions and a number of lesser auditoriums and conference rooms for functions held jointly with the public under the auspices of one or another political bloc of Members, such as the Forum which just took place. In the given instance, our hosts were a compound bloc called The Greens/European Free Alliance that has existed in Parliament for two decades and accounts for about 8% of the membership of the house.

“The Greens” take in Green parties from several European countries, but not the German Greens, who are a law unto themselves and are notorious cold warriors.  “Our” Greens have a calm, reflective view of international relations and do not automatically take sides in any of the conflicts between Russia and the West. Their main focus is, as we may expect, on ecologically friendly policies, promotion of the Paris Climate Change Agreement and closing of nuclear power plants. They also describe themselves as “progressives” on other social and economic issues and stand for the liberties of citizens.

The European Free Alliance is a nest for diverse champions of Europe’s regions, taking in, among others, Scottish, Welsh, Catalan, Galician nationalists, representing the interests of unrecognized nations within Europe’s great states. It also counts as members MEPs standing for the Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic States including the remarkable founder of the Forum, Tatjana Zdanoka, MEP from Latvia from 2004 to March 2018, when she resigned to join domestic political contests in Riga. Her successor, Miroslavs Mitrofanovs, assumed the presidency of the Forum as well as her seat in parliament.

This was the 12^th iteration of the Forum and was in the opinion of its long time participants the very best. The best in terms of structure of the program, focused as it was on the most vital issue of our day: war and peace.  Also the best in terms of the level of participants and their contributions.

In the program of the Forum attached to this report, the reader can find the names and brief mention of current positions of speakers. In a number of cases they should be followed up by a look at their Wikipedia entries, which attest to their hands-on experience dealing with the issues of the Forum at the highest levels within their organizations and governments.

The speakers may be sorted into three categories of which both the EU and Russia had their fair share:  parliamentarians; experts on disarmament and military strategic planning; and activists from civil society.

For the most part, the most valuable speeches came from the expert contingent precisely because they have been insiders to the deliberations that create negotiating positions on the Russian and US-European sides of the ongoing confrontation.  The parliamentarians and activists, though also speakers, were more important as an audience for the experts since they alone have the possibility of mobilizing society and political elites to do something about the dangers exposed by expert testimony.

There was a near consensus of all speakers regarding who is to blame for the deterioration in Russia’s relations with the West ever since the halcyon days following signing of the Paris Charter in November 1990 that formally ended the Cold War. This deterioration has moved with particular speed over the past decade bringing us today to the lowest point in relations since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

We heard from speaker after speaker that the US was and is to blame, starting with NATO expansion to the East in the mid-1990s and running through the US-managed coup d’état in Kiev on 22 February 2014 that installed an aggressively anti-Russian government in Ukraine. That crossed all of Moscow’s red lines and precipitated the re-incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation the following month, leading in turn to the Western response we see to this day: sanctions, nonstop information war and exacerbation of conflicts in Europe and in the Middle East, where Russia and the West have been backing proxies that are in conflict.

We were reminded that the arms limitation agreements reached during the Cold  War have been abrogated (ABM Treaty in 2002) and are being abrogated today (INF Treaty) at the initiative of one side only, the United States, and that there is every possibility that the NEW START agreement reached under the Obama administration will be allowed to lapse in 2021. All of this contributes to global insecurity and rips up the procedures for verification and building trust between the nuclear superpowers that took decades to achieve.

However, when turning from the frightful level of current East-West relations to appraisal of the risks of war, the positions of the speakers were more nuanced.  The same may be said of their estimations of the relative strength of Russia and NATO going into any generalized conflict if it comes to that. Moreover, there was some noteworthy disagreement over whether the prospective new arms races in several different dimensions could themselves be a cause of war and whether regional conflicts such as around Kosovo, around Syria and Ukraine could touch off general conflagrations.

One of the most persuasive and best prepared expert speakers was Pavel Zolotarev, deputy director of the Institute for U.S. and Canada Studies, Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences, member of the Foreign and Security Policy Council and…a Major General in the reserves. I summarize below his overview of current realities and risk factors:

 

Today we see reinstatement by the USA of the same lines of Containment that it pursued against the Soviet Union in the original Cold War:

Nuclear confrontation. The United States retains the right of first use.  Russian doctrine is no first use unless the existence of the country comes under threat from a conventional attack. In the Cold War, NATO needed its tactical nuclear potential to withstand conventional Soviet ground attack. Today the shoe is on the other foot and Russia needs this back-up because of superior NATO strength.

If the USA leaves the INF and puts missiles in Europe, that reduces the warning time to as little as 3 minutes. It forces Russia to rely on computer programmed responses, the “dead hand” solution.

The question of war in Europe depends on one factor only: whether the United States and Russia can agree on post-Soviet space. Ukraine is the case in point. We cannot be sure that the United States can restrain Poroshenko. If Poroshenko continues, Russia may move out from the cover of volunteers to regular forces in a regional war. Further on the process may be unforeseeable, leading to a nuclear war.

But even if we solve the problem with Ukraine, we are still in a transition process, meaning it is a dangerous time with unpredictable events.

Several of the Russian military experts left no doubt about their respect for the U.S. military and its spending at ten times the level of their own country.  As Vladimir Kozin, from the Center for Military and Political Studies at the prestigious international affairs school MGIMO in Moscow noted: the US budget for its new nuclear triad and other weapons systems is vast and no other country has this potential.

With greater specificity, Alexei Podberezkin, director of the same Center in MGIMO, described the way the United States has already covered nearly all of Russian territory with navy-based 3500 km range cruise missiles having high accuracy delivery. He believes that if the US leaves the INF Treaty, there will be mass production of a wide class of missiles in this range upsetting the strategic balance. He identifies the tactical U.S. objective as destruction of the “Putin regime,” while its strategic objective is to destroy Russia.

Nonetheless, the various Russian presentations left little doubt that the country’s asymmetrical defensive nuclear capability and its measures to ensure a riposte even in the circumstances of a first American nuclear strike mean the doomsday scenario will be realized.

All the Russian military experts agreed on the need to reestablish dialogue with the United States over arms control. This is so even if they appear not to consider weapons systems as such likely to be the cause of a great war, whereas political conflict will be.

Among the Western experts, Angela Kane, former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, held out little hope that the wished for security talks with the United States will be resumed during Donald Trump’s tenure. If Trump ever wished for such talks, his hands have been tied by domestic political enemies. And since his elevation to National Security Advisor, John Bolton has actively encouraged the President to take the country out of international treaties over arms limitation and much else.

 

In closing, I call attention to two speakers from the activist contingent who imparted messages intended to give purpose to the gathering in the days and months ahead.

Guiletto Chiesa is a well-known Italian politician and widely published journalist who has participated in the Forum from its inception. He was pleased that this year’s participants have all caught up with his long-existing sense of alarm over the direction of global affairs and imminent risk of war. Said Chiesa:

This is not Cold War II. It is a preparation for a big destructive war. We must beat the drums – a war is coming.

However, Chiesa’s mood was given a lift by the coming European elections in May 2019 which may well see voter rejection of the war parties who now run the show in the Parliament. The best example is the remarkable coalition government of “extreme” right and left in Italy that no one could have predicted, so that the way is open for new initiatives.

The other parting message I will quote is from Ray McGovern, the former CIA analyst and reporter of daily intelligence to American presidents who has become an antiwar campaigner of national prominence. Ray has repeatedly “put his body on the line” in demonstrations in Europe and in Washington, D.C. against US bases, against installing torturers at the head of the Agency.  Said Ray:  this is the Noah moment.  What we need now is not more weather forecasters telling us about the coming rain, but more builders of arks.

 .

© Gilbert Doctorow, 2018

 

 

Appendix 1.

 

Escalation of EU-Russia Relations:

Perspectives for Europe in the Case of a Military Conflict

 Programme of XII European Russian Forum

Brussels, 25-26 November 2018

 

25 November 2018 (Sunday)
	Arrival of participants and accommodation in the hotel Thon EU Brussels Hotel, rue de la Loi 75, Bruxelles
19.30-22.00	Dinner for participants restaurant of Thon EU Brussels Hotel, rue de la Loi 75, Bruxelles
26 November 2018 (Monday)
08.20-08.55	Registration of participants European Parliament, entrance from Place du Luxembourg
09.00-10.30	European Parliament, room ASP 1G2   PLENARY SESSION. FIRST PANEL   Involution of the EU-Russia Relationship from 2007 till 2018 From the cooperation to pre-war mode   Moderator: Ø  Tatjana Ždanoka (Latvia), MEP (2004-2018), President of the EU Russian-speakers Alliance   Key speakers: Ø  Miroslavs Mitrofanovs (Latvia), MEP, Greens/EFA political group Ø  Vladimir Chizhov (Russia), Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Union, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ø  Jiří Maštálka (Czech Republic), MEP, GUE/NGL political group, Vice-chair of the Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Ø  Konstantin Zatulin (Russia), Member of the State Duma, First Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Commonwealth of Independent States, Eurasian Integration and Relations with Compatriots, Head of institute for Commonwealth of Independent States Ø  Gilbert Doctorow (Belgium), international affairs analyst, author Ø  Yury Mishсheryakov (Russia), Member of the State Duma, Member of the Committee for Commonwealth of Independent States, Eurasian Integration and Relations with Compatriots Ø  Georgi Pirinski (Bulgaria), MEP, S&D political group, Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly Ø  Bill Bowring (Great Britain), Professor of Human Rights and International Law at Birkbeck, University of London Ø  Evgeny Primakov (Russia), Member of the State Duma, Member of the Presidium of the Foreign and Defence Policy Council Ø  Hans M. Kristensen (USA), Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington (fragment of the interview for WDR).
10.30-10.40	Coffee/ Tee Service
10.30–12.30	European Parliament, room ASP 1G2   PLENARY SESSION. SECOND PANEL   New war in Europe: probability, development, consequences Moderator: Ø  Miroslavs Mitrofanovs (Latvia), MEP, Greens/EFA political group   Key speakers: Ø  Angela Kane (Germany), former High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, United Nations, Senior Fellow, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Ø  Pavel Zolotarev (Russia), leading researcher for the Military Political Department of the Institute for U.S. and Canada, Member of Foreign and Security Policy Council, reserve Major-General Ø  Erwin Häckel (Germany), Professor in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Konstanz; former Fellow of German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) and Chairman of DGAP Working Group on Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Sensitive Technologies Ø  Mikhail Khodarenok (Russia), military analyst for the internet resource Газетa.Ru and invited expert for Radio Vesti FM, reserve Colonel Ø  Marc Finaud (Switzerland), Arms Proliferation Cluster Leader, Emerging Security Challenges Progamme, Geneva Centre for Security Policy Ø  Vladimir Kozin (Russia), leading expert of the Military-Political Studies Centre, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), Professor at the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences; Member of Expert Council of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Member of Scientific Council of the National Institute on Global Security Studies; Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences of Russia Ø  Petr Topychkanov (Sweden), senior researcher in the SIPRI Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-proliferation Programme Ø  Alexey Podberezkin (Russia), director of the Centre for Military and Political Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Member of Academy of Military Sciences of Russia
12.30-14.00	Lunch  Members’ Restaurant, European Parliament
14.00–16.00	European Parliament, room ASP 5E1   THIRD PANEL   Regional conflicts and danger of the full-scaled war in Europe   Moderator: Ø  Evgeny Primakov (Russia), Member of the State Duma, Member of the Presidium Ø  of the Foreign and Defence Policy Council   Key speakers: Ø  Andrejs Mamikins (Latvia), MEP, S&D political group, Committee on Foreign Affairs Ø  Ivo Hristov (Bulgaria), Member of the Bulgarian Parliament Ø  Eleonora Forenza (Italy), MEP, GUE/NGL political group Ø  Oxana Gaman-Golutvina (Russia), Head of Comparative Politics Department, MGIMO-University, President of Russian Political Science Association Ø  Sergey Panteleev (Russia), Director of the Russian Diaspora Institute Ø  Giulietto Chieza (Italy), MEP (2004-2009), President of the Alternativa Association Ø  Jiří Maštálka (Czech Republic), MEP, GUE/NGL political group, Vice-chair Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee Ø  Aleksei Semjonov (Estonia), Director of the Human Rights Information Centre
16.00-16.30	Coffee break
16.30-19.00	European Parliament, room ASP 5E1   FOURTH PANEL   Ways out from the acute conflict between NATO and Russia   Moderator: Ø  Giulietto Chieza (Italy), MEP (2004-2009), President of the Alternativa Association   Key speakers: Ø  Raymond McGovern (USA), former CIA analyst (1963-1990), Co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Ø  Galina Matushina (Belgium), Member of the City Council of Antwerpen, Coordinator of Platform Solidarnost, EU Russian-speakers Alliance Ø  Mikhail Yaкushev (Russia), General Director of the Katehon Analytic Center Ø  Konstantin Makarenko (Netherlands), Director of the Public Diplomacy Corps, Vice-president of the EU Russian-speakers Alliance Ø  Alexandra Dokuchaeva (Russia), Head of Diaspora and Integration Department of the Institute of CIS Countries Ø  Dimitri de Kochko (France), journalist Ø  Iosifs Коrens (Latvia), Vice-chairman of the International Association Pour un Future Sans Fascisme Ø  Larissa Semjonova (Estonia), Deputy Director of the Human Rights Information Centre
19.30-22.00	Dinner Leopold Hotel, rue du Luxembourg 35, 1047 Bruxelles

 

 

 

 

Most of what we find in the Western mass media, and even in specialized daily digests and periodicals devoted to Russian affairs tends to fall into the extremes of Russia-bashing by the vast majority or pro-Russia cheerleading by tiny fringe groups who otherwise are unhappy with US global hegemony.

By way of example, I point to how Vladimir Putin’s roll-out of Russia’s latest and unrivaled strategic weapons systems in his 1 March 2018 speech to a session of the joint houses of the Russian Parliament were received in the West.

Many commentators insisted soon afterwards that the Mach 20 Avangard and other nuclear armed systems presented in Putin’s video clips were a bluff directed at his home audience for the sake of the forthcoming presidential election, not directed at Washington; that Russia is incapable of such breakthroughs on an industrial scale and poses no consequential military threat.  Meanwhile, dissenters from Washington’s unipolar world concept expressed joy at the Russians’ claim to having restored nuclear parity with the United States, validating the Mutually Assured Destruction balance that kept the peace for much of the last half century. On this basis some began clamoring for Putin to adopt a tougher stance in confrontation with the West up to and including clash of arms.

The 12^th European-Russia Forum which was just held in the European Parliament, Brussels brought sobering realism to bear on the questions of whether we are headed into war with Russia, whether it can be limited in destructiveness and regional in scope or will quickly escalate to the global level with nuclear exchanges, and appraising what kind of outcomes we may anticipate. Speeches and discussion steered right down the neutral middle on all of these questions, and were unusually illuminating.

Before going into some detail on who said what, I am obliged to direct attention to the sponsors of this event in the European Parliament and to the participants in it.

The European Parliament building is an enormous complex comprising the offices of the 751 MEPs, a vast auditorium for their plenary sessions and a number of lesser auditoriums and conference rooms for functions held jointly with the public under the auspices of one or another political bloc of Members, such as the Forum which just took place. In the given instance, our hosts were a compound bloc called The Greens/European Free Alliance that has existed in Parliament for two decades and accounts for about 8% of the membership of the house.

“The Greens” take in Green parties from several European countries, but not the German Greens, who are a law unto themselves and are notorious cold warriors.  “Our” Greens have a calm, reflective view of international relations and do not automatically take sides in any of the conflicts between Russia and the West. Their main focus is, as we may expect, on ecologically friendly policies, promotion of the Paris Climate Change Agreement and closing of nuclear power plants. They also describe themselves as “progressives” on other social and economic issues and stand for the liberties of citizens.  The European Free Alliance is a nest for diverse champions of Europe’s regions, taking in, among others, Scottish, Welsh, Catalan, Galician nationalists, representing the interests of unrecognized nations within Europe’s great states. It also counts as members MEPs standing for the Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic States including the remarkable founder of the Forum, Tatjana Zdanoka, MEP from Latvia from 2004 to March 2018, when she resigned to join domestic political contests in Riga. Her successor, Miroslavs Mitrofanovs, assumed the presidency of the Forum as well as her seat in parliament.

This was the 12^th iteration of the Forum and was in the opinion of its long time participants the very best. The best in terms of structure of the program, focused as it was on the most vital issue of our day: war and peace.  Also the best in terms of the level of participants and their contributions.

In the program of the Forum attached to this report, the reader can find the names and brief mention of current positions of speakers. In a number of cases they should be followed up by a look at their Wikipedia entries, which attest to their hands-on experience dealing with the issues of the Forum at the highest levels within their organizations and governments.

The speakers may be sorted into three categories of which both the EU and Russia had their fair share:  parliamentarians; experts on disarmament and military strategic planning; and activists from civil society.

For the most part, the most valuable speeches came from the expert contingent precisely because they have been insiders to the deliberations that create negotiating positions on the Russian and US-European sides of the ongoing confrontation.  The parliamentarians and activists, though also speakers, were more important as an audience for the experts since they alone have the possibility of mobilizing society and political elites to do something about the dangers exposed by expert testimony.

There was a near consensus of all speakers regarding who is to blame for the deterioration in Russia’s relations with the West ever since the halcyon days following signing of the Paris Charter in November 1990 that formally ended the Cold War. This deterioration has moved with particular speed over the past decade bringing us today to the lowest point in relations since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

We heard from speaker after speaker that the US was and is to blame, starting with NATO expansion to the East in the mid-1990s and running through the US-managed coup d’état in Kiev on 22 February 2014 that installed an aggressively anti-Russian government in Ukraine. That crossed all of Moscow’s red lines and precipitated the re-incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation the following month, leading in turn to the Western response we see to this day: sanctions, nonstop information war and exacerbation of conflicts in Europe and in the Middle East, where Russia and the West have been backing proxies that are in conflict.

We were reminded that the arms limitation agreements reached during the Cold  War have been abrogated (ABM Treaty in 2002) and are being abrogated today (INF Treaty) at the initiative of one side only, the United States, and that there is every possibility that the NEW START agreement reached under the Obama administration will be allowed to lapse in 2021. All of this contributes to global insecurity and rips up the procedures for verification and building trust between the nuclear superpowers that took decades to achieve.

However, when turning from the frightful level of current East-West relations to appraisal of the risks of war, the positions of the speakers were more nuanced.  The same may be said of their estimations of the relative strength of Russia and NATO going into any generalized conflict if it comes to that. Moreover, there was some noteworthy disagreement over whether the prospective new arms races in several different dimensions could themselves be a cause of war and whether regional conflicts such as around Kosovo, around Syria and Ukraine could touch off general conflagrations.

One of the most persuasive and best prepared expert speakers was Pavel Zolotarev, deputy director of the Institute for U.S. and Canada Studies, Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences, member of the Foreign and Security Policy Council and…a Major General in the reserves. I summarize below his overview of current realities and risk factors:

 

Today we see reinstatement by the USA of the same lines of Containment that it pursued against the Soviet Union in the original Cold War:

Nuclear confrontation. The United States retains the right of first use.  Russian doctrine is no first use unless the existence of the country comes under threat from a conventional attack. In the Cold War, NATO needed its tactical nuclear potential to withstand conventional Soviet ground attack. Today the shoe is on the other foot and Russia needs this back-up because of superior NATO strength.

If the USA leaves the INF and puts missiles in Europe, that reduces the warning time to as little as 3 minutes. It forces Russia to rely on computer programmed responses, the “dead hand” solution.

The question of war in Europe depends on one factor only: whether the United States and Russia can agree on post-Soviet space. Ukraine is the case in point. We cannot be sure that the United States can restrain Poroshenko. If Poroshenko continues, Russia may move out from the cover of volunteers to regular forces in a regional war. Further on the process may be unforeseeable, leading to a nuclear war.

But even if we solve the problem with Ukraine, we are still in a transition process, meaning it is a dangerous time with unpredictable events.

Several of the Russian military experts left no doubt about their respect for the U.S. military and its spending at ten times the level of their own country.  As Vladimir Kozin, from the Center for Military and Political Studies at the prestigious international affairs school MGIMO in Moscow noted: the US budget for its new nuclear triad and other weapons systems is vast and no other country has this potential.

With greater specificity, Alexei Podberezkin, director of the same Center in MGIMO, described the way the United States has already covered nearly all of Russian territory with navy-based 3500 km range cruise missiles having high accuracy delivery. He believes that if the US leaves the INF Treaty, there will be mass production of a wide class of missiles in this range upsetting the strategic balance. He identifies the tactical U.S. objective as destruction of the “Putin regime,” while its strategic objective is to destroy Russia.

Nonetheless, the various Russian presentations left little doubt that the country’s asymmetrical defensive nuclear capability and its measures to ensure a riposte even in the circumstances of a first American nuclear strike mean the doomsday scenario will be realized.

All the Russian military experts agreed on the need to reestablish dialogue with the United States over arms control. This is so even if they appear not to consider weapons systems as such likely to be the cause of a great war, whereas political conflict will be.

Among the Western experts, Angela Kane, former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, held out little hope that the wished for security talks with the United States will be resumed during Donald Trump’s tenure. If Trump ever wished for such talks, his hands have been tied by domestic political enemies. And since his elevation to National Security Advisor, John Bolton has actively encouraged the President to take the country out of international treaties over arms limitation and much else.

 

In closing, I call attention to two speakers from the activist contingent who imparted messages intended to give purpose to the gathering in the days and months ahead.

Guiletto Chiesa is a well-known Italian politician and widely published journalist who has participated in the Forum from its inception. He was pleased that this year’s participants have all caught up with his long-existing sense of alarm over the direction of global affairs and imminent risk of war. Said Chiesa:

This is not Cold War II. It is a preparation for a big destructive war. We must beat the drums – a war is coming.

However, Chiesa’s mood was given a lift by the coming European elections in May 2019 which may well see voter rejection of the war parties who now run the show in the Parliament. The best example is the remarkable coalition government of “extreme” right and left in Italy that no one could have predicted, so that the way is open for new initiatives.

The other parting message I will quote is from Ray McGovern, the former CIA analyst and reporter of daily intelligence to American presidents who has become an antiwar campaigner of national prominence. Ray has repeatedly “put his body on the line” in demonstrations in Europe and in Washington, D.C. against US bases, against installing torturers at the head of the Agency.  Said Ray:  this is the Noah moment.  What we need now is not more weather forecasters telling us about the coming rain, but more builders of arks.

 .

© Gilbert Doctorow, 2018

 

 

Appendix 1.

 

 

 

Escalation of EU-Russia Relations:

Perspectives for Europe in the Case of a Military Conflict

 

Programme of XII European Russian Forum

Brussels, 25-26 November 2018

 

25 November 2018 (Sunday)
	Arrival of participants and accommodation in the hotel Thon EU Brussels Hotel, rue de la Loi 75, Bruxelles
19.30-22.00	Dinner for participants restaurant of Thon EU Brussels Hotel, rue de la Loi 75, Bruxelles
26 November 2018 (Monday)
08.20-08.55	Registration of participants European Parliament, entrance from Place du Luxembourg
09.00-10.30	European Parliament, room ASP 1G2   PLENARY SESSION. FIRST PANEL   Involution of the EU-Russia Relationship from 2007 till 2018 From the cooperation to pre-war mode   Moderator: Ø  Tatjana Ždanoka (Latvia), MEP (2004-2018), President of the EU Russian-speakers Alliance   Key speakers: Ø  Miroslavs Mitrofanovs (Latvia), MEP, Greens/EFA political group Ø  Vladimir Chizhov (Russia), Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Union, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ø  Jiří Maštálka (Czech Republic), MEP, GUE/NGL political group, Vice-chair of the Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Ø  Konstantin Zatulin (Russia), Member of the State Duma, First Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Commonwealth of Independent States, Eurasian Integration and Relations with Compatriots, Head of institute for Commonwealth of Independent States Ø  Gilbert Doctorow (Belgium), international affairs analyst, author Ø  Yury Mishсheryakov (Russia), Member of the State Duma, Member of the Committee for Commonwealth of Independent States, Eurasian Integration and Relations with Compatriots Ø  Georgi Pirinski (Bulgaria), MEP, S&D political group, Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly Ø  Bill Bowring (Great Britain), Professor of Human Rights and International Law at Birkbeck, University of London Ø  Evgeny Primakov (Russia), Member of the State Duma, Member of the Presidium of the Foreign and Defence Policy Council Ø  Hans M. Kristensen (USA), Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington (fragment of the interview for WDR).
10.30-10.40	Coffee/ Tee Service
10.30–12.30	European Parliament, room ASP 1G2   PLENARY SESSION. SECOND PANEL   New war in Europe: probability, development, consequences Moderator: Ø  Miroslavs Mitrofanovs (Latvia), MEP, Greens/EFA political group   Key speakers: Ø  Angela Kane (Germany), former High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, United Nations, Senior Fellow, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Ø  Pavel Zolotarev (Russia), leading researcher for the Military Political Department of the Institute for U.S. and Canada, Member of Foreign and Security Policy Council, reserve Major-General Ø  Erwin Häckel (Germany), Professor in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Konstanz; former Fellow of German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) and Chairman of DGAP Working Group on Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Sensitive Technologies Ø  Mikhail Khodarenok (Russia), military analyst for the internet resource Газетa.Ru and invited expert for Radio Vesti FM, reserve Colonel Ø  Marc Finaud (Switzerland), Arms Proliferation Cluster Leader, Emerging Security Challenges Progamme, Geneva Centre for Security Policy Ø  Vladimir Kozin (Russia), leading expert of the Military-Political Studies Centre, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), Professor at the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences; Member of Expert Council of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Member of Scientific Council of the National Institute on Global Security Studies; Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences of Russia Ø  Petr Topychkanov (Sweden), senior researcher in the SIPRI Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-proliferation Programme Ø  Alexey Podberezkin (Russia), director of the Centre for Military and Political Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Member of Academy of Military Sciences of Russia
12.30-14.00	Lunch  Members’ Restaurant, European Parliament
14.00–16.00	European Parliament, room ASP 5E1   THIRD PANEL   Regional conflicts and danger of the full-scaled war in Europe   Moderator: Ø  Evgeny Primakov (Russia), Member of the State Duma, Member of the Presidium Ø  of the Foreign and Defence Policy Council   Key speakers: Ø  Andrejs Mamikins (Latvia), MEP, S&D political group, Committee on Foreign Affairs Ø  Ivo Hristov (Bulgaria), Member of the Bulgarian Parliament Ø  Eleonora Forenza (Italy), MEP, GUE/NGL political group Ø  Oxana Gaman-Golutvina (Russia), Head of Comparative Politics Department, MGIMO-University, President of Russian Political Science Association Ø  Sergey Panteleev (Russia), Director of the Russian Diaspora Institute Ø  Giulietto Chieza (Italy), MEP (2004-2009), President of the Alternativa Association Ø  Jiří Maštálka (Czech Republic), MEP, GUE/NGL political group, Vice-chair Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee Ø  Aleksei Semjonov (Estonia), Director of the Human Rights Information Centre
16.00-16.30	Coffee break
16.30-19.00	European Parliament, room ASP 5E1   FOURTH PANEL   Ways out from the acute conflict between NATO and Russia   Moderator: Ø  Giulietto Chieza (Italy), MEP (2004-2009), President of the Alternativa Association   Key speakers: Ø  Raymond McGovern (USA), former CIA analyst (1963-1990), Co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Ø  Galina Matushina (Belgium), Member of the City Council of Antwerpen, Coordinator of Platform Solidarnost, EU Russian-speakers Alliance Ø  Mikhail Yaкushev (Russia), General Director of the Katehon Analytic Center Ø  Konstantin Makarenko (Netherlands), Director of the Public Diplomacy Corps, Vice-president of the EU Russian-speakers Alliance Ø  Alexandra Dokuchaeva (Russia), Head of Diaspora and Integration Department of the Institute of CIS Countries Ø  Dimitri de Kochko (France), journalist Ø  Iosifs Коrens (Latvia), Vice-chairman of the International Association Pour un Future Sans Fascisme Ø  Larissa Semjonova (Estonia), Deputy Director of the Human Rights Information Centre
19.30-22.00	Dinner Leopold Hotel, rue du Luxembourg 35, 1047 Bruxelles

 

 

Speech to the XII European Russia Forum

European Parliament,  Brussels, 25-26 November 2018

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address here today the question of what we as civil society can do to stop the relentless march towards war of our media and political elites. War on the European continent, including nuclear war, is becoming a real and alarming possibility. The peace project that we know as the European Union is no longer a bulwark against such madness.

On the contrary, with the active assistance of new member states from the former Soviet bloc, with Poland and the Baltics in the forefront, the European Union has become an agent of war-making, not within itself but with respect to its great neighbor to the East. Not a day passes without some new warnings emanating from Warsaw, Vilnius or others in their circle alleging aggressive designs by Russia requiring ever higher military expenditures, forward positioning of NATO forces and the like.

Now, with the pending withdrawal of the United States from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, we face the prospect of re-installation on European soil of American nuclear-tipped cruise missiles aimed at Russia. This will, of course, elicit a symmetrical response from Moscow, placing the Continent on a permanent war footing notable for a very short warning of incoming attack – 15 minutes or less.

To be sure, the existential threat to Russia posed by the new American ground-based missiles in Europe is being exaggerated by the Kremlin, considering that the country is already surrounded by US-navy based missiles with similar capabilities and similarly short incoming warning times.  However, those systems are off-shore and do not attract Russian targeting within Europe, as the new systems will. It is the political dimension that is changing, namely the relations between Europe and Russia.  Any stationing of American missiles in Europe will represent a further and long-term subordination of the European Union to control of its foreign and defense policy by Washington.

 

All of this takes us back in time to the period before the conclusion of the INF Treaty in 1987, when the installation of US Pershings in Germany to offset Soviet SS20s was the latest and most ominous turn in the Cold War.

Back then, the strategic instability engendered by these missiles sparked a massive anti-war movement in Western Europe and most particularly in Germany, where the American missiles were based. Contemporaneously, in the United States a less potent but still relevant anti-war movement was sparked by the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” plans for a new arms race. Universities were the centers of this agitation, and the American Committee for East West Accord, a lobbying group for détente with which I was associated, was the beneficiary of a wave of membership applications, whereas previously it had been a gentlemen’s club operating mostly in the bar of the United States Senate.

The American anti-war movement of the 1980s was anecdotal.  The European movement against cruise missiles was a lot more substantial: it had big numbers, it was noisy and it attracted media attention. It is reasonable to assume that the conclusion of the INF Treaty, with subsequent removal and destruction of these missiles, was in no small measure due to the anti-war movement.

 

Can we expect such a development today? If so, how do we go about mobilizing?

To answer these questions responsibly, we must consider the very considerable changes in how the game of politics is played from then to now.

Then, in the 1980s, political parties were aligned on a Left to Right axis.  The Left was anti-war. The Right was the war party.  Easy to comprehend.

Today, politics in Europe has moved outside the Left-Right dichotomy. There are many reasons for this. I will mention here what I consider the main causal factor:  widespread discontent with  the parties of our ruling elites. They fail to address the problems that concern the great majority of the population in these times of economic distress.

As their popularity fades here on the Continent under conditions of proportional representation, these mainstream parties of the Center Right and Center Left have formed Grand Alliances to hold onto power at any price. Consistency, integrity of policy are abandoned. Ministerial portfolios are handed out without regard to competence or policy, but to hobble together parliamentary majorities. We have seen this for the past decade here in Belgium. More to the point, we see it in Europe’s leading country, Germany over the same time period in the marriages of convenience between the SPD and the CDU/CSU.

This unprincipled power-sharing has discredited these parties and encouraged the rise of politics outside the mainstream in the shape of populist or anti-Establishment parties. Add to that the dimension of Identity politics driving many such parties. They appeal to our sense of nation or ethnicity or race. The mainstream has responded with other identities, including gender, sexual orientation and assorted minority causes.

Amidst this changing landscape, the Left as a whole has fared especially poorly. It has been more disorganized, demoralized and has lost more voters than the Right.  We see this with special clarity in Germany, where Die Linke has been unable to benefit from the weakness of the Socialists, and disaffected Centrists have moved to what is called the “extreme Right,” meaning the Alternativ fuer Deutschland, or to the Greens, parties built around an agenda outside the traditional issues of economic and social policy.

I wrote about these phenomena shortly after the latest elections in the German state of Hesse a month ago, when the serious electoral losses of the CDU forced the hand of Angela Merkel and put her departure from politics on the calendar.

https://original.antiwar.com/gilbert_doctorow/2018/10/31/germanys-left-and-right-change-sides-on-the-issues-of-war-and-peace/

 

All of this bears directly on the question of what is to be done today to mobilize anti-war demonstrations.

Such movements have traditionally come from the Left, which is, as I said, exceedingly weak at present. However, at the same time, what are called the “extreme Right” parties, now show great potential for taking up this cause, just as they have exploited the anti-immigration wave of emotion to win votes and break into national politics in country after country.

In the distant past, there was clear logic to the emotional bond between the Left and the Soviet Union as standard-bearer of Communism.  The Russian Federation, on the other hand, is a market economy. We can put to one side the qualifications that it is a Continental variety, with a good measure of state direction of the economy and of social protection for the population. It has every reason to appeal more to the Right than to the Left.  And it has strongest appeal to the Far Right, given their shared emphasis on state sovereignty and the nation, for which Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has been the most visible and consistent fighter on the world stage. Add to that the factor of social and religious conservatism which the European parties of the extreme Right share with United Russia.

This, in my view, explains the orientation of Western Europe’s leading “extreme Right” parties towards Russia and against NATO, against American domination of the Continent. The Rassemblement National in France; the Alternativ fuer Deutschland in Germany; the Liga in Italy all come to mind. The leaders of these parties regularly speak out against the sanctions that Brussels has imposed on Russia and in favor of normalization of relations with Moscow. It is very likely they will take stands against new US missiles in Europe. It was deputies from these parties whom I saw in greatest numbers as international observers to the presidential elections in Russia on 18 March. They were also the greatest number of participants in the Forum on Parliamentarism that the State Duma organized in Moscow at the start of June that I attended as a foreign expert.

The Liga already enjoys a key role in the government of Italy, where its leader, Matteo Salvini, is setting the agenda in a show-down with Brussels over control of the national economy. His stated ambition is not to leave the Euro-zone or to dissolve the Union but to take control of these monsters and rein them in.

Salvini makes no secret of his admiration for Russia under Vladimir Putin and desire for normal relations. In his foreign policy statements, he opposes Atlanticism and subordination to the American Diktat. We may expect to hear a lot more from him in the coming months.

Meanwhile in Germany the AfD has now entered the legislatures of all the German Laender and may well enter the federal government after Angela Merkel leaves the political scene and the Grand Coalition collapses.  The media talk about AfD’s xenophobia, painting them as primitives. However, the bigger story is that the party has its roots and its greatest support in the territories of the former GDR where it has been the vehicle for popular resentment against the region’s colonization by West Germany since reunification. It now enjoys 27% support of voters in the East according to recent polls.  Among its core issues is the wish to restore commercial and other ties with Russia, which had been so very strong before 1992.

As electioneering for the May 2019 Europe-wide elections to the Parliament heats up, we may be sure that the issue of East-West relations and new threats to the peace coming from the American withdrawal from the INF Treaty will be taken up by the parties of the extreme Right across the EU.

Will the parties of the Left just weep into their beer? Or will they find a way to participate in the still inchoate new peace movement that is forming outside their control?

In the coming weeks and months, I intend to follow closely and further develop contacts with the political forces on the Right while remaining focused on my highest priority of resistance to the introduction of American missiles in Europe and calls for détente instead of confrontation.

Considering who is sponsoring this event today, I am aware that some in this room may not like my analysis of where the fulcrum of power lies for building an anti-war movement in Europe. I do not doubt that some here would not be eager to shake the hand of AfD or Rassemblement politicians. I ask you to reconsider that noble disdain for the sake of our overarching concern to prevent war on this Continent and more generally in the world.

In closing, let me assure you that I am open to those who defend the viability of the Left and plead the case of its abiding relevance to anti-war movements.

I sent my article on the Alternativ fuer Deutschland for comment to one of the most dedicated followers of Egon Bahr and Willy Brandt’s Entspannungspolitik, former SPD Bundestag deputy Ute Finck-Kraemer.  I got back the following comment which she encouraged me to share with others:

“The Left Party is much more than Sahra Wagenknecht and is still a vital
part of the German Peace movement. And, what you cannot see from outside
the movement – lots of Social Democratic and Green Party members are active
in the peace movement as well. They are minorities in their parties, but
have some influence, at least in the SPD.

Did you see the new appeal from prominent Social Democrats against a new
nuclear arms race in Europe?

https://kein-wettruesten.de/en/

The AfD votes in the Bundestag for some of the military missions – the
Left Party does not.”

I leave it to you to judge whose position, mine or Ute’s, gives greater promise for mobilizing demonstrations against the stationing of US nuclear missiles in Europe, against continuation of sanctions and provocative military exercises at the Russian borders.

But above all, I hope you will agree that the greatest chances for success of our cause will come when we prioritize peace and work together with all political forces pointed in that direction whatever their place on the Right-Left scale.

 

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2018