By Julian French.
Is Obama Decoupling Israel?
Alphen, Netherlands. 5 March. The great historian A.J.P. Taylor once said of Winston Churchill, “If he could not do something effective, he would do something ineffective”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly has a similar view of President Obama and the latter’s efforts to secure a permanent P5+1 treaty with Iran that would prevent Tehran arming itself with nuclear weapons. In what was a brazen intervention into US politics, and a deliberate snub to President Obama, Netanyahu warned the US Congress Tuesday that any permanent deal with Iran “could pave Iran’s path to the bomb”. Netanyahu’s concerns bear a striking resemblance of European concerns during the Euromissile crisis of the late 1970s.
In May 1976, shortly after President Carter had taken office, senior State Department official Leslie Gelb wrote that the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles to Europe would create a Eurostrategic balance and thus have the effect of decoupling the US strategic arsenal from the defence of Europe. Consequently, the credibility of the US strategic deterrent would be reduced and with it US extended deterrence of Soviet aggression. Europeans also worried that as the Americans closed in on a warhead-limiting SALT 2 treaty with the Soviet Union the US nuclear deterrent would be further decoupled from the defence of Europe. Such an aim was clearly part of Soviet strategy at the time and the European Allies were particularly concerned by Washington negotiating over Europe’s security with Moscow, and yet over their collective heads. Netanyahu’s Washington speech echoes those concerns.
Some say Netanyahu over-played his political hand in Washington this week. Given Israel’s precarious strategic situation it is hard if not impossible for an Israeli leader ever to over-play a political hand given the possible alternative. Iran clearly has its own strategic interests as do all states and they must be respected. Equally, such interests remain driven by Tehran’s determination to destroy Israel to confirm Iran’s regional-strategic dominance. Therefore, whilst the Obama Administration has tended to emphasise an America that speaks softly, and not without effect, Washington must never forget its big stick. Indeed, when it comes to matters nuclear it is always better to do something effective than something dangerously ineffective. Of course, Tel Aviv’s ultimate deterrent is that for all the current friction with Washington Israel enjoys something the British, for example, do not enjoy – a real Special Relationship with America. Any decoupling would only ever happen by mistaken strategic calculation and it is that which clearly worries Netanyahu.
Putin’s Nemesov?
Alphen, Netherlands. 2 March. What does the murder of Boris Nemtsov’s murder mean for Russia and Europe’s security? A few years ago I met Nemtsov at an event in Geneva. Unfailingly courteous, even self-deprecating, he was highly-intelligent and offered a fascinating glimpse into a better Russia, a different Russia. Indeed, my impressions of the man and his ideas suggested that his great country still had a real chance of transitioning from autocracy to democracy, and through that transition, Europe could finally be whole, free, and at peace.
Sadly, all that Nemtsov stood for was blown away on Friday by four bullets in his back – the cynical act of that other, all-too cynical Russia. Many are blaming President Putin. However, this is simply not his style, and is in any case far too close to home. Why murder a leading opposition figure on the approach road to the Kremlin? It is pure speculation on my part but it is more likely to have been the deed of the now-multiple ultra-nationalist groups that stalk Russian politics. Well to the right of even President Putin such groups have tentacles that reach far into the so-called Siloviki, the security apparatchiks who run an increasingly powerful security state.
Nemtsov’s assassination is clearly a function of the very profound tensions that exist at the heart of Russian politics and society, and such tensions are likely to get worse. President Putin has manoeuvred himself into a political dead-end. He offers Russians no political vision, no political development, and no political evolution which would over time help ease such tensions and create a Russia with state institutions of sufficient strength to cope with pluralism. Rather, he is trying to divert such tensions by appealing to Russian nationalism, wrapping himself in the Russian flag, and by centralising all power on himself and using an assertive displacement policy. Consequently, Putin himself has nowhere to go but more of the same assertive displacement policy. If he fails Putin will be swept aside by the tides of change that are indeed boiling away below the surface of the Russian body politic. Putin’s ‘strategy’ may not make sense to many strategically-illiterate western European politicians. However, it makes ‘perfect’ Russian sense to the Baltic states, and indeed all states across Central and Eastern Europe who have ‘benefitted’ from past Russian rule.
So, will the murder of Boris Nemtsov be seen one day as Putin’s nemesis? No. However, it reveals a Russia that combines immense, over-centralised power with dangerous instability. And, if what is happening in and to Russia is not seen through the cold light of political realism Putin’s Russia could one day be the nemesis of us all.
Wake up!
