The Kaliningrad gun is also the target

The Kaliningrad gun is also the target

­Resuscitation of the Kaliningrad Special Defense District is inevitable 

At the end of Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama’s presidency it has become clear that the future holds no new prospects for the achievement of new steps toward disarmament. The West is adamant in its refusal to build the European missile defense system together with Moscow, provoking the feeling that the given system is aimed at curbing Russia’s retaliation potential, rather than the mythical weapons of marginal terrorists.      

Last week, Russia’s Permanent Representative to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, had described the deployment of Iskander-M mobile theater missile systems in the Kaliningrad Region as being a practically settled issue. This will be Russia’s response to the formation of US missile defense along its borders which, by the year 2020, will be able to control the entire European territory of our country to the Ural Mountains.    

Thus, 20 years later, the Baltic exclave is returning to its usual role of being “a black hole of Europe”. It cannot go unmentioned that the buildup of forces along the line of contact of NATO and the RF reflects the inertia that has been built up in their relations since the second half of the 20th century. Though the ideological basis for balancing on the brink of mutual destruction has been eliminated 20 years ago, the two sides are still not entirely trusting of one-another. At the same time, it’s hard to ignore that the main blame for the continuous slide back to the “Cold War” track rests on the North Atlantic alliance. During the attenuation of Russia’s military power in the 1990s and early 2000s not only did NATO fail to scale down its military structures in the east, but to the contrary, made a decisive advance in that direction by including countries of Central Asia and Easter Europe in its composition. This strategy is incompatible with the declared policy of neutralization of “rogue states” and fight against international terrorism.                   

The further it progresses, the more the architecture of the US missile defense resembles a configuration of a grouping, aimed at blocking a hypothetical retaliation strike by Russia’s nuclear forces in a global war. The feeling of invincibility is known to promote various types of adventures. Therefore, the hypothetical target is forced to take counter measures.       

According to the logic of the situation, Russia’s Armed Forces need to find an adequate response to the qualitative reinforcement of the US striking force in Central Asia. The Yantar (Amber) Region is doomed by its geographic location to becoming the area for deployment of electronic intelligence and strike missiles for control and possible neutralization of hostile action on part of the US units. This automatically turns the region into the first target for a preemptive strike. And despite the fact that, today, there is no reason for such a dramatic turn of events on the European theater of military operations, feeling like a target is somehow unpleasant.   

For the Kaliningrad Region, everything dealing with the renewal of the active phase of anti-missile games means inevitable involvement of the military-strategic component in the region’s development and the federal authorities’ regional policy. Of course, we will not go back to the Soviet scale of the region’s militarization. Doing that would require the deployment of nearly 1/8 of Russia’s entire military personnel. But a certain degree of resuscitation of the Kaliningrad Special Defense District is inevitable.   

Such development of events would naturally lead to a rise of conflict potential in the south-east sector of the Baltic Sea. The Baltic leaders, who have always searched for reasons to be hysterical over “the Eastern threat”, are sure to take full advantage of the situation. Considering their previously-demonstrated lines of conduct in similar situations, we should expect to see persistent invitations to allocate the US missile shield elements on their territories. Technically, this simply means a greater number of targets for the Iskander-M systems, allocated not only in the Kaliningrad, but also the Smolensk and Pskov regions. In terms of foreign policy, this dynamic in international environment is less than desirable. All that remains is to derive consolation from the thought that both the missile defense systems and systems for their suppression, such as the tactical-operational Iskander-M systems, can only be used exclusively in the format of a world war – which the West and Russia have been able to avoid for the last 66 years. God willing, they will continue to do so.         

In terms of the economy, allocation of one or two Iskander-M battalions in the Amber Region will not result in any major changes. Maintenance of the complexes does not require any major investments in infrastructure or significant increase in personnel. As for foreign investors, they tend to react to the general economic climate in the country rather than changes in the military and strategic spheres. Today, a project with maximum export potential for the Kaliningrad Region is the Baltic nuclear power plant. After all, half of the produced energy is expected to be sold to the foreign markets. The ability to implement these plans depends on the pace of closure of nuclear power plants in Western Europe and compliance with the construction schedule, in order not to lose the existing time advantage over the possible competitors from Lithuania, Belarus, and Poland. Here, the “missile aspect” does not play a significant role.

http://en.rian.ru/Environment/20111115/168702336.html

03:24 15/11/2011

MOSCOW, November 15 (RIA Novosti)

The money will be directed to conservation, protection and research of wild polar bears in the Russian Arctic, home to about 5,000-6,000 white bears or about a quarter of the worldwide polar bear population. Foster parents will receive a certificate and a polar bear statuette.

The campaign will officially begin on November 24. WWF Russia estimates that about 500 polar bears will get "foster parents" by the end of 2012.

The money will be directed to support the "Bear Patrol" program, under which groups of local residents patrol and prevent poaching at about 30 known polar bear habitats, including the Far Eastern Chukotka Peninsula, Dikson Island in the Kara Sea, Vaygach Island in the Arctic Ocean and Kolguyev Island in the Barents Sea.

"In the past year the number of reports about conflicts between humans and polar bears has almost tripled. Encounters between bears and human can be deadly for humans, but more often the animal dies as a result," a WWF Russia coordinator for Arctic conservation projects Mikhail Stishov said.

About 100 individuals and 120 companies took part in a similar campaign to "foster" an Amur tiger for 25,000 rubles.

Out of politics. Out of competition.

http://rt.com/politics/press/rossijskaya-gazeta/election-campaign-political-debate/en/
Published: 15 November, 2011, 04:34
Edited: 15 November, 2011, 04:36
Leonid Radzikhovsky, political scientist

­There was once a campaign slogan – can’t recall whose campaign created it.  

It unwittingly comes to mind, when looking at the State Duma election campaign. Somehow, not really having started, it is already in its final stages – the elections are less than three weeks away…

Now, television debates have begun. They have a fairly high rating – 43% (in 2003 it was 52%). Of course, they are mainly followed by retirees, as they are the main electorate. But I think that even they are incredibly bored by this show, this “political pop”.

Though, one might ask: why? The people are talking about relevant topics: pensions, the budget, housing utilities. And if you desire something from “the high culture” – they’ve got it! You can hear discussions on history, geopolitics, etc. 
Internal and external censorship? But the opposition does criticize United Russia. In addition to that, it is carefully, albeit decisively, “putting the squeeze on” Medvedev and Putin. Of course, not at the level of Internet garbage, but these are, after all, federal television channels. “Throughout the world” (and we always look up to “our elders”, who gave us the debates and the parties) it is also not a custom to subject presidents to personal insults… In any event, criticism is there.  
So, what is the problem? It is impossible to shake off the impression that people are “putting on a show” with swords made of cardboard. Of course, no one is “adjusting their texts” to anyone else’s, much less making agreements: “You criticize me this way, and you criticize me for this”. There is no real sense of competition: intellectual, emotional, or political. Harsh words are being spoken with indifference with no vigor.
The reason is understandable: there is no competition. People are well aware of the election results long before the election campaign begins. The problem is not in the infamous ballot-stuffing, or other falsifications. Experts argue that even if all these factors are present, they cannot have a decisive effect on the election results. Things are much simpler and “more natural”: party forces and their “political capitalization” are simply incomparable. Here, principles of advertising and majority laws are at work. The vast majority of our voters are not particularly “bothered” with agendas, debates, or slogans. For tens of millions of people (particularly the retirees), voting has been a familiar ritual since the Soviet times. The people vote for “the brand” and not based on some deep considerations or emotions – but simply based on inertia and basic association. “Country? Russia. Poet? Pushkin. Vladimir? Putin. City? Moscow.” The “appropriate” association for the word “party” also quite naturally fits into this list. And there you have the election.    

The final opinion poll, held on December 4, will hardly provide results that fundamentally differ from the ongoing public opinion surveys. Here are the results of most recent Levada Center survey, conducted between October 28 and November 1. “If the election was held next Sunday, which party would you vote for?” (1,601 people, aged 18 and older, 130 constituent territories, across 45 regions). United Russia – 51%, CPRF – 20%, LDPR – 14%, A Just Russia – 7%. The remaining parties failed to pass the qualifying threshold. This is the percentage of those, who will vote. The All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM) poll, conducted on November 4-5, surveyed 1,600 people in 153 constituent territories, in 46 regions, posing the same question but counting the total electorate. United Russia – 43%, CPRF – 12%, LDPR – 9%, A Just Russia – 5%, 13% were undecided, and 15% said they will not vote. So where could politicians find motivation for a serious political battle? And where could the viewer find a serious interest in an unserious show?    

United Russia is satisfied with the role of a ruling party, and the three other “parliamentary parties” are satisfied with their role of “systemic opposition”. And those, who are destined to stay below the State Duma threshold, are also perfectly aware of “their place”. What kind of debates can we possibly have in these conditions? Precisely the kind that we are seeing today. The game is not for results (they are known), but for time and for the sake of getting a “checkmark”. The viewer, the voter, understands and accepts the rules of the game. It is a vicious circle.   
Technically, there is a choice: people can vote as they please. But psychologically, there isn’t one, because the voter is confident that the election results have been predetermined. In the end, this result, indeed, becomes predetermined – a typical “self-fulfilling prophecy”. The voter says: “We don’t have much of an election…” Hence the mutual reproaches between the “opposition parties”: “you work for the authorities, you’re a ‘decoy’”… Each party blames other parties, getting symmetrical accusations in response. I think the criticism is unfair. It’s hardly likely that anyone (other than the obvious spoiler parties) is indeed working for someone else. No, everyone is working for themselves, to the best of their ability… “We wanted to do what’s best, but it turned out as it usually does.” “‘As it usually does’ means one thing: all parties are part of the Political System. And, while working for themselves, they work for the System: the ruling party does it one way, the opposition – another. Meanwhile, like in any System, the basic principle is the same: self-propagation. In countries with different and commensurable parties, each election reproduces the existing system of political competition. In other countries, including ours, elections result in a recreation of the existing system of imitation of political competition. That, by the way, refers to the “irreconcilable”, “extra-systemic” opposition. With its pathetic shows, it too works for the same System. It shows that there is no real alternative, only foolishness such as “Limonov’s 31”… Meanwhile, all of the systemic parties are similar to one-another and to the System in general.   
Incidentally, these traits, shared by all of our political parties, are most apparent among the “deservedly-oppositionist” parties, such as the CPRF, LDPR, and Yabloko. A single irreplaceable Leader (sometimes he can even officially “go on leave”, such as Yabloko’s leader, but will remain the undisputed leader). No inter-party competition. Say, several years ago, the CPRF was “exposed for a Trotskyist conspiracy”. Even with the comical nature of the slang, party comrades used these types of expressions when speaking about “Zyuganov’s opposition”, which was subsequently excluded from “the ranks”. I won’t even mention the role that the personality plays in the history of the LDPR. And it is these parties that urge us to embrace Democracy… For comparison, I’ll recall the open and vehement inter-party primaries that are ongoing in the United States; In France, all members of the Socialist Party had recently elected their leader in a direct election; and we all know about the intense competition currently ongoing in England, Germany, etc. In any event, it is a fairly complete System. Either open competition within parties – open competition between parties, or the lack of competition within and between parties and its replacement with imitations. Political parties are having a hard time adjusting in Russia. They’re similar to the Soviet “community organizations” – in terms of their lack of responsibility, their pathos, and phoniness, as well as the composition of their “activists”.                 
And yet, we are not doomed.  .
If we promote open competition, including direct and competitive election of party leaders. If we bring back live television broadcasts. If we make direct criticism of top officials “the norm”. If we do all that, then the party life will gradually “revive and flourish”, just as in any European state. At the same time, we must remember that party democracy alone – just as a lack thereof – will not resolve any of the country’s problems.

Directory: gifiles -> attach
attach -> British Forces – Akrioti, Greece Griffin Fighter Squadron (84 Squadron raf) MoD announced possible Typhoon and Tornado arrivals to the base France
attach -> Russia 110204 Basic Political Developments
attach -> Unclassified//for official use only
attach -> Adaptability Sustainment
attach -> Pop-up 1 ("C" Chechnya) Header Text: Emir of the Caucasus Emirate Doku Umarov Image
attach -> Russia and Islam are not Separate
attach -> Chapter 13: The Northern Caucasus
attach -> Russia 100209 Basic Political Developments
attach -> The evolution
attach -> The devolution

Download 336.63 Kb.

Share with your friends: