|
Danger grows of NATO-Russian clash in Black Sea
By Julie Hyland and Chris Marsden
01/09/08 "WSW" -- -A build-up of naval forces is underway in the
Black Sea, involving both NATO and Russian ships. The
provocative actions by the US-lead military coalition create the
danger of a clash with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Late last week, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the
Russian military’s general staff, claimed that 10 NATO warships
were in the Black Sea and that more were on the way.
“In light of the build-up of NATO naval forces in the Black Sea,
the [Russian] fleet has also taken on the task of monitoring
their activities,” he said.
The ships include two US warships, ostensibly in the region to
deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia. These have since been
joined by a third.
In addition, NATO admitted that four of its vessels are on a
“pre-planned deployment” in the Black Sea, “conducting port
visits with Romanian and Bulgarian forces”.
The “long-planned routine” exercise Active Endeavor—which is
said to involve training in anti-terrorist and anti-pirate
manoeuvres—comprises one warship each from Spain, Germany and
Poland. They were reportedly later joined by a US frigate for a
three-week schedule of port visits and exercises.
While denying a build-up, a NATO spokesperson said that other
NATO countries may have ships in the sea. “Obviously, there are
other NATO-affiliated nations out doing things,” Lt. Col. Web
Wright said.
These reports confirm that at least six NATO vessels are in the
Black Sea, meaning that Russian warnings that warships from the
western alliance now outnumber their own fleet anchored off the
western coast of Georgia are not as far off the mark as is
claimed.
Russia has charged the US with using aid as a cover for rearming
Georgia. “Normally warships do not deliver aid and this is
gunboat diplomacy, this does not make the situation more
stable,” said Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.
Cliff Kupchan at the Eurasia Group, a US-based consultancy, was
cited as stating, “It is a clever policy to have chosen
military-led humanitarian relief.” He went on, “Given this
administration’s consistently aggressive approach to protecting
American influence, one has to ask how long it will allow
Russians to dictate which Georgian port to use.”
On Thursday a US coast guard cutter docked at the Georgian port
of Batumi, after the American embassy in Tbilisi had initially
stated that it was heading towards the Russian-controlled port
of Poti, in line with Georgian requests. According to reports,
this statement was later retracted and the Dallas instead
unloaded its aid supplies in Batumi.
Last Sunday the US destroyer, USS McFaul, docked at Batumi. The
US military says a third ship, USS Mount Whitney, the flagship
of the US Sixth Fleet, will arrive in Georgia today.
The New York Times August 28 admitted the US was “pursuing a
delicate policy of delivering humanitarian aid on military
transport planes and ships, apparently to illustrate to the
Russians that they do not fully control Georgia’s airspace or
coastline.”
The report continued that this policy “has left American and
Russian naval vessels manoeuvring in close proximity off the
western coast of Georgia, with the Americans concentrated near
the southern port of Batumi and the Russians around the central
port of Poti. It has also left the Kremlin deeply suspicious of
American motives.”
In a further provocative move by the US, the Dallas is to leave
Georgia and visit the Ukranian port of Sevastopol the same day.
The port is leased by Russia from Ukraine and is integral to its
Black Sea operations. In a display of support for the US,
Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko has said that the lease
will not be extended beyond 2017 and has signed a decree
requiring prior notice of all movements by Russian naval vessels
and aircraft from Sevastopol.
Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper cited Nogovitsyn as claiming that
the US ships are carrying nuclear missiles that could hit
Russian targets as far away as St. Petersburg. The RIA news
agency claimed that the NATO ships were carrying more than 100
Tomahawk cruise missiles, with more than 50 onboard the USS
McFaul alone that could hit ground targets.
On August 26 Reuters reported that Russia’s flagship cruiser,
the Moskva, had re-entered the Black Sea for weapons tests. The
assistant to the Russian Navy’s commander-in-chief told Russian
news agencies the cruiser had put to sea again two days after
returning to its base at the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol.
Russian warships also reportedly arrived in the separatist
region of Abkhazia. Russian deputy admiral Sergei Menyailo said
they would “support peace and stability”. He said, “Our tasks
include the control of Abkhazia’s territorial waters and the
prevention of arms shipments.” The leader of the separatist
region said he will invite Russia to establish a naval base at
Sukhumi, a deep-water port in the territory.
In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir
Putin took the extraordinary step of accusing the US of
instigating the assault by Georgia on South Ossetia.
“The suspicion arises that someone in the United States
especially created this conflict to make the situation more
tense and create a competitive advantage for one of the
candidates fighting for the post of US president,” Putin said,
clearly referring to Republican candidate John McCain, whose
foreign policy advisor was a lobbyist for Saakashlivi
government.
Putin also said he had reason to believe US military personnel
were working with Georgian forces that fought Russians, a
prospect he described as “very dangerous.”
The White House dismissed Putin’s assertions as preposterous. At
the same time, McCain’s wife Cindy was visiting Georgia and US
Vice President Dick Cheney planned to arrive this week, where he
is expected to pledge American military assistance.
For his part, Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama,
has joined the bellicose threats against “Russian aggression”
and said, if elected, his administration would be committed to
protecting Georgia.
The Los Angeles Times ran an article under the headline, “Why
Was Cheney’s Guy in Georgia Just Before the War?” on August 26.
The piece named Joseph R. Wood, Cheney’s deputy assistant for
national security affairs. It asked, “What was a top national
security aide to Vice President Dick Cheney doing in Georgia
shortly before Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s troops
engaged in what became a disastrous fight with South Ossetian
rebels—and then Russian troops?”
Nogovitsyn has charged that a US national was amongst the
Georgian commando units who invaded South Ossetia. He produced a
colour photocopy of a US passport belonging to Michael Lee White
from Texas, born in 1967. He told a press conference, “There is
a building in Zemonekozi—a settlement to the south of Tskhinvali
that was fiercely defended by a Georgian special operations
squad. Upon clearing the building, Russian peacekeepers
recovered, among other documents, an American passport in the
name of Michael Lee White of Texas.”
There is a growing body of evidence and commentary regarding the
US role in building up Georgia’s military, with the aim of
provoking a conflict with Russia. Writing in the New Statesman
August 14 Misha Glenny noted how the US and Israel had worked to
arm Georgia, so that “Saakashvili and the hawks around him came
to believe the farcical proposition that Georgia’s armed forces
could take on the military might of their northern neighbour in
a conventional fight and win.”
Glenny noted that the Georgian minister for reintegration of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Temur Yakobashvili, had praised
Israel for its military assistance. Following the assault on
South Ossetia, Glenny stated, Yakobashvili had said “Israel
should be proud of its military, which trained Georgian
soldiers.” Thanks to its assistance, “We killed 60 Russian
soldiers yesterday alone,” he said. “The Russians have lost more
than 50 tanks, and we have shot down 11 of their planes. They
have sustained enormous damage in terms of manpower.”
It is known that the US and Georgia held joint war games between
July 15-31, codenamed Operation Immediate Response, which
involved 1,000 US servicemen. One week later, on August 7,
Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia.
As to the immediate future, the Times of London reported, “US
military planners are now openly considering how to rearm
Georgia’s forces” and cited a Pentagon spokesman as stating,
“Down the road we will be looking at what may be required to
rebuild the Georgian military... right now the mission of the
United States military is to provide humanitarian assistance.”
The Times quoted the former British ambassador to Georgia Donald
McLaren stating that NATO might have to send troops to the
region. If Moscow rejected such a proposal, he said, NATO had
only two choices: “To give up and surrender and say to the
Russians, ‘It’s your backyard, you’ve won’, or to put men on the
ground to protect Georgia’s sovereignty and the east-west oil
and gas pipeline from the Caspian and Central Asia.”
McLaren wrote earlier in the Daily Mail that “Georgia is a part
of Europe. It is our gateway to Central Asia and, with Russia
and Turkey as neighbours and Iraq and Iran not far to the south,
its location alone makes it of strategic significance.
“It is a friend and partner in one of the most
highly-pressurised parts of the world. Georgia is a vital
conduit for energy supplies from the Caspian to its East and the
potential of the Central Asian suppliers beyond.
“There are few issues more immediate than energy security and
Georgia’s fragile oil pipeline offers us one alternative to
dependence on Russia.”
The US offensive against Russia is destabilising the entire
region and inexorably drawing the European powers in its wake.
Asia Times reported, “The US-backed Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline
passes through Georgian territory and letting Russia dictate
events in Georgia has a definite implication in terms of energy
security, given the fierce pipeline geopolitics in the Eurasian
landmass, Europe’s heavy energy dependency on Russia and
Moscow’s willingness to rely on the energy card for security
bargaining with Europe.
“This alone may explain why the European Union, which has been
divided over a response to the Georgian crisis, has largely
consented to the US’s muscular reaction. The issue has now
turned into a defining moment of the post-Cold War era because
of its broader implications.”
Both Germany and France have signalled they have retreated from
their earlier opposition to Georgian membership of the European
Union. EU and Ukranian leaders are to meet in France on
September 9 and sign as association on closer relations.
Although this does not spell out whether Ukraine will get EU
accession, a recent report by the European Council on Foreign
Relations think-tank argues that the EU cannot afford any more
delays in defining and deepening its ties with Ukraine.
Tensions between Russia and Georgia continue to worsen. As
Tbilisi announced Friday that it would sever diplomatic ties
with Moscow, officials in South Ossetia stated they would seek
absorption into Russia.
As well as pitting Georgia and the Ukraine against Russia, the
US has embroiled Turkey in a bitter row with Moscow.
Russia argues that the NATO presence in the Black Sea violates
the 1936 Montreux Convention, which limits the time non-coastal
countries can sail military vessels on the sea to three weeks.
Under the treaty, Turkey—which controls the straits of the
Bosporus and the Dardanelles—must be notified 15 days before
military ships sail into the sea. These can not remain in the
area for longer than 21 days. But Turkey only announced its
approval of the US passage on August 20. Russia has warned that
Turkey will be held responsible if the US ships do not leave
when they are supposed to do so.
Copyright 1998-2008 - World Socialist Web Site - All rights
reserved.
Click on
"comments" below to read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary.
Do not include personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our
guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity –
are not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and use this link
to notify us if you have concerns about a
comment. We’ll promptly
review and remove any inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and
educational purposes. Information Clearing House
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|