In what may be the understatement of the year, Mikhail Gorbachev complains that Europe misunderstands Russia:Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev says Western portrayals of Russia as an aggressive, imperialist nation are "nonsense."It's not difficult to see where these portrayals of Russia come from. Earlier in the day, a Kremlin policy paper signed by the president struck a much different tone, warning that armed conflict may break out at its borders over energy resources.
Gorbachev said Wednesday that Europe misunderstands Russia and stressed that his country does not want military confrontation with anyone.
"The international policy in the long run will be focused on getting hold of energy sources, including in the Middle East, the Barents Sea shelf and other Arctic regions, the Caspian and Central Asia," said the strategy paper that was posted on the presidential Security Council's Web site.
"Amid competitive struggle for resources, attempts to use military force to solve emerging problems can't be excluded," it added. "The existing balance of forces near the borders of the Russian Federation and its allies can be violated."
These aren't unreasonable or unthinkable statements, but they are bellicose and do underscore Russia's traditional sensitivity (which some describe as "paranoia") about the imminent threat of invasion and attack. Gorbachev's role in Russian politics is becoming increasingly interesting with his foundation of a new liberal party along with Alexander Lebedev, but his argument about the harmless docility of the current leadership (or at least the Putin-Sechin clans) seems weakened by this paper.
So it is "bellicose" to observe that a country with energy resources, bordering an alliance whose combined military spending is about fifteen times that of the country in question, can be attacked by other countries hoping to seize them.
In a sane blog, the term "bellicose" would be reserved for countries spending seven tenths of a tera-buck on their armed forces and with a known propensity for attacking countries with lots of energy resources.
I totally agree with you !
Russia in fact has no " goals " , especilly in the arctic , that are outside its own territory (maritime or terrestrial )
There is an international , sometimes biased , competition during licenses for oil , gas and mineral deposits and there are territorial disputes . But it's rather normal in the economic world .
As far as i read the notices , since the beginning of the year FOUR NATO related exercises involving thoussands of military are or will be held in the arctic region : Coldresponse 09 , Icex 09 , Nunalivut 09 and Loyal Arrow 09 ( as far as june 09 ).
And many of them have the same scenario : Competition for natural ressources . In some cases like ColdResponse09 , the Kola peninsula doesn't belongs yet to Russia which shows some " goals " from the alliance .
But perhaps since Gov.Yevdokimov " resigned " from its office , such scenarii are more remote ..........
Russia only sends its strategic bombers on routine patrols in international zones , as Norway does with its antisubmarine planes Orion , and is accused of " threatening the peace "
The information is always biased as when Dmitri Medvedev announced that Russia will settle its arctic border . Bitish yellow and " free " journalism accused Russia of " land grab " , ignoring that Dmitri Medvedev was talking of the SOUTHERN borders of the arctic zone which are , as far as i am informed , INSIDE the internationally recognized borders of the Russian Federation !
Still, can either of you name another Arctic country -- Canada (which has almost as big a chunk of it as Russia), Norway, Iceland, Denmark -- which made a similar statement about its chunk of the Arctic?
Russia's expenses in the military have been increasing, too. Should Russia also not be criticized for that, since the terabuck-in-defense countries do get criticized? And is attacking countries without energy resources that just happen to have problems with northern provinces in any way less criticizable? Or were the leaders of both these countries considered also to be "evil"?
The language of that communiqué does sound overly concerned with "Arctic attacks". Again, you will be hard pressed to find similar statements from any other Arctic country -- in principle also a possible victim of attacks from greedy, non-arctic countries. Why the difference in language?
Daniel, the observation about the British is good -- indeed, the reference was to the southern border. Still, the reference to "possible attacks" does sound awkward.
All the Arctic countries you name are in NATO, and this are allied to the terabuck military spender. And Herr Goebbels did criticize Russia for excessive military development just before Operation Barbarossa, even thought the German Armed forces were bigger than the Soviet armed forces by two million men. Criticism from such forces is a fraud, intended only as a preparation to ease the path of the attacker. And Russia did not initiate hostilities this past August, Georgia did.
To sum up, your criticism of Russia is thoroughty dishonest.