PDA

View Full Version : Russia's Ghost Missile Freighters


Daktoria
Sep 20th 2009, 03:02 PM
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20090919a1.html
Mystery of the missing freighter

It still isn't clear exactly what happened to the Russian-crewed freighter Arctic Sea, which mysteriously disappeared in European waters last month. Inconsistencies and the implausibility of the official story — it was a hijacking — have prompted considerable speculation.

Those imaginings have been spurred by the visit to Russia of Israeli President Shimon Peres and the "disappearance" for one day of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reportedly secretly visited Russia to discuss Iran. This incident sheds little light on Russia's relations with the Middle East, but has generated heated speculation in that regard.

The Arctic Sea is a Malta-flagged vessel that departed Finland on July 21 with more than a dozen Russian crew members and a cargo of timber worth about $1.8 million. A few days after departure, a group of men boarded the ship. It was first reported that they claimed to be environmentalists seeking shelter from a storm, but by the time they boarded the ship, they were wearing clothes and masks that identified them as police.

The vessel continued to send signals suggesting that all was normal for a week; on July 30 radio traffic ceased and the vessel disappeared. That triggered a massive hunt until the vessel was found Aug. 16, off the coast of Cape Verde, a considerable distance from its intended destination of Algeria, and eight alleged hijackers on board were arrested.

That short story raises a lot of questions. First, the idea of a pirate attack in the Baltic Sea, some of the world's most traveled waters, is far-fetched. Second, why would pirates target a ship with a relatively low-value cargo? Moreover, why the silence and the changing of stories after the supposed attack?

The mystery thickened the day after Russian announced it had found the ship, and Mr. Peres made a surprise visit to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The speculation became even more feverish on Sept. 7, when Mr. Netanyahu also "vanished" for a day. Officially, the Israeli prime minister was visiting "a security facility." Slowly, however, news leaked out that Mr. Netanyahu had boarded a private jet for his own secret visit to Russia. The Israeli government continues to stonewall inquires about the prime minister's whereabouts, but winks and nods to the press suggest that speculation is correct.

In Moscow, he reportedly voiced concern over the possible sale of Russian anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. That provided substance to earlier suggestions that Mr. Peres had also pressed the Russian president to reconsider the proposed sale.

Those reports shine some light on the Arctic Sea's voyage. Before it set out with the lumber, it spent two weeks undergoing repairs in the Russian port of Kaliningrad. Maritime experts believe that the ship picked up another cargo at that stop, one that wasn't on the reported manifest.

By this logic, it was that cargo that the hijackers were interested in. By seizing the ship they intercepted a planned delivery of weapons, perhaps missiles, intended for the Middle East, most likely Syria or Iran.

The crew might be able to answer some of the questions about this episode, but they have been told to make no comment since they returned to Russia. And, intriguingly, the Russian expert who first suggested the Arctic Sea was carrying a secret cargo has been threatened and forced to flee the country.

The entire incident casts some light — however unfocused — on the volatile situation in the Middle East and the role that external powers play in keeping that conflict alive. There is a lively trade in weapons that fuels the violence. Israel has been increasingly vocal in its complaints about Iran and the threats it sees from Tehran's support of Islamic extremists as well as its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, an intention that Iran denies it has. Not surprisingly, Israel is worried about the acquisition by Iran of more advanced antiaircraft missiles, which would ostensibly be deployed to protect nuclear facilities.

In another twist in an already twisted tale, some observers believe that Russia may have dispatched the hijackers to grab the illicit cargo. That means that Moscow may not be aware of — or control — all the activities of its vaunted weapons industries. But if Russia was aware of the shipment, and the Israel secret services were responsible for the heist, then the Israeli officials' visits were a warning to Moscow.

One way or another, Russia plays a crucial role in the Middle East. In addition to providing weapons, it has sold a nuclear reactor to Iran, and Moscow has a veto in the U.N. Security Council. Close ties with Tehran give Russia considerable influence. As Iran ups the ante on discussions of its nuclear program, Moscow's thinking matters: At a minimum, no deal is likely without its approval. Moscow's skepticism about the utility of sanctions against Tehran blunts that tool.

Unfortunately, there is little indication of how Russia can contribute to a solution in the Iranian situation.



Thank you Russia for not staying on top of things. If it wasn't for our blunders in Iraq, the world would be all over you for quandaries like this, but instead, this is going to fly under the radar... again... and again... and again.

And of course, if the west hadn't intervened, you'd be getting all the blame instead of us, but again, we always instead have to let consumerism get in the way and develop oil dependencies which only further encourage hierarchical domestic and international politics.

No, the Cold War wasn't a war of ideologies and economies. It was a war of culture, and the Soviet Union's defeat wasn't worth the cost in political capital expended towards reconstructing Europe, "protecting" the Middle East, or containing communism in the Far East. What did we get in exchange? Just a whole lot of technological hyperacceleration and globalized hypercompetition, both of which continue to leak social, economic, and political capital more and more.

Well at least Israel's not turning to us this time for help (even though we let AIPAC lobby its balls around and Mossad squeeze intelligence out of us all the time). No Russia, we don't mind, you can have all the fun you want playing ball this time.

Michael
Sep 20th 2009, 06:24 PM
Yes, a vaguely disturbing episode, all the more so for the mystery of it all. I've been following this story from a couple of the US military blogs I read. Speculations are all over the map on this one.

Daktoria
Sep 21st 2009, 11:08 AM
Given the worst possible expected scenario of Russian black market weapons traders being manipulated by the government to serve as intermediaries for Iranian anti-air missile sales, we should still leave Israeli-Russian negotiations be. It just follows the line from the failure of long-term thinking during the Cold War when we engaged in free aid instead of free trade. Maybe there is an oil interest at stake in stabilizing the Middle East, but indirect control through interventionism has not, is not, and will not solve our problems there. Client state relationships are not meant to be unilateral agreements where we pander to corruption. If we're going to help someone who plays by realpolitik, then we better get something out of it big time.

Michael
Sep 21st 2009, 11:31 AM
Given the worst possible expected scenario of Russian black market weapons traders being manipulated by the government to serve as intermediaries for Iranian anti-air missile sales, we should still leave Israeli-Russian negotiations be. It just follows the line from the failure of long-term thinking during the Cold War when we engaged in free aid instead of free trade. Maybe there is an oil interest at stake in stabilizing the Middle East, but indirect control through interventionism has not, is not, and will not solve our problems there. Client state relationships are not meant to be unilateral agreements where we pander to corruption. If we're going to help someone who plays by realpolitik, then we better get something out of it big time.

US has no moral grounds to interefere here. US looked the other way for many years as Israel and South Africa collaborated on weapons purchases despite international sanctions against this.

That is to say, the US has a long history of 'looking the other way' when Israel does arms deals with unsavory partners.

Zarquon
Sep 22nd 2009, 08:32 AM
Haven't followed this story.
America needs to drop the democracy charade and be more Machiavellian, i mean Realpolitik and actually look out for its interests rather than wasting resources over a wet dream/precious ideals.
The Russians are more intransigent and arrogant than ever, free-trade is under threat, the iraq invasion has undermined credibility on human rights and democracy, while the People's Republic of China gets more and more smug, playing the world for its own gain, and Japan has indicated a willingness to pursue a more 'independent' policy, with talks of an Asian trade union and decoupling abound. America needs to let go of its 'superpower' mentality, and formulate a strategy of dealing with a multi-polar world. Getting out of Afghanistan, after ensuring they have a properly functioning security apparatus; and Iraq, besides re-engaging with the Americas to counter Chavez would be a start.
Its about time the embargo on Cuba was lifted, it serves no purpose and makes US appear to be huge hypocrites(we're trading with PRC and Vietnam, but not communist Cuba!).

Americano
Sep 22nd 2009, 11:52 AM
Haven't followed this story.
America needs to drop the democracy charade and be more Machiavellian, i mean Realpolitik and actually look out for its interests rather than wasting resources over a wet dream/precious ideals.
The Russians are more intransigent and arrogant than ever, free-trade is under threat, the iraq invasion has undermined credibility on human rights and democracy, while the People's Republic of China gets more and more smug, playing the world for its own gain, and Japan has indicated a willingness to pursue a more 'independent' policy, with talks of an Asian trade union and decoupling abound. America needs to let go of its 'superpower' mentality, and formulate a strategy of dealing with a multi-polar world. Getting out of Afghanistan, after ensuring they have a properly functioning security apparatus; and Iraq, besides re-engaging with the Americas to counter Chavez would be a start.
Its about time the embargo on Cuba was lifted, it serves no purpose and makes US appear to be huge hypocrites(we're trading with PRC and Vietnam, but not communist Cuba!).

I'm still trying to determine what US foreign interests remain to protect. We have no control over oil prices with supply being adequate for current economic conditions, the only voiced rationalization for US military expansion in the Americas (Columbia) is the war on drugs and the Cuba embargo remains in place to protect the US sugar industry and US gulf states visitor revenue. That leaves Israel, our ME gunslinger and not much else other than begging for credit facilitation. It's not fun being a debtor nation with a service economy and spending the bulk of our tax revenue on military expenditures.

Michael
Sep 22nd 2009, 12:03 PM
America needs to drop the democracy charade and be more Machiavellian, i mean Realpolitik and actually look out for its interests rather than wasting resources over a wet dream/precious ideals.

When has the US ever acted anything but Machiavellian/realpolitik in foreign policy?

US has been sponsoring military dictatorships over democratic regimes for decades (going on a century now of this highly consistent US policy). US foreign policy never lets issues like "human rights" interfere with US geostrategic interests and indeed, rarely ever pays attention to the issue.

China as "most favored trading status" with the USA. Enough said.

Daktoria
Sep 22nd 2009, 01:42 PM
Positive liberalism would recognize containment to be a liberal policy during the Cold War since the U.S. received no compensation for helping countries rebuild and protecting them from the threat of totalitarianism. The same can be said for the Monroe Doctrine which hasn't resulted in any direct political dividends from our expenditure of political capital in protecting Latin America.

Michael
Sep 22nd 2009, 01:55 PM
Positive liberalism would recognize containment to be a liberal policy during the Cold War since the U.S. received no compensation for helping countries rebuild and protecting them from the threat of totalitarianism. The same can be said for the Monroe Doctrine which hasn't resulted in any direct political dividends from our expenditure of political capital in protecting Latin America.
1. Re: Marshall Plan - it was devised because the US wanted Germany to be rebuilt quickly so Germany could help the US fight against the Soviets. That strikes me as self-serving policy. Sure the policy ended up serving liberal goals, but the impetus was US desire for military imperialism.

2. You trying to tell me that the US has been interfering in Central America all these years (over a century now) just because they are nice guys and that the United Fruit Company had nothing to do with it at all? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html

http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9781841958811


There has never been anything even remotely "liberal" about US policies in Central/South America.

Here's an excerpt from Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket"...

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler)

At the time of his death Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler was the most decorated Marine in US history.

Daktoria
Sep 22nd 2009, 03:40 PM
1. Re: Marshall Plan - it was devised because the US wanted Germany to be rebuilt quickly so Germany could help the US fight against the Soviets. That strikes me as self-serving policy. Sure the policy ended up serving liberal goals, but the impetus was US desire for military imperialism.

Right, and why did we want to fight the Soviets?

If it was to save foreign countries, then it's a matter of positive liberal humanitarianism.

If it was to preempt our own subversion, then the question is a matter of if we really believed totalitarianism is an evil concept. If totalitarianism is not evil, then liberalism in general is a facade and realpolitik shouldn't be criticized. If totalitarianism is evil, then either:



The conquered peoples should have degraded into failure such that the Marshall Plan (as free aid instead of free trade) was a benevolent attempt to save the potentially conquered from intermediary struggles, or
We were justified in rectifying external damages and threats.

Daktoria
Sep 22nd 2009, 03:56 PM
2. You trying to tell me that the US has been interfering in Central America all these years (over a century now) just because they are nice guys and that the United Fruit Company had nothing to do with it at all? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...d/US_Guat.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html)

http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9781841958811


There has never been anything even remotely "liberal" about US policies in Central/South America.

Here's an excerpt from Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket"...

Quote:
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler)

At the time of his death Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler was the most decorated Marine in US history.

Alright, this was extremely stupid on my part for neglecting the acquisitions of Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the area of the Panama Canal.

However, the notions of military occupation do not qualify as direct political dividends, and the notions of defending big business do not qualify as political dividends at all since they're economic dividends distributed to independent firms who requested armed forces assistance. Like I said in the net neutrality thread, there are big problems when economic and political integration become interdependent, but this is a separate issue since positive liberalism would support expatriated citizens requesting national defense units to protect their interests abroad; in terms of international relations, a foreign citizen is treated as belonging to a foreign country, and as long as that citizen pays taxes to his own country, he's entitled to the services it promises.

Michael
Sep 23rd 2009, 11:41 AM
Right, and why did we want to fight the Soviets?

If it was to save foreign countries, then it's a matter of positive liberal humanitarianism.

If it was to preempt our own subversion, then the question is a matter of if we really believed totalitarianism is an evil concept. If totalitarianism is not evil, then liberalism in general is a facade and realpolitik shouldn't be criticized. If totalitarianism is evil, then either:
But it was quite obviously 'none-of-the-above'. These things only served as propaganda excuses to serve up for public consumption.

In reality, the US worked very hard to create the Cold War and it was part of US foreign policy to create it, foster it and nurture it. The MIC that rules US foreign policy wouldn't have it any other way. War (and threats of war) are apparently necessary to the MIC's control of government budgets.

Daktoria
Sep 23rd 2009, 12:31 PM
Ergo, the MIC was not trying to preempt it's own subversion (by bridging between domestic and foreign realpolitik)?

Claiming that the Soviet Union didn't represent a real threat is probably the biggest stretch possible in revising the history of the 20th century. The question here is whether or not it would have crumbled under its own weight before building up and completely dominating the west, something which I find extremely hard to believe if we admit how realpolitik was the foundation of the Cold War's roots since it's aggressive stance towards Western Europe, the Far East, and the Middle East would take an immense analysis to prove to be a facade (nevermind how claiming that the Soviet Union didn't engage, or wouldn't benefit from such analysis, in its own propaganda is an extreme historical revision as well).

Michael
Sep 23rd 2009, 01:02 PM
Alright, this was extremely stupid on my part for neglecting the acquisitions of Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the area of the Panama Canal.
Yes - but not to worry. This issue is apparently 'much ignored' in US history classes it seems.

Suffice it to say that these episodes define US foreign policy for most non-Americans. There's a long history of US military involvement driven by the needs/desires of multinational corporations.

However, the notions of military occupation do not qualify as direct political dividends, and the notions of defending big business do not qualify as political dividends at all since they're economic dividends distributed to independent firms who requested armed forces assistance. Like I said in the net neutrality thread, there are big problems when economic and political integration become interdependent, but this is a separate issue since positive liberalism would support expatriated citizens requesting national defense units to protect their interests abroad; in terms of international relations, a foreign citizen is treated as belonging to a foreign country, and as long as that citizen pays taxes to his own country, he's entitled to the services it promises.
If an imperial military adventure doesn't bring political dividends, that does not mean that it wasn't an imperialist military adventure in the first place.

Indeed, imperialist military adventures rarely ever bring any political dividends - they are far more likely to produce political albatrosses instead.

And I don't accept that the US military ought to be a tool to do the bidding of multinational corporations. I think that policy is harmful to the interests of US citizens in general.

Michael
Sep 23rd 2009, 01:06 PM
Ergo, the MIC was not trying to preempt it's own subversion (by bridging between domestic and foreign realpolitik)?

Claiming that the Soviet Union didn't represent a real threat is probably the biggest stretch possible in revising the history of the 20th century. The question here is whether or not it would have crumbled under its own weight before building up and completely dominating the west, something which I find extremely hard to believe if we admit how realpolitik was the foundation of the Cold War's roots since it's aggressive stance towards Western Europe, the Far East, and the Middle East would take an immense analysis to prove to be a facade (nevermind how claiming that the Soviet Union didn't engage, or wouldn't benefit from such analysis, in its own propaganda is an extreme historical revision as well).

I didn't deny that the Soviets posed a substantial threat. I asserted that the US impetus for the Cold War was the US MIC.

In other words, the Cold War was going to happen regardless of the threat level from the Soviets. Low threat or high threat from the Soviets was immaterial to the creation of Cold War conditions. The MIC needs external threats and the Soviets were appointed to that role long before WW2 ended and long before the Soviets actually did pose a threat.

Daktoria
Sep 24th 2009, 09:23 AM
If an imperial military adventure doesn't bring political dividends, that does not mean that it wasn't an imperialist military adventure in the first place.


If political dividends aren't at stake, then political criticism isn't deserved (even though imperialism is explicitly about the expansion of sovereignty, economic benefits which may be side effects and must be publicly controlled to qualify as politically worthy at all).

Suffice it to say that these episodes define US foreign policy for most non-Americans. There's a long history of US military involvement driven by the needs/desires of multinational corporations.

Indeed, imperialist military adventures rarely ever bring any political dividends - they are far more likely to produce political albatrosses instead.

And I don't accept that the US military ought to be a tool to do the bidding of multinational corporations. I think that policy is harmful to the interests of US citizens in general.

If we want to treat all citizens equally, why don't expatriated citizens deserve to be defended as well? In a world with competitive national interests, we expect militaries to remain restrained to their own borders, but that's because projection isn't an affordable strategy. Countries that can afford projection though should use it to defend the autonomy of their citizens wherever they go, shareholders of MNCs or not, market facilitators (who cultivate economic, not political, capital) or not.