Tag: Russia

You (and Almost Everyone You Know) Owe Your Life to This Man.
The National Geographic Society

A Blog by Robert Krulwich

Temperament matters.

Especially when nuclear weapons are involved and you don’t—you can’t—know what the enemy is up to, and you’re scared. Then it helps (it helps a lot) to be calm.

The world owes an enormous debt to a quiet, steady Russian naval officer who probably saved my life. And yours. And everyone you know. Even those of you who weren’t yet born. I want to tell his story …

It’s October 1962, the height of the Cuban missile crisis, and there’s a Soviet submarine in the Caribbean that’s been spotted by the American Navy. President Kennedy has blockaded Cuba. No sea traffic is permitted through.

Photograph by NY Daily News Archive, Getty

The sub is hiding in the ocean, and the Americans are dropping depth charges left and right of the hull. Inside, the sub is rocking, shaking with each new explosion. What the Americans don’t know is that this sub has a tactical nuclear torpedo on board, available to launch, and that the Russian captain is asking himself, Shall I fire?

This actually happened.

The Russian in question, an exhausted, nervous submarine commander named Valentin Savitsky, decided to do it. He ordered the nuclear-tipped missile readied. His second in command approved the order. Moscow hadn’t communicated with its sub for days. Eleven U.S. Navy ships were nearby, all possible targets. The nuke on this missile had roughly the power of the bomb at Hiroshima.

“We’re gonna blast them now!”

Temperatures in the submarine had climbed above 100 degrees. The air-conditioning system was broken, and the ship couldn’t surface without being exposed. The captain felt doomed. Vadim Orlov, an intelligence officer who was there, remembers a particularly loud blast: “The Americans hit us with something stronger than the grenades—apparently with a practice depth bomb,” he wrote later. “We thought, That’s it, the end.” And that’s when, he says, the Soviet captain shouted, “Maybe the war has already started up there … We’re gonna blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all—we will not become the shame of the fleet.”

Had Savitsky launched his torpedo, had he vaporized a U.S. destroyer or aircraft carrier, the U.S. would probably have responded with nuclear-depth charges, “thus,” wrote Russian archivist Svetlana Savranskaya, understating wildly, “starting a chain of inadvertent developments, which could have led to catastrophic consequences.”

But it didn’t happen, because that’s when Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov steps into the story.

Photo courtesy of M. Yarovskaya and A. Labunskaya

He was 34 at the time. Good looking, with a full head of hair and something like a spit curl dangling over his forehead. He was Savitsky’s equal, the flotilla commander responsible for three Russian subs on this secret mission to Cuba—and he is maybe one of the quietest, most unsung heroes of modern times.

What he said to Savitsky we will never know, not exactly. But, says Thomas Blanton, the former director of the nongovernmental National Security Archive, simply put, this “guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world.”

Arkhipov, described by his wife as a modest, soft-spoken man, simply talked Savitsky down.

The exact details are controversial. The way it’s usually told is that each of the three Soviet submarine captains in the ocean around Cuba had the power to launch a nuclear torpedo if—and only if—he had the consent of all three senior officers on board. On his sub, Savitsky gave the order and got one supporting vote, but Arkhipov balked. He wouldn’t go along.

He argued that this was not an attack.

The official Soviet debriefs are still secret, but a Russian reporter, Alexander Mozgovoi, an American writer, and eyewitness testimony from intelligence officer Orlov suggest that Arkhipov told the captain that the ship was not in danger. It was being asked to surface. Dropping depth charges left then right, noisy but always off target—those are signals, Arkhipov argued. They say, We know you’re there. Identify yourselves. Come up and talk. We intend no harm.

What’s Happening?

The Russian crew couldn’t tell what was going on above them: They’d gone silent well before the crisis began. Their original orders were to go directly to Cuba, but then, without explanation, they’d been ordered to stop and wait in the Caribbean. Orlov, who had lived in America, heard from American radio stations that Russia had secretly brought missiles to the island, that Cuba had shot down a U.S. spy plane, that President Kennedy had ordered the U.S. Navy to surround the island and let no one pass through. When Americans had spotted the sub, Savitsky had ordered it to drop deeper into the ocean, to get out of sight—but that had cut them off. They couldn’t hear (and didn’t trust) U.S. media. For all they knew, the war had already begun

We don’t know how long they argued. We do know that the nuclear weapons the Russians carried (each ship had just one, with a special guard who stayed with it, day and night) were to be used only if Russia itself had been attacked. Or if attack was imminent. Savitsky felt he had the right to fire first. Official Russian accounts insist he needed a direct order from Moscow, but Archipov’s wife Olga says there was a confrontation.

She and Ryurik Ketov, the gold-toothed captain of a nearby Russian sub, both heard the story directly from Vasili. Both believe him and say so in this PBS documentary. Some scenes are dramatized, but listen to what they say …

As the drama unfolded, Kennedy worried that the Russians would mistake depth charges for an attack. When his defense secretary said the U.S. was dropping “grenade”-size signals over the subs, the president winced. His brother Robert Kennedy later said that talk of depth charges “were the time of greatest worry to the President. His hand went up to his face [and] he closed his fist.”

Video Still From the PBS documentary, “Missile Crisis: The Man Who Saved the World.“

The Russian command, for its part, had no idea how tough it was inside those subs. Anatoly Andreev, a crew member on a different, nearby sub, kept a journal, a continuing letter to his wife, that described what it was like:

For the last four days, they didn’t even let us come up to the periscope depth … My head is bursting from the stuffy air. … Today three sailors fainted from overheating again … The regeneration of air works poorly, the carbon dioxide content [is] rising, and the electric power reserves are dropping. Those who are free from their shifts, are sitting immobile, staring at one spot. … Temperature in the sections is above 50 [122ºF].

The debate between the captain and Arkhipov took place in an old, diesel-powered submarine designed for Arctic travel but stuck in a climate that was close to unendurable. And yet, Arkhipov kept his cool. After their confrontation, the missile was not readied for firing. Instead, the Russian sub rose to the surface, where it was met by a U.S. destroyer. The Americans didn’t board. There were no inspections, so the U.S. Navy had no idea that there were nuclear torpedos on those subs—and wouldn’t know for around 50 years, when the former belligerents met at a 50th reunion. Instead, the Russians turned away from Cuba and headed north, back to Russia.

Photograph courtesy of U.S. National Archives, Still Pictures Branch, Record Group 428, Item 428-N-711199

Looking back, it all came down to Arkhipov. Everyone agrees that he’s the guy who stopped the captain. He’s the one who stood in the way.

He was, as best as we can tell, not punished by the Soviets. He was later promoted. Reporter Alexander Mozgovoi describes how the Soviet Navy conducted a formal review and how the man in charge, Marshal Grachko, when told about conditions on those ships, “removed his glasses and hit them against the table in fury, breaking them into small pieces, and abruptly leaving the room after that.”

Photo courtesy of M. Yarovskaya and A. Labunskaya

How Arkhipov (that’s him up above) managed to keep his temper in all that heat, how he managed to persuade his frantic colleague, we can’t say, but it helps to know that Arkhopov was already a Soviet hero. A year earlier he’d been on another Soviet sub, the K-19, when the coolant system failed and the onboard nuclear reactor was in danger of meltdown. With no backup system, the captain ordered the crew to jerry-rig a repair, and Arkhopov, among others, got exposed to high levels of radiation. Twenty-two crew members died from radiation sickness over the next two years. Arkhipov wouldn’t die until 1998, but it would be from kidney cancer, brought on, it’s said, by exposure.

Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous. Handling them, using them, not using them, requires caution, care. Living as we do now with North Korea, Pakistani generals, jihadists, and who knows who’ll be the next U.S. president, the world is very, very lucky that at one critical moment, someone calm enough, careful enough, and cool enough was there to say no.

Thanks to Alex Wellerstein, author of the spectacular blog Restricted Data, for his help guiding me to source material on this subject.

22 thoughts on “You (and Almost Everyone You Know) Owe Your Life to This Man.”
1. Cornell Greensays: March 26, 2016 at 2:12 pm Bravo, Robert!An excellent article… and a cautionary tale, especially for those “bomb ’em back to the stone age” advocates among us. As if we are the only ones with bombs. Reply
2. FSWoodsays: March 26, 2016 at 8:10 pm Dad was a senior US Navy officer who on USN Destroyers for some years hunted Soviet subs.
  And knowing both him and my Mother, and guessing that other people can have similar character, I accept that at face vale — “Official Russian accounts insist he needed a direct order from Moscow, but Archipov’s wife Olga says there was a confrontation. She and Ryurik Ketov, the gold-toothed captain of a nearby Russian sub, both heard the story directly from Vasili. Both believe him and say so in this PBS documentary.” Reply
  1. Robert Krulwichsays: March 27, 2016 at 2:01 pm FSW– I wondered myself. It seems strange — deeply strange — that the Soviets would have left such a monstrously important decision in the hands of field commanders. But apparently they did. And as nuclear weapons get downsized into nuclear arms, and then tactical nuclear devices, as the technology makes terrible things smaller and smaller, I hope the command system keeps the decisions and the decision-makers big and important, and most of all – steady. I don’t know who’s minding the store in Belgium at those nuclear plants, or who’s making decisions in those places I mention, but I’m getting more and more nervous. Reply
3. Vickie Kaspersays: March 27, 2016 at 8:04 am Good thing Donald Trump wasn’t involved in the decision. Reply
  1. Jeanninesays: March 28, 2016 at 11:16 am My first thought exsactly!!!! Reply
  2. FlyoverMikesays: March 28, 2016 at 3:01 pm Good thing Barack Obama wasn’t involved in the decision. Reply
    
    Marc Lapointesays: March 28, 2016 at 6:22 pm Very good thing JFK and RFK were ! Reply
    
    lgstarnsays: March 28, 2016 at 6:25 pm Right, he might have made peace with Cuba earlier. That would have been terrible. Reply
    
    Marc Lapointesays: March 28, 2016 at 8:00 pm Apparently, JFK had a emissary speaking with Castro at time of his murder. Had he live , the world would be a very different place; just imagine no Vietnam war. Listen at the former president Eisenhower speak about the new world order and the power of the war industry. Reply
4. Charles J Gallagher Jrsays: March 28, 2016 at 7:09 am Arkhipov, possibly more than any other individual in history, did prevent a potential nuclear exchange. The article is excellent and generally accurate. In addition the four Foxtrot Class Commanding Officers were given oral orders before they departed: reach Cuba undetected or do not come back alive. They were also told that under extraordinary circumstances they should use the nuclear tipped torpedo without orders from Moscow. I was on the USS Charles P. Cecil (DDR-835) which held sonar contact on one of the four Foxtrots until it ran out of air and had to surface. Reply
  1. Nitasays: March 28, 2016 at 12:07 pm Thank you for your service, sir. Reply
  2. CJ Rolphesays: March 28, 2016 at 5:03 pm I was stationed at Charleston AFB when this happened…it was real scary! But not HALF AS SCARY as it is knowing this was going on!!! wow!!! Reply
5. Dr. Richard G. Macdonaldsays: March 28, 2016 at 9:50 am This edited Letter to Editor of the Peoria Journal Star in Peoria IL was published on Saturday, March 26. The paragraph of my wife being blocked performing her important position by NORAD during the Cuban crisis due to her ID card was edited out by the paper. I felt it was an analogy to voter ID restrictions now allowed by the ruling of SCOTUS. Enjoyed the article as I personally knew how close we were to war. I & my fellow Army doctors were in fascinating horror during those 10 days. Have many sidebar stories of that time which I experienced during those 10 days.Dr. Richard G. Macdonald
  To
  Forum PJSMar 22 at 3:53 PMAt this moment, I am sitting watching a base ballgame. It is a game between Cuba & Tampa Bay Rays in Havana Cuba. Everyone on that field and in the stands could immediately walk across our southern borders to freedom without even a wall stopping them. President Obama & Cuba President Raul Castro are sitting together high fiving each other for great outfield catches. Thanks to Congress and the Statue of Liberty, this ability to be accepted right now by our country without qualms while these two Presidents sit next to each other smiling is sign of our country’s greatness.Yet candidates for the office of the president not only think 50 years of failure is a sign of Cuban foreign policy success but now want to prevent every other country’s citizens being accepted with the same access to USA that Cuba now has. Matter of fact, a few of the candidates even brag about their heritage with Cuba and how their own family exists in the USA because of this privileged Congressional approval.As an enlisted man during the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall being built and then as an officer; I had to make out a will & testament, get a yellow flu shot after standing in silence with my fellow hospital doctors in front of a black and white TV set watching President Kennedy saying we may be on the brink of atomic warfare.At the same time, my wife worked as an executive secretary for NORAD and couldn’t go to work to serve our country in high crisis as her Army dependent ID card was invalid until she obtained an Air Force ID. Reminds me of voting ID laws today by states afraid of people voting. The exception is that we aren’t on the brink of going to war with Russia in 1962 but the fear on IDs by elected office holders appears to be the same.As a Vet, I much prefer high fiving at a baseball game than using Shock & Awe to win over a country and its people.Richard G. MacdonaldTremont, IL 61568 Reply
6. A Pakistanisays: March 28, 2016 at 1:02 pm The blatant reference to “pakistani generals” and associating them with the likes of “jihadists” was very derogatory and sad to read. Please refrain from such remarks. You just offended 20 million people. Reply
  1. Erik Scothronsays: March 28, 2016 at 2:50 pm No, he just offended you. Try to get a little perspective. Reply
  2. Rhyssensays: March 28, 2016 at 2:54 pm Do be quiet, you (as a nation) are a danger to yourself and you don’t even realize it. And your comment is proof enough. Instead of taking this article as it is, your feathers get ruffled like a 12 year old girl who’s been told she cant have desert. You have 20 million generals in your country? You just offended your own civilians who mitigate for peace. Reply
7. gaurav rasailysays: March 28, 2016 at 1:09 pm never heard about that .all i knew was from the amercian point of view ..there are always those people in the middle of crisis who can keep calm and pull out danger with very highr risk and become reason of saving lives … Reply
8. Karolsays: March 28, 2016 at 2:11 pm Great story and I hope the state control of such dangeroues weapons era soon will be over. Reply
9. Florent Pirotsays: March 28, 2016 at 3:55 pm Interesting – didn’t knew Arkhipov was on board K19 and got irradiated.Talking about jihadists and the proliferation risk, here’s a link of interest (my work) :
  Metallic enriched uranium is actually being circulated because it is used in missiles, for oxydation purposes. Reply
10. Bob Crainsays: March 28, 2016 at 4:12 pm If you are surprised to find nuclear torpedoes in the hands of individual crews, read Command and Control, the Damascus Accident … by Eric Schlosser (sp?) Reply
11. Linsays: March 28, 2016 at 4:21 pm There is a similar story told by the aid of one of the Chiefs of staff of the military of the day of the confrontation. All of them were in Kennedy’s office waiting to see if the Soviet fleet would cross the red line that JFK had drawn as the “act of war” line. The guy in command of the American ships called to say that the Soviet ships had crossed the line. All the people in the room were commanding the president to give the order to attack. The guy telling his eye witness story said that President Kennedy sat there in his rocking chair with everyone yelling at him about how we “had to hit them.” This would surely have resulted in a nuclear war. His family had already been evacuated from Washington and the plane was standing ready to take him out to the caves in the Midwest. Finally, he said, with tears in his eyes, ” I can’t. I have children.” Now JFK was a decorated war hero. He was no wimp. A minute later, the phone rang. It was the commander again. It was a mistake. The Soviet fleet had not crossed the red line. They had stopped and turned around. When I heard that story, my first thought was that this was what JFK was sent to us for, for that one moment in history when one strong man stood against all his advisors and the opinion of the world and said, “I can’t. I have children” to save us all unknowingly from an error that would have had devastating consequences beyond the imagination.
About Robert
Robert Krulwich is cohost of Radiolab, WNYC’s Peabody Award–winning program about “big ideas” and now one of public radio’s most popular shows. It is carried on more than 500 radio stations, and its podcasts are downloaded over five million times each month.In Curiously Krulwich, Robert looks for “the little things that catch my eye—that when I lean in, get bigger, richer, and much more compelling.”You can see more of Robert’s work at radiolab.com and follow him on Twitter at @rkrulwich.
March 29, 2016
Russia threatens to ban Google, Twitter, Facebook

By Cory Bennett

Russia is warning Google, Twitter and Facebook that they could be banned in the country if they don’t agree to hand over data on Russian bloggers and allow the Kremlin to block certain websites, Reuters reported.

Moscow claims failure to do so would violate Russian Internet laws that President Vladimir Putin promotes as security measures, but critics say amount to censorship.

A spokesman for Russia’s media watchdog said the three firms use encryption technology that prohibits the government from blocking sites that promote “unsanctioned protests and unrest,” which is allowed under Moscow’s Internet laws.

The laws also mandate that companies turn over data on any Russian bloggers with more than 3,000 readers per day.

The media oversight agency wrote each company, pressing them to comply with these dicta.

“In our letters we regularly remind [companies] of the consequences of violating the legislation,” the spokesman, Vadim Ampelonsky, told Reuters.

Russia has passed a series of Internet control laws in recent years.

The Kremlin granted itself the power to remove, without court order, sites promoting unauthorized protests. Another law requires popular bloggers to register with the government.

It’s not clear how Google, Twitter and Facebook will respond to the request.

According to transparency reports from the three tech firms, they have previously rejected most, if not all, of Moscow’s requests for specific user data.

“We realize they are registered under U.S. jurisdiction,” Ampelonsky said. “But I think in this case they should demonstrate equal respect to national legislation.”

thehill.com, 22.05.2015

May 23, 2015
Borderlands: The View from Azerbaijan

By George Friedman

Azerbaijan, constantly changing world affairs and here is what George Friedman who is publicly know as shadow CIA has to say about Azerbaijan and history.

I arrive in Azerbaijan as the country celebrates Victory Day, the day successor states of the former Soviet Union celebrate the defeat of Germany in World War II. No one knows how many Soviet citizens died in that war — perhaps 22 million. The number is staggering and represents both the incompetence and magnificence of Russia, which led the Soviets in war. Any understanding of Russia that speaks of one without the other is flawed.

As I write, fireworks are going off over the Caspian Sea. The pyrotechnics are long and elaborate, sounding like an artillery barrage. They are a reminder that Baku was perhaps the most important place in the Nazi-Soviet war. It produced almost all of the Soviet Union’s petroleum. The Germans were desperate for it and wanted to deny it to Moscow. Germany’s strategy after 1942, including the infamous battle of Stalingrad, turned on Baku’s oil. In the end, the Germans threw an army against the high Caucasus guarding Baku. In response, an army raised in the Caucasus fought and defeated them. The Soviets won the war. They wouldn’t have if the Germans had reached Baku. It is symbolic, at least to me, that these celebrations blend into the anniversary of the birth of Heydar Aliyev, the late president of Azerbaijan who endured the war and later forged the post-Soviet identity of his country. He would have been 91 on May 10.

Azerbaijan

Baku is strategic again today, partly because of oil. I’ve started the journey here partly by convenience and partly because Azerbaijan is key to any counter-Russian strategy that might emerge. My purpose on this trip is to get a sense of the degree to which individual European states feel threatened by Russia, and if they do, the level of effort and risk they are prepared to endure. For Europe does not exist as anything more than a geographic expression; it is the fears and efforts of the individual nation-states constituting it that will determine the course of this affair. Each nation is different, and each makes its own calculus of interest. My interest is to understand their thinking, not only about Russia but also about the European Union, the United States and ultimately themselves. Each is unique; it isn’t possible to make a general statement about them.

Some question whether the Caucasus region and neighboring Turkey are geographically part of Europe. There are many academic ways to approach this question. My approach, however, is less sophisticated. Modern European history cannot be understood without understanding the Ottoman Empire and the fact that it conquered much of the southeastern part of the European peninsula. Russia conquered the three Caucasian states — Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan — and many of their institutions are Russian, hence European. If an organic European expression does exist, it can be argued to be Eurovision, the pan-continental music competition. The Azerbaijanis won it in 2011, which should settle any debate on their “Europeanness.”

But more important, a strategy to block Russia is hard to imagine without including its southern flank. There is much talk of sanctions on Russia. But sanctions can be countered and always ignore a key truth: Russia has always been economically dysfunctional. It has created great empires and defeated Napoleon and Hitler in spite of that. Undermining Russia’s economy may be possible, but that does not always undermine Russia’s military power. That Soviet military power outlived the economically driven collapse of the Soviet Union confirms this point. And the issue at the moment is military.

The solution found for dealing with the Soviet Union during the Cold War was containment. The architect of this strategy was diplomat George Kennan, whose realist approach to geopolitics may have lost some adherents but not its relevance. A cordon sanitaire was constructed around the Soviet Union through a system of alliances. In the end, the Soviets were unable to expand and choked on their own inefficiency. There is a strange view abroad that the 21st century is dramatically different from all prior centuries and such thinking is obsolete. I have no idea why this should be so. The 21st century is simply another century, and there has been no transcendence of history. Containment was a core strategy and it seems likely that it will be adopted again — if countries like Azerbaijan are prepared to participate.

To understand Azerbaijan you must begin with two issues: oil and a unique approach to Islam. At the beginning of the 20th century, over half the world’s oil production originated near Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. Hence Hitler’s strategy after 1942. Today, Azerbaijani energy production is massive, but it cannot substitute for Russia’s production. Russian energy production, meanwhile, defines part of the strategic equation. Many European countries depend substantially on Russian energy, particularly natural gas. They have few alternatives. There is talk of U.S. energy being shipped to Europe, but building the infrastructure for that (even if there are supplies) will take many years before it can reduce Europe’s dependence on Russia.

Withholding energy would be part of any Russian counter to Western pressure, even if Russia were to suffer itself. Any strategy against Russia must address the energy issue, begin with Azerbaijan, and be about more than production. Azerbaijan is not a major producer of gas compared to oil. On the other side of the Caspian Sea, however, Turkmenistan is. Its resources, coupled with Azerbaijan’s, would provide a significant alternative to Russian energy. Turkmenistan has an interest in not selling through Russia and would be interested in a Trans-Caspian pipeline. That pipeline would have to pass through Azerbaijan, connecting onward to infrastructure in Turkey. Assuming Moscow had no effective counters, this would begin to provide a serious alternative to Russian energy and decrease Moscow’s leverage. But this would all depend on Baku’s willingness and ability to resist pressure from every direction.

Azerbaijan lies between Russia and Iran. Russia is the traditional occupier of Azerbaijan and its return is what Baku fears the most. Iran is partly an Azeri country. Nearly a quarter of its citizens, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are Azeri. But while both Azerbaijan and Iran are predominantly Shiite, Azerbaijan is a militantly secular state. Partly due to the Soviet experience and partly because of the unique evolution of Azeri identity since the 19th century, Azerbaijan separates the private practice of Islam from public life. I recall once attending a Jewish Passover feast in Baku that was presided over by an Orthodox rabbi, with security provided by the state. To be fair, Iran has a Jewish minority that has its own lawmaker in parliament. But any tolerance in Iran flows from theocratic dogma, whereas in Azerbaijan it is rooted in a constitution that is more explicitly secular than any in the European Union, save that of France.

This is just one obvious wedge between Azerbaijan and Iran, and Tehran has made efforts to influence the Azeri population. For the moment, relations are somewhat better but there is an insoluble tension that derives from geopolitical reality and the fact that any attack on Iran could come from Azerbaijan. Furthering this wedge are the close relations between Azerbaijan and Israel. The United States currently blocks most weapons sales to Azerbaijan. Israel — with U.S. approval — sells the needed weapons. This gives us a sense of the complexity of the relationship, recalling that complexity undermines alliances.

The complexity of alliances also defines Russia’s reality. It occupies the high Caucasus overlooking the plains of Azerbaijan. Armenia is a Russian ally, bound by an agreement that permits Russian bases through 2044. Yerevan also plans to join the Moscow-led Customs Union, and Russian firms own a large swath of the Armenian economy. Armenia feels isolated. It remains hostile to Turkey for Ankara’s unwillingness to acknowledge events of a century ago as genocide. Armenia also fought a war with Azerbaijan in the 1990s, shortly after independence, for a region called Nagorno-Karabakh that had been part of Azerbaijan — a region that it lost in the war and wants back. Armenia, caught between Turkey and an increasingly powerful Azerbaijan, regards Russia as a guarantor of its national security.

For Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh remains a critical issue. Azerbaijan holds that U.N. resolutions have made it clear that Armenia’s attack constituted a violation of international law, and a diplomatic process set up in Minsk to resolve the crisis has proven ineffective. Azerbaijan operates on two tracks on this issue. It pursues national development, as can be seen in Baku, a city that reflects the oil wealth of the country. It will not endanger that development, nor will it forget about Nagorno-Karabakh. At some point, any nation aligning itself with Azerbaijan will need to take a stand on this frozen conflict, and that is a high price for most.

Which leads me to an interesting symmetry of incomprehension between the United States and Azerbaijan. The United States does not want to sell weapons directly to Azerbaijan because of what it regards as violations of human rights by the Azerbaijani government. The Americans find it incomprehensible that Baku, facing Russia and Iran and needing the United States, cannot satisfy American sensibilities by avoiding repression — a change that would not threaten the regime. Azerbaijan’s answer is that it is precisely the threats it faces from Iran and Russia that require Baku to maintain a security state. Both countries send operatives into Azerbaijan to destabilize it. What the Americans consider dissidents, Azerbaijan sees as agents of foreign powers. Washington disputes this and continually offends Baku with its pronouncements. The Azerbaijanis, meanwhile, continually offend the Americans.

This is similar to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Most Americans have never heard of it and don’t care who owns it. For the Azerbaijanis, this is an issue of fundamental historical importance. They cannot understand how, after assisting the United States in Afghanistan, risking close ties with Israel, maintaining a secular Islamic state and more, the United States not only cannot help Baku with Nagorno-Karabakh but also insists on criticizing Azerbaijan.

The question on human rights revolves around the interpretation of who is being arrested and for what reason. For a long time this was an issue that didn’t need to be settled. But after the Ukrainian crisis, U.S.-Azerbaijani relations became critical. It is not just energy; rather, in the event of the creation of a containment alliance, Azerbaijan is the southeastern anchor of the line on the Caspian Sea. In addition, since Georgia is absolutely essential as a route for pipelines, given Armenia’s alliance with Russia, Azerbaijan’s support for Georgian independence is essential. Azerbaijan is the cornerstone for any U.S.-sponsored Caucasus strategy, should it develop.

I do not want to get into the question of either Nagorno-Karabakh or human rights in Azerbaijan. It is, for me, a fruitless issue arising from the deep historical and cultural imperatives of each. But I must take exception to one principle that the U.S. State Department has: an unwillingness to do comparative analysis. In other words, the State Department condemns all violations equally, whether by nations hostile to the United States or friendly to it, whether by countries with wholesale violations or those with more limited violations. When the State Department does pull punches, there is a whiff of bias, as with Georgia and Armenia, which — while occasionally scolded — absorb less criticism than Azerbaijan, despite each country’s own imperfect record.

Even assuming the validity of State Department criticism, no one argues that Azerbaijani repression rises anywhere near the horrors of Joseph Stalin. I use Stalin as an example because Franklin Roosevelt allied the United States with Stalin to defeat Hitler and didn’t find it necessary to regularly condemn Stalin while the Soviet Union was carrying the burden of fighting the war, thereby protecting American interests. That same geopolitical realism animated Kennan and ultimately created the alliance architecture that served the United States throughout the Cold War. Is it necessary to offend someone who will not change his behavior and whom you need for your strategy? The State Department of an earlier era would say no.

It was interesting to attend a celebration of U.S.-Azerbaijani relations in Washington the week before I came to Baku. In the past, these events were subdued. This one was different, because many members of Congress attended. Two guests were particularly significant. One was Charles Schumer of New York, who declared the United States and Azerbaijan to be great democracies. The second was Nancy Pelosi, long a loyalist to Armenian interests. She didn’t say much but chose to show up. It is clear that the Ukrainian crisis triggered this turnout. It is clear that Azerbaijan’s importance is actually obvious to some in Congress, and it is also clear that it signals tension over the policy of criticizing human rights records without comparing them to those of other countries and of ignoring the criticized country’s importance to American strategy.

This is not just about Azerbaijan. The United States will need to work with Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary — all of whom have been found wanting by the State Department in some ways. This criticism does not — and will not — produce change. Endless repetition of the same is the height of ineffectiveness. It will instead make any strategy the United States wants to construct in Europe ineffective. In the end, I would argue that a comparison between Russia and these other countries matters. Perfect friends are hard to find. Refusing to sell weapons to someone you need is not a good way to create an alliance.

In the past, it seemed that such an alliance was merely Cold War nostalgia by people who did not realize and appreciate that we had reached an age too wise to think of war and geopolitics. But the events in Ukraine raise the possibility that those unreconstructed in their cynicism toward the human condition may well have been right. Alliances may in fact be needed. In that case, Roosevelt’s attitude toward Stalin is instructive.

Edited By Tolga CAKIR

May 12, 2014
Russia warns US against ‘hasty’ sanctions
Russian Soldier

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned the US not to take “hasty and reckless steps” in response to the crisis in Ukraine’s Crimea region.

According to BBC, in a phone call with his US counterpart John Kerry, Mr Lavrov said imposing sanctions on Moscow would harm the US.

Pro-Russian troops have been in control of Crimea for the last week.

Earlier, a stand-off involving pro-Russian soldiers at a Ukrainian military base outside Sevastopol reportedly ended without incident.

Crimea’s parliament announced on Thursday it would hold a referendum on 16 March on whether to join Russia or remain part of Ukraine.

Russia’s parliament has promised to support Crimea if it chooses to become part of Russia.
Continue reading the main story

Crimea
- Autonomous republic within Ukraine
- Transferred from Russia in 1954
- Ethnic Russians – 58.5%*
- Ethnic Ukrainians – 24.4%*
- Crimean Tatars – 12.1%*
- Source: Ukraine census 2001
- Why Crimea is so dangerous
- Crimean vote tests Western nerves
The vote has been denounced as “illegitimate” by the interim government in Kiev, which took power after President Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia last month in the wake of mass protests against his government and deadly clashes with security forces.

In their telephone conversation on Friday, Mr Lavrov warned Mr Kerry against taking “hasty and unthought-through steps capable of causing harm to Russian-US relations”, Russia’s foreign ministry reports.

Mr Lavrov said imposing sanctions on Russia in response to its involvement in Ukraine “will inevitably have a boomerang effect against the US itself”.

The US State Department said Mr Kerry had “underscored the importance of finding a constructive way to resolve the situation diplomatically, which would address the interests of the people of Ukraine, Russia and the international community”.

“Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov agreed to continue to consult in the days ahead on the way forward,” said the US statement.

Journalists beaten

Pro-Russian troops have been blockading key installations in Crimea for a number of days

The majority Russian-speaking Crimea region is of political and strategic significance to both Russia and Ukraine

On Friday evening, the Interfax-Ukraine news agency cited Ukraine’s defence ministry as saying a lorry had rammed open the gates of the missile defence base A2355 outside the Crimean city of Sevastopol and that about 20 “attackers” had entered, throwing stun grenades.

The Ukrainian troops barricaded themselves inside a building and their commander began negotiations before any shots were fired, it added.

The BBC’s Christian Fraser, who visited the scene, said the gates did not appear to have been driven through, and there was no sign that the base had been seized.

There were two military lorries with Russian number plates outside the gates, surrounded by irregular soldiers and a very hostile crowd of pro-Russian demonstrators, our correspondent adds.

Two journalists who attempted to take photographs were beaten badly.

Later, a Ukrainian officer told a Daily Telegraph journalist that the stand-off had ended after the “talks”, and that the Russian lorries and about 30 to 60 Russians troops had withdrawn. No shots are believed to have been fired.

‘Mortal danger’

The Pentagon estimates that 20,000 Russian troops may now be in Crimea, while the Ukrainian border guards’ commander puts the figure at 30,000.

Ukraine’s team was represented by a lone flag-bearer at the Sochi Paralympic Winter Games opening ceremony

President Putin insists that the armed men are local “self-defence forces”, and are not under his command.

But he says Russia has the right to use force to protect Russian citizens and speakers who he says are threatened in post-uprising Ukraine.

His spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on Russian state television on Friday: “Can Russia stand idly by when Russians somewhere in the world – especially in neighbouring Ukraine – face mortal danger?”

The BBC’s James Reynolds reports from government buildings in Donetsk, eastern Ukraine, a focal point for tension

Calls for talks between Russia and Ukraine mediated by the West “make us smile”, he said.

The Russian foreign ministry separately accused the EU of taking an “extremely unconstructive position” by halting talks on easing visa restrictions on Russian citizens and on a new pact to replace the 1997 Russia-EU Partnership and Co-operation Agreement.

Meanwhile, Russia’s state-owned energy company, Gazprom, warned Ukraine that its gas supply might be cut off unless its $1.89bn (£1.13bn) of debts were cleared.

Gazprom halted supplies to Ukraine for almost two weeks in 2009, a move that caused shortages in Europe.

Ukrainian officials have said the state has come close to bankruptcy since protesters ousted President Yanukovych at the end of February. Officials say $35bn (£21bn) is needed to get through this year and 2015.

Mr Putin said he hoped the Paralympic Winter Games, which opened in the Black Sea resort of Sochi on Friday, would help “lower the heat of passions over Ukraine”.

The Ukrainian team was represented only by a single athlete carrying the national flag at the opening ceremony.

Valeriy Sushkevych, head of the National Paralympic Committee of Ukraine, said its athletes had debated whether to boycott the Games but had decided to compete unless the “crisis were to escalate”.
March 8, 2014
Russia bans Australia beef products

According to AFP, Russia on Monday imposed a ban on Australian beef byproducts such as offal over the use of a growth stimulant allowed in some nations but that Moscow considers unsafe.

The temporary restrictions also affect Belarus and Kazakhstan — two ex-Soviet nations that are part of a Moscow-led Customs Union.

Australia Beef

Australia is the world’s third-largest exporter of beef after the United States and Brazil. It reported shipping 30,000 tonnes of beef to Russia in 2013.

The Interfax news agency said Australia had sent 13,000 tonnes of beef byproducts to ex-Soviet countries in the first 10 months of last year — most of them to Russia — worth $21.3 million.

Russia’s agriculture watchdog Rosselkhoznadzor said the ban was imposed after the discovery of the growth stimulant trenbolone “in several shipments” of Australian beef byproducts.

Rosselkhoznadzor chief Sergei Dankvert told Interfax that the ban applied to beef byproducts because they accumulate the steroid in greater quantities than regular meat.

Russia has frequently imposed temporary bans on meat products over the use of hormones that are allowed in nations such as the United States but restricted by Moscow’s more stringent regulations.

January 27, 2014
Russia, Turkey Seek to Boost Trade to $100 Bln

Tags: Alexander Novak, Taner Yildiz, Turkey, Russia

ANTALYA, April 20 (RIA Novosti) – Russia and Turkey are committed to expanding mutual investment and cooperation, aiming to bring bilateral trade to $100 billion, the Russian and Turkish energy ministers said on Saturday.

The Turkish-Russian Joint Economic Committee (JEC) held its 12th Meeting in the southern province of Antalya with the participation of Turkish Energy and Natural Sources Minister Taner Yildiz and Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak.

Yildiz said there is good potential to increase the volume of trade from the current $34 billion to $100 billion.

Around 1,500 Russian companies currently operate in Turkey while Turkish contractors are involved in projects in Russia worth a total of $50 billion, he said, according to the Hurriyet daily.

He also said Turkish-Russian cooperation could continue in third countries.

Yildiz and Novak signed a JEC protocol prioritizing the diversification and expansion of bilateral trade and the creation of an investor-friendly environment in order to achieve the $100 billion target.

April 21, 2013