President Vladimir Putin spoke at unusual length and candour at a press conference in Moscow on 6 November. While we may or may not agree with his perspectives on the various issues raised, it will be his views (not yours or mine or President Bush's) that will determine all future actions of the Russian government. While the subject press conference was called in reaction to the discussions held with the Indian Prime Minister who expressed Indian concerns over the increased instability in Kashmir that has resulted from the "unholy union" of the United States and Pakistan. Putin expanded his agreement with the Indian position by references to the direct results of horrible events of 11 September. The following is a synopsis of related statements made by Putin over the past month:

a)Coalitions occur when a commonality of "national interests" evolve.

b)No better example could be made than the reaction to the terrible events of 11 September. There was a commonality of national interests among those who had been, or were likely to be, subjected to terrorism

c)However, there was even at the beginning, a doubt as to who was a "terrorist" and who was a "freedom fighter." President Bush spoke out against terrorism as a US reaction to attacks against New York and Washington. US "national interest" was directly tied to his reactions.

d) During the British occupation Of Palestine, the Jews were the "terrorists." Yet when Israel was formed under US pressure at the UN in San Francisco, the Arabs became the "terrorists" although they identified themselves as "freedom fighters."

e) During the prolonged British occupation of Northern Ireland, the IRA (funded mainly from the United States and Canada) were/are the "terrorists." Will they be subjected to US bombing with much "collateral damage?" Or will "national interests" preclude such action taken so easily against the Irish

f) When we, the Russians fought "terrorism" in Chechnya, we were called aggressors by Washington. Now President Bush has agree that the "terrorists" we fought were in fact such . A "national interest" change designed to influence Russian reaction to current events in Afghanistan?

g) One who knows Russian history will understand that we too have a Munroe Doctrine. We do not want enemy states on our borders. We tried to stop the infiltration of Muslim extremists from Afghanistan that could undermine the stability of the many regions of the USSR that are Muslim and close to the Afghan border. To stop us, the CIA and the Pakistanis formed, trained and equipped the Taliban. We could not withstand the pressure. We withdrew. Is it "human" that we are delighted that the US is now bombing their creation? Is it not to our "national interests" to have the Taliban destroyed? Is it not justice that the remnants of our Afghan government, now identified as the Northern Alliance be restored to its rightful position?

h) These are ideal conditions to make allies, a commonality of national interests. The dangers to continued collaboration is a break in the commonality.

i)Much has been made of "humanitarian" opposition to the bombing and to "collateral damage." There are double standards applied. We Russians understand the losses that occur during conflict. Some of our allies waited and waited while we were losing not only soldiers but also our wives and children on a scale still not understood by Western historians, academics or even by their military staffs. We have suffered and we know the impact of civilian death by bombing.

j) I have often said, following the horrible events in New York and Washington that the "national interests" of one's allies must remain sufficiently close that each of the members of any coalition is willing to give a little. Bush understands. He gave away on the ABM defence programme, he gave away on the cancellation of the current treaty and on other matters 1 am not prepared to discuss here. One thing is essential for all to understand, there must be a clear and agreed definition of "terrorism."

Without clarity and understanding "national interests" will preclude strikes against the guilty and direct them against irritants or opponents to those national interests!

k) We are in danger of a breakup in the coalition strategy for the reasons I have listed. Are the IRA "terrorists" or are they "freedom fighters" financed by those who are coalition members? Is the current bombing a display of great power, of vengeance or action to do "something" regardless of who is hurt?

The above is an extract from the vast amount of data I have accumulated from innumerable sources. The material does reflect a Russian perspective, which is essential if one is to fully understand why the Russians do what they do! The material will be used to complete my often delayed book/articles on "RUSSIA: The Impact of Putin."

In closing, I will stress one aspect of the conclusions I have reached:
i) Putin will cooperate ONLY if Russia's "national interests" are NOT adversely affected;
ii) he will give a little but ONLY if he seeks a greater advantage for Russia;
iii) he is a very intelligent man with carefully selected clever advisors in each discipline related to Russia' well being;
iv) he is NOT on the make. He is NOT looking for foreign funds deposited in safe havens;
v) he is totally ruthless when such action is required to achieve Russia's internal and foreign objectives; and;
vi) he will go to ANY end to re-establish Russia as one of the two senior and EQUAL players in the world.

George Kamoff-Nicolsky is a member of RUSI of VI. He is a former intelligence officer and DND strategic analyst expert on China, Russia, and the former Soviet Union countries.

top

 previous article

next article