As the White House has a new tenant now, who needs treaties? Although, the blame is equally on the Russians for creating the intermediate-range missile provocation.

The last time I wrote about the treaty banning ‘intermediate-range’ nuclear missiles was 31 years ago, and I really thought I’d never have to visit that tedious subject again. More fool me.

John Bolton, the ideologically rigid and bad-tempered man, whom you send when you don’t want a negotiation to succeed, has just been in Moscow to tell the Russians personally that US President Donald Trump is going to tear up the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

That’s what you would expect from the new US National Security Adviser and his impulsive and ill-informed boss, but the Russians in this case are just as much to blame for creating the provocation in the first place. It’s one of those distressingly frequent occasions when idiots are in charge on both sides.

The INF Treaty, signed by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, bans land-based ballistic or cruise missiles with a range of between 500 and 5,500 km. What the Russians have actually done, it seems, is to take a perfectly legal sea-launched cruise missile, the Kalibr, which has a range of up to 2,500 km, and put it on a mobile land-based launcher.

The Kalibr is a quite useful weapon that can deliver about 500 kg of conventional explosives or a nuclear warhead on an enemy, although it would take at least three hours to reach a target 2,500 km away. (Cruise missiles travel at about the same speed as airliners.)

In 2015, Russia made a show of firing 18 Kalibrs (with conventional warheads) at Syrian targets from ships in the Caspian Sea.

Why would the Russians want to put these missiles on land-based launchers, which violates the INF rules? The only plausible explanation is that there are some Chinese targets that Russia cannot hit with its sea-based cruise missiles. (There are no US/NATO targets that cannot already be reached by the sea-launched variety.) This is plausible, but it is not rational.

Russia is perfectly capable of reaching those Chinese targets with ballistic missiles, both land- and submarine-launched, that would get to their targets far faster than the new land-based version of the Kalibr cruise missile, called SSC-8 by NATO.

Being able to do the same thing, a third, slower way hardly justifies the potential political cost of violating the INF Treaty for Russia as a whole. It may nevertheless appeal to the particular branch of the Russian armed forces that would control that third way, for inter-service rivalries are as sharp and stupid in Russia as they are in the United States.

From a Western point of view, the SSC-8, while illegal, does not pose any new threat. The real reason the INF Treaty was needed three decades ago was that the Russians were then introducing intermediate-range BALLISTIC missiles, the once-famous SS-20s, that could reach their targets in Western Europe within a few minutes of launch.

The border between North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) and Soviet forces was then about 500 km closer to Western capitals than it is now, and there were huge tank-heavy armies stacked up on either side of the so-called Iron Curtain. An ultra-fast Russian strike by nuclear-tipped SS-20s on Nato army bases and airfields, followed immediately by an all-out ground invasion, could theoretically have succeeded (although only a fool would have chanced it).

In any case, the Russians and Americans negotiated instead, and ultimately agreed to scrap all the Soviet SS-20s and their American equivalents, the Pershing missiles. Since the US had also deployed some land-based cruise missiles in Europe (the Russians did not), the INF Treaty also banned those. Almost 2,700 missiles were destroyed, and the whole issue went away for three decades. It isn’t really back now.

There are no massive tank armies ready to roll in Europe anymore, and the Cold War is long over. The details of the Russian-American ‘military balance’ are of concern mainly to the experts, many of whom make their living by discovering some imbalance or discrepancy that will enable their (military) clients to demand more or newer weapons to counter the new ‘threat’.

The Russians have broken the rules by developing and testing the land-based SSC-8 cruise missiles, but they haven’t actually deployed them in meaningful numbers. They may never do so, because it would not give them any significant strategic advantage. This was the logic that led former US President Barack Obama to protest to the Russians about the new weapon in 2014, but not to abrogate the INF Treaty. What would that gain, except to legalise what the idiots in the Russian military were doing?

Obama probably assumed that the adults were still in charge in the Kremlin, and that they were engaged in the same struggle to contain the random enthusiasms of Russian military planners that all US presidents must wage against their Pentagon equivalents. But the White House has a different tenant now.

(The writer is an independent journalist)

Writer: Gwynne Dyer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Although making Germany great again will be difficult as it is still haunted by the past, the entire motion is a great initiative. However, to achieve results, Germany needs to pull itself together.

Twenty eight years after the German reunification — east Germany (formerly German Democratic Republic) became a part of the Federal Republic of Germany on October 3 — Germans are better off, economically, and more prosperous. But politically, Germany, the engine of growth in Europe, is still haunted by its past and unable to feel its influence and clout. Reason: Flux in domestic politics, where mainstream parties are being eclipsed by single issue parties like the new Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Greens. That’s what one discovered last week in Berlin while interacting with politicians, security analysts and bureaucrats.

Is Germany abdicating its leadership of Europe and responsibility in shaping contours of world order and Western values to France which is politically and militarily more compact with an independent nuclear deterrent? James Bindenagel and Philip Ackerman of the University of Bonn write that Germany is coping with its past, Cold War et al, still devoid of strategic culture, passive, timid and with a guilt conscience. But morally uncompromising. It needs a national strategy…

How is India seen in Germany? Its red Rajasthan sandstone embassy in central Berlin, a novelty a decade ago, has lost its aura and charm. Considered a middle power in the class of Japan, South Korea and Australia, India is also seen as a rising power; though all eyes are trained on China. Germany is India’s biggest economic partner in Europe and sixth largest at the global level. India-German development cooperation operates at different levels — cleaning the Ganga, cleaning India, wildlife protection, metro projects in Lucknow, Bhubaneswar, Kochi, Bengaluru and much more.

Two issues dominate the German discourse: Re-energising Germany and keeping Europe together. Berlin seeks to establish an alliance of multilateralists to prevent unilateralist behaviour. We were told that Indians do not realise that European Union (EU) countries have ceded some of their sovereignty to Brussels. This shared sovereignty is under stress due to US President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recall of the Ottoman Empire, uncertain Brexit, China’s blistering rise and worldwide surge of nationalism. “We are a trading nation. Now China is setting the rules of trade,” said one official interlocutor, adding “two-thirds of our cargo containers pass through the Indian Ocean”.

Germany’s revived interest in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) mirrors EU’s new maritime security strategy and action plan. This renewed interest in the IOR is marked by plans to strengthen a decaying German Navy with new Frigates. Berlin has also put some money in the Indian-Ocean Rim Association, headquartered in Mauritius. It also supported the recent statement by Sri Lanka Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) must become the foundational pillar of IOR to prevent a repeat of fait accompli in the South China Sea.

Afghanistan, with which India’s security is inextricably woven, has become a peripheral issue in Germany. With 1,300 troops located at Mazar-i-Sharif, the recurring phrase one heard is: “Time is running out. Germans are not interested but politicians are, to demonstrate solidarity with Nato and the fragile Transatlantic Partnership.” Germany does not want Afghanistan to become another Syria. It will continue providing development aid and maintain its security forces.

A top politician commented that former US President Barack Obama made a big mistake by pulling out US troops from Afghanistan. Our conversations were held in the background of recent bloody and disorderly parliamentary elections last weekend, which were delayed for three years but miraculously held. China is very sensitive about its image in Europe. It has divided the wealthy North and low growth countries in South over the development of infrastructure. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) resonates in smaller countries, like Montenegro, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Greece and Czech Republic. They show their loyalty to China by differing from Germany and the EU in their stance on BRI.

Like India, Germany and EU have questioned issues of transparency, debt entrapment, sovereignty and implementation while not endorsing the BRI. Smaller countries have signed Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreements with China, and Czech Republic has called itself the unsinkable aircraft carrier for China. This has shown the fault lines in Europe and absence of consensus in foreign policy in Brussels. China has succeeded in extending its string of pearls from South Asia to parts of Europe.

Brussels has come out with a connectivity document as riposte to BRI, like Trump greenlighted last month a new $60 billion United States International Development Finance Corporation to bankroll projects in Asia and Africa. But there is no money on the table, though the European Investment Bank is worth Euro 90 billion. Meanwhile, China is buying up companies in Europe.

German elections in Bavaria and Hessen later this year have/will reveal chinks in the vision of the mainstream parties — the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the ruling grand coalition in sharp decline. Last Friday, October 19, visiting the Willy Brandt Haus, the citadel of the SPD in Berlin, we heard charged debates on the future of the party and the grand coalition.

Questions of leadership, internal restructuring and possible alternative to the present coalition are likely to be resolved by next year if the AfD is to be contained and rolled back on immigration and hyper-nationalism. One million Syrian refugees are in Germany along with millions of Turks, Russians and Italians as guest workers. Germans are being encouraged and incentivised to produce children.

Making Germany great again is not kosher as it conflicts with the past. But making Europe great again is fine. As the writers from University of Bonn have noted: German public aversion to militarism has not changed. Sixty seven per cent support the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) but only 40 per cent would want to defend a Nato ally if attacked by Russia.

Inward-looking Germans have forgotten how during the 1971 India-Pakistan war, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, Chancellor Brandt — Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) not being a member of the UN, an ally of the US and embedded in the Cold War, still punched above its weight in its mediation between the three countries. A secret agreement between the FRG and India for the latter not recognising the GDR before it had first, contained the quid pro quo of the FRG becoming the first Western country to recognise Bangladesh on February 4, 1972. Further, Brandt was able to persuade Dacca not to insist on war trials of 195 Pakistani prisoners of wars (PoWs), paving the way for the release of 300,000 Bangladeshis in Pakistan.

Germany proved it could rise to the occasion if its domestic politics was stable. For their own good and for Europe, Germany has to pull together to become great again.

(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped Integrated Defence Staff)

Writer: Ashok K Mehta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Though the US has warned the pact between India and Russia could attract sanctions under the US law, the BJP-led government still decided to go ahead with the $5-billion deal.

The signing of the deal for S-400 air defense systems worth $5.43 billion earlier this month between India and Russia is significant in many ways. It is not just another deal but an exemplification of the coming of age of a regional powerhouse which is now confident of its moves and does its homework well before taking calculated risks.

More than its efficacy of being a technological marvel, which has the potential to neutralise almost all kinds of aerial threats emanating from China, Pakistan or Pakistan-based radical terror groups, the purchase of S-400 is the pinnacle of India’s diplomatic statecraft wherein it meandered most skillfully through the tumultuous contours of American sanctions and yet reached its objective without antagonizing too many.

At best, there will be awe; at worse, there will be a grudging acknowledgment of India’s grit beneath the soft smiles. But punitive sanctions can be ruled out for the moment. The outcome, it seems, has been thought out by the Modi Administration to the end before throwing the dice.

The acquisition of S-400, coupled with the Indo-Israeli project on the development of Medium-Range Surface-to-Air Missile (MR-SAM), in addition to the progress on development of indigenous anti-ballistic missile systems, namely Advanced Air Defence and Prithvi Air Defence, would invariably make India much better equipped in air defence capabilities than it was a few years back.

It is generally not easy to buy weapon systems or to even do businesses with a country on which sanctions have been imposed by the US Administration. Among others, the Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) is aimed at imposing punitive sanctions against any country which would actively engage in ‘significant transactions’ with Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors. These sanctions are in addition to the sanctions imposed previously on Russia by the US Administration in the aftermath of the Ukraine-Russia face-off.

Incidentally, under the aegis of the Modi Administration, the S-400 deal is not the first but the second major business deal involving Russia despite American sanctions. The first was the acquisition of Essar Oil by Russia’s energy behemoth, Rosneft and its partners in a $12.9 billion deal in 2017 that stamped Russia’s first major investment in India’s downstream energy business. Though a private deal, it undoubtedly had blessings from both Governments since it involved similar meandering through American sanctions.

Defense deals involving billions of dollars do not happen at the blink of an eye. The signing of contracts is generally preceded by years of hard negotiations.  Interestingly, since 2015, even as the Modi Government continued with its price negotiations with Russia for the purchase of S-400 air defense systems, India also simultaneously continued to deepen its relationship with the US, which was validated by America declaring India as a ‘major defense partner’ in 2016. This was followed by India’s eventual entry into the coveted Missile Technology Control Regime or MTCR club, Wassenaar Arrangement and Australia Group, albeit with strong support from the US, without which these entries would have been an uphill task. The Modi Administration deserves credit for successfully pursuing the US in supporting India’s candidature.

Recently, India was also accorded the STA-1 or Strategic Trade Authorisation Level-1 status by the US, thereby paving way for exports of high-tech equipment to India.  Additionally, India is now also eligible to avail critical high-end communication and imagery technologies from the US after New Delhi signed the Communication Compatibility and Security Agreement with the US.

In between, the Trump Administration renamed the Asia Pacific Command into the US Indo Pacific Command, a reflection of the increasing importance that Washington was given to the regional powerhouse. All this while, the US was well aware of India’s negotiations with Russia on S-400, even as India made it clear about its reluctance to toe the US line on issues of sanctions on Iran and Russia.

For the US, even though its defense and energy companies would want CAATSA to be imposed vigorously in order to wean away many countries from Russian client list, the path for the same was not that easy. Apparently, the Modi Government seems to have been successful in convincing the US that if it wants India to be a net provider of security in the Indo Pacific region, then it has to take care of India’s considerations.

The issue at stake is not just about S-400, but a legacy of issues related to a huge chunk of Indian weapons platforms being of Russian origin which needs spares and support from Russian manufacturers. Thus, while India would deepen its defense ties with the US, it is for sure that it would not ditch Russia either.

Further, it would not be wrong to presume that India also read well the divergence of views that exists between US President Trump and the US Congress on the issue of Russia. During his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Trump tweeted the following, “Our relationship with Russia has never been worse, thanks to many years of US foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!”

Eventually, it was his reluctance to go ahead with the implementation of CAATSA and India’s hardball negotiations that were perhaps the reasons for the US Congress to allow provisions for a presidential waiver to sanctions on CAATSA under the NDAA-2019, specifically for countries like India, in the greater interest of protecting Indo-US alliance. If the US had apprehensions about the confidentiality of radar signatures of some of its critical aerial platforms sold to India, that concern has already been addressed by India through assurances of not sharing any such signature with Russia platforms like S-400.

After having declared India a ‘major defense partner’ it would have been difficult for the US to declare sanctions on India. Besides, the American experience of imposing sanctions on India post-nuclear test in 1998 was proof enough that sanctions simply do not work.

India did not collapse and on the contrary, emerged stronger while the US lost considerable business opportunities because of self-imposed sanctions. Eventually, the US was forced to lift the sanctions. Today’s India is far bigger economically and more resilient than what it was in 1998. The ball, as is being said, is in an American court. It would be interesting to see what Trump eventually does.

Reports indicate that the Modi Administration might not just stop at the purchase of the S-400 system. Also on cards are deeper engagements with Russia with purchase of four additional upgraded Krivak Class frigates, 48 Mi-17V5 helicopters, collaboration on joint production of Ka-226 Helicopters and AK-103 assault rifles in India.

Rarely in the recent past has there been any country like India which has been able to extract so much concession from the US even while successfully meandering through US sanctions to buy state-of-the-art defense systems from Russia. If elections could have been won on geopolitical statecraft, then the Modi Administration’s diplomatic brinkmanship would have been good enough for him to win the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

(The writer is a New Delhi-based strategic affairs analyst)

Writer: Pathikrit Payne

Courtesy: The Pioneer

New York State neighbours unnerved by creepy playing cards

Residents of a New York state neighbourhood said they were unnerved to find playing cards in their mailbox as part of an apparent Halloween prank. Neighbors in the Nevins Road area of Henrietta said they have found Joker playing cards in their mailboxes in recent days bearing what appears to be fake blood and the date “10/31” — Halloween.

“Is it a sign that they’re going to come back on Halloween and do something to my property? To my dog?” resident Michelle Meyer told WHEC-TV. “I think the intent was to scare people and I don’t understand why this was funny.” Meyer said he believes at least six neighbours have found similar cards in their mailboxes. “It seems small and I want to hope it’s a prank but you can’t assume it’s a prank,” Meyer said. “Not anymore.” The Monroe County Sheriff’s Office is investigating.

(UPI)

Philadelphia building taken over by tentacles

A sculpture installation in South Philadelphia makes it appear as though a building is being attacked by a many-tentacled sea monster. The sculpture at Building 611 in the Philadelphia Navy Yard features more than a dozen inflatable tentacles protruding from the building’s windows, as though a giant sea monster is attempting to escape.

The installation is a partnership between the Navy Yard and art collective Group X. “Earlier this year, Group X pitched us on doing this piece,” Jennifer Tran, director of Navy Yard marketing and communications, told the Philadelphia Inquirer. “Out of all the designs, this one spoke to us because we thought it was really unique. It’s never been seen before in Philadelphia. We thought it really pushed the boundaries.” The installation is scheduled to last until November 16.

(UPI)

Oink oink, honk honk: Rogue pig goes hog wild in traffic

It was a classic case of a ham on the lam. Police in Maine’s capital city are looking for the owner of a 50-pound piglet that wore itself out while dodging traffic Saturday evening after presumably escaping. The Portland Press Herald reports Augusta police went door to door looking for the animal’s owner without any luck. They say the pig is being cared for by a person familiar with farm animals until the owner can be found. The animal was in good condition other than being tired out from running around.

(AP)

Scuba divers compete in underwater pumpkin carving

Scuba divers in the Florida Keys took their Halloween spirit 30 feet below the surface for an underwater pumpkin carving contest. The contest, organised by the Amoray Dive Resort, saw the divers going 30 feet below the surface at the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary to carve sub-aquatic jack-o-lanterns.

Participants said the task was complicated by the fact that their buoyant pumpkins kept trying to float away mid-carve. Brothers Sebastian and Gabriel Gimeno, ages 16 and 14, were declared the winners with their pumpkin carving, which portrayed a dolphin and a half moon. The Gimeno brothers were awarded a return dive trip with Amoray Dive Resort.

(UPI)

Houston couple creates ‘Good Boy’ beer for dogs

A pair of Houston bar owners who started brewing beer for their ailing canine a few years ago are now selling Good Boy Dog Beer at more than 20 locations. Megan and Steve Long said they learned how to brew beer for dogs, which does not contain alcohol, when their Rottweiler mix, Rocky, started having digestion problems a few years ago. The brews are called beer “because we use a lot of the same equipment a brewery does. We just skip the fermentation process,” Megan Long told USA Today. She said the beer contains all natural ingredients, including vegetables, meat and turmeric, a spice known to aid digestion in canines.

The Good Boy Dog Beer company now has products available at more than 20 dog-friendly bars and restaurants in the Houston area and they also ship their products in cans. The beer is available in three varieties: “IPA lot in the yard,” “Session…Squirrel!” and “Mailman Malt Licker.”

(UPI)

‘Willy Wonka’ pleads guilty to crimes

The leader of a multistate ATM and vehicle burglary ring known as “Willy Wonka” or the “Chocolate Man” has pleaded guilty to 60 charges. The Salem News reports that 47-year-old William “Willy Wonka” Rodriguez pleaded guilty Thursday to his role in crimes in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut that netted more than $300,000 in property and currency.

The Lawrence man was one of five people arrested in August during a police investigation dubbed Operation Golden Ticket. Rodriguez remains jailed on $500,000 bail pending sentencing November 7 where he faces up to 12 years in prison.

Authorities say the gang wore black clothing and masks, carried police scanners, two-way radios and power tools. They often stole vehicles, which they used to crash into businesses so they could steal ATMs.

(AP)

Writer and Courtesy: The Pioneer

The killing of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was a huge mistake. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is under the impression that he can silent foreigners.

If Mohammed bin Salman did really send a hit team to Turkey to murder dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, what will happen next? Perhaps history can help us here.

A little over two centuries ago, in 1804, the Armies of the French Revolution had won all the key battles and the wars seemed to be over. The rest of Europe had decided in 1801 that it would have to live with the French Revolution and made peace with Napoleon. Everything was going so well — and then he made a little mistake.

Many members of the French nobility had gone into exile and fought against the Armies of the Revolution, and the Duke of Enghien was one of them. In 1804 he was living across the Rhine river on German territory.

Napoleon heard an (untrue) report that Enghien was part of a conspiracy to assassinate him, and sent a hit team — sorry, a cavalry squadron — across the Rhine to kidnap him. They brought him back to Paris, gave him a perfunctory military trial, and shot him. After that things did not go well for Napoleon.

The idea that Napoleon would violate foreign territory in peacetime in order to murder an opponent was so horrifying, so repellent that opinion turned against peace with France everywhere. As his own chief of police, Joseph Fouché, said, “It was worse than a crime. It was a blunder.”

By the end of the year every major power in Europe was back at war with Napoleon. After a decade of war he was defeated at Waterloo and sent into exile on St Helena for the rest of his life. So is something like that going to happen to MbS too?

Nobody’s going to invade Saudi Arabia, of course. (Not even Iran, despite MbS’s paranoia on the subject.) But will they stop investing in the country, stop selling it weapons and buying its oil, maybe even slap trade embargoes on it.

Since it seems almost certain that Khashoggi was murdered by the Saudi Government — Turkish Government officials have even told journalists off the record that they have audio and partial video recordings of Khashoggi’s interrogation, torture and killing — all of Saudi Arabia’s ‘friends’ and trading partners have some choices to make.

US President Donald Trump immediately rose to the occasion, declaring that he would be “very upset and angry” if Saudi Arabia was responsible for Khashoggi’s murder, and that there would be “severe punishment” for the crime.

He even boasted that Saudi Arabia “would not last two weeks” without American military support. Presumably Trump was talking about the survival of the Saudi regime, not the country’s independence, but he was still wrong. He is as prone to overestimate his power as MbS himself.

The Saudis struck right back, saying that “The kingdom affirms its total rejection of any threats or attempts to undermine it whether through threats to impose economic sanctions or the use of political pressure. The kingdom also affirms that it will respond to any (punitive) action with a bigger one.”

But Trump was only bluffing. He really had no intention of cancelling the $110 billion of contracts that Saudi Arabia has signed to buy American-made weapons, because “we’d be punishing ourselves if we did that. If they don’t buy it from us, they’re going to buy it from Russia or… China.”

People have been turning a blind eye to the weekly hundreds of civilian deaths caused by Saudi bombing in Yemen for three years now. Why would they respond any differently to the murder of one pesky Saudi journalist in Istanbul, even if he did write for the ‘Washington Post’?

The difference is that it’s intensely personal — this is an absolute monarch ordering the killing of a critic who annoyed him but posed no threat to his power — and it’s brazenly, breathtakingly arrogant. MbS really thinks he can do something like this and make everybody shut up about it.

He is probably right, so far as the craven, money-grubbing foreigners are concerned — like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who could  barely even bring himself to say that Saudi Arabia should investigate and explain the issue, because “otherwise it runs completely contrary to the process of modernisation.”

But if the foreigners will not or cannot bring Mohammed bin Salman down, his own family (all seven thousand princes, or however many there are now) probably will. It is a family business, and his amateurish strategies, his impulsiveness and his regular resort to violence are ruining the firm’s already not very good name.

He rose rapidly out of the multitudinous ranks of anonymous princes through the favour of his failing father, King Salman, but he could fall as fast as he rose. Killing Khashoggi was definitely a blunder.

Writer: Gwynne Dyer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Nikki Haley, US politician of Indian-origin, is considering running for Presidency.

With the first Indian-American to hold a Cabinet position in the US as her country’s ambassador to the United Nations having put in her papers (she is to demit office by the end of the year), a star of the Republican Party and of the Donald Trump administration is in political orbit. And nobody seems to know which path her future political orbit will take. While some close to her have put dropped broad hints that she is looking at lucrative private sector assignments come the new year, speculation persists that it is her political career which remains her abiding passion and focus. While Haley seemed to put speculation to rest that she would challenge Trump for the Republican nomination for President in the next election in her resignation letter iterating that she would “not be a candidate for any office in 2020”, the murmurs are refusing to die down around the political plans of the former Governor of South Carolina.

Haley’s is a backstory that grassroot Republicans are enthralled with — the child of Indian Sikh immigrants born Stateside who integrated completely with the American mainstream while retaining pride in her cultural roots, she made her way up the political ladder on her own steam. First marked out as a rising star by Republican elders when she served as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, she was the second Indian-American to take oath as Governor of the State after fellow Republican Bobby Jindal. Her big moment and coast-to-coast media exposure, however, came when she was chosen to deliver the official response of her party to then President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address in January 2016. When Trump swept to a shock victory in the November 2016 US Presidential poll, she was a shoo-in for an important Cabinet post. Her stand on issues — a strong supporter of America first, a proponent of an integrationist model of multiculturalism including a nod to the US’ Judeo-Christian heritage albeit fuelled by waves of immigration and known to be uncompromising known for her tough stand on America’s trade disputes as well as strategic issues not excluding the use of force such as in the stand-off with North Korea in 2017 — is a much better fit with that of the Republican establishment than Trump’s. The fact that Haley quit just ahead of crucial mid-term elections, though she was effusive in her praise of the President, is also being seen as a desire not to be associated with the Trump legacy and style of politics. Which begs the obvious question — why? Our guess is she may run for President in 2020 anyway but will definitely do so if Trump decides not to run for a second term or is blocked by traditional Republicans from doing so. Otherwise, there’s always 2024; Haley is only 46 years old.

Nikki Haley, US politician of Indian-origin, is considering running for Presidency.

With the first Indian-American to hold a Cabinet position in the US as her country’s ambassador to the United Nations having put in her papers (she is to demit office by the end of the year), a star of the Republican Party and of the Donald Trump administration is in political orbit. And nobody seems to know which path her future political orbit will take. While some close to her have put dropped broad hints that she is looking at lucrative private sector assignments come the new year, speculation persists that it is her political career which remains her abiding passion and focus. While Haley seemed to put speculation to rest that she would challenge Trump for the Republican nomination for President in the next election in her resignation letter iterating that she would “not be a candidate for any office in 2020”, the murmurs are refusing to die down around the political plans of the former Governor of South Carolina.

Haley’s is a backstory that grassroot Republicans are enthralled with — the child of Indian Sikh immigrants born Stateside who integrated completely with the American mainstream while retaining pride in her cultural roots, she made her way up the political ladder on her own steam. First marked out as a rising star by Republican elders when she served as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, she was the second Indian-American to take oath as Governor of the State after fellow Republican Bobby Jindal. Her big moment and coast-to-coast media exposure, however, came when she was chosen to deliver the official response of her party to then President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address in January 2016. When Trump swept to a shock victory in the November 2016 US Presidential poll, she was a shoo-in for an important Cabinet post. Her stand on issues — a strong supporter of America first, a proponent of an integrationist model of multiculturalism including a nod to the US’ Judeo-Christian heritage albeit fuelled by waves of immigration and known to be uncompromising known for her tough stand on America’s trade disputes as well as strategic issues not excluding the use of force such as in the stand-off with North Korea in 2017 — is a much better fit with that of the Republican establishment than Trump’s. The fact that Haley quit just ahead of crucial mid-term elections, though she was effusive in her praise of the President, is also being seen as a desire not to be associated with the Trump legacy and style of politics. Which begs the obvious question — why? Our guess is she may run for President in 2020 anyway but will definitely do so if Trump decides not to run for a second term or is blocked by traditional Republicans from doing so. Otherwise, there’s always 2024; Haley is only 46 years old.

Writer and Courtesy: The Pioneer

There’s deep rooted corruption in Iraq, and there’s not much hope for change – not even with the new leadership.

Fifteen years after George W Bush invaded Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein’s imaginary ‘weapons of mass destruction’, what have the Iraqis got to show for it? There was a great deal of death and destruction (around half a million Iraqis have died violently since 2003), but they do now have a democratically elected Government. Sort of. Iraqis voted in their fourth free election last April — or rather, fewer than half of them bothered to vote at all; so pessimistic were they about the notion that voting could change anything. And after the election, the politicians seemed to be living down to their expectations.

Almost six months later, the many political parties were still bickering over which of them would be in the Government, as that would give them access to the huge amounts of money which were available to the ministers in one of the world’s most corrupt countries. It looked like business as usual, despite bloody riots in the south (where most of the oil is) over chronic shortages of water, electricity, and jobs. But on October 2, Iraqi Parliament elected a prominent Kurdish politician, Barham Saleh, to the ceremonial office of president. The President had 15 days to nominate the new Prime Minister (who really runs the Government), but Barham Saleh did it within hours. The new Prime Minister will be Adel Abdul-Mahdi — which may be a signal of big changes to come.

Abdul-Mahdi is not himself a revolutionary figure. He is a former Finance and Oil Minister who, like Barham Saleh, has been a familiar fixture in Iraqi politics ever since the invasion. (A stock Iraqi joke claims that the country has the most environmental Government in the world since it constantly recycles its old politicians). But Abdul-Mahdi is the figurehead of a coalition in which a revolutionary outsider, Muqtada al-Sadr, will be a dominant influence. Sadr’s party astonished everybody by winning the largest number of seats in the May election, drawing its support mainly from working-class Shias in Baghdad and the south. But his non-sectarian stance also drew votes from the marginalised Sunni minority of Iraqi Arabs.

Sadr’s sympathy for the Sunni Arabs’ plight is unusual among Iraqi Shia politicians, and all the more remarkable because he is a Shia cleric whose father and uncle were both grand ayatollahs murdered by Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated regime. If any man can bridge the gulf that has opened up between Sunni and Shia Arabs in Iraq, he is that man. His party has been among the least corrupt on the Iraqi political scene, and he is a nationalist who is equally opposed to American and Iranian meddling in Iraqi politics. He has disbanded his own party’s militia and urges others to do the same, and he promised to appoint non-political technocrats instead of usual party stalwarts if his party won power.

That promise will be hard to keep since extreme fragmentation of Iraqi politics means all Governments must be broad coalitions. The coalition Sadr leads (although he will not personally seek office) includes the Iraqi Communist party, which more or less shares his goals, and the group led by former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which emphatically does not. Maliki, in power from 2006 to 2014, proved himself to be viciously anti-Sunni, largely subservient to Iranian interests — and, of course, monumentally corrupt. It will be very difficult to hold this coalition together, let alone to carry out Sadr’s programme of sectarian reconciliation and Government by technocrats.

Corruption in Iraq is a system, not a series of individual crimes, and the beneficiaries of the system will fight tooth and nail to preserve it. The parties use it not only to finance their own activities and reward their own members, but to build a large support base through bribery, mostly in the form of jobs. There are 37 million people in Iraq. In most other countries, a population of that size would require around 600,000-700,000 employees to provide all the normal functions of a Central Government. The Iraqi Government employs 4.5 million people to do the same jobs very badly or not at all. Many of them rarely even show up at work, but they and their families all vote for the right party at the election time. And since they are on the take themselves, they don’t protest when senior politicians in their party steal millions (or in some cases billions) from public funds.

This pattern is almost standard in countries whose income, like Iraq’s, comes largely from exporting a single natural resource (oil, in this case), but Iraq is exceptional in the brazen incompetence of the political class and the utter neglect of those outside the magic circle. This system was tolerated during the 15 years of war because people’s first priority was survival. Now that the fighting has died down, people are starting to protest, and Muqtada al-Sadr has become the repository of their hopes. He will have a hard time living up to them.

Writer: Gwynne Dyer

Source: The Pioneer

Amidst NATO rumblings, the question is – how will the Trans-Atlantic survive? The answer may lie on the global strategic horizon.

On the global strategic horizon, the US continues to be Europe’s best bet, given their inherent overlapping values and interests, and the comfort derived from being historical partners. Lack of effective alternatives — structured differences with China and the limited global heft of other countries — limits Europe’s strategic choices. While the expectations of a future return to normal remain high due to their mutual dependence, Europe now is more aware of its strategic gaps and the follies of outsourcing its security. Strategic manoeuvring in the form of strengthening the European pillar of NATO, therefore, appears to be the blueprint for the future

Europe can no longer rely on the United States for its security; it is up to us to guarantee European security.”

— Emmanuel Macron, President of France

We won’t let ourselves be pushed around time and again; we will act.”

— Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

These recent impassioned statements by the respective EU leaders reflect the increasing European disillusionment towards the US policies shaping the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) — an alliance that has been the mainstay of European security for half a century.

The fraying of this trans-Atlantic partnership, amid unprecedented American criticism of its European allies disproportionate “burden sharing”, is a symptom of the emerging US trend of looking at global relationship primarily through an economic prism.

US President Donald Trump has gone on record to call the European Union (EU) a “trade foe” which has been “unfairly taking advantage of America”. With politics and security being intertwined, these developments have cast a shadow on the value based trans-Atlantic security relationship.

Meanwhile, European push-back, in the form of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) that envisions Europe taking charge of its own defence, highlights a fundamental recalibration of the continent’s security mind-set.

Their emphasis on greater strategic autonomy, rooted in the fear of being forced to fend for themselves strikes at the very root of the post Second World War Western strategic consciousness.

As Europe and the US head towards unchartered territory, pertinent questions arise: What is the salience of NATO in the Trans-Atlantic partnership? What are the key emerging differences between the US and its European allies? And what are the core challenges that European countries face in their quest for greater strategic autonomy?

NATO’s enduring relevance

The American and European strategic consciousness has been shaped by a distinct modus operandi since the end of the Second World War. In return for rebuilding Europe (Marshall Plan) and ensuring its security (NATO), the US sought Europe’s support in its global projection of American power. This strategic bargain has allowed the EU to emerge as a technological and economic powerhouse while the US influenced the continent’s foreign policies and became the key pillar of its security. NATO, in this context, emerged as a vital instrument of trans-Atlantic mutual dependence.

More significantly, NATO ensures a strategic balance within Europe. The US, as a hegemon leading the organisation, suppresses the inherent tendency of European nation states to enter into a security competition and engage in a balance of power calculus with each other. Europe’s consensus on American leadership of the Western world vis-à-vis that by a European state reflects this reality.

From European perspective, the further the hegemon is from their shores, the more stable is the existing equilibrium.   

Strategic drift

Nevertheless, a strategic dissonance in the trans-Atlantic relationship has been festering for years. Taking European support for granted for pushing the US regional agenda in Iraq and the clandestine American surveillance of EU leaders have, in the past, shook the foundations of a trust based partnership. Even so, given their mutual dependence, Europe and the US have consistently found the sweet spot in their strategic outlook.

However, the tone and tenor of President Trump in questioning the very credibility of NATO has sowed seeds of doubt among the Europeans about American commitment and NATO’s reliability. The growing fissures in their shared strategic calculus, evident in their diverging positions on multiple issues, particularly where the European countries are vital stakeholders, have further muddied the waters.

These involve climate change, trade and tariff, migration, Iranian nuclear deal, American actions in Jerusalem, and threat from Russia. President Trump’s support for European political parties that endorse an-anti-EU rhetoric, meanwhile, strikes at the core of the EU integration model.

These developments, therefore, lay bare the inherent contradictions between America First and the EU multilateralism prisms. Having unflinchingly supported the US global leadership role, a growing perception of the US trying to undermine legitimate EU interests has led the Europeans states to seek a greater independent role in shaping their foreign and security policies.

It is, perhaps, not the Americans but the Europeans who feel they are being treated unfairly. The German Foreign Minister’s appeal to “build a sovereign and strong Europe” that will form a “counterweight when the US crosses the line” aptly reflects these sentiments.

This has resulted in a European clamour for forging a “new alliance of trade-friendly nations” – likely a reference to the non-Western world initiatives.

In this context, some Europeans view better economic ties with China as a hedge against disruptive American policies. Notably, a break in the trans-Atlantic unity is evident in the EU seeking to circumvent the US sanctions by setting up non-American monetary channels in order to keep alive the Iranian nuclear deal. Its success could challenge the status of the US dollar as the world’s principal reserve currency, thereby seriously undermining Pax-Americana.

Method behind the madness?

Given the salience of this mutually beneficial relationship, the ongoing friction is likely more nuanced than what meets the eye. Notably, none of the Trans-Atlantic partners have called for a complete break from NATO. In this context, President Trump’s insistence on Europe paying more for collective defence could be the US bargaining chip to gain concessions on reducing the American trade deficit.

Similarly, a stronger and more independent Europe allows the Europeans to build a balanced relationship with the US. Their “Europe First” rhetoric can compel the US to take European interests more seriously. As part of this posturing, the French President’s recent positive outreach to Russia can be an attempt to tap the institutional Russophobia in the US and to convey the message that Europe too has options in its strategic calculus. Not to mention, a strong EU also raises the continent’s global strategic profile.

Rhetoric vs reality of European strategic autonomy

However, in their quest for taking greater control of their foreign and security policies, the Europeans are confronted by multiple structural and functional roadblocks. These include lack of unanimity among its members on key issues, ranging from EU’s strategic outlook to migration, financial stability, weapons sales and emerging threat perception, and the growing Euroscepticism sweeping the continent. Decades of defence underfunding, especially on command and control and surveillance, due to their over-reliance on the American security umbrella has undermined a credible European conventional and nuclear deterrence. Any perceived weakness puts the continent in the crosshairs of Russian strategic calculus.

NATO is, in effect, a force multiplier without which the Europeans vulnerabilities are deeply exposed. The German Foreign Minister’s admission that the “organisation is indispensable for our security” highlights EU’s existing security dilemma.

Moreover, on the global strategic horizon, in its search for strategic partners, the US continues to be Europe’s best bet, given their inherent overlapping values and interests, and the comfort derived from being historical partners. Lack of effective alternatives — structured differences with China and the limited global heft of other countries — limits Europe’s strategic choices. Meanwhile, instruments of financial independence, such as making Euro the global reserve currency, which would mark true strategic independence are likely to have a long gestation period.

Consequently, the prediction of an end of the Trans-Atlantic partnership appears unlikely. As with its other global relationships, the ongoing friction has the imprimatur of President Trump’s disruptive America First policies. The US institutional mechanisms, though, appear to bet on the strategic relevance of this partnership, as evident by Defence Secretary Jim Mattis’s recent reassurance to Europe of America’s “iron clad commitment” to NATO.

While the expectations of a future return to normal remain high due to their mutual dependence, Europe now is more aware of its strategic gaps and the follies of outsourcing its security. Strategic manoeuvring in the form of strengthening the European pillar of NATO, therefore, appears to be the blueprint for the future.

(The writer is a Research Analyst at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi)

Writer:  Rajorshi Roy

Source: The Pioneer

On the completion of 150 years of Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary, the Global Embassy of Activists for Peace (GEAP) in Latin America has decided to create a zone of peace on the Asian continent and come together to follow up of the Asian Relations Conference.

A remarkable initiative organized annually in Latin America by the Global Embassy of Activists for Peace (GEAP) is a conference entitled, ‘The Peace Integration Summit’ with the acronym of CUMIPAZ. Earlier this week, the 2018 Summit was held in Guatemala at which this writer delivered the keynote address. What is particularly significant about the GEAP is the fact that this body consists largely of academics and intellectuals, with a remarkable thinker Dr. William Soto Santiago, as the prime mover. The GEAP has very lofty objectives: “Work towards the improvement, welfare, happiness and peace of the human family and Mother Earth, promoting a global formation of the integral human being and the formation of activists for peace in the framework of universal values and principles, for the defense of Human Rights and the Rights of Mother Earth, through the development of programmes, projects and campaigns aimed at different areas in which humans operate and interact.”

Significantly, we have no initiative of a similar profile in Asia, which fortunately does not have conflicts such as those in several other parts of the world. But tensions are on the increase in the region, as manifested by the recent near collision between the US and Chinese naval ships in the South China Sea. Since Asia now has a growing nuclear arsenal, it is extremely important that we serve the future of humanity by creating an atmosphere and philosophy of peace that guides relations in this region. It was in recognition of this challenge, which Mahatma Gandhi foresaw, that India hosted the Asian Relations Conference during March-April 1947, with leaders from all across Asia as participants.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, then the interim Prime Minister of undivided India, stated on that occasion, “Asia is again finding herself … one of the notable consequences of the European domination of Asia has been the isolation of the countries of Asia from one another…Today this isolation is breaking down because of many reasons, political and otherwise…This Conference is significant as an expression of that deeper urge of the mind and spirit of Asia which has persisted. In this Conference and in this work there are no leaders and no followers. All countries of Asia have to meet together in a common task.” The Asian Relations Conference was clearly a visionary initiative, which for several reasons has not been followed up in substance by the nations in Asia.

Perhaps a greater focus on the Asian identity and creating a region of mutual trust, connected by common concerns and objectives, is now extremely important. It would also be useful to recall that 40 years later in 1987, the Government of India held the Asian Relations Commemorative Conference, which also drew participants from all across Asia. One of the major outcomes of that conference was a consensus to coordinate energy policies across the continent. As a result, with the initiative of a remarkable Foreign Secretary, Muchkund Dubey, the Asian Energy Institute was established under the leadership of Dr. Ali Shams Ardekani, later the Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran, and this writer.

The Asian Energy Institute, which was a network of energy institutions across Asia, took up as its first challenge the development of a plan for a pipeline to transport the enormous quantity of surplus natural gas from Iran to Pakistan, India and later Nepal as well. This was an extremely attractive option because Iran had found large reserves of natural gas, and the Iranian Government was willing to provide attractive terms and low prices to Pakistan, India, and Nepal for gas supply over a long period. Unfortunately, this visionary initiative was blocked by mutual suspicions and mistrust. Had it been pursued Iran’s place in the global community would have been different and relations between India, Pakistan and Nepal would have been much healthier.

Now that we are in the year of Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary, India has a unique opportunity to give substance to the memory of that world apostle of peace. It would be relevant to create a zone of peace on the Asian continent and convene a follow up of the Asian Relations Conference during its diamond jubilee year in 2022. There are, undoubtedly, growing tensions which must be contained and will need to be channeled in the direction of peace, good neighborly conduct, and friendship. It would be extremely valuable to take the example of CUMIPAZ and draw on the academic community, forward-looking thinkers and activists in Asia and elsewhere who believe that human society in the 21st century must relentlessly pursue peace in this century.

Preparations should be taken in hand on Gandhiji’s birth anniversary in 2019 by the Indian Government with political leaders, captains of business, academics and think-tanks across Asia to organize a major event that must have an impact on the thinking and actions of societies across Asia so that we become a region of stable peace. In order to ensure that such an event is not merely a talk shop but results in crucial understanding in critical areas of human endeavor across the world and certainly in Asia, it will be useful to structure the diamond jubilee of the Asian Relations Conference into a set of very concrete areas of cooperation.

This means that the next four years have to be spent in an adequate preparation by which we not only ensure clarity in defining the areas where cooperation and constructive engagement would be essential but also involve major Asian leaders such as the presidents of Indonesia, South Korea and Kazakhstan, the prime ministers of Japan, Malaysia and Singapore and others in joining hands with India as partners in the conference.

Perhaps the best way to get started with this would be for a compact but diverse committee to be set up which may be given the responsibility of coming up with a clear plan of action to be debated and discussed by all the stakeholders. Once a plan is in place then action can be initiated perhaps by the middle of next year, which will allow three full years for an initiative of this nature, placing India at the center of peace in Asia. Also, this will be held as a fitting tribute to Gandhiji’s vision and commitment, which has even greater significance and relevance today.

(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)

Writer: RK Pachauri

Courtesy: The Pioneer

At least 43,000 people have been displaced after a 6.5 magnitude earthquake hit the Indonesian province earlier this week. Nearly a hundred people were killed and thousands of buildings damaged.

The earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck the Indonesian island of Sulawesi last week was remarkable for the tragic scale of devastation it caused. The death toll has crossed the 1,200-mark and casualty numbers are expected to rise as many bodies remain trapped and voices of people crying for help can still be heard from the rubble of collapsed buildings. More than two million people have been affected and more than 40,000 have been displaced. The damage caused to the island’s infrastructure is massive. The quake, of a magnitude of 7.5 on the Richter Scale, sent waves rising as high as six meters and the tsunami’s giant waves crashed into the shore they swept along with them all that was in their way. Sulawesi is a major island of the Indonesian archipelago and the damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami will hit the country’s economy hard. For many, the tsunami brought back to mind memories of the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean region which followed a 9.0 magnitude quake took a toll of 227,898 lives. While the current situation has not reached the apocalyptic levels of 2004, and the damage is limited to one country, the fact is that Indonesia is reeling under its destructive impact. Even as rescue workers are battling against time, massive looting of food and other emergency provisions has been reported.  International help, it must be pointed out, has been slow in coming and it is the Indonesian Government which is trying but not always succeeding in ensuring relief and rescue measures are in place and help is reaching those who need it most. Tales of individual courage — like that of the ATC operator who lost his life because he stayed at his post to ensure a passenger aircraft took off without incident when the quake struck — abound but are no substitute for coordinated disaster management.

The natural disaster, savage as it is, is not new to the island nation. Surrounded by volcanoes and prone to earthquakes/tsunamis, Indonesia remains like some other countries in the region woefully unprepared for a powerful earthquake. The country’s national meteorological and geophysics agency BMKG had detected subterranean tectonic movement and issued an earthquake alert but it failed to gauge its intensity. The tsunami warning too, many complained, came too late. To top it all, the country did not have adequate equipment and technological tools to conduct quick and effective rescue operations. Of course, accurate detection of impending natural disasters is next to impossible; even Japan, for instance, which is known to have one of the best systems to respond to such calamities, could not do much in 2011 when a 9.1 earthquake and tsunami struck its coastal region that left nearly 19,000 dead. The only solution, therefore, is to be better prepared. The disaster in Indonesia holds lessons in preparedness for all, including India.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The Russian Government has been making self-defeating and clums actions by asking two poisoning suspects, from Salisbury, to explain their trip to the public. All these things are small indicators of how fr the rot in Putin’s remine the Government has gone.

Salisbury is a nice old English town with a fine cathedral, only an hour and a half from London by train, but it doesn’t see many Russian tourists in wintertime. It’s not as cold as Moscow, but Russians tend to prefer Mediterranean destinations for holiday breaks in early March — unless, of course, they are planning to kill somebody.

The person of interest in Salisbury was Sergei Skripal, a former member of the Russian military intelligence service, who started selling information to the British in the mid-1990s and was caught and jailed by the Russians in 2004. He was pardoned and allowed to go to Britain as part of a spy swap between Western countries and Russia in 2010, and he settled in Salisbury.

On March 4 this year, Skripal and his daughter, who were visiting from Moscow, were found semi-conscious on a bench in the street in Salisbury and taken to a hospital. They spend weeks in intensive care, and it was determined that they had been poisoned by novichok, a Soviet-era nerve agent that falls into the category of banned chemical weapons.

A policeman who went to Skripal’s house was also struck down by the poison, which had been sprayed on the handle of the front door, but he also recovered eventually. Three months later a Nina Ricci perfume bottle that contained leftover, novichok was found in a charity bin in Salisbury, and a woman who sprayed it on her wrists died.

Britain accused Russia of sending assassins to kill Skripal and of using a banned weapon. It had no hard proof beyond the novichok, but Skripal was still helping Western intelligence agencies to understand Russian training and techniques, so Moscow had a motive.

Many people pointed out that it would have been foolish for Moscow to choose such a complicated method and risk exposure. Why wouldn’t it just hire a non-Russian hitman to do the job? But Moscow has done this sort of thing before: Russian agents, exotic substances, the lot.

Alexander Litvinenko, a member of the Federal Security Service, got into trouble after his investigation into links between Russian mafia groups and his own organisation made him unpopular with Vladimir Putin, the FSB’s head. Litvinenko fled Russia for Britain after Putin took over the presidency in 2000.

Litvinenko remained a harsh critic of Putin, and in 2006, Dmitry Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoy, both former FSB agents, were sent to London to kill him. CCTV images showed the killers with Litvinenko at a London hotel where they dosed his tea with a tiny amount of polonium-210, a highly toxic radioactive substance that would not normally be spotted because it does not emit gamma rays.

That was a reasonably competent operation, exposed only by bad luck. The 2018 operation was different. CCTV images, released only last week, showed Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov, two 30-something Russian ‘fitness trainers’, making a brief trip to Salisbury on March 3, presumably to do a reconnaissance, and back to the town on the 4th to do the dirty deed.

But then it got weird. Putin publicly urged the two men to go on TV, and last week they appeared on RT, a Russian international news channel, to explain their brief trip (which gave them only 54 hours in England).

“Our friends had been suggesting for a long time that we visit this wonderful town,” said Petrov. They especially wanted to see Salisbury Cathedral, said Boshirov: “It’s famous for its 123-metre spire, it’s famous for its clock….” But they looked like heavies from Central Casting, and not at all like clock-tower enthusiasts. ‘Nekulturny’ (uncultured), as the Russians say.

Why did they only spend 30 minutes in Salisbury the first time? “It was cold.” (It was 10 degrees C warmer than Moscow.) Why did they take another train down to Salisbury the next day? “We really wanted to see Old Sarum and the cathedral.” (Old Sarum is an Iron-Age hill fort near Salisbury that was closed on March 4).

And on March 4 one of the CCTV cameras picked them up close to Skripal’s house and far from the cathedral or any other tourist attractions. Is Russia deliberately trolling the British Government to show its contempt? Probably not, because it has tried very hard to distance itself from the crime in other international venues. Did Putin’s regime put those two highly implausible ‘tourists’ on RT because it forgot that different standards of truth prevail elsewhere? Maybe.

But the likeliest answer is that these clumsy and self-defeating actions are indicators of how far the rot in the regime has gone. Elements of the system, like the Armed Forces (which have performed well in Syria), retain their efficiency and discipline, but corruption and incompetence rule elsewhere. The Salisbury debacle would not have happened 18 years ago, when Putin’s reign was new. It suggests that the regime is a lot closer to its end than its beginning.

(The writer is an independent journalist)

Writer: Gwynne Dyer

Courtesy: The Pioneer