Russia's position on Libya: Trying to have it both ways

Guest post by Dmitry Gorenburg

Dmitry Gorenburg is a senior analyst at CNA's Center for Strategic Studies, the editor of the journal Russian Politics & Law, and an associate at Harvard University's Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies. From 2005 to 2010, he served as Executive Director of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies (AAASS). He has taught in the Department of Government at Harvard University and has served as a consultant on Russian military and security issues for various agencies of the U.S. government and on ethnic and minority issues for the European Center for Minority Issues. In addition, he writes the blog Russian Military Reform.

**********

The Russian Government surprised many observers by going along with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized international enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya. Russia was initially expected to veto the resolution. Instead, Russia chose to abstain in order to ensure the protection of civilians, while its ambassador to the United Nations made statements expressing concern about how the resolution would be implemented.

In recent years, Russia has had close trade relations with the Libyan Government. In particular, it has signed billions of dollars worth of arms contracts with the regime of Muammar Qaddafi. This is the context that partially explains the removal of Vladimir Chamov, Russia's ambassador to Libya, after he sent a telegram to Moscow arguing that allowing the U.N. resolution to pass would represent a betrayal of Russia's state interests. Chamov has since returned to Moscow, where he has publicly spoken out against the implementation of the no-fly zone.

Soon after the vote, Russia's attitude toward the no-fly zone unexpectedly became a factor in Russian domestic politics. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's statement on March 21 criticized the U.N. for getting involved in an internal conflict. In the most controversial part of his remarks, Putin argued that the resolution allowed international forces to take virtually any measures against a sovereign state, and in this he said it resembled medieval calls to crusades, "when someone called on others to go to a certain place and liberate it."

The response from President Dmitry Medvedev was almost immediate. He argued that Russia's abstention on the resolution vote was the proper position. Furthermore, he dressed down Putin (though not by name) by saying, "[u]nder no circumstances is it acceptable to use expressions that essentially lead to a clash of civilizations, such as 'crusades' and so on. It is unacceptable. Otherwise, everything may end up much worse than what is going on now. Everyone should remember that." And he removed Chamov from his position, essentially for public insubordination. Putin came out the next day with a statement indicating that the president is responsible for foreign policy in Russia and that he backed his president's policies. A spokesman indicated that Putin's previous statement was simply an indication of his own personal views rather than an official policy statement.

It may be that this conflict was yet another example of the good cop-bad cop show that the Russian leadership tandem has been putting on for the last three years. Or it may be that this is the first serious indication that Medvedev and Putin are engaged in a serious behind-the-scenes tussle for the right to run for president in 2012.

Why do Russian politicians see this conflict the way they do? Their inconsistent positions on Libya are essentially a case of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Russian leaders decided not to veto Resolution 1973 for two reasons. First, they did not want to alienate Western leaders who were pushing for the intervention. While the rapprochement with the United States is important to them and certainly played a role here, we should also remember the importance of Russian political and economic ties with European states, and especially France and Italy, both of whom were strongly in favor of a no-fly zone because of the potential for a humanitarian and refugee disaster in the event of an attack by Qaddafi's forces on Benghazi. Second, Russian leaders did not want to be blamed for blocking the intervention if the result was a large-scale massacre of civilians.

On the other hand, Russian leaders also did not want to create a new norm of international intervention in internal conflicts, particularly when these conflicts were the result of a popular uprising against an authoritarian ruler. They genuinely dislike what they see as a Western predilection for imposing their values and forms of government on other parts of the world. They remember the color revolutions in Serbia, the Ukraine, and Georgia, in which friendly regimes were replaced by ones that were to a greater or lesser extent anti-Russian.

Furthermore, they believe that these popular protest movements were organized and funded by Western governments, particularly the United States. This creates a certain amount of suspicion of similar protests leading to the removal of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa, even when the deposed rulers do not have particularly close ties to Russia.

So Russian leaders are understandably nervous about the coalition's rather expansive interpretation of Resolution 1973. They were willing to allow for the establishment of a no-fly zone in order to avert a likely massacre of civilians and to help their European partners avoid a flood of refugees on their soil. They are much less willing to see NATO forces provide military assistance to a popular uprising against an authoritarian ruler that it has traditionally supported.

If this conflict drags on, Russian leaders will increasingly begin to speak out against the military campaign. They will be especially concerned if it becomes increasingly clear that NATO air strikes are targeting Qaddafi's ground forces rather than limiting themselves to preventing Libyan air forces from targeting civilian areas.

Reasons for concern

By Carl 

It really looks like the entire South Asia/Middle East/Northern Africa is about to go up in flames:

1) King of Jordan Dismisses His Cabinet 

2) Poland warns Belarus: Change or risk overthrow 

3) Turkey: Mubarak Should Leave Now 

4) India: Raja's arrest does not affect credibility of PM, govt: Congress 

5) Pakistani soldier killed in border clash with Afghanistan (Roundup) 

6) Report: Russia to retaliate against Ireland over spy claim 

7) ANALYSIS-Palestinians expect a boost from new Egypt 

8) Qatar men linked to terrorism attacks 

9) Tunisian Interior Minister Says Security Services Spark Unrest 

10) UPDATE 1-W.African currency zone worried about Ivorian fall-out 

11) Sudan's protests triggered by long-term economic, political frustrations 

12) Mubarak Fails to Quell Protests as Turmoil Spreads to Yemen 

13) How leaders of Bahrain, Jordan, Syria and Yemen plan to keep control 

14) Unrest in Egypt Risks Spreading Into Algeria, Standard and Poors Forecasts 

15) African Unrest Puts Europe's Gas at Risk as Oil Gains 

And then there's Egypt...

Look, a few of these, and I think with a little diplomacy and a lot of patience, we might see a peaceful resolution that enhances stability, in the short-term at any rate. What this kind of instability does is makes US foreign policy become a hodgepodge, because not only are these nations troublesome, but any tinpot dictator worth his salt, like Muammar Qaddafi, is going to start rattling sabres, looking to cut a deal with the US that will blow up in our faces eventually like Saddam Hussein did.

In the meantime, it only takes a spark...

This. Is. Scary.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

While we were sleeping

Guest post by Nancy Brune

Dr. Nancy E. Brune is currently the director of Research and Policy at UNLV's Institute for Security Studies, where she works on energy security and national security issues. She is a Truman National Security fellow, as well as a member of Women in International Security and the Pacific Council on International Policy. This is her first guest post at The Reaction.

**********

There's a reason why the Senate's new clean energy bill is called the American Power Act. If America fails to adopt a comprehensive energy strategy to keep us strong in the 21st century, we won't have much national or military power to speak of as we confront an increasing number of national security challenges.

The new Senate clean energy and security bill was a long time coming. The decision made by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham several weeks ago to suspend his involvement in negotiations did not bode well for America's energy security. Long gone are the days of Summer 2008, when candidates from both parties called on America to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, offering solutions to make us greener and safer. Sadly, while our political leaders have yet to achieve any real progress in making us safer and less reliant on foreign oil, other countries are aggressively taking steps to ensure their own long-term energy security and sovereign power.

Over the last few years, geopolitical powerhouses – including China and Russia – have taken bold measures to ensure their long-term energy security. Driven by the need to fuel its rapidly growing economy, China has invested in distant, oil-rich African nations including Algeria, Angola, Nigeria, and the Sudan. But it has also ponied up money closer to home. On April 20, China's National Petroleum Company announced a $900 million heavy crude production project with Venezuela. Just a week earlier in neighboring Brazil, a country that sits on vast pre-salt oil reserves, China's Sinopec and the China Development Bank signed a strategic development pact with Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil company.

In addition, China – along with several sovereign wealth funds owned by countries in the Middle East – have made significant investments in energy companies in Canada, one of America's closest allies and biggest source of oil imports (almost 25 percent). This wave of investment in our northern neighbor stands in stark contrast to the recent decisions last fall by the U.S. Department of Defense and private firms to reverse course and cancel plans to develop and use Canadian tar sands oil.

Russia has also been quite active in building strategic relationships with several resource-wealthy countries to enhance its long-term energy security. In September 2009, Russia and Venezuela announced several cooperative agreements on defense, trade, and energy. A consortium of energy giants in Russia signed two agreements with Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the country's national oil company. Last week, former Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed the merger of Gazprom, Russia's state gas company, with Naftogaz, Ukraine's state energy company, in a deal that would give Russia control over the Ukraine's vast European pipeline network.

Even our European allies, despite facing significant economic strain, announced recently that they are investing precious financial resources in almost fifty new energy projects "to strengthen the region's energy security."

Around the world, America's allies and competitors are moving aggressively to secure access to energy resources as part of a comprehensive national energy strategy. For instance, in addition to investing in oilfields, China is also making significant investments in renewable energy. In 2009, China's investment in renewable energy totaled $34.6 billion, surpassing U.S. investment of $18.6 billion.

America cannot afford to delay any longer. Energy security and resiliency are inextricably tied to America's long-term national security interests, geopolitical bargaining power, and economic might. Every day that we put off forging a comprehensive national energy strategy undermines the power of our military, the single largest consumer of energy in the world. We need a climate and energy bill that will provide measures to help us diversify our sources of energy, protect our military, and reduce our vulnerability to turbulence in global energy markets.

As was clear in 2008, energy security is an issue of national importance. We can't afford to let politics or a single interest group hijack our long-term energy security. There are signs that national leadership is committed to moving forward. Last month, the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar took the bold and courageous step of allowing the Nantucket Sound wind project to move forward. The recent oil spill has made the urgency of supporting measures to develop other sources of energy more critical. On Wednesday, Senators Kerry and Lieberman presented their new energy and climate bill, the American Power Act.

We now have before us an opportunity to make America less vulnerable to political instability and volatility in global energy markets. Other nations recognize the critical link between energy surety and national security. Will America?

Russia as foil

By Creature

Joe Lieberman's opposition to Obama's new START treaty has nothing to do with the substance of the treaty (or with the reasons stated yesterday) and all to do with keeping relations with Russia chilly. Better relations between the U.S. and Russia means there is less of chance that bombs will fall on Iran. And, in Joe Lieberman's world, that is unacceptable.

Making deals with the devil

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Is it really any surprise that Mikhail Prokhorov, the Russian billionaire who wants to buy the NBA's New Jersey Nets and move them to Brooklyn, has some, shall we say, questionable business interests? I mean, how exactly did he acquire all that wealth? Surely he knows something about corruption, and worse, and about making deals with tyrants like Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, as the New York Post is reporting.

I suspect that he has achieved his wealth and power to a great extent by making deals with various devils. What is troubling here, though, is that the NBA, a league plagued with struggling franchises and that desperately wants an infusion of wealth both into itself and into the country's top market, has apparently also made a deal with a devil. What needs to be asked is what David Stern and NBA brass knew when they signed up Prokhorov to be a member of their elite club.

Potential for conflict in a melting Arctic

Guest post by John Malone

John Malone, a VP/Senior Analyst with John S. Herold, an energy investment research firm in Connecticut, is a Truman National Security Project fellow.

[Ed. note: This is John's second guest post at The Reaction. You can find his first, on the importance of geothermal power, here. -- MJWS]

**********

Given the threats we as a nation have faced since 9/11, it's reasonable to think in terms of how climate change will affect societies that are already under stress – how countries could quickly degenerate from fragile to failed states, drawing U.S. forces into civil wars or humanitarian interventions, or providing fertile ground for terrorist recruiters. Water shortages, crop failures, and rising sea levels will trigger crises in some of the world's poorest countries that could stretch the resources of a military already fighting two wars abroad.

But as we prepare for such a world, we can't ignore how a warming planet will shift national interests among the established great powers. Sea ice in the Arctic is retreating, opening up access to resources and trade routes that to date have been beyond reach. A frozen Great Game is shaping up in the Arctic, between the U.S., Russia, Canada, and the Nordic countries, that will see – in the best case – U.S. military resources diverted to the far North, and in the worst case potentially leading to conflict with Moscow.

The U.S. Geological Survey now estimates that the offshore Arctic contains over 400 billion barrels of oil and natural gas equivalent, and that estimate assumes existing oil and gas technologies – advances in exploration and drilling techniques could bump up that number significantly. Most of the Arctic's unexplored areas lie offshore Russia – and Putin's Kremlin has made it abundantly clear that it considers the Arctic its backyard, all the way to the North Pole itself. Norway and Russia are already arguing over borders in the area. The gold rush for hydrocarbons in the Arctic is moving what has been a geopolitical backwater to the front burner for Western navies, and certainly will lead to (hopefully only diplomatic) conflict between the littoral states.

The other issue at hand is transport: an Arctic sea route between the North Atlantic and the Far East that could cut substantial time – and therefore cost- off trade between Europe and Asia. Retreating sea ice is opening new lanes, which means more tonnage through the Arctic, which in turn means more need for military patrols and monitoring. Ottawa is apparently already budgeting for drone aircraft earmarked for Arctic surveillance.

Russia has made it clear it is going to aggressively pursue its interests in the Arctic, and Canada has been saying for a couple years now that it plans to take a tough stand on its Arctic sovereignty. Thankfully, the new dynamic in the Arctic has not gone unnoticed in the Pentagon. In May, the Navy formed a task force to address climate change-related planning, and the potential for engagement in the Arctic is apparently at the top of the to-do list. Climate change is not only going to call upon more U.S. infantry and special forces abroad, it's going to mean more work for big-ticket items – naval task forces, icebreakers, new satellite systems – and the cost of their deployment and maintenance... not to mention a greater chance of bumping up against one of our oldest adversaries.

(Cross-posted from Operation FREE.)

Around the World: China, Zimbabwe, Somalia, the Ukraine, and the Vatican

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The latest in our ongoing series... (for previous entries, see here or here).

1) China: "China's exports have dropped into their biggest decline in a decade. Exports in December were down 2.8% from the same time last year, a bigger decline than November's 2.2% drop, the China Daily said."

Even though "China's economy relies on domestic demand for its goods and services more than any other country in Asia," which is to say, even though the decline in exports is perhaps less of a concern to China than it would be for others, what the numbers show is that "China is no more immune to worldwide trade problems than any other large economy." And it is likely to get worse: "With Japan, the US and Europe now in recession, China's heavily trade-dependent economy is expected to harder hit through the coming year."

Still, a growth rate of 7.5% in 2009 wouldn't be so bad, would it?

2) Zimbabwe: "Zimbabwe's cholera epidemic has killed more than 2,000 people and almost 40,000 have contracted the normally preventable disease, the World Health Organisation said on Tuesday."

As if it weren't already bad enough in that wretched place, what with the tyrant Mugabe clinging to power and continuing to oppress the people, now there's this, which "has spread to all of Zimbabwe's 10 provinces because of the collapse of health and sanitation systems." And the situation will only get worse during the January-March rainy season.

3) Somalia: "Ethiopian troops pulled out from crucial bases in Mogadishu on Tuesday, leaving a power vacuum that was quickly filled by Islamist fighters who seized their positions."

And so, with the Ethiopians soon to be out, within a matter of days, Somalia is left to the Somalis... and to "Somalia’s Islamist movement," which "has made a steady comeback, with Islamist factions again controlling much of the country.

One war is over, but another is already underway: "Many Western diplomats and other Somalia analysts have warned that once all the Ethiopians are gone, the various Islamist factions will unleash their considerable firepower on each other in a scramble to take over the country. Some of that fighting has already kicked off, with dozens of people killed in the past week in combat between moderate and radical Islamist factions."

4) Ukraine: "Just hours after Russia resumed delivery of natural gas to the European Union through Ukrainian pipelines, Kiev has admitted to blocking the supplies. Ukraine is claiming that Gazprom has established 'unacceptable' conditions for the transit of the gas to Europe."

It's a complicated situation, obviously, with Gazprom blaming the U.S. for backing the Ukraine (and accusing the Ukraine of stealing gas), but it is essentially a regional dispute between Moscow and Kiev "over gas pricing and the lucrative transit fees paid to Kiev for gas transported across its pipelines." (Though Anne Applebaum notes that it was actually Putin, who still runs the show in Russia, who actually turned off the gas, not Gazprom. So it's political, not just commercial, and, this year, Russia is very much to blame.)

Russian gas is essential to much of Europe, but what is needed is for Europe to disentangle itself from the situation by reducing its dependency on Russian gas in the first place. And that requires, in Applebaum's view (one I share, though I defer to her expertise here), "a true, unified E.U. energy policy," even if, as Clay Risen points out, there are no "easy or obvious answers" and, to put it mildly, "difficulties inherent in any such effort."

5) Vatican: "Decrying the violence that Mexicans are enduring, the Vatican has suggested excommunication as a possible punishment for drug traffickers whose war with the government has led to the deaths of thousands of people in the last year. But the Roman Catholic Church's severest form of rebuke would probably have little effect on traffickers and killers who lack a religious conscience, the Vatican's No. 2 official, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, acknowledged."

You think?

Around the World: Zimbabwe, Belarus, Greece, Russia, and Turkey

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This, apparently, is Post #6,000 at The Reaction. I suppose that's a milestone of sorts. Let's use the occasion to do another installment of our Around the World series (which we haven't done in some time):

1) Zimbabwe: "A cholera epidemic is sweeping across Zimbabwe, causing further suffering to millions of people already struggling to survive in a country close to systemic collapse as food shortages and hyperinflation continue to take their toll." It's pretty grim, to say the least -- and, as the BBC notes, it does not even have permission to report from Zimbabwe.

2) Belarus: "Police have arrested dozens of opposition activists across Belarus after a series of protests marking international Human Rights Day." Oh, what a lovely dictatorship. (And such irony: human rights abuses on Human Rights Day.)

3) Greece: "Riot police battled protesters outside Greece's parliament and in Athens suburbs yesterday while opposition socialists called for the conservative government to step down to end the worst civil unrest in decades." It's a complicated situation, but, essentially, students have risen up against the government of conservative Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis in the wake of the killing of a 15-year old boy by police. As the editor of one of the country's leading newspapers put it, the killing "It will quickly become a flag of convenience for anyone who has a grudge against the state, the government, the economic system, foreign powers, capitalism and so on." More here.

4) Russia: "[T]he Kremlin seems to be capitalizing on the economic crisis, exploiting the opportunity to establish more control over financially weakened industries that it has long coveted, particularly those in natural resources." Putin's authoritarian centralization -- and, make no mistake, he's still in charge -- is disturbing, but it's not like the alternative, the rule of the oligarchs and the various other corrupt and criminal elements that dominate Russian society, is terribly appealing either.

5) Turkey: "Amid corruption scandals and stagnating reform, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, praised in Europe as a modernizer, is seeking refuge in nationalist rhetoric, adopting a tougher stance on the Kurds and moving closer to the country's military leaders." It is nationalism, and not so much patriotism, that is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and certainly of the desperate politician seeking to distract public attention away from what really matters. Yet again, and so predictably, it's the glorification of the Self (us) and the vilification of the Other (them). And, in this case, it could put a halt to Turkey's pro-European modernization efforts and lead to further destabilization in northern Iraq (Kurdistan).

When the boom is over, what happens then?

By Carol Gee

(image: Wordle)

Many big things have been happening that make the news. We shake our heads and say, "Not again." These headlines, for example, signify big deals, big "booms," so to speak: Russia test fired a old missile. India sent a rocket towards the moon. A U.S. air strike went awry in Afghanistan, killing Afghan soldiers by mistake. Stock markets are crashing all around the world signifying the end of a financial boom. And the McCain presidential campaign is not expected to explode victoriously into the headlines on election day. And still we worry. Roger Simon was able to capture our mood perfectly in his column for Politico today, "Democrats' Gloom Deepens." We are superstitiously afraid that Barack Obama's meteoric track will not bring him the presidency, that there is still a booming October surprise waiting to happen to spoil it. But there is often a bit of good news to counter the bad, if we look for it hard enough:

Space remains mostly peaceful -- "India launched its first unmanned moon mission on Wednesday following in the footsteps of rival China, as the emerging Asian power celebrated its space ambitions and scientific prowess," according to The Financial Times story. This is good news we hope, in step with the recent promulgation of "Keep Space For Peace Week,"* celebrated internationally by activists around the globe.

Military might is not the only force with power -- "Russia test-fired an intercontinental Stilet missile on Wednesday as part of the checks needed to extend the service of the weapon until 2010, the strategic missile forces said. The missile, which belongs to a type commissioned in 1979 . . ," reports Yahoo! News. At the same time there was this positive news from the BBC News: "Western donors have pledged $4.55bn (£2.7bn;3.5bn euros) to help rebuild Georgia, two months after its conflict with Russia."

Some plans go terribly wrong, others work unexpectedly -- "Nine Afghan soldiers have been killed and three others wounded in an air raid by US-led forces in eastern Afghanistan," as reported by Aljazeera. In the meantime, the BBC reports that many of al tQaeda's websites have been down for weeks, fueling speculation that hackers or counterintelligence targeted the key websites.

The way out of the economic crisis depends on the individual efforts of all of us, doing what we can to help. "A fresh batch of downbeat earnings and gloomy outlooks pushed US stocks sharply lower on Wednesday as concerns grew over the difficulties facing corporate America in the wake of banking sector turmoil," The Financial Times writes. In the midst of the turmoil, it seems to me that Barack Obama's brand of "Communitarian Populism" could be just the sort of governance needed. We are going to need all the help we can get to right the listing the ship of state, and we are much of the help we need.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are betmo* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Is the world more or less secure today?

By Carol Gee

Is the World More or Less Secure Today? There are many kinds of security. Uppermost in may people's minds these days is financial security around the globe. And probably the best place to find out about that question is the Financial Times. A good place to start is their World headlines page. There we learn that Saturday European leaders met to discuss the financial crisis. The UK may have to cut interest rates. British banks are braced for an insurance crackdown. California may have to get an emergency loan. The U.S. has lost 159,000 jobs recently, and our Federal Reserve system may have to do something with interest rates. Following the passage of the so-called "rescue" legislation, the financial markets remain somewhat in turmoil. Stocks fell sharply again the day of the vote. Financial Times also has a good International economy page.

European Leaders Hold Emergency Finance Summit in Paris -- The website Deutsche Welle has the best story about the economic Summit in Paris. It is a must read to get the full picture of the EU dilemma. To quote:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has called an emergency finance summit in Paris Saturday. Washington has approved its historic $700-billion bailout package, but EU leaders are divided over what action to take. Disagreements, however, center around a plan, reportedly favored by France, to set up a 300 billion euro ($415 billion) fund to help troubled European financial institutions.

In particular, this has provoked tensions between France and Germany, who have diverging views of how the European Union should function. Berlin is traditionally more opposed to a centralized approach, especially in monetary affairs.

Britain, along with Germany, has been reluctant to commit taxpayers' money to a Europe-managed fund and advocates a case-by-case approach to rescuing financial institutions. . . . The British prime minister's spokesman said that while the financial crisis had a "European dimension," individual countries wanted to come up with their own solution because it is their taxpayers' money that is at risk.

The Asia Times has an Asian Economy page analogous to the others mentioned in today's post. New Zealand's market did the best this week with only a 1% drop. Japan saw declines it had not seen in almost 25 years. It was reported that Asian markets "barely blinked" at the passage of the U.S. bailout package. Gold markets in Sydney and Hong Kong have been doing a brisk business. An article, "Asia still fatally coupled," by Thomas I Palley, offers a fascinating perspective on Tom Friedman's flat world.

Another interesting perspective is the one from Russia's RIA Novosti. Their Global financial crisis page is a good place to start. There we learn that only 7% of Russians believe that the economy is healthy. And, no surprise, Putin blames the U.S. for its inadequate response to the financial crisis. Russia's Central Bank gave $50 billion (9/29/08) to bolster its financial system.

Another kind of security is national security, or being protected from terrorism. For catching up on what is going on in this world I looked to my 10/3/08 CQ Behind the Lines newsletter, by David C. Morrison. Here are a couple of paragraphs that give some hints about how much more or less secure we are this week.

About security, the answer is, we don't know yet. To quote:

Four young Muslims went on trial in Paris on Wednesday accused of operating an extremist network that planned attacks in Europe and sent volunteers to fight in Iraq, Agence France-Presse reports. The two terror suspects arrested at a German airport last Friday may be released for want of evidence against them, Cologne’s Express explains. A Thai documentary that played at this month’s Toronto Film Festival centers on a teacher who was kidnapped and beaten by a group of Muslim women in 2006, dying after eight months in a coma, Reuters’ Chawadee Nualkhair spotlights.

About security the answer is, probably more secure. To quote:

In what is likely their last public appearance before meeting an Indonesian firing squad, the three Bali bombers “acted more like pop stars than prisoners,” The Sydney Morning Herald mentions. The United States has deployed to Israel a high-powered radar for coordinated defense against Iranian missile attack, marking the first permanent American military presence on Israeli soil, Defense News notes. “The Patriot Act-protected title character in ‘Eagle Eye’ [DreamWorks] is a self-aware, anti-terrorism surveillance computer that goes rogue — deciding to assassinate the leaders of America to end the self-imposed state of terror,” The Cleveland Scene’s Jason Morgan capsule-reviews.

About security the answer is, probably less secure. To quote:

The counterterror-oriented U.S. Africa Command debuted Wednesday as well, but hostility and cynicism have forced it to shelve plans to be based on the continent, Reuters updates. “Kylie Minogue and 2,000 VIP guests could be targeted by al Qaeda at the world’s most expensive party, the Nov. 20 opening of Dubai’s Atlantis Hotel,” The Daily Star breathlessly relates.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Trade missions to nowhere

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yeah, so you remember Palin's assertion, in her interview with Katie Couric, that there'd been "trade missions back and forth" between Alaska and Russia? (She was responding to Couric's question about whether there'd been "any negotiations... with the Russians." She didn't give any specifics and quickly, if awkwardly, moved on, claiming that she's been monitoring Putin and watching out for a Russian invasion.)

Well, there's a good reason she didn't give any specifics and didn't want anything to do with Couric's question. As Alex Koppelman points out at Salon's War Room, there never were any trade missions.

A previous governor, Democrat Tony Knowles, led one in 1997, but "[t]hat seems to be about it for Russia-Alaska trade missions lately." "When asked for examples of trade missions with Russia that have taken place under Palin's watch, gubernatorial spokeswoman Kate Morgan refused to answer the question."

If anything, there has been disengagement under Palin, not engagement. For example, according to Koppelman, a Seattle Times article published a couple of weeks ago "noted that Anchorage is host to an organization called the Northern Forum, a council of regional governments from all the northernmost countries of the world. But the Palin administration cut the Forum's budget from $75,000 to $15,000, and stopped the practice of sending representatives to its meetings."

So there you have it.

Yet another lie from Sarah Palin.

Painful Palin: "Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, there was more disturbing hilarity last night during Palin-Couric II, with Couric trying to be nice and Palin getting lost here, there, and everywhere. (For my comments on some of Palin-Couric I, see here.)

It's so bizarre, in a way.

Here's Palin, running for vice president, on the national stage, saying silly and stupid things and at times unable even to answer Couric's questions in any coherent, let alone meaningful, way, and showing a complete lack of experience, engagement, expertise, and even basic understanding of the issues.

She said, for example, that the U.S. should never second-guess Israel with respect to Iran. (See first video below.) Couric pressed her softly, exposing her incoherence and double-speak, but all Palin could do was fumble around with, and become entangled in, her verbiage.

She also responded with incoherence (and cluelessness) to Couric's question about the bailout. (See second video below.) She clearly looked uncomfortable, if not somewhat embarrassed. As Melissa McEwan puts it, "Palin's answer is just a rambling mess of jumbled talking points haphazardly strung together in a way that makes no sense, while she glances down at her notes. 'Not ready for primetime' doesn't begin to cover it."

And then there were her comments about Alaska's proximity to Russia and how that geographic fact somehow gives her valuable foreign policy experience. (See third video below.) Here's the exchange:

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

In other words... nothing.

Her claim is being mocked because it's mockable. Being the governor of the state next to Russia, to the remotest part of Russia, doesn't provide her with any foreign policy experience at all. She mentioned "trade missions" but was unable to give any specifics. Instead, she suggested that she's been monitoring Putin and watching out for a Russian invasion. Which is just plain stupid.

There is no way this woman should be anywhere near the vice presidency. Watch the videos -- and laugh -- but remember that she is the Republican nominee and that the race is close.

Will it always be about conflict?

By Carol Gee

The word that best describes the United States' role in the world under the Bush administration, in my opinion, is "versus." By extension that also accurately describes Senator John McCain, who wants to be our next president. He is every bit as conflict-ridden as George Bush.

Current conflicts in the news for example, include these from CQ Behind the Lines (9/24/08), Bugs ‘n bombs:

The Islamabad Marriott bomb owed its apparent intensity to the addition of aluminum powder to accelerate the explosion and add ferocity to the blaze, Danger Room discusses. Seven years after 9/11, the remains of 13 of the 19 men responsible have been IDed by the FBI and NYC medical examiner, but no one has formally requested the remains in order to bury them, the Times tells. “A key part of the FBI’s early investigation into the anthrax mailings was finding whether the germ that killed five people in late 2001 was weaponized,” a Scientific American technical review leads.

Versus... everybody -- Here are but a few on the Bush conflicts to which I refer: West vs. Middle East, U.S. vs. Europe, rich vs. poor, public vs. private, Democrats vs. Republicans. My hope is that the Obama administration is less about versus and more about common ground. In the spirit of bipartisanship, here is some newsletter information I received from Representative Christopher Shays' office. It outlines some of what I want to talk about news-wise in today's post.

September 12, 2008

Dear Friend,
I recently returned from a trip to Israel, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. In a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, others in the Administration, congressional and military leaders and leaders of the four countries I visited, I outlined 20 observations and 32 recommendations.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions are of grave concern to countries in the Middle East, particularly Israel. It is likely, if the international community does not take action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will act unilaterally.

As I recommended following my trip to Iraq in August 2006, we need a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. Most of our troops should be out of Iraq by December 2009, but a small US presence is still required to bolster the Iraq Security Force by offering medical, logistical, transportation and training support; acting as a deterrent from external attack; and providing stability so the Iraq military will not exert undue influence over the elected government.

Pakistan is in serious trouble, and unless the international community provides economic and security assistance the democratically elected government could collapse, with a nuclear Pakistan becoming an even greater haven for terrorists.

It is essential we understand our objective in Afghanistan, what is required to reach it, and whether the objective is possible. Before the United States commits additional forces, we must know what their impact will be; ask other NATO member states to contribute more forces; and request all combat restrictions be lifted.

To read my entire letter outlining my observations and recommendations, please click here.

Israel/USA vs. Iran -- Many countries in the Middle East see the U.S. and Israel as closely linked. In the recent dust-up with Russia, the U.S. linked up with Georgia. Russia has been helping Iran. From this tangled mess comes this little story: "Israeli Bombers Planned to Use Georgian Airfields in Iran Strike Report: Moscow ordered troops to raid Israeli facilities in Georgia to protect Iran#," by Arnaud de Borchgrave at Global Research, September 17, 2008. This is another fascinating piece of GWB diplomacy unhinged, the perfect illustration of the "Bush-versus-them" administration: "Bush: Iranians are "Assholes'"* is from Think Progress (9/11/08) It is about diplomatic Admiral Fallon's short tenure as CentCom Commander, as told in Bob Woodward's new book, "The War Within."

Iraq vs. itself -- The conflict in Iraq should never have happened. It unleashed a civil war that now waits to break out again when the U.S. leaves. "The surge" may not have been the total answer, after all: "Satellite images show ethnic cleanout in Iraq"* comes from Yahoo! News (9/19/08). To quote:

Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.

The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed.

U.S. vs. Pakistan -- What will happen in Pakistan, now that "The US Declare[d] War On Pakistan,"* according to Survival Acres on 9/18. The author reported on The Washington Post's use of the term, "The War in Pakistan." The conflict with Pakistan has a very uncertain outcome right now, more uncertain than almost anywhere. My Intel newsletter adds more:

CQ Behind the Lines (9/15/08) Over there: U.S. raids on Taliban and al Qaeda targets in Pakistan could provoke terror attacks in London, The Times of London reports Pakistan’s high commissioner to the U.K. warning — while The Evening Standard finds an extremist group promising the next 9/11 will take place in Britain. . . Suspected al Qaeda militants killed 12 Mauritanian soldiers Monday, AP quotes senior officials.

USA vs. Russia -- During the Cold War it was the United States and the West versus the Soviet Union. That conflict started an arms race that, in a different way, is manifesting again. This little piece is about Russia selling arms to Venezuela and Iran while the U.S. is also deeply into the business of arms sales. The Real Gun Runners, And It’s Business As Usual,* 9/18/08, is from Survival Acres. To quote:

Except this isn’t a bogus comparison — it’s real. The US really IS selling $32 billion in weapons and other military equipment to foreign governments.

Nothing new here, the American economy is strongly tied to our arms deals all over the world. The nation industry is deeply embedded in arms sales and the death and destruction of millions of people all over the world. But that isn’t my point.

My point was how the lying media refuses to let you know what one hand is doing while it accuses the other.

War vs. Peace -- "Wag the Dog" was a post at Reconstitution 2.0 (9/18/08). It asks whether there will there be an election "October surprise" somewhere near the Persian Gulf? Will the military-industrial complex fight for life after a regime change? Of course they will. They have their tentacles everywhere and will not give up easily. For example, this post at AlterNet (9/19/08), is on the subject of "Public Military Academies: Prep Schools? Or Blatant Recruitment Pools?"* Public school systems are increasingly opening their doors to military academies -- primarily in poor urban areas. Fortunately not everything is about conflict; some long for peace. There is this good news from AfterDowningStreet (9/15/08): "Sir Bob Geldof Launches Peace Channel"* by Rowena Mason. To quote:

Sir Bob Geldof, the charity campaigner and rock star, has opened the way for citizen journalists to report on conflicts around the world with the launch of his Peace Channel. His online TV channel is switched on today at midday at the Point of Peace Summit in Stavanger, Norway, where Nobel Peace Laureates and experts are gathered to discuss conflict resolution. Sir Bob wants people to send in their video reports to “cover the world’s wars and potential flash points”.

Right vs. Wrong -- The following closing story reinforces my hope for less conflict and more peace in my life. It concerns an ongoing flash point within a sister mental health professional organization, that of psychiatrists. It came to me via ProPublica. Titled, "The Ethics of Interrogation — The U.S. Military's Ongoing Use of Psychiatrists," and written by Jonathan H. Marks, M.A., B.C.L., and M. Gregg Bloche, M.D., J.D., it is in The New England Journal of Medicine, 9/11/08. To quote:

In May 2006, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) adopted a position statement prohibiting psychiatrists from "direct participation" in the interrogation of any person in military or civilian detention — including "being present in the interrogation room, asking or suggesting questions, or advising authorities on the use of specific techniques of interrogation with particular detainees."1 A few weeks later, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA) issued a similar opinion, stating that "physicians must neither conduct nor directly participate in an interrogation, because a role as physician–interrogator undermines the physician's role as healer."2 The opinion defines direct participation as including "monitoring interrogations with the intention of intervening."

. . . Yet documents recently provided to us by the U.S. Army in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) make clear that the Department of Defense still wants doctors to be involved and continues to resist the positions taken by medicine's professional associations. An October 2006 memo entitled "Behavioral Science Consultation Policy" (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org) fails to mention the APA statement and provides a permissive gloss on the AMA's policy, at some points contradicting it outright.

The antidotes to national and international conflict include -- the diminished influence of the military, more bipartisanship within the ranks of those who govern, enhanced fairness, respectful attitudes, more transparency, and an increased sense of how fast the globe is shrinking and flattening. The last and most powerful antidote would be the defeat of John McCain on November 4.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Russia -- we need to listen.

By Carol Gee

Section 1 -- What should we hear?

Russia and the United States are exchanging growls. How dangerous is it between the two powers? Will the Russian bear really bite? Today's post explores that question.

First we learn that Russia will cut all military ties with NATO. To quote a bit of insight from Survival Acres -- One step closer to war* (9/18/08):

The truth is, Russia is in a great position for all of Europe, who will come to heavily depend upon Russian oil to keep from freezing to death. But the US keeps acting like it can dictate whatever it wants to whoever it wants, despite it’s own gross violations of human rights and national sovereignty.

"Visiting Georgia, Dick Cheney assails Russia" -- The U.S. growler-in-chief, Vice President Dick Cheney made a trip to Georgia on Thursday, the LA Times reported. The U.S is set to provide $1 billion in nonmilitary aid, but has not yet committed to rebuilding Georgia's army. To quote:

Cheney's visit to Tbilisi was the highlight of a quick swing through the Western-friendly nations of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine, all former Soviet republics. The trip apparently was designed to shore up the morale of national leaders rattled by Russia's rout of U.S.-trained Georgian forces. . . In Washington, the White House said the conflict had strengthened U.S. determination to bring Georgia and Ukraine into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Cheney's visit, said Georgian political expert Alexander Rondeli, demonstrated "the United States' full support of Georgia and its president.

"The vice president marked the big importance of the energy corridor that runs on the Georgian territory," he said, "and the corridor remains in the sphere of interests of America and Western countries."

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates urges middle ground with Russia," was the LA Times headline this morning. We can be grateful that cooler heads are prevailing over mere growling. Gates did not directly address the issue extending membership in NATO to Georgia, but did talk about lessons learned after World War I. And he said the West should not enter alliances lightly, but also emphasized that the U.S. would live up to its NATO obligation. Listen to this:

As NATO ministers disagree on Georgia, Gates says the next U.S. administration needs a balanced approach to contain Russian aggression without resorting to military force.

. . . By seeking a middle ground in relations with Russia, Gates appeared to be sounding a warning to politicians such as Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who have pushed for the United States to isolate Russia after its military confrontation with Georgia, and back the small former Soviet republic at all costs.

. . . McCain has pushed hard for the United States to support Georgia and other "struggling democracies" in their conflicts with Russia, and has turned to the much-used 1938 analogy. In an op-ed article that ran a week after the Russian invasion of Georgia, McCain wrote that "the world has learned at great cost the price of allowing aggression against free nations to go unchecked."

[Gates concluded] . . . "For much of the past century, Western psychology, rhetoric and policymaking on matters of war and peace has been framed by, and often lurched between, these two poles: between excessive pressures to take military action and excessive restraint, between a too eager embrace of the use of military force and an extreme aversion to it," Gates said.

We must listen to this old friend -- "Mikhail Gorbachev harshly criticizes Condoleezza Rice for her political rudeness," from Pravda, 9/19/08. To quote:

The ex-president of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, stated that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should “use more caution in her call for the West to stand up against Russia, which she said has become "increasingly authoritarian at home and aggressive abroad."

"I believe that the secretary of state should be more careful and should show greater calm and responsibility for her judgment in calling for the West to unite against Russia," Gorbachev said through an interpreter at a press conference held before the Liberty Medal ceremony at the National Constitution Center, the AP reports. . .

Gorbachev received the Liberty Medal, which comes with a $100,000 prize, from former President George H.W. Bush, who was commander in chief at the time of the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. . . The Liberty Medal was established in 1988 to honor individuals and organizations whose actions represent the founding principles of the United States.

"Russia says trade with U.S. must not depend on politics," is the statement from an authoritative voice of Russia, RIA Novosti -- 9/20/08. A Russian deputy said that, "ties with the U.S. have been "among Russia's major priorities irrespective of the political weather." To quote further:

Political squabbles between Russia and the United States should not affect their trade, Russia's deputy foreign minister said on Saturday.

Speaking at a roundtable meeting with American businessmen on the sidelines of an investment forum in the Black Sea resort Sochi, Andrei Denisov said: "We hope the pragmatism and common sense of the current and future U.S. administrations will prevail, and we will continue cooperation in all areas."

Relations between the two former Cold War foes strained over the Georgia conflict last month. Washington said it might scrap a civil nuclear deal with Russia as punishment for its invasion of Georgia and recognition of breakaway South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

"Hydrocarbons - the formula of war" is an analytical piece by military commentator Ilya Kramnik from RIA Novosti -- 9/19/08. Hear his closing words; they are some from which we can learn a great deal. "Energy is not only a great divider, it is also a gap bridger." To quote what led to his conclusion:

Hydrocarbon prices, new nuclear and hydro-power plants, oil blackmail - energy is now one of the central issues discussed in the world. Even the defense sector is not immune: many analysts tend to view most 20th century wars as wars for energy. . . . Control over energy production was not the ultimate goal for Germany, Italy or Japan - the aggressor countries in World War II - but it was one of the overriding objectives.

. . . The situation did not change much after the war. Oil-bearing regions have become the scene of rivalry between leading nations of the world which rushed to seek allies with the holders of the black stuff. The attractiveness of oil among other energy resources is easy to explain: it is a very calorie-rich fuel (a small amount yields a large volume of energy), its production, transportation and storage are simpler than that of other resources, and it is these advantages that have ultimately led oil and petroleum products to become the main resource of our machine-based civilization. Soon natural gas joined oil to become a near ideal source of energy for thermal power plants.

. . . Within the next few years, the Arctic is likely to become another area of conflict in the drive for energy. Global warming, which is opening up long-term access to the Arctic shelf, combined with large proven hydrocarbon resources, is bound to make the leading world powers challenge neighbors' rights to some parts of the shelf.

. . . Awareness of these factors lends to one's understanding as to why the European countries worry over fuel supplies from Russia. The hydrocarbons from the North Sea, the Persian Gulf and elsewhere are running out and cannot meet the needs of the European economy. Such interdependence of the sides works well in bringing them closer together and softening their stance over disputes - regardless of the fine words in which politicians and diplomats couch the description of the process.

It is easy to bluster -- It is harder to listen in an authentic and engaged way. Communications between nations are carried on between actual people, or with written words. It is the communicator's responsibility to be understood. It is the listener's responsibility to try to hear and act in good faith.

Section 2 -- Bonus read

"Insight: Who runs Russia?" is an article by Bridget Kendall in the 9/15/08 BBC News. The first key question is - who is really in charge? The first key message is that neither is willing to compromise with the West. The second message was that any move to extend NATO to Russia's borders by seeking to incorporate Georgia or Ukraine - is Russia's red line that still stands. The third message was that Russia would like to think a major East-West confrontation can still be avoided. To quote rather extensively from this fascinating in-depth piece:

The standard answer is President Medvedev as Commander in Chief. He, and only he, ordered Russian troops across the border to hit back when Georgia attacked on South Ossetia. But presidential power is now the tip of an iceberg. What murky currents swirl beneath the surface is less clear. . . . what about Russia's ex-president, now his prime minister, who was also at the conference?

"However much authority I have, whoever I may be talking to, none of the troops or tanks would have moved an inch until President Medvedev's order," was Vladimir Putin's attempt to deny his own importance when we asked about his role, thereby indicating that his clout and involvement were considerable.

. . . All to signal, perhaps, that their status is equal - a dual leadership exercising power in tandem. . . The aim, it seemed, was to send a signal to the West that Dmitry Medvedev is indeed more flexible and reformist than Putin himself - and was forced to act tough because the crisis left him no option.

. . . So what, then, at this juncture does Russia want from the West? The first message is that the Russian government is in no mood to compromise. . . That conviction was echoed from top to bottom in our discussions with government officials, mainstream academics and journalists, all of them insisting Russia had no choice but to respond militarily and take South Ossetia and Abkhazia under its wing. Any suspicion that Russia cunningly laid a trap that Georgia rashly walked into was dismissed as an outrageous lie.

. . . Curiously both Mr Putin and President Medvedev were carefully respectful when it came to President Bush.

"He's a good politician, I think I have a better opinion of George than most Americans," said Mr Putin, at the same time complaining that he had twice tried to get the US president to intervene.

Instead it was Vice-President Cheney and the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with their Soviet expertise, who were targeted as villains, suspected of fuelling anti-Russian sentiment in the US administration and egging Georgia on.

. . . So the hints of a threat, but not exactly - and that is interesting. [other causes] . . . They denied that the loss of nearly 50% of Russia's stock market value from its all time high in May had much to do with the Georgia crisis. A far more likely cause, they argued - with some justification, given what is happening on Wall Street - was the impact of global financial instability.

[Conclusion] But behind all the moral outrage, I felt there was also a nervousness, a worry that if Russia's bluff is called and further tensions with the West ensue, it might force a stand-off from which neither side could back down.

"There is a chill in the air and a loss of trust," said Dmitry Medvedev, "but I don't think this is a corner turn that will lead to a long confrontation. This is not what we want. And it's not what you want either."

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributor of links to leads: "betmo*".

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Orange dissolution -- again

By MSS

(It has been a while since I exercised the posting privileges Michael kindly gave me. The following is cross-posted at Fruits & Votes, where I have followed Ukraine off and on since establishing the blog in 2005.)

For the second time since the Orange Revolution of late 2004, a coalition cabinet consisting of the parties of President Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, who led these coalitions as Prime Minister, has been formally dissolved.

While US media coverage has focused on divisions with respect to the recent Russia-Georgia conflict as underlying the split, the real cause is deeper still: the parties remain suspicious of one another and those suspicions, there all along, would only get worse as the 2010 presidential elections approach.

The one manner in which the Russia-Georgia conflict probably has realigned internal Ukrainian politics is that it is now harder to imagine the sort of coalition that initially followed the 2006 parliamentary elections: one between defeated 2004 presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions and Yushchenko's Our Ukraine.

Given that a government coalition must be proposed by a majority in parliament--there is no provision for the President to appoint a government or for the largest party to form a minority government tolerated if not actively supported by other parties--what options are left? A Tymoshenko-Yanukovych coalition? It is the only formula not yet tried.

Such a coalition does not seem to me as odd as it might at first appear. Tymoshenko has positioned herself--and often been perceived in the West--as the more radical firebrand relative to the more technocratic Yushchenko (who, as a former Central Bank president, is hardly the sort of politician one would ever have imagined having his name chanted by thousands of protesters!). Nonetheless, her electoral coalition spans east and west Ukraine to a greater degree than either of the other two, and the Russia-Georgia conflict revealed her to be somewhat more accommodating towards the government of the Russian Federation than Yushchenko would like to be.

A coalition between Tymoshenko and Yanukovych would be an odd one institutionally, however, in that it would exclude the party of a presidency that remains quite powerful, the legislative initiative in government-formation notwithstanding. One of the greatest powers of the presidency, however, would be neutralized by the Yulia-Regions coalition: a veto that required a two-thirds vote to override. The parties of Tymoshenko and Yanukovych together have over 70% of the seats.

And then, there is always the possibility of constitutional changes that would make the presidency weaker, and the first-linked news item notes that such a possibility actually was one of the triggers of the coalition collapse:

Our Ukraine quit after denouncing a vote to cut presidential powers in which Tymoshenko joined Yanukovich and his party.

Provisions of the constitution make calling an early parliamentary election difficult (though the president managed to find a way a year ago). Besides, new elections would be unlikely to do anything but reconfirm the tripartite division among these three major parties.

In other words, somehow the three titans of post-Orange Revolution Ukraine are going to have to muddle through. Or at least that is how it looks from here. While I follow Ukraine in the sense that I have visited and care a lot about the country, and use it as a case in some of my research and teaching, I do not claim to be an expert. Maybe someone who follows the country more closely can offer some other scenarios, but muddling through is about all I see. (Unless, of course, the Yulia-Regions coalition moves up the presidential election. Is that possible? Just a thought.)