CHAPTER VII
America’s War Machine

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia—which coincided with the formation of GUUAM and NATO enlargement into Eastern Europe—marked an important turnaround in East-West relations.

Aleksander Arbatov, Deputy Chairman of the Defense Committee of the Russian State Duma US-Russian Relations, described the war in Yugoslavia as the “worst, most acute, most dangerous juncture since the US-Soviet Berlin and Cuban missile crises”.1 According to Arbatov:

START II is dead, co-operation with NATO is frozen, co-operation on missile defense is out of the question, and Moscow’s willingness to co-operate on non-proliferation issues is at an all-time low. Moreover, anti-US sentiment in Russia is real, deep and more widespread than ever, and the slogan describing NATO action—“today Serbia, tomorrow Russia,” is deeply planted in Russians’minds.2

Despite President Boris Yeltsin’s conciliatory statements at the 1999 G-8 Summit in Cologne, Russia’s military establishment had openly expressed its distrust of the US: “The bombing of Yugoslavia could turn out in the very near future to be just a rehearsal for similar strikes on Russia.”3

Mary-Wynne Ashford, co-President of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), warned that, whereas Russia was moving towards integration with Europe, they (the Russians) now:

… perceive their primary threat [to be] from the West. Officials in [Russia’s] Foreign Affairs (Arms Control and Disarmament) told us [the IPPNW] that Russia has no option but to rely on nuclear weapons for its defense, because its conventional forces are inadequate …. [T]he changes in Russia’s attitude toward the West, its renewed reliance on nuclear weapons with thousands on high alert and its loss of confidence in international law leave us vulnerable to catastrophe … . This crisis makes de-alerting nuclear weapons more urgent than ever. To those who say the Russian threat is all rhetoric, I reply that rhetoric is what starts wars.4

Post 1999 Military Buildup

Meanwhile, in Washington, a major build-up of America’s military arsenal was in the making. The underlying objective was to achieve a position of global military hegemony. Defense spending in 2002 was hiked up to more than $300 billion, an amount equivalent to the entire Gross Domestic Product of the Russian Federation (approximately $325 billion). An even greater increase in US military spending was set in motion in the wake of the October 2001 bombing of Afghanistan:

More than one-third of the $68 billion allocated for new weapons in the 2003 budget is for Cold War-type weapons. Several billion dollars are allocated for cluster bomb systems that have been condemned by human rights groups around the world. There is no rationale for this level of military spending other than a clear intent for the United States to be the New World Empire, dominating the globe economically and militarily, including the militarization of space.5

In the largest military buildup since the Vietnam War, the Bush administration plans to increase military spending by $120 billion over a five-year period, “bringing the 2007 military budget to an astounding $451 billion”.6

This colossal amount of money allocated to America’s war machine does not include the enormous budget of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) allocated from both “official” and undisclosed sources to finance its covert operations. The official budget of the CIA is in excess of $30 billion (10 per cent of Russia’s GDP). This amount excludes the multi-billion dollar earnings from narcotics accruing to CIA shell companies and front organizations.7

From the overall defense budget, billions of dollars have been allocated to “refurbishing America’s nuclear arsenal”. A new generation of “cluster missiles”—with multiple nuclear warheads— has been developed, capable of delivering (from a single missile launch) up to 10 nuclear warheads directed at 10 different cities. These missiles are now targeted at Russia. In this context, Washington has clung to its “first strike” nuclear policy, which in principle is intended to deal with “rogue states” but, in fact, is largely directed against Russia and China.

Meanwhile, the US have also developed a new generation of “tactical nuclear weapons” or “mini-nukes” to be used in conventional war theatres. Already during the Clinton administration, the Pentagon was calling for the use of the “nuclear” B61-11 bunker buster bomb, suggesting that because it was “underground”, there was no toxic radioactive fallout which could affect civilians:

Military officials and leaders of America’s nuclear weapon laboratories are urging the US to develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons … which could be used in conventional conflicts with Third World nations.8

America’s War Economy

The military buildup initiated during the Clinton administration has gained a new momentum. September 11 and Bush’s “war on terrorism” are used as an excuse for expanding America’s military machine and fuelling the growth of the military-industrial complex. A new “legitimacy” has unfolded. Increased military spending is said to be required “to uphold freedom” and defeat “the axis of evil”:

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month—over $30 million a day—and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely … . My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades—because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.9

Since September 11, 2001, billions of dollars have been channeled towards developing new advanced weapons systems, including the F22 Raptor fighter plane and the Joint Fighter (JF) program.

The Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) not only includes the controversial “Missile Shield”, but also a wide range of “offensive” laser-guided weapons with striking capabilities anywhere in the world, not to mention instruments of weather and climatic warfare under the High Altitude Auroral Research Program (HAARP). The latter has the ability of destabilizing entire national economies through climatic manipulations, without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war.10

Long-term planning pertaining to advanced weapons systems and the control of outer space is outlined in a US Space Command document released in 1998, entitled “Vision for 2020”. The underlying objective consists in:

… dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment …. The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea and air superiority will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance.11

Nuclear Weapons in the Wake of September 11

In the wake of September 11, the “war on terrorism” is also being used by the Bush administration to redefine the assumptions underlying the use of nuclear weapons. The concept of “nuclear deterrence” has been scrapped.

“They’re trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence.”12

In early 2002, a secret Pentagon report confirmed the Bush administration’s intent to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. The secret report, leaked to the Los Angeles Times, states that nuclear weapons “could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or in the event of surprising military developments”.13

With a Strangelovian genius, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which a president may wish to use nuclear weapons— planning in great detail for a war they hope never to wage.

In this top-secret domain, there has always been an inconsistency between America’s diplomatic objectives of reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on the one hand, and the military imperative to prepare for the unthinkable on the other.

 

Nevertheless, the Bush administration plan reverses an almost two-decade-long trend of relegating nuclear weapons to the category of weapons of last resort. It also redefines nuclear requirements in hurried post-September 11 terms.17

While identifying a number of “rogue states”, the not-so-hidden agenda of the Bush administration is to deploy and use nuclear weapons against Russia and China in the context of America’s expansionary policy into Central Asia, the Middle East and the Far East:

The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor, it said.

 

The report says Russia is no longer officially an “enemy”. Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller “theatre” nuclear weapons, remains of concern.

Pentagon officials have said publicly that they were studying the need to develop theatre nuclear weapons, designed for use against specific targets on a battlefield, but had not committed themselves to that course.18

The thrust of this secret report, presented to the US Congress in early 2002, has been endorsed by the Republican Party:

[C]onservative analysts insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapons’ development programs …. They argued that smaller weapons have an important deterrent role because many aggressors might not believe that the US forces would use multi-kiloton weapons that would wreak devastation on surrounding territory and friendly populations.

We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction,” said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent “the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world”.19

Encircling China

In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the Clinton administration boosted its military support to Taiwan against China, leading to a significant military buildup in the Taiwan Straits. Taiwan’s Air Force had been previously equipped with some 150 F16A fighter planes from Lockheed Martin. In this regard, the Clinton administration had argued that military aid to Taiwan was required to maintain “a military balance with the People’s Republic of China” as part of Washington’s policy of “peace through deterrence”.20

US-built Aegis destroyers equipped with state-of-the-art surface-to-air missiles, ship-to-ship missiles, and Tomahawk cruise missiles were delivered to Taiwan to boost its naval capabilities in the Taiwan Straits.21 Beijing responded to this military buildup by taking delivery in 2000, of its first Russian-built guided missile destroyer, the Hangzhou, equipped with SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles, “capable of penetrating the state-of-the-art defenses of a US or Japanese naval battle group”.22

Military assumptions have been radically changed since September 11. The Bush administration has scrapped the “peace through deterrence” doctrine. The post-September 11 military buildup in the Taiwan Straits is an integral part of Washington’s overall military planning, which now consists in deploying “on several fronts”.

Supported by the Bush administration, Taiwan has been,

“conducting active research aimed at developing a tactical ballistic missile capable of hitting targets in mainland China. … The alleged purpose of these missiles is to degrade the PLA’s (People’s Liberation Army) strike capability, including missile infrastructure and non-missile infrastructure (airfields, harbors, missile sites, etc.).”23

In turn, US military presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan (and in several former Soviet republics), on China’s western border, are being coordinated with Taiwan’s naval deployment in the South China Sea.

China has been encircled: The US military is present in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, in the Korean Peninsula and the Sea of Japan, as well as in the heartland of Central Asia and on the Western border of China’s Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region. “Temporary” US military bases have been set up in Uzbekistan (which is a member of the GUUAM agreement with NATO), in Tajikistan and in Kyrgyztan, where airfields and military airport facilities have been made available to the US Air Force.

Using Nuclear Weapons Against China

In early 2002, the Bush administration confirmed its intent to use nuclear weapons against China if there was a confrontation in the Taiwan Straits:
China, because of its nuclear forces and “developing strategic objectives”, is listed as “a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency”. Specifically, the NPR lists a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan as one of the scenarios that could lead Washington to use nuclear weapons.24

The Anglo-American Axis

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia contributed to reinforcing strategic, military and intelligence ties between Washington and London. After the war in Yugoslavia, US Defense Secretary William Cohen and his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon, signed a “Declaration of Principles for Defense Equipment and Industrial Cooperation” so as to “improve cooperation in procuring arms and protecting technology secrets”, while at the same time “easing the way for more joint military ventures and possible defense industry mergers”.25

Washington’s objective was to encourage the formation of a,

“trans-Atlantic bridge across which DoD [US Department of Defense] can take its globalization policy to Europe ….Our aim is to improve interoperability and war fighting effectiveness via closer industrial linkages between US and allied companies.”26

In the words of President Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Cohen:

[The agreement] will facilitate interaction between our respective [British and American] industries so that we can have a harmonized approach to sharing technology, working cooperatively in partnership arrangements and, potentially, mergers as well.27

The agreement was signed in 1999 shortly after the creation of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) resulting from the merger of British Aerospace (BAe) with GEC Marconi. British Aerospace was already firmly allied to America’s largest defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing.28

The hidden agenda behind the Anglo-American “trans-Atlantic bridge” is to eventually displace the Franco-German military conglomerates and ensure the dominance of the US military industrial complex (in alliance with Britain’s major defense contractors).

Moreover, this integration in the area of defense production has been matched by increased cooperation between the CIA and Britain’s MI6 in the sphere of intelligence and covert operations, not to mention the joint operations of British and US Special Forces.

The United States and Germany

The British military-industrial complex has become increasingly integrated into that of the US. In turn, significant rifts have emerged between Washington and Berlin. Franco-German integration in aerospace and defense production is ultimately directed against US dominance in the weapons market. The latter hinges upon the partnership between America’s Big Five and Britain’s defense industry under the trans-Atlantic bridge agreement.

Since the early ‘90s, the Bonn government has encouraged the consolidation of Germany’s military industrial complex dominated by Daimler, Siemens and Krupp. Several important mergers in Germany’s defense industry took place in response to the mega-mergers between America’s aerospace and weapons producers.29

By 1996 Paris and Bonn had already set up a joint armaments agency with the mandate “to manage common programs [and] award contracts on behalf of both governments”.30 Both countries had stated that they “did not want Britain to join the agency”.

France and Germany also now control Airbus industries, which is competing against America’s Lockheed-Martin. (Britain’s BAES owns the remaining 20 per cent.) The Germans are also collaborating in the Ariane Space satellite-launching program in which Deutsche Aerospace (DASA) is a major shareholder.
In late 1999, in response to the “alliance” of British Aerospace with Lockheed Martin, France’s Aerospatiale-Matra merged with Daimler’s DASA, forming the largest European defense conglomerate.

The following year the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (EADS) was formed, integrating DASA, Matra and Spain’s Construcciones Aeronauticas, SA. EADS and its Anglo-American rivals are competing for the procurement of weapons to NATO’s new Eastern European members. (Europe’s third largest defense contractor is Thomson, which in recent years has several projects with US weapons producer Raytheon.)

While EADS still cooperates with Britain’s BAES in missile production and has business ties with the US “Big Five”, including Northrop Grumman, the Western defense and aerospace industry tends to be split into two distinct groups: EADS dominated by France and Germany on the one hand, the Anglo-US “Big Six”, which includes the US Big Five contractors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Northrop Grumman) plus Britain’s powerful BAES on the other.

Integrated into US Department of Defense procurement under the Atlantic bridge arrangement, BAES was the Pentagon’s fifth largest defense contractor in 2001. Under the Anglo-American “transatlantic bridge”, BAES operates freely in the US market through its subsidiary BAE Systems North America.31

Franco-German Integration in Nuclear Weapons

The Franco-German alliance in military production under EADS opens the door for the integration of Germany (which does not officially possess nuclear weapons) into France’s nuclear weapons program. In this regard, EADS already produces a wide range of ballistic missiles, including the M51 nuclear-tipped ballistic submarine-launched ICBMs for the French Navy.32

What this means is that Germany, through its alliance with France, is a de facto nuclear power.

Euro versus Dollar - Rivalry Between Competing Business Conglomerates

The European common currency system has a direct bearing on strategic and political divisions. London’s decision not to adopt the common European currency is consistent with the integration of British financial and banking interests with those of Wall Street, as well as the Anglo-American alliance in the oil industry (as in BP-Amoco) and weapons production (“Big Five” plus BAES). In other words, this shaky relationship between the British pound and the US dollar is an integral part of the new Anglo-American axis.

What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing global currencies: the Euro and the US dollar, with Britain’s pound being torn between the European and the US-dominated currency systems. Thus two rival financial and monetary systems are competing worldwide for control over money creation and credit. The geopolitical and strategic implications are far-reaching because they are also marked by splits in the Western defense industry and the oil business.

In both Europe and America, monetary policy, although formally under state jurisdiction, is largely controlled by the private banking sector. The European Central Bank based in Frankfurt— although officially under the jurisdiction of the European Union— is, in practice, overseen by a handful of private European banks, including Germany’s largest banks and business conglomerates.

The US Federal Reserve Board is formally under state supervision—marked by a close relationship to the US Treasury. Unlike the European Central Bank, the 12 Federal Reserve banks (of which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important) are controlled by their shareholders, which are private banking institutions.

In other words, “the Fed” as it is known in the US, which is responsible for monetary policy and hence money creation for the nation, is actually controlled by private financial interests.

Currency Systems and ‘Economic Conquest’

In Eastern Europe, in the former Soviet Union and in the Balkans, extending into Central Asia, the dollar and the Euro are competing with one another. Ultimately, control over national currency systems is the basis upon which countries are colonized. While the US dollar prevails throughout the Western Hemisphere, the Euro and the US dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

In the Balkans and the Baltic States, central banks largely operate as colonial style “currency boards” invariably using the Euro as a proxy currency. What this means is that German and European financial interests are in control of money creation and credit. In other words, the pegging of the national currency to the Euro— rather than to the US dollar—means that both the currency and the monetary system will be in the hands of German-EU banking interests.

More generally, the Euro dominates in Germany’s hinterland: Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the Balkans, whereas the US dollar tends to prevail in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In GUUAM countries (which have military cooperation agreements with Washington) the dollar tends (with the exception of the Ukraine) to overshadow the Euro.

The “dollarization” of national currencies is an integral part of America’s SRS. The SRS consists of first destabilizing and then replacing national currencies with the American greenback over an area extending from the Mediterranean to China’s Western border. The underlying objective is to extend the dominion of the Federal Reserve System—namely, Wall Street—over a vast territory.

What we are dealing with is an “imperial” scramble for control over national currencies. Control over money creation and credit is an integral part of the process of economic conquest, which in turn is supported by the militarization of the Eurasian corridor.

While American and German-EU banking interests are clashing over the control of national economies and currency systems, they seem to have agreed on “sharing the spoils”—i.e., establishing their respective “spheres of influence”. Reminiscent of the policies of “partition” in the late 19th century, the US and Germany have agreed upon the division of the Balkans: Germany has gained control over national currencies in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, where the Euro is legal tender. In return, the US has established a permanent military presence in the region (i.e., the Bondsteel military base in Kosovo).

Cross-cutting Military Alliances

The rift between Anglo-American and Franco-German weapons producers—including the rifts within the Western military alliance—seem to have favored increased military cooperation between Russia on the one hand, and France and Germany on the other.

In recent years, both France and Germany have entered into bilateral discussions with Russia in the areas of defense production, aerospace research and military cooperation. In late 1998, Paris and Moscow agreed to undertake joint infantry exercises and bilateral military consultations. In turn, Moscow has been seeking German and French partners to participate in the development of its military industrial complex.

In early 2000, Germany’s Defense Minister, Rudolph Sharping, visited Moscow for bilateral consultations with his Russian counterpart. A bilateral agreement was signed pertaining to 33 military cooperation projects, including the training of Russian military specialists in Germany.33 This agreement was reached outside the framework of NATO, and without prior consultation with Washington.

Russia also signed a “long term military cooperation agreement” with India in late 1998, which was followed a few months later by a defense agreement between India and France. The agreement between Delhi and Paris included the transfer of French military technology, as well as investment by French multinationals in India’s defense industry. The latter investment includes facilities for the production of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, in which the French companies have expertise.

This Franco-Indian agreement has a direct bearing on Indo-Pakistani relations. It also impinges upon US strategic interests in Central and South Asia. While Washington has been pumping military aid into Pakistan, India is being supported by France and Russia.

Visibly, France and the US are on opposite sides of the India-Pakistan conflict.

With Pakistan and India at the brink of war, in the immediate wake of September 11, 2001, the US Air Force had virtually taken control of Pakistan’s air space, as well as several of its military facilities. Meanwhile, barely a few weeks into the 2001 bombing of Afghanistan, France and India conducted joint military exercises in the Arabian Sea.

Also in the immediate wake of September 11, India took delivery of large quantities of Russian weapons, under the Indo-Russian military cooperation agreement.

Moscow’s New National Security Doctrine

US post-Cold War era foreign policy had designated Central Asia and the Caucasus as a “strategic area”. Yet this policy no longer consisted in containing the “spread of communism”, but rather in preventing Russia and China from becoming competing capitalist powers. In this regard, the US had increased its military presence along the entire 40th parallel, extending from Bosnia and Kosovo to the former Soviet republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, all of which had entered into bilateral military agreements with Washington.

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia and the subsequent outbreak of war in Chechnya in September 1999 were crucial turning points in Russian-American relations. They also marked a rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing and the signing of several military cooperation agreements between Russia and China.

US covert support to the two main Chechen rebel groups (through Pakistan’s ISI) was known to the Russian government and military. (For further details, see Chapter II.) However, it had never previously been made public or raised at the diplomatic level. In November 1999, the Russian Defense Minister, Igor Sergueyev, formally accused Washington of supporting the Chechen rebels. Following a meeting held behind closed doors with Russia’s military high command, Sergueyev declared that:

“The national interests of the United States require that the military conflict in the Caucasus [Chechnya] be a fire, provoked as a result of outside forces,” while adding that “the West’s policy constitutes a challenge launched to Russia with the ultimate aim of weakening her international position and of excluding her from geo-strategic areas”.34

In early 2000, in the wake of the Chechen war, a new “National Security Doctrine” was formulated and signed into law by President Vladimir Putin. Barely acknowledged by the international media, a critical shift in East-West relations had occurred. The document reasserted the building of a strong Russian state, the concurrent growth of the military and the reintroduction of state controls over foreign capital.

The document carefully spelled out what it described as “fundamental threats” to Russia’s national security and sovereignty. More specifically, it referred to “the strengthening of military-political blocs and alliances” (namely GUUAM), as well as to “NATO’s eastward expansion” while underscoring “the possible emergence of foreign military bases and major military presences in the immediate proximity of Russian borders”.35

The document confirmed that “international terrorism is waging an open campaign to destabilize Russia”. While not referring explicitly to CIA covert activities in support of armed terrorist groups, such as the Chechen rebels, it nonetheless called for appropriate “actions to avert and intercept intelligence and subversive activities by foreign states against the Russian Federation”.36
 

Undeclared War Between Russia and America

The cornerstone of US foreign policy was to encourage—under the disguise of “peace-keeping” and “conflict resolution”—the formation of small pro-US states, which lie strategically at the hub of the Caspian Sea basin, which contains vast oil and gas reserves:

The US must play an increasingly active role in conflict resolution in the region. The boundaries of the Soviet republics were intentionally drawn to prevent secession by the various national communities of the former USSR and not with an eye towards possible independence …. Neither Europe, nor our allies in East Asia, can defend our [US] mutual interests in these regions.

 

If we [the US] fail to take the lead in heading off the kinds of conflicts and crises that are already looming there, that will eventually exacerbate our relations with Europe and possibly Northeast Asia. It will encourage the worst kind of political developments in Russia. This linkage, or interconnectedness, gives the Transcaucasus and Central Asia a strategic importance to the United States and its allies that we overlook at huge risk.

 

To put it another way, the fruits accruing from ending the Cold War are far from fully harvested. To ignore the Transcaucasus and Central Asia could mean that a large part of that harvest will never be gathered.37

Russia’s Military Industrial Complex

Alongside the articulation of Moscow’s National Security doctrine, the Russian State was planning to regain economic and financial control over key areas of Russia’s military industrial complex. For instance, the formation of “a single corporation of designers and manufacturers of all anti-aircraft complexes” was envisaged in cooperation with Russia’s defense contractors.38

This proposed “re-centralization” of Russia’s defense industry, in response to national security considerations, was also motivated by the merger of major Western competitors in the area of military procurement. The development of new production and scientific capabilities was also contemplated, based on enhancing Russia’s military potential as well as its ability to compete with its Western rivals in the global weapons market.
 

The National Security Doctrine also “eases the criteria by which Russia could use nuclear weapons … which would be permissible if the country’s existence were threatened”.39

Russia reserves the right to use all forces and means at its disposal, including nuclear weapons, in case an armed aggression creates a threat to the very existence of the Russian Federation as an independent sovereign state.40

In response to Washington’s “Star Wars” initiative, Moscow had developed “Russia’s Missile and Nuclear Shield”. The Russian government announced in 1998 the development of a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These new single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region) are currently in “full combat readiness”, against a “pre-emptive first strike” from the US, which (in the wake of 9/11) constitutes the Pentagon’s main assumption in an eventual nuclear war.

“The Topol M is lightweight and mobile, designed to be fired from a vehicle. Its mobility means it is better protected than a silo-based missile from a pre-emptive first strike.”41

Following the adoption of the National Security Document (NSD) in 2000, the Kremlin confirmed that it would not exclude “a first-strike use” of nuclear warheads “if attacked even by purely conventional means”.42

Political ‘Turnaround’under President Vladimir Putin

The foreign policy directions of the Putin Administration remain unclear. There are significant divisions within both the political establishment and the military. On the diplomatic front, President Putin has sought a “rapprochement” with Washington and the Western Military Alliance in the “war on terrorism”.

In the wake of 9/11, a significant turnaround in Russian foreign policy, largely orchestrated by President Putin, has occurred. The Putin Administration, acting against the Russian Duma, has, nonetheless, accepted the process of “NATO Enlargement” into the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) implying the establishment of NATO military bases on Russia’s western border.

Meanwhile, Moscow’s military cooperation agreement signed with Beijing after the 1999 war in Yugoslavia was virtually on hold:

China is obviously watching with deep concern Russia surrendering these positions. China is also concerned by the presence of the US Air Force close to its borders in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrghyz Republic. … Everything that Mr. Putin has earned through the spectacular improvement of Russia’s relations with China, India, Vietnam, Cuba and some other countries collapsed nearly overnight. What has surfaced is a primitive Gorbachev concept of “common human values”—i.e., the subordination of Russia’s interests to those of the West.43

Ironically, the Russian President was supporting America’s “war on terrorism”, which is ultimately directed against Moscow. Washington’s hidden agenda is to dismantle Russia’s strategic and economic interests in the Eurasian corridor and close down or take over its military facilities, while transforming the former Soviet republics (and eventually the Russian Federation) into American protectorates:

It becomes clear that the intention to join NATO, expressed by Mr. Putin in an offhand manner last year [2000], reflected a long matured idea of a far deeper (i.e., in relation to the positions previously taken by Gorbachev or Yeltsin) integration of the Russian Federation into the “international community”. In fact, the intention is to squeeze Russia into the Western economic, political and military system. Even as a junior partner. Even at the price of sacrificing an independent foreign policy.44

Notes

1. Quoted in Mary-Wynne Ashford, “Bombings Reignite Nuclear War Fears”, The Victoria Times-Colonist. 13 May 1999, p. A15. Mary-Wynne Ashford is co-president of the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPPNW.
2. Quoted in Mary-Wynne Ashford, op. cit.
3. According to Viktor Chechevatov, a Three-star General and Commander of ground forces in Russia’s Far East, quoted in The Boston Globe, 8 April 1999, emphasis added.
4. Ashford, op. cit.
5. Douglas Mattern, “The United States of Enron-Pentagon, Inc”, Centre for Research on Globalization, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAT202A.html, February 2002.
6. Ibid.
7. See “Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror”, CDI Terrorism Project at http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/intel-funding-pr.cfm, 2 February 2002. See also Patrick Martin, “Billions for War and Repression: Bush Budget for a Garrison State”, World Socialist Website (WSWS), http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/mili-f06.shtml, 6 February 2002.
8. Federation of American Scientists (FAS) at http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/
9. George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 29 January 2002.

10. For further details on HAARP, see Michel Chossudovsky, “Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change”, Centre for Research on Globalization at globalresearch.ca, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html, January 2002.
11. See Bob Fitrakis, “Chemtrails Outlaw”, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT203A.html, 6 March 2002. See also Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http:// www.au.af.mil/au/2025/
12. John Isaacs, President of the Council for a Livable World quoted in Paul Richter,“US Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms”, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.
13. Paul Richter, “US Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms”, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.
14. Quoted in The Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001.
15. Cynthia Greer, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 16 October 2000.
16. Ibid.
17. William Arkin, “Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable”, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Mother Jones, “Taiwan wants bigger Slingshot”, http://www.mojones.com/arms/taiwan.html, 2000.
21. Deutsche Press Agentur, 27 February 2000.
22. Japan Economic Newswire, March 4, 2000.
23. AFP, 12 December 2001.
24. William Arkin, op. cit.
25. Reuters, 5 February 2000.
26. For further details see Vago Muradian, “Pentagon Sees Bridge to Europe”, Defense Daily, Vol. 204, No. 40, 1 December 1999.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid. See also Michel Collon’s analysis in Poker Menteur, Editions EPO, Brussels, 1998, p. 156.
29. Ibid., p. 156.
30.“American Monsters, European Minnows: Defense Companies.” The Economist, 13 January 1996.
31. British Aerospace Systems’home page at: http://www.BAESystems.com/globalfootprint/northamerica/northamerica.htm
32. “BAES, EADS Hopeful that Bush will broaden Transatlantic Cooperation”, Defense Daily International, 29, 2001.
33. Interfax, 1 March 2000.
34. See The New York Times, 15 November 1999; see also the article of Steve Levine, The New York Times, 20 November 1999.
35. To consult the document, see Federation of American Scientists (FAS), http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/gazeta012400.htm
36. Ibid.
37. Joseph Jofi, Pipeline Diplomacy: The Clinton Administration’s Fight for Baku-Ceyhan, Woodrow Wilson Case Study, No. 1. Princeton University, 1999.
38. Mikhail Kozyrev, “The White House Calls for the Fire”, Vedomosti, Nov. 1, 1999, p.1.
39. See Andrew Jack, “Russia Turns Back Clock”, Financial Times, London, 15 January 2000, p.1.
40. Quoted in Nicolai Sokov, “Russia’s New National Security Concept: The Nuclear Angle”, Centre for Non Proliferation Studies, Monterrey, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sokov2.htm, January 2000.
41. BBC, “Russia Deploys New Nuclear Missiles”, London, 27 December 1998.
42. Stephen J. Blank, “Nuclear Strategy and Nuclear Proliferation in Russian Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States”, Appendix III: Unclassified Working Papers, Federation of American Scientists (FAS),
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/toc-3.htm. Washington DC, undated.
43. V. Tetekin, “Putin’s Ten Blows”, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TET112A.html, 27 December 2001.
44. Ibid.

Back to Contents