RUSSIAN Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev spoke on Thursday about the situation surrounding Iran and Syria, and the United States.
He said: ‘The US would like to gain direct access to the resources and transportation facilities of the vast area of the Caucasus, the Caspian and Central Asia. There are well-known statements of American politicians about the need to put the energy, water and other resources of Russia under US control.
‘The American administration has designated the Asia-Pacific region as a foreign policy priority.
‘The Americans are trying to use India as the main counterweight to the growing might of China, and for this purpose they are hyping the idea of specially close strategic cooperation with Delhi. . .
‘The EU has yet to become one of the centres of the multi-polar world. It looks as if France, the United Kingdom, Germany and some other countries are trying on such a role, but their actions have yet to get a common design. . .
‘The manipulation of hydrocarbon prices may in certain conditions be a powerful economic weapon aimed not only against Russia.
‘Remember that there was time when Arabs unhappy about the pro-Israel policy of the US and its European allies used this weapon rather efficiently. However, the same Arabs, to be more precise Saudi Arabia, made oil prices fall to weaken the USSR. The fall of prices was not the only but an important reason why the Soviet state faced disaster.
‘As to the present day, direct parallels with that period are premature. On the one hand, we can see that the US government has considerably adjusted its energy policy. It took the course of reducing the import and increasing self-production, endorsing the increase of domestic production and stockpiling strategic reserves of oil and hydrocarbons.
‘Some experts may see anti-Russian connotations in this.
‘On the other hand, the US explanation of such actions is by the intention to ensure energy security in case the Iranian situation spoils look trustworthy.
‘One cannot rule out that the Iranians will be able to fulfill their threats to close the Arabian oil export through the Strait of Hormuz, if military actions are taken against them.
‘Unfortunately, tensions around Iran are not easing. At the moment, the US sees Iran as its main problem. They are seeking to turn Tehran, their enemy, into a loyal partner, and for that purpose to change the ruling regime there by any means. Economic blockade is applied, as is the massive support for opposition forces, which can conduct a coloured revolution there.
‘There is a likelihood of a military conflict escalation, with Israel pushing the US.
‘Meanwhile, Russia, China, India and a number of other countries are making every effort to solve the problem by peaceful means, by talks. The result of these efforts has so far been insignificant because neither the US nor Iran seem very interested, albeit for various reasons.
‘US allies in NATO speak of the Iranian nuclear threat as an accomplished fact. They cannot explain what exactly their confidence is based on, nevertheless, we are being vigorously reassured that the US missile defence assets being created along the Russian borders in Europe are for the purpose of defending against an Iranian nuclear attack.
‘By the way, all this talk about Iranians being almost a week away from creating a nuclear bomb, we have been hearing it for many years now. The presence of a military aspect in Tehran’s nuclear programme has never been proved by anyone. However, it did not stop US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta from stating confidently that there will still be a strike against Iran.
‘A similar situation is happening with Syria. We are receiving information that NATO members and certain Arab states of the Persian Gulf, acting according to the well-run “Libyan scenario,” are going to turn the current mediated intervention in the Syrian affairs into a direct military intervention.
‘Only this time the main striking forces will be supplied not by France, England and Italy, but possibly by Syria’s neighbour and recent friend Turkey, which is competing against Iran and has enormous ambitions.
‘It is possible that Washington and Ankara are already working out various ‘no-fly zone’ options, where armed squads of Syrian rebels could be formed and amassed.
‘It is clear that in this instance Syria has become a subject of attention of the new “coalition by interests” not by itself. They intend to punish Damascus not so much for its repressions against the opposition, as for its reluctance to break up its alliance with Tehran.
‘It is obvious in this case that Syria has become an object of attention of a new “coalition of interests” not by itself. They are going to punish Damascus for unwillingness to rupture relations with Tehran, rather than for repression against opposition.
‘The US hastily declared its victory in Iraq, that it had achieved the goal of the war, despite the fact that the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is extremely unstable and could bring about new conflict.
‘One can only sympathise with our US partners: officially declared motives for ending both wars are as unconvincing as pretexts for unleashing them.
‘Experts say that Washington often makes such decisions based on domestic political considerations, which is why their consequences are not well thought-out. Judging by a recent statement by Vice President Biden that the Taliban movement is not the US enemy, this is the case. We can see a U-turn in the policy.
‘As to Russia and our allies in the CSTO, which felt the danger of terrorism, extremism, drug threat, no “light” assessments of the situation in Afghanistan is acceptable for them. Obviously, new risks and challenges for neighbouring countries and regions will inevitably emerge and grow after the US “responsibility zone” shrinks.
‘By the way, the US does not have enough capability to independently resolve emerging problems by military means in conditions of the economic crisis. It has to appeal to the allies, shifting a considerable share of expenditures and responsibility to them. They so far take part in short-term operations, but try to evade the burden of expensive expeditions that could cause huge losses.
‘It seems to me that the only exception is the Saakashvili regime in Georgia, which is ready to increase the presence of its soldiers anywhere Washington wants; however, only if financing is provided.
‘Recently, the peculiarities of European behaviour can clearly be seen in the Iraqi and Afghani campaigns. In both cases, the allies made unilateral decisions to fully or partly evacuate their troops, and one had to evacuate a major part of US forces which, it seems to me, may soon be needed in other places.
‘So, recent US actions confirm that Russia’s steps aimed at building a security system together with former USSR republics to protect our interests in the southern direction are correct. By common efforts we will try to strengthen sovereignty and independence of our states.
‘At the same time, we will develop integration structures, the need and usefulness of which is understood by peoples on the post-Soviet space and our neighbours. We hope that the CIS and the SCO will work more actively, the formation of the Eurasian Union will be an important step, and useful consultations in the BRICS format will continue. There will be much work in various directions in 2012.’
