Article

2004-12-06 Iraq-Jordan

Putin: Iraq should not be divided into quasi-states

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2004-12-06 10:15:35 PM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I believe that Russia and Turkey are states that are interested in the normalization of the situation in the Southern Caucasus more than anybody else.

Sounds like a press release for the actions listed in the article above re: Turkey raiding Chechens. As for the veiled Kurdish threat...at this point, I'd put my money on the Kurds.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-06 12:55:46 AM|| 2004-12-06 12:55:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Sorry Turks, but you had your choice to have meaningful input. Now go to hell.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-06 1:17:45 AM|| 2004-12-06 1:17:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Now go to hell. ... cold turkey.

Posted by Sobiesky 2004-12-06 1:29:01 AM|| 2004-12-06 1:29:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Putin needs to go straight to hell with his two faced opinions. I bet he would have a problem suggesting that same strategy for Chechnya!

Posted by smn 2004-12-06 1:52:32 AM|| 2004-12-06 1:52:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Chechnya is the North Caucasus. South Caucasus is Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Its possible in Russian terms S. Caucasus extends into northern Turkey and Iran.

And it's the first I've heard about Russia sending troops (sounding more like invading) to Iraq if the Kurds get independence. Putin's playing a deep and dangerous game.

Posted by phil_b 2004-12-06 5:02:34 AM|| 2004-12-06 5:02:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Why would Putin be concerned about Kurd independence? Turkey, I understand -- it is an article of faith to them that they retain the final remnant of the Ottoman Empire. Syria"s concerns make sense, too -- in a terror state, loss of control in one area presages loss of control overall. But why should Russia care?

Posted by trailing wife 2004-12-06 6:07:46 AM|| 2004-12-06 6:07:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Who asked you?

Posted by gromgorru 2004-12-06 6:14:16 AM|| 2004-12-06 6:14:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Putin's just brown-nosing again. After 9/11, he got on TV and declared, "We are with you [Americans]."
Last week he went to India and declared his support for a UNSC seat with a veto for India.
Yesterday he went to Turkey and parroted the Turkish line that there will be no Kurdistan.

Congenital insincerity, perhaps. More likely diplomatic jujitsu from a wannabe superpower.

Posted by lex 2004-12-06 6:22:37 AM|| 2004-12-06 6:22:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 We will do everything possible to improve the situation in Iraq as soon as possible using the UN framework and our traditional channels of interaction with Iraq," Mr. Putin stated. In his opinion, full and final reestablishment of the sovereignty of Iraqi people might be a sign of normalization of the situation in Iraq.

Using normal UN channels and acknowledging the sovereignty of Iraq sounds like Russia intends to do nothing, in re: to Iraq, to me. Also a big n.o. on military intervention.

phil_b: thanks for the informative map and the insight.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-06 6:24:57 AM|| 2004-12-06 6:24:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Russia's game plan with Iraq now is all about maximizing the value of its LUKoil contracts.

Posted by lex 2004-12-06 6:37:23 AM|| 2004-12-06 6:37:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Bingo.

Posted by too true 2004-12-06 10:13:48 AM|| 2004-12-06 10:13:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I must bow to the superior minds. I always thought "they" should split Iraq into three to avoid a civil war and to prevent sectarian fighting. But reading this I see I was wrong. Kurds are much better off attached to Iraq - with an army and a bigger claim to the land than Turkey has. I admit I was WRONG.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-06 10:18:31 AM|| 2004-12-06 10:18:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 oops...with Iraq's army and bigger claim to the land and mineral wealth within it.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-06 10:20:06 AM|| 2004-12-06 10:20:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Meanwhile, Pooty Poot enables Iran to have plutonium. Can't have it both ways. He helped to build Iran into a monster that will eventually bite him in the ass.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-12-06 11:36:22 AM|| 2004-12-06 11:36:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 #12-Huh?

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-06 1:34:41 PM|| 2004-12-06 1:34:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I don't follow you, either, 2b...

Hands-down, the most effective Iraqi fighting force is the Kurdish peshmerga. Properly equipped, they could handle the Turkeys stupid enough to cross the border - a risk that might lead to re-uniting those the Kurdish areas in both Iraq and Turkey, that vestige of the Ottoman Empire mentioned above... Of course we now must realize that Gul & Co aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, so... And if the Mad Mullahs are toppled, perhaps that section of traditional Kurdistan could, also, rejoin... Many dominoes lined up here - and the Kurds deserve better than they have ever gotten - as proven during the no-fly period where they flourished even under the threats and subversive actions of Saddam. The Kurds rock in many, many ways.

I've been a proponent of partition since day one in Iraq - and still see no valid reason to change that assessment. Just make sure the Kurds get the northern oil lands around Kirkuk and play nice with the Turkmen and Arab minorities in their zone, and they'd do a bang-up job of showing the Arabs what you can do if you "get" capitalism and aren't held back by Islamic sectarian idiocy.

A loose Confederation of 2 or 3 Partitions may, yet, be the outcome for Iraq - a BS entity created by Sykes and Picot - prolly over drinks. British and French arrogance knew no bounds in those days... which must be why there is such a hue & cry over American power, today. Imagine what they would do with it. Back on-point: There is no sanctity to the current confabulation called Iraq - period. It is a ME version of Yugoslavia. That worked out really well, eh?

Posted by .com 2004-12-06 1:51:51 PM|| 2004-12-06 1:51:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 The whole Middle East is version of Yugoslavia. There are lots of words the English langauge needs and doesn't have. Balkanize means to break up a state into multiple warring smaller states. It has a heavily negative connatation (and incidentally the state of Yugoslavia was created to solve the problem of balkanization). What we need is the equivalent term that describes breaking up into multiple competing and succesful states. The best I could come up with was Balticize (for the succesful small states around the Baltic).

Posted by phil_b 2004-12-06 8:33:51 PM|| 2004-12-06 8:33:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 federal

Posted by rkb 2004-12-06 8:38:11 PM|| 2004-12-06 8:38:11 PM|| Front Page Top

14:45 Anonymous
00:20 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:03 lex
23:57 CrazyFool
23:57 lex
23:47 Mike Sylwester
23:38 mojo
23:36 Aris Katsaris
23:33 Pappy
23:32 Stephen
23:20 ex-lib
23:16 ex-lib
23:13 Asedwich
23:12 Asedwich
23:12 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:11 mojo
23:06 ex-lib
23:03 Frank G
23:02 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:01 Asedwich
23:00 Frank G
22:59 Pappy
22:58 Frank G
22:58 Asedwich