Courcy’s Intelligence Brief

Amongst the rejoicing at the fall of Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi, a point that should not be lost sight of is the degree to which Russia has been put out by Nato’s actions.  Moscow has expressed its opposition on three grounds: the fact that what follows in Libya could be as bad or worse as what went before; its concern for casualties inflicted on civilians by Nato; and its opposition to the way in which Nato has unilaterally interpreted UN Security Council Resolutions.  Of the three complaints, it is the third one that is the real source of Moscow’s anger.

Russia’s expressed concern for civilian casualties inflicted by Nato airstrikes can be dismissed as hypocrisy.  Russia is no shrinking violet when it comes to the exercise of force, and it has been curiously unaffected by the fate of Syria’s demonstrating civilians at the hands of its ally President Bashar al-Assad.  Besides, it admits that Gaddafi has brought on his own fate due to his own unreasonableness and “irresponsible actions with the use of violence against his own people”.

Its concern for the eventual post-Gaddafi outcome in Libya has more substance.  From the outset, it has been Moscow’s view that radical Islamist elements would be the most likely beneficiaries of the toppling of Gaddafi.  This may yet turn out to be the case, but no one can say that the Western powers are unaware of the threat or that they have not factored it into their calculations.  Moscow can warn that the West has taken a misjudged gamble, but it cannot accuse the West of insouciance.  A great many highly knowledgeable experts have been focused on this very point for months.

What really worries Moscow is the further evidence that Nato will do more or less what it wants regardless of objections.  For some time, Moscow has been saying that UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (imposing a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians) is being “grossly violated” by Nato.  The Resolution “authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”.  Russia thinks that Nato went too far in interpreting this as a green light to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi.

In an interview with the Interfax news agency earlier this week, Russia’s permanent representative at Nato, Dmitriy Rogozin, went even further in his criticisms of Nato.  He said: “I think that the most serious conclusions should be drawn by the UN, with which Nato has now clearly placed itself on the same level, and which it by no means regards as the only force capable of making decisions to start or end a war”.  He said that because of Nato’s actions, the UN “risks becoming a permanently ignored body”, and he concluded that “it will now be Nato that decides when to start a war and when to end it”.

That Russia is genuinely angry about this cannot be doubted.  The big question is: does it matter?  Certainly Moscow was unhelpful at the 11 July Middle East Quartet meeting (comprising the US, EU, Russia, and the UN) aimed at restarting negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.  According to Israeli officials, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took pro-Palestinian positions throughout the talks and would not allow a reference to Israel being a “Jewish and democratic state” being included in the concluding statement, so no statement was issued.

Russia is also in dispute with the US over its planned European missile shield.  Russia wants guarantees that the system will not target Russia’s strategic forces but has so far not received them.  It is particularly against the deployment of elements of the system in the Black Sea region.  Rogozin has warned: “The European missile defence architecture should be approved by the end of this year.  The plan will be finalized at the next Nato summit in Chicago in the middle of May next year.  If by that time Russia does not discover itself an invited nation in this missile defence architecture, this will cause great problems in our relations.”