PRESS CONFERENCE WITH GEOPOLITICAL PROBLEMS ACADEMY
VICE PRESIDENT LEONID IVASHOV ON IRAQ

[RIA NOVOSTI, 12:05, FEBRUARY 7, 2003]

DATE Friday, February 7, 2003

Moderator: ...Washington will go ahead with its military action against Iraq. The only question is the timing of the operation.

Ivashov: ...the war by the US and its allies against Iraq goes beyond bilateral relations, a local conflict and even an aggression of one country or a coalition of countries against a sovereign state ....(whether) the existing international security system will remain or will be ruined completely is being decided now. ...Today the question is as follows: will the UN Security Council and all other security systems be preserved or ruined? And the second question: even if the Security Council remains, what will be its functions? ...will it remain only a body that will legitimize the activities of the US and its allies, and in general the activities of stronger countries with regard to weaker ones?

... The symptoms of possible future chaos are already there. I am sure all of you remember Australia's statement that it will make preventive strikes. Israel, too, has repeatedly said this.

[Bruce: and the US and Russia and N. Korea and Japan also.]

...Another factor that will affect the world economy is control over energy carriers in the first place. Control by the winner of the US-Iraqi war, of course. ... Basically the US national security strategy declares the entire planet an area of its interests and states the country's readiness to protect and defend these interests. ... The military doctrine or the doctrine of preventive strikes basically consolidates the right of the US Armed Forces to interfere in the affairs of any country. The fundamental principles set forth in the UN Charter -- non-interference in the internal affairs of countries, rejection of the threat of using force, non-use of military force between countries -- are being ruined by the national security strategy and the new military doctrine.

... The world will slide into chaos. We can clearly see the desire of the US and its allies to rule the world -- we can also add the world financial elite here too -- by their rules with the help of police measures to be taken by the armed forces of the US and other countries participating in the coalition. ...Therefore the world will be plunged into chaos, and there will be a tendency toward bipolar world, a tendency toward creating a coalition of countries that will balance out this unbalanced world. ...I think everybody wants to know when the war may begin. We thought it would begin in February, but the space shuttle Columbia accident will most likely delay it for several days, maybe weeks. Clearly, this flight was intended for intelligence purposes.

[Bruce: I doubt that it had that much military importance - or that it will delay anything - but he returns to this theme repeatedly and at length in considerable detail throughout his presentation.]

...So we can say with certainty that the aggression will take place. Can it be stopped? Hope dies last, but if other countries like China, Russia, France, Germany and some others acted strongly and firmly against the war and insisted on looking for a political settlement, a joint search for a political settlement, this could sober up the present administration and those forces that are behind it. Perhaps, this is the only thing that could sober them up. ...But since there is no concerted action on the part of the countries I have named, and the economic and the political situation in the US warrant radical measures in order to solve internal problems, this strategy of world control was invoked. ...He (Powell) used rather far-fetched arguments that cannot prove Iraq's involvement in production of chemical weapons, let alone in terrorism. There is more evidence, and it has been published in Western countries, of the involvement of the US CIA, Israel's Mossad and the British MI6, that is of the special services of these countries in the creation of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Osama bin Laden himself and his headquarters, and other terrorist organizations. There is much more proof of that. ...And look at the headlines in the Western press. They say that Colin Powell told us all a tale, that his arguments were not convincing.

[Bruce: This is all before the Blair Blunder hit the news. You can imagine what Ivashov would say now.]

...We understand that another resolution demanded by the Americans, they simply want the sanctions, they want to green light for their aggression. They need it in order to turn the Security Council into a body that will only legitimize US actions. Of course, this must not be allowed to happen. ... For Russia, like for most countries in the world, the very fact of war will have negative consequences. Very negative. And it is of secondary importance whether the victory will be successful and swift. ... I have already said that all countries will suffer and especially Russia. Russia will not be able to influence international security properly. You see, the trump cards that Russia and other countries have now will be destroyed. As a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia will lose this powerful instrument of influencing global processes.

[Bruce: Here he also discusses at length the detrimental effect of the Iraq war on Russian economics and oil.]

... And then you know I was very much interested by the upsurge of research by Western institutions, above all in the United States and NATO concerning the future world; especially today much research is conducted on the Russian subject area. As regards the future structure of the world, just look at the Hoover's Institute, and Rand Corporation ... Further on the Rand Corporation, just look, it is working on this Transatlantic project and the main idea of it is the dominance of the US and NATO's and the Western military force. ...In regard to Russia now they openly analyze the processes of dismembering it, and the conclusion is made on the basis of the Rand report that Russia did not make it as a state, Russia is a state in distress, and those entities prepare for the US air force a project concerning their participation in dealing with problems of Russia's disintegration. ...Further on we accessed on the site the Norwegian Institute of Defense Research and there they do the scenario for the years to come when Russia begins to disintegrate. And mind you, none of those projects on Russia does not contain any proposals to save the day, to rectify the situation or to help Russia -- no, alas there is nothing of this. I already mentioned how the US air force would act, what problems will be faced by US pilots in bombing and striking blows -- there are recommendations on what is to be done for this. And Norwegian report, the one by the Norwegian Institute of Defense Research discusses how Russia will disintegrate and how NATO must act in order to outpace China, to prevent the Russian military from putting up resistance by taking control of its nuclear weapons and so on. ...These studies are done by precisely research organizations and they do it on a large scale. Quite a large scale.

... These are steps, these are stepping stones on which the world financial elite in the United States are stepping to attain world domination. This is schooling the international community to meekness before military might, ... it was not accidental that I mentioned the Transatlantic project -- with Pollock and the co-authors. It openly says that after this campaign one needs to modernize regimes in other countries, and the countries are mentioned.

...Richard Pearl, former Deputy Secretary of Defense and now a consultant of the current administration, frankly says that Iraq will be followed by Iran, then Saudi Arabia and countries of the region. ... ..."Can you find even one phrase where I have ever called for a war against America, NATO or any other country?" ...Clearly, Iraq cannot do anything if cruise missiles or high-precision weapons are used on a large scale. It can't resist this effectively. But if it comes to a land operation, the Iraqi army will be able to inflict serious casualties upon the US. As for anything else, even if they fire R-300 missiles, or Scuds as they are also called, and even if they hit the target, they will not cause much damage. ...Iraq's main weapon is its land forces. We think they are well-trained, but everything will depend on the morale.

...I will say for everybody that the use of nuclear weapons during the conflict is quite probable. What are our views based on? They are not based on intelligence. ... ...As for the use of airfields, I believe that the US will definitely use Georgia's airfields if necessary

[Can you imagine an opposite / similar scenario where it was being discussed about Russia using Mexican airfields to attack some country in South America? All the emails I get about concerns of Russian or Chinese troops in Mexico are nonsense but the Russians have a real problem.]

...Georgia cannot do anything if it gets a telephone call from Washington saying that it should get its airfields ready for the use by aviation tomorrow. ... I liked Strobe Talbott's phrased he used in the December issue of the Foreign Affairs magazine, where he said ...the incumbent Bush administration was disposing of NATO. Strobe Talbott knows what he says. So, both Georgia and Kyrgyzstan and other ex-Soviet republics where there is an American military presence are regrettably being disposed of. Russia, too, by the way.

...This fundamental framework was not rejected. It was further pursued in the US national security strategy because this strategic concept in which they essentially already state their strategic interests in the whole world and state that the United States uses --mind you -- all its possibilities. There are no exceptions for nuclear weapons, they are using all their possibilities to defend their interests. ...That is why the (US) troops today are preparing for this, preparing already to deal blows to any point in the globe. This is being prepared: basic information data are put together, electric systems of guidance are created -- preparations are under way for all these things. ...One can state unequivocally that this will not stop at Iraq if the world community does not respond decisively to this. And one can even draw some historical parallels. Those fond of history should do well to read attentively about the period immediately prior to the Second World War. Everything went on approximately as follows:

All realized that Hitler wishes to expand his "lebensraum," conquer territories in Africa, in the East and in the West and so on. And they could not unite to oppose him. When you read statements, especially by diplomats, it all seems so unimportant, about as it is today. Why did Hitler need Czechoslovakia? It is clear: he needed a staging area, he needed the factories because Czechoslovakia was described as the arms shop of Europe and even of the world. He needed arms to wage a war. But they strove somehow to veil and hide it. And we see the same thing today. That is why I think that if there is no sharp resistance to the current US actions, they have all the doctrinal and even legal grounds to arrogate the Congress sanctions in order to push the process further ahead.

[Bruce: Interesting to see how the "Chamberlain doctrine" so despised among the far right in the US is also being demeaned here in a Russian context.]

... Just see how many concessions Russia made to the United States and it got absolutely nothing in return not even one bird in the bush. So, Russia did not get anything positive in return. ...But then we lost the geopolitical space of the CIS, and NATO is expanding and thus it presses us or rolls us back into our territory. The US has quit the treaty on ABM defense, and the American military are very near now, in Georgia. The Americans are already conducting research and the US Defense Department is already ordering assignments to our research institutes, gives orders and studies modelling a nuclear explosion in the Moscow underground. ...I already mentioned that the air force will bomb Russia and so on. This is to say that so far we have only negative results throughout. And against this backdrop there is the attempt to somehow justify ourselves, by asserting that we can cooperate with the Americans in developing an ABM defense system.

...Well, firstly, this cooperation will be unequal, absolutely unequal because Russia is not creating a similar system for itself. So, our scientists and our designers will work as hired labor. If they are hired and paid, they will make things. So, it's usual contract not even between states. ...Is it good or bad for Russia? I don't think it's very good because this missile defense system, no matter what the guys on the other side of the ocean say, will be built first of all against Russia missiles and only then against Chinese ones, not against the missiles that don't exist today in North Korea, Iraq or anywhere else and that will never be there.

...They will never be there because an intercontinental ballistic missile, especially a nuclear-capable one, is created by the countries that seek a leading role in the world politics. ... ...The realization of danger that China or Germany or France or some other country may be next, and the realization of the fact that not even that they will be bombed by the Americans, but that something, maybe oil or gas, is taken away from them, this realization will prod the world community into building a bipolar system. Perhaps, even a third and a fourth center will appear.

... But look, China was an independent center of force. Let's remember the non-alignment movement led by India. It was also a rather powerful center of force, political force in the first place.... ...Russia has failed to play its role today. Russia is a unique position now. It could hold consultations or at least bring the foreign ministers of France, Germany, China, India and some other countries for consultations and try to offer them some common position. But unfortunately, Russia is also under the pressure of some unclear circumstances and cannot act with determination.

... The most uncertain position among all Security Council members is Russia's. Vladimir Putin's statement in Kiev where he said that we would have to choose between Iraq and the Security Council further confused the situation. ... But this raises the following question: why do we need a Security Council that does not avert an aggression but authorizes it? Why do we need such a Security Council? So, Russia has unstable and unclear position.-

-----------

So much for that story. This is the answer to anyone who says, "Why would Russia want to get involved?" "How could Iraq lead to WW3?" Now, the question is - is Russia capable of taking on the US? The quick answer is, "No", if you mean invading the US. (The US couldn't invade Russia either). But, if by the question is meant - "Could Russia still destroy the US", "and negotiate a multipolar world as a result?" - the answer is, "Yes". (Both countries are capable of destroying the world - several times over).