UK think tank warning of ‘belligerent, revisionist’ Russia lambasted for bias, warmongering
A UK think tank’s annual report on global military capabilities has its first and biggest chapter devoted to Russia, “challenging the European security order”. Political analysts said the document was biased and could lead to a new Cold War arms race.
The ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine is what the bulk of the
latest annual Military Balance report by the International Institute for
Strategic Studies (IISS) is focused on. The group describes
itself as “a world-leading authority on global security,
political risk and military conflict” and has former US and
British government officials among its members.
“The Kremlin... appears to desire a fractured Ukraine, unable
to move beyond Russia’s orbit and get closer to western
institutions,” argue the authors of the Military Balance
2015 report.
“Western countries are now having to devise a strategy... to
deal with an apparently revisionist Russia,” the report goes
on to say, concluding that “Europe is facing a more
belligerent Russia” and calling for “dissuasion of
Russian adventurism on EU or NATO territory.”
The language of the report is something that betrays a
non-impartial approach to some of the report’s readers.
“This is a Cold War document, wherein Russia is depicted as a
force for bad in the world and the West a force for good,”
political analyst John Wight told RT. “Words such as
‘revisionist’, ‘belligerent’, and ‘adventurism’ are liberally
deployed in a negative depiction of Russia”.
Journalist Phil Butler says the report “reeks of hyperbole
summoning terms like 'hybrid warfare' to describe the Ukraine
civil war”. He finds the document to be "totally
western-centric in that it’s an unbridled instigation for a new
arms race”.
The report describes prospect for peaceful settlement as
“unpromising,” while the US considerations over arming
Kiev are said to be “a moral obligation and a strategic
duty”, or at least an option that must be “‘kept on the
table’ in support of the diplomatic process”.
Authors of the Military Balance 2015 note that while the EU
spends about 1.5 percent of its GDP on defense, the same figure
for Russia stands at 4.2 percent of GDP, though its budget is
still far smaller than the EU total.
“Military modernisation in Russia is continuing, with
investment in new ships, combat aircraft and guided
weapons,” the report warns. “Russia continues to test
the Sukhoi T-50 fifth generation fighter aircraft, and may be
finalising designs of a new long-range bomber. Russia has nuclear
weapons very much at the centre of its military strategy, and
there is increased emphasis on its rapid-reaction forces, while
its air and maritime capabilities are often being deployed
provocatively,” claims the report, in reference to multiple
Western allegations of sightings Russian planes and submarines in
neutral territories just outside their border.
This enumeration of Russia’s military advantages is something
that, according to political analyst Dan Glazebrook, makes
transparent “the bias in the report”.
“The director-general’s opening remarks detail recent Russian
military purchases, interpreting them as further evidence of “a
more belligerent Russia”, Glazebrook told RT. “Britain’s
commitment to a renewed Trident, however, or to £160billion
military spending over the current decade – despite a total lack
of the border provocations currently being endured by Russia - is
not mentioned”.
ISIS and Russia on same list of threats again
The report’s second chapter, on the threat coming from the
Islamic State militants, starts with a mention of Russia.
“While a revisionist Russia has challenged the European
security order, the threat from extreme Islamic terrorists
strengthened during the year,” the think tank says.
A Russia clause in an ISIS sentence has raised eyebrows.
“[The report] draws a distinct and preposterous parallel
between Russia in Eastern Ukraine and ISIS in Syria and
Iraq,” Wight told RT. “This is especially offensive when
we consider that Russia has done more to combat ISIS and
extremism in the region these past few years with its support for
the Syrian government as it struggles to prevent Syria descending
into the same abyss that both Libya and Iraq find themselves in,
both as a direct consequence of Western intervention”.
It’s not the first time the West puts Russia on one list of
threats with ISIS though. It was first done by President Obama last year. The latest
incident was the National Security Strategy issued by the White
House earlier in February.
READ MORE: Wars and foes: White House lists key
threats in NSS
Meanwhile, Glazebrook believes the West could have been more
self-critical, when it comes to speaking of the Islamic State
threat.
“Whilst we learn that “Military successes on the part of ISIS
galvanised a US-led coalition into launching airstrikes against
the jihadi movement”, there is no mention of the fact that it was
precisely a Western-backed military insurgency that “galvanised”
ISIS success in the first place,” he says.
China mentioned, Africa and Middle East left out
The choice of countries included in the report have raised
questions. While Asia’s “militarisation” has been placed
into spotlight, Africa and the Middle East, where the situation
is far more tense, have not been mentioned.
“Yes, parts of Africa and of course Israel/Palestine are
areas where the West has exacerbated rather than alleviated
conflict and instability,” Wight said.
“The failure to arbitrate a viable peace deal between Israel
and the Palestinians has been a particular failing of Western
policy, adding to the region’s instability. For too long Israel
has been allowed to flout international law and engage in human
rights abuses against the Palestinians,” he added.
The report’s focusing on Russia’s and China’s
“belligerence” can hardly contribute to dialogue with
these countries.
“The picture painted by this report is a distorted one in
which the West is under threat from Russia and China. The reality
is that it is Russia and China that are under threat with the
increasing belligerence of NATO, the West, and the EU,”
Wight said. “Until the West and its ideologues in Europe view
and treat Russia as an equal partner with the same rights and
respect that they assert for themselves, the prospects for a
lessening in tensions are likely to remain bleak”.