In an audacious example of fallacious argumentation, Russian
foreign minister Sergei Lavrov’s op-ed in London’s Financial
Times last Wednesday kicked off a public campaign against the
American plan to deploy an anti-missile capability in Poland and
the Czech Republic. Lavrov demonstrated that Russia is once again
seeking to exert power over its Eastern Europe neighbors and
influence U.S. allies in Western Europe.
Lavrov’s overriding theme is set forth in the line, “it is
unacceptable for anyone to use the continent [Europe] as their own
strategic territory.” He goes on to define the American plan as a
“unilateral anti-missile project [that] would fundamentally alter
the continent’s geo-strategic landscape.”
This is pure nonsense — a transparent effort to shift ground in
the debate from the rather simple goal of establishing a minimal
defensive capability against Iranian missiles currently under
development (see “Iranian
Intentions”).
The Russian foreign minister next held out the “legitimacy” of
Russian fears of future deployment of even larger, more advanced
American anti-missile weaponry. This from the nation that held the
world hostage to its hegemonic goals for so many decades during the
Cold War.
According to Lavrov, the Russian answer to the problem (read:
straw man) Moscow has constructed is discussion within the
Russia-NATO Council in which “public opinion” (his term) will be
taken into full account. In other words, Lavrov wants the matter
opened up to a broad propaganda campaign that Moscow can use to
obfuscate the issue.
The next clever, but nonetheless fallacious, argument set forth
by Moscow’s chief spin-meister is to suggest “there is no sign of
real threats at the moment.” Note the phrase “at the moment.” It is
then suggested this matter might evolve into a “self-fulfilling
prophecy.” Many will recognize this line as directly from the old
Cominform playbook of non-sequitur argumentation and debate. One
would have thought that from a nation of all those great chess
players he could have come up with something better.
The final bit of fantasy game playing is the warning that
“European politics will go in reverse …” thus drawing “new
dividing lines…in Europe.” The clear threat is that this matter
will be expanded once again by Russia into an argument about the
integral danger to Europe of the expansion of NATO.
In strategic terms it is interesting that the Kremlin has made
such a major issue of American presence in these two Eastern
European nations. It is impossible not to see this action as
nothing less than an attempt to bully Poland and the Czech Republic
in a reminder of the days when they were Soviet vassals.
Cloaking the Russian political position as part of a broad
European debate is not simply disingenuous: It is an attempt to
reestablish Russia as a dominant power in world strategic affairs.
This is the larger issue involved. Indicatively, Sergei Lavrov
repeatedly refers to Russia in equal terms to the European Union
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
While perhaps more in a sense of hope than reality, such
repeated references seeking to suggest a balance of interests
between a national entity and a multinational instrument such as
the E.U. is a cunning use of semantics as a propaganda tool. This
linguistic manipulation is a favored Kremlin tool for both foreign
and domestic consumption. It’s important for Vladimir Putin’s
concept of Russian democracy and his own political dominance to
have a populace that sees itself as equal in all aspects to other
societies — especially Western Europe — no matter the truth.
In attempting to keep the natives from becoming too restless,
the current Kremlin leadership has effectively sought to return
government back to strong central control by playing up the law and
order aspect of the Soviet-style reformation.
With the same carefully mangled logic, Moscow has attempted to
imply to both foreign and domestic audiences that the United States
is aggressively seeking to overcome Russia’s “defensive” offense
system. Turning Russia’s insecurity and sense of inadequacy into a
positive weapon is an elegant strategic ploy. Washington must
remain equally aggressive in its counter. Your move!
