Words, promises and actions were supposed to follow the massacre. People spoke sense, politics took a back stage and conspiracies let aside for a while. The question here is for how long, how long could we hold on to the same old nerve?
Media shows, reality shows, gossips, suggestions, live coverage and pages of powerful vocabulary and thoughts. Anything converted into execution? Yes, not the actions demanded by our very own fellow-Mumbaikars, but an action enough to hit the headline of the daily leading newspapers scripting words that strike a debate regarding the country owning Ajmal Kasab, the lone terrorist alive, under custody. A debate that again brainstorms highest level of cross-geographical and foreign affairs ministry, enough again to keep us frowned and glued on to the television and newspapers as something must be happening around, apparently, not knowing what though.

The final word of action was diplomacy again, meted out towards the compensation of the lives lost. Not an immediate revamped thought of government and security policies, strengthening and educating militia, emergency enforcement of laws, an attempt to implement civilian intelligence and not a nation as a single kin of suffering and trauma.

Years through the time I have taken to grow from a child to an adult, our torch-bearers still call for media conferences, disclosing strategies in the making and waiting, which has never been executed. Time and again there have been strategy layouts, and cannibals have barged into the nation every time to prove that we fear, we fear Death. And who does not, it is just a matter of metamorphosis of words into actions.

Strengthening accountability at prestigious landmarks, enhancing security measures across prominent places and institutions (not just another scanner or CCTV installed), probing into loopholes on every fateful day that makes headlines, and as mentioned earlier, educating and arming citizens though civilian implementation of police intelligence, slaughtering and not debating any conspiracy involved in any massacre can help build our nation stronger and fight terror better.

Above all, by miles, are the gallant efforts of our brave army personnel who have, time and again proved we should re-think our rights to vote and set the nation on army rule so that political powerhouses do not engage in nail-biting combat for roles, roles that are supposed to safeguard the nation, and often fail as most of the time fades by witnessing a crowd of leaders voicing their opinion out, sadly every individual’s different from the other. At least a team of commandos know they wear the same uniform and would fight the odds, the same way, come what may!

Viewing some video clips of the so-called “smart bombs” or pinpoint strikes, one can easily stepped into the memory of the Gulf War. In 1990 and 1991, national broadcasts in the US aired the battle scene day-by-day. The picture of the US missiles flew into the dark sky over the Gulf to defeat “evil” Saddam Hussein called for American patriotism and provided high degree of dignity and legitimacy of the mission. If Israel could obtain such legitimacy on her operation in Gaza, she would gather supports and sympathy regardless of the reality on the ground (amorally speaking). Further strengthening this argument, the Israeli spokesperson appeared on the video emphasizing that Israel is not targeting the Palestinian people but the Hamas terrorists.

On one hand, it could be seen as propaganda, but on the other hand, it could be seen as Israel’s demand and necessity of supports from international community more than the US backup in the UN Security Council. While the Arab countries are obviously not in favor of this operation, Egypt, for example, is not yet willing to commit anti-Israel campaign led by Hamas. Rather, some Arab elites seem to worry about the Hamas-Syria-Iran axis being strengthened if Israel retreats early. If Israel could obtain some degree of dignity described above, it would be easier for non-pro-Iran Arab leaders to be silent to observe Hamas getting weakened.

In 2006, Israel attacked Hezbollah bases in Lebanon. This ground operation caused serious damages on local infrastructure, and thus Israel paid some moderate sum of money to Lebanese government.. However, before Lebanese government’s aid reached to the local community, Hezbollah, allegedly supported by Iran, distributed considerable amount of cash directly to the local people in exchange with the support for Hezbollah. This was a catastrophic PR failure for Israel, and hence, this mistake led her to consider more populist PR campaign such as the YouTube channel.

YouTube is, after all, utilized in the political scenes in the US even during the presidential election of 2008. Speeches of Obama, Clinton, McCain, and others (and parody of them) frequently appeared on it, and millions of Americans obtained political information from it. Particularly, young generations who strongly supported Obama are the core of the YouTube users. Israel, who already has a strong political lobby in Washington, may dream to strengthen her influence on the next US administration by establishing positive relationship with such young Obama supporters.

After all, uploading video clips on YouTube does not cost anything. So, one may easily ignore the possible effects on inter-state or international affairs (the so-called “high politics”). Yet, this PR campaign of Israel, probably targeting young Americans, could result in the shift of the US public opinion of the young generations from anti-war liberal to more center neutral. Although it is almost impossible to predict exact consequences, this PR campaign is worth to try for Israel.

The leaders of Europe and the US must be careful because any pro-Hamas organizations can successfully provoke such shift in public opinion. Of course, we cannot regulate YouTube and other Internet directory due to the freedom of expression. Nonetheless, we need to obtain/provide unbiased information regarding the conflict before the coincide Israeli-Hamas PR war stirs up the mind of our voters.

In order to achieve genuine cooperation, it will be necessary to develop a complete and more thorough understanding of Russia’s policy goals and its motivations in achieving them. This comprehensive understanding should be prevalent throughout the highest levels of western governments. By reading between the lines, much of the Western leadership will begin to realize that Russia is in fact a reasonable and predictable actor and understand that there were motives and reasons behind the recent violence in Georgia—it wasn’t simply blind imperialist tendencies worthy of VP Dick Cheney’s blatant condemnation as “illegitimate and unilateral”. In fact, concepts such as the protection of Russians abroad (in this case South Ossetia and Abkhazia) has been a central theme of Russian foreign policy for years and it should not have come as such a surprise to the West (or to Georgia) that Russia would react accordingly in the event of an attack on those
citizens.

Proposals such as missile defense in Eastern Europe or seemingly perpetual NATO expansion to Russia’s borders, and double standards in the application of the international principle of sovereignty may not seem threatening when applied individually, but simultaneously they lead to legitimate Russian concerns of encirclement and distrust. The distrust was advanced in the case of missile defense when the United States rejected Putin’s surprise offer of a Russian-leased radar site at Qabala, Azerbaijan to assist in the U.S. plan. Furthermore, talks of expelling or suspending Russia from the G-8 would give those concerns of encirclement a tangible dimension.

Various Russian authority figures have labeled missile defense, recognition of Kosovo, and NATO expansion as serious, or “red line” issues. Since the relentless western pursuit of these issues would realistically yield relatively little practical importance to the West, it is worth looking into the idea of making some concessions in exchange for cooperation on larger issues, where possible. Hardliners, however, should not confuse concessions with appeasement or backing down, as western relations with Russia are not a zero-sum game.

In understanding Russian concerns of encirclement, the West needs to reevaluate and reconsider the importance of Georgian ascension into the NATO alliance. Instead of backing ‘gung-ho’ expansion to include Georgia, a country in which there is one ruling party and a non-existent free press, the NATO allies need to consider the security guarantees provided by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty: “an attack on one is an attack on all”. In other words, an attack on Georgia, or even another retaliation from a preemptive Georgian attack could potentially drag the entire NATO alliance into conflict and bring both regional and widespread destabilization. The alliance needs to assess whether or not pushing for expansion in the near future would yield positive results for regional stability in the near term.

Good things can and will come from genuinely friendly relations with Russia.. The world witnessed the success of the Six Party Talks in persuading North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. These multilateral, diplomatic efforts can be successfully applied to other states whose leaders seem to have a one-track mind. They show the positive outcomes of situations when Russia is incorporated into the negotiation process. Many politicians in the West, especially in the United States in the election year, talk of energy independence from Russia. Alternative sources include the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) or Nabucco (proposed) pipelines and by investing in alternative fuels, but the fact remains: Russian oil and gas are still king and will remain the among most important energy sources for years to come.

This is evidenced by two facts. First, Russia supplied 50 of the EU’s gas and 25% of its oil as of 2006. Second, Russia has passed Saudi Arabia as the number one producer of crude oil, producing about 9.5 million barrels a day. Therefore, Russia’s vast resources will continue to be a powerful influence over many western economies, especially European economies, for the foreseeable future.

Looking at various problems through Russian eyes and understanding motivations of Russia’s foreign policy are absolutely paramount to achieving lasting cooperation. The next step is realizing that some current western policies are indeed pushing Russia’s wrong buttons—and pushing them all at the same time. If we truly aim to solve the current multitude of pressing international issues, governments around the world need to get over the Cold War mindset and seek to develop comprehensive and honest West-Russian cooperation.

Allegedly, religious extremists and terrorists nesting in Pakistan conducted the strike, according to government officials, scholars, and journalists. Regardless of Pakistani position of the so-called “war on terrorism,” its unstable domestic security is enough to make the world horrified because of possible nuclear proliferation.

What I would like to call attention in THIS article is, however, neither on terrorist groups in Pakistan nor nuclear proliferation; it is on “post hoc ergo propter hoc (after that, therefore because of that).” This phrase is often referred by scholars in political
science and economics, and highlights the difference between correlation and causation. In order to give the readers some idea, I would like to bring an example from a TV drama “the West Wing,” a fictional story of the US administration.

At the premier of the second season, President Bartlet and his staff are shot, and National Security Advisor Dr. McNally recommends the soldier deployment into Kuwait and the Persian Gulf on the ground of possible involvement of Iraq in the attack. President did not take the recommendation. Later in the series, it is revealed that the attack was intended on President’s African-American Personal Aid conducted by a White supremacist group.

Of course, it is a fictional story, and hence, it cannot be compared with the real life situation. Yet, the message “correlation does not mean causation” still holds water. A happens after B does not mean A causes B. Likewise, doing C to stop A does not necessarily stop B. In the story above, Dr. McNally’s recommendation regarding Iraq is ineffective towards the White supremacists, as the gun shot was not fired by anti-American terrorists.

In the next few weeks, Pakistani government led by new leadership is most likely to tighten the security and may arrest several anti-Western activists in Pakistan. However, if (I emphasize this “if”) the bombing was conducted by political opponents in Pakistan who are not satisfied by the new leadership, such arrest mentioned above is off-focus.

In conclusion, tighten the security in order to prevent a further bomb attack is undoubtedly necessary. Yet, the Pakistani authority must be careful to speculate motives of the attack and pre-emptively arrest the possible suspects. If the arrest was mistake, it encourages the further hostility and thus the second strike.

First of all, I give my sincere sympathy toward those who lost family, friends, and houses. Regardless of their nationality, we need to help those victims of power politics. Moreover, I pray for those who lost their lives in the madness of humankind – war. Today, the way to the heaven is clouded by the Georgians, Ossetians, and even Russians who believed their leaders were doing the right thing. Those who lost lives are not guilty of this chaos: let us forgive them.

Second aspect I would like to point out is that “right” or “wrong” means little in a war. Even if the Georgian act of “retaking” South Ossetia is “right,” this “rightness” diminishes in front of the massive casualty. Given the fact Russia has more tanks, ships, airplanes, and soldiers than Georgia, this operation in South Ossetia was a tactical and strategic mistake (even immoral, I think). Moreover, Tbilisi, hours before the attack, declared the cease fire unilaterally and broke it in the morning of 8th August. There are some reports that the Russian Air Force bombed small villages before the Georgian attack took place (and thus, implying legitimate retaliation). Yet, the remaining fact is that Tbilisi committed military actions hours AFTER the cease fire declaration (which was not officially accepted by South Ossetia) and the operation was conducted without prior diplomatic efforts with the United Nations.

Third, Russia has the right to intervene as there are many Russian citizens in South Ossetia. I am not going to legitimize the Russian position on the “peacekeeping” role: that is a different issue. But, one thing for sure is that as Russian citizens in South Ossetia were attacked by Georgia, Russia has the right to protect them. Once again, there is possibility that Russia provoked Georgia. Even so, Georgia should have considered that Russia would attack once Georgia launched offensive operations.

Lastly, some assume that Tbilisi was expecting stronger international support, possibly military intervention by NATO. However, as all political leaders were in Beijing attending the Olympic ceremony, such assumption seems fragile. On the contrary, Tbilisi might have assumed that Russia would react slowly given the Olympic condition. Prime Minister Putin, however, was in Moscow.

At last, Russia does not have the right to overthrow the Georgian government. As Russia had been the one who accused the American approach in Iraq, Russia should know at least on the rhetoric. That said, the fact Georgia attacked South Ossetia without prior diplomatic consensus with the United Nations puts Georgia in a weak position. This was NOT a unilateral invasion by Russia into Georgia as anti-Russian media reports. It was a military conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia in which Russian citizens were involved. It looks like an invasion because the Russian Army and Air Force were overwhelming. Russia even moved the Black Sea Fleet for economic sanction against Georgia. As Georgia ceased fire, such aggressive actions by Russia are no longer necessary. Thus, it is high time to negotiate and to start the reconstruction of the “society of the people” – not the “territory of (some) nationals.”

First, Dr. Davutoglu sees the necessity of balance between security and freedom. Without security, freedom becomes anarchy, and without freedom, security becomes an authoritarian regime. As the Western society tends to outweigh freedom over security, I believe that it is important to note that there is a freedom to chose security over freedom. In other words, while the basic human rights must be observed under any circumstances, some other rights (such as freedom of travel in the conflict zones) can be limited. It is difficult to say, however, where the border line between security and freedom would be.

Second, Dr. Davutoglu calls caution on the geopolitical characteristics of Turkey. In the past twenty years, there are three civil conflicts which led to foreign intervention: former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Yugoslavia was the small Balkan; 6 republics, 5 nations, 4 languages, 3 religions, and 2 alphabets coexisted under 1 government. Afghanistan is the small Central Asia, and Iraq is the small Middle East in the similar sense. All three countries hold ethnic and religious minorities of the region within its relatively small territory. Thus, Dr. Davutoglu emphasizes, Turkey must be careful: Turkey has all the characteristics of the Balkan, Central Asia and the Middle East. There are more Albanians, for example, in Turkey than in Albania. Yet, Dr. Davutoglu is optimistic. He recalls our memory and asks since when Turks and Kurds have fought each other in the name of ethnic discrimination. After all, they fought the war of liberation together. So, why not today?

Turkey today is very active in International Relations. It is an observer of the African Union and many other non-European organizations. While many conflicts from Kosovo to Iran are directly related to Turkish interests, Turkish current government believes that other issues such as Sudan is indirectly related to Turkey. This notion has already been the major understanding of the world in European nations, and in this regard, Turkey became more European. On the other hand, Turkey today is the only country which has a nice relationship with variety of countries beyond religious and cultural differences: Greece, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon… the list seems not exhausting. Turkey is, thus, in very unique position to hold people together under the balance of freedom and security.

It is easy to say that Turkey is still in the process of modernization pointing out the differences between Turkey and say France. Nonetheless, in the last election, a woman in jail who was accused to have a relationship with PKK (a radical Kurdish secessionist party) was elected as a Member of Parliament. That is, Dr. Davutoglu emphasizes, “the strength of Turkish democracy.” I must agree with him that since the age of Ottoman Empire, Turks and Turkish polity have been generous to religious and ethnic minorities. Although I also believe that Turkish authorities today ignore some political freedom (at least comparing against the Anglo-Saxon Standard), it is still fair to say that Turkey has strength to embrace democracy in the region and brings cooperation in the three decade-long problematic regions: the Balkan, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

The idea stems from an interesting piece written by Nadeem Chauhan of Navitus Consultancy, who argues that managers need to use better vocabulary to excite, energize and bring out the best from their team members. For instance, while drawing a list of monthly assignments and projects for a team, a manager may use the phrase ‘a must do’ on each project, in his preach to advance the monthly objectives to be attained. However, in practice only some of the projects are really categorized as ‘a must do’ and others as ‘probable’s’. Therefore, if the manager is unable to effectively communicate this distinction, his team may not be able to differentiate between a specific ‘must’ based assignment relative to the ‘probable’, hence will not be able to effectively allot it’s energy, time, resources, mental and physical wealth to each project relative to priority, leading to sub-optimal results.

Let me consider the case of governance to illustrate the point further. The concept of accountability is excessively used in governance practice. However, the definition is overtly vague. What is a leader accountable for? A set of scientific or quantifiable objectives and goals which can be measured such as growth rates etc? or a set of moral objectives such as no cheating, allocative efficiency, equal opportunities etc? which although measurably, are an under-rated subset of the broader definition. Although most will argue for both, it is important to note, that one can be achieved at the expense of the other, hazing the true stance of accountability- its interpretation and subsequent policy action. For instance, productive efficiency (production of a quantity at the lowest cost possible- given the current structure of activity) which may be vital for growth can be achieved at the expense of allocative efficiency (producing with respect to the needs of the people). On the other hand, allocative efficiency may enhance accountability from a moral portfolio, but may undermine growth rates, that is, for example, if the need is health care for the elderly, hence may not have a positive impact on economic growth. However, the pursuit of one instead of the other will fulfil one objective (growth vs allocative efficiency or even both) at the expense of the other, therefore on the whole, how is one doing in the overall level of accountability to responsibility. Confused?

Assume that the year-end objective of a minister is to attain growth (where sustainable growth is a secondary objective- due to various political reasons), based on grounds of economic efficiency, which may subsequently have a positive impact on reducing poverty- hence equity aswell, as shown by some empirical literature in the field (between economic growth and poverty).

In such a case, a regime although low on scores of accountability to responsibility (measured through the moral definition) can still have a positive accountability evaluation based on quantifiable objectives. For instance, Vietnam lacks the existence of an appropriate judicial system, however, it continues to bag unprecedented rates of economic growth (Dani Rodrik, 2008). Similarly, as shown by evidence from India, Cambodia, China and Pakistan, governments have attained high level of economic growth under severe periods of low morally defined accountability-corruption (Anjum Altaf, 2005). Therefore, although our hindsight focuses on moral factors associated with accountability, policy in practice addresses (increasingly) accountability against a set of scientifically quantified and set objectives.

For instance, it is argued that devolved tiers of governments will be captured by the local elites; hence may lack accountability, and resources would be unevenly distributed, subsequently leading to lower levels of economic efficiency and growth (Pudhomme, 1995). However, this may not neccessarily be the case, as local governments, even if allocatively inefficient, can be productively efficient (based on existing structure and fragmentation of resources), hence greater economic growth. This is because, even if resources may be un-equally distributed among the population and may not serve the interest of the larger population, in other words be captured by the few elite, positive growth rates can be attained. For instance, assume that the elite is an industrialist ‘lot’, interested in doubling and tripling it’s income, as argued by Max Weber, who drew the link between the protestant church and industrialisation driven by their core belief of accumulating greater wealth to secure a place in heaven, hence such underlying incentives will lead to a lack of allocative efficiency but greater productive efficiency hence subsequent economic growth. Therefore, although a government may have low levels of accountability from the allocative and moral definition of term, it can still lead to economic growth measured through scientific data, fulfilling the other half of the terminology. Hence, what is the true basis of accountability- a broadly defined term, with competing objectives?

Until and unless moral factors are given quantification through scientific measures, or a distinguishing term in economic analysis, rather than taped under the broad breed of accountability and ‘justice’ driven policy (as generally used on the floor- exceptions apart in some academic debates), the policy apparatus will not precisely hit the ‘nail on the head’. This is due to the vagueness in measurement and globalising nature of our surroundings, leading to the rising importance of growth rates in the international arena rather than effective domestic distributional arrangements and optimising the target population welfare especially in the lagging and striding countries where such disparity is optimised.

Although moral and scientific measures of accountability together are vital for sustainable growth, as it needs to be based on set of generative and evolving institutional incentives (for a later date), growth in it-self can be based on the presence of either one. Therefore, given the hype to attain growth and achieve short term dividends in the foreseeable future, morally defined objectives may be noted as a second-best priority in the umbrella of accountability for developing country leaders, especially as we are re-visiting the age of cross border networks, competitive mentality and knowledge driven bonding- therefore the hype to succeed and be counted given the high stakes.

Therefore, until we disaggregate the definition through effective and precise vocabulary, drawing independence and subsequent respect for the objective and term (sounds extremely sensationalized- I know), there will be a wedge between our hindsight and what our policy sets out to achieve. Hence, the real problem will remain unsolved. In other words, language and vocabulary are one of the most under-rated, yet key ingredients to attaining optimal results, drawing clarity in understanding which is vital for subsequent remedy, which in the current age of globalisation are being exposed to their prime where language harmonization yet differentiation is at competing crosswords (given the rising importance of English as a language, yet its underdeveloped form of practice, understanding and interpretation world over), leading to the development of a bridge between ideology and practice.

The discussion drew from a class room debate of what is a government really accountable for? And what if, one branch comes at the expense of the other?

NATO has been a military organization to plan tactics and strategy against any hostile nation. Its imagined or probable enemies were the Soviet Union and its Warsaw allies. In the 1980s, NATO became a channel of bi-lateral negotiations on arms control between the United States and the Soviet Union. One example for such function is the Treaty on the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (the CFE Treaty). This treaty restrained the possession of conventional arms, namely tanks, armed combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircrafts, and combat helicopters. By 1995, regardless of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany, the ceiling on the number of arms enforced by the CFE Treaty was fairly observed. By this statistics, people assumed that Europe became a peaceful theater of economic and political cooperation.

Europe, however, has never been “arms free.” Even with the positive results from the CFE Treaty, a close analysis on the treaty itself gives an alternative view. First, no naval arms were restricted by the CFE Treaty or any other treaties (except a few types of nuclear cruse missiles). Anti-submarine nuclear depth charge, submarine launched nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers, naval aviations… those are the technological advantages of the United States and its NATO allies, never limited. Second, by the membership of Denmark and Turkey into NATO, the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea are “choked” by NATO-friendly ports of Copenhagen and Istanbul respectably. These two points above guarantee NATO’s strategic advantage over any navies in the world. Third, with this NATO’s supremacy on the sea and NATO’s capacity of rapid deployment, NATO can transport any quantity and quality of armed forces within a short period of time anywhere in the world. Therefore, it seems that there is little impact of NATO expansion on the Russian national security; without Ukraine and Georgia, NATO can do any hostile actions against Russia if it is willing to do so.

Then, why is NATO expansion necessary? Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO had to seek out its new mission. Economic and political cooperation has been taken over by the European Union. So, NATO was willing to cooperate with the United Nations to carry out the so-called humanitarian interventions. Additionally, recent “War on Terrorism” has been associated with the idea of collective security guaranteed by NATO charter. NATO is now deeply involved in the both operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both humanitarian interventions and war on terrorism often focus on the universal peace and freedom of all humanity. Therefore, the more participants such operation has, the higher legitimacy the operation will gain.

From the Russian perspective, NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia is more than a strategic loss. Of course, NATO bases across the mountains from Chechnya and NATO naval bases on the nose of the Crimean Peninsula are annoying and future problems can be easily expected. What we should focus here, however, is the Russian pride. Both Ukraine and Georgia were traditionally in the Soviet/Russian bloc. Many nationals in those countries share culture, language, and religion. Participation of such countries into NATO simply means the decline of the Russian influence in the region. Military reality of NATO supremacy described above is one thing, but socio-political decline of Russia is totally another thing.

Russia will not be a part of NATO for a while. Despite the fact that the Soviet Union joined the Gulf War on NATO’s side, Russia prefers to be an alternative patron in Europe to the United States or the European Union. The Russian pride fueled by rich national resource reserves will not easily give up Ukraine and Georgia regardless of the seemingly-determined military inferiority of Russia. Observing the political life of Gorbachev, the admittance of the Russian (or Soviet) loss in international relations, small or big, will put the leader into a miserable collapse of domestic political leadership. Remembering Machiavelli, it is unlikely that Putin or his successors would commit such political suicide.

Regardless how the Western media accuses him, Russians seem to love a strong leader who leads them from the misery of the post-Communist ruin. However, Putin had two big moments or “crises” during his reign: Moscow Theater hostage situation and submarine Kursk explosion. From the PR point of view, the latter incident is unique. Putin remained in holiday for five days before he returned to Moscow. He even admitted later that he should have been back to Moscow as soon as the incident occurred, and yet, this never became even near to a political crisis. Is that because Putin has total control on Russian media? This article provides an alternative view.

The name Kursk is after a city near the German border. Here, the largest tank battle in history, the Battle of Kursk, took place in 1943. Kursk was remembered as pride of Russia: a small planet discovered by the Soviet scientists was also named after this city. When the Soviet Union collapsed, one of the first ships built by independent Russia was Kursk. The name itself possesses melancholy, pride, grief, all mixed together.

As for the incident, people (mainly Russians) knew exactly what happened. Submarine captains were and still are paid somewhere around 200 USD per month. Not many Russians, especially those who went to Moscow State University (MGU) want such kind of a job. Mal-trained, less motivated, and ill-equipped submariners on one hand, and an accident on the other… It was not so hard to connect those two factors together. Some media, particularly the French tabloids, liked to provide provocative conspiracy theories. So far, none of such stories are convincing.

This incident reminded us that Russia has a fleet. Submarine Kursk was as large as a small aircraft carrier. It was equipped with nuclear missiles. Yet, do not go so fast to conclude that Russia is expansionist and its Navy is a tool to expand Russian influence. First of all, when Russian economy goes bad, Navy is the first organization to receive budget cuts. Russia, a massive continental nation, does not need a navy to protect its boarders unlike the UK or Japan. Its capital was strategically moved away from the sea from St. Petersburg to Moscow. Navy’s importance (except the Naval infantry, which is an excellent military organization) is next to Army, Air Force, and Space Agency in Russia. When Russia starts to invest on Navy as we have seen last year, it means that Russian economy is in a good shape. Navy is a barometer of the Russian economy rather than the Russian imperialism.

Second, the Russian Navy, realistically speaking, cannot do any harm against any naval country. The US, for example, can shoot ICBMs (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) from outside Georgia to Moscow. Russia has to be in the middle of Atlantic to shoot nuclear missiles if Washington is the target. Technological gap in terms of range is enormous. Since the age of the USSR, the Russian or Soviet Navy has been reactionary and defensive. Its main goal is to destroy enemy carriers and submarines which have nuclear capacity. Some Soviet submarines were allegedly able to travel more than 40 knots under the water (usually, 15-25 knots is the range of speed). Sailing under the water with 40 knots is just too noisy and easily detected. Therefore, if one assumes their rationale, such noisy submarines are for the rapid reaction tactics against any naval vessels, without being attacked by anti-submarine aircrafts including helicopters. The Russian Navy is not an offensive force at this stage.

So then, what is the Russian Navy? What does the reaction towards the tragedy of Kursk tell us about future of the Russian Navy? Navy is an expensive but massive and impressive piece of art. Naval vessels, like space shuttles, are the pride of Russia and the evidence of the Russian glory. Putin was able to demonstrate such symbolism among many other symbols to make Russians proud of themselves and their country once again. Kursk was a reminder for Russians that Russia still has a navy. Russia is not a third world country even though Kursk was exploded. At least, Russians can make such massive machines.

This positive interpretation of belief in Russia was the success of Putin. If the same tragedy occurs in any other country, it surely becomes a political scandal. But in Russia, one cannot accuse Putin in any naval matters. Putin equals to the Russian glory which equals to a glorified Navy. If you buy Putin, you have to buy Navy as a symbol of the Russian pride.

Today, as the political situation of the country takes another sharp turn in history; many questions arise regarding its future. It surely is a never ending debate and it can never be reduced it to one plot. Its role as the only Islamic Nuclear Power in the world, supporting the US in the war on terror, the Kashmir issue, resolving the energy crisis and tackling the increasing domestic instability without democracy are all those big questions it has to answer in the coming years and for that Pakistan hardly looks prepared.

Emerging from the history of political uncertainty, Pakistan has always struggled with democracy. Dictators as well as criminal politicians have played their role in the country’s falling in the iron-clad hands of marshal laws several times resulting in the military enjoying huge foreign aids, none of which seemed to have been spent of social development. In the recent years, Pakistan has experienced the most destructive violence and political unrest, all because of army and its fake policies which they call a step towards democracy. With the current Musharaf regime misusing the powers to full extent, Pakistan never saw its own judiciary being sacked and even the media being banned from straight coverage.

The recent fall of the iconic political figure and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto just few days before the elections is another big reason of the domestic unrest Pakistan is facing today and its all happening in a country which calls itself the biggest ‘peace’ supporter of the US. Its not about the terrorism groups, its not about social evils, its all about the unstable future of the country. Those who control the ruling class of the country, who implement their policies on it, take the advantage and the people pay the price. The fall of democracy in Pakistan can result in the rise of the American think-tank which may provide the basis for the implementation of the American Map of Islam in the near future.

Apart from politics, Pakistan struggles economically. Pakistan can be compared to South Korea, both countries were underdeveloped thirty years ago but today the economically stable S. Korea has joined the ranks of the developed countries and has a great contribution in reviving the pacific. On the other hand, Pakistan remains a third world country where development and technology are still a part of  the “future”. It´s a country where poverty rate is increasing, where electricity is still a “facility” for the people, where people don´t unite for the country, they unite to fight with eachother. Pakistan is a country where everything just doesn’t happen for a reason.

The people of a country always look for their future in their leaders; they hope for a better and secure lifestyle from them. Sadly, our leaders misuse their powers every time they take the seat and the people are forced to get on the streets and fight for their rights. It´s a 21st century country where the power to rule is the power to play with the rights of the people. On the darker note, we still have people who possess those stone age mentalities and wired up socially to the traditions of their forefathers which they think are a part of their religion. But every country has this particular group of people but once your leadership is strong and loyal to its people, nothing can compare to it. Pakistan needs a powerful leadership and then who knows, it may prove to be one of the most developed nations of the world.

Read a response to this article, written by Ali Sohail.