Antero Leitzinger is a writer for the Eurasian Politician, and the editor of the book, “Caucasus—An Unholy Alliance”. He is a great history researcher on topics ranging from Russia to Islam. The majority of his works are in Finnish, including various travel guide books, textbooks, and works about the history of liberalism and the history of Finnish immigration. He is currently working with other authors for an English book about Eastern European history and human rights policy in that region, of which he will write about the Karaim minority in Lithuania.

            Due to the wide spectrum of geopolitical issues Leitzinger has written about, this interview may tend to skip around in content. Here is the intriguing interview with this writer:

 

WRM: Mr. Leitzinger, what is the greatest threat to the United States and world security today, in terms of state sponsors of terrorism and hostile states?

AL:  As paradoxical as it may sound, the greatest threat today may be within the western world itself - the mass demonstrations, media campaigns, making of political myths, hesitation when facing casualties, and overall weakness of will, which may in the end sabotage all efforts to fight terrorism effectively. It is in the nature of democracy, that every four years, US interest in world affairs, and determination to conduct a consequent foreign policy, is tested, and as soon as a hostile state detects a weak spot, sponsorship will bloom again. Some of the potentially most dangerous enemies to freedom resemble "sleeping" volcanoes.

 

WRM: What are your feelings on the sudden change of our policy with Russia ever since the Soviet Union dissolved?

AL:  In the early 1990s, there was an overwhelming outburst of naivety. The "Cold War" was suddenly declared over, and the USA ceased to be interested in Afghanistan (which should have been rebuilt in 1992), or in securing emerging free governments in Tajikistan, Georgia, and Azerbaijan (between 1991 and 1993). The Chechens were left to die, and all Russia was lost by 1999. It all reminded us of late 1930s, when the world refused to look ahead "while storm clouds gather far across the sea". The elections of 2000 brought a great relief - it felt like the lights were switched on at the Statue of Liberty! Since then, we knew at least, that the USA was still
there, and that Russia's restoration as an empire would be monitored and counteracted, if necessary.

 

WRM: And what has been the result of the naivety in regards to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in terms of geopolitics? What is your analysis of the situation in that part of the world and its affect on the West?

AL:  t may have been too optimistic to expect Russia to truly reform 12 years ago, but if there ever was a historical chance, it was lost by 1999. The bright side is that the three Baltic states were able to retain complete independence, and are now invited to join both the EU and NATO. Their success story leaves the question, whether equally rapid development toward free-market democracy would have been possible in other former Soviet republics as well. Georgia had a freely elected anti-communist president, who was overthrown in a Russian-led military coup, only weeks after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. At that time, the western world was interested primarily in getting the Red Army out of Germany and the Baltic countries, and the peoples of the Caucasus had to wait for their turn. Tough Chechen resistance bought the Baltic countries time, but these sacrifices have to be repaid for the children of those deprived their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. In a way, Caucasus did the rest of the world a service similar to that of Poland in 1939, but it would be really unfair to leave the peoples of the Caucasus at the mercy of their enemies for half a century. Heroism and martyrdom may not have much effect on cool-headed geopolitics, but it certainly should affect western mentality. While we may be unable to liberate all of the communist bloc at once, we should at least show respect and sympathy for those who keep on fighting against all odds. But where are the mass demonstrations to stop the Chechen War? Has anybody seen a crowd burning Russian flags on the squares of Teheran, or heard of French calls for boycotting vodka and caviar?

 

WRM: What do you believe are the reasons for, objectives of, and future of the growing separation between Europe and the United States?

AL:  When ever a Republican has succeeded a Democrat in the White House, there have followed displays of anti-American sentiments in Europe - after 1952, 1968, 1980, and 2000. It always lasted 3-5 years. I believe, that this reflects the frustration of left-wing intellectuals, who dominate much of the US media and even more the European media. After a while, trans-Atlantic relations return to normal, as Europe can have no real interests in severing them. The "new Europe" has realized this all along, but the "old Europe" has too long traditions in appeasement and defeatism.

 

WRM:  What do you believe is driving the anti-Americanism in Europe, particularly when the US has a Republican administration? And what do you see for the future of US relations with Europe?

AL:  After 1952, 1968, and 1980, anti-American outbursts in Europe were echoed and largely orchestrated by the Soviet secret services, which were running most peace organizations. Even the election result of 2000 was a tremendous disappointment for the Kremlin. As Robert Baer has revealed in his book "See no evil", Russia repaid President Clinton his support for President Yeltsin in 1996, and certainly much more was at stake four years later. At the same time, much of the anti-American discourse has actually been launched west of the Atlantic. As Mona Charen has stated in her book "Useful idiots", there is a lot of anti-Americanism in America. Where else would we get our information and rage over the treatment of 19th century Indians, over the death chambers of Texas, and over all the other issues that keep moving European sentiments much more than the fate of Tibet, if not from Hollywood movies, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the sarcastic comments by celebrities like Michael Moore or Jessica Lange? They teach us political correctness, and make us feel slavery in Virginia around 1860 much closer than slavery around St. Petersburg at the same time.

As for the future, we might recall, that the USA became the main target of these popular campaigns only after 1947, when it took over the defense of Greece and Turkey from the UK. The previous year, when Winston Churchill warned the Americans about the "iron curtain" dividing Europe, he was greeted in New York by demonstrators who accused the British of warmongering
and attempts to hold on a colonial empire. There had been vehement anti-British agitation in continental Europe since the days of Napoleon. For more than a century, the UK had been the main adversary of Russia in the "Great Game", and its seat was inherited by the USA. Could it be a coincidence that the traditional anti-British agitation died out so soon at just about the same time, being replaced by anti-Americanism? Sometimes, cultural prejudices follow political expediency quite conveniently.

 

WRM: Do you believe intelligence was hyped about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If not, can you explain the failure of Coalition forces to find them?

AL: The main point was - or should have been - always the liberation of the Iraqi people. Not nearly as many people paid serious attention to the arguments about weapons of mass destruction before the war than afterwards. If enough evidence would have been disclosed, the opponents of the war would certainly have claimed, that on this particular issue there never was any real doubt or disagreement, but that the main point was something else. In fact, now the media is giving the impression that coalition leaders even claimed Iraq already possessed nuclear arms - while prior to the war, such an impression was spread out by anti-war people who predicted Doomsday scenarios. Several European reporters appear to have heard that President Bush accused Iraq of having "bought" uranium from Niger, while he actually said "sought". Is there any doubt that it was in Saddam's preferences, capabilities, and logical self-preservation interests to seek weapons of mass destruction, where ever he could get them, as soon as possible? If he did not seek them from Niger, should we not rather ask: Why not?

 

WRM: How do you believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to effect worldwide geopolitics, specifically towards the Arabs, Russia, etc.?

AL: First of all, these wars must have scared anti-American dictators, especially in Syria. Arab governments will take American wishes more seriously, and speed up their efforts to crush terrorist organizations, like recently in Saudi Arabia. Russia has lost its status as the protector of its former Arab Socialist allies. Instead of relying on diplomatic intrigues in the UN, responsible Arab countries will start to negotiate with Israel according to American advice. There may emerge a strong pro-American chain of countries including Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and the Gulf states, with good relations to Israel and Turkey. Syria would be encircled and forced to withdraw from Lebanon, and to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Success in Iraq and Afghanistan will also have healthy influence on the democratic forces in Iran. A revolution there would create another chain of pro-American countries from Turkey to Pakistan. Syria and the clergy of Iran will desperately attempt to break these developments, and they will be assisted by Russia and India. For another year, the USA will keep the initiative in this geopolitical game.

 

WRM: What do you believe are the obstacles to Middle East peace and why?

AL:  The Arabs have been indoctrinated into a political mythology that denies all realistic self-criticism and provides convenient scapegoats for everything. In South Lebanon, I saw once a large Hezbollah poster claiming the USA for "all our problems". This reminded me of the standard explanation by Soviet travel guides, who used to explain all their poverty by the sacrifices during the war, some 40 years earlier, although meanwhile, Germany and Japan had already recovered from the war. This type of reasoning is politically left-wing, a product of the Arab Socialism that dominated Middle Eastern societies far too long. The Arab world needs now a healthy right-wing reaction, strength to cope with the harsh realities of life, and rational assessment of what can be achieved at what costs. Maybe it was unjust, that the state of Israel was founded on Arab soil, but so are many things in the world, not least in history, and we still have to go on living. Many Arab governments have learned to live with the realities, and should be supported, while the common people still need to be educated for responsibility. It is in their own best interest. There should be no obstacles unless some people still want to carry unfounded hopes of easier solutions, like by further internationalizing of the disputes through UN resolutions, or terrorism.

WRM: What needs to be done then to make a peaceful Middle East? What forces are stopping the peace movement, and what should be done about them?

AL:  Peace between Israel and Syria would provide the former with safe borders. Syria should also stop all its support for Palestinian terrorists. All the suicide bombers and masked gunmen in Che Guevara T-shirts, who keep appearing on Palestinian TV and funerals, should be eliminated forever. Terrorists do not grow on trees, and if their foreign support is drained out, they will vanish. The Palestinians would then feel free to lean toward their brethren inside the 1948 borders, the so-called Israeli Arabs, who have a long experience of peaceful coexistence. Together, they should form a strong moderate majority and marginalize the extremists. There is no reason, why Jews and Arabs would need to fight each other. Germans used to live much longer in antagonism toward the French and Poles, but now they are on friendly relations. In a few decades, we could look back to the Middle East conflict as a short crisis in a basically positive, long history.

 

WRM: How do you feel about the US stance on international issues in general, particularly about working outside the UN and taking an aggressive stance against countries like Syria, Iran and North Korea?

AL:  In the 1960s, newly independent developing countries learned from the Soviet bloc, that if they only vote together in the UN, they would always outnumber the "imperialist and neo-colonialist" western powers. This led to the moral corruption of world organizations. Recently, countries like Russia, China, Cuba, East Congo, Libya, Syria, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe, voted in the UN Human Rights Commission by 21 to 15, that the atrocities of the Chechen War deserved no condemnation. No wonder, that India was never forced to fulfill its promise of a referendum over independence in Kashmir. The Cyprus conflict dates back to 1964, when the Greek majority of the island made the fatal decision to rely on Socialist support in the UN instead of UK or NATO mediation. With such a record, could any sensible person blame the USA for bypassing the UN on issues that require acts instead of empty talk? Syria and Iran need to be constrained in order to secure Iraq, to make Lebanon truly independent, and to give the Palestinians a chance for peace. Most member countries of the UN have their very own interests, and if involved in the Middle East, would bargain with their votes - or become targets of diplomatic blackmail.

 

WRM: How do you feel about the threat of terrorism with weapons of mass destruction, and the capabilities of terrorists like Al-Qaeda to launch an attack on the level of September 11?

AL: I do not believe that terrorists have any need to set up new records in terms of casualties. The actors themselves may be fanatical and suicidal psychopaths, but the sponsors and protectors know to calculate cost-efficiency. Actually, the massive US reaction - liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq - has probably taught terrorists the virtues of moderation, and encourages them to choose less provocative means in the future. A hunter does not use canons to shoot flies. After all, the Anthrax infected letters, the SARS hysteria, the power cuts, and every air crash, has shown us, how vulnerable western societies are to relatively bloodless "high profile" killings. Sometimes even the scare would be enough to paralyze societies, cause economical losses, draw media attention, and to put political pressure on decision-makers. We may see for a while less of the traditional, messy and risky bombings of western targets, and more of highly technical, even virtual terrorism - unless somebody has the confidence to stage most theatrical terrorist acts with the very purpose of provoking actions. This again will give lots of ideas for conspiracy theories. Weapons of mass destruction are practical for a total war, but terrorism is a sophisticated form of warfare, where subtle motives, symbolism, and the media are essential weapons. This is why nobody will ever try to use terrorism against the North Korean dictatorship.

 

WRM: Do you feel that large-scale attacks in the West would not be favorable to Iran, North Korea or other hostile countries if they cannot be traced? It seems to me that large-scale attacks, if said to be caused by the Iraq War, will result in a morale boost for radical populations, more anti-Americanism in Europe and preoccupy the US with economic troubles.

AL:  Rogue states have two options: either comply with American demands, or arm to teeth. Libya and Syria have chosen the first option, in order to gain time and get out of the limelight. Iran and North Korea, however, were already so close to developing their own nuclear arms, that they prefer to speed up preparations for the worst case. Even if they do not have nuclear deterrent, they will want to give such an impression. They know that the USA is unlikely to launch any military operations before the 2004 elections. A full year lapsed between the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and invading Iran or North Korea would need even longer preparation. Meanwhile, Iran has enough agents infiltrated in both neighboring countries to keep Americans engaged in small-scale battles. They still believe that public opinion may topple UK and US leaders, thus making further invasions politically too costly. Large-scale terrorist attacks might satisfy Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Ladin personally, but if any rogue states have a control on them, they would prefer to save them for the future. The September 2001 attacks were prepared for some time, and new operations of similar scale would have better chances to succeed only after the current tension of security precautions has relaxed somewhat.

 

WRM: Where do you see the War on Terror heading?

AL:  It would be extremely difficult to hold a balance around Iraq. Free Iraq will either implode or explode. Unless Syria and Iran are allowed to push Iraq into chaos, and back to tyranny, Americans have to export the idea of freedom from Iraq to the neighborhood. There will be a revolution in Iran, with consequences for the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russia may have given up on Iraq and Syria, but it will find allies among the fanatic Shiite theocracy.

WRM: Do you believe there is a demographic threat to the United States and her allies? If so, what is driving the threat and what will become of it?

AL:  The USA was made great by ideas and immigrants, who were drawn there by those ideas. People who loved freedom went west and became the defenders of freedom as the "American way". Why should this not continue for a couple of generations longer, as long as Americans themselves know and make clear to everybody, which values are accepted and which are not? When visiting an Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan, three years ago, I could not help noticing, that all the industrious people wished to go to the USA, to drive a taxi and to make a decent living for their families by honest work, while the least attractive refugees had stayed behind and wished to go to Europe, to enjoy better social security, and to continue their more or less revolutionary (frequently left-wing) political activities. This is why I would be less worried about immigration to the USA than to its effects on Europe, while all developed countries share similar demographic necessities. The threats do not come as much from pressures beyond the borders or from the willingness of the right immigrants to integrate into western societies than from our capability to choose, to actively promote and welcome productive immigration while keeping tight control over problems.

 

WRM: What do you feel the Bush Administration is doing right and wrong in response to the several threats we have mentioned?

AL:  In world politics, there is never time for leisure, for just letting things go by and wishing that ultimately the best will come out of it on its own. Political vacuums are always filled by the most aggressive states, and inaction will be exploited by those less liberal. This is why responsible statesmen like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, take initiative and act when needed. It was no service for the USA, Europe, or UN - and least of all to Iraq - to wait 12 years before finishing off the Gulf War. If Afghanistan would have been secured immediately after the Soviet Army had withdrawn, the world would have been spared of the Taliban, and terrorists would have needed another haven. Kashmir, Korea, Cyprus, Kosovo, and Chechnya, will all need more attention, but of course, the Bush Administration has to analyze each conflict carefully, and choose the means and timing accordingly. My understanding is, that Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz have the expertise for keeping the initiative, and President Bush himself has the right instinct to fight for freedom. That fight is, like life itself, something that has to be kept on relentlessly. The greatest risk is that things could be left half-done, as in Germany 1945, in Korea, or in Vietnam. No US occupation has ever lasted longer than that of Louisiana (1862-1877), and Saddam's loyalists count on having to last only a year more. The quickest way to suppress terrorism is to convince its sponsors, that there is no time limit for the fight against it.

WRM: Mr. Leitzinger, what do you believe is the most underestimated or under-reported threat to the Western world?

AL:  Because most politicians and even researchers react primarily to what is reported by the media, the most heinous threat would have to be something the media is least likely to advertise - its own failures, either by lack of professionalism, by the attitudes of journalists, or by disinformation, to report correctly and with a sound balance about world affairs. The tremendous influence by foreign agents or extreme left-wing journalists, many of whom have been hailed as Pulitzer Price winners, has yet to be discovered in its entirety. Complete nonsense is repeated in the media so often, that it becomes a myth. Everybody believes in what everybody is writing about. Two years ago, reporters from the BBC, Reuters, and probably every respectable media outlet, kept telling stories about thousands of Chechens fighting in Afghanistan. Not a single was ever found. The myth lacked every evidence, it was launched by the notorious press in India, and
it was utterly illogical - why would Chechen freedom-fighters need to travel to far-away Afghanistan to join a Holy War against the Americans, who are if not allies yet the only friends they have? There are eight Russian citizens imprisoned in Guantanamo, none of whom is a Chechen. Yet the media never acknowledged having been misled by Russian disinformation, and the myth keeps popping up just as often as the equally ill-founded myth of Usama bin Ladin having been a CIA agent during the Afghan War.

The past summer, we have been told by the media, that Iraq never had any weapons of mass destruction, because none have been found so far. Well, neither has Saddam himself been found - should we therefore conclude, that he too never existed in the first place, and was only created by intelligence reports as a justification for the war? Now, compare all the millions of pages and broadcasting hours dedicated to the "were reports hyped?" question to what has been done in order to enlighten western public about the numerous discrepancies in official Russian reports on the 1999 apartment bombings, or the 2002 theatre hostage-taking in Moscow! The most underestimated threat may well be how little attention is given to the activities of the former KGB, which is today running a dozen different countries (including Turkmenistan, the most convenient hiding-place for international terrorists) and selling by far the largest amount of arms around the world, while no efforts are spared to discredit the Bush Administration and its allies.

WRM: Do you believe the KGB forces totally control much of the former Soviet Union? Or is this more like a Mafia where the Communists regathered their potential, mixing political power with the remnants of the intelligence systems to conduct covert operations?

AL:  Soviet-born researcher Yuri Felshtinsky and former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko have described, in their book "Blowing Up Russia - Terror From Within", how specially after 1994, agents from various Russian security services joined with common criminals in small cells with useful contacts and expertise for arms sale, assassinations, and provocative staged terrorist acts. These cells operate officially independently, selling their services for private companies, but many of these companies (for example, the Gazprom giant, with a daughter company in Turkmenistan, and huge business interests in Afghanistan, the Caucasus, and the Middle East) are either state-run, or run the state. Since the Soviet Union was privatized among leading communist officials, the so-called nomenklatura (Soviet elite), it is extremely difficult to distinguish between state and private interests in contemporary Russia. President Vladimir Putin has manned top offices with former KGB colleagues, but does he have all its branches, as well as the military intelligence (GRU), under his control? Russians themselves tend to believe in the centralization of power structures, and the most sinister concepts, while western analysts are by nature rather skeptic and thus optimistic.

In the past two years, Russia has been surprisingly quiet, obviously unable to exploit the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American successes were certainly surprises for Russian experts, and Putin is known to have criticized his own military advisers for failing to predict the swift collapse of Iraqi resistance. Russia has remained preoccupied with Chechnya, and had to accept an increasing American presence in several former Soviet republics. Russia's economy has bloomed after the devaluation five years ago, but only thanks to the high level of oil price, which has by now come to an end. More troubles loom ahead. In this context, Russia's foreign intelligence operations have either been neutralized by US maneuvers (as probably happened in Georgia and Iraq), or deliberately redirected to domestic use, in order to prevent the disintegration of the country.

According to Lenin, communism was Soviet system plus electrification of the country. According to contemporary Russians, Putin is constructing a Soviet system minus communism. Simple mathematics would indicate, that Putin's Russia is the very opposite of electricity. Many Russians, going to shiver in poorly heated housing in Siberia next winter, would agree with this. Another way to describe the neo-Soviet monster state - a combination of formal private ownership with feudal traditions and communist nostalgy - would be the way Count Mirabeau described Prussia over 200 years ago: while other states had armies in their service, Prussia was an army served by a state. Russia too, has become more or less a front organization of what used to be the KGB. But as it failed to prevent the collapse of the Soviet Union, will it be any more capable to save Russia?

 

WRM: What are the forces motivating Russia and her allies into coming against the US? It appears we have a common interest in fighting terrorism, promoting democracy, etc.

AL:  Russians are great chess players. They do not hate America, and there never was a war between them. Thus the relationship is very much that of a "Great Game", a not always fair competition, which Russians tend to consider a zero-sum game. Russia does not want to destroy America, but to replace it, to become like America. Russia has, however, no commitment to freedom, no traditions of democracy comparable to those of America, and absolutely no chance to become a demographically and economically equal, nationally united super power. Those Russians, who realize this, either emigrate or wish that their country could find a role like that of Turkey or Italy. Russian leaders, however, will use all they possess - mainly the nuclear technology - to bargain time, money, and power. Russian rulers have never been afraid of terrorism, of media criticism, of public pressure upon politicians, or of loosing elections. These are western vices, and only western governments are willing to pay a high price to avoid them. Russian secret services have know-how, which they can sell well. This is sound business. Basically, Russia like all countries is motivated by greed and need of self-preservation, but the supply and demand for Russia are different than for western countries. It is in Russian interests to keep western societies occupied with those vices, for which only Russia can provide remedies.

 

WRM: With Russia in shambles, why do you consider her a threat in anyway?

AL:  The Soviet experiment failed economically and socially, but they did build nuclear arms, support dictatorships in dozens of foreign countries, and make extensive use of subversive tactics. Russians remained masters not only of chess, but of geopolitical games as well. The KGB was a henhouse with gold-egg laying hens. While Russia will provide good services on an egg by egg basis, it would be unwise to have the hen killed, or the whole henhouse burned. Russia has sold out many of its old allies, like Iraq, and lost influence in the Middle East, but it is not in Russian interests to withdraw completely. Interestingly, Taliban and al-Qaida forces disappeared in early 2002 to the north-west of Kandahar, while Saddam was rumored to have escaped via Moscow. Their tracks could easily cross somewhere in Turkmenistan, where few reporters venture.

 

WRM: Overall, what are the objectives of our enemies in supporting terrorism and simultaneously making wide-ranging alliances with the hard-left leaders throughout the world? What is the strategy and who is guiding it?

AL: If I was a retired officer of a once proud security service with global connections to all the enemies of the USA, how would I finance the restoration or at least a decent continuation of my dear empire? Certainly not by casting away the few remaining assets. I would go deep into the age-old blackmail and protection business. A skillful combination of terrorism and disinformation would paralyze week-minded western nations, and make them see the benefits of paying for cooperation. When the kingdom of the Goths was in shambles 1600 years ago, it took less than a century for them and all their formerly allied Germanic tribes to make themselves friends, protectors, and finally rulers of what used to be the West Roman Empire. The Gothic kingdom, stretching from the Baltics to the Black Sea, transformed ultimately into the Holy Roman Empire in Germany. For such a historical transformation, there could not be a single strategy. No Soviet leader ever planned to infiltrate and take over the western world quite the way it could yet happen, but great strategists are capable of adapting to changing circumstances. The Soviet experience failed because five-year plans and guidance does not work in economics, but mammoth-sized security services, international terrorism, and world revolution could still become a successful business by applying free-market principles to the existing cheap work-force and imaginative, unscrupulous traditions. Since democracy has its weaknesses, why not make money out of it? This can be done not only by conventional arms sale and export of existing nuclear technology, but also by cultivating old prejudices and devising new threats. Islam in particular is scary enough for many westerners, and Islamophobia would be just as easy to export as anti-Semitism in the 1870s, or communism in 1918. Exploiting Islamic terrorism as provocation could be a prelude to an unholy alliance, which would provide employment and political survival for a number of old communists at the costs of western taxpayers.

---

Ryan Mauro is a geo-political analyst whose web site WorldThreats.com is a recognized top flight source for analysis on the world and nation.  Ryan's keen insight and independent analysis makes him a valuable guest writer and we are proud to offer his work on MILNET.