Friday, September 25, 2009
Fast bowlers lead Pakistan to victory
Monday, September 7, 2009
US likely to expand Afghan military action
Monday, 07 Sep, 2009 | 06:03 AM PST |
WASHINGTON: As senior US commanders prepare to send their evaluations of the situation in Afghanistan to President Barack Obama this week, there are indications that Washington may increase its efforts to destroy Al Qaeda safe havens in Fata.
Terrorists may have links in Lanka: Gilani
Monday, 07 Sep, 2009 | 01:14 PM PST |
Friday, September 4, 2009
Pakistan allows US to inspect Harpoons
Friday, 04 Sep, 2009 | 05:58 AM PST |
US funds help Taliban; charges being probed
Andhra Pradesh CM killed in chopper crash
Airliner with Indian FM on board lands in Karachi
Ecnec approves 20 projects of Rs 259bn
Friday, 04 Sep, 2009 | 05:06 AM PST |
Thursday, September 3, 2009
India’s moon mission ends abruptly
Musharraf ‘upbeat’ after meeting with Saudi king
Audacious attack on minister in capital; driver killed
Thursday, 03 Sep, 2009 | 05:00 AM PST |
A brother of the minister said that Mr Kazmi had been receiving threats for the past couple of months.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Indian soldier killed by Pakistani troops: Indian army
The incident took place in mountainous Mendhar district, about 450 kilometres south of Indian administered Kashmir’s summer capital Srinagar.
‘The soldier died in firing from across the Line of Control (LOC). Apparently it was Pakistani soldiers who targeted our positions,’ an army spokesman said.
India and Pakistan have fought two wars over Muslim-majority Kashmir, which is held in part by each country but claimed in full by both.
They agreed to a ceasefire along the Line of Control border in 2003 and started a peace process in 2004. Since then there have been sporadic clashes, and both countries have accused each other of violating the ceasefire.
‘It is another case of ceasefire violation by Pakistan and we will soon lodge a strong protest,’ the Indian army spokesman said. —AFP
Iran ready to hold nuke talks with world powers
US President Barack Obama has given Iran until later this month to take up a six powers’ offer of talks on trade benefits if it shelves nuclear enrichment or face harsher sanctions, Reuters reported.
Iran has repeatedly rejected demands to halt work which it says is for peaceful power generation but which the West suspects is aimed at making bombs.
‘Iran has prepared an updated nuclear proposal and is ready to resume negotiations with world powers,’ chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili was quoted as saying by al-Alam, Iran’s Arabic-language satellite television channel.
Press TV, Iran’s English-language state television, said in a scrolling headline, without giving further detail, ‘Iran ready to offer new nuclear package.’
Germany said on Monday it will host high-level talks this week with the United States, China, France, Britain and Russia on Iran’s disputed nuclear programme.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tehran should realise how ‘very serious’ the September deadline set by Obama is to negotiate on its nuclear activities.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in April, before his disputed re-election in June, that Iran had prepared its own proposals to end the long-running stalemate over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
Iran has previously said it is ready for ‘constructive’ talks but has dismissed demands to halt or freeze uranium enrichment, which can have both civilian and military purposes.
It was unclear whether Iran’s counter-offer in the nuclear dispute would be essentially different from previous ill-fated exchanges.
The six powers originally offered Iran economic and political incentives in 2006 in exchange for the suspension of enrichment. Iran’s response hinted at some flexibility but ruled out suspension as a precondition for talks.
In June last year the six improved the offer but retained the precondition. In reply, Iran said it wanted to negotiate a broader peace and security deal and rejected any ‘condescending’ formula to shelve its nuclear programme.
India’s nuclear fizzle
Wednesday, 02 Sep, 2009 | 08:39 AM PST |
Instead of 45 kilotons of destructive energy, the explosion had produced only 15 to 20. The bomb had not worked as designed.
Why blow the whistle 11 years later? An irresistible urge to tell the truth or moral unease is scarcely the reason. Santanam’s ‘coming clean’ has the stamp of approval of the most hawkish of Indian nuclear hawks. Among them are P.K. Iyengar, A.N. Prasad, Bharat Karnad and Brahma Chellaney.
By rubbishing the earlier test as a failure, they hope to make the case for more nuclear tests. This would enable India to develop a full-scale thermonuclear arsenal.As is well known, a thermonuclear (or hydrogen) bomb is far more complex than the relatively simple fission weapon first tested by India in 1974 and by Pakistan in 1998. Advanced weapons needs fine-tuning to achieve their full destructiveness — France had to test 22 times to achieve perfection.
By generating a pro-test environment, India’s nuclear hawks hope to make life difficult for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s moderate government whenever India’s signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) comes up for discussion. Santanam’s revelation has been spurred by the fear that if President Obama succeeds in his initiative to revive the CTBT — which had essentially been shot dead by the US Senate in 1999 — the doors on nuclear testing could be shut worldwide. A race against the clock is on.
There are not the only ominous developments. India has begun sea trials of its 7,000-ton nuclear-powered submarine with underwater ballistic missile launch capability, the first in a planned fleet of five. India became the world’s 10th-highest military spender in 2008 but now plans to head even further upwards. In July 2009, Indian defence minister, A.K. Antony announced that for 2009-2010 India plans to raise its military budget by 50 per cent to a staggering $40bn, about six times that of Pakistan.
On the Pakistani side, the desire to maintain nuclear parity with India has caused it to push down the pedal as hard as it can. Although the numbers of Pakistani warheads and delivery vehicles is a closely held secret, a former top official of the CIA recently noted in a report released this month that: ‘It took them roughly 10 years to double the number of nuclear weapons from roughly 50 to 100.’
This is bad news for those Pakistanis, like myself, who have long opposed Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Our Indian friends and colleagues — who have opposed their country’s bomb with far greater vigour — have failed even more spectacularly in stopping their nuclear juggernaut. It is little satisfaction to note that post-1998 developments have repeatedly confirmed predictions, made by Pakistani and India anti-nuclear activists separately, that the loud claims of ‘minimal deterrence’ by nuclear hawks on both sides are a proven sham. Only the sky is the limit.
Stuck with an arms race that is fuelled by India’s newfound economic strength, what should Pakistan do? Before contemplating alternatives, one must calmly scrutinise India’s motives and disaggregate the threats that Pakistan faces both externally and internally.
First, an unpalatable truth — India’s nuclear planners want to play in the big league, not with Pakistan. While nuclear Pakistan is indeed seen as troublesome, it is a side consideration. India’s newfound aggressive and dangerous nationalism now actively seeks new rivals and enemies across the globe. This potentially includes its present allies, Russia and the US. But it is strongly focused upon neighbouring China.
An example: this month’s article by Bharat Verma, the hawkish editor of the influential Indian Defence Review, makes the preposterous prediction that China will attack India before 2012, leaving only three years to the Indian government for preparation. He claims that a desperate Beijing is out ‘to teach India the final lesson, thereby ensuring Chinese supremacy in Asia in this century’ and China is working towards an end game rooted in the ‘abiding conviction of the communists that the Chinese race is far superior to Nazi Germany’. Verma’s solution: India must arm itself to the teeth.
Pakistan should find reassurance in this kind of thinking, warped though it is. It indicates that India’s China obsession is doing most of the driving, not hostility with Pakistan or the Muslim factor. Certainly, India’s military expansion deserves a full-throated condemnation both because of the unnecessary tension it creates, as well as the diversion of resources away from the actual needs of India’s people. But the lesson for us is that we need not panic or fear an Indian invasion. Pakistan already has enough military muscle to stay safe in this regard, even if India increases its nuclear arsenal manifold.
On the other hand, Pakistan is not safe from dangerous internal threats. These are: population growth, terrorism and provincial tensions.
Pakistan’s population is out of control. From 28 million in 1947, it has shot up to 176 million today, roughly a six-fold increase over 60 years. This exploding population bomb makes it impossible to provide even basic education and health facilities to a majority. Shrinking per capita availability of water is inevitable and is certain to become a source of serious internal violence as well as growing tensions with India.
Terrorism, fortunately, is not yet out of control. But recent army victories and the elimination of Baitullah Mehsud, while welcome, are far from decisive. The epicentres of terrorism are highly mobile. Religious radicalism has penetrated deep into the core of Pakistan’s society, particularly its youth. The real problem lies in our cities, not the mountains.Nationalist struggles, with those in Balochistan being the most serious, are a third important threat. They are indicative of the deep unhappiness felt by a good fraction of Pakistanis living outside Punjab. While too inchoate to seriously threaten the federal structure at this point, circumstances could rapidly change.
These are serious existential threats. But they cannot be met by following India’s path. Would tripling Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and missile inventory, or having thermonuclear weapons, reduce their severity even marginally?
Instead, the way to create a viable Pakistan lies in embarking on an emergency population planning programme, building a sustainable and active democracy on the back of a welfare state, restructuring the economy for peace rather than war, remaking the federation so that provincial grievances can be effectively resolved, eliminating the feudal order and creating a tolerant society that respects the rule of law and does not discriminate between citizens.
US plans for ‘imperial’ presence in Pakistan
Sunday, 30 Aug, 2009 | 02:55 PM PST |
‘The Americans are coming, and coming big,’ according to media pundits in Pakistan. And none should blame them for going over the top because the figures being bandied about are, to say the very least, flabbergasting.
What’s on the drawing boards in Washington and Islamabad are the blue prints for vastly increasing the number of American personnel manning one of the most important diplomatic presence in the 21st century for the Americans in Pakistan. Apparently, Washington feels that its battery of 750 men and women stocking the American Embassy in Islamabad is far too inadequate to cope with the job on their hands. They need to be given a big injection to inflate their muscles. The magic potion said to be brewing would add at least another thousand people on what’s being described as a ‘war footing.’ That would take US diplomatic presence in Islamabad way above the current largest American diplomatic mission in Beijing, China; the number there stands at a paltry 1450.
The US Congress agrees with the mandarins at the State Department and has allocated 940 million dollars for the embassy in Islamabad and a number of American consulates, particularly those in Karachi and Peshawar. The fortress-like new consulate on Karachi’s Arabian Sea is spread over six acres of prime land, given to them at a throw-away price, of course. What are friends for, after all, and the Americans, don’t forget, have powerful friends in very high places in Pakistan.
(Meanwhile, US ambassador Anne Patterson, reacting to media reports, has said that the number of Marines in the new embassy would be less than 20. They would be accommodated in a bomb-proof facility. At present the embassy has 250 regular staff, 200 visiting American staff and 1,000 local personnel. Another 500 would be added in next three years.)
The government of Pakistan is obviously chipping into these plans with a magnanimity that our ruling elite is so well-known for, as far as their overseas ‘friends’ are concerned. They may be tight-fisted and niggardly to their own people but for minders and mentors from the world beyond Pakistan, sky is the limit.
Little wonder, therefore, that a huge parcel of 18 acres of prime land in Islamabad’s exclusive diplomatic enclave has been ‘sold’ to the American Embassy for just one billion rupees, a fraction of its market worth. What is 18 acres between friends; peanuts when you think of how magnanimously Pervez Musharraf presented the whole of Pakistan to his American mentors over just a phone call from Colin Powell. It was a friendly transaction between two soldiers.
So the fortress in Islamabad, when built, will dwarf the mini-fortress of Karachi. It will be a city in its own right, a typical American enclave on Pakistan’s soil, with its own residential colony for the staff and all the requisite paraphernalia of entertainment and security to convey the American sense in spades to its denizens.
But wait. The Pakistani pundits have nothing to grudge the Americans their plans to replicate their America on a little patch of Pakistan. What worries them is what’s at the core of these huge plans of expansion, and what kind of people are coming in droves to Karachi, Islamabad and Peshawar with the obvious intent to cover all the bases in Pakistan.
Pakistan can’t seem to get rid of its perennial problem of being hyphenated with this or that of its neighbours in Washington’s esteem. It was India until not too long ago when American relations with India were taken to another, high, pedestal, with Pakistan left in a limbo to search its own station in American evaluation.
For a moment Pakistan thought it had jettisoned, for good, its hyphenated syndrome. But that feeling didn’t last long. The US is immersed deep into its Afghan adventure and Pakistan is back in its role of a key, front-line, ally. Hence Pakistan can’t be separated from Afghanistan; hence it must play out to the hilt its role of a soldier in a forward trench whose mission is to pull Washington’s chestnut out of the Afghan fire.
It doesn’t matter how Pakistan got involved in the Bush war on terror, or how Musharraf succumbed to the pressure. The ground reality, no matter how tart or unpalatable to a lot of Pakistanis, is that Pakistan is up to its eyeballs into America’s war and must pay the price of the follies of its rulers, past and present.
The US drew a seminal lesson from its involvement in World War II and that’s that America can best be protected, if not insulated from the outside world, by drawing its lines of defence in far off lands, in places wherever a threat to US security or its quest for global dominance may occur and must be pre-empted with maximum force.
The American wars in Korea and Vietnam were triggered by this policy of offence-being-the-best-defence. George W. Bush, an ardent practitioner of Pax Americana couldn’t be more articulate than coining the shibboleth of ‘taking the war to the enemy.’ The invasion of Afghanistan, on the heels of 9/11 was justified on this premise, besides being a prop to Bush’s dream of an imperial America holding the world in its thrall.
Barack Obama may be poles-apart from Bush on so many other things but shares his perception of fighting the enemy on its terrain. Add to it his own vision of winning the war in Afghanistan at any cost. So no price is too high once you commit yourself to achieving a goal; and Obama has his heart set on ferreting out victory of any sort in Afghanistan after having lost the one in Iraq.
But wars can’t be won cheap. They require elaborate logistics. Pakistan has become a cockpit of conflict and chaos spawned by its involvement in the Afghan imbroglio. So Pakistan must be primed to deliver according to Washington’s expectations. Logistics must be so arranged as to deal with Pakistan’s chaotic and turbulent scenario according to Washington’s master-plan for the area.
The logistics involve the building of fortresses bristling with hi-tech gadgetry that keeps the troublesome Pakistanis, or the Pakistani Taliban and their ilk, at a safe distance. That’s an essential tool of 21st century imperialistic reach. In the olden days of imperialism they used to occupy whole countries and convert them into colonies. Technological sophistication and advancement has offered better alternatives, dispensing with the archaic practice of outright colonies to intimidate the locals. Hence the logic and imperative for modern-day fortresses like the ones springing up from one end of Pakistan to another.
Those who have followed the American adventure in Iraq know what havoc mercenary American defence contractors wreaked there. Blackwater was a principal mercenary outfit to which the State Department outsourced its obligations in Iraq. Its gung-ho mercenaries raped and murdered Iraqis at will to such an extent that even the supine government of Noori Al-Maliki was forced to impel Washington to pull Blackwater’s notorious murderers out of Iraq.
The same Blackwater is now getting ready to replicate its Iraqi tactics in Pakistan and some of its operatives are already believed to be in action in Peshawar and its environs. The word has gone out that the Americans are keen to buy Peshawar’s lone 5-star hotel in order to accommodate the likes of Blackwater in luxury for special operations within Pakistan and beyond, in Afghanistan, of course.
The State Department has obviously drawn no lessons from its skewed Iraqi operations and seems willing to retry them in Pakistan. One shudders to think of the fallout of a lethal confrontation between the rogues of Blackwater, running berserk across the troubled North West Frontier Region just as they did in Iraq, and the trigger-happy Pakistani Taliban to whom these provocative aliens would be like red rag to an enraged bull.
The US is a global power charged with a self-anointed mission to fight wherever necessary to keep the terrorists away from its shores. Its history of such messianic adventures not only justifies war by any means but also sanctifies its actions. The question troubling the Pakistani minds is why should their rulers be so blind to this deadly game being played out on the Pakistani turf?
Poor nations need help with climate change: UN
The World Economic and Social Survey called for a ‘Global Sustainable New Deal’ to overcome the ‘woefully inadequate’ estimate of 21 billion dollars currently set aside internationally to adapt to and cope with climate change.
Touching on a core stumbling block in global climate talks, the report said that poor nations needed a huge investment programme from rich nations to shift to clean energy, and to adapt to the weather changes and damage wrought by global warming.
The transformation would require ‘a level of international support and solidarity rarely mustered outside a wartime setting’, according to the survey by the UN’s department of economic and social affairs.
‘What we’re arguing for given the kind of money we’re talking about is a new Marshall Plan to tackle climate change and development,’ said author Richard Kozul-Wright.
‘The ballpark figure in this report is one per cent of world GDP, something in the order currently of 500 billion to 600 billion dollars (419 billion euros) annually is what developing countries will need in terms of international support to make this kind of shift sooner rather than later,’ the UN economist told journalists.
World leaders will meet in the Danish capital Copenhagen in December in a bid to seal a new international accord against climate change, aimed primarily at setting new emissions cuts and drawing developing nations into the deal.
But industrialised, emerging and developing nations are at loggerheads in the negotiations, including over the issue of additional funding to help poor countries mitigate and adapt to global warming.
The latest UN figure is well above previous estimates.
‘The kind of adjustments required have been seriously underestimated,’ said Kozul-Wright, calling for more ‘leadership’ from high polluting rich nations and ‘much more frank and open discussions about burden sharing at the international level’.
The report acknowledged that the required public investment push for climate action was ‘substantial and daunting,’ but pointed to the trillion dollar support given to banks and the financial system over the past year.
‘This is a systemic threat,’ said the senior UN economist.
The report warned that incremental, market-based solutions such as emissions trading were not enough.
Instead they needed to find a way to pursue high economic growth as well as low emissions simultaneously, rather than to stifle industrial activity in order to cut energy use.
Investment within the next decade followed by rapid growth would sustain a wholesale transition to clean energy in poor nations and gradually help them to stand alone in coping with changing weather patterns, it added.
A.Q. Khan still poses proliferation risk, US warns
It stopped short of criticizing its ally in the war on terror but recalled that Washington has long raised with Islamabad its fears about Khan, who five years ago admitted leaking nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
‘Our concerns over the potential for... proliferation activities by Mr. Khan are well known to the Pakistani government. We believe that he remains a proliferation risk,’ State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.
A State Department official told AFP earlier on condition of anonymity that Khan represented a ‘serious’ risk.
‘We’re following this closely,’ Kelly added when asked about the development at the daily news briefing.
In February, a Pakistani court declared Khan a free man, five years after the reputed father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb was effectively put under house arrest for operating a clandestine proliferation network.
Last Friday, the 72-year-old Khan complained to a high court that his movements were still being restricted by the government’s security arrangements on his behalf.
The court ordered the government to respond to Khan’s claim on September 4.
Local media quoted Khan as saying the restrictions had been withdrawn ahead of Friday’s hearing.
Khan told AFP the reports were correct but added he could not elaborate because the court had barred him from giving interviews to foreign media.
David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector and nuclear specialist, told AFP that ‘it is a mistake’ to remove restrictions on a man who cannot be ‘trusted.’He said there is a risk that Khan, who retracted his 2004 confession, will now be able to offer nuclear know-how to scientists from Iran, North Korea and any other rogue countries feared to be pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), said Khan may now not just be motivated by money, but also a ‘bitterness’ with the West over his house arrest.
Last year, Albright wrote on the ISIS website that there were strong suspicions Khan could have sold Iran and North Korea blueprints for an advanced nuclear warhead.
He said the United States and the UN atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), must be allowed to question Khan to learn if he had sold such plans to Pyongyang or Tehran.
But he told AFP Tuesday that the United States never used its leverage to arrange for such questioning amid fears it would provoke a ‘backlash’ in Pakistan, a key US ally.
American lawmakers in March introduced legislation aimed at cutting off military aid to Pakistan unless US officials could question Khan.
Albright said the US government should now push for Khan to be extradited to European countries or the United States for prosecution over possible violation of proliferation laws.
A second State Department official told reporters later Tuesday on the condition of anonymity that he expected US concerns to be raised again with the authorities in Islamabad, but could not confirm they had been.
Royal protocol for Musharraf in Saudi Arabia
Wednesday, 02 Sep, 2009 | 04:59 AM PST |
Reports that King Abdullah sent a special plane to bring the retied general from London to Riyadh have surprised a number of politicians many of whom had received Saudi favours and courtesy.
The reports have sparked speculations that the Saudi ruling family is taking keen interest to defuse tension in Pakistan and try to use its influence to persuade PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif to give up his demand for Gen (retd) Musharraf’s trial for high treason.
It was because of these reports that a PML-N spokesman denied that any Saudi request relating to the former military leader had been made to Mr Sharif. ‘There has been no official message from the Saudi family to Mian Nawaz Sharif in this regard,’ Senator Pervez Rasheed told reporters.
He refused to comment on Musharraf’s visit to Saudi Arabia as a royal guest.
Some observers here attach great importance to the former president’s visit and say that disturbed by the persistent demand for trial made by the PML-N, Gen Musharraf wanted King Abdullah to use his influence and bail him out.
Others say it was a routine visit because Gen Musharraf has good relations with the Saudi royal family and it has nothing to do with the current political situation in the country.
Barrister Mohammad Ali Saif, who claims to be spokesperson and representative of Gen Musharraf in Pakistan, said: ‘The PML-N should see and understand how the former president is being treated by the Saudi government and forget about his (Musharraf) trial for treason.’
He said it was not for the first time that the Saudi government had sent a special plane for Gen Musharraf. In the past also, he added, King Abdullah had offered the facility and Gen Musharraf kept the plane sent by king for some time for his travel to European countries.
Asked if the Saudi government had given any guarantee to the former president that he would not be tried, Mr Saif said: ‘I don’t know anything about this, but there is little possibility of Gen Musharraf facing trial only because the PML-N is asking for that.’
A senior PPP leader pointed out that frequent visits by Saudi intelligence chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz to Pakistan before and after the resignation of Gen Musharraf showed the level of Saudi government’s engagement with Pakistan.
In reply to a question about any assurance given by the government to the Saudis about the fate of Gen Musharraf, he said: ‘I am not aware of this, but the way the former president is being treated in the kingdom means he cannot be touched in Pakistan.’
He said it was only the PML-N which was insisting on Musharraf’s trial while other parties were either least concerned or not ‘very serious’ about it.
GDANSK: All pacts that European states agreed with Nazi Germany in 1934-39 were ‘morally unacceptable,’ including the 1939 Nazi-Soviet accord, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday.
‘All attempts to appease the Nazis between 1934 and 1939 through various agreements and pacts were morally unacceptable and politically senseless, harmful and dangerous,’ Putin said.
‘We must admit these mistakes. Our country has done this. The Russian parliament has condemned the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. We have a right to expect this from other countries that also agreed deals with the Nazis.’
Putin appeared to be referring to various deals, including the 1938 Munich agreement in which Britain and France told Nazi Germany they would not object to its annexation of parts of the former Czechoslovakia.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed on August 23, 1939, was a non-aggression agreement between Adolf Hitler’s Germany and Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union in which the two countries also secretly agreed to carve up Poland.
It led to the Nazi invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, widely regarded as the start of World War II.
Putin was speaking at a ceremony in Gdansk, in northern Poland, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the invasion.
The Russian premier also slammed the ‘falsification’ of history, a term that Moscow has used to describe efforts to challenge the narrative of Soviet heroism in World War II.
‘We need to rid society from the plague of xenophobia, racial hatred, mutual distrust built on the cynical distortion or crude falsification of history,’ Putin said.
‘I am convinced that only in this way will we be able to turn the page on World War II for a peaceful future for our children.’ He stressed Russia’s immense losses in the war, noting that 600,000 Soviet war dead were buried in Poland alone.
Tens of millions of Russians died after Hitler betrayed Stalin and ordered Nazi forces to invade the Soviet Union in 1941.
‘Of the 55 million people who died (in World War II), more than half — more than half — were citizens of the Soviet Union. Think about this frightening number,’ Putin said.
At a press conference earlier on Tuesday, Putin described the Munich agreement, as well as a 1934 German-Polish deal and Poland’s participation in the 1938 dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, as mistakes that led to World War II.
‘There were a huge number of mistaken steps made by many sides. All these actions together allowed the massive aggression by Nazi Germany,’ Putin said at a joint press conference with his Polish counterpart Donald Tusk.
Nazi Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, and less than three weeks later Soviet forces occupied eastern Poland. The Nazis and Soviets were allies until 1941 when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
Underscoring Polish bitterness about the Soviet attack on Poland, Polish President Lech Kaczynski brought it up at another ceremony earlier in the day.
‘Bolshevik Russia stuck a knife in the back of Poland,’ Kaczynski said.
East European countries have bitterly criticised the Nazi-Soviet pact and consider the Soviet Union a wartime aggressor — a stance that enrages Russia, which suffered immense losses and views its role in the war as heroic.
In Moscow on Tuesday, top Russian officials pushed back against efforts to paint the Soviet Union as the mirror image of Nazi evil.
‘Even during the Cold War no-one ever tried to put the Nazi regime on one level with the Stalin dictatorship,’ Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview published in the Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily.
‘It never occurred to anyone to equate the Nazi threat — which meant the annihilation of whole peoples — and the politics of the Soviet Union, which was the only force able to resist the war machine of Hitler’s Germany.’ — AFP