|
|||||||
Tracing the Trajectory of Russo-Pak Strategic Relations | |||||||
Paper Id :
16240 Submission Date :
2022-08-02 Acceptance Date :
2022-08-13 Publication Date :
2022-08-20
This is an open-access research paper/article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For verification of this paper, please visit on
http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/remarking.php#8
|
|||||||
| |||||||
Abstract |
This article aims to trace the strategic convergences between Russia and Pakistan after giving a brief overview of their Cold War relations. An alliance between the three countries will affect Asian security, especially India. Various factors such as the geostrategic location of Pakistan, deteriorated U.S.-Pakistan relations, and a robust Sino-Pak alliance had made it imperative for Russia to lean towards Pakistan strategically. Thus, in light of the above facts, it becomes imperative for the government to be prepared for the unwanted consequences affecting Indian security.
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Keywords | Russo-Pak, Eurasianism, China, Pakistan | ||||||
Introduction |
The rationale for US and Russia’s geostrategic competition towards weaker states is comprehended in the words of Kissinger, who had warned the US to be wary of its adversaries uniting to contain it. "In relation to E.U., the US is an island power with inferior resources at present in manpower, but later on even in industrial capacity…it’s survival depends in preventing the opposite landmass from control of a single power, above all one avowedly hostile (Kissinger, 1955, as cited in Siddiqi, 1959. p. 47). Kissinger’s reference was, of course, concerning the expansion of the ideology of Communism during the Cold War days. Today, the statement holds not because of a communist ideology but because of the strategic convergences of the two autocracies- Russia and China and their pursuit of weaning away Pakistan from the liberal democracy through financial and military agreements and aid.
|
||||||
Objective of study | To trace the geopolitical rapproachment of Russia and Pakistan |
||||||
Review of Literature |
Review of literature has been done by using SCOPUS and has been incorporated in the main text. |
||||||
Main Text |
Russo-Pak Divergences during the Cold War Pakistan owing to its unique geostrategic location
between South, Central, and West Asia, has been tactically lucrative for the
powers since the cold war days. With regards to this, George Marshall
wrote to President Truman that "the area south of Batum and Baku in the
general direction of the Persian Gulf recognised as the centre of the
aspirations of the Soviet Union" (Rose and Husain, 1987, p. 3).
Consequently, in 1954, Pakistan signed a Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement
with the US and joined South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). Further, it
also joined the Baghdad Pact with Britain, Turkey, Iraq and Iran, which was
renamed as Central Treaty Organization when Iraq left. Thus, it enjoyed the
military patronage of the US and in turn, assisted it in containing Communism,
especially during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. For the reasons described
above, Islamabad was "America's most allied ally in Asia” (Mahmood,
1994a). One of the foremost reasons for the US to have a strategic depth in
Pakistan was the essential bases in Lahore and Karachi. (Arif 1984 and Sattar
2007). There was a brief period of geostrategic
divergences when A.Q. Khan announced that Pakistan was successful in producing
enriched Uranium. The development led the US to invoke the Pressler Amendment in August 1985, resulting in a
sudden halt in the concessional military sales and a total ban on all military
supplies and cooperation with Pakistan. Further, the withdrawal of the
Soviet forces from Afghanistan and the end of the Cold War changed the South
Asian power dynamics resulting in Pakistan losing its status as a frontline
state. Consequently, “all economic and military aid to Pakistan
negotiated in 1987 under a four-year package worth 4.02 billion dollars, was
cut off from the new financial year, i.e. October 1990” (Mahmood, 1994b,
p.104). Thus, the relations between the two were strained. While understanding its strategic location,
Pakistan stressed the Dulles proposal of a "Northern Tier" consisting
of countries on the South of the USSR. Pakistan and Iran were hence important.
However, owing to Islamabad’s aspiration, it stressed a strong Turkish-Pak
alliance as a strong backbone while excluding Iran and the Arabian countries.
Although the Turkey-Iraq agreement, also known as the Baghdad pact, was finally
unveiled, Pakistan's aspirations to become a ‘leader’ of the Islamic countries
could not be hidden for long. From the 1950s to 1960s, The US sold arms to
Pakistan worth Dollar One Billion, out of which US Dollar 53 Million was in
1954 itself. Further, after a brief setback due to Pakistan’s nuclear
issue, from 1983 to 1990, Pakistan received military aid
of 3.73 Billion Dollars owing to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the
component of U.S. arms sales was 2.20 Billion Dollars (Ali, 2019a). Additionally, China was another crucial contributor
to the Russo-Pak divergence during the Cold War. The establishment of close
Sino-Pak strategic relations after India’s defeat in 1962 made the Soviets more
uncomfortable with Islamabad. Although the Sino-Pak collision started at the
1955 Bandung Conference, it also marked the end of the Sino-Indian friendship
(Patil, 1977). However, with Chinese dominance over the region, the Soviet
Union hesitantly tried to reset its relations with Pakistan. It also offered
economic aid to Pakistan in order to undermine the U.S. military alliances in
the Asian countries. Additionally, the détente between U.S. and U.S.S.R. and
the strategic competition between U.S.S. R. and China contributed to the
reorientation of the Soviet policy towards Pakistan (Hasan, 1969). Thus, as a
weak state, Pakistan had remained lucrative for being a stepping stone for
influence in South Asia. Brief Period of Strategic Proximity 1965-1975 Makhdoom (2009) highlighted in his study Pakistan’s
evolving foreign policy concepts in 1956. The then Foreign Minister Firoz Khan
Noon conceptualised Pakistan's ideological and strategic interests through the
concepts of Pak-Islamism, Two-Nation Theory, and Pan-Islamism. Pak- Islamism
was based on strategic interests while pursuing an independent foreign policy.
The Two-Nation theory focussed upon the ideological and religious identity,
which would be entirely different from India, and Pan-Islamism focussed on
Islamabad’s Muslim brotherhood through which it wanted to lead the Islamic
world. Through Pak-Islamism, Pakistan carved out a space for forging strategic
ties with the Soviets while not losing sight of its Islamic identity. The first sign of a simple normalisation took place
in January 1965 when Pakistan’s foreign minister Bhutto visited Moscow and
later in April when Ayub Khan’s visit took place. One of the primary reasons
for this rapproachment was the betterment in the relations between Soviet and
China; thus, the Soviets wanted to widen their relations with the other
prominent Asian nations. At a regional level, Pakistan forged Regional
Cooperation for Development organisation (RCD) in 1964 between Pakistan, Iran
and Turkey, independent of the U.S.-led alliances. Further, as the countries of
RCD had a vital role to play as ‘northern tier’ partners for its containment
policy, the Soviet military sales to Iran and Egypt marked the beginning of
Russia’s post-Second World War pivot to Asia. Second, as America stopped its
aid from Pakistan from 1965-67 owing to its 1965 war with India and
post-Tashkent phase, Islamabad and Moscow as an opportune moment and hence
reached out to each other. Thus, the 1965 Indo-Pak war and the subsequent
Tashkent agreement marked the ‘moment’ of Soviet neutrality between India and
Pakistan. The Soviet Union agreed to assist Pakistan in implementing 30 major
development projects, which included “steel plants, power plants, radio
communications, seaports and airfields” and “allocated $50 million for oil
exploitation and the purchases of industrial machinery” (Chaudhri, 1966, p.7). In June 1966, there was unconfirmed news in the
Pakistani media that Moscow agreed to provide armaments
to Islamabad under the same conditions it was selling
to India, although the Russian officials denied the reports. In July 1968,
the Soviet Union and Pakistan concluded an arms deal while keeping India
informed of the decision (Hasan 1968, Ayoob 1968 and Menon 1982). Furthermore, Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto visited
Moscow in 1974 and the Soviet Union agreed to build steel mills at Karachi
worth 160 million Roubles, which later proved an important milestone for
Pakistan’s industrial military set-up. A little before
that Soviets also sold arms to Iran in 1967 and later to Kuwait in 1977,
thereby expanding its geostrategic outreach to Asia. However, the rapprochement was cut short due to the
Soviet support to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan in 1979. In January 1980, Beijing commented on the development
as a Soviet measure that was a, “stepping stone
for a southward thrust towards Pakistan and the whole subcontinent"
(Mahdi, 1986, p.68). Both Pakistan and China thus called for a Soviet
withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thus, the Soviet Union and Pakistan remained at
odds with one another. There were sharp polarisations with China, Pakistan and
the U.S. forming one axis and the Soviets along with India forming another
axis. Reconfiguration of the Post Cold War Priorities To reset its Cold War foreign policy, as a goodwill
gesture, Russian Vice President, Rutskoi, visited Pakistan
in 1991 and consequently asked both the arch-rivals- India and Pakistan, to
show respect for human rights, thereby causing displeasure in New
Delhi. Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's former Prime Minister, visited Russia in
1999 and hailed Moscow as a "global force" and highlighted
Moscow's relevance in a multipolar global order. This development
could be primarily seen from the prism of Sino-Russo and Sino-Pak strategic
relations as Russia and China were forging close relations in diverse fields
such as defence, maritime security, common anti-American approaches,
etc. However, the newfound warmth in their bilateral relations was briefly
cut short when the Russian President Boris Yelstin visited India in 1993,
signed a 20 year year Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, and further
endorsed India’s stand on the Kashmir issue. The development was primarily seen
as an attempt by Russia to simultaneously engage the arch rivals and keep India
on its tenterhooks to dent the blossoming India-U.S. strategic partnership. On the other hand, in an attempt to stress its
policy of multipolarity while also not losing sight of its Eurasian identity
that primarily arose because of the European Union’s Eastward expansion between
2004 to 2007, the Russian foreign policy experts also laid down
the future course of actions in the following three alternatives: 1. Priority laid on establishing a 'mature strategic partnership' with America 2. Emphasis on the 'near abroad' as Russia's central concern, with some
advocating a Moscow-dominated economic integration, thus restoring, though
partially, the image of its former imperial control. Moreover, Russia's
regional role as a power would be strengthened, thereby serving as a balance
vis-à-vis America and Europe. 3. Consideration of an Eurasian counter alliance, designed to reduce the
preponderance of the U.S. unchallenged global influence (Brzezinski 1997,
p.98-99). Further, Russia’s Eurasian identity compelled it to
carve out its sphere of influence, so it became essential for Russia to reach
out to the other Asian countries as a part of its rapprochement policy. In this light, it has
been highlighted that, “instead of integrating itself into a globalising
international system, Russia should stay outside of globalisation and strive to
maximise its independence” (Baranovsky, as cited in Siddiqi, 2017,p.72). Nevertheless, new partners to strengthen an Anti
America alliance became necessary in light of the new foreign policy
objectives. Pakistan hence was an alternative waiting to be strategically
explored. Soon, the developments of 9/11 changed the narratives and the
discourses of geopolitics for a temporary period wherein China, Russia, and
Pakistan decided to cooperate with the U.S. on its War on Terror. On the other
hand, the U.S. also renewed its interest in
Pakistan and the South Asian region. Pakistan found an opportune moment,
offered a safe passage to the US, and became a major non-NATO ally. As per the
data retrieved from U.S. Aid and SIPRI, from 2002-2014, Pakistan, as a major
non-NATO ally, got military aid worth 5.81 Billion Dollars, and the arms sales
component was 3.202 Billion Dollars (Ali, 2019b). On the other hand, Russia also found an opportunity
to coordinate with the U.S. It first tried to
achieve a geopolitical condominium with the U.S. and the West by wishing to
join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (N.A.T.O) in order to create a
“single defence and security space” (Rauch, 2001), but with a precondition
that, “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account
as those of an equal partner” (Rankin, 2021). It also portrayed itself as a
“sovereign democracy”, but it was not accepted, and hence Washington’s liberal hegemony approach (Ikenberry, 1999; Mearsheimer &
Walt, 2016) was seen as a “counter ideology” to the principles of Western
democracy (Stent, 2014). When it became clear to Russia that establishing a ‘mature strategic partnership’ was not insight, the
Russian foreign policy analysts stressed the strategising of Russia’s Eurasian
identity with a solid anti-American stand. Thus, the concepts of
anti-imperialism (against the West), multipolarity, and Russia’s strategic
backyard evolved, focussing mainly on ‘greater Central Asia’ that encompassed
the five Central Asian states apart from its renewed interests in Afghanistan
and Pakistan. Moreover, the West's
financial crisis reinforced Russia's belief that Asia had become
the “fastest-developing geopolitical zone, toward which the centre of
world economy and politics is gradually shifting” (MOFA, 2013). Pakistan, an ally of the U.S. and an occupant of a strategic location in
the region, became necessary for Russia, given its strategic interest in
curtailing the Islamist separatist movements in Chechnya and Tajikistan. Pakistan’s role in fuelling radical Islam was not
hidden from Russia. In a nutshell, Russian interests in South Asia have been described by Menon (2015) as follows: “Preventing the fragmentation of a nuclear-armed
Pakistan; rooting out al-Qaeda facilities and operations in Afghanistan and
Pakistan; creating an Afghanistan that, at long last, settles into a life free
of war, terrorism, and warlordism; preventing an India-Pakistan confrontation
over Kashmir; disrupting the financial operations of terrorist networks and the
flow of weapons in and through Afghanistan and Pakistan” (p. 220) Strategic Convergences between Russia, Pakistan and
China From a strategic perspective of the Sino-Russo
entente, Russia could not ignore the strong nexus between China and Pakistan.
The gradual rapprochement was initiated by establishing the Pakistan-Russia
Joint Working Group on Terrorism in 2002, followed
by a dialogue on strategic stability in 2003. The breakthrough came in 2007
when the Russian Prime Minister, Mikhail Fradkov, visited Islamabad. The pace
of their bilateral relations increased from 2009 on the side of annual
quadrilateral summits between Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia and Tajikistan.
Further, the Sochi Summit of 2010 led to establishment of the Russia-Pakistan
Inter-Governmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technological and
Cultural Cooperation. During Washington’s War on
Terror (WOT), Russia had also realised the aspirations of Pakistan to have a
different, well-established influence in Afghanistan. Consequently, in 2009, a
new regional group called ‘Dushanbe Four’ consisting of Russia, Tajikistan,
Pakistan and Afghanistan was formed to discuss regional security and economic
issues. Additionally, Chechen and Uzbek extremists functioning
in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) pose a
significant danger to Russian security. Thus, Russia perceived that
enhancing relations with Pakistan could immensely help its security issues. With regard to U.S.-Pak relations, in 2011, the
killing of Osama Bin Laden in Abottabad deteriorated their relations and
Moscow, and Islamabad found an opportunity to come closer to each other. It is
essential to point out that the Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev and Asif Ali
Zardari’s six meetings between 2008 and 2012 helped strengthen the Russo-Pak
ties. In May 2011, President Zardari became the first Pakistani President to
visit Russia. Further, Russia
and China also aimed to integrate the Eurasian Union and the Silk Road Projects
in which Islamabad “strategically approved the use of Gwadar by Russia. Through
Gwadar, Pakistan will be connected to Russia through Afghanistan and Central
Asia” (Kaushiki, 2019a: 52). In June 2014, Moscow lifted its self-imposed and
undeclared embargo on arms supplies to Pakistan. Further, Russia signed a
broader ‘military cooperation’ agreement with Pakistan during its Defence
Minister, General Sergei Shoigu’s visit to Islamabad in November 2014. Russia’s
shift towards Islamabad was confirmed as a strategy when Korybko (2015), a
Russian geopolitical analyst, “referred to Pakistan as the ‘zipper of Pan
Eurasian Integration’ – situated in a location that strategically integrates
the three regions of South, Central and West Asia ‘through which the future of
oil supplies of Moscow can be guaranteed” (as cited in Kaushiki, 2019b, p. 49).
In 2015, another significant development that affected India was the Russian
decision to sell four MI-35 attack helicopters to Pakistan. Russia further
shocked India at an anti-terror meet in Brisbane in 2015 when it
blocked an Indian effort to reprimand Pakistan for its inactivity
against terrorist organisations - Lashkar e Taiba and Jamaat ud
Dawa. In 2016, bilateral joint military exercises were
introduced. In 2018 Russo-Pak joint military commission was formed, and a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on naval cooperation was signed apart from
a ‘Rare Military Cooperation Pact’ with the aim that
Russia would train the Pakistani army and improve its overall armed forces. The
pact indicates the future shifting horizons. The military cooperation got
further solidified when Russia did not object to China’s transfer of Russia’s
Klimov RD-93 engine, which became instrumental in making the JF-17 Thunder
aircraft. Such developments have caused Indo-Russo relations to be
strained. From a Russian perspective, another contributory
factor to the Russo-Pak rapprochement was India’s search for alternative
defence partners that had pushed Russia closer to Pakistan and Iran. In this
context, “Russia was the largest supplier of major arms to
India in both 2012-16 and 2017-21, but India's imports of Russian arms dropped
by 47 per cent between the two periods” (Economic Times, 2022). China, Russia and Pakistan thus have overlapping convergences because of their respective grudges against the U.S. As Russia and China have officially been branded as “revisionist states” by the U.S. as they aim to challenge the western norms-based international order, the formation of Quad and AUKUS only reinforces their commitment to their joint cause. Thus, the reshaping of the Asian power dynamics can be spelt out in the following words, “India has officially become an ally of the US by boycotting China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and becoming a member of the Quad, which China-Russia perceive as a military alliance against them in Asia-Pacific. To put it bluntly, Russia has come closer to China and Pakistan in response to India’s drift towards the US”. (Swain, 2022).
|
||||||
Methodology | The proposed research will involve both Primary and Secondary sources. Data has been extracted from JSTOR and SCOPUS |
||||||
Findings | Due to a loose multipolar world order, Russia and Pakistan are gradually moving closer which is a security concern for India. | ||||||
Conclusion |
As India currently seeks to expand its sphere of influence by initiating defence exports apart from creating a pool for its defence imports, India’s defence trade with Russia will decrease even further. Thus, in such a case, Russia through the support of China will expand its influence deeper in Asia and hence would initiate an Axis with not only Pakistan but Iran too. The recent statements of Pakistan’s former PM Imran Khan that the future of Pakistan is tied with Russia directly points out to the emerging contours of the new alliances. In the times to come, a strong nexus involving Russia, Pakistan, China is set to emerge. The axis of these three countries, predominantly anti American in nature will hold immense security threats not only for the South Asian region but also for India. Finally, to conclude, it would appropriate to quote Joshi and Sharma (2017) who stated that, “India should be ready to face some even-handed response from Russia in context of India– Pakistan relations (p. 49). |
||||||
Acknowledgement | This paper is an outcome of the ICSSR Minor Research Project “Reshaping of the Asian Power Dynamics: An Analysis of Russo-Pak Rapprochement” awarded to Dr. Nishtha Kaushiki. However, the responsibility for the facts stated, opinions expressed and the conclusion drawn is entirely that of the first author. | ||||||
References | 1. Ali, M. (2019). The Politics of U.S. aid to Pakistan: Aid Allocation and Delivery from Truman to Trump (1st ed.). Routledge.
2. Arif, K. (ed.) (1984), America-Pakistan relations-documents. Lahore: Va Books
3. Ayoob, M. (1968). Soviet Arms Aid to Pakistan. Economic and Political Weekly, 3(42), 1613–1614. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4359199
4. Chaudhri, M. A. (1966). Pakistan’s Relations with the Soviet Union. Asian Survey, 6(9), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/2642350
5. Hasan, Z. (1969). Pakistan’s Relations with the U.S.S.R. in the 1960s. The World Today, 25(1), 26–35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40394188
6. Hasan, Z. (1969). Pakistan’s Relations with the U.S.S.R. in the 1960s. The World Today, 25(1), 26–35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40394188
7. Husain, N. A. (1985). PAKISTAN-US SECURITY RELATIONS: Arms Sales, Bases, Nuclear Issues. Strategic Studies, 8(3), 17–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45182335
8. L. Rose & N. Hussain (1987). Unites States-Pakistan Forum: Relations with the Major Powers. Lahore: Vanguard Books.
9. Ikenberry, G. J. (1999). America’s Liberal Hegemony. Current History, 98(624), 23–28.
10. Joshi, N., & Sharma, R. K. (2017). India–Russia Relations in a Changing Eurasian Perspective. India Quarterly, 73(1), 36–52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48505530
11. Kaushiki, N. (2019). Factors Contributing to an Emerging Russia-Pakistan Strategic Proximity: An Indian Perspective. Journal of International and Area Studies, 26(1), 43–64.
12. Mahdi, N. (1986). Sino-Pakistan Relations: Historical Background. Pakistan Horizon, 39(4), 60–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41394230
13. Mahmood, T. (1994). Pressler Amendment and Pakistan’s Security Concerns. Pakistan Horizon, 47(4), 97–107. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41393504
14. Makhdoom, K. J. (2009). Pakistan’s strategic interaction with peripheral States: the regional power fulcrum during 1958-1971. Strategic Studies, 29(4), 106–123. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48527705
15. Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2016). The Case for Offshore Balancing: A Superior US Grand Strategy. Foreign Affairs, 95(4), 70–83
16. Menon, R. (1982). The Soviet Union, the Arms Trade and the Third World. Soviet Studies, 34(3), 377–396. http://www.jstor.org/stable/151051
17. Menon, R. (2015). “Greater Central Asia,” Russia, and the West: Challenges and Opportunities for Cooperation0. In A. Motyl, B. Ruble & L. Shevtsova, Russia’s Engagement with the West: Transformation and Integration in the Twenty-First Century (1st ed., pp. 209-222). Routledge.
18. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2013), Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation (Moscow, February 12, 2013) u http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/ns-osndoc.nsf/e2f289bea62097f9c325787a0034c255/
0f474e63a426b7c344257b2e003c945f!OpenDocument
19. Patil, V. T. (1977). SOVIET POLICY TOWARDS PAKISTAN. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 38(4), 451–461. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41854937
20. Rankin, J. (2021). Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule. Retrieved 6 July 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
21. Rauch, J. (2001). Putin Is Right: Russia Belongs in NATO. Retrieved 6 July 2022, from
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-is-right-russia-belongs-in-nato/377557/
22. Sattar, Abdul (2007), Pakistan's Foreign Policy 1947-2005 : A Concise History. Karachi: Oxford University Press
23. Siddiqi, A. (1959). U. S. Military Aid to Pakistan. Pakistan Horizon, 12(1), 45–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41392255
24. Siddiqi, R. (2017). Prospects for Russia-Pakistan Rapprochement. Strategic Studies, 37(2), 58–73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48537546
25. Stent, Angela E. (2014). The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Swain, A. (2022). It'll be a strategic nightmare for India if Russia joins China-Pak group: Prof Ashok Swain. Retrieved 15 April 2022, from https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/interview/itll-be-a-strategic-nightmare-for-india-if-russia-joins-china-pak-group-prof-ashok-swain
27. The Economic Times. Russia's share of arms import to India fell from 69% in 2012-17 to 46% in 2017-21: Report. (2022). Retrieved 18 July 2022 from: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/russias-share-of-arms-import-to-india-fell-from-69-in-2012-17-to-46-in-2017-21-report/articleshow/90218483.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst. |