Tag: NATO
Montenegro, Russia, NATO
Marija Jovićević of Montenegro’s Pobjeda asked these questions. I responded:
1. Can we expect ratification of Montenegrin Protocol in US Congress in January? Do you see any obstacle in this process?
A: I really don’t know. There appears to be no real opposition, but the Senate has a lot of things on its plate. I hope it will be quickly
reported out of committee and approved in the full Senate in the next couple of weeks. If it doesn’t happen before January 20, I have my
doubts the new administration will make it a priority. Then it will be up to key senators to make it move, which they might want to do to send an unequivocal signal of commitment to the Alliance to both Trump and Putin.
2. Relations between USA and Russia are very complicated at this moment, can this situation affect ratification of Protocol and Montenegro entering NATO?
A: I don’t think anyone in Congress is wanting to slow ratification because of Russian opposition, but it remains to be seen what the new administration will do. I would hope it would want to send the Russians a very clear signal that the NATO door remains open to those who qualify and want to enter. Europe whole and free (which means, among other
things, free to join NATO) is a good idea.
3. Do You expect that relations between Russia and USA could be closer and better after inauguration of Donald Trump?
A: Trump will make an effort to improve relations with Russia, in part by accommodating Russian demands on NATO, Ukraine and Syria. But I don’t think it will work out well for long. Putin doesn’t want good relations with the US. He wants to lead a defiant anti-US, illiberal coalition and establish a Russian sphere of influence in its “near abroad.”
4. What will be policy of the new American administration when we talk about the Balkans?
A: It is hard to tell, as it will be way down the list of priorities. But the new administration is in part an ethnic nationalist one, which doesn’t bode well from my liberal democratic perspective.
5. How do you see relations between Montenegro and USA. Do you expect
any changes after the inauguration of Donald Trump?
A: Certainly if Trump fails to press for Montenegro’s NATO accession, that won’t help Montenegro or its relations with the US. It could even drive Montenegro into Russian arms.
6. We are witnessing Russian interference in elections in USA, in elections in Montenegro also. Russia is using every possible way to
stop Montenegro’s way to NATO. Do you think that this is already lost battle for Moscow?
A: It isn’t over until it’s over. Moscow will continue fighting and will have an easier time of it in the initial phase of a Trump administration. But in the end I think Montenegro will enter NATO this year and help to keep the door open to other aspirants. I for one am grateful to Montenegro for its fortitude and persistence. Let it be rewarded soon!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Serbia’s choice
Milana Pejic at Belgrade daily Blic asked about 2016 the “world between Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel? Their publication of some of my response is here. This is my full response:
2016 was a difficult year on many fronts. Resurgent nationalism in several EU countries, Brexit, and the Italian constitutional referendum have cast doubt on the European project. The long American electoral campaign and Donald Trump’s victory in the electoral college (but not in the popular vote) have raised questions about America’s long-standing commitments to NATO, to Ukraine, to the Syrian opposition, to the two-state solution in Israel/Palestine, to nuclear nonproliferation, and to free trade. No one really knows what the next US administration will do, as Trump prides himself on unpredictability, but the cabinet he has appointed and his provocative tweets during the transition suggest that there will be radical departures in American domestic and foreign policy.
Vladimir Putin appears to be riding high, having intervened in Ukraine, Syria, the US electoral process, and in the politics of many European countries by supporting nationalists. But Russia is overstretched internationally even as its domestic economy is a shambles. Moscow is the capital of a declining regional power with little to offer but oil and gas, arms deals, vetoes in the UN Security Council, and surreptitious destabilization. Those in Serbia who look to Russia as a savior are likely to be disappointed in the long run. Europe has much more to offer once it gets past its present rough patch.
Angela Merkel is today Europe’s de facto leader and defender of liberal democratic ideals. But right-wing nationalists in Germany have gained traction, largely due to the big influx of refugees that Merkel welcomed to a country that needs young workers. Will the wave of nationalism inundating Europe end the Chancellor’s political career? Or will she survive to lead a revival of the European project?
These are important questions for 2017. So too is the question of whether Serbia will continue on the difficult path of preparing itself for European Union membership, with all the sacrifices that entails, or instead choose the much easier but less rewarding road of becoming a Russian satellite, with all the limits to independence and prosperity that entails. The choice is yours, not mine, but you know which I would choose.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Russia’s increasing Middle East influence
As Russia becomes increasingly influential in the Middle East, US policymakers question what that might mean for American interests in the region. The Atlantic Council convened a panel Monday to discuss Russian interests in the region, how they might shift in a Trump presidency, and where the Russian relationships with Turkey, Iran, and Syria are heading. The panel featured Anna Borshchevskaya, Ira Weiner Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Thomas Cunningham, the Deputy Director for the Global Energy Center at the Atlantic Council, Alireza Nader, a Senior International Policy Analyst at the RAND Corporation and Aaron Stein, a Senior Fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council.
Borshchevskaya said Putin has had his eye on the Middle East since he first took power in 2000. However, it wasn’t until recently that he has made his interventions more obvious. The most obvious move was Russia’s increasingly friendly relationship with Iran, even though the two countries have been historic rivals. Russia’s and Iran’s mutual resentment towards the US has led them to cooperate in the region. Their cooperation is most obvious in the Syrian crisis, where both are working to legitimize Assad’s rule over Syria. Trump has said he will cooperate with Russia in Syria, but it is still uncertain as to whether he will actually do so.
Stein said that Turkish-Russian cooperation is also a very new phenomenon. There was a sense that the two might have become enemies once Turkey shot down a Russian plane in 2015 when Russians pilots tested the Turkish safe zone on the Syrian-Turkish border. However, at the same time, Turkey had begun to distance itself from the US, partly because the US wasn’t doing enough to combat Kurdish forces in both Turkey and Syria. Thus, Turkey was pushed into Russia’s arms. Since the July coup, Turkey has reoriented itself as a hyper-nationalist, isolationist and anti-Western state that is looking to Russia as a “replacement ally” (for the US).
Cunningham said that since both Russia and some Middle Eastern countries are the world’s major oil producers, they are natural competitors and not cooperators. This is the major reason why Russia wants to maintain influence in the Middle East. Russia is producing tons of oil in response to the depreciation of the ruble and trying aggressively to sell this oil to Turkey. Russia is pushing for the creation of a Russia-Turkey oil pipeline, which many European countries oppose. It would be bad from a European diversification standpoint, since at least some of this oil would be directed west. Additionally, Russia is operating oil refineries in Syria, which will give them a leg up with the Assad regime once the civil war in Syria ends.
Nader echoed what Borshchevskaya said about the Russian-Iranian relationship being one that is mutually beneficial to both parties. However, he said, if Putin and Russia begin to cooperate in the region, it is possible that Russia might abandon Iran, since Iran is a weaker ally for them. If they do that, then Iran would have no powerful allies, which would be a major blow. However, Nader does not expect any US-Russian cooperation to be long term. Their goals in the region are much too different. An Iranian-Russian friendship is much more sustainable, since Iranian and Russian hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East can coexist.
I asked whether Russia’s aggressive support for Shiite groups in the Middle East would have repercussions for Sunni groups. Bolshchevskaya responded that Putin maintains that he is friends with everyone and is not favoring Shiite groups over Sunni groups. Instead, he claims, his ultimate goal in the Middle East is to combat terrorist groups and alliances with Shiite entities like Iran and the Assad regime are the best way to go about doing this. Thus far, Sunnis in the region and even Sunni Russians have accepted this explanation.
The panel was also asked to explain Russia’s relationship with Israel. Bolshchevskaya said that Russia is successfully restoring relations with Israel through economic cooperation, tech cooperation and tourism. However, there are limits to this partnership since Israel is still a Western democracy. The partnership between the two states is fundamentally pragmatic rather than idealistic. But given the chill between Obama and Netanyahu, Israel has found Putin to be a welcome new friend.
When asked whether the US is losing out by allowing Russia to exert their influence in the region, Bolshchevskaya said that that we absolutely are. Prior to Russian intervention in Syria, Assad was weak. Once Russia began intervening, the conflict got much, much worse. Additionally, increased Russian influence degrades US credibility in the region. Stein disagreed, saying that there is a lot of hype about the loss of US credibility in the region. ISIS isn’t as big of threat to the US as many politicians make it out to seem and there is no good reason for the US to make any big commitments to eliminating ISIS. Instead, he thought, the US should focus on strengthening relationships with NATO allies and stay away from the Middle East.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Overdue
Praveen Madhiraju, a pro bono advisor to the Bytyqi family, writes:
Recently, the credibility of Serbia’s many promises to resolve the state-sponsored murders of three American citizens and brothers took a sharp downward turn.
US Ambassador Kyle Scott summarized the problems in the Bytyqi case well:
This is obviously a burden for the Bytyqi family, but also a burden for our bilateral relationship[.] When three of our citizens were arrested by the Serbian police, handed over from one unit of the police to another, and then found out back with their hands tied, executed gangland style, someone is responsible and it defies logic that no one saw anything and no one knows anything.
I find it is very difficult to understand that nothing happened to any of the members of that group and that in fact, the leader of that unit [Goran “Guri” Radosavljevic] is now in a position on the Executive Board of the leading party in this country.
Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic’s response? To go to bat for the main suspect:
And now, I have been asked, why is he [Guri] a member of Vucic’s party…You should be ashamed of yourself, what do you think, that I will allow someone kicking me in the head and not reply with facts…. Never [would] the enemy of the USA and killer of the American people get [an] invitation to NATO.
Mr. Vucic then protested that no one did anything in 13 years to resolve the case and now he is to blame.
This is unprecedented. Many people (me included) have opined that Prime Minister Vucic still protects war criminals. Before 2008, he had a long history of doing so. But this is the first time he so overtly went to bat for the prime suspect in the murders of three American citizens.
Remember that Prime Minister Vucic has previously pledged to resolve the case by the end of Summer 2014 and March 2015. In June 2016, he pledged resolution, “very soon or much sooner than anybody might expect” to the American public, Vice President Biden, and others. Each time, he has done little to nothing. It seems like the only time Mr. Vucic authorizes Serbian prosecutors to work on the case (and yes, it seems like they require his authorization) is when he needs something from the United States.
The Associated Press, Tanjug, and Radio Slobodna Europa, all covered Fatose Bytyqi’s recent visit to Belgrade. A new independent investigative outlet called Insajder (Insider) produced a 30 minute mini-documentary on Serbia’s failures in the case. Yet Serbian officials seem content in their complacency.
Despite his many promises, Prime Minister Vucic just took a stand for war criminals. But he still has time to reassert the independence of the investigation and distance himself from the main suspect, Goran Radosavljevic. After all, it’s what he has promised to do many times.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What to expect in the Balkans
Not much, in the first instance. It has now been a long time since a president of the United States regarded the Balkans as a priority. A region that in the 1990s was the object of two US military interventions (in Bosnia and Kosovo) and NATO deployments has dribbled its way down the list of priorities and now rests no higher on most days than a deputy assistant secretary in the State Department. That’s not a bad thing: democracy and statebuilding in the Western Balkans has been relatively successful, with Slovenia, Croatia and Albania now NATO members and Montenegro in the accession process. Slovenia and Croatia are also EU members and all the other countries of the region are pointed in that direction, each at its own pace.
But the Westernization process in the Western Balkans is still not complete, has slowed recently, and could be curtailed or even reversed during the Trump administration. Bosnia is suffering attacks on its constitutional legitimacy, rooted in the Dayton peace accords of 1995, from the President of the relatively autonomous 49% of the country known as Republika Srpska. Macedonia is stalled due to internal strife and Greece’s refusal to accept is name. Kosovo started its existence as a sovereign state well behind the others and likewise suffers internal strife and continuing problems due to Serbia’s non-recognition. All the Balkan countries are suffering a Russian soft power assault on their media and institutions.
If the new president is inclined to accept a Russian sphere of influence in the Balkans, the consequences for the region’s relatively new democracies could be dramatic. Montenegro’s NATO accession depends on ratification in the US Senate. Progress in Bosnia will require the EU and the US to act in tandem to promote political and economic reforms. Improved relations between Kosovo and Serbia likewise depend on concerted action Brussels and Washington, as will resolution of Macedonia’s internal and external problems. Just easing up on these ongoing efforts could doom them to failure.
But worse could be in store. Trump wants to improve American relations with Russia and may be tempted to concede items of value to get them. If, for example, he were to accept Russian annexation of Crimea, that alone could set off a series of ethnically based partitions not only in Ukraine but also elsewhere: in Georgia, Moldova, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia. It would be truly miraculous if such a chain of partitions were to occur peacefully. It is far more likely that it would entail instability, ethnic cleansing, redrawing of borders, and war. White nationalists like Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief long-term strategist, will no doubt be telling the new president that ethnic partition is natural or inevitable and not such a bad thing after all.
What this amounts to in the Balkans is an assault on the post-war order established in the late 1990s as the most recent Balkan wars came to an end. It wasn’t an entirely liberal democratic order, as ethnic identity and group rights have remained an important dimension of organized political life virtually everywhere in the region. But it was an order based on aspirations to EU and for some NATO membership that involved establishing independent judiciaries, relatively free media, representative legislative bodies, and peaceful resolution of disputes. Upsetting this order in favor of ethnic separation and illiberal autocracies with territorial pretensions would be perilous: this is a part of the world involved in two world wars, in addition to its own post-Cold War conflicts arising from the breakup of former Yugoslavia.
I don’t expect Steve Bannon or John Bolton to worry about that, but I do hope that more pragmatic Republicans like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Corker or outgoing New Hampshire Senator Ayotte, both of whom are rumored for cabinet positions, to understand that the Balkan wars of the 1990s and the subsequent peace were a bipartisan effort, with support led as much by Republican Senator Dole as anyone else. Preserving that bipartisan legacy of peace and increasing prosperity is important, even if the region no longer attracts high level attention.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Russia’s shenanigans in the Balkans
My colleague Siniša Vuković and I published a piece on foreignpolicy.com today concerning the failed, Russian-backed coup plot in Montenegro last month. It concludes with this:
The Balkans will be way down the list of priorities for the next American president. The Islamic State and al Qaeda; China’s claims in the South China Sea; the wars in Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan; North Korea’s nuclear program; and dozens of other problems are far more threatening to U.S. national security. But what America does not need is any further distraction in the Balkans, where two decades of investment have come close to stabilizing a chronically war-prone area that played unhappy roles in World War I, World War II, and the aftermath of the Cold War. It would be better and far less costly to counter Russian efforts there with a renewed preventive effort to enable all the Balkan countries, if they want, to enter NATO and the EU, where they will find themselves far less vulnerable to the Kremlin’s meddling hand.
RSS - Posts
