Tag: Russia
Stevenson’s army, August 26
– It’s all over, says Charlie Cook. Trump will be the GOP nominee.
– WaPo still does some fact-checking on other presidential candidates.
– Georgetown SFS group has recommendations to improve US diplomacy.
– NYT has declassified US intelligence report on Russian influence operations in US & Europe.
-Pentagon protested false Fox report
– Singer protests GOP use of his song.
– Economist lists important books for read for IR and offers candidates for Great American Novel.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Lessons from the Wagnerian tragedy
While the odds of my saying anything new are minimal, it is difficult not to comment on the death yesterday of Yevgeny Prigozhin and his Wagner comrades. I think it is fair to assume it was murder. A plane accident would be just too convenient. And we’ll never know for sure, so why not assume the obvious?
What we don’t know and what the incident tells us
It is difficult to fathom why Prigozhin thought he could fly around Russia safely. Just a few days ago he put out a video purporting to show him in Africa. Might he have imagined that Putin would be fooled? Might he have believed that his good friend Vladimir would allow him to continue to live after attempting a coup? Had he tried to blackmail Putin into leaving him alone, by promising to have published incriminating material if he were to die? No one knows.
What we do know is that this incident confirms, once again, that Putin is a garden variety homicidal dictator. No one should have doubted that–the denefestrations and poisonings have been confirming it for decades. But it has political implications, both in Russia and in the United States.
Russians need to get brave
The implication in Russia is that Putin will never leave office voluntarily. He knows that peaceful retirement is not an option. He’ll try to stay in power as long as he can.
To get rid of him, Russians will need to be courageous. There is little sign of such courage so far, but it might be brewing beneath the surface. Whoever arranged for Prigozhin’s plane to come down could do the same for Putin’s. That will make him extra cautious and repressive. He has already tightened the screws on dissent, but will likely do more. Even much more.
Americans need to get smarter
Following Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, there is a part of the Republican Party, and a fringe on the left, that has been inclined to accommodation with Putin. They would like less aid for Ukraine and more, echoing a Moscow troll line, for Hawaii, though of course the Republicans would never actually push aid in Hawaii’s direction.
Trump and Carlson may continue to shill for Putin. They are not just dumb but craven. But the filo-Russian faction on both left and right should now be as dead as Prigozhin.
There is no longer any alternative, if ever there was, for the West in Ukraine. Europe and the US need to give Ukraine everything it needs to defeat Russia and expel its forces from all Ukrainian territory. Putin’s defeat may not guarantee his fall, but if he manages to hold on to territory in Ukraine it will make his fall much less likely. His succesor may be worse for Russians, but defeat in Ukraine will make him and Russia weaker. That is what Americans need to aim for.
Accountability would be nice
I guffawed at the first news of Prigozhin’s accident. But it is not a laughing matter, even if he was a clownish war criminal. Dictators worldwide will be watching to see the consequences. Let’s hope Russians can somehow give Putin his just desserts.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 24
– Dan Drezner comments on the foreign policy points in the GOP candidate show. He links to an earlier column on force against Mexico, which Gov. DeSantis emphasized.
– I’m repeatedly impressed by the entrepreneurial reporting and analysis by Politico’s Nat Sec Daily. You should all subscribe [it’s free] Last night they looked into the possible sources for the many similar “Ukraine isn’t doing what we advised” stories. [Scroll to the second story]
– Reuters has more on the Prigozhin flight.
– NYT has report on Russia’s recruitment advertising.
-BRICs are adding members.
Charlie sent this latish yesterday:
– Tom Nichols assesses Prigozhin’s likely death.
– Earlier, NYT spoke to analysts critical of Ukraine’s offensive, though Jake Sullivan denied stalemate.
– David Ignatius calls for a bigger Space Force.
– Lawfare sees legal issues over Niger coup.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Montenegro: where’s the beef?
Miodrag Vlahović, former Montengrin Minister of Foreign Affairs and former ambassador to US, is now president of the Montenegrin Helsinki Committee. He continues his observations on his country’s current political course:
Montenegro’s parliamentary election June 11 gave the Europe Now movement 24 out of 81 seats, edging out the former ruling party and its coalition allies. But the process of creating the new Montenegrin government still goes on. After a long consultations, President Milatović has given Milojko Spajić a mandate. He now has to gain a majority in parliament.
Back to square one
That took almost two months. Now Montenegrin politicians seem to be back to square one. The reason is simple. The dilemma is whether to include pro-Serbian/pro-Russian parties (New Serbian Democracy and the Democratic People’s Party) in the next government.
Their inclusion would be risky move for Spajić. The new government would lose any claim to being pro-EU. And it would have no credibility in the West. The US and German ambassadors in Podgorica have emphasized that participation of political parties opposed to NATO and to recognition of Kosovo, or failing to oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine, would block Montenegro’s progress towards the EU.
Limited options
Spajić has received this message, but whether he can comply remains uncertain. Without the pro-Serbian/pro-Russian parties, he can hope for support from 44 members of parliament (41 is required for a simple majority). But a qualified majority (3/5) of 49 is required for implementation of crucial judiciary reforms.
The elephant in the room is is the former ruling party, the Democratic Party of Socialists, together with their allies. They are pro-EU. If things were normal and logical, DPS would be a natural partner for Spajić’s Europe Now movement.
Spajić, however, still clings to the notion that former President Đukanović’s party is “not reformed enough.” Translation: Đukanović is still there. Not able to do what is logical, Spajić is condemned to forming a weak government unable to pursue needed reforms. He might even find himself evicted from the prime ministry after even the smallest dispute or political crisis.
No top cover
President Milatović, his deputy in the Europe Now movement, is part of Spajić’s problem. The President is thought to be connected to a group who have announced the creation of new party. They want inclusion of anti-NATO parties in the new government.
So is this delay about formation of a new reformist government that can take Montenegro into the EU, or is it a power struggle between Spajić and Milatović? Where’s the beef?
New elections?
There is the possibility of new elections. That would mean Spajić lost the power struggle. It is an open question whether it would be good or bad for Montenegro.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 17
– The Commission studying reform of the DOD budget process has an interim report.
– AEI summarizes the issues in the NDAA conference.
– CNAS has a big report on civilians in national security.
-WSJ notes the big problems facing the Russian economy.
– NPR summarizes China’s stumbling economy.
– NYT sees Russia helped by Niger coup
– WaPo says Iran helped Russia’s drone industry
– David Ignatius praises Biden foreign policy
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Travel is getting riskier
On the plus side is the release of five Americans. That is good, but what is to prevent Tehran from taking five more hostages? Thousands of Americans visit Iran every year, despite State Department warnings. Many are dual citizens with family there. Tehran isn’t likely to scoop more up right away, but eventually it may return to lucrative hostage-taking. The slippery slope is real.
The US will release some Iranians, so far unidentified, from US prisons. Exchange for them is not a fair deal, as they have all been tried and convicted in a court system that guarantees a lot more rights than the Americans arrested in Iran. But the exchange is understandable and even laudable. If Iran wants a drug dealer or sanctions breaker back, he will only add marginally to the miscreants already there. And the exchange will save the US taxpayer a few dollars.
The problem is the money
$6 billion is a lot of money. The agreement allowing the dollars to go to Iran may require Tehran to use it for humanitarian purposes (food and medicine), but cash is fungible. It is easy enough to shift the money you might have spent on food (but no longer need) to purchase weapons. You can be pretty sure the ultimate beneficiary will be something the United States doesn’t like: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or a drone factory whose main customer is Russia.
The money is not American. It is Iranian, frozen in South Korea at Washington’s behest. It derives from South Korean payments for Iranian oil. So the American taxpayer is not footing the bill, but the cash will relieve Iran of some financial pressure. If that leads to other agreements–in the nuclear talks, for example–it may be worthwhile. But that factor is hard to weigh before it materializes.
It’s not only Iran
Iran is not the only hostage-taker. Russia, China, Venezuela, Syria, and others also indulge. Each will now hope for a billion or so in addition to the prisoner exchange in negotiations on American hostages. We likely have sufficient frozen funds from some of the hostage takers. It will not be good if today’s deal whets hostage-taker appetities.
There is already an International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (New York, 17 December 1979), but it foresees individuals as the perpetrators, not states. It has 176 state parties, including the United States. While it has been argued that Iran’s use of arbitrary detention constitutes hostage taking, holding individuals responsible is unlikely to prove much of a deterrent when it is a state that decides to detain someone. The existing convention is inadequate to deal with a situation where a state is the hostage-taker. Something more is needed.
Easily said, hard to do
What is needed is a policy that will prevent states from resorting to arbitrary detention/hostage taking. Easy to say, but difficult to institute. A convention requiring multilateral sanctions against states that detain foreigners arbitrarily might be an attractive proposition in theory, but in practice it will prove difficult to get agreement on which detentions are arbitrary. And in many instances the miscreant states will already be subjected to extensive sanctions.
In the absence of more effective measures, international travel has already become more hazardous. There are today more countries where I would hesitate to travel due to the threat of arbitrary detention than ever before in my lifetime. This latest agreement is going to make it even more risky. That may be no real loss to the hostage takers, who don’t really want nosy foreigners observing the way they treat their own citizens. But it is definitely a loss for those of us anxious to see and experience the world beyond our own shores.
RSS - Posts
