Tag: Ukraine
The Russians are coming
Of course they’ve already been present in Syria for decades and throughout the current civil wars. They have been holding on tight to their naval facilities at Tartus, supplying Bashar al Assad’s forces with weapons, training Syrian forces, and protecting Syrian diplomatic interests, in particular at the United Nations. But now Moscow seems to be constructing a base for a thousand or so troops at on air field outside Latakia, 50 miles to the north of Tartus. What are they up to? What does this move signify?
Building a base of these dimensions is a serious deepening of Russian commitment to the Syrian regime. Secretary Kerry called it escalation. But it betrays the weakness of the regime more than its strength. Latakia is the heartland of Alawite support for Bashar al Assad. If it requires Russian troops for its defense, the regime is either in deeper trouble along the coast than many had imagine, or perhaps preparing to relocate Assad from Damascus. Either way, it wouldn’t be necessary if things were going well for Bashar. Those who had hoped (I once counted myself among them), that Moscow would realize the folly of its support for him are going to be disappointed.
The Russians have reason to be concerned. Syrian government forces have palpably weakened over the last two years. Regime-organized militias (National Defense Forces) and Lebanese Hizbollah, sometimes under Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps command, are now doing much of the fighting, as the regular army is disintegrating. The opposition has taken Idlib, 80 miles or so from Latakia, and much of the surrounding countryside.
They are within striking distance of Latakia, though the topography and demography will make getting there difficult. Alawite militias as well as Syrian regular forces, Hizbollah and now the Russians will defend Latakia and its approaches with vigor.
Moscow will portray whatever it is doing as support to a legitimate government fighting off a terrorist assault. The Russians I’ve talked with about Syria are fully committed to killing as many Sunni extremists as they can abroad, before they get to Mother Russia. The Islamic State has significant Chechen support. Moscow figures it is better to kill them in Syria than to risk their coming home to roost. The parallel with Bush Administration rhetoric should be noted.
Neither the regime nor Moscow will, however, make much distinction between the Islamic State and other more moderate forces that have taken up arms against Bashar al Assad. Their efforts on behalf of the regime are likely to radicalize the majority Sunni population of Syria further and help the Islamic State and Jabhat al Nusra recruit cadres. Russian escalation will also sink American diplomatic efforts to bring about a political solution in Syria. Neither the regime nor Moscow has ever shown interest in a solution that displaces Bashar, which Washington regards as a sine qua non, in order to convince at least some of the rebels to stop fighting.
Moscow will enjoy acting to fight ISIS in defiance of the Americans, whose anti-ISIS Coalition has had only a modicum of success. The situation in Syria is the mirror image of the situation in Ukraine, where the Russians are supporting insurgents and the Americans are supporting a legitimate government. Great powers, Putin feels, can do as they like, not least because that is how he thinks the Americans behave. The many differences between the trumped-up rebellion in eastern Ukraine and the all too genuine (and initially peaceful) uprising in Syria are of little interest to Putin.
So rather than just an escalation, it is better to see the Russian base-building as a further deterioration of the Syrian situation. It means heightened fighting, more displaced people and refugees, and less hope for a political solution. Europe had better brace itself for a much greater flow of what it prefers to call migrants, especially in anticipation of winter. The Russians are coming is not good news.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
დავითი and Голиаф (David and Goliath)
On Wednesday, USIP hosted a talk by the Defense Minister of Georgia, Tinatin Khidasheli, entitled Seeking Security: Georgia Between Russia and ISIS. William B. Taylor, Executive Vice President, USIP, moderated. Khidasheli made a forceful argument that NATO membership or at least a path to NATO membership for Georgia would help deter Russia and maintain NATO credibility.
In his introductory remarks, Taylor noted that Georgia is a strong US ally that has demonstrated its military and diplomatic capabilities. Georgia is committed to integration with the West and NATO.
Khidasheli said Georgia proves success for a former Soviet Socialist Republic is possible without Russia in charge. This is why Russia fights everything they do. Putin is trying to recover from the weakness of the Yeltsin era. He won’t let any country in Russia’s immediate neighborhood have a say without Russia’s permission.
The European Neighborhood’s Eastern Partnership started with six countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. However, at the 2015 Riga Summit, only Georgia was fully present. This was disappointing.
Khidasheli cited two motives for her trip to DC:
- To strengthen Georgia’s partnership with the US and achieve more tangible results and military cooperation.
- To seek advice on Georgia’s path to NATO membership.
NATO needs Georgia more than Georgia needs NATO, she said, in order to maintain its mission and credibility. The Alliance has been talking for years about its commitment to partners and its open-door policy. It must prove it is still a courageous organization. Some argue that expanding NATO will force Russia to act, but after NATO made it clear in 2008 that it wasn’t expanding, Russia invaded South Ossetia. By 2009, the West viewed Russia as a partner again, but Russia’s actions in Ukraine made it clear that is not true.
As soon as the Riga summit ended in disappointment, Russia started actions in Georgia. There are daily Russian movements on the artificial border with South Ossetia. The Russians sometimes advance up to a kilometer or two. Georgia won’t be provoked and won’t allow war on its territory. The checkpoints that Russia has marked are now just .5 km from Georgia’s main East-West highway. Is Russia targeting it or trying to distract Georgia?
NATO will hold its Warsaw Summit in July 2016. Georgia will hold parliamentary elections in October 2016. A bad outcome at Warsaw won’t make Khidasheli’s voters fall in love with Russia, but it could decrease their turnout, leading to a more pro-Russian parliament. The situation in Ukraine is adding to doubts about Georgia’s integration into NATO and the EU. There are two possible outcomes of the Warsaw summit:
- NATO allows Russia a veto over new members, rejects expansion and cedes additional areas to Russian dominance.
- NATO pursues enlargement, sending a clear message to Russia that partners matter as much as members.
NATO brings peace. It is the only reason the Baltics are currently safe. The current situation won’t deter Russia. The world hasn’t been able to stop the war in Ukraine.
The dominant argument from the Kremlin now favors a strong Russia. Putin has no trouble presenting the West as the enemy. But sanctions alone against Russia won’t help and will play into Putin’s “evil West” narrative. The West needs to understand that Russia is a country where people ate rats and cats in World War 2 and still won. Western notions of hardship and happiness aren’t relevant there.
Khidasheli recognizes that a realistic outcome of the Warsaw Summit won’t be NATO membership but an intermediate step towards membership. Georgia wants a statement that it is on a membership track.
While Georgia recently acquired an air defense system from France, Khidasheli did not specify how Tbilisi plans to deter Moscow or draw red lines. Georgia will make decisions about whether to shoot down a Russian plane violating Georgian airspace based on the threat level. With respect to Russia’s creeping annexation policies, Khidasheli reiterated that Georgia won’t be provoked. Georgia will not make a decision regarding countering Russia without its partners.
Russia is trying to use soft power to influence Georgia through NGOs and the media. There are political parties that openly align with Russia, including a former parliamentary speaker.
Khidasheli also spoke briefly about the problem of ISIS recruitment in Georgia, especially in the Pankisi Gorge. This poses a great danger. Georgia has failed to pay enough attention to the problems in this region. More integration, education and targeted employment programs are needed to decrease the feelings of isolation and abandonment among locals. The government must also examine other areas of Georgia where the demographics suggest future problems and address those issues now.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks July 20-24
1. Iran and the Future of the Regional Security and Economic Landscape | Tuesday, July 21st | 9:00 – 12:00 | CNAS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Under the deal, Iran will put significant limitations on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief from the international community. But the details and effects of the agreement are far from simple. Iran’s regional rivals, who are core U.S. partners in the Middle East, are deeply concerned about how the deal will change regional power dynamics. There are also questions about economic competition, particularly in energy markets, in the aftermath of
the nuclear deal. Keynote address by: Dr. Colin H. Kahl, Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President. Panelists include: Dr. Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow, CMEP, Brookings, David Ziegler, Distinguished Fellow and Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process, WINEP, Melissa Dalton, Fellow and Chief of Staff of the International Security Program, CSIS, Elizabeth Rosenberg, Senior Fellow and Director, Energy, Economics, and Security Program, CNAS, Colin McGinnis, Policy Director, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Sean Thornton, Senior Counsel, Group Financial Security BNP Paribas, and Caroline Hurndall, Head of Middle East Team, British Embassy. Moderators include: Ilan Goldenberg, Senior Fellow and Director, Middle East Security Program, CNAS and Zachary Goldman, Executive Director, Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law and Adjunct Senior Fellow, CNAS.
2. Women and Countering Violent Extremism: Strengthening Policy Responses and Ensuring Inclusivity | Tuesday, July 21st | 9:30-12:30 | USIP | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Women worldwide suffer disproportionately from violent extremism and conflict. Women’s key roles in society put them in ideal positions to prevent extremist violence. Yet, 15 years after the United Nations Security Council vowed to reverse the broad exclusion of women from leadership in security and peacebuilding, they
remain marginalized. On July 21 at USIP, experts from civil society, the United Nations, academia, and the U.S. government will discuss ways to include women in efforts to counter violent extremism. The debate will directly inform U.S. government officials preparing for major international conferences on these issues this fall. The U.N. Security Council recognized in 2000 (in its Resolution 1325) that we need women to help lead in global efforts at resolving violent conflict. Several current wars and conflicts underscore how the recent surge in violent extremism has given new urgency both to protecting women and including them in solutions. The U.N. secretary general’s special representative on sexual violence, Zainab Bangura, will discuss that imperative, having recently visited Syria and Iraq. Speakers include: Zainab Hawa Bangura, Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, Former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN, Timothy B. Curry, Deputy Director, Counterterrorism Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Eric G. Postel, Associate Administrator, USAID, Robert Berschinski, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, Carla Koppell, Chief Strategy Officer, USAID, Nancy Lindborg, President, USIP, Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, President, Women in International Security, Susan Hayward, Director, Religion and Peacebuilding, Governance, Law and Society, USIP, and Jacqueline O’Neill, Director, Institute for Inclusive Security. Moderator: Kathleen Kuehnast, Director, Gender and Peacebuilding, USIP.
3. Islamic extremism, reformism, and the war on terror | Tuesday, July 21st | 10:00 – 12:00 | AEI | REGISTER TO ATTEND | President Barack Obama has said that the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh) and other extremist groups do not represent true Islam. The extremists, however, dispute this.
This leads to a basic question: What role, if any, does Islam play in fomenting terrorism? As extremist forces increasingly sow destruction, how should policymakers respond? How prevalent are moderates, and how serious are regional calls for a “reformation” within Islam? What role, if any, can the US play to encourage reform? How do anti-Islamic polemics undercut reform? Panelists include: Jennifer Bryson, Zephyr Institute, Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution, Abbas Kadhim, Institute of Shia Studies, Zainab Al-Suwaij, American Islamic Congress, Husain Haqqani, Hudson Institute and Former Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, and Mohamed Younis, Gallup. Moderators include: Michael Rubin, AEI and Danielle Pletka, AEI.
4. Negotiating the Gulf: How a Nuclear Deal Would Redefine GCC-Iran Relations | Tuesday, July 21st | 12:00-2:00 | The Arab Gulf States Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | As a nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 was recently finalized, few in the international community have more at stake than Iran’s Arab neighbors across the Gulf. Will the agreement usher in a new era of detente in the Middle East? Will Iran emerge as a more responsible partner, not just to the West but also to
regional powers? Can Iran and the GCC states begin to identify areas of cooperation to bring about more stability and security to the region? Will the agreement truly prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, or does the Middle East stand on the brink of another, particularly dangerous, arms race? Speakers include: Suzanne DiMaggio, senior fellow and the director of the Iran Initiative at New America, Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi journalist, columnist, author, and general manager of the upcoming Al Arab News Channel, Nadim Shehadi, director of the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies, Fletcher School, Tufts University, Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar, fellow, Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and, assistant professor, Department of International Affairs, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University.
5. Russian Expansion – A Reality or Fiction: A Conversation with Elmar Brok | Tuesday, July 21st | 12:30-1:30 | German Marshall Fund | REGISTER TO ATTEND | With the Minsk II ceasefire in eastern Ukraine looking increasingly shaky, Europe risks a frozen conflict for years to come. However, is Russian President Vladimir Putin finished in Ukraine? Can the United States and Europe expect more aggression from the Kremlin or is consolidation Russia’s strategy now? What do the future of Russian relations with the European Union and Germany look like and what role do sanctions play in this calculation? Elmar Brok, chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, will answer these questions and provide analysis of U.S.-European views toward Ukraine and Russia. GMF, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and the European Parliament Liaison Office are pleased to jointly host this conversation.
6. Saudi Arabia’s Scholarship Program: Generating a “Tipping Point”? | Tuesday, July 21st | 1:oo | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Westerners most commonly associate the Kingdom with oil, religious conservatism, and a deeply unstable region. Our panelists will challenge such conventional perceptions by examining the seismic economic, social, and governmental changes underway, many of which evidently result in part from the deliberate Saudi government investment in its human capital. The panel will present the thesis that, having sent over 200,000 Saudi youth abroad in the past ten years with the King Abdullah Scholarship Program, the Kingdom is already experiencing powerfully transformative economic and social advances. Ambassador Francis Ricciardone, Atlantic Council Vice President and Director of the Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, will moderate the discussion. Hariri Center Associate Director Ms. Stefanie Hausheer Ali will present key data and analysis on the scholarship program’s origins and size as well as its costs and benefits from her case study for the King Salman Center for Innovative Government. Dr. Rajika Bhandari, Deputy Vice President of the Institute of International Education (IIE) and Director of IIE’s Center for Academic Mobility Research and Impact, will discuss the Saudi scholarship program within the context of other international scholarship programs and the types of impacts such programs can have. Ms. Samar Alawami, an American University graduate of the scholarship program and researcher at the King Salman Center for Innovative Government, will discuss how the scholarship is impacting her generation. Ambassador James Smith, President of C&M International, will reflect on the changes in Saudi Arabia he witnessed during his tenure as US Ambassador from 2009 to 2013.
7. Rebuilding Afghanistan: Transparency & Accountability in America’s Longest War | Tuesday, July 21st | 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm | PS21 | REGISTER TO ATTEND | As the longest running and one of the most expensive wars in U.S. history winds down, just where did the money go? PS21 is delighted to present a discussion with the man looking into that very question, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John F. Sopko, and Just Security. Speakers include: John F. Sopko, Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, and Andy Wright, Founding Editor, Just Security
8. Nigeria: A Conversation with President Muhammadu Buhari | Wednesday, Jul 22nd | 9:45 – 11:15 | Located at USIP but sponsored by NDI | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please read: Important information for guests attending public events at USIP. In a milestone for Nigeria and multi-party democracy in Africa, Muhammadu Buhari was elected president in March, becoming the first opposition candidate to unseat an elected Nigerian president through the ballot box. Following a vigorous political campaign period, Nigerians successfully managed a relatively peaceful electoral process and government transition. As the new government begins its mandate, political, economic and security pressures remain intense, including the escalating insurgency of Boko Haram and unresolved conflicts across the country. President Buhari’s remarks at USIP will come on the last of his three days in Washington, following his July 20 meeting with President Obama. All guests should arrive no later than 9:45 am to pass through security. Doors to the event will close promptly at 10:00 am.
9. Arbitrary Justice in Saudi Arabia: How Activists Have Organized against Due Process Violations | Wednesday, July 23rd | 11:30 – 1:00 | Located at Open Society Foundations but sponsored by Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain and Amnesty International | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) and Amnesty International are cosponsoring an event to shed light on the absence of Rule of Law in Saudi Arabia. The discussion will outline the specific deficiencies within the Saudi criminal justice system that lead to the
commission of human rights violations, including judges’ lack of independence, practices of arbitrary and incommunicado detention, and a catch-all anti-terrorism law. Discussion will then turn to highlighting the cases of those activists, including members of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA) and human rights lawyer Waleed Abu al-Khair, who have sacrificed their independence to raise awareness of human rights abuses and bring reforms to this system. Panelists include: Abdulaziz Alhussan, Visiting Scholar at Indiana University’s Center for Constitutional Democracy and former attorney for several ACPRA members, Hala al-Dosari, Saudi activist and women’s health researcher, Sunjeev Bery, Director of MENA Advocacy at Amnesty International USA, and R. James Suzano, Acting Director of Advocacy at ADHRB.
10. On Knife’s Edge: The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s Impact on Violence Against Civilians | Wednesday, July 23rd | 12:00-1:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The post-Cold War era has witnessed horrific violence against non-combatants. In the Bosnian War alone, tens of thousands of civilians died. The founders of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)—and then of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC)—hoped these courts might curb such atrocities. However, we still know very little about their actual impact. This talk will draw on the ICTY’s experience as the first wartime international criminal tribunal to provide insight into how and when these institutions might affect violence against civilians. Speakers include: Jacqueline McAllister, Title VII Research Scholar, Ph.D., Northwestern University, Assistant Professor, Kenyon College and John R. Lampe, Senior Scholar Professor Emeritus, Department of History, University of Maryland, College Park.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Two unexpected wars
On Tuesday, the International Institute for Strategic Studies hosted a talk entitled Two Unforeseen Wars: A Military Analysis of the Conflict in Ukraine and the Campaign against ISIS with Brigadier Ben Barry, the Senior Fellow for Land Warfare at the IISS.
Barry discussed the conflicts separately but drew some parallels between them on the level of military strategy.
Both the conflict in Ukraine and the war against ISIS came as a shock to the US. The conflict in Ukraine began with a Russian campaign in Crimea led by elite units and complemented by propaganda. The Russians made good use of special forces, electronic warfare and deniability. In Crimea, both sides sought not to use lethal force. The ability of the Russian military to restrain its use of lethal force shows that it is better trained than when it fought in Afghanistan or Chechnya. The Russian military has a cadre of strategic planners and an aptitude for deception.
According to Barry, the insurgency of pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine has exploited grievances against the Ukrainian government. The Ukrainian military is suffering from a lack of investment in recent years. They have made little effort to conduct a counterinsurgency campaign against the separatists. Last summer, they had some success in pushing the separatists back, but were stopped by Russian intervention, including professionally applied indirect fire. Both the separatists’ own artillery, as well as the Russian artillery that intervened, are skilled. The Ukrainian Air Force has been stymied by the separatists’ air defenses. The separatists have also made effective use of SIGINT and drone intelligence to call in strikes. Russia has improved its military readiness, as the conflict in Ukraine attests.
With regard to the fight against ISIS, according to Barry, Maliki’s 2010 election victory was followed by his attempt to consolidate power by marginalizing Sunni and Kurdish politicians. Meanwhile, the remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq fought Assad in Syria and renamed themselves ISIS. They rebuilt their networks in Iraq among discontented Sunni tribes and used sophisticated propaganda to gain volunteers and donations. They then launched their assault on Fallujah, followed by their capture of Mosul. In Mosul, the majority of 3 or 4 Iraqi divisions disintegrated in the face of ISIS’s onslaught. The Iraqi army had suffered from Maliki’s attempt to assert direct control over it and replace capable commanders with politically loyal ones.
ISIS has used both insurgency tactics and conventional forces. The high water mark of ISIS offensives in Iraq came in the fall of 2014. After this point, ISIS still counterattacked at vulnerable spots and conducted offensives in Syria simultaneously. ISIS is now on the strategic defensive in Iraq, but this has been an active defense. To take Ramadi, ISIS used diversionary attacks to distract the Iraqi forces. They may have also conducted the attack under the cover of a sandstorm to stymie coalition airstrikes.
Barry described the sequence of an ISIS attack:
1. Indirect fire.
2. En masse suicide bombings.
3. Captured armored bulldozers are used to breach Iraqi army berms.
4. Close assault including cameramen to document the carnage and subsequent executions.
The fall of Ramadi played into ISIS’s narrative of defending the borders of the Caliphate and mounting counterattacks. These facts on the ground inspire recruits and cause other groups to declare allegiance to ISIS.
According to Barry, ISIS has two main vulnerabilities:
1. In a successful, sustained offensive against it, ISIS would have to move a large numbers of fighters, unmasking them and rendering them vulnerable to attack.
ISIS could, however, move large numbers of civilians at the same time to complicate an attack.
2. If the Sunni tribes in Iraq turn on ISIS, this would be a significant blow.
At first glance, these two conflicts have little in common but Barry drew a few parallels between them:
1. Both conflicts show the importance today of winning the information war. Military operations will increasingly be used for their propaganda effects.
2. The Russian separatists and ISIS leverage superior military leadership against the Ukrainian government and the Iraqi military, respectively.
3. Without airpower, the anti-ISIS coalition would be far worse-off than it is. In Ukraine, we can see how the Ukrainian military is suffering from a lack of airpower.
4. Artillery is key in both conflicts. Indirect fire is normally the cause of the majority of casualties in war, and this is likely true in both Iraq and Ukraine. Western militaries have reduced their use of indirect fire, but Russia and China still have extensive indirect fire capabilities.
5. Both conflicts demonstrate the need for the US and NATO to assess which of their allies are vulnerable to hybrid warfare.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Is there still independent media in Russia?
On Wednesday, the Carnegie Endowment for international peace hosted A Conversation with Alexei Venediktov, the editor-in-chief of Echo of Moscow, often described as Russia’s last independent journalism outlet.
Venediktov began by describing the state of US-Russia relations. There is still no direct conflict between the citizens of Russia and the citizens of the US, but approximately 78% of Russians now view the US as an enemy, compared with 50% only a few years ago. Any sanctions against Russia and negative statements by American journalists about Russia are viewed as a challenge.
In 2000, Venediktov and Putin talked for a couple of hours after a press conference about the future of media in Russia. Putin described two adversaries:
- enemies, who you fight with, make truces with, and then fight with again and
- traitors, who you think are on your side and then backstab you.
Putin asserted that he has no mercy for traitors, but Venediktov is just an enemy, and not a traitor.
Venediktov believes that the confrontation between the US and Russia was inevitable under Putin, who spent his younger years as a KGB officer, where there were clear-cut friends and enemies. Perestroika unsettled him because it blurred these lines. Now he is back to the days of his youth again. The enemies and the battle lines are clear. This is his comfort zone.
Putin has aptly converted foreign policy into domestic policy. The main claim against him is that he opposes competition in all aspects of life. He is against political, economic, social, and moral competition. Russia is becoming a nation incapable of competing and will therefore lag behind again.
The two main groups in Russia today are nationalists, who believe in the superiority of Russian ethnicity, and post-imperialists, who believe in restoring what they view as the greatness of the Soviet Union. The post-imperialists encompass not only ethnic Russians, but also Tatars, Chechens and Ukrainians. This is a pro-Putin movement. He appeals to young people who want Russia to be rich, powerful, respected and feared once again.
Venediktov discussed the murder of Boris Nemtsov, stating that the investigators proved through technical means that those whom they arrested were the perpetrators. He does not believe that someone ordered the crime at a high level. Venediktov believes that the perpetrators felt that by killing an enemy of Putin that they would be treated with leniency. However, Putin knew Nemtsov personally and had a lenient approach to him. When Nemtsov was killed, Putin was outraged.
Venediktov speculated that it may ultimately be shown that the CIA or the Ukrainian intelligence services ordered the murder to shake Putin’s grip on power, but there is currently no evidence to suggest this. Venediktov has bodyguards because he has been declared an enemy of Islam and of Chechnya.
Venediktov believes that the conflict in Ukraine will not end in the next ten years. It will become like the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. There will be daily casualties. Venediktov believes that separatists shot down MH17 by accident but that we will never know for sure. He noted that before MH17 was shot down, Western rhetoric against Russia was not militant but that it became militant afterward.
Venediktov stated that of the hundreds of POWs captured by the Ukrainian Army, only two have been Russian personnel, and they were intelligence officers, not soldiers. He believes we need to be cautious in assessing the extent of Russian military involvement in Ukraine. Venediktov also believes that relations with Georgia will continue to deteriorate because Russia will annex South Ossetia. This will lead to a rise in anti-Russian discourse in Georgia.
Asserting that ISIS is considered to be the top security threat by the Russian government, Venediktov said a high-level dialogue between US and Russian officials regarding ISIS is ongoing. Putin recently held a press conference in which he devoted 3/4 of the time to discussing ISIS. Ukraine is more about public relations.
An audience member if Venediktov is truly an enemy of Putin, or more of a Putin apologist, given some of his positions. Venediktov replied that he is just a journalist, not a politician. He opposes Putin’s policies and he is the only journalist that Putin publicly criticizes. He joked that it would be easier to present Putin with horns and a tail to this audience, but all journalists have horns and a tail so that would just make Putin one of them. Venediktov stated that Echo of Moscow is an open forum for diverse opinions. As such, it attracts criticism from much of the political spectrum.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Independence and interdependence
It is Independence Day in the US, which marks 239 years since the representatives of the thirteen colonies declared in 1776:
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
The war that had begun the year before at Lexington and Concord (Massachusetts) continued, ending only in 1781 at Yorktown (Virginia). The peace was signed only in 1783 in Paris.
The United States and the United Kingdom fought again in 1812-15, but the UK did not intervene in the American civil war. By then British sentiment was mainly anti-slavery but the UK still relied on cotton produced in the Confederacy and feared industrial competition from the American north. It was only in the 1890s, more than a hundred years after the revolution, that America’s familiar friendly ties with the UK began to be established.
I tell this story not only because it is July 4, but also because it provides perspective on some of today’s problems. Kosovo and South Sudan are the world’s newest “independent” states. It would be easy to bemoan their current situations. Kosovo is suffering from economic doldrums and serious corruption. South Sudan is suffering a ferocious civil war that overshadows the economic doldrums and corruption that would otherwise be much in evidence.
Neither country is yet 10 years old. Kosovo has made good progress in normalizing its relations with Serbia, which is potentially Kosovo’s biggest market and its most obvious security threat. Khartoum may be aggravating South Sudan’s problems, but they are mainly internal. If only because of the Nile, which flows through both, Sudan and South Sudan will need eventually to establish what the Europeans like to call “good neighborly relations.”
Other trouble spots in the Middle East are also relatively young independent states: Libya (1951), Egypt (nominally 1922, but British troops didn’t leave until 1956), Yemen (British soldiers left in 1967, but the current state dates from the unification of north and south in 1990), Syria (1945) and Iraq (1932). They are suffering mainly from internal conflict, all too often precipitated or aggravated by outside powers. It is tempting to think that 100 years is still a reasonable time frame for state consolidation. Some of these states may not make it to that milestone.
Ukraine is in a similar situation. It achieved independence only in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It would have had internal problems in any event, but Russia has aggravated them by annexing Crimea and invading two of Ukraine’s eastern provinces.
Independence is hard, but many countries figure out how to govern themselves if left to their own devices. It is the interdependence dimension that often causes problems. The Saudi/Iranian rivalry has aggravated internal conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Egypt and Libya have generated most of their own problems, which Islamic State affiliates are exploiting.
I can only wish that the evolution in the Middle East will follow the course that US/UK relations took, with many ups and downs, during the 19th century. Iran and Saudi Arabia, which are doing so much to fuel conflict today, have good reason to come to terms. Both are spending too much to achieve too little in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. ISIS challenges them both. It is not hard to imagine a positive-sum outcome to their current negative-sum rivalries. Interdependence may be hard, but it is a lot better than war.
RSS - Posts
