A link page for my writings/media contributions on Russia (no particular order). I'll update this page as new pieces are published. Thanks for reading! Russia in Ukraine - link page (Many, many of my writing links on Ukraine!)
What's happening in Ukraine represents the tombstone for President Obama's reset. As I've argued before, (here and here) the Russian Government has successfully manipulated US foreign policy over the past five years. Cognizant of the President's international trepidation (an issue I've also written on here), Putin has advanced Russian strategic interests at the cost of both American prestige and influence. As I see it, the Russian surge into Crimea has two specific purposes - to deter western intervention and support for the new Ukrainian Government and to ensure that Russia's access to its Black Sea naval bases is sustained.
Still, this is about more than power politics. In part understandably (considering the ethnic make up of Crimea), Russia is deeply concerned by the prospect of appearing to abandon its key supporters. Russia wants to ensure that their opinion is represented by the new government.
Again, it's absolutely crucial to note that Russian foreign policy is always focused on local domination in service to the central authority of the Kremlin. But of course, this is also about Putin's willingness to use military force in order to achieve his political objectives (see the video below from 13.58). Putin wagers that the US and the EU lack the constitution to restrain his intimidation. He may be right. In the days ahead, it is critical that President Obama show Putin that there are limits to Russia's power. In essence, the American President must restore Russia's faith in American power.
1) The Lebanese Hizballah appears to have lost another leader. Whoever was responsible for Lakkis's death last week, it's obvious that hostile pressure on the group is growing. With Hizballah now fully invested in Assad's survival, sectarian reactions to that strategy are also growing in intensity - hence the less of three senior leaders in as many weeks. In basic terms, Hizballah's political adversaries are taking advantage from the group's associated guilt for incidents like this one. As I've written before, Hizballah is suffering from an identity crisis of serious proportions. Devoid of a cross-sectarian base of sympathy, the organization's carefully constructed 'anti-oppression' narrative is being rendered for the lie that it is. Whatever happens with Assad, in Lebanon and beyond, Hizballah's strategic choices will leave them increasingly vulnerable. For a few of my related thoughts on Hizballah, please click (point five here), here and here. 2) ISIL continues to wreck havoc upon Iraq. In the absence of US Intelligence capabilities (please see my BBC debate on the NSA - takes a minute to load!) and amidst continuing political discord (please see my thoughts here), ISIL and its affiliates are once again endangering Iraq's stability. As the ISW's Jessica Lewis notes, ISIL has embraced a highly effective strategy of impatient resurgence. Again, it's important that we note the targeting methodology that ISIL embraces. As with their Salafi violent-extremist counterparts around the world, they are members of a death worshiping cult. Recognizing this truth, we should still be astute to the political grievances that allow groups like ISIL to prosper. Nevertheless, we must also grapple with the reality of a movement that sees cafes, markets, malls, roads and playgrounds as military targets.
3) The protests in Ukraine continue to grow. President Yanukovych has a problem. At a basic level, he has wagered against a long brewing discontent. Outraged by endemic corruption and Yanukovych's subservience to Putin's bullying/influence, many Ukrainians believe they're in a struggle for the very future of Ukraine. Quite understandably, these citizens have little interest in a future that abandons them to the ignominy of existence as a buffer state for Putin's Russia. While it's true that Ukraine is far from unified in its support for a pro-west future, younger Ukrainians are firmly ensconced with the pro-EU/US crowd. The trend lines are clear. Still, there are US policies that could help catalyze this process. Recognizing Ukraine's deep vulnerability to Russian energy blackmail, the US should urgently begin to provide an alternate source of energy to Eastern European states. By loosening regulations on US companies, exports of US Liquefied Natural Gas exports could begin in earnest. That alternate supply portfolio would enable Ukrainians to break free from their present headlock-like relationship with Russia. For some of my thoughts on Putin, please click here and here.
''.... but the text will notthreaten the use of
force for a failure to comply, officials said.'' ''The final draft also does not ascribe specific blame for the Aug. 21 attack that asphyxiated hundreds of Syrians.''
This ludicrousSecurity Council resolutionis
a waste of paper- it's logically and ecologically unsound. This is the international relations equivalent of a situation in which, after murdering an entire family, the killer is caught red handed. Then however, instead of punishing the culprit - in this case a gangbanger, the Judge simply makes him promise never to repeat his crime. The Judge issues a concluding warning to the murderer- should he re-offend, the convict's co-conspirator will decide an appropriate punishment. In making his ruling, the Judge proudly claims that he has served justice, whilst simultaneously also deterring the gangster's compatriots. As I said, this resolution is ludicrous; it belongs in the UN restroom.
This is our acquiescence in the face of slaughter. President Obama might have preserved the pretense of his credibility (and even then, only in Europe), but this deal will cost America dearly. Russia has consolidated an alreadyobvious global victory. The rules of international order have been trashed. Peace will pay the price.
I see four direct consequences. 1) Assad will view our weakness as an explicitapproval
to ignore his responsibilitiesunder
the UN disarmament framework. 2) Russia will beunleashed
to further dominatethe conduct (retrogression?) of international affairs. Putin is laughing. 3) North Korea will be emboldened to up theirnuclear
ante. 4) Iran will be encouraged to re-double their support for Assad and renew theirlong
cultivated gameof false, time-buying nuclear negotiations. On this last point, please seemy
post from yesterday concerning the three diplomatic delusions of the Obama Administration in their interactions with Iran.
''We need to use the United
Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s
complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international
relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow
it whether we like it or not.''
This, from the man who irradiates political opponents living abroad.
This, from the man who considers criminal justice to be a campaign tool.
This, from the man who uses Russian energy supplies to blackmail impoverished states.
''We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.''
Time for some honesty. Putin has no interest in multilateral co-operation. Nor does he care for the cause of peace. Like his Soviet predecessors, Putin has one interest - Russian domination. Don't believe me? Just re-read the letter.
Note the implicit threat to implode the UN - ''No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations...'' Note the thinly veiled attacks against President Bush - “you’re either with us or against us.” Note Putin's emotional attack on American exceptionalism.
There's a simple but telling reason that explains why Putin hates Bush. In the summer of 2008, as Russia sought to destroy Georgia's democracy, Bush didn't back down. In fact, he stood up. Putin was forced to back off. He didn't like it.
The Russian President doesn't want a repeat of that misery. Instead, he wants an American President who will bend to his will. Sadly, President Obama is giving him that opportunity. Geneva is a joke. Everyone knows it, but no one has a political interest in admitting to absurdity.
In the end, Putin's letter should be taken for what it is. The 2013 replication of Andropov's 1983 letter to Samantha Smith. A pretense of friendship at the price of American supplication. We mustn't believe the lie.
George Washington once said that ''to be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.''
President Obama evidently believes otherwise.
Under this Commander in Chief, American foreign policy is adrift. The currents of others now control our course. The mafia regime of President Putin has become the arbiter of a corrupted international justice.
Children die while the world spins.
Watching his speech last night, it was clear that President Obama regards his strategy as the modern partner to Teddy Roosevelt's diplomatic mantra- ''Speak softly, and carry a big stick.''
Sadly however, if the stick is made of Jell-O, the metaphorical carrot is also rotten. Obama's diplomacy is negotiation without an anchor and the threat of force without a threat. It isn't real, it's just delusional. In fact, it's absurd.
Now, in a looming conference in Geneva, we await the 21st century successor to Munich. A hopeless endeavor in pursuit of an impossible cause. A pretense of peace in service of brutality.
I say pretense, because the cause of peace is only rational when it's real. Devoid of rationality; without the prospect of beneficial realization, peace is injustice cloaked in false morality. Towards Assad, it's a rhetorical abstraction purchased with suffocating children.
Yes, the President might have been passionate in arguing why our intervention is important - how, as he put it, ''Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria.'' But as much as this sounds credible in America, our domestic perception is ultimately irrelevant. In the end, what matters is what our adversaries think. And what our friends think.
They think we're weak. No longer can America be trusted.
This is a strategic disaster of epic proportions - a collapse of resolve and influence not seen since Saigon. A superpower humbled, uncertain and fearful. Global adversaries emboldened and unconstrained. A peace process full of holes. This is the change Obama has wrought. Its bitter taste will linger for a long, long time.
Twelve years ago today, facing our own Ghouta, President Bush framed the horror with an enduring call to American purpose.
''None of us will ever forget this day,'' he said, ''yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.''
Buried beneath the Syria news frenzy, on Thursday, The Washington Post published their latest piece on the US Intelligence Community (IC). The reporting is very interesting. For a start, it seems that the CIA spends a lot more than we've previously thought. A total expenditure of around $15 billion annually. We've also learned that the CIA allocates very significant resources to technical collection efforts (of the type generally associated with the NSA). Concerning the action of intelligence operations, North Korea and Pakistan are regarded as two especially hardened intelligence targets - challenging to penetrate and gather information on. However, although the Lebanese Hezbollah are also regarded as a hardened target, the Post's report suggests that the IC has closed some of their knowledge gap in this area (crucially important following the Pizza scandal).
In an interesting statement, the Intelligence Community regards Israel as one of the top five counter-intelligence focus areas. The other states being: China, Russia, Iran and Cuba. This shouldn't be surprising, Israeli intelligence efforts against the US are well known. It also shouldn't be taken as an indictment on the US-Israeli relationship. States spy on each other. Indeed, outside of '5EYEs', America spies on everyone.
In another area, the US IC continues to inject the majority of available resources into SIGINT/GEOINT and other technical-focus capabilities. From my perspective, this is both good and bad. On the good side, technological developments have meant that US technical surveillance efforts can garner exceptionally detailed and timely data from hardened, high level targets (enabling, for example, aggressive counter-terrorism efforts). On the bad side, unlike human sources, satellites and phone intercepts etc. cannot offer proximate inferential analysis. Their weakness and flowing vulnerability is obvious- if a target doesn't engage with technology, he/she will be exceptionally challenging to track. As a response, it's crucial that the US possess a robust HUMINT portfolio. Perhaps attempting to navigate hard-target penetration, the CIA is developing capabilities “that minimize or eliminate the need for physical access and enable deep concealment operations against hard targets.”
However, what most interested me is the degree to which the CIA resources covert action efforts - $2.6 billion/annual. That's more than the agency spends on HUMINT operations ($2.3 billion/annual).
My basic (for simplicity sake- only includes commonly known key actors) flow chart on the interrelationships between the primary actors in the Syrian Civil War. In producing this chart, my intention is twofold. First, to provide a basic reference guide. Second, to illustrate the degree to which Syria represents a proxy war between various actors with broader political interests - please see explanations below chart.
Please note - This chart shows actionable relationships (actively hostile/supporting, rather than simply ideologically adversarial) specific to the Syrian civil war. Non-state actors are shaded green and state actors are shaded grey. Red/purple lines indicate a hostile relationship and blue lines constitute an support relationship. As indicated below, a number of relationships are defined by both allied and hostile interactions. Also illustrated, when it comes to this civil war - the enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend.
Ahrar ash-Sham - Anti-Assad Salafist Jihadis.Emerged under the leadership of a core of former prisoners of the Assad regime. Has since grown into a highly capable force. Presents itself as a hybrid Syrian nationalist-Salafist movement. Al-Nusra Front - Anti-Assad Salafist Jihadis. In contrast to the larger regional focus of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Al-Nusra is more focused against Assad. Having said this, the group is accused of participating in the killing of Kurdish civilians in northern Syria (a troubling and under-reported element to the conflict).
Free Syrian Army (FSA) - Formation of anti-Assad rebels. In basic terms, they're the less 'jihadist'/more nationalist counterpart to Al-Nusra. Primary recipient of western military aid.
Lebanese Hizballah - Assad providing the key conduit for Iranian support to Hizballah, the group are resolute in their desire to maintain this critical relationship (even at serious cost).
Iran - Iran is desperate to preserve their key ally. They're providing major investment towards Assad's survival.
Iraq - Facilitates the Iranian logistics train to Assad.
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) - Salafist Jihadis with a regional focus (hence alliance between branches). Possess a pathalogical hatred for Shia Muslims, the West and any/all who oppose their extremism. They oppose Assad, but do so in their larger pursuit of a regional caliphate.
For all their particular disagreements with each other; Assad, the US and Iran are all desperate to constrain this group's growing power. It's notable that while states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are willing to provide support to Al-Nusra, their support for ISIS is far less significant (even they regard ISIS as too extreme).
Jordan - The Jordanians are providing key facilitation for western efforts to train anti-Assad rebels.
Lebanon - Lebanese society is sharply divided on the Syrian civil war. Angered by Assad's onslaught against a majority Sunni population, many Lebanese are vehemently hostile to his regime - a reality from which Hizballah's political opponents are trying to take advantage. In contrast, supporters of Hizballah (and others like Amal and General Aoun) stand in overt support of Assad. As a result of this dichotomy, tensions in Lebanon are increasing.
Peshmerga (Kurdish militia forces) - Responding to reports of sectarian warfare by the Islamic State of Iraq/Al-Nusra against Kurds in northern Syria, the Peshmerga have taken a more active role in the civil war. Qatar - Plays major role in supplying Syrian rebels. This effort represents a broader intent to shape regional events in ways favorable to the monarchy.
Russia - Supports Assad with weapons, funding and international legitimacy.
Saudi Arabia - Supports both nationalist/salafist orientated anti-Assad forces with advanced weaponry. Regards the battleground in Syria as part of a larger proxy fight with Iran.
Turkey - Enraged by what they regard as Syrian govt. propagated terrorism against Turkish citizens, Turkey has become a key opponent of Assad's regime. At present, Syria supports both the FSA and the Al-Nusra Front (though their support for the later may soon dissipate).
US - Seeks Assad's fall, marginalization of Iranian influence and the post-Assad emergence of a nationalist minded, pro-US democratic authority.
*- ISIS still receives substantial funds from ideologically sympathetic individuals in the Gulf monarchies.
If interested, links to my other MENA writings can be found here.
1) Israel is pressuring the Obama Administration to act against Iran. Following his September 2012 red line speech at the UN, Netanyahu is upping the ante once again. The Israelis are anxious for the United States to either enact tougher sanctions against the Iranians, or to more directly imply a willingness to use force. I've argued many times why I believe that Netanyahu (especially) and Israel more generally will eventually use force against Iranian nuclear facilities. For me, the key factor is this: from the Israeli perspective, while the risks of such a military operation are manageable, the consequences of inaction are not. And... unlike US caveats, Israeli red lines mean something. Further heightening the probability of Israeli action is the ongoing situation in Syria. By their undaunted support for Assad, the Lebanese Hizballah and Iran are signalling their desire to dominate the strategic evolution of the Middle East. Which leads us to point 2!
2) The Israelis have attacked a suspected Russian arms transport in Syria. Though no Russians appear to have been killed, this is serious news. The Israeli attack illustrates both Israel's overt tactical intent - to deny Assad access to high technology assets and Israel's broader strategic intent - to send a message to the Russian government (and in different ways, Iran/the US). Anyway, I salute the Israelis for their political courage in face of Russian intimidation- we in the US could learn something here.
3) The British Government has taken a small but significant step to reduce the pernicious consequences of the UK's welfare state. By imposing a cap on individual welfare eligibility, the UK may begin to see a gradual reduction in its massive state outlays. However, as a number of Conservative MP's are pointing out, much more can be done. See my thoughts on the welfare state here.
4) The Zimmerman trial has come to an end. As I argued for The Week, the news coverage was unnecessarily incessant and symptomatic of a broader problem in American society. Regardless, I do not believe that Zimmerman's guilt was established beyond all reasonable doubt - the Jury decision was correct.
However, I have great sympathy for Trayvon Martin's family- they are honoring their son by their highly dignified reaction to the trial outcome. Many others have reacted less impressively.
Warming ties between China and Russia deserve US attention. From their joined support for Assad to their friendship with Iran, both these states have policy alignments that counter US interests.
However, although the US should be cautious in face of this emerging challenge, concern is not necessary. Both China and Russia face serious social pressures in the medium to long term. Russia faces an aging population and a
weakening energy export industry (US energy supplies are more affordable). This will debilitate Russia's ability to wage energy extortion in Europe (a favorite Russia approach of recent years). In a similar vein, as Chinese citizens grow in wealth, education and aspiration, they'll demand more from their Government. The Chinese elite remain sheltered in networks of corruption/patronage and China's politics remain stagnant and obstructive of initiative. In short, China faces a major challenge in fulfilling the demands of her citizens.
This isn't to say that the US is perfect - the national debt proves otherwise. Nonetheless, China and Russia cannot compete with the political stability of the United States. This is their greatest sustaining weakness.
1) The killing of a Pakistani soldier by the Indian military, illustrates the continuing tensions in Kashmir and beyond. I primarily blame Pakistan for this dynamic. Until the Pakistani intelligence service ends its support for anti-Indian terrorists, opportunities for a relationship of greater trust will not be forthcoming. It isn't too good when you have two states who a) hate each other, b) live next to each other, c) are both armed with nuclear weapons. Sadly, it doesn't seem to bother the Pakistani Government when their forces are killed by domestic extremists. Because they don't care, we must.
2) I wouldn't pick Chuck Hagel to be my Secretary of Defense (for one, I think he was wrong to oppose sanctions against Iran), but I'm not the President. And if Obama wants Hagel for the role, I don't believe that Senate Republicans should oppose his nomination. Certainly, AIPAC's opinions of Hagel are irrelevant. Instead, a candidate's selection for this critical cabinet position should be made on the basis of three considerations: capability, knowledge and character. I believe that Hagel meets these standards and I don't believe that his nomination is worth another partisan battle (especially when he's a Republican anyway).
3) Assad is delusional. He still thinks that he has the power to survive. But he is running out of time. His regime is increasingly surrounded and is suffering defections and a dwindling supply of money. The only interesting part of Assad's speech came when he thanked China and Russia for supporting him. Those two states should be ashamed of their positions on the Syrian civil war. As I argued last week, Putin's Russia is a gangster state.
4)China is engaging in increasingly threatening behavior towards Japan. This follows further Chinese belligerence against other regional states like Vietnam. Obama must ensure that we stand firmly with our Pacific allies. And those around the world who hold fashionable anti-American views should also take note.China is no ally to international freedom. Western romanticism over China's economic rise must be tempered by reality.
5) The British Government is looking to fundamentally re-shape their relationship with the EU. This desire stems from two motivations. First, the UK has had to cede sovereignty to the EU and the UK Government now wants these powers repatriated. This is especially relevant in the field of Judicial issues. Second, with the UK economy still struggling, the Conservative Party needs an issue that can galvanize voters to support them. Because of public dissatisfaction with the EU, pushing for reform in this area is seen to present a political opportunity.
6) The Democrats are freaking out because they know that Republicans are going to push for major entitlement reform come the debt limit negotiations in March. As a conservative, for me this issue is simple. While I supported the fiscal cliff deal, I did so in large part because of the need to show conciliation as a foundation for future compromises from the President. Now, if the Democrats refuse substantial spending cuts/entitlement reforms in return for new revenue and a rise to the debt limit, the GOP should simply refuse to raise the debt limit. Again, this is simple. The American people have seen Republicans newly willing to make tough compromises for the sake of the national interest. Americans also understand that major spending cuts are necessary. So, if the Democrats want to be obstinate and refuse such cuts, then that is their prerogative. And their political risk. In such a situation, the Democrats will bear ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe that would stem from a default on the national debt. (Oh... and the 14th amendment debt argument/ platinum coin argument that some Democrats are throwing out... are totally absurd. I will be writing about the 14th issue in more detail next week.)
I believe that Mitt Romney won last night's debate.
I make this assessment on the basis of what each candidate had set out to achieve before the debate began and the manner by which Romney successfully pursued his particular objectives. For Romney, the objectives were clear. 1) Increase his likeability numbers with the American people. 2) Increase the comfort level that American voters have with him re-foreign policy (can he take the 3AM call etc.) but also re-domestic policy 3) Provide a final attack on the President's record over the past four years.
On each of these counts, Romney succeeded. Where the President appeared angry and at times highly condescending, Romney appeared composed and at times even complementary. On the big issues - China, Iran, Russia and terrorism, Romney came across as assured of what he would do as President. Romney ended the debate on an especially strong note, issuing a stinging rebuke of the President's first term and then following that rebuke by delivering a warm, confident closing appeal to American voters.
I felt that the President came across as far too angry and condescending. He made some especially idiotic remarks with reference to the US Military. For example when he responded to Romney's Navy ship numbers comment by saying that the US also doesn't use 'horses' and that 'we have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines'. Obama obviously forgot about the use of horses as an instrumental tool for our Special Forces during the opening stages of operations in Afghanistan. I also thought the President was out of line when he said that he was happy Romney viewed Al Qa'ida as a threat. These were silly statements.
Ultimately, I believe that the opinion polls will continue to trend in Romney's favor. The former Governor showed that he has a grasp of the issues, a clear foreign policy agenda and a comfortable demeanor that will enable him to be an effective President. Once again, he asserted a positive contrast to the angry, record redundant President. The tightening polls show that voters are crying out for a change that they can believe in.
Mitt Romney has showed and is showing that he represents that change.
PS- For a more in depth look at my reasons for supporting Romney's foreign policy, check out my latest op/ed for The Daily Caller
The attack today on Syria's governing elite represents another step towards the fall of the Assad regime. As increasing numbers of the Syrian ruling elite and their families come to understand that Assad is finished, they will abandon him for their own safety. This trend has been accelerating in recent days. To add to his troubles, Assad is running out of money and simultaneously is loosing trust in the loyalty of his armed forces. As I have previously argued, the US should seek to provide more support to Syrian rebel groups while building sustained diplomatic pressure on China and Russia. While I believe that it is ultimately inevitable that Assad's regime will collapse, I also believe that there are still substantial risks in the near future. Primarily, if Assad decides to go "all out" against the rebels, he may consider the use of chemical weapons against Syrian urban centers. He also might dramatically increase his use of conventional force against Syrian civilians in a much more indiscriminate way (sadly this is still possible). In each of these two scenarios the US must be ready to provide direct intervention capabilities to prevent huge loss of life. The consequences of Assad using chemical weapons against his own people or allowing those weapons to fall into the hands of hostile entities would be catastrophic.
