Month: September 2020

As a student of international affairs, I think about why events occurring in one country affect outcomes in another country or region. Sometimes, at first appearance, the significance of events unfolding in one region seem obscure or unrelated to the developments in a different region, but in the hyper-interconnected global economy of the 21st century; what happens in  country (A)  impacts country (B) at a greater magnitude than at any other point in modern history.  Edward Lorenz’s theory might even hold up to scientific scrutiny in the decades ahead, as further advances in AI and the Internet of Things come online.

Recent events across Eurasia has me wondering how Moscow and St. Petersberg might respond. For example, the independent states of Serbia and Kosovo recently normalized economic relations. They formally agreed to a one-year suspension over recognition claims – Serbia agreeing to stop claims that Kosovo does not exist as a sovereign state.

Although measuring the outcomes of normalization requires time, the ability of Serbia and Kosovo to engage in open cross-border commerce will likely have immediate positive economic benefits for both states. For example, removing Kosovo’s 100 percent tax on  Serbian goods will likely benefit the Serbian economy. Moreover, Serbia and Kosovo have mutually agreed to recognize professional licenses and educational certificates from doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Before normalization, academic certificates from Kosovo were not recognized in Serbia and visa versa. The removal of this restriction is likely to have immediate benefits. Moreover, economic normalization might encourage further discussions between the European Union, Kosovar leadership, and Serbian officials regarding the EU accession process, which both states have sought after for years. Finally, Kosovo has agreed to formally recognize Israel and move its embassy to the capital, Jelersiurm, becoming the first Mulsim majority state to do so.

So what does this mean for Russia, and how are the Russians likely to respond?  Provided Serbia’s strong affinity for Russian culture, what impact will this agreement have on Russia – Serbia relations?
What impact, if any, does this have on Israeli – Russian relations?

This week’s reading by Gerard Toal offers a useful framework to approach these questions. Toal’s Geopolitical culture construct provides an interpretative analysis of Russian geopolitical motivations by addressing three distinct fronteers— who are the Russian people, how does this narrative survive, and what does prosperity look like in the Russian context.

Developing these constructs further, Toal describes three Ideological networks, resulting from economic drivers towards modernization, collective national identity narratives that centralize authoritative power, and state-level security capabilities. Held together, Toal’s geopolitical assessment appears to suggest that Russian state actions are driven by the preservation of their national identity coupled with an ambition towards economic modernization.

Assuming Toal’s Geopolitical culture assessment of Russia is accurate, we can begin to build a forward-looking analysis that as the Kosovar and Serbian economies normalize, Russia will likely attempt to pull their economic activity closer towards its orbit.

We can observe a similar occurrence happening in Belarus, where  Russia’s little green men have arrived.  Putin’s commitment of military support for Lukashenko has been widely reported in the last few weeks. It’s reasonable to conclude that backing Lukashenko serves the strategic geopolitical objective of Putin, or what Stephen Kotkin refers to as Russain exceptionalism and the sense of a special mission to correct perceived historical wrongs. As Kotkin points out, as a result of  Russian defeats in the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, and the Cold War, the Soviet Union lost approximately 2 million miles of territory.  This history continues to impact the Russian psyche and what Kotkin calls a sense of perennial vulnerability, humiliation, and a feeling of betrayal at an international scale.

This historical perspective might also give credence to O’Hanlon’s argument that under Putin’s leadership, Moscow and St. Petersberg will likely pursue a geopolitical strategy to recapture post-Soviet space. For example, Russia’s invitation of George and annexation of Crimea might inspire the future playbook whereby the Kremlin attempts to expand territorially inside Baltic states on the assumption that NATO partners will not respond militarily from fear of risking military escalation to a nuclear conflict. And what about the Balkans? Is Russia preparing to reclaim post-Soviet space with an eye on Moldovia, Romania, or even Serbia?

Answers are uncertain, however as international events and new power balances continue to unfold across Eurasia, gauging Russia’s response will remain a key priority to U.S. national security interests. 

In the part of Europe where I grew up, there was a bitter joke about the Soviet armed forces in the 80s of the past century, which were ubiquitous in all Warsaw Pact countries. It went like this: How often does the Red Army get a leave from their camps in Europe? The answer: Every 12 years. 1956 to Budapest (suppression of the Hungarian uprising), 1968 to Prague (intervention of the Prague Spring), and 1980 to Gdansk (suppression of Solidarnosc and the Polish uprising). The joke about the joke was that everyone knew: it wasn’t a joke.

My generation (born in 1968) was perhaps the last to experience one or more of this demonstration of Soviet power – so far, the censored state media has allowed. (The Yugoslav war in 1991 did not fit into this line, nor were the interventionist the same or did they come at the right time.) Reading the Toal piece “Why Does Russia Invade Its Neighbors?”[1] this joke came into my mind.  But while the Soviet Union as a quasi-colonizer of the Eastern Block´s countries ruled with an iron fist to keep the status quo, Russia, is trying to recover it´s “lost world”. Quoting Toal:

Many groups experienced the collapse of the Soviet Union as liberation, but for others, it was a disaster of violence, displacement, and economic ruin.

Speaking of the occupied nations like the above-mentioned ones it was a liberation for sure. The problematic part was that the West (like these days again) was not able to understand the needs of a disintegrating great power and the consequences, and also ignored the advances made by Putin in his earlier years. The West has also failed in offering a functioning social model and a sustainable partnership. A vacuum of ideals and forces has arisen. Nature doesn’t like the vacuum, politics even less. Quoting Putin Trenin describes it in his piece about “Russia´s Breakout from the Post-Cold War System”:

Post-Christian Europeans embraced equality of good and evil, and they distinguished themselves by moral relativism, a very vague sense of identity, and excessive political correctness. European countries have begun renouncing their roots, including Christian values, which underlie Western civilization.[2]

Governing conservative parties in the Central and Eastern parts of Europe follow the same pattern, not without success while keeping up religious values and condemning political correctness as the reason for laming governance and an increasingly apolitical and disinterested population in the west.[3] Creating a modern Russian nation and identity after 70 years of the totalitarian ruling is not something that can be completed overnight and needs an ideological filling.

At this point, I wanted to quote Stephen F. Cohen. We should remember him, one of the best experts on Russia. Far better than me in his book “Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia” (2000) he describes exactly the role and the blame of the United States on the destabilization of post-communist Russia. Prof. Cohen died with 81 this Friday in New York[4]. RIP.

[1] Toal, Gerard. “Why Does Russia Invade Its Neighbors?” Near Abroad: Putin, the West, and the Contest Over Ukraine and the Caucasus. Oxford UP, 2017, pp. 17-54.

[2] Trenin, Dmitri. Russia’s Breakout from the Post-Cold War System: The Drivers of Putin’s Course. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – Moscow Center, 2014, pp. 1-22. ProQuest.

[3] During a meeting with Hungary´s PM Orbán President Putin put it in simple words: “We are not talking about agreements, you just need to help save, restore shrines and parishes” (Pеч не идет о соглашеиях нужно просто пoмоч сохраниться, востановить святыни и приходы) Russkaja Gazeta, 10.30.2019

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/books/stephen-cohen-dead.html

Russian President Vladimir Putin has moved to silence political dissonance with impunity throughout his time in power. The attempted assassination of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a Novichok attack is the most recent and perhaps most dramatic instance of this. Described by the Wall Street Journal as “the man Vladimir Putin fears most,” Navalny plans to return to Russia from Germany once his recovery is complete. This comes as new reports suggest that Putin will again attempt to assassinate him upon his return.

The revelations – which reportedly come from three NATO intelligence sources – claim that Navalny may believe that his back will be shielded by German threats to end its gas pipeline deal with Russia if Navalny’s safety is not guaranteed. However, this judgment may be naive. NATO members have a history of responding in an underwhelming manner to Russian security threats. This trend will likely be exacerbated in the face of Trump’s ever-heightening desire to maintain amicable relations with Putin and the Kremlin.

Last week Microsoft issued a warning that the same Russian military intelligence unit that had attacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016 is once again back at it and hacking campaign staff members on both sides of the aisle. The fact that a company, Microsoft Corporation, is the one to make this information public and not our own federal intelligence agencies also brings the question- do they not know, or do they simply don’t want it to be public knowledge? Brian Murphy, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence division who is now considered a whistleblower, has stated the White House and the Department of Homeland Security withheld information of Russia’s continual interference because it “made the president look bad.”

Judging by the cyber attacks by China and Russia the reports seem to conclude Chinese leaders prefer Biden over Trump. If it is in the best interest for China for Joe Biden to be the next president of the United States, they may not understand how our current president operates. Simply by China trying to assist in somehow disrupting Trump’s campaign lobs a softball over the middle for Trump to attend all his rallies and shout from his soapbox ‘Look how badly China wants me gone.’ Over the past 4 years as Trump oddly touts his friendships with dictators like Putin and Kim Jong-Un, he continually used his rectotic to paint a picture of China as against the American people. 

While Russia’s motivations were not made clear by Microsoft, they said it is the role of U.S. intelligence officials to figure out what information may have been stolen, and for what reason. It certainly feels like no matter what information may have been stolen, nothing will be able to deter Trump supporters from voting for him on November 3rd, but for those still on the fence Russia and/or China may be setting Biden up for the 2020 version of Hilary’s “but her emails” situation. 

 

Sanger, D., & Perlroth, N. (2020, September 10). Russian Intelligence Hackers Are Back, Microsoft Warns, Aiming at Officials of Both Parties. Retrieved September 21, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/us/politics/russian-hacking-microsoft-biden-trump.html

In August, the NYTimes published an article on the almost 1,000-page report by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The panel spent three years investigating the manipulation and agreed that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump win as they viewed his campaign easy to manipulate. The report describes Trump’s campaign as filled with “businessmen with no government experience… working at the fringes of the foreign policy establishment.” However, the Senate did not agree that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia in a “coordinated conspiracy”. This is despite the report showing evidence of communication between campaign advisers and people tied with Russia. President Trump has called the matter a “witch hunt” as it appears this bi-partisan decision decidedly agreed in his favor – that no evidence of an agreement between the Russians and the Trump campaign to work together was found. The NYTimes article explains the problem with the committee: “even though the investigation was carried out in bipartisan fashion, and Republican and Democratic senators reached broad agreement on its most significant conclusions, a partisan divide remained on some of the most politically delicate issues.”

Nonetheless, the Senate is Republican-controlled which I believe makes it easier for them to conclude that there was “no collusion” in 2016. A more recent NYTimes article reported F.B.I director Christopher Wray’s warning that Russia “as actively pursuing a disinformation campaign against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr”. Wray said the reasoning behind this misinformation campaign is Russia thinking that VP Biden is anti-Russia. Wray said the intelligence community has reached a consensus that Russia’s interference in the election is to target Biden. Meanwhile, Trump continues to make light of these warnings and dismisses Russian inference altogether.

As we approach Trump’s potential re-election, it is only too easy for Russia to once again meddle within a group though to be “easily manipulated”, but this approach is interesting and does make sense strategically. Of course, all eyes will be on Trump’s campaign management this time – why not take on a different approach?

In his article, “Russia’s Perpetual Geopolitics”, Stephen Kotkin discusses what he describes as the tendency of Russia to “rely on the state to bridge the gap between itself and the West”, and how the current efforts of Russian President Vladimir Putin are running into the same issues that have plagued previous Russian rulers. Kotkin states that in order for Russia to catch up with the west in terms of living standards and technological sophistication, the Russian state liberalize and create institutions like “a free and professional media”, and an “impartial judiciary”. However, China has managed to become powerful and economically dynamic without liberalizing politically.

This begs the question of whether Russia is capable of doing something similar. Both China and Russia are large “civilization-states” whose people possess what Kotkin describes as “a sense of mission and a being special” as well as resentment towards the west. Both nations are also massive in terms of geographic territories, have large militaries and possess a veto in the UN Security Council which give a global reach.  All these similarities make us ask why is it that China was able to revitalize itself without political liberalization while Russia has not.

Recently, there has been much more activity of Russian fighter jet intercepts of U.S. and NATO joint planes near Crimea.  The U.S., under Pres. Trump, has been increasing pressure on Russia to sign a nuclear weapons treaty ahead of the November 2020 elections.  There has been rising tensions between Russia, alleging that the U.S. and NATO operations in Crimea are undermining their airspace, while NATO is responding back by saying Russia is violating their airspace and conducting dangerous intercepts.

There has also been more NATO warship activity in the Black Sea, and Russia is on edge due to this as well.  Russia’s military has charged that NATO is doing more reconnaissance and military activity, while NATO has fired back there is more dangerous maneuvers by Russian intercepts and the annexation of Crimea in 2014 as an explanation.  These rising tensions are adding to potentially more hostility in an already destabilized region.

References:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/09/20/russian-military-says-us-and-nato-flights-near-crimea-fuel-tensions/

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/us-russia-nuclear-treaty/index.html

For decades the United Stated has struggled to avoid potential nuclear weapon attacks from Middle East; Obama’s government, was engaged tried an approach to listen and keep peace with these countries establishing deals or sanctions such as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but these undergo a different treatment under Trump’s administration. Last month Iran decided to violate the sanctions imposed under JPCOA in part due to Trump’s regime imposing highest pressure on the Country undermining human rights, push down their economy, brought unemployment, poverty, hunger, shortage of medicines, to an almost near collapse. Trump paid no attention to NATO, and disregard all policies and protocols in international security, refusing to make joint efforts therefore diminishing America’s power and influence, indeed Trump’s behavior is arbitrary and threating over Middle east have alienated allied countries such as Germany, Britain, France that don’t support any unilateral decisions in international affairs from Trump’s government.

On the other hand, Trump keeps pursuing goal that not necessarily benefit America’s position on the word, dealing arms with Saudi Arabia, spending a lot of billions of dollars and putting pressure to sell F-35 stealth fighters and advanced armed drones to the United Arab Emirates. Besides the peace deal, went down after Trump attempted to change “land for peace” deal with “money for peace”, in Palestine, but Palestinians did not follow his play and rejected his proposal. Moreover, remarkable failures like Libya’s current situation who is in the midst of a civil war, Egypt going down with military dictator, Yemen in a humanitarian disaster among others, all these latest events highlighted Trump’s lack of strategy absence of moral compass and failure of leadership have damaged America’s prestige.

Greece and Turkey were both admitted to NATO in 1952 with the hope relations between the two nations would improve. This has not necessarily been the case, and tensions between Greece and Turkey have flared up several times in the time since. In 1974, Greece and Turkey nearly went to war over Cyprus. According to Carnegie Europe, it wasn’t so much the NATO alliance that held the peace as it was the United States pressuring the two nations to come to terms, with the US “basically impos[ing] a ceasefire on Turkish forces operating in Cyprus.”

With the United States withdrawing from its leadership role in both NATO and the world, there is growing concern over the latest dispute between Turkey and other members of NATO. The core of this dispute is over energy and territorial waters. Turkey is attempting to drill for oil and gas in the Eastern Mediterranean and has begun venturing into waters claimed by Greece and Cyprus. Turkey claims it has equal rights to those resources, but this is, of course, disputed by Greece and Cyprus. Turkey has sent a drilling ship with a naval escort into Greek waters. Greece has responded with its own navy. Both nations have been conducting naval exercises and exchanging heated words.

Also drawn into this dispute is France, who backs Greece and Cyprus. Earlier this summer on June 10th, a French frigate on a mission for NATO tried to inspect a Tanzanian-flagged cargo ship it suspected was smuggling arms to Libya. It claims it was harassed by Turkish naval vessels accompanying the cargo ship. France accuses Turkey of violating the UN arms embargo. Turkey denies the allegations and claims the French frigate was the aggressor. Reuters reported that NATO conducted an investigation but swept the report under the rug to avoid further antagonizing Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. France has joined Cyprus’ calls for sanctions against Turkey if they fail to withdraw their vessels from Greece and Cyprus’ waters.

Erdoğan has lashed out at French president Emmanuel Macron in recent days, telling him “Don’t mess with Turkey” and accusing him of trying to be a new Napoleon, quite the projection from a man who appears to be determined to revive the Ottoman Empire. Some French commentators have suggested France cannot rely on NATO or Germany to reign in Turkey and must take the lead themselves. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged parties to find a diplomatic solution, but did add “We remain deeply concerned by Turkey’s ongoing operation surveying for natural resources in areas over which Greece and Cyprus assert jurisdiction in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Given President Trump’s relationship with Erdoğan, it seems doubtful the US will take any meaningful action to halt Turkish aggression against fellow NATO members.

When thinking about international security threats and risks to institutions, most likely one of the top institutions that come to mind is the White House. Regardless of who is the temporary tenant in this house, it is an institution filled with symbolism and patriotism for Americans as well as for the rest of the world, and hence it must be protected at all times. 

An attempt to the White House feels like an attempt against stability and security to the entire nation. Therefore, my concern -not my surprise- to the latest report on Saturday that an envelope addressed to President Trump made its way into the White House with ricin in it. 

Ricin is a poisonous substance that with as little as a pea size has an almost immediate killing effect and, worst of all, there is no antidote to it. Hence, the death of the individual in contact with it is guaranteed. 

The FBI agents said that tracking investigations resulted that the envelope came from a woman in Canada and this is still under investigation.

Fortunately, the altered envelope did not get in contact with any human being, thus no one is at risk. However, is it that simple for an envelope to enter the White House? When coming from abroad, does not a piece of mail have to go through different filters when leaving the country of origin and entering the country of destination? Before reaching the White House, does not a piece of mail have to go through different scans and/or filters as well? To me, a regular person, sending a package via post office certainly feels an ordeal since I have to sign paperwork swearing I am not sending chemicals/weapons/guns/gels and even perfumes. Then, how a poisoned envelope can almost reach the President of the United States so easily? 

Many may feel happy about this envelope succeeding in its mission, but my concern goes beyond that. Putting a President under such risk is one of the ultimate international or national security threats of all time! It is certainly not an attack on one but to all! Either those in charge of the White House security do not take this situation seriously or I am giving this situation the superlative weight and importance it truly holds. 

This is exactly why I said before: “my concern, not my surprise” when reading this news yesterday. I am not surprised because in the last years we have heard of similar things and situations (either mail or people breaking into the House) happening quite frequently! Even unheard and silly cases of someone simply breaking into the House gardens by running alone. And then we think if one of the top institutions of the world can be broken in so easily or a poisoned envelope can make its way so close to the President of the Nation, what is left for us? 

In fewer words, if the White House -and the people in it- are so vulnerable to attacks (even silly and simple ones), what can we expect in terms of security? How safe are we in our communities and houses? This concerns me and makes me wonder about the security of normal people. 

Link to the article: https://bit.ly/2RLVpCZ