International Security Course–Fall 2020

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 

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-putin-hasnt-won-the-game-in-belarus/

Belarus is top of mind at the moment as we consider the geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the West. President Lukashenko of Belarus – known as “Europe’s last dictator” – won reelection by a landslide in August, spurring mass protests by the Belarusian opposition amid accusations of election fraud and foreign meddling. Demonstrations gave way to violence and to mass arrests of protestors, garnering unprecedented international attention for Minsk. Amid the unrest, Lukashenko claimed protests were a Western-backed plot to end his rule and expand NATO influence eastward.

Belarus, of course, has deep and longstanding ties with Russia – historical, cultural, political, and economic. Russia has long wanted to absorb Belarus into a union state and is deeply enmeshed with the Belarussian security state. Lukashenko has flirted with the West at times when it’s suited him but has always tacked back toward Russia in an effort to retain power. Last month Belarus secured a 1.5 billion loan from Russia, following a meeting between Lukashenko and Putin.

This Politico article discusses the EU’s role and how it might coax Belarus toward the West.  The article acknowledges that the EU has limited cards to play given that it doesn’t enjoy the strong ties with Belarus that Russia can claim. However, the article suggests that the EU may exert some influence on the people of Belarus by providing humanitarian support to political refugees and to victims of state-backed violence.  Essentially it recommends an EU appeal to Belarusian hearts and minds.

Frankly, I am not convinced that Belarus can be moved in the direction of the West in the short term – particularly given the Russian Federation’s economic leverage – but I will be watching intently.

 

After the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was reconstructed and renamed Serbia and Montenegro in 2003, it eventually ended with  Montenegro’s formal declaration of independence on June 3, 2006 and Serbia’s on June 5, 2006. But on August 30, 2020, in a parliamentary election, the ruling pro-Western Democratic party of Socialists lost its bid for reelection of their candidate Milo Djukanovic who is still serving his term as the President of the country until 2023. The FP thinks this election which did not draw enough global attention, will have some serious repercussions on the international order.

According to the article, the party that will take over the Democratic party of Socialists is a pro-Russian and pro-Serbian alliance, and therefore, Moscow has gained an ally not just within NATO, but potentially within the European Union. So the authors are making a wake-up call to the EU to do something in order to curb Russian President Vladimir Putin’s growing influence in the Balkans. Also, as we know, the country has put sanctions on Russia. But one of the leader of the new coalition of the opposition that won the elections said that their first goal is to lift those sanctions. So, we can clearly see that there is a willingness to reset new diplomatic ties with the Kremlin. But one may ask is it bad of they get along with Russia?

NATO’s expansion eastward is regarded as a threat to Russia. It is believed that “Russia lobbied hard to dissuade Montenegro from joining the alliance, and that in 2016, the Kremlin even went so far as to back a coup attempt.” Regardless, Montenegro joined NATO in 2017. So there is definitely a struggle of power for a grip on that region of the world. Therefore, a pro-Russian foreign policy of the country will be at the expense of NATO and the EU because Russia is already the biggest foreign direct investor in Montenegro. It also wields the Serbian Orthodox Church as a powerful weapon.

As a result, the article highlights the fact that Putin worked through the church to fight Montenegro’s split from Serbia back in 2006 and its NATO bid. So, given the new ruling coalition is mainly made up of Serbian nationalists called the “For the Future of Montenegro” which is backed by the Serbian Orthodox Church, I think that is a very big leverage for Moscow. In fact. it came out that the Moscow-leaning Serbian church is deeply involved in the politics of the country to the extent that the Serbian government was accused of meddling into their elections, which they denied.

A call is made to the international community to watch out for what is developing in that small country in the Balkans because as Russian influence grows, conflict could rise as well. Moreover, Montenegro is a geostrategic positioning for Russia because of its location on the Adriatic Sea and its associated naval presence. So clearly, Russia wants to control that area. So in the midst of all these struggles, the article recommended that the EU must accelerate the membership of Montenegro and NATO must have a cybersecurity hub headquartered in there to counter “Moscow’s increasingly aggressive cyberintrusions and troll farms in the region.”Personally, I second that because cybersecurity is  one of the biggest issues of our modern world we are facing; and if Russia could meddle into U.S. elections how much less with a tiny nation less than one million inhabitants?

Finally, Serbia which is still in the midst of its own negotiations has received warnings from the EU for a continual interference in Montenegro politics and for being a foothold of Russia. I think that at this juncture, Serbia will have to take a stand as to whether it will be on the EU side or the Russian’s because as the article concluded, “Serbia’s relations with Montenegro will be the litmus test for whether or not Serbia is shifting its foreign-policy goals toward the West.”

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/17/montenegro-latest-domino-fall-russia-pro-west-europe-nato/

Eugene Rumer and Richard Sokolsky, both who are with the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, collaborated on a piece published in Time called  How to Reset U.S.-Russian Relations Today. In this article, Rumer and Sokolsky both give the evident notion of the continuous souring relationship between the United States and Russia today, that gives insight how the relationship has declined as each US Presidential administration came and went dating back to the days of the Clinton Administration. While the majority of the blame on this vexed relationship falls to Moscow, it does not necessarily mean the US cannot be exempt from criticism on its part as it too has had a role in why the relationship between the two nations are at at the point where it is at currently, and possibly could be a the point of no return if things do not improve.

One pro founding point that Rumer and Sokolsky point out is the Clinton, Bush and Obama presidencies had the same policies regarding Russia but of course produced different results. The polices that these previous three administrations were revolved on the ideas that “a refusal to accept Russia for what it was and insistence that it reform itself to better fit the image of what U.S. policymakers thought Russia should look like; and the view that NATO was the only legitimate European security organization, while expanding it ever deeper into the former Soviet lands.” Of course Russia would flat out reject this, but regardless of the stiff necked rejection of these polices by Moscow, the US went on with it anyway with it on and bold idea that Russia would sooner or later accept the notion that what the US is doing is good for them and uses an clever phrase known as the “spinach treatment” as Russia in this scenario are the children that “don’t like spinach, but should eat it because it’s good for them.”

Rumer and Sokolsky start off by examining the Clinton administration policies against Russia that stressed the need for democracy, reforms, and a free market system in Russia and a strong bond between Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. However, not seeing eye to eye on Russian reform progress, NATO expansion, and Kosovo deterred this relationship and both sides grew hostile of each other. Then came the Bush administration, with a commitment with Vladimir Putin that emphasized democracy, free markets, and rule of law which too was short lived by agreements over Iraq, NATO expansion and Russian democracy and went further downhill when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and claimed that the former Soviet territories off limits to NATO.

The Obama administration sought out a restart of the Russian- US relationship which focused on Russia liberalizing its politics and modernizing its economy, which proved unrealistic to the extreme and was even worsened with Russia invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea and followed by the interference in the 2016 US presidential election. The Trump administration sought out a restart too, but its efforts were tainted by scandals and investigations related to Russia. Despite the usefulness of sanctions, Rumer and Sokolsky argue that its become not just a policy tool, but a replacement for it which speaks volumes. At this point and time it is clearly evident that the US-Russia relationship is at a standstill and signs of improvement are nowhere to be found.

The overall point that Rumer and Sokolsky make in regards to this topic on US-Russia relations is that the US must accept the reality on who Russia really is and is not going to change who it is or what it does to suit US agenda and to continue such a policy which aims to change Russia to suit the US is dead and gone. The issue that they also point out at the end of the article is the issue that has plagued the US is that they were committed to an approaching that focused on transforming rather than pragmatic objectives which is why the US has failed in its efforts with Russia and the relationship is where its at currently. So with that being said, its time for the US to focus on the issues important and critical to the US, and to simply the US-Russia differences must be managed instead of finding solutions to perhaps problems that tend to be insoluble.

With this article I read, I think back to one particular reading that was assigned to us regarding Russia by Michael McFaul called “Russia As It Is”, which McFaul outlines the the same sentiment that Rumer and Sokolsky outlined in this article,  the only two differences I see are with McFaul is that he goes into details specifically what transpired between the two nations that has led them to the deadlock to this day and also in terms of handling Moscow, while both McFaul and Rumer and Sokolsky agree that we must face the reality that Russia will be Russia and will not change for anyone, McFaul goes even further in explaining ways the US still can confront the threat that  Russia still poses.

In my opinion, while I agree with Rumer and Sokolsky that the US has to manage the differences between the two, it is also vital we as McFaul argues also to monitor Russia and to make sure they are not undermining democracy in other places, especially vulnerable areas such as the former Soviet states. Not only monitor them geopolitically, but also in the cyber world and in areas of basic liberties and so on. Russia has its goals in mind, and it is to become a great superpower it used to be, and it will not stop until it becomes that, no matter the risk from what it looks like. Cooperation isn’t out of the question as it is still feasible,  however, it is pointless at this time to seek a transformation policy since Russia will always be Russia and will never change, that is at least as long as Putin is the Head Man in Charge at the Kremlin. But its clear that the Russia problem cannot be fixed, and whoever is next to lead the two respective nations, must learn from the past and seize the moment if there is an chance of mending a declining relationship.

 

Also if interested, there is addition report that Rumer and Sokolsky that dives further into US/Russia Relations and the whether or not it can be fixed for those interested: Thirty Years of U.S. Policy toward Russia: Can the Vicious Circle Be Broken?”

 

 

 

 

 

Christian Brose suggested in his reading that the United States is not taking technological data and information serious towards the new future of military defense. In Brose’s point of view, he sees that the U.S is lacking behind in its military system, he argues that firstly, the U.S is stuck with the traditional system of weapons and platforms and only renews existing models. Secondly, he states that the U.S. holds the ideology that it would never be defeated by any opponent. However, the author asserted that while the U.S. was busy with the Middle East invasions, adversaries such as China and Russia have been advancing their weaponry systems, introducing advanced technology such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic sensors and ubiquitous sensors. He added that China is collecting data and information like it is collecting oil while the U.S. isn’t making the most out of its own. There is no doubt that the future will revolve around advanced technology and I agree with him on what he said that militaries that do embrace and adapt to technologies will dominate those that do not.[1]

The defense system in the U.S. has been elaborated in this reading by former secretary of defense Robert Gates, he mentioned that the budget plan is set for a time duration of 5 years and any changes are mostly unwelcomed, and this is because bureaucratic systems are dedicated to keep programs intact and funded, also companies that built the equipment’s wouldn’t want to change for a new plan because they are already profiting from traditional systems and also members in congress whom some would be accepting the transition and some would not.

Finally, he called on the United States to have a more transparent and find ways to get over the concept of no state can defeat it and to utilize data and technology in a better way. Also focusing on kill chains and. But what I don’t agree with the Christian on is when he claimed that autonomous weapons will do a better job on detecting targets and adversaries and then stated the ethical concerns. To me I found it very contradicting in the same paragraph to consider a “machine” to not have any sort of errors in its system and detect for instance the wrong people would that still be considered ethical? I don’t think so. One of the parts that I found interesting to me when he proposed the idea of having smaller swarms of intelligent systems that are distributed instead of heavy and fewer targets that can be easily determined by opponents.

[1]Christian Brose, “The New Revolution of Military Affairs” , May 2019

One of the most pressing threats to national security is the ongoing offensive waged by Trump’s sycophants against the truth. Late last week, Department of Homeland Security documents obtained by the New York Times show that an official whistleblower complaint had been filed last Wednesday over concerns that top DHS officials were pressuring agents to downplay intelligence detailing the threats posed by violent white supremacist groups and Russian interference in the upcoming election. Unlike Ukrainegate, the whistleblower has been identified to be Brian Murphy – the former head of the DHS intelligence arm. The complaint details concerns that the department is becoming increasingly politicized and is sacrificing transparency and truth in order to help the President in his reelection campaign.

Mr. Murphy alleges that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf requested that he cease reporting on the ongoing Russian disinformation campaign aimed at denigrating President Trump’s opponent Former V.P. Joe Biden and instead focus on China and Iran. While the two powers also have invested interest in the outcome of the upcoming election, it is the consensus of the intelligence community that while they prefer a Biden victory, they are not actively seeking to undermine electoral institutions in the same way that the Russians are. Mr. Murphy cited concerns that such action undermined U.S. national security. In a separate instance, Mr. Murphy was instructed by Kevin Cuccinelli – Acting Secretary Wolf’s right-hand man – to distort intelligence gathered on white supremacist groups in such a way to make them appear as less of a national security threat than left-wing groups.

While Mr. Trump has made no secret his ire for the intelligence community, these developments are worrying. The traditionally apolitical organs of government aimed at keeping U.S. citizens safe are being influenced by unconfirmed Trump appointees (the King’s men, if you will) in such a way that transparency and honest intelligence gathering are being sacrificed at the altar of Mr. Trump’s reelection chances.