Seven Worst-Case Scenarios in the Battle with the Islamic State

by Tom Engelhardt

October 18th, 2014  

Source Link

by Peter Van Buren

You know the joke? You describe something obviously heading for disaster — a friend crossing Death Valley with next to no gas in his car — and then add, “What could possibly go wrong?”

Such is the Middle East today. The U.S. is again at war there, bombing freely across Iraq and Syria, advising here, droning there, coalition-building in the region to loop in a little more firepower from a collection of recalcitrant allies, and searching desperately for some non-American boots to put on the ground.

Here, then, are seven worst-case scenarios in a part of the world where the worst case has regularly been the best that’s on offer. After all, with all that military power being brought to bear on the planet’s most volatile region, what could possibly go wrong?

1. The Kurds

The lands the Kurds generally consider their own have long been divided among Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. None of those countries wish to give up any territory to an independence-minded ethnic minority, no less find a powerful, oil-fueled Kurdish state on their borders.

In Turkey, the Kurdish-inhabited border area with Iraq has for years been a low-level war zone, with the powerful Turkish military shelling, bombing, and occasionally sending in its army to attack rebels there. In Iran, the Kurdish population is smaller than in Iraq and the border area between the two countries more open for accommodation and trade. (The Iranians, for instance, reportedly refine oil for the Iraqi Kurds, who put it on the black market and also buy natural gas from Iran.) That country has nonetheless shelled the Kurdish border area from time to time.

The Kurds have been fighting for a state of their own since at least 1923. Inside Iraq today, they are in every practical sense a de facto independent state with their own government and military. Since 2003, they have been strong enough to challenge the Shia government in Baghdad far more aggressively than they have. Their desire to do so has been constrained by pressure from Washington to keep Iraq whole. In June, however, their military, the Peshmerga, seized the disputed, oil-rich city of Kirkuk in the wake of the collapse of the Iraqi army in Mosul and other northern cities in the face of the militants of the Islamic State (IS). Lacking any alternative, the Obama administration let the Kurds move in.

The Peshmerga are a big part of the current problem. In a near-desperate need for some semi-competent proxy force, the U.S. and its NATO allies are now arming and training them, serving as their air force in a big way, and backing them as they inch into territory still in dispute with Baghdad as an expedient response to the new “caliphate.” This only means that, in the future, Washington will have to face the problem of how to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle if the Islamic State is ever pushed back or broken.

Photos: The battle for Kobane, revealed by U.N. satellite imagery

By Rick Noack 

October 20, 2014

Source Link

Photos depicting the ongoing battle against the Islamic State are hard to come by, with many of the most prominent images often taken by the militants themselves. Since the world's focus shifted to the northern Syrian city of Kobane, a Kurdish haven located right next to the Turkish border, that has changed. There has been no shortage of dramatic footage, filmed from relative safety across the border in Turkey. 

Smoke rises after a U.S.-led coalition airstrike on Kobane, Syria, as seen from the Turkish side of the border, near Suruc district, Sanliurfa, Turkey, 18 October 2014. (EPA/TOLGA BOZOGLU) 

New satellite images -- released by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research and shot by Digital Globe -- offer another perspective. The pictures show from bird's eye view how Kobane has turned into a war zone. The first set of pictures was shot Sept. 6, a few weeks before the fighting in the city reached international front pages. The second set of images was taken last Wednesday, Oct. 15. 

On their flight, Syrians abandoned their cars at a border crossing 

This is one of the most striking photo comparisons, although it does not show any actual destruction. Syrian refugees who fled the battle zone left their cars on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey. 

Many Syrian refugees now live in this camp nearby 

These satellite images depict a refugee camp, built within weeks on the Turkish side of the border. While fighting continues only a few kilometers away from the camp, many refugees have decided to travel farther. Some of the estimated 200,000 residents of Kobane and surrounding villages who have fled said they didn't feel welcome in Turkey and have headed to the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq. Many of them were forced to leave without being able to take their belongings across the Turkish border. 

"We left everything, apart from this,” a young woman told France 24television, pointing at rolls of bedding and some shopping bags. "We don't have anything. We just ran.” 

If Kobane's citizens were able to return, they would find a largely destroyed city 

Days of fighting have left many of the city's buildings destroyed. Houses have turned into craters. The United Nations does not specify whether the damage visible in the pictures was caused by the Islamic State militants, Kurdish fighters or airstrikes conducted by the U.S.-led alliance against the Islamic State. 

DESTROY ISIL’S HEAVY WEAPONS AND VEHICLES: LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD

David Shlapak and David Frelinger

October 20, 2014 

President Obama has committed U.S. power and prestige to assist local Iraqi and Kurdish forces in their battle against the brutal terrorists. To succor the hard-pressed defenders, the U.S. military, along with its partners, must degrade ISIL’s front-line forces and its support infrastructure using the coalition’s selected means of air power. To date, and to all appearances, the coalition has done less than is needed to achieve these goals, despite having in hand all the necessary resources to do so.

The ability of air power alone to “destroy” ISIL—the verb the administration continues to employ in describing its objectives—on the other hand, cannot be debated. It can’t. Indeed, the ability of any military action—especially on the part of external actors—to “destroy” an insurgent group is questionable, based on the historical record.

Iraqi and Kurdish forces—it is reported—have found themselves outgunned by ISIL’s handful of combat vehicles and heavy weapons. There is, however, no reason why ISIL should be able to employ these weapons if the United States and its partners are willing to commit the necessary aerial wherewithal to prevent it. Indeed, the United States and its partners should set as a specific objective eliminating ISIL’s ability to employ combat vehicles and heavy weapons in offensive operations, and commit the necessary resources to accomplish that task in a prompt and decisive manner.

The northern Syrian city of Kobane, like most of the areas under ISIL attack, sits well within reach of coalition air power. Given ISIL’s lack of sophisticated air defense weapons, there is little to prevent the coalition from maintaining a combat air patrol—a “strike CAP”— over the city (or any place besieged by ISIL) and its environs. Instead, however, the Coalition appears to be employing its air power in “penny packets” of insufficient volume and without the persistence necessary to reliably engage and destroy ISIL’s heavy weapons whenever they reveal themselves.

Turning the tide on ISIL’s murderous offensive cannot be accomplished with pinpricks, as others have observed. The morale of those resisting ISIL attacks cannot be restored when, in spite of the promises made by the President and the demonstrated capabilities of U.S. air power, they continue to confront ISIL tanks in the field and suffer bombardment from ISIL artillery.

The coalition has been targeting ISIL’s vehicles, but with insufficient urgency given the situation on the ground in Kobane and elsewhere. No Syrian or Iraqi city need find itself under attack by ISIL tanks and artillery for more than the time needed to vector a strike aircraft from the nearest orbit or launch one from the closest airbase.

There is nothing particularly new about this concept. U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine airmen routinely provide similar responsive support to U.S. troops on the ground. The United States does not lack the tools.

Tanks and artillery pieces can remain hidden in cities or caves, but by and large they must emerge and expose themselves if they are to support an attack. At the very least, they reveal themselves when fired to the array of sensors that the coalition has available. The persistent presence of coalition surveillance and combat aircraft overhead would make using these weapons—the weapons that have provided ISIL with much of its advantage over its adversaries—very risky. Experience in Iraq indicates that insurgents tend to lie low in the presence of lethal air power, which would be a victory in itself. An idle ISIL is one not expanding its territory, nor consolidating that which it already dominates.

US-Partnered Forces Are Brutalizing Sunnis In Iraq

TRACEY SHELTON, GLOBALPOST

OCT. 17, 2014

Source Link

Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty ImagesIraqi Shiite militia fighters raise up their weapons as they celebrate pushing back ISIS militants on Sept. 3, 2014, on the road between Amerli and Tikrit, in Iraq.

Executing hundreds of prisoners without trial. Arbitrarily arresting villagers along sectarian lines. Hanging bodies from power lines to instill fear in the local community. Gunning down dozens of civilians as they gather to pray.

If this sounds like a checklist for the Islamic State, or ISIS, try looking across the front line at one of the United States’ key allies on the ground.

While the world is focused on the ISIS terror threat, the US-trained and backed Iraqi government forces and their band of ruthless Shia militia groups have been carrying out atrocities of their own against Sunni civilians, on a scale that in some ways parallels their “terrorist” counterparts.

“Atrocities are being committed on both sides [by government-backed Shia militias and ISIS],” said Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International's senior crisis response adviser. “The crimes being committed by Shia militias throughout Iraq amount to war crimes. These are not one-off cases. They are systematic and widespread.”

They arrest, murder and kidnap for ransom. They have burned or bombed Sunni mosques, killing scores of people.

The Sunni extremist IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has grabbed headlines with their ruthless tactics in Iraq. Their systematic executions of Yazidis, Shia Muslims and Western hostages have been widely reported.

But Sunni civilians have also suffered. They are often labeled “terrorists” or “Islamic State supporters” by Iraqi authorities and civilians alike based on no more than ethnicity or sect. They also face arbitrary arrests and even execution at the hands of government forces.

“The Kurds and minority groups have places that are relatively safe within the [Kurdish region]. Shias also have safe havens and Iraqi government protection, but for Sunni families it is really tough,” said Rovera. “Most are really quite terrified, especially the Sunni males and parents with young sons.”

An Amnesty International report released Tuesday titled "Absolute Impunity: Militia rule in Iraq," documented hundreds of abductions of Sunni civilians by Shia militias. In Samarra alone, an area that sits on the ISIS-Iraqi government border, Amnesty outlined 170 abduction cases since June. In many instances the groups demanded ransoms from family members, only to kill their loved ones after payment.

Iraqi lawyer Kassim Ali, who has dedicated his career to fighting for Sunni rights, said the bodies of victims of Shia militia groups were sometimes displayed in the streets of his hometown Baquba to “deter anyone from sympathizing with ISIS.”

He personally has seen four Sunni men hanging from electricity poles. Local reports from July 29 described 15 bodies displayed in the Baquba public square that day. 

“For the past two years these militias have been regularly searching Sunni homes without just cause, breaking and destroying everything,” said Ali, who has fled since receiving death threats. “They arrest, murder and kidnap for ransom. They have burned or bombed Sunni mosques throughout Diyala [province], killing scores of people.”

Ali listed the names of Sunnis killed this year in town after town across Diyala, where Baquba is located. The province neighboring Baghdad has been a hotbed of sectarian violence for years. Some of the Sunnis he named were killed in attacks on places of worship, including an Aug. 22 attack on a mosque in the village of Bani Wais. 

Medical authorities reported at least 73 were gunned down as they attended Friday prayers and YouTube footage shows bodies lying across the mosque floor, including at least one child.

The Reign of ‘Terror’

By TOMIS KAPITAN

OCTOBER 19, 2014

Source Link 

The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.

When President Barack Obama spoke to the public in September about his decision to use American military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria he used familiar language. ISIS (or ISIL as the White House and others refer to the group), the president said, “is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” The man picked to manage Obama’s strategy, General John R. Allen, wrote in the publication Defense One that “the Islamic State is an entity beyond the pale of humanity and it must be eradicated.”

The powerful rhetoric centered on the word “terrorism” makes it difficult to speak intelligently about its real sources.

It is undeniable that many of the tactics being used by ISIS — executions of civilians and well publicized beheadings of hostages — do violate accepted standards of conduct in conflict (detailed in an evolving legal and philosophical code known as just war theory.) And understandably, those moved by language of the sort used by the president and his staff are in no mood to consider softer tactics like negotiation with ISIS, nor to ponder the complex causes contributing to its rise. Obama’s stated policy of removing the “cancer” threatening the established political order in the Middle East is already underway, and is facing little resistance.

This is merely the latest example of a powerful rhetoric centered on the word “terrorism” that has shaped — and continues to shape — popular conceptions about contemporary political conflicts, making it difficult to speak intelligently about their real sources.

If individuals and groups are portrayed as irrational, barbaric, and beyond the pale of negotiation and compromise, as this rhetoric would have it, then asking why they resort to terrorism is viewed as pointless, needlessly accommodating, or, at best, mere pathological curiosity. Those normally inclined to ask “Why?” are in danger of being labeled “soft” on terrorism, while the more militant use the “terrorist” label to blur the distinction between critical examination and appeasement.

*

Part of the success of this rhetoric traces to the fact that there is no consensus about the meaning of “terrorism.” While it is typically understood to mean politically motivated violence directed against civilians, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Defense, for example, describe terrorism as the unlawful use of violence to achieve political goals by coercing governments or societies. The State Department cites a legal definition of “terrorism” as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.” It adds: “The term ‘noncombatant’ is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty.” Thus, by means of linguistic gerrymander, members of uniformed government military forces acting under government authorization are incapable of committing acts of terrorism no matter how many civilians are ground up in the process.

When violent political groups like ISIS are labeled as irrational and barbaric, asking why they resort to terrorism becomes pointless.

Even when a definition is agreed upon, the rhetoric of “terror” is applied both selectively and inconsistently. In the mainstream American media, the “terrorist” label is usually reserved for those opposed to the policies of the U.S. and its allies. By contrast, some acts of violence that constitute terrorism under most definitions are not identified as such — for instance, the massacre of over 2000 Palestinian civilians in the Beirut refugee camps in 1982 or the killings of more than 3000 civilians in Nicaragua by “contra” rebels during the 1980s, or the genocide that took the lives of at least a half million Rwandans in 1994. At the opposite end of the spectrum, some actions that do not qualify as terrorism are labeled as such — that would include attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah or ISIS, for instance, against uniformed soldiers on duty.

Historically, the rhetoric of terror has been used by those in power not only to sway public opinion, but to direct attention away their own acts of terror. Yet, to the fair-minded, the attempt by governments to justify bombardment of residential districts, schools and hospitals in the name of fighting terrorism is outright hypocrisy. Government forces have long provided outstanding examples of politically-motivated violence against civilians, the very thing they allegedly oppose. Claims about not “targeting” civilians ring hollow when it is quite obvious that high-tech explosives are aimed at buildings known to contain civilians.

If what is insidious about terrorism is its callous disregard for civilian lives in pursuit of political goals, why is there not an uproar about state terrorism? Why do so many reserve their venom for people whose destructive capacity pales in comparison with those who command tanks, artillery and warplanes?

It is easy to lose sight of inconsistencies in wartime hostilities. Instead, the emotional impact of language tends to triumph at the expense of accuracy and fairness. By effectively placing designated individuals or groups outside the norms of acceptable social and political behavior, the rhetoric of “terror” has had these effects:

1) It erases any incentive the public might have to understand the nature and origins of their grievances so that the possible legitimacy of their demands will not be raised.

2) It deflects attention away from one’s own policies that might have contributed to their grievances.

3) It repudiates any calls for negotiation.

Israel: The War Moves To Egypt

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/israel/articles/20141021.aspx

October 21, 2014: Hamas recently proclaimed that it has resumed building tunnels into Israel that would support terrorist attacks. In response Israel said it would not allow the necessary construction materials used for those tunnels to be shipped into Gaza from Israel until Hamas provided guarantees that it was not breaking the ceasefire agreement that allows construction materials in as long as these items are monitored and there is proof they were used for legitimate reconstruction rather than for military purposes. The recent Hamas declaration was in violation of that agreement, brokered by the UN, and Hamas appears to believe they can get away with that.

In the last week Palestinians have staged more violent encounters in and around the al Aqsa mosque (which is just above the Wailing Wall, a popular Jewish holy place and tourist attraction). The last time the violence got out of hand was in 2010 when Palestinians threw stones at people below. The Palestinians were protesting Israeli settlers and Israeli policies in general. This happens periodically, even though Israeli security forces try to keep Palestinian troublemakers out of al Aqsa. Israeli police have to go into al Aqsa to deal with these disturbances before they lead to serious injuries. This usually results in even more violence before the police can haul everyone out. This is then denounced as an Israeli atrocity against Palestinians and Islam. The Palestinians feel it is a religious obligation to attack Jewish religious shrines everywhere (especially in the West Bank where some are also Islamic holy places.) This attitude is common throughout the Islamic world but especially among Arabs.

It was recently revealed that Israel had quietly and anonymously contributed some vital targeting information for the air campaign against ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) in Iraq (and possibly Syria as well). It wasn’t that the U.S. doesn’t have spy satellites and agents that could have provided this, but the Israeli fleet of spy satellites does not have worldwide responsibilities and spend most of their time over Middle Eastern nations and have been doing so for a long time. Moreover the Israeli espionage network in the region is second to none. Thus the Israelis had data right now that it would take weeks, months or longer for American satellites and agents to collect. The Israeli contribution were kept quiet and Israeli data had been “scrubbed” to remove any evidence that it was from Israel. But none of the Arab nations contributing warplanes to the operation were surprised and, except for Iran (which openly insists ISIL is an invention of the Americans, British and Israel) no one complained.

Despite Iranian cooperation in the fight against ISIL, Iranian leaders continue to accuse the United States, Britain and Israel for creating ISIL. This was done (the details of how vary depending on which senior cleric is making the accusations) to weaken Islam and give the West an excuse to kill Moslems. Conspiracy theories that absolve Moslems of responsibility for problems they created have long been common and popular in the Islamic world.

October 19, 2014: In Egypt (Sinai) a roadside bomb killed seven soldiers.

October 18, 2014: On the Egyptian side of the Gaza border three Egyptian soldiers died when a smuggling collapsed on them as they were rigging it with explosives to destroy it. Poorly built tunnels regularly collapse without warning, often killing the Palestinians or Egyptians who operate the tunnels.

October 17, 2014: On the Syrian border two more badly wounded Syrians were allowed in and sent to an Israeli hospital for medical care. Since 2011 398 Syrians have received such treatment. In 2013 Israel set up a military field hospital on the Golan Heights to deal with the growing number of wounded Syrians coming up to the border seeking care. Israel has let some of these in and treated them in Israeli hospitals, but considers doing this long-term a security risk. So the field hospital will be able to treat all but the most seriously injured right near the Syrian border. The most seriously injured are transferred to Israeli hospitals.

October 16, 2014: While visiting Iran the leader of Islamic terrorist group Islamic Jihad (an Iran backed terror group that is a Hamas rival in Gaza) publically thanked Iran for its help in the recent war with Israel. Islamic Jihad has long threatened to start an armed rebellion against Hamas because of perceived treason by Hamas against Islam. Islamic Jihad continues to take aid, and instructions, from Iran. Islamic Jihad takes credit for many of the rocket attacks from Gaza that break ceasefire agreements negotiated between Hamas and Israel. This aggression got Islamic Jihad criticized by the UN, which is usually condemning Israel for defending itself. Before the recent 50 day war the consensus was that Islamic Jihad was trying to goad Israel into attacking Gaza again. Such an attack would force Hamas to try to defend Gaza which would cause heavy Hamas casualties and make it easier for Islamic Jihad to oust Hamas by force later on. Many in Hamas see this as an effort by Iran to weaken Hamas, because Hamas began openly supporting the Syrian rebels in late 2013 and Iran was not pleased. That cost Hamas over a million dollars a month in Iranian cash and caused a lot of dissent within Hamas. Some Hamas men have gone to Syria to fight against the rebels and Hamas is still trying to work out some kind of deal that would allow them to maintain support from both Iran and the Sunni Arab oil states that support the Syrian rebels. That would be quite a feat, but for an organization that believes it will eventually destroy Israel, nothing is impossible. Hamas is also facing more pressure in Gaza from moderates who are angry over the economic problems and Hamas attempts to impose Islamic conservative lifestyle rules. Hamas sees these moderates as potential traitors and probably allies with pro-Fatah groups. The recent peace deal with Fatah made it clear that Fatah still had a lot of supporters in Gaza. Actually many of these “supporters” are really just Gazans who are willing to do anything to diminish Hamas power in Gaza.

Preparing for War Against the US on All Fronts—A Net Assessment of Russia’s Defense and Foreign Policy Since the Start of 2014

By: Pavel Felgenhauer

October 16, 2014

Source Link

(Source: ITAR-TASS)

In a series of recently published interviews, President Vladimir Putin (kremlin.ru, October 15), Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev (Interfax, October 15) and national security council secretary Nikolai Patrushev (Rossiyskaya Gazeta, October 15) have outlined Moscow’s strategic vision of the world after the Ukrainian crisis, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the Moscow-inspired proxy war in the southeastern Donbas region of Ukraine, and resulting punitive sanctions imposed by the West. The view from Moscow is uninviting—A new cold war with the West is in the making; Russia is under attack and will use all means at its disposal to resist, including the nuclear option. Putin accused Washington of deliberately provoking the Ukraine crisis by supporting extreme nationalists in Kyiv, which in turn ignited a civil war. “Now they [the United States] accuse us of causing this crisis,” exclaimed Putin, “It is madness to blackmail Russia; let them remember, a discord between major nuclear powers may undermine strategic stability” (kremlin.ru, October 15).

Under mounting Western pressure this year, Russian leaders have been repeatedly and unambiguously reminding the West of the ultimate weapon at Moscow’s disposal—nuclear mutual assured destruction. The Russian military is also rearming and conducting massive exercises, preparing for a possible global war. The consensus view in Moscow within the political, military and intelligence community is that relations with the United States are beyond repair and, quoting Medvedev, there is no possibility of any new US-Russian “reset.” Moscow has come to believe that there is no possibility of any genuine détente with Washington until 2020 at the earliest. Indeed, National Security Council Secretary Patrushev’s interview in the official government-published Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper has the title: “Second Cold War.” Patrushev openly describes the US as Russia’s eternal foe and accuses Washington of planning for many decades to fully isolate Moscow and deprive it of any influence in its former dominions in the post-Soviet space. Patrushev announced (which seems to be an officially held policy opinion) that the US is today fulfilling a strategic plan to marginalize and destroy Russia—a strategy that he says was initiated in the 1970s by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the then–United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter.

The US is now seen in Moscow as irredeemable and determined to destroy Russia, which must resist by reinforcing and rearming its military, investing in technological independence (the so-called import replacement or “importozamescheniye”), and by building a world-wide anti-US alliance. To that effect, over the past year, Moscow has been strengthening its ties with Beijing. In particular, Russia has been opening itself up to Chinese investment, seeking much needed hard currency liquidity in the Chinese banking system, as well as looking for Chinese technologies (including civilian, double-use and maybe eventually military) to replace those technologies, materials, components and investments that are not forthcoming from the West because of punitive sanctions. Patrushev, in his interview, confirmed that Russian strategic planners see in the future a divided multipolar world with increasingly scarce natural resources (oil, gas, food, clear water) where Russia could dominate resource-poor Europe (see EDM, October 9). Moreover, Washington is believed to have deliberately provoked the Ukrainian crisis to reinforce the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and blackmail its allies into full submission. As Patrushev argues, Russia, in turn, must build alliances with non-European emerging powers like China, while working to undermine the Transatlantic link to liberate Europeans from US domination.

Patrushev spells out what most of the Moscow ruling elite believes: Europeans, as well as misguided Ukrainians will soon inevitably see reason and understand that without Russia and its supplies of various natural resources, they cannot survive; whereas, Russia can do without them thanks to its warm strategic embrace with China. Moscow will not withdraw from Crimea and will not give up on its attempts to prevent Ukraine from moving closer to NATO or the European Union. Actual fighting in the Donbas region may die down as the ceasefire line of control continues to be slowly and painfully established, but the overarching new cold war with the US will endure and Ukraine shall be a major battleground—though not the only one. Therefore, the Kremlin is preparing to fight the United States on all possible fronts to push back US attempts to “contain” Russia. In line with the plans reiterated this year, additional Russian forces will be deployed in the Arctic to fend off a possible US assault. Moreover, dozens of Cold War–era military bases and airfields will be reinvigorated across the whole of the Russian Arctic; troops will be deployed together with bombers and MiG-31 interceptors. In addition, new or reinforced military garrisons will be deployed in Crimea, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan (Rossiyskaya Gazeta, October 15).

***** Wake Up, Europe

George Soros

NOVEMBER 20, 2014 

The following article will appear in The New York Review’s November 20 issue. 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/wake-up-europe/?insrc=hpma 

Petro Poroshenko and Vladimir Putin; drawing by James Ferguson

Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence. Neither the European leaders nor their citizens are fully aware of this challenge or know how best to deal with it. I attribute this mainly to the fact that the European Union in general and the eurozone in particular lost their way after the financial crisis of 2008. 

The fiscal rules that currently prevail in Europe have aroused a lot of popular resentment. Anti-Europe parties captured nearly 30 percent of the seats in the latest elections for the European Parliament but they had no realistic alternative to the EU to point to until recently. Now Russia is presenting an alternative that poses a fundamental challenge to the values and principles on which the European Union was originally founded. It is based on the use of force that manifests itself in repression at home and aggression abroad, as opposed to the rule of law. What is shocking is that Vladimir Putin’s Russia has proved to be in some ways superior to the European Union—more flexible and constantly springing surprises. That has given it a tactical advantage, at least in the near term. 

Europe and the United States—each for its own reasons—are determined to avoid any direct military confrontation with Russia. Russia is taking advantage of their reluctance. Violating its treaty obligations, Russia has annexed Crimea and established separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine. In August, when the recently installed government in Kiev threatened to win the low-level war in eastern Ukraine against separatist forces backed by Russia, President Putin invaded Ukraine with regular armed forces in violation of the Russian law that exempts conscripts from foreign service without their consent. 

In seventy-two hours these forces destroyed several hundred of Ukraine’s armored vehicles, a substantial portion of its fighting force. According to General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, the Russians used multiple launch rocket systems armed with cluster munitions and thermobaric warheads (an even more inhumane weapon that ought to be outlawed) with devastating effect.* The local militia from the Ukrainian city of Dnepropetrovsk suffered the brunt of the losses because they were communicating by cell phones and could thus easily be located and targeted by the Russians. President Putin has, so far, abided by a cease-fire agreement he concluded with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on September 5, but Putin retains the choice to continue the cease-fire as long as he finds it advantageous or to resume a full-scale assault. 

In September, President Poroshenko visited Washington where he received an enthusiastic welcome from a joint session of Congress. He asked for “both lethal and nonlethal” defensive weapons in his speech. However, President Obama refused his request for Javelin hand-held missiles that could be used against advancing tanks. Poroshenko was given radar, but what use is it without missiles? European countries are equally reluctant to provide military assistance to Ukraine, fearing Russian retaliation. The Washington visit gave President Poroshenko a façade of support with little substance behind it. 

Equally disturbing has been the determination of official international leaders to withhold new financial commitments to Ukraine until after the October 26 election there (which will take place just after this issue goes to press). This has led to an avoidable pressure on Ukrainian currency reserves and raised the specter of a full-blown financial crisis in the country. 

There is now pressure from donors, whether in Europe or the US, to “bail in” the bondholders of Ukrainian sovereign debt, i.e., for bondholders to take losses on their investments as a precondition for further official assistance to Ukraine that would put more taxpayers’ money at risk. That would be an egregious error. The Ukrainian government strenuously opposes the proposal because it would put Ukraine into a technical default that would make it practically impossible for the private sector to refinance its debt. Bailing in private creditors would save very little money and it would make Ukraine entirely dependent on the official donors. 

To complicate matters, Russia is simultaneously dangling carrots and wielding sticks. It is offering—but failing to sign—a deal for gas supplies that would take care of Ukraine’s needs for the winter. At the same time Russia is trying to prevent the delivery of gas that Ukraine secured from the European market through Slovakia. Similarly, Russia is negotiating for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to monitor the borders while continuing to attack the Donetsk airport and the port city of Mariupol. 

Mike King

Maidan’s Ashes, Ukrainian Phoenix—A Net Assessment of the Regime Change in Ukraine Since the Start of 2014

By: Vladimir Socor

October 17, 2014 

Source Link

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, left, with Vitali Klitschko. (Source: AFP)

The pro-Europe Maidan revolution in February and Russia’s intervention in Donbas in April triggered two parallel processes of regime change in Ukraine. The world has focused on political transformation in Kyiv and in Ukraine writ large. But far less awareness exists of the nature of regime change in the Russian-occupied territory, where the Kremlin is experimenting with a more radical version of Putinism (see EDM, August 1, 13, 15).

Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions—long dominant in the central government and in Ukraine’s east—has been removed from power by Western-oriented forces in Kyiv and by Russian forces in Donbas at roughly the same time. Such parallelism may seem ironic but cannot be surprising. That political force had practiced a “dual-vector” policy of balance between Russia and the West, a stance that became equally unacceptable to the Western-oriented Maidan coalition and to Russia’s proxies in Donbas.

The internal political conflict jolted the Ukrainian state from its chronic dysfunction into temporary paralysis from January through April. The Kremlin exploited that momentary opportunity to seize Crimea and parts of Donbas (eastern Ukrainian region including the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk) from Ukraine. However, Russia’s war of aggression inspired national and political cohesion among large parts of Ukrainian society, to levels not seen in two decades of independent statehood. This enabled the Maidan’s revolutionary coalition to transition into government. Power shifts from radical to mainstream groups within the coalition facilitated this process.

On May 25, Petro Poroshenko was elected president with 55 percent of the votes cast in the first round. Although the voter turnout was relatively lower in the country’s east, Poroshenko won by a landslide across regional and linguistic or ideological lines, to become the first national-consensus president of Ukraine (see EDM, May 30).

Ukraine’s internal political consolidation, albeit tentative, helped to contain Russia’s military advances in Donbas, and thwarted the Kremlin’s “Novorossiya” (“New Russia”—a historical name for lands occupying mainly southeastern Ukraine) project in the other provinces of Ukraine’s south and east. Those provinces and the largest cities therein were traditionally the Party of Regions’ strongholds. Local “oligarchs” and parts of the administrative-economic nomenklatura, long associated with the Party of Regions, closed ranks with the new government in Kyiv to stabilize the situation in Kharkiv, Mikolayiv, and in the Ukrainian-controlled parts of Donetsk province. The situation in the east and south dictated such alliances between the new authorities and entrenched holdovers at the province (oblast) level. In Dnipropetrovsk, the pro-Maidan “oligarch” Ihor Kolomoysky took over as governor, and extended his sphere of influence to the Odesa province. Those formal and informal arrangements enabled the administration and the economy to operate, and the police and security forces to counteract Russia’s subversive activities in the would-be “Novorossiya” (see EDM, March 6, May 22, September 8).

It would have been unrealistic to expect the new government and new president to launch substantive economic and social reforms promptly upon taking power. Ukraine faced risks of state collapse in the late winter–early spring of 2014, and has found itself de facto at war with Russia from April to date (the armistice has yet to take hold, and if it does it may not last). To establish fully legitimate authorities after the regime change, Ukraine had to conduct a presidential election in May (see above) and will hold parliamentary elections on October 26. The government can count on a bare arithmetical majority in the incumbent parliament, thanks to the cooperation of some deputies from the Party of Regions. But that party as such has broken up into several groups, and most of those deputies decline to join a constitutional majority under the present government.

UKRAINE: POROSHENKO BLOC SET TO DOMINATE ELECTIONS – ANALYSIS

By Oleg Shynkarenko

OCTOBER 25, 2014 

Source Link 

Ukraine's Petro Poroshenko. Photo Kathrin Möbius, Wikipedia Commons. 

With less than a month to go until Ukraine’s presidential elections, President Petro Poroshenko’s coalition looks to dominate the vote, although nearly a third of voters remain undecided.

According to a poll carried out last month by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives foundation, the Petro Poroshenko Bloc has a clear lead with 26.9 per cent.

In second place was the populist Radical Party with 6.2 per cent and Batkivschyna, led by former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, was third with 5.5 per cent. Other pollsters put Batkivschyna second and the Radicals behind.

The October 26 election will be overshadowed by the conflict in the east of the country, where separatist leaders say they will prevent people voting and instead hold their own ballot in November. Crimea, annexed by Russia in March, held an election for its assembly last month.

Yevhen Semehin, 28, a civic activist from Makeyevka in the eastern Donetsk region, said more than two million voters had been disenfranchised.

“Residents of the two regions [Donetsk and Luhansk] have been deprived of their constitutional right to vote and influence the future composition of the Supreme Council,” he said. He believes a parliamentary election should only be held if everyone in Ukraine gets to vote, otherwise the legislature will be “illegitimate”.

Following his victory in May’s presidential race, Poroshenko called an early parliamentary election for October with the aim of creating a legitimate elected body.

According to the Central Election Commission, over 50 political parties have registered for the election. With the threshold set at five per cent, there will be fierce competition among the more than 6,600 candidates for the 450 seats in parliament.

Analysts say that the political landscape can be divided into three main streams – liberal democrats, nationalists and figures from the old order.

Many share similar platforms, and this may split the vote. Some parties like Samopomich (“Self-Reliance”), headed by Lviv mayor Andry Sadovy under the slogan “Christian morality and common sense” have been very active on social media but are unlikely to translate this into electoral success.

The party was predicted to take just 1.7 per cent of the vote in the Ilko Kucheriv poll.

“Samopomich is just one of many new democratic parties which hold very similar views, but all of which are separated from each other, so that they cannot achieve a cumulative effect in voter percentages,” political scientist Olexiy Haran told IWPR. “It isn’t enough to have some progressive ideas that satisfy a sophisticated and well-informed Facebook audience. “You need a fairly comprehensive political narrative and a developed network of regional organisations in order to gain recognition among the broader population.”

Haran said the high level support for the Petro Poroshenko Bloc was attributable to the president’s pragmatic approach, but he warned its appeal could fade if it failed to convince voters that it had taken action against corruption or that it could end the war in the east.

This view was shared by Halyna Saychuk, a 26-year-old Kiev bookkeeper, who told IWPR, “I might vote for the Petro Poroshenko Bloc, but I’m not sure. I’d like to believe him, but I can’t believe just like that. He needs to deliver everything he’s promised.”

With nearly a third of voters undecided, some smaller groupings may make it past the threshold. The Ilko Kucheriv poll listed the possibles as the liberal Civic Position with 4.6 per cent, the People’s Front, led by current prime minister Arseny Yatsenyuk with 3.9 per cent and the nationalist Svoboda (“Freedom”) party with 3.3 per cent.

The Communist Party of Ukraine could also scrape in if it does better than the three per cent currently predicted, but it is seen by many as a symbol of Russian control, and it did not support the Kiev protests earlier this year that led to a change of government. The toppling of statues of Vladimir Lenin in towns around Ukraine is another reflection of perceptions of the Soviet past.

Procurement: Israel Kisses Russian Ass At Ukrainian Expense

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20141022.aspx

October 22, 2014: While Israel has expressed sympathy for Ukraine in their confrontation with Russia, when Ukraine asked to purchase some Israeli UAVs, the Israeli government intervened and blocked the sale (which Israeli manufacturers were willing to make). The reason was because Israel needed good relations with Russia, especially when it came to persuading the Russians to refrain from selling Iran modern weapons or the technology that would enable Iran to do so.

Ukraine might be able to get the UAVs elsewhere, or perhaps even make them locally. Before the Cold War ended in 1991, many Soviet weapons design and production operations were in Ukraine. These were inherited by the newly independent Ukraine after 1991. But most of these organizations went out of business because there was no more Soviet Armed Forces placing large orders each year. Most of the foreign sales disappeared as well. Ukraine salvaged some weapons and design capability by selling off its large Cold War stocks of Soviet weapons at low prices and developing a willingness to sell to anyone who could pay. Ukraine now has a lot of customers in Africa and Asia and as long as old technology is involved the Ukrainians still know how to produce it cheaply and reliably enough to keep a lot of these customers. Adding locally made UAVs to the product offerings might help with the export. UAVs are not high tech, but because the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine is happening right now some UAVs are needed right now.

United States planned to gain control over Crimea to clean out the Russian Black Sea fleet

Source Link 

Source: Dialog UA

Translated:

The idea that the United States through the events of the Ukrainian Maidan planned to gain control over the Crimea and to remove therefrom Russian Black Sea Fleet, expressed the Italian journalist Maurizio Blondet.

“The coup d’etat perpetrated in Kiev in February this year had a specific goal: to neutralize the Russian Black Sea Fleet based in Sevastopol, and replace it with the United States Navy,” – writes Maurizio Blondet (Maurizio Blondet) in his article, which was published on the website www. effedieffe.com

“On 22 February, the day when Yanukovych was deprived of power, the American group aviakorabley hastily enters into the Black Sea through the Bosporus Strait. It was this fleet was to take place on the Russian Black Sea Fleet bases in Krymu.Kakoy degree of threat exposed the vital interests of Moscow, Russian sources say the secret, making it clear to us why Putin was quick to take the Crimea peninsula and declare Russian. He had irrefutable evidence chtogosudarstvenny coup perpetrated in Kiev in February this year had a specific goal: to neutralize the Russian Black Sea Fleet based in Sevastopol, and replace it with a fleet SSHA.18 February this year, the Ukrainian parliament took the armed activists of the party “Svoboda” and right sectors.February 22 President Yanukovych was forced to leave Kiev, took power pro-Western forces.

The journalist also claims that the SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaychenko is a citizen of the United States.

“At the same time the head of the Secret Service of Ukraine (SBU) has been appointed Valentin Nalyvaychenko. Who is he? An American citizen, “- said in the article.

The journalist also writes that on February 22 the day of the flight of Yanukovych, the Black Sea became a group of American warships.

“Of course,” accidentally “on February 13, one of the four American naval groups led by the aircraft carrier George Bush (CSG-2) leaves the naval base in Norfolk and sent to the Aegean Sea. George Bush has 102000th tonnage, 90 planes and helicopters on board. He is accompanied by 16 warships, including the cruiser USS Philippine Sea, destroyers Truxtun and Roosevelt and three nuclear submarines. February 22, the day when Yanukovych was deprived of power, the American group aviakorabley hastily enters into the Black Sea through the Bosporus Strait. This is a direct violation of the Treaty of Montreux 1936, is allowed to pass the Dardanelles only warship to 45 thousand tonnage. But, as reported by the Turkish journal Hurriyet, citing a source from the Ministry of War in Turkey, authorities have given permission for a secret passage valiant American fleet. It was this fleet was to take place on the Russian Black Sea Fleet bases in the Crimea. Of course, it was expected that the Crimea as “choose democracy” and was happy to meet the stars and stripes navy. However, crowds of people took to the streets of Sevastopol, and in a couple of days of the siege of the Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea drove Prime Minister Anatoly Mogilev, who declared their loyalty to the coup in Kiev (despite the fact that he had bought his office Yanukovych, giving him the luxury villa in Yalta). In place of Mogilev was chosen Sergei Aksenov, pro-Russian leader sil.6 March parliamentary autonomy of Crimea declared refusal to submit to Kiev and to hold a March 16 referendum on the reunification of the Crimea from the Russian motherland, mother. It blends the American plans, “- writes Italian journalist.

According to Maurizio Blondet, after this initial order, the resulting aircraft carriers, was canceled and they went in the direction of Turkey.

NATO Says Russia Still Has Troops in Ukraine

October 25, 2014

Maria Tsvetkova / ReutersThe label “Army of Russia” marks a used package of meal found on a battlefield near Starobesheve, controlled by separatists, in eastern Ukraine, Oct. 1, 2014.

MONS, Belgium — Russia still has troops in eastern Ukraine and retains a very capable force on the border despite a partial withdrawal, NATO’s military commander said Friday.

"We’ve seen a pretty good withdrawal of the Russian forces from inside Ukraine but, make no mistake, there remain Russian forces inside eastern Ukraine," U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove told reporters at NATO’s military headquarters near Mons in Belgium.

Some Russian troops stationed near the Ukraine border had left and others appeared to be preparing to leave.

"But the force that remains and shows no indications of leaving is still a very, very capable force," he said.

He spoke before Sunday’s parliamentary election in Ukraine in which Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko seeks a mandate to press ahead with his plan to end a separatist conflict and pursue integration with mainstream Europe.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, making his first visit to NATO’s military headquarters since he took over at the start of this month, said Russia remained in violation of international law in Ukraine.

"They are still violating the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Ukraine by having Russian forces in Ukraine," the former Norwegian prime minister told reporters while visiting the NATO operations centre that monitors crises in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Russia was also destabilizing the situation in Ukraine by keeping forces on the border, he said, after being shown round by Breedlove.

NATO has suspended practical cooperation with Russia in protest against Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and its support for the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

NATO would continue to call on Russia to withdraw its forces both from inside Ukraine and from the border and to use all its influence to make sure that the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine was respected, Stoltenberg said.

"We need to find a political solution to the challenges we see in Ukraine and a pre-condition for that is of course to have an effective cease-fire," he said.

China Refutes Fresh US Accusations Of Hacking Into Private Companies

By Mark Hanrahan 

October 16 2014 

Source Link

A magnifying glass is held in front of a computer screen in this picture illustration taken in Berlin on May 21, 2013. Reuters/Pawel Kopczynski 

The FBI issued a warning Wednesday that hackers backed the Chinese government were targeting U.S. companies. Getty 

China has branded as “unfounded” U.S. accusations that hackers backed by the country's government are launching cyberattacks against American businesses. China and the U.S. have been waging a quiet cyberwar for years, vying for both commercial and military advantage.

A "flash" warning issued by the FBI on Wednesday had described tools and techniques used by the hackers. According to a Reuters report, the agency also said that it had recently obtained information regarding "a group of Chinese Government-affiliated cyber actors who routinely steal high-value information from U.S. commercial and government networks through cyber espionage."

The Chinese embassy in Washington urged “the U.S. side to stop this kind of unfounded accusation.” Geng Shuang, a spokesperson for the embassy, quoted by the South China Morning Post, added: “I’m not aware of the investigation by the U.S. FBI... Judging from past experience, conclusions of this kind of investigations are usually lacking in provable facts and hard evidence.”

The latest incident is not the first time within the last month that the Chinese government has publicly denied U.S. allegations of hacking. In an Oct. 5 interview with CBS, FBI Director James Comey said that Chinese hackers targeted the intellectual property of U.S. companies on a daily basis, costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars each year.

"They're just prolific. Their strategy seems to be: 'We'll just be everywhere all the time. And there's no way they can stop us,'” Comey reportedly said.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei responded: "We express strong dissatisfaction with the United States' unjustified fabrication of facts in an attempt to smear China's name and demand that the US-side cease this type of action," according to India's Economic Times.

In addition, a report from the Senate Armed Services Committee published on Sept. 18 claimed that hackers backed by the Chinese government had repeatedly hacked into the computer systems of U.S. military contractors, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Fighting in the cyber trenches

by 

DJ Summers 

@djsummersmma

October 13, 2014, 

Relations between the U.S. and China and Russia are tense, but no shot has been fired. Online, it’s a different story.

For one unnamed American biomedical company, it took five years to bring a new product to market as it stuttered on the ideation assembly line. There was genesis, then research and development, then meticulous rounds of testing to refine what came before and meet regulatory scrutiny. Only then was the product manufactured and sold for use in a hospital.

How did a Chinese competitor manage to rush the same product to market in 18 months? Heart valves and prosthetics take less time, it turns out, when a team of digital cat burglars can sneak into the American company’s mainframe and pop out with schematics for a fully tested product, beating the original innovators to market.

“It happens with every industry,” says Shawn Henry, president of services and chief security officer of CrowdStrike, a cyber security firm in Irvine, Calif. The biomedical company is a client of CrowdStrike’s, one of countless U.S. firms that see foreign hackers worm their way into their mainframes and facilities on a regular basis.

It’s nothing personal. In several areas of the world, the United States is mired in economic and political tension. In China, it is facing a rising economic power that has little patience for Western dominance. In Russia, it is facing a belligerent former power that is using force to recoup what was lost so long ago (and economic leverage to keep it that way). The hostilities continue to play out in bold headlines and fraught diplomatic relations, a Cold War simmer that refuses to boil over.

In the digital world, however, the U.S. and its adversaries have been at war for some time. Some of the largest U.S. threats are buzzing through Russian and Chinese computer systems operated by droves of highly skilled hackers. A small biomedical company beat by a copy of its own product? Just the tip of a mammoth iceberg of cyber warfare over the last decade that has left companies and organizations that are standing on the sidelines shellacked.

Cyber sabotage has quickly become the 21st century’s preferred form of international trade theft. Hackers hunt any intellectual property worth a dollar, ruble, or yuan. Pilfered research from the biomedical, energy, finance, software, IT, defense, and aerospace industries creates not only economic gain but state-related advantage. In China, the state and economy are so intertwined that illicit intelligence-gathering doubles as national security. In Russia, the battery of economic sanctions in response to its military actions in Eastern Europe have incentivized subterfuge opportunities.

It is difficult to attribute attacks to certain nations. In the interconnected digital world, there is no equivalent of a DNA sample or fingerprint to identify the perpetrator of a specific cyber crime. Still, aggregate data—including time zone, location of the physical servers used in the attack, nation-specific tools and techniques, and language indicators—leads researchers like CrowdStrike to place the majority of blame on Moscow and Shanghai.

“I’m talking about thousands of data points here,” Henry says. Cyber theft is a lot like bank robbing, he says—the more you do it, the more trails you leave. “You’re able to see consistencies of patterns, and along the line somewhere the attackers make a mistake. They make the digital equivalent of parking their getaway car near the convenience store camera, and we can attribute.”