Category Archives: Department of Defense

Russia Sides with the Taliban, ‘Just a Local Nuisance’

Posted on by

 

Note, that no NATO country was in attendance, note any American representation was not even consulted. This continues  Russia’s hybrid-warfare tactics. Obama in mid-2015 announced a drawdown of troops in Afghanistan to an estimated 5500. That objective was delayed permanently. An investigation is underway that includes Tajikistan as being the weapons route for the Taliban from Russia.

***

AFP: Allegations over Russia and Iran’s deepening ties with the Taliban have ignited concerns of a renewed “Great Game” of proxy warfare in Afghanistan that could undermine US-backed troops and push the country deeper into turmoil.

Moscow and Tehran insist their contact with insurgents is aimed at promoting regional security, but local and US officials who are already frustrated with Pakistan’s perceived double-dealing in Afghanistan have expressed bitter scepticism.

Washington’s long-time nemesis Iran is accused of covertly aiding the Taliban, and Russia is back to what observers call Cold War shenanigans to derail US gains at a time when uncertainty reigns over President-elect Donald Trump’s Afghanistan policy.

***

The US will slow its troop drawdown in Afghanistan, leaving a force of 8,400 when President Barack Obama completes his term, the president announced on Wednesday in a blunt acknowledgment that America will remain entangled there despite his aspirations to end the war.

In a statement at the White House,  Mr Obama said the security situation in Afghanistan is “precarious” and the Taliban remain a threat roughly 15 years after the US invaded in the aftermath of 9/11. He said he was committed not to allow any group to use Afghanistan “as a safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again.”

“It is in our national security interest – especially after all the blood and treasure we’ve invested in Afghanistan over the years – that we give our Afghan partners the very best opportunity to succeed,” Mr Obama said, flanked by top military leaders.

Mr Obama has been under pressure from US allies to make a decision following a NATO announcement last month that the alliance would maintain troops in regional locations around Afghanistan. NATO’s future involvement in the fight is to be a major topic when Mr Obama attends a NATO summit later this week in Warsaw, Poland.

Mr Obama said boosting the planned troop levels would help other countries prepare their own contribution to the fight. He said his decision should help the next president make good decisions about the future of US involvement.

“l firmly believe the decision I’m announcing is the right thing to do,” Mr Obama said. More here. 

Russia’s New Favorite Jihadis: The Taliban

In its latest ploy to undermine NATO, Russia is urging cooperation with the Afghan extremists even as their ties to al Qaeda grow deep.

More than 15 years into America’s war in Afghanistan, the Russian government is openly advocating on behalf of the Taliban.

Last week, Moscow hosted Chinese and Pakistani emissaries to discuss the war. Tellingly, no Afghan officials were invited. However, the trio of nations urged the world to be “flexible” in dealing with the Taliban, which remains the Afghan government’s most dangerous foe. Russia even argued that the Taliban is a necessary bulwark in the war against the so-called Islamic State.

For its part, the American military sees Moscow’s embrace of the Taliban as yet another move intended to undermine NATO, which fights the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the Islamic State every day.

After Moscow’s conference, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova spoke with reporters and noted that “the three countries expressed particular concern about the rising activity in the country of extremist groups, including the Afghan branch of IS [the Islamic State, or ISIS].”

According to Reuters, Zakharova added that China, Pakistan, and Russia agreed upon a “flexible approach to remove certain [Taliban] figures from [United Nations] sanctions lists as part of efforts to foster a peaceful dialogue between Kabul and the Taliban movement.”

The Taliban, which refers to itself as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, quickly praised the “Moscow tripartite” in a statement posted online on Dec. 29.

“It is joyous to see that the regional countries have also understood that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is a political and military force,” Muhammad Sohail Shaheen, a spokesman for the group’s political office, said in the statement. “The proposal forwarded in the Moscow tripartite of delisting members of the Islamic Emirate is a positive step forward in bringing peace and security to Afghanistan.”

Of course, the Taliban isn’t interested in “peace and security.” The jihadist group wants to win the Afghan war and it is using negotiations with regional and international powers to improve its standing. The Taliban has long manipulated “peace” negotiations with the U.S. and Western powers as a pretext for undoing international sanctions that limit the ability of its senior figures to travel abroad for lucrative fundraising and other purposes, even while offering no serious gestures toward peace.

The Obama administration has repeatedly tried, and failed, to open the door to peace. In May 2014, the U.S. transferred five senior Taliban figures from Guantanamo to Qatar. Ostensibly, the “Taliban Five” were traded for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, an American who reportedly deserted his fellow soldiers and was then held by the Taliban and its jihadist allies. But the Obama administration also hoped that the exchange would be a so-called confidence-building measure and lead to more substantive negotiations. The Taliban’s leaders never agreed to any such discussions. They simply wanted their comrades, at least two of whom are suspected of committing war crimes, freed from Guantanamo.

Regardless, Russia is now enabling the Taliban’s disingenuous diplomacy by pretending that ISIS is the more worrisome threat. It’s a game the Russians have been playing for more than a year.

In December 2015, Zamir Kabulov, who serves as Vladimir Putin’s special representative for Afghanistan, went so far as to claim that “the Taliban interest objectively coincides with ours” when it comes to fighting ISIS head Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s loyalists. Kabulov even conceded that Russia and the Taliban have “channels for exchanging information,” according to The Washington Post.

The American commanders leading the fight in Afghanistan don’t buy Russia’s argument—at all.

During a press briefing on Dec. 2, General John W. Nicholson Jr., the commander of NATO’s Resolute Support and U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, discussed “the malign influence of external actors and particularly Pakistan, Russia, and Iran.” Gen. Nicholson said the U.S. and its allies are “concerned about the external enablement of the insurgent or terrorist groups inside Afghanistan, in particular where they enjoy sanctuary or support from outside governments.” Russia, in particular, “has overtly lent legitimacy to the Taliban.”

According to Nicholson, the Russian “narrative” is “that the Taliban are the ones fighting the Islamic State, not the Afghan government.” While the Taliban does fight its jihadist rivals in the Islamic State, this is plainly false.

The “Afghan government and the U.S. counterterrorism effort are the ones achieving the greatest effect against Islamic State,” Nicholson said. He went on to list the U.S.-led coalition’s accomplishments over the past year: 500 ISIS fighters (comprising an estimated 25 to 30 percent of the group’s overall force structure) were killed or wounded, the organization’s “top 12 leaders” (including its emir, Hafiz Saeed Khan) were killed, and the group’s “sanctuary” has been reduced from nine Afghan districts to just three.

“So, this public legitimacy that Russia lends to the Taliban is not based on fact, but it is used as a way to essentially undermine the Afghan government and the NATO effort and bolster the belligerents,” Nicholson concluded. While Nicholson was careful not read too much into Russia’s motivation for backing the Taliban, he noted “certainly there’s a competition with NATO.”

There’s no doubt that ISIS’s operations in Afghanistan grew significantly in the wake of Baghdadi’s caliphate declaration in 2014. However, as Nicholson correctly pointed out, Baghdadi’s men are not adding to the territory they control at the moment. Their turf is shrinking. The same cannot be said for the Taliban, which remains the most significant threat to Afghanistan’s future. At any given time, the Taliban threatens several provincial capitals. The Taliban also controls dozens of Afghan districts and contests many more. Simply put, the Taliban is a far greater menace inside Afghanistan than Baghdadi’s men.

Regardless, the Russians continue to press their case. Their argument hinges on the idea that ISIS is a “global” force to be reckoned with, while the Taliban is just a “local” nuisance.

Kabulov, Putin’s special envoy to Afghanistan, made this very same claim in a newly-published interview with Anadolu Agency. Kabulov contends that “the bulk, main leadership, current leadership, and the majority of Taliban” are now a “local force” as a “result of all these historical lessons they got in Afghanistan.”

“They gave up the global jihadism idea,” Kabulov adds. “They are upset and regret that they followed Osama bin Laden.”

Someone should tell the Taliban’s media department this.

Earlier this month, the Taliban released a major documentary video, “Bond of Nation with the Mujahideen.” The video included clips of the Taliban’s most senior leaders rejecting peace talks and vowing to wage jihad until the end. It also openly advertised the Taliban’s undying alliance with al Qaeda. At one point, an image of Osama bin Laden next to Taliban founder Mullah Omar is displayed on screen. Photos of other al Qaeda and Taliban figures are mixed together in the same shot.

An audio message from Sheikh Khalid Batarfi, an al Qaeda veteran stationed in Yemen, is also played during the video. Batarfi praised the Taliban for protecting bin Laden even after the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings. “Groups of Afghan Mujahideen have emerged from the land of Afghans that will destroy the biggest idol and head of kufr of our time, America,” Batarfi threatened.

A narrator added that the mujahideen in Afghanistan “are the hope of Muslims for reviving back the honor of the Muslim Ummah [worldwide community of Muslims]!” The Afghan jihadists are a “hope for taking back the Islamic lands!” and a “hope for not repeating defeats and tragedies of the last century!”

The Taliban’s message is, therefore, unmistakable: The war in Afghanistan is part of the global jihadist conflict.

All of this, and more, is in one of the Taliban’s most important media productions of 2016. There is no hint that the Taliban “regrets” allying with al Qaeda, or has given “up the global jihadism idea,” as Kabulov claims. The exact opposite is true.

There is much more to the Taliban-al Qaeda nexus. In August 2015, al Qaeda honcho Ayman al Zawahiri swore allegiance to Mullah Mansour, who was named as Mullah Omar’s successor as the Taliban’s emir. Mansour publicly accepted Zawahiri’s fealty and Zawahiri’s oath was prominently featured on the Taliban’s website. After Mansour was killed earlier this year, Zawahiri pledged his allegiance to Mansour’s replacement, Mullah Haibatullah Akhundzada. Zawahiri and other al Qaeda leaders regularly call upon Muslims to support the Taliban and reject the Islamic State’s Afghan branch.

In his interview with Anadolu Agency, Kabulov concedes that not all of the Taliban has “given up” the global jihadist “ideas.” He admits that within the Taliban “you can find very influential groups like the Haqqani network whose ideology is more radical, closer to Daesh [or ISIS].”

Kabulov is right that the Haqqanis are committed jihadi ideologues, but he misses the obvious contradiction in his arguments. Siraj Haqqani, who leads the Haqqani network, is also one of the Taliban’s top two deputy leaders. He is the Taliban’s military warlord. Not only is Siraj Haqqani a “radical” ideologue, as Kabulov mentions in passing, he is also one of al Qaeda’s most committed allies. Documents recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound show that al Qaeda’s men closely cooperate with Siraj Haqqani on the Afghan battlefields.

Kabulov claims that ISIS “operates much more smartly” than al Qaeda and has “learned from all the mistakes of al Qaeda.” He says Baghdadi’s enterprise has “brought more advanced and sophisticated people to design, plan, and [execute] policy.” Once again, the exact opposite is true.

Al Qaeda has long known the pitfalls of ISIS’s in-your-face strategy, and has smartly decided to hide the extent of its influence and operations. Zawahiri and his lieutenants have also used ISIS’s over-the-top brutality to market themselves as a more reasonable jihadi alternative. And both the Taliban and al Qaeda are attempting to build more popular support for their cause as much of the world remains focused on the so-called caliphate’s horror show.

Al Qaeda’s plan has worked so well that the Russians would have us believe that the Taliban, al Qaeda’s longtime ally, should be viewed as a prospective partner.

Kabulov says that Russia is waiting to see how the “new president, [Donald] Trump, describe[s] his Afghan policy” before determining what course should be pursued next.

Here’s one thing the Trump administration should do right away: Make it clear that the Taliban and al Qaeda remain our enemies in Afghanistan.

GW Bush Doing the Work Kerry Should on N. Korea

Posted on by

Sometimes when a panel is mobilized that includes media, negotiators, diplomats and legislators, interesting facts emerge. Such is the case where President George W. Bush convened a panel at the George W. Bush Institute on the matter of North Korea. Going beyond the proven human rights violations by the Kims, there is more to understand when it comes to relationships including the DPRK, China, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Syria and more.

There is a U.S. citizen currently in prison doing slave labor in N. Korea but John Kerry voids his failure to get Otto Warmbier released. Kerry deferred the process to former governor Bill Richardson and there has been no progress.

The DPRK is in fact developing technology and weapons systems that are not only being tested but being sold to rogue nations for revenue purposes.

GW Bush has reached out to North Koreans that have escaped and made their way to the United States in a manner where they provide information and continued work for the benefit of Congress, the State Department, diplomatic objectives and policy to address the Kim regime going forward.

This is a fascinating discussion where real truths are revealed pointing to labor, human rights violations, military and nuclear operations, trade and more. North Korea is stacking missiles on launch pads and working on miniaturized nuclear weapons. The objective is to reach the United States. What has John Kerry done for deterrents? Nothing….

****

North Korea’s Rockets and Missiles

Space/2013: North Korea’s missile program is shrouded in secrecy, which helps the outlaw nation keep the rest of the world guessing.Still, Western experts have learned a fair bit about Pyongyang’s stable of rockets and missiles over the years by analyzing test flights, satellite photos and other data. Here are five of the most interesting things they’ve figured out.

FIRST STOP: Soviet Origins of Missiles

Soviet Origins

The Hermit Kingdom’s missile program is based primarily on Soviet Scuds, which apparently entered the country via Egypt in the 1970s. North Korea was building its own Scud version, called the Hwasong-5, by the mid-1980s, and moved onto bigger and more powerful missiles after that. [North Korea’s Missile Capabilities Explained]NEXT: Poor Accuracy

Poor Accuracy

North Korea’s missiles have lousy accuracy compared to those developed by the United States, experts say. Pyongyang’s Hwasong line, for example, can reach targets a few hundred miles away, but with an accuracy of just 0.3 miles to 0.6 miles (0.5 to 1 kilometer).A missile called the Nodong can fly 620 miles to 800 miles (1,000 to 1,300 km), but its estimated accuracy is even worse — 1.8 to 2.5 miles (3 to 4 km). Such missiles can’t reliably hit military targets, but they can certainly strike larger targets such as cities.

NEXT: Iran’s Help

Cooperation with Iran

North Korea has apparently cooperated extensively with fellow pariah nation Iran on rocket and missile technology. For example, the third stage of Pyongyang’s Unha-2 rocket is very similar to the upper stage of Iran’s Safir-2 launcher, physicists David Wright and Theodore Postol noted in a 2009 report.NEXT: Satellite Success

Satellite Launch Success

North Korea joined the ranks of satellite-launching nations last December, when its Unha-3 rocket launched a small satellite to Earth orbit.This breakthrough came after three consecutive failures — one in 1998, one in 2009 and another in April 2012. North Korean officials didn’t always admit to these mishaps, however. For example, they claimed that the Kwangmyongsong-1 (“Bright Star 1”) satellite reached orbit in 1998 and broadcast patriotic songs into space. [Unha-3 Rocket Explained (Infographic)]

NEXT: Nuclear Warheads Possible

Nuclear Warheads Possible

North Korea has been ratcheting up its bellicose rhetoric lately, threatening to launch nuclear strikes against Washington, D.C. and other American cities.While the rogue nation’s nuclear-weapons program is thought to be at a relatively primitive stage, Pyongyang may indeed already possess warheads small enough to be carried large distances by a ballistic missile, experts say. “Having something that’s around 1,000 kilograms, or maybe somewhat smaller than that, unfortunately does not seem impossible,” Wright told SPACE.com. “We don’t really know, but I think you have to take seriously that they could well be there.”

Most analysts doubt, however, that North Korean missiles are powerful enough to deliver a nuclear weapon to the American mainland. The tough talk from Pyongyang is primarily bluster aimed at wringing concessions out of the international community and building support for young leader Kim Jong-Un at home, they say.

Cease Fire Effective Friday in Syria, Assad/Hezbollah in Control

Posted on by

These talks have been underway for quite some time and the United States was not invited to participate. It is being reported that Hezbollah is the guarantor of the process and will manage the weapons control. Notice that Russia, Turkey, Syria and Iran don’t mention destruction of Islamic State or terminating the role of coalition nations participating in the Raqqa region, the headquarter location for ISIS.

***

Syria Cease-Fire Agreement Reached

Deal brokered between Turkey and Russia; Syrian military confirms truce, which is set to go into effect at midnight

WSJ: MOSCOW—Russia, Turkey and Syria announced that a cease-fire would go in effect in Syria early Friday morning, in a deal hammered out between Ankara and Moscow to bring the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and opposition groups into peace talks.

Details of the cease-fire were still emerging, but statements by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry and Syria’s military said it would begin at midnight local time in Syria.

Mr. Putin said agreements had been reached earlier Thursday between the Syrian regime and the “militant opposition” for a cease-fire and for arrangements to monitor it. While acknowledging the accords were “very fragile,” he also said consensus had been reached over the “readiness of peace talks to resolve [the situation] in Syria.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry said Ankara and Moscow would be guarantors of the plan “to cease all armed, including aerial, attacks.” Under the accord, each side is to refrain from seizing further territory, the ministry said.

In his remarks, Mr. Putin didn’t identify the militant groups that had agreed to the truce, but Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu

said they included the “main forces” of the armed opposition.

Turkey’s Foreign Ministry said the cease-fire deal excluded groups designated as “terrorist organizations” by the United Nations Security Council. Islamic State and the Syrian Conquest Front, an armed group linked to al Qaeda, have been excluded from previous truces in the nearly six-year-old war.

The ministry also said that Ankara hoped that a successful cease-fire would lead to a renewal of the U.N.-supported process for a political transition in Syria.

Russia, Iran and Turkey agreed in Moscow last week to hold talks in Kazakhstan next month aimed at ending the fighting in Syria. Those talks would exclude the U.S.

The U.S. has participated in the U.N.-backed process in Geneva to end the fighting in Syria. Following last week’s meeting in the Russian capital, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov played down the U.N. initiative while promoting the diplomatic push by Tehran, Moscow and Ankara. “I believe that the most effective format is the one that you see today,” Mr. Lavrov said.

A U.S. official said Wednesday the Obama administration wasn’t opposed to the talks being held in Kazakhstan, even if American diplomats weren’t directly involved. The State Department’s only condition, the official said, is that the negotiations are consistent with resolutions approved by the U.N. on Syria.

***

Given the standing 3 zones in Israel now where constant ground battles happen and John Kerry wants to add a 4th for Palestine, the same proposal is on the table in agreed draft form for Syria. Russia and Turkey are calling it zones of influence. ‘Influence’? Really? No one is reporting that Iran is in full agreement or what the future holds for Syria, meaning who is responsible for reconstruction and creating a stage for Syrians to return to their homeland….but do these powers even care?

***

Russia, Turkey, Iran eye dicing Syria into zones of influence

Reuters: Syria would be divided into informal zones of regional power influence and Bashar al-Assad would remain president for at least a few years under an outline deal between Russia, Turkey and Iran, sources say.

Such a deal, which would allow regional autonomy within a federal structure controlled by Assad’s Alawite sect, is in its infancy, subject to change and would need the buy-in of Assad and the rebels and, eventually, the Gulf states and the United States, sources familiar with Russia’s thinking say.

“There has been a move toward a compromise,” said Andrey Kortunov, director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, a think tank close to the Russian Foreign Ministry.

“A final deal will be hard, but stances have shifted.”

Assad’s powers would be cut under a deal between the three nations, say several sources. Russia and Turkey would allow him to stay until the next presidential election when he would quit in favor of a less polarizing Alawite candidate.

Iran has yet to be persuaded of that, say the sources. But either way Assad would eventually go, in a face-saving way, with guarantees for him and his family.

“A couple of names in the leadership have been mentioned (as potential successors),” said Kortunov, declining to name names.

Nobody thinks a wider Syrian peace deal, something that has eluded the international community for years, will be easy, quick or certain of success. What is clear is that President Vladimir Putin wants to play the lead role in trying to broker a settlement, initially with Turkey and Iran.

That would bolster his narrative of Russia regaining its mantle as a world power and serious Middle East player.

“It’s a very big prize for them if they can show they’re out there in front changing the world,” Sir Tony Brenton, Britain’s former ambassador to Moscow, told Reuters. “We’ve all grown used to the United States doing that and had rather forgotten that Russia used to play at the same level”

BACKROOM DEALS

If Russia gets its way, new peace talks between the Syrian government and the opposition will begin in mid-January in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, a close Russian ally.

The talks would be distinct from intermittent U.N.-brokered negotiations and not initially involve the United States.

That has irritated some in Washington.

“So this country that essentially has an economy the size of Spain, that’s Russia, is strutting around and acting like they know what they are doing,” said one U.S. official, who declined to be named because of the subject’s sensitivity.

“I don’t think the Turks and the Russians can do this (political negotiations) without us.”

Foreign and defense ministers from Russia, Turkey and Iran met in Moscow on Dec. 20 and set out the principles they thought any Syria deal should adhere to.

Russian sources say the first step is to get a nationwide ceasefire and then to get talks underway. The idea would then be to get Gulf states involved, then the United States, and at a later stage the European Union which would be asked, maybe with the Gulf states, to pick up the bill for rebuilding.

The three-way peace push is, at first glance, an odd one.

Iran, Assad’s staunchest backer, has provided militia fighters to help Assad, Russia has supplied air strikes, while Turkey has backed the anti-Assad rebels.

Putin has struck a series of backroom understandings with his Turkish counterpart Tayyip Erdogan to ease the path to a possible deal, several sources familiar with the process say.

Moscow got Iran to buy into the idea of a three-way peace push by getting Turkey to drop its demands for Assad to go soon, the same sources said.

“Our priority is not to see Assad go, but for terrorism to be defeated,” one senior Turkish government official, who declined to be named, said.

“It doesn’t mean we approve of Assad. But we have come to an understanding. When Islamic State is wiped out, Russia may support Turkey in Syria finishing off the PKK.”

Turkey views the YPG militia and its PYD political wing as extensions of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has long waged an insurgency in its largely Kurdish southeast.

“Of course we have disagreements with Iran,” said the same Turkish official. “We view some issues differently, but we are coming to agreements to end mutual problems.”

Aydin Sezer, head of the Turkey and Russia Centre of Studies, an Ankara-based think tank, said Turkey had now “completely given up the issue of regime change” in Syria.

Turkey’s public position remains strongly anti-Assad however and Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Wednesday a political transition with Assad was impossible.

Brenton, Britain’s former ambassador, said Moscow and Ankara had done a deal because Moscow had needed Turkey to get the opposition out of Aleppo and to come to the negotiating table.

“The real flesh in the game the Turks have, and the fear they have, is of an autonomous Kurdistan emerging inside Syria that would have direct implications for them,” he said.

Ankara launched an incursion into Syria, “Operation Euphrates Shield”, in August to push Islamic State out of a 90-km (55-mile) stretch of frontier territory and ensure Kurdish militias did not gain more territory in Syria.

REALPOLITIK

The shifting positions of Moscow and Ankara are driven by realpolitik. Russia doesn’t want to get bogged down in a long war and wants to hold Syria together and keep it as an ally.

Turkey wants to informally control a swathe of northern Syria giving it a safe zone to house refugees, a base for the anti-Assad opposition, and a bulwark against Kurdish influence.

The fate of al-Bab, an Islamic State-held city around 40 km (25 miles) northeast of Aleppo, is also a factor. Erdogan is determined that Turkish-backed rebels capture the city to prevent Kurdish militias from doing so.

Several sources said there had been an understanding between Ankara and Moscow that rebels could leave Aleppo to help take al-Bab.

Iran’s interests are harder to discern, but Ali Akbar Velayati, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s top adviser, said Aleppo’s fall might alter a lot in the region.

By helping Assad retake Aleppo, Tehran has secured a land corridor that connects Tehran to Beirut, allowing it to send arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Russian and Western diplomatic sources say Iran would insist on keeping that corridor and on Assad staying in power for now. If he did step down, Tehran would want him replaced with another Alawite, which it sees as the closest thing to Shia Islam.

Iran may be the biggest stumbling block to a wider deal.

Iranian Defence Minister Hossein Dehghan has said Saudi Arabia must not take part in talks because of its stance on Assad – Riyadh wants the Syrian leader to step down.

Scepticism about the prospects for a wider deal abounds.

Dennis Ross, an adviser to Democratic and Republican administrations, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he did not think a deal would bring peace to Syria.

“I doubt this will end the war in Syria even after Aleppo,” Ross told Reuters. “Assad’s presence will remain a source of conflict with the opposition.”

Ah…Rex Tillerson has Another Special Friend in Russia

Posted on by

We are supposed to dislike the NYT’s for many reasons, but there are times when researchers do good work even if some truths hurt. Such is the case with Rex Tillerson and Igor Sechin.

 HuffPo

MOSCOW — It’s June 2014. War is underway in eastern Ukraine, and Russia has recently annexed Crimea. Western countries are introducing sanctions against Russian companies and the people in President Vladimir V. Putin’s inner circle. It seems that Russia will soon be completely isolated from the rest of the world.

But the 21st World Petroleum Congress is taking place in Moscow. The atmosphere at the Crocus Expo International Exhibition Center, where the congress is being held, is decidedly nonconfrontational. On a stage, two men in suits hold an amicable conversation, addressing each other as “my friend.” The men are captains of the global petroleum industry: Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, and Igor I. Sechin, the head of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, and one of Mr. Putin’s longtime allies.

Mr. Sechin is not just the chief executive of Rosneft, he is also one of the heroes of contemporary Russian politics. He is believed to have served as a K.G.B. agent in Africa and had no real experience in the business world until he was over 40. He didn’t come to lead the state oil company because of his business acumen; he earned his position through his loyalty to Mr. Putin.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mr. Sechin aligned himself with Mr. Putin, another former K.G.B. officer, as he began consolidating power in post-Soviet politics. Everywhere Mr. Putin went, Mr. Sechin was by his side as a trusted aide and adviser.

In 2003, Russian authorities arrested Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the owner of Yukos, a huge oil company. At the time, Mr. Sechin was working as Mr. Putin’s deputy chief of staff, and though he had no formal judicial or investigatory authority, Mr. Khodorkovsky accused him of initiating his arrest — and the campaign that followed to nationalize Yukos. It’s impossible to know, but it seems likely. Following Mr. Khodorkovsky’s arrest, Rosneft absorbed Yukos’s assets. In 2004, Mr. Sechin was appointed to head Rosneft’s board.

Mr. Sechin isn’t just a businessman, though. He’s an influential political figure and a crucial Putin ally who has demonstrated his power. The arrest last month of Aleksei Ulyukayev, the minister of economic development, on charges of bribery was widely viewed as an act of revenge by Mr. Sechin. With the arrest, the first of an active government minister in post-Soviet Russia, he again confirmed his image as the most sinister man in the president’s inner circle.

Earlier this year, Mr. Sechin’s expansion was so aggressive that it seemed plausible that Mr. Putin himself would get tired of him, and would try to rid himself of such an odious comrade in arms.

Now Mr. Sechin has nothing to fear. A gift has arrived from across the ocean. This man, whose international experience up to this point has been limited to his friendship with Hugo Chávez, the deceased president of Venezuela, has an exclusive international trump card that even Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov lacks. More here.

****

Judicial Watch says it this way, ‘Rex and the Russian Swamp’:

Amid controversy over the extent of Kremlin penetration into the American electoral system (detailed last week in Investigative Bulletin), Donald Trump has doubled down on the Russian connection with his nomination of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to become the next secretary of state.

Mr. Trump has been signaling a new Russia tilt for months and Mr. Tillerson seems an excellent candidate to carry it out. Whether this is sound policy or sheer folly remains to be seen, but from an anti-corruption perspective—taking Mr. Trump at his pledge to “drain the swamp”—the Tillerson nomination is strange indeed.

Mr. Tillerson is up to his eyeballs in Russian oil deals with Vladimir Putin, whose kleptocratic regime makes the Washington swamp look like the pool at Mar-a-Lago. Last week, U.S. intelligence leaked a new estimate of Mr. Putin’s personal wealth: $85 billion.

His Kremlin salary: $144,444.

You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Mr. Tillerson’s role in the Rosneft oil deal is a case in point. Rosneft is a Russian energy giant closely allied with Mr. Putin. Mr. Tillerson negotiated a deal with Rosneft giving ExxonMobil access to vast Russian oil reserves in the Arctic and Black Sea. ExxonMobil pledged millions to provide the technology and expertise for exploration and drilling. In return, it received a one-third stake in the venture. Successful exploitation of the oil fields could bring more than $100 billion into ExxonMobil coffers.

Rosneft was formerly known as the Yukos Oil Company, Russia’s largest energy enterprise. In 2003, Mr. Putin decided he wanted it.

Yukos’s founder, the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was becoming a threat to Mr. Putin. He jailed Mr. Khodorkovsky on bogus fraud charges, seized Yukos assets and bankrupted the company. Mr. Khodorkovsky served ten years behind bars. Other Yukos officials were jailed or fled the country. American and Russian investors were robbed. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague awarded investors $50 billion in damages, but the decision was later overturned.

Some might say Mr. Khodorkovsky got off easy. Here’s a list of Putin critics who ended up dead.

Yukos was raped and pillaged and its assets were transferred to Rosneft. Control of the company was given to a key Putin lieutenant, Igor Sechin. Like Mr. Putin, Mr. Sechin is a former KGB agent. Mr. Sechin is a leading figure in the siloviki—literally, “strongmen”—faction of former law enforcement, military and intelligence figures around Mr. Putin.

In 2012, Mr. Tillerson struck his deal with Rosneft. “Today really is a historic day,” Mr. Tillerson said at the signing ceremony.

Former Yukos officials and shareholders felt differently. When the Mafia or a drug cartel washes its ill-gotten gains into a new, “clean” financial entity, that’s called money laundering. “Through today’s agreement with Exxon,” the Committee for Russian Economic Freedom declared, “Rosneft has finally managed to give an aura of legitimacy to the theft of assets stolen from Yukos.” The former CFO of Yukos wrote in the Moscow Times that “Exxon is investing with a company whose largest assets were stolen from Yukos shareholders by the Russian government.”

Mr. Tillerson has a long history with Mr. Sechin. In 1998, Mr. Tillerson ran ExxonMobil’s oil and gas enterprise on Sakahalin Island, off the coast of Siberia. Mr. Sechin took over the Russian side of the project in 2004. Mr. Tillerson’s ExxonMobil predecessor as CEO tried to buy into Yukos but was driven off by the jailing of Mr. Khodorkovsky.

Mr. Tillerson persisted. The Rosneft deal giving ExxonMobil access to Arctic and Black Sea oil fields elevated the relationship between Mr. Tillerson and the Kremlin leadership. Mr. Tillerson calls Mr. Sechin a “friend.” Mr. Sechin says he wants to come to the United States to ride motorcycle with Mr. Tillerson. In 2013, Mr. Putin awarded Mr. Tillerson the Russian Order of Friendship for his “big contribution to developing cooperation in the energy sector.”

The bromance hit a rough patch in 2014 when the U.S. government sanctioned Russian officials and entities—including Mr. Sechin and Rosneft—for annexing Crimea and sending forces into Ukraine. The Rosneft deal was put on hold. Losses to ExxonMobil are estimated at more than $1 billion. In 2015, Mr. Tillerson declared at a conference, “We’ll await a time in which the sanctions environment changes or the sanctions requirements change.”

He may not have to wait much longer.

Obama/Kerry: Diplomatic Terrorism on Israel

Posted on by

Israel was on the edge at least last October, they knew that Obama and Kerry had something in the pipeline against Israel. So it comes down to who wins the debate over Jerusalem? Should there even be a debate and Israel is fighting back on the never-ending use of the words ‘occupy’ and ‘settlement’s and should.

 CBS

Bloomberg: When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected last year, the White House threatened to reconsider long-standing U.S. policy to veto U.N. Security Council resolutions on Israel’s presence in the West Bank. At issue was a last-minute interview in which Netanyahu said there would be no Palestinian state as long as he was prime minister. He took back that statement after the election. Nonetheless, the White House directed policymakers to draw up a set of options for how Obama could “preserve the two-state solution,” according to one U.S. official privy to the process.

So far, nothing has come of Obama’s threat. Indeed last month, Obama signed an agreement with Israel to extend the U.S. subsidy of its military for another ten years. In foreign policy, Obama is focused on the collapse of U.S. policy in Syria, which has become an even greater humanitarian emergency in the last month with the Russian and Iranian-led siege of Aleppo. Politically, the White House is working to elect Hillary Clinton as Obama’s successor.

Yet with a little more than three months left of his presidency, Israeli officials privately say they worry Obama intends to try to level the playing field between the Palestinians and Israelis before he leaves office. The threat of a last-minute speech, executive order, or U.N. action has stirred some of Israel’s friends in Washington. Last month, for example, 88 senators signed a letter to Obama urging him to restate “long-standing U.S. policy” to veto one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

The Obama administration has not made such a statement. This week, however, White House spokesman Joshua Earnest “strongly condemned” Israel’s approval of 98 new housing units in the West Bank settlement of Shilo. A CBS correspondent noted that this phrasing is “usually reserved” for terrorist attacks.  More here.

**** So Israel put some assets into the system and worked to determine who, what and when such actions would happen. Since the UN vote, Israel says it has iron clad evidence of the United States complicity in the text for the vote.

****

Haaretz: he Egyptians distributed a Security Council resolution on the settlements last week, and demanded a vote within 24 hours, only to withdraw it after pressure from the prime minister’s bureau in Jerusalem and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.

Israel’s UN ambassador, Ron Dermer, said Monday that Israel had evidence that the Obama administration was behind the wording of the resolution and had cooperated with the Palestinians behind Israel’s back. The document published on the Egyptian new site might be the evidence Israel has. On December 22, the day the original Security Council vote was to have taken place, the Israeli news site Walla published a report almost identical to the one on the Egyptian news site. Walla quoted a senior Israeli official as stating that in a meeting between Kerry and a Palestinian delegation to Washington headed by Palestinian Liberation Organization Secretary General Saeb Erekat, agreement was reached on the matter of a resolution against the settlements, and that Kerry said the United States would not veto it. More here.

****

What else was Israel watching?

On December 23, 2016, the UN General Assembly approved spending $138,700 to create a “database” of all companies that conduct business – directly or indirectly – relating to Israeli “settlements” in Arab-claimed territories. The idea of a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) blacklist came from a March 2016 resolution of the UN Human Rights Council. According to UN documentation, the $138,700 will be used “to pay for one staff member to create the database over a period of 8 months and present a report” to the Human Rights Council in March 2017. In other words, the December authorization backdated approval of an expenditure for an operation already underway.

When the General Assembly’s Budget Committee met to approve the UN budget, Israel proposed to delete approval specifically for funding the blacklist.The Committee rejected the Israeli amendment 6 in favor (Australia, Canada, Guatemala Israel, Palau and the United States), 151 against, with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, Georgia, Honduras and Ghana).

After Israel lost the vote on funding the BDS item, it declared it was “disassociating” from the General Assembly’s subsequent approval of the UN budget as a whole. Despite the U.S. voting against funding the blacklist initially, it voted in favor of the UN budget, and made no mention of any problem funding BDS.

Date
December 23, 2016
Title
Fifth Committee Vote on Israeli Proposed Oral Amendment to Resolution on Programme Budget Appropriations for 2016-2017 Biennium, UN Meeting Coverage
Original Source
https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gaab4224.doc.htm
Attachment
Click here to view this document in MS Word/PDF format
Note
Israel’s oral amendment was rejected by a vote of 6 in favor (Australia, Canada, Guatemala Israel, Palau and the United States), 151 against, with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, Georgia, Honduras and Ghana)

****

So, here is Kerry on 12/28/2016 speaking while Obama is on vacation in Hawaii:

AP: Secretary of State John Kerry says that if Israel rejects a two-state solution for peace with the Palestinian people, “it can be Jewish or it can be democratic.”

Kerry was responding to withering Israeli criticism of the United States’ abstention from a vote condemning Israeli settlement construction. He reiterated the American position that a two-state solution giving both Israelis and Palestinians a home state is the best roadmap to peace. He also made it clear that despite recent differences in policy, the United States continues to be Israel’s closest ally.

Israel has been furious at the United States since the UN vote late last week. But Kerry said in a farewell speech at the State Department on Wednesday that the vote was “in keeping with” American values for democracy.

****

The full text of his speech is here, but while he ways that Israel has to be either Jewish or a democracy and not both, Kerry also suggests that Israel pay restitution to the Palestinians. In 2009, the United States gave Gaza $900 million, which is under the control of Abu Mazen.

 

More here.