For Those Scoffing at Russian Penetration into American Democracy

Posted on January 24, 2017January 24, 2017 by Denise Simon

This site has posted often on General Gerasimov and his doctrine. The games and propaganda that the Kremlin applies is still not taken seriously by the American people as they continue to scoff at Russian intrusions into our culture.

Russia is playing a double game and it is time to set aside manufactured notions and seek the expertise of countless Russian scholars as well as what the Pentagon and intelligence communities are publishing.

Using the sources that Russian officials use themselves is a valuable tool as noted here:

“Military-industrial courier”

International Maritime Defence Show

«Military-industrial courier» is a weekly illustrated All-Russian newspaper. The main topics of the newspaper are politics and economics, role of legislative and executive power in the process of military reform providing. «Military-industrial courier» is position on the newspaper market as a respectable edition which highlights defence industries and institutions, adds to military products promotion to the domestic and foreign markets.

The newspaper boasts of domestic military chiefs and defence leaders interviews in which most important issues of that sector of the economy are raised.

For a short period of time «Military- industrial courier» has achieved recognition with the Russian high-ranking military officials.

The newspaper is distributed on a subscription and by retail within the Russian Federation and abroad. The circulation is more than 50000 copies.

Here goes yet another attempt.

****

Narrative, Cyberspace and the 21st Century Art of War

In February 2013, an article insipidly entitled “The Value of Science in Prediction” appeared in the Russian publication Military-Industrial Courier. The article was penned by Valery Gerasimov, chief of the general staff of the Russian Federation. Few in the West recognized the article at all, much less its significance, at the time of its publication.

In the article, Gerasimov analyzed “new-type conflicts.” These conflicts entail an array of strategies and tactics employed in the gray zone to achieve national interests, even military, without a declaration of war and without crossing the threshold that would provoke a kinetic response.

“The very ‘rules of war’ have changed,” Gerasimov wrote.

Dr. Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russian history and security issues who annotated an English translation of Gerasimov’s article, identified the most important line as, “The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness.”

Gerasimov’s “nonmilitary means” included “broad use of political, economic, informational, humanitarian and other nonmilitary measures – applied with the protest potential of the population.”

Experts see one hybrid tactic – narrative and cyber – playing an increasingly prominent role in current conflicts.

War Narratives

An old Wall Street adage goes, “You’d have to be a paranoid Russian poet to understand global finance.” Today, that maxim might be paraphrased for an equally unexpected insight: “It helps to be a literary critic in understanding contemporary warfare.”

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu described the “five constant factors” of conventional warfare, but none included narrative. Experts now point to the influential role of narrative in military, geopolitical and ideological “new-type conflicts.”

Nations like Russia and China, as well as terrorist organizations like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), are using narrative to motivate audiences, advance agendas and engage adversaries.

Scholars have long argued that literary techniques are not the special purview of novelists, poets and playwrights. From philosophers’ research on metaphor to cognitive scientists’ investigations into parable, literary devices reveal and appeal to basic human cognition. Perhaps that’s why narrative’s use by governments, institutions, businesses and ideologues is not new.

When employed in military or geopolitical conflicts, Brad Allenby and Joel Garreau, co-directors of The Weaponized Narrative Initiative of the Center on the Future of War, call it “weaponized narrative.” And they believe its recent effectiveness will encourage further use.

In an email interview, Allenby said, “Weaponized narrative is not a temporary or passing phenomenon. It is based on significant recent advances in science, technology and social use of technology.”

Combined with tactics afforded by cyberspace, narrative’s influence broadens. But Dr. Ajit Maan, affiliate scholar at the Center for Narrative and Conflict Resolution and CEO of Narrative Strategies, notes that narrative’s power precedes technology.

In an email interview with Fifth Domain, Maan said:

Advanced technologies work to disseminate messages farther and wider than they would be otherwise, but narratives are already there, on the ground, in people’s heads. The enemies of the U.S. and her allies understand this very well. Advanced technology is a tool. The center of gravity is the narrative.

The “Era of Cybered Conflict”

Current conflicts play out, at least partly, in cyberspace.

Dr. Chris C. Demchak, RDML Grace Murray Hopper professor of cybersecurity and director of the Center for Cyber Conflict Studies at the U.S. Naval War College, characterizes today’s environment as one of “cybered conflict.”

In an interview – in which she offered her views and not the views of the U.S. government, U.S. Navy or U.S. Naval War College – Demchak said:

Due to the massively insecure technology of the global cyberspace, we in the West have created a widely spread, poorly secured cyberspace “substrate” that allows attackers in any numbers, from anywhere, with any tools and for any reason to cheaply reach into our critical systems with minimal chances of being punished. The result is that the world has been thrust into an era of “cybered conflict.”

Like Gerasimov’s blurred line between war and peace, Demchak described cybered conflicts as “stretch[ing] from peace through traditional war.” Importantly, Demchak highlighted the strategic advantages of cybered conflict relative to conventional war:

Most cybered conflict – which can have existential consequences – does not involve killing anyone or destroying something explosively. Rather, it is marked by exceptional advantage to deception in what tools are used and opaqueness in who, in what numbers, are using them. Going to the end of the spectrum – to “cyberwar” – is relatively inefficient and opens oneself up to direct retaliation throughout one’s own societal systems. Instead, one can slowly demolish an opponent without ever killing someone or destroying something with a kinetic tool traceable back to oneself … [which] is much safer, reliable and easier to outsource.

Russia, China and ISIS are all leveraging the advantages afforded by cybered conflict to employ hybrid warfare tactics – from hacking to weaponized narrative.

Russia and the Grand Nationalist Narrative

Russia’s use of hybrid warfare long predates Gerasimov’s article. Noting the Soviet Union’s traditional outward posture since the Cold War’s advent, Demchak said, “Russia innovated the strategy of disinformation and personalized brutality to ‘eat a democracy from the inside out’ … producing the involuntary servitude of the former Warsaw Pact.”

Allenby noted favorable conditions for disinformation persist today: “The Russian system tends to reward the cynical, morally relativistic psychology that best aligns with developing and deploying weaponized narratives.”

As foreshadowed by Gerasimov, Russia has displayed its hybrid capabilities during the Ukraine conflict. Allenby points to Russia resurrecting the historical “Novorossiya” and adopting the newer “Russian Eurasian Empire” narratives.

Such narratives matter, Allenby explained, “Because suborning an adversary through weaponized narrative is far, far less costly than a conventional attack. Weaponized narrative offered an important way to achieve Russian ends while not justifying a conventional response under the UN charter.”

Allenby also noted the hybrid approach, which included narrative and “fomenting insurrection and insurgency, and judicious application of ‘little green men,’” or suspected Russian troops.

Allenby added, “Was the invasion [of Crimea] effective? Absolutely. Was it a strategic success? For that, we’ll have to wait and see.”

Asked about the similarities and differences between Russia’s tactics in Ukraine and the alleged activities carried out during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Allenby said:

The two are similar, in that causing a degree of confusion and social fragmentation in the target is a major strategic goal. The tools are different because the cultures are very different, and the follow through is different … Nonetheless, the underlying processes, operations and design of weaponized narrative campaigns must be similar because they are based on the same advanced science, new technologies and rapidly evolving understanding of human psychology.

China and the Sovereignty Narrative

China is also using narrative to further its geopolitical agenda. China’s interest in expanding territorial sovereignty in the South China Seas is well known. Less so is China’s “cyber sovereignty” narrative, which Demchak has examined.

At issue is, Demchak wrote, “China wants her borders in cyberspace and will take nothing less.” Whereas the West sees the internet as a tool for global democratization, “the Chinese narrative accentuates the instability and greater dissent that can accrue with a border-spanning open internet.”

China’s view implicitly acknowledges Gerasimov’s “protest potential of the population.”

To achieve cyber sovereignty, China has employed hybrid gray-zone tactics.

“China,” Demchak wrote, “is also hoping to hurry along the [U.S.’s] apparent decline with narratives, money and stealth and yet control the narrative of a no-threat peaceful rise well enough to stay short of physical conflict.”

China’s cyber sovereignty is part of a grander narrative. “China justifies its rise in the world – its ‘rightful place’ – on the basis of its population,” Demchak said. “China will not over time tolerate U.S. obstruction of its ‘rightful’ rise as the global hegemon.”

ISIS and the Narrative of the Islamic Caliphate

The rise of ISIS surprised many in the West. Narrative and cyberspace played a central role, experts say.

Counterterrorism scholars have studied the “messaging and counter-messaging” of ISIS. Maan thinks ISIS’s narratives are more “profound and pervasive” than simple messaging.

“It is through narrative that identity is constructed: Personal identity, communal/clan identity and national identity,” she said. “It is formative in the identity layers of all parties to communication long before any communication has taken place between them.”

In her writing, Maan has examined a common idea across ISIS’s communications: “Islam is under attack.” That is a title, not the narrative, she explained.

Despite the West’s claims otherwise, “Islam is under attack” resonates with ISIS followers in many forms. “Narrative provides and determines the meaning of events,” Maan said. “Events don’t speak for themselves. Narratives speak for events.”

Maan argues, rather than focusing on counter-narrative, which oftentimes “emboldens” the original, the West should develop its own. To succeed, Maan thinks the West’s narratives must be credible and based on the “production of common sense.”

“That is how successful narratives appear. They don’t seem like a construction. They seem to reflect ‘just the way things are,’” she said.

Ukraine at the Center of the NATO vs. Russia Debate?

Posted on January 23, 2017January 23, 2017 by Denise Simon

Few appear to remember the brazen, corruption and deceptive operation when pro-Russian separatists invaded Crimea. The world was in shock and now Ukraine is falling victim to the same operation as NATO fights against this.

If you want to understand the Russian operation in Eastern Europe and how the Kremlin game is played, one must begin with the twisting of information, news and propaganda.

Much has been debated as to the penetration of Russia into the U.S. election system. This is not a new phenomenon for the Kremlin.

The survival of Ukraine as a sovereign, democratic nation was at stake. And the presidential election needed to go smoothly—thus making it a prime target for a Russian cyberattack.

Four days prior to the election, on May 21, 2014, a pro-Russian hacktivist group called CyberBerkut launched a cyberattack against Ukraine’s Central Election Commission computers. According to Ukrainian news reports, the attack destroyed both hardware and software, and for 20 hours shut down programs to monitor voter turnout and tally votes.

On election day, 12 minutes before polls closed, CyberBerkut hackers posted false election results to the election commission’s website. Russia’s TV Channel One promptly aired the bogus results. More here.

For a full summary go here as annotated by USAToday.

An in depth report on ‘disinformation actions by the Kremlin is found below.

The Dynamics of Russia’s Information Activities against Ukraine during the Syria Campaign

The Top Spy Who Is Fighting Corruption in Ukraine

Newsweek: Ukraine’s former top security official has gone from tracking down Russian spies to fighting what he perceives to be the country’s greatest threat—corruption.

“The question is, are we going to survive or not?” Valentyn Nalyvaichenko told The Daily Signal from his offices in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital.

Nalyvaichenko, 50, is the former head of the Security Service of Ukraine, or SBU, which is Ukraine’s successor agency to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic’s branch of the KGB, the Soviet Union’s main security agency.

“At stake is survival of the country,” Nalyvaichenko said. “At stake is whether we’ll finally get rule of law and a functioning state instead of chaos, corruption, weakness and [being] not capable to defend our territory and the country. So, at stake is the country, its independence.”

During his interview with The Daily Signal, Nalyvaichenko wore a well-appointed suit and tie. He spoke fluent English, evidence of his university degree in linguistics.

His affable demeanor and emotive manner of talking hinted more at his background as a diplomat and member of parliament than his years in charge of Ukraine’s successor agency to the KGB.

Nalyvaichenko led the SBU for the first time from 2006 to 2010. He took over the security agency for a second time on Feb. 24, 2014, two days after deposed former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia in the closing days of the revolution.

Nalyvaichenko has also served as a member of parliament and as Ukraine’s deputy minister of foreign affairs.

Nalyvaichenko’s 2015 departure from the SBU was controversial. In June 2015, while the security agency was investigating high-level Ukrainian officials for financial crimes, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko sacked Nalyvaichenko from his leadership post at the SBU.

Today, Nalyvaichenko is the leader of two upstart anti-corruption political platforms: the Justice Civil-Political Movement, and the Nalyvaichenko Anti-Corruption Movement.

“Our people, our common people, are suffering because of corruption, corruption at the top,” Nalyvaichenko said, pounding his fist on the table for emphasis.

“I really like what [Winston] Churchill said in the Second World War,” Nalyvaichenko said. “‘If you’re going through hell, keep going.’ If we’re corrupt, it doesn’t mean we have to say, ‘OK, we’re a failed state.’ No, it’s not true.”

Purge

True to his diplomatic roots, Nalyvaichenko recently traveled to Washington to present evidence to Congress about Russia’s involvement in the war in eastern Ukraine and to press for U.S. assistance in anti-corruption efforts.

As part of his anti-corruption platform, Nalyvaichenko has called for the FBI to investigate the financial crimes of Ukraine’s current and former political leaders.

He also wants U.S. and EU prosecutors to oversee the adjudication of corruption investigations, and for the U.S. to press Ukrainian officials to make Ukraine’s newly minted National Anti-Corruption Bureau independent from the executive and judicial branches.

People look out over the Maidan, or Independence, Square on May 22, 2014, in Kiev, Ukraine. Nolan Peterson writes that corruption still taints almost every aspect of Ukrainian life. University students in Kiev, for example, say it’s still common practice to pay their professors a bribe to pass exams. Dan Kitwood/Getty

Nalyvaichenko said Ukraine has a chance to “show for the whole world, especially to the Russian people, that there is an opportunity, there is a plan B, to such nations after the Soviet Union time to be democratic, to be not corrupt, to live in a not corrupt state, to be independent.”

“Ukraine belongs to the Western world,” he added.

Nalyvaichenko added that Ukraine has “several months, two or three months” to show real progress in anti-corruption measures before Western partners begin to break ranks on measures such as maintaining punitive sanctions against Russia.

“It will be no tolerance from the new administration in the United States,” Nalyvaichenko said. And next year, “there might be many changes in the European Union,” he said. “That’s, I think, what is at stake when we’re talking about the European Union and the United States.”

Within Ukraine, Nalyvaichenko’s strategy is to reach out to civil society leaders working at the grassroots level. He wants to convince Ukrainians to believe in the democratic process, despite a quarter-century of oligarchic thug rule after the fall of the Soviet Union.

To that end, Nalyvaichenko’s two anti-corruption organizations—which comprise 10,000 activists across Ukraine—have provided pro bono legal assistance to more than 3,000 Ukrainian citizens involved in court cases against allegedly corrupt government officials.

Nalyvaichenko’s groups have also given free medical care to more than 9,000 civilians in the war zone.

“If you would like to stop Russian aggression, if you would like to get back not only territories but people…we have to show them what?” Nalyvaichenko said. “Believe me, not Kalashnikovs and not tanks. We have to show them a better life.”

Lifestyle

That better life has not yet materialized for many Ukrainians.

For one, the hryvnia, Ukraine’s national currency, is currently less than one-third its value against the dollar than it was before the revolution. Wages have not concurrently risen to match the falling currency, dramatically reducing Ukrainians’ spending power.

Also, corruption still taints almost every aspect of Ukrainian life. University students in Kiev, as an example, say it’s still common practice to pay their professors a bribe to pass exams.

Related: Nolan Peterson: Brothers in arms on the Ukraine front line

According to an October 2016 public opinion poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, and funded by the government of Canada, 30 percent of Ukrainians surveyed who had visited a doctor in the previous 12 months said they paid a bribe for service.

Among those who interacted with the police, 25 percent said they paid a bribe.

A large part of Ukraine’s economy is off the books—what Ukrainians refer to as the “shadow economy.” Ukraine’s Economic Development and Trade Ministry said the shadow economy was 40 percent of the country’s gross domestic product in 2015.

This black market economy robs the government of valuable tax revenue. It also leaves many returning combat veterans, many of whom were drafted, no legal recourse to recover their jobs at the conclusion of their military service.

Many veterans previously worked off the books and were paid in cash so their employers could skirt payroll taxes.

According to the 2016 International Republican Institute study, 72 percent of Ukrainians surveyed said the country was moving in the wrong direction, while 11 percent said the country was on the right track.

As a point of comparison, a year prior to the revolution in May 2013, 69 percent of Ukrainians surveyed said the country was moving in the wrong direction, and 15 percent said the country was moving in the right direction.

According to the same poll, 73 percent of Ukrainians disapprove of Poroshenko’s performance as president, and 87 percent of Ukrainians have an unfavorable opinion of their parliament.

Nalyvaichenko said he no longer has faith in Poroshenko.

“For me this is not personal,” he said. “Whoever becomes president or prime minister is immediately part of a corrupt and not transparent system. Immediately they are reproducing the same Soviet or simply corrupt practices and environment…. So, to get rid of that, to dismantle, to change the system, to reboot the country [we need to] get new people with absolutely different minds and mentality into the governmental offices.”

A New Fight

Nalyvaichenko is among a new breed of Ukrainian reformers who have emerged after the 2014 revolution.

Among Nalyvaichenko’s allies is former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who resigned as governor of Ukraine’s Odessa Oblast in November. The move was a protest against what Saakashvili claimed was stonewalling by Poroshenko and the majority of Ukraine’s political class in implementing anti-corruption reforms.

Saakashvili has since launched his own anti-corruption, opposition party called Wave.

“We had a revolution with lots of casualties,” Saakashvili told The Daily Signal in an earlier interview. “And every time a revolution happens, people have a right to expect revolutionary changes.”

One bright spot for Ukraine is its budding civil society. Across the country, political activists and humanitarian workers, including many millennials, have enabled the spread of democratic norms and are pushing for government accountability at the grassroots level.

“Across the country there is real willingness at the local level, at the grassroots level to stop corruption,” Nalyvaichenko said. “Fifteen or 20 years ago it was unimaginable that Ukraine would have such a powerful civil society.”

He continued:

I remember my parents and how modest the family used to be. How we young, young kids in Zaporizhia and other regions dreamed about another life. And to really have a chance with a free market, with the rule of law … for our children to create a new country with more opportunities. Our better future is here, and we should fight for that. I will not take no for an answer—from anyone.

Sacked

As head of the SBU, Nalyvaichenko endeavored to purge the security agency of its Soviet KGB past. He booted many personnel who had served in the SBU when it was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic’s branch of the KGB.

Nalyvaichenko spearheaded an effort to open up the SBU’s KGB archives, launching fresh investigations into Soviet crimes in Ukraine, including Joseph Stalin’s organized mass famine in the 1930s known as the Holodomor.

Related: Nolan Peterson: Dispatches from the forgotten war in Ukraine

He also hunted down and expelled Russian spies in Ukraine who were working for Russia’s successor agency to the KGB, the Federal Security Service of Russia, or FSB.

“With SBU, what I started with was to stop KGB practices,” Nalyvaichenko said. “I was the first and only chief of the SBU who actually started to detain FSB officers in Ukraine.”

The intent of Nalyvaichenko’s personnel scrub at the SBU went beyond security concerns. He wanted to shed the agency of its “Soviet mindset.”

To fill out the SBU’s thinned ranks, Nalyvaichenko tapped young political activists and reformers who had no living memory of life in the Soviet Union.

“That is my approach and my understanding of how it could be done in all the country,” Nalyvaichenko said, explaining how his SBU scrub could be used as a model for nationwide reforms.

The solution to beating corruption in Ukraine, according to Nalyvaichenko, is to elevate a new generation of political and business leaders.

“Let the generation shift happen in Ukraine,” Nalyvaichenko said. “For the new generation to be in the offices, to let them finally rule the country … it’s high time to finally stop with old practices.”

Nalyvaichenko’s second term as head of the SBU came at a tumultuous time for Ukraine. In the months following the February 2014 revolution, Russia launched a hybrid invasion of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, ultimately annexing the territory.

Russia followed up the seizure of Crimea with a proxy war in the Donbas. A combined force of pro-Russian separatists and Russian regulars was on the march in eastern Ukraine in 2014, and there were worries then that Ukraine could be cleaved in two, or that Russian forces massed on Ukraine’s borders might stage a large-scale invasion.

In Kiev, the post-revolution government was at the time trying to establish its legitimacy and follow through on the pro-democratic promise of the revolution.

Meanwhile, officials were piecing together a military campaign out of the remnants of Ukraine’s armed forces, which had been gutted by decades of corruption and purposeful neglect.

Amid all of this, Nalyvaichenko pushed to prosecute corrupt government officials.

A New Fight

In Ukraine, opinions diverge about the hierarchy of threats facing the country.

A nearly three-year-old war between Ukrainian troops and a combined force of pro-Russian separatists and Russian regulars continues to simmer in the Donbas, Ukraine’s embattled eastern territory on the border with Russia.

About 10,000 Ukrainians have so far died in the conflict, which has also displaced about 1.7 million people. The war cost Ukraine an equivalent 20 percent of its gross national product in 2015, according to a 2016 report by the Institute for Economics and Peace.

The February 2015 cease-fire has failed. Military and civilian casualties still occur almost every day from landmines, artillery fire, rocket attacks, and small arms gun battles.

Ukraine’s military has rebuilt itself since 2014, but many front-line soldiers complain that after nearly three years of combat, they still aren’t getting basic supplies.

Despite the war’s cost in blood and treasure, Nalyvaichenko said the greatest threat facing Ukraine today is not on the battlefields of the Donbas, but within Kiev’s government halls.

“If you don’t understand how deep and how destroying the corruption is, you’ll never win the war,” Nalyvaichenko said. “This system, as I understand it, is not workable anymore. And because of war, because of Russian aggression, we now understand why. We simply, as a country, as a nation, have no time and no space anymore to continue with such corrupt practices.”

There is, however, a countervailing, quieter faction, particularly among Ukraine’s military brass, which says the war effort should take priority over any anti-corruption crusades.

Ukrainian military officials who spoke to The Daily Signal on background cautioned against ambitious anti-corruption agendas while the country is still at war.

And, according to the October 2016 International Republican Institute poll, most Ukrainians consider the war to be the biggest threat to the country.

Of the Ukrainians surveyed in the poll, 53 percent said the war in the Donbas was the country’s most important issue, compared with 38 percent who singled out corruption as the top issue.

“The tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, tanks, and artillery sitting along Ukraine’s southern and eastern borders are Ukraine’s sole existential threat,” Alexander Motyl, professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark, wrote in OZY. “If [Russian President] Vladimir Putin gives the command, they could invade and possibly destroy large parts of the country. Corruption, by comparison, could eviscerate Ukraine’s institutions, but only in the long term.”

Outsider

As SBU chief, Nalyvaichenko spearheaded an investigation into a June 8, 2015, fire at an oil depot near Vasylkiv, Ukraine. The investigation allegedly implicated government officials in financial crimes, according to Nalyvaichenko’s account of events.

The investigation also revealed the undisclosed involvement of a Russian company in the oil depot.

Nalyvaichenko said he personally presented Poroshenko with the evidence and pushed for the issuance of arrest warrants.

Then, on June 15, 2015, Poroshenko fired Nalyvaichenko as head of the SBU. And three days later, Ukraine’s parliament voted to approve Nalyvaichenko’s ouster.

“That’s why I decided to be outside the government,” Nalyvaichenko said. “I really understood and understand for sure that to be subordinated and to fight the corruption, which is above you, is impossible. You become a part of this corrupt group of people, or you are outside. Here’s a red line. For me it was a clear decision.”

The Poroshenko administration declined a request for comment for this article. But, in an emailed statement to The Daily Signal, the SBU defended its track record of investigating and prosecuting corrupt officials.

“After the Revolution of Dignity, state leadership gave a clear indication to law enforcement authorities to begin the real fight against corruption, regardless of position, party affiliation, and the number of stars on one’s epaulets,” the SBU wrote in its statement to The Daily Signal.

According to the SBU, the security agency investigated 673 Ukrainian officials for corruption in 2016, compared with 545 in 2015, and 359 in 2014. The SBU said its investigations led to 256 convictions in 2016, an increase from 184 in 2015, and 181 in 2014.

“This suggests an increase in the intensity of the intelligence agencies in this cause,” the SBU said in its statement.

Nalyvaichenko acknowledged that Ukraine has made some progress in fighting corruption, but he said the past few years of investigations have largely targeted mid- and low-level government officials.

“The worst thing, I think, is that no single person from the top of the previous government [has been] prosecuted,” Nalyvaichenko said. “No single trial, or public hearings, or other procedures were organized by this government, by these officials. That’s I think the worst thing for the country and for Ukrainians.”

Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal’s foreign correspondent based in Ukraine.

Hey Trump Meet America Under Siege 2017

Posted on January 19, 2017January 19, 2017 by Denise Simon

Add outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry who will not be attending and not providing a reason. Further, in Barack Obama’s last White House press briefing, he refused to comment on his thoughts as to those in his party that will not be attending.

****

In his final press conference as president on Wednesday, Barack Obama declined to comment on the growing list of Democrats who are refusing to attend President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Friday

FOX News’ Kevin Corke asked the 44th president if he supports the dozens of Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to boycott Trump’s inauguration.

“With respect to the inauguration, I’m not going to comment on those issues,” Obama responded. “All I know is I’m going to be there, so is Michelle.”

First lady Michelle Obama seemed to indicate her support for Rep. John Lewis, who is one of the most prominent lawmakers boycotting the inauguration, when she sent a tweet calling him a “great leader” on Monday. More here.

Protesters host ‘Queer Dance Party’ in front of Mike Pence’s DC home

Fatah and Hamas to form unity government after Moscow deal

Posted on January 18, 2017January 18, 2017 by Denise Simon

The timing is purposeful and Putin led the coordination. This is a real message to the West.

Fatah and Hamas agree to form unity Palestinian government to end election gridlock,” by Bethan McKernan, Independent, January 19, 2017:

The governing bodies of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have agreed to bury their differences to form a unity government in order to finally hold delayed elections.

The secular Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, based in Ramallah, and Islamist militant group Hamas, which seized control of Gaza in 2007, will form a new National Council including the Palestinian diaspora to hold elections.

“We have reached agreement under which, within 48 hours, we will call on [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas to launch consultations on the creation of a government,” Fatah spokesperson Azzam al-Ahmad told media after three days of reconciliation talks in the Russian capital of Moscow concluded on Tuesday.

“Today the conditions for [the idea] are better than ever,” Mr Ahmad added.

Relations between Fatah and Hamas have been tense since Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip a decade ago.

The first elections since 2007 were due to be held in 2016 but were delayed multiple times after legal complaints filed by various political actors and a high court ruling found elections could only be held in the West Bank.

The non-official Russian brokered talks also involved representatives from the Shia Islamic Jihad militant group, which has not been present at political talks in years.

While in Moscow, Palestinian representatives also met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, asking him to pressure US President-elect Donald Trump into reneging on a campaign promise to move the US Embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem….

****

According to Al Jazeera, the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority has agreed to form a unity government with rival organisation Hamas.

The two organisations will form a new National Council. The plan is to include Palestinians in exile and then hold elections.

It should be noted that the Islamic Jihad group was also included in the negotiations.

The last time the Palestinians staged elections in which both Hamas and Fatah took part was in 2006.

The Palestinian representatives also met on Monday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, asking him not persuade the US government not to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

This new Russian involvement in the Palestinian issues is an upgrade for Moscow and with the new foreign policy Donald Trump will follow, it might not be the last.

Meanwhile: From Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

The electricity crisis in the Gaza Strip brought masses of protesters into the streets (one held in the Jabalia refugee camp had thousands of demonstrators). Qatar and Turkey promised aid (money and fuel) to help Hamas cope with the immediate problem, although it will not fundamentally solve the problem.

The crisis illustrates Hamas’ difficulty in coping with the challenges of governance in the Gaza Strip, and its inability to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority (PA), even over vital services for the population. However, Hamas’ security forces have proved themselves effective in controlling the situation and so far have managed to contain the protests.

Senior Palestinian figures have initiated a campaign threatening mainly the United States, in the wake of the possibility that America will relocate its embassy to Jerusalem.One of the Palestinians’ main claims was that such a move would “ignite the region” and “open the gates of hell in the Middle East and the world.” Mahmoud Abbas said it would make the United States ineligible to play a role in resolving the conflict, destroy the two-state solution and lead the PA to examine possible responses, including retracting Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel.

Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem

Detention of Palestinian Who Attempted Vehicular Attack

On January 11, 2017, during an IDF activity in the al-Fawwar refugee camp (south of Hebron), a Palestinian attempted a vehicular attack. There were no casualties. The Palestinian media reported the Israeli security forces had detained a Palestinian, claiming he had tried to run over a Border Policeman on the road between the town of Dura and the al-Fawwar refugee camp (Shasha News, January 11, 2017).

Riots and Clashes

In the meantime, routine popular terrorism continued unabated (the throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails). The more prominent attacks were the following:

January 17, 2017 – Palestinians threw stones at Israeli vehicles on route 443 near the Ofer military camp. There were no casualties. The vehicles were damaged (Facebook page of Red Alert, January 17, 2017).

January 16, 2017 – Border Policemen operating in A-Tor detained a Palestinian bus passenger who looked suspicious. Initial investigation revealed that he lived in Judea and Samaria and did not have an entry permit for east Jerusalem. During his interrogation the police began to suspect he had come to east Jerusalem to carry out a stabbing attack targeting Israeli security forces near the Nablus Gate in the Old City of east Jerusalem (Jerusalem Police spokesperson’s unit, January 17, 2017).

January 16, 2017 – A Palestinian who clashed with IDF forces in a riot near Tekoa in Gush Etzion and threw stones at the soldiers was shot and killed. (Facebook page of Red Alert, January 16, 2017). The Palestinian media reported him as Qusay al-Amur, 17, a Fatah operative (Facebook page of the Fatah movement, January 16, 2017).

January 15, 2017 – Israeli security forces sealed a weapons workshop that was exposed in Hebron three weeks ago. It was discovered at the beginning of December 2016 in a large underground chamber in a residential house in Hebron’s southern industrial zone. The workshop produced hundreds of weapons (Ynet, January 15, 2017).

January 12, 2017 – Palestinians threw stones at a car and truck near Beit Hanina in east Jerusalem. One man was injured; the vehicles were damaged (Facebook page of Red Alert, January 12, 2017).

January 11, 2017 – Palestinians threw a pipe bomb at IDF forces on the Husan detour near Beitar (west of Bethlehem). There were no casualties (Facebook page of Red Alert, January 11, 2017).

January 11, 2017 – Israeli policemen stopped an Israeli truck at the Beqaot crossing which was driving in the direction of Nablus. It was found to contain 14 tons of fertilizer, which is also used to making explosives and not allowed into Judea and Samaria. The truck was confiscated and the driver detained for questioning (Civilian administration spokesperson’s unit, January 11, 2017).

On the night of January 15, 2017, in a joint Israeli security force operation, 13 Hamas operatives were detained near Ramallah. One of them was Ahmed Mubarak, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council. The forces confiscated money, vehicles and Hamas propaganda materials. The operation was carried out after the Israeli security forces exposed a Hamas network of about 120 operatives. The network operated in the region of Ramallah and in effect served as the local Hamas headquarters. Ahmed Bahar, deputy chairman of the Palestinian Legislative Council, condemned the detention of Ahmed Mubarak, claiming it was a clear violation of parliamentary immunity (Quds.press, January 16, 2017).

The objective of the network exposed in the Ramallah region was to strengthen Hamas in Judea and Samaria, and to achieve the goal it also engaged in the da’wah (Islamic indoctrination), providing economic support for prisoners and the families of terrorists, and supporting a Hamas student cell. The network also distributed Hamas propaganda and organized mass demonstrations. Its activities were financed by Hamas sources abroad and by Hamas in the Gaza Strip (Israel Security Agency media unit, January 16, 2017)

Israel’s South

Rocket Fire Attacking Israel

Palestinians opened fire at an IDF force maintaining the border security fence between Israel and the Gaza Strip in the southern Gaza Strip. There were no casualties. A military vehicle was damaged. In response an IDF tank fired at and destroyed a Hamas post near the source of the shots (Ynet, January 15, 2017).

Developments in the Gaza Strip

The Electricity Crisis

The electricity crisis in the Gaza Strip recently worsened, and Gazans currently have electricity for only about three hours a day. The crisis is apparently the result of several factors, including the increase in consumption due to the winter cold; a problem with the power lines from Egypt, which supply 11% of the Gaza Strip’s electricity; the completion of a number of infrastructure projects which require electricity; and a rise in the price of fuel, which made it more expensive to operate the power plant.

The situation resulted in mass protests throughout the Gaza Strip (one in Jabalia had thousands of demonstrators). Some of the demonstrations were harshly dispersed by Hamas’ security forces and their organizers detained. Hamas rejected the claims of civilians and claimed Mahmoud Abbas and the national consensus government were responsible for the crisis. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum stressed the right of the public to protest, but said it could not create “anarchy in [the Gaza Strip’s] security” and disturb public order. Senior Hamas figure Fathi Hamad urged the demonstrators to move to Egypt or the West Bank if life in the Gaza Strip was unsatisfactory. He added that Hamas would use all its power to suppress the protests (Facebook page of Watan, January 14, 2017).

The crisis led Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to exchange mutual accusations. At its weekly meeting, the Palestinian national consensus government blamed Hamas for the ongoing shortages of electricity in the Gaza Strip. The PA claimed Hamas was determined to take control of the electric company and the Palestinian energy and natural resources authority, and did not allow them to perform their functions (Wafa, January 10, 2017).

The crisis raised claims that there was a connection between Hamas’ use of electricity the tunnels and its shortage in the public sector. In response Abu Obeida, spokesman for Hamas’ military wing, claimed the tunnels were one of the “greatest creations of the Palestinian resistance” in response to Israel’s military arsenal and the closure of the Gaza Strip. He claimed building the tunnels had caused the “resistance” many sacrifices, and strongly rejected any attempt to link the “resistance” to the lack of electricity (Twitter account of Abu Obeida, January 12, 2017).

To find an immediate arrangement for the electricity crisis, Ismail Haniyeh, deputy head of the Hamas political bureau, consulted with the emir of Qatar. The emir promised him that over the next three months Qatar would transfer $12 million to buy fuel for the power plant (Gaza al-A’an, January 15, 2017). In addition, Turkey promised to send 15 million liters (almost four million gallons) of fuel to the Gaza Strip. Both are supposed to arrive shortly (Safa, January 16, 2017). The aid from Qatar and Turkey may be able to provide Hamas with a short-term solution but it cannot fundamentally end the crisis.

In conclusion, the crisis illustrates the difficulties Hamas has in dealing with the challenges of governance in the Gaza Strip, one of which is the uninterrupted supply of electricity to the Gazans. It has also led the local residents to strongly protest against Hamas and again shows that Hamas and the PA are incapable of cooperating, even on issues that relate to the daily life of the population. However, as far as can be seen, the Hamas enforcement agencies still function effectively, and so far Hamas has successfully contained the protests and prevented them from spinning out of control.

The Palestinian Authority

Palestinian Reactions to the Paris Conference

On January 15, 2017, a peace conference organized by France was held in Paris. Seventy countries sent representatives, most of them foreign ministers. There were no representatives from either Israel or the PA. The conference’s final summation confirmed that a negotiated solution of two states, existing side by side, was the only way an enduring peace could be achieved. It stressed the importance of both sides’ commitment to a solution to the conflict and to taking immediate steps that would bring an end to continued acts of violence and ongoing settlement activity.^[2] The announcement noted that the solutions would be in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 2334, and with the principles formulated by John Kerry, the American secretary of state, on December 18, 2016 (Website of the French foreign ministry, January 15, 2017).

Responses from a number of senior Palestinian figures were the following:

Mahmoud Abbas, PA chairman, called on Israel to stop construction in the settlements. He said the PA was prepared to renew negotiations to revitalize the peace process within an international framework and with a defined time table. He called on all states around the globe that had not yet recognized the Palestinian state to do so, and to monitor the implementation of Security Council Resolution 2334 (Watan, January 15, 2017).

Nabil Abu Rudeina, spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, said the Palestinians’ many recent achievements had proved the failure of Israel’s policies and the victory of the Palestinian cause. He said that was shown by the global consensus over resistance to construction in the settlements and support for the two-state solution (Wafa, January 16, 2017).

Riyad al-Maliki, foreign minister of the national consensus government, said the foreign ministry would monitor the implementation of the conference’s conclusions that Israel stop building in the settlements so that a Palestinian state could be established and officially join the UN (Watan, January 15, 2017).

Saeb Erekat, secretary of the PLO’s Executive Committee, stressed the need to end the “Israeli occupation” and the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent state. He also noted the importance of the two-state solution, thanked all the countries that attended the conference and called on them to recognize the Palestinian state immediately (Watan24, January 15, 2017).

While senior PA figures tried to represent the results of the conference as an achievement, senior Hamas figures mocked the conference, its results and its final statement:

Senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Zahar said he found it hard to believe an international conference would bring any benefit to the Palestinian cause (Quds.net, January 15, 2017).

Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem said Hamas viewed the conference as “a waste of time” that copied previous failed peace conferences. He called on the PA to focus on the internal Palestinian reconciliation instead (al-Anadolu News, January 15, 2017).

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said the Paris conference was an attempt to renew the “absurd negotiations” that would give the “Zionist entity” the legitimacy to remain in the territories of Palestine. He said the Palestinian people had to stand fast by their principles and focus on the path of “resistance” to defend themselves (Hamas website, January 16, 2017).

Hamas spokesman Abd al-Latif al-Qanu’ said Hamas did not have much hope that an international conference held for the sake of the Palestinian cause because Israel did not honor its conclusions. He added that any negotiations with Israel were a “waste of time” (al-Aqsa, January 14, 2017).

Responses to Possible Relocation of American Embassy to Jerusalem

Senior PA figures continue dealing with the possibility that the American embassy will be moved to Jerusalem. They said the following:

Mahmoud Abbas said he had appealed to the American president-elect not to relocate the American embassy in Jerusalem, because, he said, such a step would make the United States ineligible to play a role in resolving the conflict and destroy the two-state solution. He added that if the Americans did relocate their embassy, there were a number of possible responses which would be discussed with the Arab states, including the possibility of retracting Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel.

Rami Hamdallah, prime minister of the national consensus government, demanded that the institutions of the international community stand up to the threat of the new American administration to relocate its embassy. He warned that if the United States did relocate it, there would be a significant deterioration of regional security (Safa, January 11, 2017).

Saeb Erekat, secretary of the PLO’s Executive Committee, sent a communiqué to Russian President Putin asked Russia to intervene and prevent the American embassy from being relocated. Interviewed by the RT channel in Arabic, he said that moving the embassy to east Jerusalem meant annexing Jerusalem to Israel (YouTube, January 12, 2017).

Fatah spokesman Osama al-Qawasmeh issued an announcement threatening that it would “open the gates of hell in the Middle East and the world.” He also said that it would put a lid on any possibility for regional peace and stability, because east Jerusalem was the capital of the Palestinian state (Ma’an, January 14, 2017).

Muhammad Hussein, the mufti of Jerusalem and the PA, warned the incoming administration that relocating the embassy could “ignite the region” (alresala.net, January 12, 2017). In his Friday sermon in al-Aqsa mosque, he said relocating the embassy was “aggression against the entire Muslim world” and was liable to have consequences “that only Allah knew.” He said it was an attack on all the conventions and UN Security Council resolutions, and that Muslims would not silently accept it (YouTube, January 13, 2017).

The weekly riot in Kafar Qadoum was also exploited for a protest. Demonstrators held signs reading that relocating the embassy to Jerusalem was “a despicable crime” (Wafa, January 13, 2017). On January 16, 2017, Gazans demonstrated in the center of Gaza City. The held signs reading “Jerusalem is a red line” (Facebook page of QudsN, January 16, 2017).

Palestinian Legation Opened in the Vatican

Mahmoud Abbas paid a visit to the Vatican and met with the Pope. He also participated in the ceremony opening the legation of Palestine in the Vatican City. He told newspaper correspondents that he called on all the nations of the world to follow the Vatican and recognize the sate of Palestine. He called on the states to participate in realizing peace (al-Wataniya, January 14, 2017).

Memorial to the Hamas Terrorist Engineer Killed in Tunisia

In Deir Ghassaneh, a town northwest of Ramallah, a sign was hung naming a street for Muhammad al-Zoari, a Hamas terrorist engineer who was killed in Tunisia (Twitter account of Palinfo, January 15, 2017).^[3] Hanging the sign might have been a local initiative.

Hey Donald, You Ready for these Political Ambushes?

Posted on January 16, 2017January 16, 2017 by Denise Simon

There is historically to be a smooth transition of power. So far that has hardly been the case. While most Democrats say that Donald Trump won the most important seat in the free world, others are out there saying not so much.

Draining the swamp could be a rather easy political mission in DC due to many progressive powerbrokers being so unabashed at revealing who they are. Sure there are a number of them that refuse to attend the inauguration which is shameful. What they plan to do in that time period is in many cases even more shameful. Exactly what are they boycotting anyway?

This is going to be a wild ride and the left is making it worse beginning with cabinet nominees and future legislation.

****

The boycott movement began with Georgia Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights icon, who said he did not view Trump as a “legitimate president” because of allegations that Russia attempted to sway the election in Trump’s favor. After Trump responded with several highly critical tweets about Lewis, Democrats rallied behind Lewis, and as of Saturday night, 17 members of Congress have announced they will not attend.

None of the Democrats who are boycotting is part of the House leadership for the party. All except one of those who are received at least 64 percent of their district’s vote in the November election.

Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva

“My absence is not motivated by disrespect for the office or motivated by disrespect for the government that we have in this great democracy, but as an individual act, yes, of defiance at the disrespect shown to millions and millions of Americans by this incoming administration, and the actions we are taking in this Congress,” Grijalva said on the House floor Friday, per CNN.

California Rep. Barbara Lee

Read the rest of the list here as published by the Kansas City Star.

But it will be worse than just boycotting January 20th. Sure there are countless protests planned and protests permits have been approved. So, what else you ask?

****

From the National Law Journal: The day after Donald Trump is sworn in as the 45th president the United States, hundreds of attorneys and activists are slated to gather in Washington to strategize on how best to resist “bad government” and coordinate pro bono efforts to protect civil rights.

They will spend two days meeting and discussing issues such as gerrymandering, human rights, better policing and U.S. Supreme Court confirmations during the so-called Rise Above conference. It’s scheduled to coincide with the Jan. 21 Women’s March on Washington.

Rise Above is co-sponsored by two fledging nonprofit groups formed in the wake of Trump’s election: the grassroots government accountability organization RISE When We Fall and the attorney-centric Lawyers for Good Government. They hope to create a “pro bono army to be on the front lines protecting our country and our values,” according to an announcement of the event.

The conference combines networking opportunities, an expo of nonprofit organizations, talks from experienced leaders intended to inspire attendees and a slew of panel discussions of specific legal and activism topics.

“One of the things that’s very important to us is to create a starting point,” said Traci Feit Love, a former DLA Piper associate who is the founder of Lawyers for Good Government. “Some people who are relatively new to activism are trying to figure out, ‘Where do we go from here? How do we approach the issues? What do we prioritize?'”

Some legal heavy hitters are on the agenda. SCOTUSBlog founder Tom Goldstein is scheduled to speak, as are Southern Poverty Law Center co-founder Joe Levin and newly-elected Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, who previously taught Constitutional Law at American University Washington College of Law.

Love got the idea for what would become Lawyers for Good Government the day after the election, following a fruitless search to connect with like-minded lawyers in Facebook. The election results had given her a sense of urgency.

“As I was putting my 8-year-old daughter to bed the night of the election, it hit me what had just happened and what it might mean for the country,” she said. “It was a punch in the gut to me and, I think, a lot of other people.”

Love decided to create her own lawyer activist Facebook group called Lawyers of the Left, thinking that 200 or so might join. Within a week, membership swelled past 100,000. Love quickly concluded that lawyers inspired to fight back against Trump’s agenda needed more than just an online gathering place, and she created Lawyers for Good Government using the online lawyer community that coalesced immediately after the election as the foundation for the new effort.

“Everyone was asking, ‘What can we do?'” she said. “No one wanted to just talk about things. It felt like a responsibility to figure out how to help this group of people make the biggest impact.”

Rise Against will be the group’s first foray into live events, though the nearly $600 full ticket price has generated some criticism. Love said Monday that the group retooled parts of the conference in response to concerns that the high cost would shut out some would-be attendees. Organizers did away with a formal evening gala and priced tickets to the networking event at $20 to $40. But staging a large event during the busy inaugural weekend was expensive, and the two host groups lacked established budgets to subsidize costs. Tickets sales were needed to cover the bulk of event, which is being held at the Lincoln Theatre and the Mayflower Hotel, she said. Love is expecting about 1,000 attendees.

“I think one of the most important things this conference can do for us is create both personal relationships and that sense of connection that can sustain a movement beyond the initial energy,” Love said. “What’s likely to happen, due to human nature, is months go by and everyone starts to refocus on their day-to-day lives. We need to ensure that we can sustain the level of energy required to keep an eye on the new administration and Congress.”