Category Archives: Terror

Know Someone That Went Missing? Check North Korea

Posted on by

The decision by a U.N. General Assembly committee to condemn North Korea for crimes against humanity this week is historic. It could well lead to North Korean leaders facing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC), forcing them to confront the numerous accusations made against their isolated regime.

There is still a long way to go, however. The resolution must pass the Security Council, where Russia and China — two important allies of North Korea — hold veto power. Also, the ICC itself has struggled with problems of legitimacy since it was established in 2002 to prosecute war crimes.

Even so, North Korea seems worried, and after Tuesday’s decision it offered a belligerent warning that it would conduct further nuclear tests. The reaction reflects a broader trend: In the past few months, the country has used crude insults and a curious charm offensive to try to deflect the U.N. criticism of its human rights offenses. At one point, it even released a list of the alleged U.S. human rights abuses, in a clear moment of “Whataboutism.”

***

It gets worse:

Inside the Ring: North Korean document alleges Kim role in kidnapping program to create spies

By Bill Gertz

A secret North Korean document obtained by Western intelligence states the late dictator Kim Jong-Il conceived and directed a program to kidnap foreigners and bring them back to his communist country to force them to become spies against their home countries, The Washington Times has learned.

Diplomatic sources familiar with the discovery, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the recently obtained document for the first time provides details on how and why Kim, who died in 2012, directed a covert spy unit in the 1970s called the Investigation Department that kidnapped foreign nationals and brought them to North Korea.

The Investigative Department, part of the ruling communist Korean Workers Party Central Committee, carried out several dozen selective kidnappings and used the abducted foreigners for training its intelligence operatives, and to be dispatched overseas in foreign spy operations and propaganda activities, including film production, the document indicates.

The document, believed to have been produced within the past several years as part of a historical archive, is regarded by authorities as a classified North Korean government report, the sources said.

It is considered authoritative because of its origin and the importance within the North Korean system of precisely recording the words of supreme leaders, they added.

One source familiar with the document said there are no indications the report is a forgery.

According to translated portions obtained by Inside the Ring, Kim met with the chief of the Investigation Department, which is known by its Korean acronym “Josabu,” on Sept. 29, 1977, and Oct. 7, 1977. During the meeting he spelled out plans to use people from overseas in intelligence work.

Kim, who was succeeded in power by his son Kim Jong Un, told the intelligence chief and a group of party officials that forcibly training foreign nationals in their 20s for five to seven years in North Korea would produce valuable intelligence agents who would be useful until the age of 60, the document stated.

He then ordered spy teams dispatched to Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe to secretly lure young men and women into supporting the regime. A special focus was placed on targeting attractive women.

Kim stated that targets of those brought to North Korea should include people who were loners or orphans. The abductions were to be carried out secretly using methods that could not be traced to Pyongyang’s agents, according to the document.

Among those kidnapped by the North Koreans after the 1977 orders was 13-year-old Japanese schoolgirl Megumi Yakota, who disappeared from Japan in 1977. She was taken to North Korea where she spent the rest of her life in captivity, and, according to the North Korean government, eventually died in the communist state.

On Aug. 25, 1977, Kim then ordered the Investigation Department to set up a covert Hong Kong unit devoted to inviting South Korean film actresses and the offspring of high-ranking South Korean officials to visit Hong Kong, the document states.

The objective of the covert group was to befriend selected people as targets and use them to obtain invitations to South Korea, where North Korean agents could produce films under cover.

That appears to be the motive behind the kidnapping in 1978 of South Korean actress Choi Eun-hee and her director husband Shin Sang-ok. The couple was taken to North Korea where it was hoped they would help the regime produce propaganda films. They escaped in 1986 during a visit to Vienna.

In October 1978, according to the document, Kim ordered his intelligence operatives to persuade the abducted foreign nationals to settle in North Korea. The Investigative Department arranged for the abductees to live in special guest houses where it was hoped they would reside comfortably, in contrast to the harsh living conditions faced by most North Koreans.

The kidnappings have long been known, but Kim’s role in the program has been unclear.

On Sept. 17, 2002, after then-Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi met Kim in Pyongyang, the North Korean leader admitted that his intelligence services has carried out the abduction of 11 Japanese. The admission and apology was part of a bid to obtain Japanese aid.

But according to North Korea’s official statement at the time, Pyongyang asserted the kidnappings were carried out without Kim’s knowledge or approval.

The recently-obtained document contradicts that statement.

Ambassador Jang Il Hun, deputy chief of North Korea’s mission to the United Nations, denied the late leader was involved in the kidnapping operations.

“The abduction of Japanese nationals in 1970s was an act of individual heroism conducted by some people in the intelligence community who sought fame and reputation by such acts,” Mr. Jang told Inside the Ring.

Mr. Jang said the rogue operatives were motivated by “indignation” over Japan’s refusal to apologize for abuses during Tokyo’s rule over the Korean peninsula in the early 1900s.

“In no way was the government of the DPRK involved in the abduction case, to say nothing of our respected Supreme Leader Chairman Kim Jong Il,” he said in a statement, using the acronym for North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. “This is the truth.”

Mr. Jang added that “we had so many Koreans who were repatriated from Japan, there was no need for our government to use the Japanese nationals for any government purpose.”

The total number of foreigners abducted during the intelligence operations of the 1970s and 1980s is not known but has been estimated to be several dozen people. They included nationals from China, Malaysia, Lebanon, France and Italy, in addition to those from Japan and South Korea.

In Japan, the government has elevated the issue of resolving past cases of at least 17 missing Japanese to a national priority.

Talks between Japanese and North Korean officials on the issue were held in October, and Japan earlier agreed to lift some sanctions on Pyongyang if the regime fully investigates outstanding cases of the missing nationals.

Bruce Bechtol, a North Korea specialist formerly with the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he doubts the North will investigate the cases of the missing.

“The whole idea of an ‘investigation’ is a sham,” Mr. Bechtol, a professor at Angelo State University, said in an email.

“The North Koreans obviously kidnapped several Japanese nationals,” he said. “Now I believe the debate in the North Korean ruling infrastructure will be whether or not to execute them and send the remains back, or to simply send those who are still alive back. Of course, all of this will depend on how much money the Japanese government offers to the government of the DPRK.”

Disclosures in the document bolsters the findings of a United Nations human rights report based on testimony of defectors and issued in February. The U.N. report found widespread “crimes against humanity” committed by the North Korean regime, including abductions linked to the country’s supreme leader.

North Korea “used its land, naval and intelligence forces to conduct abductions and arrests,” the report said. “Operations were approved at the level of the supreme leader. The vast majority of victims were forcibly disappeared to gain labor and other skills for the state.”

The issue of North Korea’s human rights abuses was discussed in a letter signed by 10 nations’ representatives on the 15-member U.N. Security Council last week. The letter urged the council to include the issue on its agenda. China and Russia in the past have vetoed measures for council meetings that were opposed by North Korea.

The U.N. General Assembly will vote later this month on a resolution that calls for referring North Korea to the International Criminal Court over the rights abuses.

Further evidence of North Korean interest in western films also surfaced recently. Hackers using techniques linked to North Korean cyberattacks on South Korea hacked Sony Pictures networks and stole large amounts of data, Reuters reported last week.

The cyberattack was carried out Nov. 24 and came one month before the release of Sony’s film “The Interview,” a comedy that has two American journalists tasked by the CIA to kill current leader Kim Jong Un. North Korea has said release of the film would be an “act of war.”

 

 

 

 

Covering for Hillary and the Shame of Hillary

Posted on by

State Department delays turning over files on Hillary Clinton requested by media outlets  

The State Department has failed to turn over government documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state that The Associated Press and others requested under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act ahead of her presumptive presidential campaign. They include one request AP made four years ago and others pending for more than one year.

The agency already has missed deadlines it set for itself to turn over the material.

The State Department denied the AP’s requests, and rejected the AP’s subsequent appeals, to release the records sought quickly under a provision in the law reserved for journalists requesting federal records about especially newsworthy topics.

In its requests, the AP cited the likely prospect of Clinton entering the 2016 race. The former first lady is widely considered the leading Democratic contender hoping to succeed President Barack Obama. She has made scores of recent high-profile speeches and public appearances.

On Wednesday, the conservative political advocacy group Citizens United sued the State Department for failing to disclose flight records showing who accompanied Clinton on overseas trips.

Citizens United, which in 2009 mounted a legal battle that led to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning campaign finance limits, said the department unlawfully was withholding the records it sought nearly five months ago.

The State Department is among the U.S. government’s worst-performing federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. There is no direct evidence that political considerations in a Democratic presidential administration have delayed the release of files about the party’s leading contender for 2016. But the agency’s delays, unusual even by government standards, have stoked perceptions about what could be taking so long.

“There may not necessarily be political interference, but if the department went out of its way to speed these documents there would be no way for people to accuse them of it,” said Thomas Blanton, who has previously sued the State Department for access to records as director of George Washington University’s National Security Archive, a research organization.

The department “is stonewalling us,” said Citizen United’s president, David Bossie. He asserted that “these decisions are being made with Hillary Clinton’s intentions at heart,” but acknowledged he could provide no evidence of political interference.

Bossie, a former Republican congressional investigator who researched figures in the Clinton administration, said his group’s film unit wants the records for a sequel to its documentary about Clinton, which spurred the Citizens United court decision.

The group first asked Air Force officials for passenger lists from Clinton’s overseas trips but was told all flight records were under the State Department’s control. “These were Air Force flights and crews but State has the records?” he said, adding that his group has submitted 15 Clinton-related requests in the past six months.

The AP’s requests go further back.

The AP requested copies of Clinton’s full schedules and calendars from her four years as secretary of state; her department’s decision to grant a special position for longtime aide Huma Abedin; Clinton’s and the agency’s roles in the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices; and her role overseeing a major Defense Department contractor. The AP made most of its requests last summer, although one was filed in March 2010.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach cited the department’s heavy annual load of FOIA requests _ 19,000 last year _ in saying that the department “does its best to meet its FOIA responsibilities.” He said the department takes requests “first in, first out,” but noted that timing depends on “the complexity of the request.” He declined to comment on Citizen United’s suit.

In a previous communication, a State Department official apologized for its own delays responding to AP’s records requests without offering any explanation for the delays.

“We sincerely regret the delay,” said Lela H. Ross of the Office of Information Programs and Services, which administers the agency’s requests. The official did not explain the delays but cited the agency’s “complex and lengthy administrative FOIA process.”

Last May, the State Department told the AP that its search for records pertaining to Clinton and the defense contractor would be completed by August. The agency said it now expects the files to be available later this month. Similarly, the agency said the Clinton and Abedin records would likely be completed in September. Now it says it will not finish until next April. The 4-year-old FOIA request still has no estimated completion date.

The agency’s pace responding to requests for Clinton-related files has frustrated news organizations, archivists and political groups trying to research her role at the State Department in the months before Clinton decides whether to formally enter the 2016 race.

At stake is the public’s access to thousands of documents that could help understand and define her activities as the nation’s chief diplomat under Obama.

Other major document repositories have released thousands of pages of files about Clinton’s private and public life.

Since February, lots of previously restricted records from her years as first lady to President Bill Clinton have been made public by the Clinton Presidential Library. Last month, the University of Virginia’s Miller Center presidential oral history collection unveiled dozens of interviews with key players from the Clinton White House.

The State Department generally takes about 450 days to turn over records it considers to be part of complex requests under the Freedom of Information Act. That is seven times longer than the Justice Department and CIA, and 30 times longer than the Treasury Department.

An inspector general’s report in 2012 criticized the State Department’s practices as “inefficient and ineffective,” citing a heavy workload, small staff and interagency problems. A study in March by the nonpartisan Center for Effective Government said the State Department was the worst-performing agency because of its delays and frequent failure to deliver the full number of files that people requested.

***

Meanwhile another Benghazi hearing occurred today 12/10/14.

Of particular note, the February 17 Brigade hired for supplemental security at the mission post were not only fully vetted, some members were on strike over pay disputes and even worse, the organization did not have a license to operate in Libya.

When asked by Congressman Jim Jordan why we were in Libya in the first place, he was told that the single point of contact for that question and decision to be in Libya was between Hillary Clinton and Ann Patterson. Not only was Patterson a major part of the failure during the Arab Spring in Egypt, but she was Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.

The witnesses included Greg Starr, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, left, and Steve Linick, State Department Inspector General and the questioning was narrowed to pre-attack security violations. The Inspector General delivered oral and written testimony stating that the Accountability Review Board recommendations have yet to be fully implemented after two years and waiver are often signed for non-compliance.

Recent Significant OIG Findings Concerning Security Issues
In addition to the ARB process review, OIG has issued a variety of reports covering significant security matters. I take this opportunity to highlight four areas of concern: (1) physical security deficiencies; (2) exceptions and waivers; (3) “stovepiping” of security issues within the Department; and (4) vetting of local guard forces protecting overseas facilities and personnel. P hysical S ecurity D eficiencies
Making Department personnel and facilities safe depends in large part on understanding and closing the gaps between established physical security requirements and the real world situations found at each post around the world. Recent OIG reports demonstrate that the Department is at increased risk because it lacks sufficient processes, planning, and procedures to ensure that the Department understands the security needs at posts around the world. For example, in March 2014, OIG reported, in its audit on requesting and prioritizing physical-security activities, that the Department lacked a comprehensive list of physical security deficiencies and funding requests at overseas posts.8 As a result, the Department could not ensure that the highest priority physical security needs at overseas posts were addressed and that the posts’ vulnerabilities to threats had therefore been reduced sufficiently.9 If the Department cannot identify security vulnerabilities, it cannot adequately implement or fund solutions.  In 2012, OIG conducted a series of audits and reviews of posts located in Europe, Latin America, and Africa, which identified physical security deficiencies at nine embassies and one consulate that required immediate attention.10 OIG auditors found that the posts were generally not in compliance with the Department’s physical and procedural security standards. Security deficiencies common among the posts included the failure to meet minimum compound perimeter requirements; to properly conduct inspections of vehicles before entering posts; to maintain functioning anti-ram barriers, as required; and to install and/or maintain functioning forced-entry/ballistic-resistant doors, as required. Some regional security officers (RSOs) at the audited posts stated that they were not aware of the security requirements, and one RSO explained that the deficiency in question was in place prior to the RSO’s arrival at post; however, no action had been initiated to remedy the security deficiency.  Exceptions and Waivers
Exceptions and waivers granted from compliance requirements of the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act11 (SECCA) or the security standards established by the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) also contribute to increased security risks at posts.
8 Audit of the Process To Request and Prioritize Physical Security – Related Activities at Overseas Posts (AUD-FM-14-17, March 2014). 9 Ibid. 10 AUD-SI-13-32, June 2013, and AUD-HCI-13-40, September 2013. 11 Sec. 606(a) of H.R. 3427 of the 106th Congress (113 Stat. 1501A-454-255) (22 U.S.C. § 4865), incorporated by reference pursuant to sec. 1000(a)(7) of Pub. L. 106-113 as Appendix G (1999).
4
OIG has found conditions of non-compliance with security standards for which posts had not sought exceptions or waivers.12 A common example is the use of warehouse space for offices. Under the Department’s security rules, office space must meet more stringent physical security standards than warehouse space; Department employees who work in warehouse spaces, which do not meet required physical security standards for offices, are at risk.  OIG also found that a number of overseas posts had not maintained accurate exception and waiver records.13 In some cases, OIG inspectors found that RSOs were unable to locate an exception or waiver approval or denial that was on file with DS. When a new RSO, chief of mission, or deputy chief of mission arrives at post, accurate, up-to-date records can help ensure that the RSO and senior management have current knowledge of outstanding exception and waiver requests. Only in this manner can the RSO ensure that mitigating steps are understood and completed and that restrictions, such as building use, are enforced. To address these issues, OIG recommended that DS require overseas posts to: (1) submit an annual written certification that exceptions and waivers have been requested for all circumstances where standards cannot be met and (2) provide a statement of assurance signed by the chief of mission certifying that post is adhering to all stipulations in existing waivers and exceptions. To date, this recommendation remains unresolved.

But the U.S. State Department was much worse under Hillary Clinton than is reported.

CBS News’ John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General’s memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off. The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples. Among them: allegations that a State Department security official in Beirut “engaged in sexual assaults” on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards and the charge and that members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security detail “engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries” — a problem the report says was “endemic.”

The memo also reveals details about an “underground drug ring” was operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and supplied State Department security contractors with drugs.

 

 

 

 

Rotation NATO Operation Atlantic Resolve

Posted on by

Atlantic Resolve (OAR) Land Forces training mission Dec. 15 from the Texas-based 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, based in Vilseck, Germany.

The 2nd Cavalry Regiment assumes responsibility as the next rotational U.S. Army unit to take part in ongoing multinational land forces exercises across NATO’s eastern border to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

Advance elements of 3rd Squadron, 2nd Cavalry regiment have already arrived in the Baltic nations and Poland to prepare for the arrival of the unit’s personnel and equipment. The squadron is expected to complete the deployment of its personnel and equipment to the four nations by the second week of January.

1/1 CAV will rotate back to its home base in Fort Hood, Texas, in time for the holiday season.

Operation Atlantic Resolve demonstrates U.S. commitment to NATO Allies following Russian aggressive actions in Ukraine.

“As the main enabler for NATO land forces in the U.S. European Command, we are absolutely committed to assuring and defending our NATO allies. We’ve been executing Army operations with a combination of forward stationed and rotational forces since early spring of 2014,” said Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, U.S. Army Europe commander. “Our commitment to each other and interoperability are stronger than ever. USAREUR is the leadership laboratory for the Army as we have the unique advantage of working side by side with our Allies and partners every day.”

In close coordination with the host nations, both allied and U.S. Army units will conduct a transitional period over the holiday break from mid December to early January to allow the flow of outbound and inbound unit equipment and for Soldiers to spend the holidays with family.

Meanwhile:

U.S. army may station tanks in Eastern Europe

The U.S. Army plans to deploy about 150 tanks and armored vehicles to NATO countries next year and some of the heavy armor may be stationed in Eastern Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, Commander of U.S. Army Europe, said on Tuesday, cites LETA/AFP. 

The move is part of a U.S. effort dubbed “Operation Atlantic Resolve” in the Baltic states and Poland to reassure allies anxious about a resurgent Russia, with American troops deploying for several months at a time to conduct joint exercises.

Nearly 50 armored vehicles are already in place and another 100 “M1 Abrams” tanks and “Bradley” fighting vehicles will be pre-positioned in Germany and possibly elsewhere for the U.S. troops conducting drills with NATO partners, Hodges told AFP in a phone interview from Estonia.

“The troops will come over and train, and they’ll go back. The equipment will stay behind,” Hodges said.

The arrangement was “a lot cheaper” than transporting tanks across the Atlantic and more efficient for the training mission, the general said.

Hodges said he would soon make a recommendation on whether to store some of the tanks and armored vehicles among NATO’s eastern members.

“I’m going to look at options that would include distributing this equipment in smaller sets, company-size or battalion-size, perhaps in the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, places like that,” he said.

The United States has about 29,000 forces permanently stationed in Germany, Italy and Belgium but has stepped up temporary deployments of troops for training and exercises designed to send a signal to Russia and NATO partners.

About 600 U.S. Army troops from the 1st Cavalry Division are to depart in mid-December after a three month stint in the Baltic countries and Poland. They will be replaced by soldiers from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment based in Vilseck, Germany, who then will hand over in the spring to members of the 3rd Infantry Division, he said.

Hodges said the troop rotations will continue through 2015 and into 2016.

Then Zerohedge reports: Having grown used to images and clips of “Russian” tanks rolling through Ukraine, crossing borders, and generally creating havoc, we thought the following clip was of note. With NATO and Russia rattling sabres ever louder, the site of a trainful of American tanks passing through Latvia will, we are sure, do nothing to calm both sides. Video is here.

As LiveLeak reports,

According to the representative of national armed forces of Latvia, till December 6 transportation of heavy military equipment of the first cavalry division of army of the USA from Adazhi and Estonia was carried out to Lithuania.

*  *  *

As NATO builds its forces…

Before:

After:

 

and “incidents” surge…

 

 




 

Putin’s Secret Submarines and Strategy

Posted on by

Russia has been placing, flying and deploying strategic military assets around the globe that appear in some curious locations, like aircraft near Newfoundland, aircraft near Alaska and ships near Nicaragua and Cuba.

Now it seems that a submarine that was detected and vanished has gained the attention of several countries.

Many countries are paying attention however, no one is saying if this is aggression, surveillance or part of a Putin Cold War Part 2 operation.

Few speak to the matter of Ukraine and even less when it comes to the risk of the Baltic States.

LONDON—The U.K. called in assistance to help hunt for a foreign submarine off the west coast of Scotland starting in late November.

Maritime patrol aircraft (MPAs) from France, Canada and the U.S. conducted patrols in conjunction with British surface warships in the search for the submarine in late November and the first week of December, operating out of RAF Lossiemouth in northern Scotland.

The incident began when a periscope was sighted in waters where U.K. and other submarines would normally surface as they head into or out of the Royal Navy’s submarine base at Faslane, home of the U.K.’s ballistic missile submarines.

At the height of the operation, aircraft involved in the hunt included two U.S. Navy P-3 Orions, a single CP-140 Aurora from the Royal Canadian Air Force and a Dassault Atlantique 2 of the French navy. Also involved was one of the U.K.’s Raytheon Sentinel radar-reconnaissance aircraft.

The U.K. defense ministry and the participating air arms have not confirmed they were hunting for a submarine. But a U.K. defense ministry spokesman told Aviation Week that Britain had “requested assistance from allied forces for basing of maritime patrol aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth for a limited period.

The aircraft are conducting Maritime Patrol activity with the Royal Navy; we do not discuss the detail of maritime operations.”

A spokesman for the Royal Canadian Air Force said: “Following a request for assistance from the United Kingdom, the Canadian Armed Forces deployed one CP-140 Aurora Aircraft to RAF Lossiemouth for a limited time.”

Maritime patrol aircraft are occasionally deployed to Scotland, mainly for NATO’s Joint Warrior exercise. Such exercises are usually announced in advance, but November’s deployment was unexpected, with the aircraft and supporting airlifters arriving around Nov. 26. The deployment appeared to end last last week.

The incident comes more than a month after Swedish authorities halted a search for a foreign submarine operating in its territorial waters in the Stockholm archipelago. While the Swedish search was unsuccessful, defense officials said there was no doubt that the country’s waters had been violated by a foreign power.

It is not clear whether the submarine being hunted by the U.K. and other Western nations had entered U.K. territorial waters, or if the maritime patrol aircraft successfully located the sub.

The Sentinel may have been using its radar to try to spot periscope-sized objects on the surface and then cue MPAs onto the target.

On Nov. 28, the U.K. reported it was tracking four Russian warships passing through the Strait of Dover and into the English Channel heading out into the Atlantic. The surface ships included a Ropucha-class landing ship and an Udaloy-class destroyer. These were shadowed by HMS Tyne, a Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel.

The U.K. retired its own fixed-wing maritime patrol capability provided by the Nimrod in 2010, and has been limited to the use of ships and helicopters for the anti-submarine mission.

Further, another look at Putin’s aggression and certain risks are worthy of immediate attention especially as the Russian currency is unstable due in part to the falling price of crude oil.

Russia and the West

The Geopolitical Nihilist

Jakub Grygiel

Putin’s Russia may be able to wreck the geopolitical status quo, but it doesn’t have the power to replace it.

Russia’s bold moves into Crimea and Eastern Ukraine give one the impression that a calculating strategist sits in the Kremlin. Putin’s own public pronouncements tell us that his apparent aim is to restore Muscovite power and influence over territories deemed by him to be historically Russian. Putin is thus feared to be a shrewd competitor willing to use all forms of Russian power—from nuclear innuendo to a superiority in conventional forces to relentless information warfare—in order to build methodically a new regional order. In other words, he may be a geopolitical master.

But there is another possibility. It’s plausible that he has no such well thought out vision of geopolitical reconstruction, and little or no planning for how to establish and maintain whatever new rules Moscow might impose. Even if Putin did have a new regional order in mind, he may be incapable of translating it into reality. By choice and by necessity, Putin may simply be eager to wreck the status quo with nary a thought given to what comes after. In other words, he may be a geopolitical nihilist.

Consider, for instance, that it is unclear what Putin’s desired “international order” would look like. His own statements on this subject are increasingly more detached from reality, rants fueled by his own propaganda. (He suggests, for instance, that Ukraine is oppressing Russians, or that the U.S. and the West more broadly have been aggressors against Russia for the better part of two decades.) Whether he believes this nonsense or not will never be known, but there is little in such harangues to suggest that he has a positive vision of an alternative political order. We know—and he knows—what he viscerally hates, but the destruction of what he hates does not imply a replacement.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, even if Putin has a long-term vision of the order he wants to establish, he may be unable to implement it. Weak and declining revisionist powers, such as today’s Russia, do not have the capacity to establish a stable regional order. They lack the strength necessary to maintain it, even though they may have a deep desire to demolish the existing one. The best they can do is to increase uncertainty about their behavior, flailing here and there, expanding their influence and control in weakly defended adjacent regions, and more broadly, increasing the perception of risk in the mind of their opponents. The result is a volatile and unpredictable situation—costly to all, but seen by the declining revisionist as perhaps more costly to its rivals (and thus in the selfish logic of relative gains, beneficial!). A declining revisionist power is a wrecker of order.

The inability to formulate and implement a cogent and viable alternative does not mean, however, that Putin’s Russia is not a serious menace to the security of Europe and the interests of the United States. Geopolitical nihilism is not the same as geopolitical passivity. Russia presents perhaps a greater problem than a strong revisionist state with clear and implementable plans for how to reorganize the international or regional order.

Russia has neither the power nor the authority to maintain an order, but it has plenty of force and abundant desire to destroy the existing one.

Russia is in fact still a formidable military power. It has a massive nuclear arsenal that is presented to the world as superior to the American one and as a symbol, if not a symptom, of great resilience and strength. As many analysts have observed, Russian conventional forces have undergone a dramatic, though still limited, improvement since the 2008 war in Georgia (and in any case, they are superior in size, firepower, and sophistication to those of Russia’s European and Central Asian neighbors). Yet the economy is in shambles, producing little of value and drawing wealth mostly from the extraction of natural resources. Moreover, Russia’s authoritarian political system is fragile, based on the so far unchallenged rule of Putin and his clan, a large propaganda apparatus fanning nationalist hysteria and resentment toward the West, and a good dose of violence targeted at political opponents and potential claimants to power. Russia is a ramshackle gas station run by a small group of well-armed, delusional gangsters.

This political, social, and economic fragility means that Russia cannot replace the existing order on Europe’s eastern frontier—an order that is based on exactly those pillars fraying or outright missing in Russia. But she can destroy it because of her military might. Russia cannot compete as an economic potentate or as a politically attractive entity, but can and does employ its military force to destabilize the region. It is not surprising therefore that Ukraine can be Western and European by the Ukrainians’ free choice but may still fall under Russian vassalage by the sheer brutality of Muscovite firepower. This is 21st century competition meeting 19th century extortion.

Extortion—brute force—creates an order that lasts as long as the fear it generates lasts. Were Russia a rising power, that fear and the resulting order might have some staying power. But today’s Russia is not China; neither is she the post-World War II superpower that could roll over a large swath of the Eurasian landmass and impose a bloody Soviet order. Whatever Moscow may establish in its immediate region through its armor, artillery, and nuclear threats will be backed by a flimsy state, seeking its own justification through invented myths of Western frauds, perversions, and belligerence.

The fact that Russia is unable to replace the existing order with her own stable and durable one does not mean therefore that the threat is nonexistent. On the contrary, the threat is more pronounced because the risks presented by Russia are higher. If Moscow had a clear idea of what it wanted to achieve—how far it wants to extend its influence, and what new rules of international behavior and domestic comportment it will enforce—the uncertainty would be smaller. We may, as we should, still deeply dislike and oppose the proposed order, but at a minimum the boundaries of the conflict would be well defined.

In this case, however, the vision seems to be nihilistic in the long term. Hence the on-and-off Russian interventions in Ukraine, the constant provocations in the Baltic regions, the boasts about nuclear capabilities and the willingness to use them, the Russian aerial forays from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico, and so on. These are all attempts to shake the existing order. These actions have varied intensity and outcomes: While Ukraine is being broken apart by Russian artillery and armor, Alaska and Diego Garcia are safe from the occasional Tu-95s sputtering near their airspace. But the principle unifying all these actions is a negative one: to destabilize by introducing elements of greater risk.

Putin as the geopolitical nihilist is therefore different than the various tsars that he wants to emulate. In mostly unpleasant and violent ways, the past tsars built and rebuilt the Russian empire by expanding into adjacent lands while seeking some diplomatic arrangement with the more distant great powers. Putin expands into Russia’s southern and western neighborhood but with the aspiration to destroy the stability of the post-Cold War era. He seeks no grand diplomatic bargain that could underpin a new settlement.

What such a view of Russia entails is worrisome. Geopolitical nihilism indicates that a whole spectrum of actions, deemed unlikely because of the dangers they carry, is on the table. We now know, for instance, that Putin is willing to invade —not once, but twice (Georgia in 2008 preceded Ukraine). He is likely to continue that pattern and push farther westward irrespective of the costs. He has also engaged in nuclear saber-rattling for several years (for example, the Zapad 2009 military exercises ended with a simulated use of a nuclear weapon), and he is lowering the nuclear threshold. Nihilism is not order-building; it revels in destroying it. The spectrum of actions that establish an order is limited by their effectiveness at implementing the rules, whatever they may be, of behavior: their purposefulness is constraining. The spectrum of actions that destroy order, on the other hand, is much more open-ended.

The Western strategy of waiting Russia out through a 21st-century version of containment—a mix of economic sanctions, ostracism in global fora, and very modest, mostly rhetorical, shoring up of deterrence—will not suffice. Russia cannot be let to dwell on its internal decline and realize sooner or later its international ineptitude. Verbal rebukes and restatements of NATO’s Article 5 will not turn a geopolitical nihilist into a constructive partner or even into a rival with whom we can reach a negotiated settlement. Nothing in Putin’s statements and behavior suggests that Russia can be persuaded to accept the existing international rules and norms of behavior and to cease the belligerent posture it has adopted. On the contrary, this is a threat that is impossible to mitigate without a resolute and forceful policy that will physically stop and reverse the advance of Russian forces in Ukraine and be ready to do so in the future elsewhere. This can only be achieved now by arming Ukraine. The geopolitical nihilism of today’s Russia will not be persuaded or negotiated away or simply waited out. It has to be defeated.

Kerry/WH Rely on Lawyers to Manage Islamic State

Posted on by

To date, the strategy in Iraq and Syria, defeating Islamic State has been in the lap of Susan Rice working exclusively with Centcom. Meanwhile, John Kerry participated in a Senate hearing over war in Iraq and the core of the dispute is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Presently, the United States is operating on the original AUMF which includes al Qaeda and all associated terror networks.

Yet, there are additional disputes over the temporary authorization of the White House which does not require Congress. This temporary authorization limits the number of ground troops and John Kerry is demanding open options for additional forces when fighters from foreign countries are not reliable for defensive measures, more robust rules of engagement or rescue of personnel.

Presently, managing Daesh (Islamic State) is just that, managing, not even containing much less defeating and any strategy has not been forthcoming. In fact it can be said that no strategy was one of the conditions of the employment demise of Secretary Chuck Hagel at Defense as he demanded an operational strategy for Bashir al Assad and Syria from the White House. None has been revealed except to vet, hire and train opposition forces in various locations outside of Syria.

In the hearing/briefing, John Kerry delivered his reasons for having all options for Iraq and Syria including additional uniformed troops that do get proactively involved in hostilities without planning, rules or timelines. The exchange between Senator Menendez and Kerry has been heated for a long while. As days click by, still no resolutions are on the horizon.

Going back to September, the heated exchanges began between Senator(s) Menendez and Kerry.

Instead of asking Congress for new authority to go after terrorists in Syria and Iraq, the Obama administration is turning to “good lawyers within the White House, within the State Department,” Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday.

How is it that the Obama administration thinks it can rely on a 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to go into Syria and Iraq 13 years later, Sen. Robert Mendendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked Kerry at a hearing on Wednesday.

Kerry responded that “good lawyers” at the White House and State Department have concluded that the 2001 AUMF is sufficient because it “includes…al-Qaeda and associated forces.”

For the most recent hearing, the heated exchanges continued.

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State John Kerry clashed Tuesday with senators over using US ground combat forces in the fight against the Islamic State.

In several tense exchanges, mostly with Republican members, Kerry urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to strip from a draft authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) language limiting the deployment of American ground forces.

A force authorization measure drafted by panel Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., “does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces for the purpose of ground combat operations except as necessary.”

The measure would allow the use of American ground troops to rescue other US forces or citizens, as well as to conduct missions like intelligence collection, enabling “kinetic strikes” and providing “other forms of advice and assistance to forces fighting [Islamic State] in Iraq or Syria.”

CongressWatch obtained a copy of the draft AUMF on Tuesday. The panel is slated to mark it up on Thursday. Menendez urged his panel members to offer amendments at that time, should they have ideas not included or want to change what he has crafted.

Kerry told the senators the Obama administration has no intention of using American ground forces for combat operations in Iraq or Syria. That fighting, he says, will be done by “local forces.”

But he also pleaded several times with members to opt against crafting a force-authorization measure that would tie the president’s hands by taking ground troops off the table.

The draft AUMF would last three years, a timetable Kerry said the White House supports.

It also includes no language limiting the countries inside which President Barack Obama or future commanders in chief could launch operations targeting the violent Sunni group. Kerry gave the White House’s endorsement for that, as well.

Kerry and Menendez butted heads over the scope of any measure Congress might approve, almost certainly next year under two GOP-controlled chambers.

At one point, the chairman sharply told Kerry — who once chaired the panel — “if the White House wants an open-ended” AUMF, “they should just say it.” Menendez spoke passionately about his measure being tailored to keep America from getting involved in other “protracted” ground operations in the Middle East.

Kerry several times referred to the draft as a “good starting point,” saying White House officials intend to work with Congress in the coming weeks on the final shape of a force-authorization measure.

He traded barbs with GOP members who questioned why Obama, despite saying on Nov. 5 he wants an AUMF, has yet to write one and send it to the Hill.

And Menendez criticized the administration, saying despite having three conversations with the White House counsel, the panel has gotten little feedback. The proposed draft of the AUMF is found here.