Ukraine in the crossfire | Chris Kaspar de Ploeg |
It is the 19th of April, 2014. The printing presses are hot and running, and soon every American can buy the newest issue of The New York Times for a couple of dollars at their local news stand. The front-page headline: "In Cold War Echo: Obama Strategy Writes Off Putin.'' This is the day that Obama, after a quarter century of decreasing wars, democratization and diminishing weapon expenditures, has divided the world once again into a frightening dichotomy. The American president used journalist Peter Baker to inform his country about his new long-term approach to Russia that rests on the cold war strategy of containment: "isolating ... Russia by cutting off its economic and political ties to the outside world ... and effectively making it a pariah state''.
It was a measure of historic proportions that was implemented without any debate: none of the 535 congressman publicly expressed any doubt, and the established media response was laudatory. In light of the recent imaging this is somewhat unsurprising. If you have followed the mainstream news, you will
have been advised that Putin is a dangerous dictator who intends to restore the former Soviet Union in its full glory, starting with Ukraine. Indeed, mutual demonization was a fundamental pillar for the cold war.
Perhaps a critical reconstruction of the current conflict can help to prevent a potentially more catastrophic one. Many believe the origins of the current conflict lie in the negotiations between George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev, during the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1990. Gorbachev had agreed to let go of East Germany, under the condition that NATO would not move "an inch to the East''. This was a sensitive issue; during the Yalta conference of 1945, the allied forces had agreed to give the eastern bloc to the Soviet Union as a buffer-zone, because, with 25 million fatalities, it had made the biggest sacrifice in the history of mankind. Russia had already suffered a long history of hostile relations with the West, including the devastating invasion of Napoleon and another by the United States, Japan, Turkey and multiple European countries in their effort to roll back Communism in 1918-1921. Since the hostile relations between the two power blocs had just started to improve, Gorbachev's demand was very
understandable--even more so if you consider his commitment to considerable demilitarization. But in spite of all this, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (1999), Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia (2004), and Albania and Croatia (2009) are now all NATO members.
In 2008 a prophetic memo was sent with direct precedence to Washington by the US ambassador in Russia. The WikiLeaks cable was titled: "Nyet means Nyet: Russia's NATO enlargement redlines''. The ambassador stated that "Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. In Ukraine ... there are fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.'' These prophetic assessments echoed those of a US intelligence report in 1994, which warned that regional divisions in Ukraine would eventually lead to civil war.
Regardless, two months after the 2008 memo, a NATO summit was held in Bucharest, where they "agreed ... that these countries [Ukraine and Georgia] will become members of NATO''. Putin reportedly warned the attendees that this would lead to an annexation of Crimea, home to an important Russian
military base.
Obama Handles Russia Like Republicans: Overpromise, Under-Deliver, and Write Off | The Atlantic |
Democratic ally says of Obama: "He's just not a natural leader."
NATO Declares Russia Nr. 1 Adversary, Starts Troops Buildup | by Oui @BooMan on 2 May 2014 |
LATEST NEWS from KREMLIN: Kiev’s ‘punitive op’ in E. Ukraine irreparably severs Geneva accord – Kremlin
No surprise here if you followed my diaries about decision making by NATO instead of in the European capitals. The U.S. – Russia relations have deteriorated in a rapid pace. In March, before today’s announcement:
NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow has given an interview to Interfax correspondent Ksenia Baigarova in which he speaks about the Ukrainian crisis, its consequences for NATO-Russia relations, differences of the Kosovo and Crimean situations, and a possibility of a new Cold War.
September 11, 2001 : Attack on America
NATO And Russia: Redefining Relations For The 21st Century
- Ambassador Alexander Vershbow; February 22, 2002
Thank you Prof. Khudoley for the introduction and for the invitation to take part in today's NATO Conference. This is exactly the right time to be discussing Russia's relations with NATO as developments in the coming months are of potentially far-reaching significance. We all have a stake in the outcome.
I note that there are representatives here today from the Baltic States, Denmark, Germany and other European countries. This should guarantee a frank, and lively, exchange of views.
Two years ago I addressed this forum as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO. Today I have been asked to speak about the American perspective on NATO-Russia relations as the U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation. First, I would like to say a few words about the state of U.S.-Russia relations.
The United States and Russia are closer today -- politically, economically and militarily -- than at any time in our history. That is not an empty assertion. Rather, this observation is based on my own perspective going back some 30 years as a former student of Russian and Soviet affairs and based on several tours of duty as a diplomat -- in Moscow and on the Soviet Desk at the State Department -- during the last decade of the Cold War.
As you know, Presidents Bush and Putin have met four times and have established a close personal relationship. Most of you have probably also heard that President Putin was the first foreign leader to speak with President Bush after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington to express his sympathy and solidarity with the United States. Even more importantly, he backed that up with an unprecedented offer of political, military and intelligence support.
This has led many to conclude that 9/11 was a turning point in the nature of relations between the West and Russia, but that is only partially true. I believe that even before 9/11, President Putin had made a strategic choice. He had concluded that Russia's future economic growth and political influence could be best assured through closer relations with Europe and the United States, rather than through the competitive, confrontational approach of the Soviet past. For his part, President Bush was already determined to move beyond the constraints of Cold War thinking and forge a new relationship with Russia based on genuine partnership and on Russia's integration into the family of democratic nations. Following two productive Summit meetings in Ljubljana and Genoa in June and July, high-level talks on strategic, economic and political relations got underway, well before 9/11.
What 9/11 provided was an opportunity to move U.S.-Russian relations into high gear. President Putin recognized the historical moment and seized it. His wholehearted support of the anti-terrorist coalition and Russian cooperation were crucial to the success of the campaign in Afghanistan.
An Iconic Bridge Sees U.S. Allies Flee Afghanistan as the Soviets Did | NY Times – 18 Aug. 2021 |
Retreating Afghan government soldiers crowded onto a bridge over the Amu Darya River that was a backdrop for the Soviet failure in Afghanistan decades ago.
Dushanbe, Tajikistan — The bridge has an eerily Orwellian name — the Friendship Bridge — and a storied history in Afghanistan’s wars.
And again this week, the bridge, which spans the Amu Darya River between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, provided a backdrop for a watershed moment in the fighting. In a chaotic retreat from the city of Mazar-i-Sharif, pro-government soldiers streamed onto the crossing, seeking safety on the opposite bank.
The scene this week mirrored an iconic moment 32 years ago at the end of the failed Soviet war in Afghanistan, when the bridge provided the final exit route out of the country for the defeated Soviet Army.
The Haqqani Network in Kurram: The regional implications of a growing insurgency | 2011 |
Al-Qa’ida’s Comeback in Afghanistan and its Implications | CTC West Point – 2016 |
In this context, the discovery of AQIS elements in southern Kandahar in June 2015 appears to be part of a larger exodus of local and foreign fighters from North Waziristan. It is likely that AQIS’ move to southern Afghanistan was motivated by the direct Pakistani military action in Waziristan, which subsequently pushed several militants into Baluchistan and, by extension, Baluch-dominated regions of southern Kandahar.
Al-Qa’ida’s Shift in Strategy
Several drastic events took place during 2011-2014 that directly affected al-Qa’ida’s strategic priorities. Bin Ladin was killed; civil wars erupted in the Middle East; and the Islamic State challenged al-Qa’ida’s position as leader for the global jihadist movement. In this context, a number of al-Qa’ida operatives relocated to the Middle East to take advantage of opportunities offered by the chaos erupting in the wake of the failed Arab Spring. Some of them were sent from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region; others went to Syria after being released from prison in Iran. al-Qa’ida not only moved personnel but also organizational functions.
Around 2013, al-Qa’ida relocated part of its external operations branch, the so-called “Khorasan Group,” to Syria and also named the leader of AQAP in Yemen, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, as al- al-Qa’ida’s number two. After al-Wuhayshi was killed in 2015, it appears that the Egyptian veteran al-Qa’ida member Abu Khayr al-Masri has replaced him as al-Zawahiri’s deputy. Al-Masri is believed to be based in Syria along with several other core al-Qa’ida members. [Killed by US Hellfire missile in Idlib, NW Syria – 26 Feb. 2017]
The “brain drain” of senior al-Qa’ida operatives to Syria led to a shift in the center of gravity for al-Qa’ida’s strategic leadership, away from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region and toward the Arab world.
This development is not surprising as al-Zawahiri has always been Arab-centric in his approach. For example, in mid-2001, he wrote in a draft version of his autobiography, Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner, that al-Qa’ida should “… move the battlefront to the heart of the Islamic world,” which would help protect the nascent Islamic States in Afghanistan and Chechnya from being exposed to “pressure and strikes.” After 2001, al-Qa’ida repeatedly sought to establish a presence in the Middle East, most famously by recruiting the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to lead al-Qa’ida’s branch in Iraq (AQI) in 2004.
Islamic State Khorasan Province (IS-KP)
Also known as: Islamic State in the Khorasan Province; Islamic State Khorasan; Islamic State–Khorasan; IS Khorasan; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant–Khorasan; Islamic State of Iraq and Syria–Khorasan; Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham–Khorasan; Wilayat Khorasan; Daesh Khorasan; Daesh-Khorasan.
