Trump angry at NY Times article on US cyber attacks on Russia

(June 17) Last weekend, the New York Times broke a story about US cyberattacks on Russia particularly against their electrical grid. The report suggests the US has placed massive malware across vital Russian systems.

US could devastate Russian infrastructure if necessary

The malware would allow the US to launch devastating infrastructure attacks on Russia at a moment's notice if the US administration should wish to do so. The report is quite credible as the US officials have been openly discussing the need to go on the offensive in cyberspace for ages. It also comes after reports of offensive US cyberattacks against Russia during the mid-term election. US counter action during the midterms is described in a NY Post article.

The New York Times article noted: "The United States is stepping up digital incursions into Russia’s electric power grid in a warning to President Vladimir V. Putin and a demonstration of how the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively, current and former government officials said. In interviews over the past three months, the officials described the previously unreported deployment of American computer code inside Russia’s grid and other targets as a classified companion to more publicly discussed action directed at Moscow’s disinformation and hacking units around the 2018 midterm elections. Advocates of the more aggressive strategy said it was long overdue, after years of public warnings from the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. that Russia has inserted malware that could sabotage American power plants, oil and gas pipelines, or water supplies in any future conflict with the United States."

Naturally advocates of the new policy include White House hawks such as John Bolton. The aggressive cyberattacks carry the risk of escalating the developing Cold War with Russia.

Trump's reaction to the New York Times report

Trump was outraged by the article even though the information it contains is actually available if not widely circulated. He goes beyond calling the New York Times, the "Enemy of the People" as he has done in the past. Now Trump claims that even publishing the story is "a virtual act of Treason". He accused the New York Times of being willing to publish any story "even if it is bad for our country".

Trump raged on over the weekend about the Times dishonesty. He then postulated within six years the Times and Trump's other media bête noire the Washington Post would both be gone forever at a time when he claims that his supporters will insist he remain in office beyond his two-term limit.

Trump often has flights of fancy in a series of tweets. However, the Times article which just makes clear what has been already revealed from other sources seems to have really set him going. The last thing that this supposedly transparent and populist president wants is to reveal obvious aggressive behavior on the part of the US. Of course the Russians already know what is happening. They are meant to so that they know if they attack the US then they will pay dearly.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Russia critical of US decision to ban use of Kaspersky software by the government

Russia has complained that the U.S. government decision to stop government use of Kaspersky Lab software undermines free competition. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security expressed concern about ties between the company and Russian intelligence.

Kaspersky had repeatedly denied that it has any connection to the Russian government or intelligence services. Kaspersky Lab is a huge multinational cybersecurity and anti-virus provider with headquarters in Moscow. However, it is operated by a holding company in the U.K. The firm was founded in 1997 by Eugene Kaspersky who is the present CEO. It has an excellent reputation and is widely used although some claim the firm has connection with Russian intelligence services. The firm has about 400 million customers worldwide.

Russia said that the U.S. decision "called into question the reliability of the United States as partners" and would undermine the competitive position of Russian firms around the world. Already the large retailer Best Buy has decided not to sell Kaspersky products in its stores. It is not clear why the U.S. government decision has just now been made to stop using the Kaspersky software. The allegations about Kaspersky having cosy relations with Russian intelligence have been around for years.

An earlier statement from the Russian embassy in New York said the move would prolong ongoing diplomatic disputes between the two countries: "These steps can only evoke regrets. They only move back the prospects of bilateral ties recovery." Homeland Security Department Secretary, Elaine Duke, said: "The department is concerned about the ties between certain Kaspersky officials and Russian intelligence and other government agencies. The risk that the Russian government, whether acting on its own or in collaboration with Kaspersky, could capitalise on access provided by Kaspersky products to compromise federal information and information systems directly implicates U.S. national security."

Kaspersky expressed disappointment at the U.S. decision and claimed the company was being used as a pawn in a political game. The company said: "No credible evidence has been presented publicly by anyone or any organisation as the accusations are based on false allegations and inaccurate assumptions."

In July, the U.S. General Services Administration removed Kaspersky Lab from a list of approved vendors. The U.S. is not the first country to ban the use of Kaspersky by the government. Back in August of 2014 Kaspersky along with its U.S. rival Symantec were banned for use by the Chinese central government. However, local governments, large enterprises and individuals could still use the products.

US Homeland Security Department claims that hackers targeted 21 states in last years' election

The United States Department of Homeland Security notifed 21 states that hackers had targeted their election systems in 2016 but none of the systems were used for recording votes. Only a small number of networks were actually breached

Scott McConnel spokesperson for Homeland Security said: "As part of our ongoing information sharing efforts, today DHS notified the Secretary of State or other chief election officer in each state of any potential targeting we were aware of in their state leading up to the 2016 election." 

The  US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet department of the US federal government. Its responsibilities include public security and its mission involves counter-terrorism, border security, immigration, customs, cyber security and disaster prevention and management. It was created as a response to the 9/11 terror attacks. As of 2017 it had 229,000 employees and an annual budget of $40.6 billion. 

The vote counting systems were unaffected since they are not connected to the internet. However, the news provides one more worry about the security of the US voting system. The news also is released as Homeland Security is continuing its investigation into Russia's intervention in the US election. Many US intelligence agencies claim that Russia tried to intervene in the election in favor of Trump. Recently, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that his organization would hand over to the US Congress thousands of election-related ads believed to be paid for by Russian agents.

Attempts by foreign countries to influence elections is hardly new. The US does it all the time and Russia often does as well. According to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention t=_blank]one study[/url] the US intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000 while the USSR and then Russia intervened in 36. Often the US is even more involved in regime change as in the Ukraine. There is the infamous tape of Victoria Nuland speaking with the US ambassador to the Ukraine about the way forward: 

The situation ended up with a Ukrainian government favorable to the US. Natalie Jaresko a US citizen was made Minister of Finance and served from December 2014 to April 2016. To serve she had to become a Ukrainian citizen which she did on the day she took office. However, the Ukraine does not permit dual citizenship so she had to renounce her US citizienship within two years. She didnt. In March of 2016 President Obama appointed her Executive Director of the US Federal FIscal Control Board of Puerto Rico.

The US has long been a country that has forced regime changes on other countries dating back into the 19th century. As Wikipedia notes:" In the latter half of the 19th century, the U.S. government undertook regime change actions mainly in Latin America and the southwest Pacific, and included the Mexican-American, Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars. At the onset of the 20th century the United States shaped or installed friendly governments in many countries including Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic."

This isn't the first time we've heard that hackers tried to get into state election systems before the 2016 presidential elections, which Donald Trump won amid fears the Russian government was trying to influence vote. According to reports from last September, the US government informed election officials that hackers targeted the election systems of more than 20 states, and successfully infiltrated those of four unnamed states. McConnell didn't specify whether the hacking attempts reported today were different from the ones states heard about last year. Perhaps, the new announcements are simply part of a propaganda campaign to boost the fortunes of those in and out of government who want to paint Russia as the enemy and see any attempt to improve relations with Russia as a betrayal. Trump campaigned on a promise to improve relations with Russia but as of now relations of the US with Russia are as bad as  they have ever been and Trump and his campaign are under investigation as perhaps colluding with Russia's attempts to influence the US election.

US turns down Russian invitation to meet on Afghanistan

(April 16)Even though the U.S. was invited to a meeting on Afghanistan on Friday, it did not attend. The meeting in Moscow was aimed at facilitating peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

The decision is just one more sign of the deteriorating relationship between the US and Russia. The meeting came just after the U.S. had dropped the Mother of All Bombs(MOAB) on a cave complex occupied by Islamic State fighters in a mountainous area near the border with Pakistan. The caves were apparently built with the help of the CIA during the battle against a Soviet-backed Afghan regime. The former president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, was highly critical of the bombing in a tweet: "This is not the war on terror, but the inhuman and most brutal misuse of our country as testing ground for new and dangerous weapons." However, the present president, Ashraf Ghani said that the bombing was part of a joint operation between Afghan and international troops and were extra cautious in avoiding any civilian casualties.

The Moscow meeting was attended by senior diplomats from Afghanistan, China, India, Iran, Pakistan and several ex-Soviet central Asian nations. In a statement all supported the Afghan government's peace efforts. They urged the Taliban to stop fighting and engage in a dialogue with the Afghan government. A U.S. State Department spokesperson, Mark Toner, said skepticism about the aims of the conference was the reason for the US not attending: "I think just to end it, we just felt that these talks - it was unclear to us what the purpose was. It seemed to be a unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region that we felt wasn't constructive at this time." Toner did say, however, that the US did plan to work with Russia and other key regional stakeholders to enhance dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban. This makes no sense. All the other key stakeholders were at the Moscow meeting including Afghan diplomats and were discussing how to have peace talks with the Taliban.

The real aim of staying away, it would seem, is to refuse to attend a meeting led by Russia. This is just another sign of the worsening relationship between the US and Russia. The U.S. bombing of a Syrian airbase to punish the Assad government has already increased tension between Russia and the U.S. The bombing was made without UN authorization, before any independent investigation had been carried out into the chemical incident in northern Syria. The US, France, the UK and others blame the attack on Assad but Russia and Assad deny being involved. As a recent Digital Journal article points out there are many competing narratives still and there has been no independent investigation yet. Russia vetoed the most recent resolution on the issue in the UN. The motion was presented by the US, UK and France all of whom have already blamed Assad. The veto was discussed in a recent Digital Journal article.

The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss the deteriorating relationship. After the meeting, Tillerson said that U.S.-Russia relations were at a low point. Nevertheless, the U.S. made no attempt to help improve relationships by at least taking part in these talks attended by representatives of all neighboring states.

The Russians have had contact with the Taliban. Experts agree that the Taliban need to participate in peace talks to reach a lasting peace. NATO is accusing Russia of supporting the Taliban with weapons. This would be ironic as the U.S. previously supported Islamic rebel groups against a Soviet-backed Afghan government back when the USSR was the Evil Empire. Like the Phoenix, the Evil Empire appears to be returning from the ashes of the Soviet Union. The fact that senior Afghan diplomats attended the Moscow meeting shows that the Afghans are unwilling to snub Russia as the US has done. One of the main reasons for an inability to come to a peace agreement with the Taliban is that they demand that all foreign troops leave the country before any talks. They also want some detained Taliban members to be released.

US intelligence community may be "out to get" Trump

Dennis Kucinich, a former presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, in an interview on Fox Business Network claimed that the US intelligence community was responsible for leaking information that led to the resignation of Mike Flynn.

Flynn was Trump's national security advisor. The leaked information showed that Flynn had discussed in secret with Russian officials sanctions imposed by the US. The discussing took place before Trump's inauguration. Kucinich argues that the goal was to worsen the relationship between Russian and the US. Trump has argued for improving US relations with Russia. Kucinich said:

“What’s at the core of this is an effort by some in the intelligence community to upend any positive relationship between the U.S. and Russia. And I tell you there's a marching band and Chowder Society out there. There's gold in them there hills. There are people trying to separate the U.S. and Russia so that this military industrial intel axis can cash in.”Kucinich even added that there are those within the intelligence community that are willing to separate the US and Russia in a way that could reignite the Cold War. It seems quite clear that the Cold War has been reignited ages ago especially since events in the Ukraine.

Investigative journalist Gareth Porter said:“Flynn is a figure with a dark side, but hype regarding an ‘illegal’ meeting with Russian ambassador never made sense. I’m glad he’s gone, but the leaks hinting Logan Act treason should be recognized as ‘intelligence community’ political manipulation. The Logan Act is a dead letter and even if it were not, the facts of this case don’t support its application. If it would apply to anything recent, the Logan Act would apply to the letter organized by Tom Cotton regarding Iran in 2015, but hawk Cotton never paid any price.”Glenn Greenwald noted in a tweet: “In January, Chuck Schumer warned Trump not to criticize the intelligence community because of all the ways they have to destroy people.” Schumer Democratic minority leader in the senate, said: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Another article claims:Make no mistake: we have just witnessed an operation by members of the CIA to take out a high official of our own government. An agency widely believed to have brought down democratically elected governments overseas is now practicing the same dark arts in domestic American politics. Almost certainly, its new head, Mike Pompeo, was not consulted.

You can observe psychological warfare being carried out in the media. While Trump media supporters talk about the heinous nature of the fact there were leaks, the liberal anti-Trump media will howl about the heinous conversations between Trump officials and the Russians. Those who broke the law and leaked the documents are heroes for revealing the close relation of some Trump officials with Russia. Of course a different approach is taken to leaks by Edward Snowden which revealed CIA illegal spying. He is supposed to come back to the US and be tried. David Goldman writes:… the CIA has gone out of its way to sandbag Flynn at the National Security Council. As Politico reports: "On Friday, one of Flynn's closest deputies on the NSC, senior director for Africa Robin Townley, was informed that the Central Intelligence Agency had rejected his request for an elite security clearance required for service on the NSC, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation." Townley held precisely the same security clearance at the Department of Defense for seventeen years, yet he was blackballed without explanation. At DoD, Townley had a stellar reputation as a Middle East and Africa expert, and the denial of his clearance is hard to explain except as bureaucratic backstabbing.

Flynn had often criticized the CIA revealing intelligence and operational failures.

We can expect more and more revelations to back the narrative that not just Flynn but Trump have had treasonous dealings with Russia and Putin. The rush of establishment papers to print the latest revelations has little to do with news but everything to do with creating even more disapproval of Trump in the public mind. While there may be a degree of truth in the revelations about Flynn the leaking of the information is a sign that the intelligence community is attempting to control the political situation in the United States. They have plenty of experience overthrowing governments.

However, other parts of the deep state such as many in the Wall Street establishment may be hesitant to have the Trump administration go. It is after all a very pro-business government. Even today US stock markets again reached new highs. There are many members of the Wall Street elite within the administration. No doubt they hope that an accommodation can be reached between Trump and his administration with the intelligence community. However, it may be that Mike Pence is being prepared to replace Donald Trump.

Clinton campaign wants FBI to confirm that Russia is interfering in election on behalf of Trump

(November 3) The Clinton campaign is demanding that the FBI confirm accusations that Donald Trump, the Republican candidate is secretly supported by Russia.

	1 of 3
Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat representing Nevada, even claimed that the FBI is withholding secret "explosive" evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. However, according to antiwar.com:

FBI officials familiar with their investigations into the allegations, which the Clinton campaign started publicizing around the Democratic National Convention, say they’ve turned up nothing to connect Trump and Russia, leading FBI Director James Comey to decide against making any statements to that effect.

This election the FBI and its director James Comey are constantly in the hot seat with Trump complaining about the FBI not laying any charges against Clinton after the earlier investigation of her emails, and now the Clinton campaign and others complaining that he released info about further Clinton emails just before the election. It is reasonably clear that Russia prefers Trump to Clinton as Trump has indicated he wants to improve relations with Russia but Clinton is likely to take a hard line along with many U.S. NATO allies. However, Russia realizes it will have to deal with whomever wins and also that too much overt support for a favored candidate could work against the candidate being elected. The U.S. is known to have intervened extensively after the overthrow of the Ukrainian president and in determining who should be the next leader. They were successful in getting the outcome they desired.

The Ukrainian finance minister Natalie Jaresko was a U.S. citizen who had to be made a Ukrainian citizen so she could take up her post. The Russians are unlikely to be able to match this type of intervention.

However, the Clinton campaign is avidly playing the Russia-Trump connection. Clinton has even called Trump a "puppet" of Putin during the final presidential debate. If he were a puppet you would think that Trump would make many less self-destructive statements and would not take positions that lose him votes among women and minority groups. However, a top Clinton aide urged the FBI to disclose all it knows about ties between Donald Trump and Russia, and accused the agency of staying quiet about Trump's relationship with Russia while announcing an inquiry into Clinton's emails. But Reuters reports:The Federal Bureau of Investigation opened a preliminary inquiry in recent months into allegations that Trump or his associates might have had questionable dealings with Russian people or businesses, but found no evidence to warrant opening a full investigation, according to sources familiar with the matter. The agency has not publicly discussed the probe.Robby Mook, Clinton campaign manager wondered out loud why the FBI did not release information about the Russia inquiries: "If you're in the business of releasing information about investigations on presidential candidates, release everything you have on Donald Trump. Release the information on his connections to the Russians."

Slate magazine recently reported that a group of computer scientists had been alarmed by records showing thousands of apparent connection attempts between an email server operated on behalf of the Trump organizations and computers inside Alfa Bank a Russian company. Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks said the server had been used to send out hotel marketing material and had been dormant for years. U.S. cyber security company FireEye had been hired by Alpha Bank to examine the records to see if there were any relationship with Trump, hacking or infection. So far it has found no emails or other links.

The New York Times reports that the FBI has not found any evidence linking Trump to Russia:Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.There are all sorts of questions about whether the hacking into the Democratic emails was done by Russia or someone acting on behalf of Russia. See this article for a start. CNBC claimed Comey had argued against accusing Russia of interfering in the election due to the timing, and he did not want the accusation coming from his agency.

As the appended video makes clear Putin has said some favorable things about Trump and vice versa. Trump has business relationships with Russia as do some of his campaign staff. The true relationship between Trump and Russia is largely irrelevant. What is important is to convince the electorate that Trump is in cahoots with Putin and that this is what matters. Media emphasis on the issue is crucial to counter the possible negative effect on the Hillary campaign of the newly discovered emails.

US and Russia discuss Syrian settlement as US program to arm moderates in tatters

Russian and U.S. officials have had new talks on finding a political solution to the Syrian civil war and a unified battle against the Islamic State in Syria. However, it is not clear how serious the discussions are.

+ Add Image

Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed that he had talked to his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Geneva on the issues. Kerry said that in discussing Syria they talked "about steps that might be..taken to try to see if there is common ground". He also said that “one of the things that drives that interest . . . is the reality of what is happening to Syria as a result of the presence of Daash there and its use of Syria as a base for spreading its evil to other places.” Daash is the Arabic term for the Islamic State. However, in the following days he also spoke about stepping up "military pressure" on the Assad regime once the Islamic State is defeated. The US aim still appears to be regime change in Syria although the first priority is to attack the Islamic State in Syria. Not only will many rebel groups not be interested in peace talks, Assad may not be either as the number of moderate groups arrayed against him are shrinking and also the Islamic State is being attacked by all sides.

Kerry said that military pressure on the Assad regime would probably be required to obtain a political solution:“Military pressure particularly may be necessary, given President Assad’s unwillingness to negotiate seriously. And what we must do is strengthen the capacity for this political solution.”

The last peace talks on Syria sponsored by the US and Russia in Geneva in February 2014 broke down. One reason for the breakup was Assad's insistence that fighting terrorism must be the top priority while the opposition wanted to focus on a transitional government that would exclude Assad. Now there is more of a focus by the US as well on the terrorism associated with the Islamic State. However, rebels are still mostly concerned with ousting Assad. Even last week in Aleppo rebel groups rejected a UN proposal to freeze fighting in Aleppo, a city divided between government held areas and areas held by the opposition. Russia has scheduled a meeting with Syrian opposition leaders in April.

The covert CIA operation to arm "moderate" Syrian rebels has been undermined by the dissolution of the Hazzm movement with their base being taken over by the Al Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front. Much US provided equipment and weapons in a warehouse on the base was captured, as shown on the appended video. Some of the members of the movement joined the Al-Nusra Front. To a considerable extent this was all caused by US policy. When the US coalition bombed the IS in Syria, the US--but not other members of the coalition--also bombed Al-Nusra positions, While they claimed only to be targeting the Khorasan group, they are part and parcel of Al Nusra. All rebel groups were incensed by the attack on Al-Nusra, which had been cooperating with other rebels. Consequent to the bombings, Al-Nusra Front turned on rebel groups funded by the US, first and foremost the Hazzm movement.

No other groups came to the rescue of the Hazzm group, since many disliked the group and saw them as the "favourite son" of the Americans who got everything while other groups got little or nothing. The apparent US solution to the problem of finding moderates to train in a new program is to consider any group not directly affiliated with the Islamic State as moderates. The Nusra front may cooperate by going along with a re-branding exercise being pushed by Qatar and some other Arab states. The Front would cut off any formal ties to Al Qaeda. In return they would receive more funding and perhaps even the blessing of the US as moderate rebels.

Russia signals new optimism on ties with U.S.

This is from Reuters.



There does seem to be some thawing of relations with Russia but it is a bit early to see if this thaw will last long. Obama has always predicated continuation of the missile defence system on its feasibility. The evidence is far from establishing the system as dependable and in any event its alleged purpose is at the very least open to serious question. If the US dropped the system this would very much mollify the Russians. Also, the Russians are being helpful in allowing the US access through RUssian territory for supplies bound for Afghanistan. However on Georgia it seems there is little meeting of minds. The US refuses to recognise Georgia as within the Russian sphere of influence although it seems that for the US it is as appropriate for it to intervene as in the US state of Georgia!






Russia signals new optimism on ties with U.S
Sun Feb 8, 2009 8:57am EST
By Noah Barkin and David Brunnstrom
MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Russia welcomed on Sunday an offer by the United States "to press the reset button" on relations with Moscow and suggested the two sides could jointly review the contentious issue of missile defense.
Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov told a news conference: "It is obvious that the new U.S. administration has a very strong desire to change and that inspires optimism."
Earlier, he described as "very positive" a remark by Vice President Joe Biden at an international security conference in Munich that it was time to "reset" relations and end a dangerous drift in ties between Russia and NATO.
Moscow strongly opposed plans by former President George W. Bush's plans to deploy parts of a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, to defend against perceived threats from countries hostile to Washington, chiefly Iran.
Ivanov, also speaking in Munich, indicated that Moscow was prepared to discuss missile threats with Washington.
"We do not claim there is no threat. The question is how we are going to react to the hypothetical threat of the spread of missile technologies," he said.
"There are a few options that include, among other things, a joint threat assessment (by) Russia and the U.S."
Ivanov also reaffirmed that if Washington scrapped the proposed missile shield, Russia would not proceed with the threatened deployment of nuclear missiles near the Polish border.
But, asked whether Russia would take concrete steps to signal its readiness to work with the United States, Ivanov said: "It is not an oriental bazaar and we do not trade the way people do in a bazaar."
He was speaking after a meeting with Biden earlier on Sunday.
Ties between Russia and the United States have grown increasingly strained in recent years.
Russia's brief war with Georgia last year and its recognition of the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia were sharply condemned by the United States.
(Reporting by Ross Colvin; writing by Mark Trevelyan; editing by Myra MacDonald)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Storming the Caspian: In Washington's Cross Hairs

This is from Moscow News. I expect Americans are generally clueless about what is going on in this area. The Americans got all upset when the USSR was using Cuba as a base but the US is using Caspian nations as a base for extending their influence throughout the area and perhaps to attack Iran but also to counter Russian influence. The Russians are certainly aware of what is going on and of how Washington's moves are related to oil supplies.

Storming the Caspian
>
As thse five Caspian states - Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan - are trying, with little success, to come to terms on the legal status of Caspian Sea, the region is gradually emerging as one of the most explosive parts of the world. Experts believe that tensions there could come to a head soon.

In Washington's Cross Hairs

The Caspian region is turning from a zone of diplomatic games into a military test site. The coastal states are actively building up their military presence: in the past decade, the number of warships on the Caspian has almost doubled, while coastal infrastructure is also being rapidly reinforced. Furthermore, "non-Caspian" countries, in particular the United States, have started demonstrating their interest and flexing their muscle in the area.

Washington's foreign policy line in the Caspian region is geared toward several goals. Priority is given to creating conditions where Moscow would be unable to exercise control over U.S. energy projects. The United States is currently trying to justify its plan to increase its influence on the Caspian with the pressing need to boost security along the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. There has been increasing talk in the West about the need for NATO's military presence in the Caspian region.

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is considering the possibility of providing security for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline," said Robert Simmons, the NATO secretary general's special representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia. "The Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline runs to Turkey, a NATO country, and passes through the territory of Azerbaijan, a NATO partner. The protection of energy infrastructure includes the security of this oil pipeline in addition to other energy infrastructure facilities." He said that terrorism is the biggest threat to the pipeline.

Washington is also seriously concerned by the prospect of a full blown war breaking out between Turkey and ethnic Kurds based in the north of Iraq. The White House is no longer attempting to hide its fear of bomb attacks against the oil pipelines leading from rebellious Kurdistan. Furthermore, the Americans do not rule out that possible terrorist attacks could be carried out on orders from Tehran, while Washington is on the verge of war with it.

The Iran problem is yet another plausible excuse for the U.S. to strengthen its military presence in the Caspian: the Pentagon needs logistic bases in the region should it decide to use force against Tehran. The Americans intend to use Azerbaijan's territory in an anti-Iran campaign. Washington has already provided $30 million to beef up the country's coast guard. Now the United States has earmarked $135 million as part of the Caspian Guard Initiative, a framework program designed to coordinate activities in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan with those of U.S. Central Command and other U.S. government agencies to enhance Caspian security. The program assists the two countries in improving their ability to prevent and, if needed, respond to terrorism, nuclear proliferation, drug and human trafficking, and other transnational treats in the Caspian region. According to some reports, the Pentagon has already built two radar stations, as well as command and control facilities in Azerbaijan. In addition to that, as part of Baku's partnership plan with Brussels, Azerbaijan's Navy and Border Service will be provided with advanced, state of the art military hardware and equipment.

NATO has also finalized a long term program to provide military support for all pipelines along the Caspian-Turkey-Balkans route. A NATO contingent is already present in the region, in particular at former Soviet military bases in the Azerbaijani towns of Kurdamir, Nasosnoye and Gulli: "temporary mobile forces" have been deployed there since the spring of 2006. Their strength, according to different estimates, varies between 750 and 1,300 troops, but is expected to double in the foreseeable future. This force is also designed for "strategic missions" in Georgia, its principal function being to "protect" the Azerbaijani-Georgian section of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.

The Stakes

It is noteworthy that the Caspian "Group of Five" have different views on Western military presence in the oil region.

Like Iran, Russia has long been opposed to any interference by "third party countries" in regional affairs. At their recent summit in Tehran, the "Group of Five" adopted a declaration prohibiting the presence of "non-Caspian" armed forces in the region or any use of force in resolving regional problems. The Caspian was declared "a sea of peace."

The Kremlin is convinced that Washing­ton's military plans in the Caspian region are not only aimed against Tehran: they also jeopardize Russia's security and sovereignty. Furthermore, Moscow is evidently attempting to neutralize the West's efforts to strengthen its presence in the Caspian region, not least through large scale energy projects. Analysts believe that one of Russia's priorities today is to thwart the construction of the Nabucco trans-Caspian natural gas pipeline to Europe bypassing Russia. The provisions of the Tehran agreements signed by the five Caspian nations can easily freeze this project skirting Russia.

However, many experts are skeptical about the Tehran documents, stressing that they are but a declaration of intent. Indeed, it is rather unlikely that Azerbaijan will deny the Americans the use of its soil. After all, Baku, which has already clashed with Tehran over disputed oil fields, is well served by U.S. military presence, especially in the event of new friction with the Iranian side.

For their part, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, which were unable to bow out of participation in the Trans-Caspian project lobbied for by the West, are also unlikely to adopt a tough stance on U.S. military presence in the Caspian, especially considering that Washington is actively helping these republics in protecting their oil and gas deposits and is ready to invest heavily in developing sections of the Kazakh and Turkmen shelves in the Caspian Sea.

It seems that only China could show complete solidarity with Russia and Iran in their anti-U.S. stance. Analysts believe that China could soon become an additional center of influence in the region. Beijing, which is building a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, will somehow or other have to protect its oil and gas interests. So it is quite possible that unless a convention on the legal status of the sea (lake) is signed, Chinese flagged ships could appear in the Caspian waters.

Incidentally, experts believe that Tehran, which owns two percent of global oil reserves, nevertheless, regards Moscow as a potential competitor and does not rule out the possibility of clashes with the Russian side and could use Beijing as a counterweight not only against the United States, but also against Russia. And it looks like Iran is ready to bet on the new Caspian player. Meanwhile, the stakes in the Caspian game are very high: according to various estimates, this body of water contains between four and 10 percent of the world's hydrocarbon reserves.

As for Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, thus far, they are only building up their military capability on the Caspian to protect their own natural resources. But given the disparity of the geo-political interests of the Caspian states and the lack of serious agreements in the realm of regional security, today, they can be seen as potential adversaries in a possible war. True, to date, there have been no scenarios for a military conflict in this landlocked sea: the military doctrines of the coastal states do not even use the term "border threats."

By Vasilina Vasilyeva

back to main page

Russia Criticizes US Global Policy

Both China and Russia will resist US attempts to impose even tougher conditions on Iran although both are also upset by Iran's refusal to stop enrichment. Iran and Russia are having troubles with respect to building of the new Iranian nuclear facility. However the sale of defence missiles to Iran shows Russia is willing to help Iran fend off a US or others who might attack.


Russia slams U.S. global policy
VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
Associated Press
MOSCOW - Russia's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday criticized the United States for what it called over-reliance on force and warned Washington against military action against Iran.

But in a major review of foreign policy priorities, the ministry said Russia was ready to cooperate to end global crises if Washington treats it as an equal partner.

The statement reflects Russia's growing confidence and economic clout, and appears to be a signal to Washington that, while the two nations can work together, Russia will not always follow the U.S. lead. It also plays to national pride in advance of parliamentary and presidential elections.

Russia criticized what it called "the creeping American strategy of dragging the global community into a large-scale crisis around Iran," saying that Iran helps maintain stability in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

At the same time, the ministry's paper assailed Iran for its "unconstructive" stance, reflecting growing Kremlin irritation with its ally's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment, as the U.N. demands.

Russia and China, both permanent U.N. Security Council members with significant trade ties with Iran, have opposed U.S. efforts to impose harsh sanctions against the country. But years of growing international mistrust over Iran's ultimate goals led to initial U.N. sanctions in December and to tougher penalties imposed last Saturday.

Iran has remained defiant, rejecting the latest sanctions and announcing a partial suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. It also accused Russia of caving in to Western pressure.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that the latest set of sanctions was a "call for the resumption of talks rather than an instrument of punishment" - a statement apparently aimed both at soothing Iran and assuring Russians public that their government was not betraying its partner.

The ministry's paper emphasized the need to conduct a "balanced course on Iran, protecting our national interests in that country while preventing violations of the nuclear non-proliferation regime."

The ministry also hinted that Russia would tie weapons sales to Iran to its cooperation on the enrichment program. "Military-technical ties with Iran must develop on the basis of strict compliance with Russia's international obligations while taking into account developments related to the Iranian nuclear program," it said.

Russia recently delivered 29 Tor M-1 air defense missile systems to Iran despite strong U.S. complaints.

The strategy paper said that arms exports would remain an important component of Russia's foreign policy.

The Cold War Starts Again?

Sometimes I think that the BBC is FOX news the other side of the pond. It is hardly surprising that Putin has begun to react to US and NATO aggressive policy that has surrounded Russia by bases in former satellite countries and also allowed them to join NATO. Imagine if Russia had bases with missiles etc. in Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and St. Pierre and Miquelon! It is OK for NATO to put missiles near Russian borders but not OK for Russia to provide Iran air defences against an attack by the US or US plus allies.


Putin's speech: Back to cold war?
By Rob Watson
BBC defence and security correspondent, Munich



Mr Putin said the US "has overstepped its borders"
The Munich security conference was born in the 1960s - the height of the Cold War. Forty years on, there been talk of a new chill.

Given the tone and content of Russian President Vladimir Putin's address to the gathered defence ministers, parliamentarians and pundits, it is not, perhaps, hard to see why.

Warming quickly to his task after only the briefest of greetings, President Putin accused the US of establishing, or trying to establish, a "uni-polar" world.

"What is a uni-polar world? No matter how we beautify this term, it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master," he said.

'Formula for disaster'

President Putin continued in a similar vein for some time.

In today's multi-polar world, there is no place for needless confrontation

US Senator John McCain

"The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres - economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states," he said.

It was a formula that, he said, had led to disaster: "Local and regional wars did not get fewer, the number of people who died did not get less but increased. We see no kind of restraint - a hyper-inflated use of force."

The US has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them", Mr Putin said.

With the new US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and several US congressmen sitting in the audience, he called for the reconsideration of the whole existing architecture of global security.

'Disappointing' speech

But he did not win over his audience.

Several delegates did not like his rather brusque brushing off of questions about Russia's own commitment to democracy and his defence of Moscow's decision to sell an air-defence system to Iran.

Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer described President Putin's speech as "disappointing and not helpful". And there was similar reaction from the president of Estonia and others.

But it was left to US Republican senator and presidential hopeful John McCain to lead the retort.

Today's world, he said sternly, was not uni-polar, adding that it was an autocratic Russia that needed to change its behaviour.

"Moscow must understand that it cannot enjoy a genuine partnership with the West so long as its actions at home and abroad conflict so fundamentally with the core values of Euro-Atlantic democracies," he said.

"In today's multi-polar world, there is no place for needless confrontation, and I would hope that Russian leaders understand this truth," Senator McCain said.

Spotlight on Moscow

Afterwards in the corridors there were dark mutterings by some about a new Cold War.

Others were less gloomy, dismissing President Putin's performance as one of Russia's periodic bouts of letting off steam at its diminished world status.

But it has made an impression.

For the last few years, as one observer suggested, it was the former US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who was the man everybody loved to hate at this conference.

President Putin's performance has single-handedly switched the spotlight from the US to Russia.

Russia feels threatened by US militarism

Here is a view from Russia. The US just seems to ignore the fact that it is natural for countries such as China and Russia to regard the huge military buildup of the US as a direct threat to them.

Russia is not a clay pigeon on an American shooting range
16:42 | 09/ 02/ 2007



MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Vladimir Simonov) - According to the Western media, "Russian special forces used images of the poisoned former spy Alexander Litvinenko as target practice." I can understand their concern, as permitting such a folly would be absolutely amoral.

I can also understand the outrage of millions of Russians on learning on Friday morning that the Pentagon has put up Russia's image on the army shooting range. Moreover, it appears that Americans are prepared to fire live missiles if they consider the danger coming from Russia excessive.

This is how I interpret the following statement by Pentagon chief Robert Gates about Russia as an adversary.

"We need the full range of military capabilities," including ground combat forces to battle large armies and nimble special operations troops to scout out terrorist threats, Gates told the House Armed Services Committee. "We don't know what's going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere," he said.

Did Gates add Russia to the "axis of evil" by mistake? I don't think so, as he said some time later that in addition to waging a war on global terror, the Untied States needed to confront threats created by the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, and unclear positions of such countries as Russia and China, which are also building up their armaments.

I don't know about China, but Gates chose a really bad time for berating Russia. Several days ago, President George W. Bush presented to Congress a draft federal budget for the 2008 fiscal year, where $700 billion out of the $2.9 trillion total is earmarked for defense, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the buildup of American forces, and the development of expensive missile systems.

So, is it the military buildup in Russia, whose defense budget is at least 25 times smaller than the American one, that is alarming Washington or vice versa? Had the Kremlin applied the same alarm scale to the U.S. military buildup, the humankind would have started crying wolf by now.

I was shocked by Gates' reference to the vague positions of countries such as Russia. I cannot believe that Robert Gates, a specialist on the Soviet Union and Soviet leadership, especially of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin era, a one-time White House Russia analyst, and a former CIA director, has any doubts about the Kremlin's current position.

In December 2006, he thought Russia's position was clear enough to explain it in Senate during his nomination hearing. "I think that what Putin is trying to do, frankly, is re-establish Russia as a great power," Gates said. "And I think Putin is trying to restore the pride of Russia. I think he has a lot of popular support at home for the things he's trying to do."

Many people thought Gates would speak for the U.S. administration's more realistic "dove" faction, including as regards relations with Russia. He promised to be quite unlike his neo-conservative predecessor Donald Rumsfeld and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton.

Idealists were jubilant, sincerely believing that the advocates of the "American age" theory of changing the world according to American values were ceding their positions in Washington. They thought the hawks were being replaced with more tolerant people respecting other countries' opinions, such as Bob Gates.

The first to fall prey to that illusion were American analysts, who heralded a forthcoming thaw in relations with Russia.

Dr. Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said that now that Gates had become part of the administration, an attempt would be made to promote military and military-technical cooperation with Russia.

Unfortunately Cohen was wrong. Washington intends to deploy ballistic missile launchers and radars in Poland and the Czech Republic, and has moved the world's largest Sea-Based X-Band Radar from Hawaii to the Aleutians in the Bering Sea, off Kamchatka.

John Michael "Mike" McConnell, the newly appointed Director of National Intelligence (DNI), has promised to pay more attention to Russia. He has created a "mission manager" position to focus on Russia. The focus of current mission manager positions also includes Cuba and Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and counterterrorism.

And lastly, Gates said last Thursday that the U.S. army should prepare for a war against Russia.

What has happened to the strategic partnership between the White House and the Kremlin?

This is a multifaceted problem, with one core element. The painful American failures in Iraq, the aborted attempt to turn the Broader Middle East into a testing ground for the Western model of democracy, and the flop of the neo-conservative doctrine of "a new American age" are pushing the U.S. administration to search for external reasons for failure, that is, somebody to blame for American mistakes.

In that situation, Russia with its growing economy, an image of the world's largest energy supplier, and the new confidence of its leaders seemed like an easy "clay pigeon" for the American shooting range.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.