Tag: Ukraine
Extending the 3 day miracle
Alexandra Martin, a Johns Hopkins SAIS graduate student and Eurasia Foundation Young Professional 2015/16, reports:
May 1 most Eastern Europeans celebrated the Orthodox Easter. I have vivid memories about how important this tradition is for the Orthodox community. When I was little, my grand-grandmother used to tell me that people forget about their discords for these three days. Even those who are fighting in a war put their guns down and respect the Holiest of the Orthodox celebrations. She survived both World Wars and many political regimes, including an empire, communist repression and fragile democracy.
Her words came to my mind when I read about the Easter armistice negotiated in Eastern Ukraine. The conflict between Ukrainian authorities and separatist fighters in Donbas had escalated in past weeks. The number of ceasefire violations skyrocketed. A week ago, four civilians lost their lives in Olenivka, when the area came under shelling. They add to the 9187 people killed since the beginning of Ukraine crisis in 2014.
The armistice was brokered in order to ensure that people on both sides of the Contact Line are safe celebrating Easter. Compared to previous weeks, it accomplished some success. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) “observed a low number of ceasefire violations in Donetsk region, and none in Luhansk region” on Easter Sunday, according to the organization’s daily report. The entire weekend appeared to follow the same trend, with a low number of ceasefire violations. But what will happen now? What will happen as Eastern Ukraine returns to business as usual?
To clarify some of my questions, I reached out to Alexander Hug, Principal Deputy Chief Monitor at the OSCE SMM. He was kind enough to answer my concerns.
Q: Why the upward trend in fighting recently? What triggered it?
AH: Let me qualify what is underlying your question: we have always recorded ebbs and flows in ceasefire violations, and they have always concentrated in a couple of hotspots. There have been quieter periods, especially after 1 September, and around New Year. It is true that since mid-January there have been more very active days of fighting. And what is worrying: the usage of weapons which should have been withdrawn from the Security Zone, e.g. mortars, are used much more than in the fall of 2015. A key factor for the near-constant violations of the ceasefire is that military formations are standing too close together and have recently moved even closer in some locations. This represents a violation of the Minsk agreements and must not continue. Disengagement is a necessity in the current situation. Another element contributing not necessarily to an increase, but to the continuation of ceasefire violations is that there is no effective response mechanism for violations.
Q: How is the OSCE getting prepared for this new level of fragility? What additional efforts are designed to re-stabilize the situation?
AH: The SMM remains an unarmed civilian monitoring mission. The SMM has expanded its presence on both sides of the contact line – both in numbers and geographically. Forward patrol bases are now operational in eight locations, bringing the total of SMM locations in Donetsk and Luhansk regions to thirteen, eight in government-controlled areas and five in non-government controlled areas. More forward patrol bases are needed, including in non-government controlled areas, but the SMM needs safety and security assurances from those in effective control in the respective locations.
Currently, the Mission has 699 Monitors, with the aim of further expansion. This expansion is accompanied by an expansion of the Mission’s technical capabilities. Long-range UAVs have been complemented by mid-range and small size UAVs. In addition, the Mission is now operating three static observation cameras in certain hotspots along the contact line, and this number will be expanded.
However, the freedom of movement of the SMM is restricted, which impedes monitoring. Direct attacks against the SMM and its assets are taking place with impunity for the perpetrators. Three serious security incidents have taken place recently: weapons were shot in the direction of SMM Monitors, they were threatened at gunpoint and one vehicle was hit by a bullet.
We have called for an end to this impunity for people who threaten, violently mistreat or attack the SMM, or who violate its freedom of movement at all levels and on all sides.
Q: Many experts and scholars saw Donbas as a new frozen conflict in Eastern Europe. The evidence proves that we are far from frozen. What is your projection for conflict resolution, implementation of Minsk II, and normalization on the ground for the near future? Are the parties running into a stalemate, are there signs of fighting fatigue or exactly the opposite?
AH: During the past weeks, the SMM has registered the highest number of ceasefire violations in months. Artillery and mortars, proscribed by the Minsk agreements, are being used again in increased numbers. Fighting takes place in hotspots. The fighting there varies in intensity over time. Days of relative calm are followed by days, or even weeks, of intense escalation. Just recently, in the week from 11 to 17 April, the Mission has observed particularly intensive violence between Avdiivka and Yasynuvata, to the north of Donetsk. This was the highest level of violence observed since August 2015.
Armed violence also continues around the city of Zaitseve, around Horlivka and around Svitlodarsk and Debaltseve. An upsurge in ceasefire violations has also taken place in the south of Donetsk region and in Luhansk region. An ever increasing number of weapons are missing from permanent storage sites and from known weapons holding areas. Many of these facilities are completely abandoned. Our observations suggest that many of these weapons are back in use at the contact line.
A sustainable ceasefire is of central importance to the further implementation of the Minsk agreements. The sides need to show visible and decisive action to restore it. The SMM stands ready to facilitate dialogue between the sides in order to return normality to the lives of the people of Ukraine. There are no alternatives to the Minsk arrangements, and our experience on the ground proves that the sides can stop the fire when they want to. It is all up to political will at the highest level. We have also seen that when there are quieter periods, trust is increasing and the sides are able to work together, e.g. on repairs, demining etc. I believe it is possible to normalize the situation, and this is necessary not least for the lives of civilians affected. And it is why we are here. We will keep on working on it.
The implementation of Minsk II provisions remains central to a long lasting conflict resolution in Ukraine. The war has already exposed over 3 million people to high risks. They are in urgent need of humanitarian aid. The Orthodox Easter armistice proved that fighting can de-escalate immediately if there is political will. At this point one can only hope that the ‘miracle’ lasts more than three days.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This doesn’t make sense
US Ambassador to NATO Lute said Friday:
I think Russia plays an important part in the strategic environment…[which] will put a break on NATO expansion. If you accept the premises…about Russia’s internal weakness and perhaps steady decline, it may not make sense to push further now and maybe accelerate or destabilize the decline.
I am assured that this statement represents no departure from Article 10 of the NATO treaty, which provides for the membership to unanimously “invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty.” Montenegro has already received such an invitation and will be admitted to membership at the July 8/9 NATO Summit in Warsaw.
What doesn’t make sense to me is Washington accommodating Moscow’s aggressiveness internationally in order to avoid destabilizing it internally. Quite to the contrary: pushing back on Moscow’s increasingly aggressive stance against NATO expansion would provide incentive and opportunity for Russia to refocus its energies on its internal problems, which lower oil prices and Ukraine-induced sanctions are aggravating.
This is particularly true for NATO expansion into the Balkans, a region not contiguous with Russian territory. NATO expansion to tiny and distant Montenegro can in no way be reasonably perceived as a threat to Russia, no matter how often Russian diplomats repeat that refrain. The same is true of Slovenia, Albania and Croatia, all of which became NATO members with little or no comment from Moscow. Even if all of the remaining Balkans countries join–that’s Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia and Serbia–Russia is in no way militarily at risk.
That makes the Balkans different from Georgia and Ukraine. Location matters.
This hasn’t prevented Moscow from mounting aggressive campaigns in all but pro-American Kosovo against Alliance membership, as well as a rearguard action against Montenegrin accession. Moscow uses its diplomats to speak out crudely against NATO membership, its money to fund anti-NATO protests, and its commercial influence to turn local politicians against the Alliance. Russia has even planted a proto-base (allegedly for humanitarian rather than military purposes) in southern Serbia, hoping this will inoculate Belgrade from catching the NATO flu.
Russia’s anti-NATO efforts threaten to destabilize the Balkans, where the prospect of NATO membership is an important factor in promoting democratization and reducing inter-ethnic tensions. This is especially true in Macedonia, where much of the Albanian population regards the prospect of NATO membership as vital to its own security. It is of course also true in Kosovo, where NATO troops have been vital to maintaining a safe and secure environment since the NATO/Yugoslavia war in 2001. Bosnia and Serbia are more ambivalent towards NATO, though Serbia’s prime minister recently noted (in the runup to a parliamentary election) that NATO troops in Kosovo protect the Serb population there.
So Ambassador Lute’s comments–even if not meant to qualify Article 10–will be read in the Balkans as discouraging hopes for NATO membership and in Moscow as a green light for Russian efforts to undermine the generally positive trend the region has taken for the past 20 years. It would be good now for the American Administration to reiterate that Washington still wants a Europe “whole and free,” including in particular the Balkans and even Russia if it so chooses. Anything less than that gives Moscow further incentive to muck in what it increasingly considers its sphere of influence, which could set back decades of democratization and run the real risk of destabilization.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The cessation of hostilities that won’t
I’m getting press queries about the cessation of hostilities in Syria, which goes into effect a midnight Damascus time tonight. Here are some of them, along with answers:
- What chance does this ceasefire have of working?
Little. Without any neutral monitors or agreement on what cannot be targeted, parties on both sides will accuse the other of violating without any possibility of determining who is right. In any event, the Russians have published a map indicating very small areas covered by the cessation of hostilities:
2. Won’t the excluded groups, Islamic State and al-Nusra, simply keep on fighting?
Yes. ISIS at least is largely separate from the moderate opposition, so it can be targeted in principle without necessarily hitting others. Al Nusra is embedded in opposition controlled territory, so targeting it will hit moderate opposition as well.
3. Do you think the cessation of hostilities will simply allow Syrian regime/Russians to cement their gains?
It will help them consolidate their gains, yes. Cement would be going too far, however. They are gaining territory where housing, infrastructure and commercial property has suffered enormous damage. Moscow is repeating what it did to Grozny in Chechnya. But neither the regime nor the Russians has the resources to followup with reconstruction. Nor do I think they can restore Assad’s authority over much of the population.
4. Has John Kerry really been forced into an impossible position because of the Russian intervention?
Yes, but the impossible position is determined also by President Obama’s unwillingness to intervene on the side of the opposition or provide them with the means they require to defend themselves from the Russians, Syrian government forces, Iranians, and Iraqi militias arrayed against them.
5. There’s talk the US may attempt to partition off part of Syria – is that realistic?
It might one day have been possible to create a safe area/no fly zone controlled by the opposition. But it is much harder today with Russian planes operating over much of Syria. Some opposition-controlled territories are likely to survive, but they will be few and far between.
6. Why not just divide Syria? Isn’t that what is happening anyway?
Formal, juridical partition of Syria is simply a bad idea. It would open the question of other borders in the region and beyond, putting at risk our Turkish ally as well as the unity of Iraq. Washington will not want to create a precedent that would help the Russians justify what they did in Crimea or what they are trying to do in eastern Ukraine, never mind South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria. The Americans have a big stake in maintaining the notion that national borders should not be changed by military action.
That said, Syria is likely to end up a far more decentralized country than once it was. That is not necessarily a bad thing and might allow for different parts of the country to be governed more to the liking of their inhabitants.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Russia’s new spheres of influence?
For the past 25 years, the main efforts deployed by the US and the West European allies aimed at supporting the democratization process in the fragile post-Soviet space. Adopting a balanced and efficient policy towards Russia was challenging and in many areas problematic. But never before has this ‘constructive engagement’ in the region been so strained, limited and difficult as it is today.
Russia’s ambitions in the ‘near abroad’ space, its recent violations of the international norms with regard to Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and its air campaign in Syria are threatening the transatlantic democratic architecture. Recalibration of Washington’s relationship with Moscow shifts the entire geopolitical landscape of the region and beyond. The growing autocratic environment in Russia and its undemocratic, uncertain and offensive build-up to create a new spheres of influence requires a Western response.
By isolating, countering and blocking the Kremlin’s gains in the neighborhood we might affect its calculations and create momentum for a trajectory change. But by treating the symptoms we might forget to ultimately understand and address the underlying causes of this new crisis: Russian national identity and great-power ambitions in a multi-polar world.
On Monday, 22 Feb, the Conflict Management Department of SAIS, together with the Center for Transatlantic Relations and the Transatlantic Academy, will organize a half day conference in Kenney Auditorium (SAIS, Johns Hopkins) on Russia’s Foreign Policy: New Spheres of Influence?. Two panels, one on Europe and the other one on Middle East, will discuss the regional implications of Russia’s more assertive positioning.
The first panel, from 9:30 am to 11:00 am, will discuss Russian influence in Europe, and feature former US Ambassador John Herbst, EU Deputy Head of Delegation Caroline Vicini, German Marshall Fund Vice President Ivan Vejvoda and Dan Hamilton, CTR Executive Director. It will be moderated by Buzzfeed World editor Miriam Elder.
The second panel, from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm, will discuss the Middle East and feature Washington Institute for Near East Policy Fellow Anna Borshchevskaya, Transatlantic Academy Senior Fellow Marie Mendras, George Mason Professor Mark Katz and SAIS Conflict Management Program Director Daniel Serwer. It will be moderated by Christian Caryl, contributing editor of Foreign Policy magazine.
If you are interested to attend, please register at Russia’s Foreign Policy: New Spheres of Influence? Tickets, Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:00 AM | Eventbrite
The conference is on the record. You will be able to follow the talk on Twitter: #CMRussiaFP.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Dire
Iraq’s Kurdistan Region is making noises about conducting a referendum soon to decide its political future. A drafting committee is working on the wording of the proposition. President Barzani and his PDK are committed to conducting the referendum this year.
Whatever the wording, Kurdistan’s largely young Kurdish population will understand it to be about independence. Ditto the large Kurdish diaspora, which referendum advocates want to enfranchise. Most of Kurdistan’s now substantial Arab population of people displaced by war will not be able to vote.
The outcome is predictable: 90% and likely more will vote yes, whatever the precise wording.
The case for Kurdistan’s independence is on the face of it compelling. Saddam Hussein’s regime mistreated its population, chasing Kurds from their homes and even out of the country. Kurds were even gassed during the 1988 Anfal campaign. Kurdistan won a large measure of autonomy in the 2005 Iraqi constitution, but the relationship between Baghdad and Erbil has been at best rocky since then. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has not received all the oil revenue it is entitled to, it has had to defend its own territory from the Islamic State without help from Baghdad and it faces demands from its population, most of whom no longer speak Arabic, for complete independence. The KRG claims to be a democracy and to treat minorities well.
So why shouldn’t it happen?
The geopolitical circumstances are not favorable. While Kurdistan has vastly improved its relations with Ankara, large parts of eastern Turkey were slated at the end of World War I to become part of a Kurdish state. Turkey will not want to see independence for its southern neighbor while it represses a violent Kurdish rebellion on its own territory, for fear of the irredentist consequences. Iranians feel even more strongly on this issue: what the Kurds call “eastern Kurdistan” is inside the Islamic Republic. Iran’s population is not much more than 50% Persian. Tehran will fear the Kurds won’t be the only ones looking to get out. The Baloch have been rebelling since 2004.
Iraqi Kurds naturally look to the Americans for support. Washington was vital to their survival in the 90s, when it protected them with a no-fly zone in northern Iraq. The Kurds supported the 2003 American invasion of Iraq and happily hosted American forces. The KRG has welcomed Iraqi Christians displaced by ISIS and maintains friendly relations with the US, even welcoming American investment and admitting Americans without the visas the Baghdad government requires. My Kurdish friends ask plaintively: don’t the Americans want a new friendly ally in the Middle East? One with at least a nominal commitment to multiethnic democracy?
Washington might, but it has global concerns, which include maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, where Moscow is supporting breakaway territories in each of those countries. Independence for Kurdistan would open the proverbial Pandora’s box, strengthening Russian arguments and undermining the international consensus that has formed against independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the annexation of Crimea and the rebellion in Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as the aspirations of Transnistria. China will be no less opposed to Kurdistan’s independence than the Americans, for fear of the implications for Tibet.
Even inside Iraq, there are issues. The boundaries of Iraqi Kurdistan are not agreed. While the KRG seized the so-called “disputed territories” during its offensive against the Islamic State in 2014, Baghdad has not agreed that they belong within Kurdistan. The KRG is offering to conduct referenda in these territories on whether they want to join with Kurdistan, fulfilling a provision of the Iraqi constitution. But doing that while the KRG is in control is unlikely to convince Baghdad that a free choice is being made.
At current oil prices around $30/barrel, the KRG is nowhere near having the financial resources to be independent. Baghdad isn’t providing the funding it should, but independence would leave Kurdistan even worse off. It is still an oil rentier state, despite its hopes for a more diversified economy. My guess is that oil prices in the future will have a hard time going over $70-80/barrel, because above that level massive quantities of unconventionally produced oil and gas (as well as other alternatives) will come on line. The KRG needs closer to $100/barrel to meet its financial requirements with oil production even well above current levels.
Advocates of an independence referendum are claiming that it would be prelude to a re-negotiation of the relationship with Baghdad, not necessarily a one-way street to independence. Anyone who knows young Kurds will doubt that after voting for what they think of as independence they will accept some sort of confederal arrangement to stay nominally inside Iraq. An independence referendum is far more likely to be prelude to still another war, in which Arabs (both Sunni and Shia) fight Kurds to determine the borders they have failed to agree on for more than a decade.
The implications of a referendum without prior agreement, both on the legitimacy of the process and on Kurdistan’s borders, are dire.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hagel uncontrollable and unpredictable
On Wednesday, the Atlantic Council hosted a conversation with former Secretary of Defense Hagel. He detailed the policy issues and challenges that arose during his tenure as Secretary of Defense, discussed his relationship with the Obama Administration, and provided advice to US policymakers going forward. Fred Kempe, President and CEO, Atlantic Council, interviewed the Secretary and moderated the discussion.
Kempe began with some background about Hagel’s tenure as Secretary of Defense. He was the first Secretary of Defense in decades to face shrinking budgets at a time of increased demand for US military force. Sequester began on his third day in office. He also faced the Russian invasion of Crimea, the fight against ISIS, a difficult US-Egypt relationship, and the Iran negotiations.
Kempe asked Secretary Hagel to provide his thoughts on Iran’s capture and subsequent release of US sailors this week. Secretary Hagel said he doesn’t have the intelligence information he once had, but that the US is pleased with the sailors’ release. There will be an investigation of what happened and why. He strongly supported the nuclear negotiations with Iran. This incident put the deal in jeopardy, especially since the removal of sanctions commences this weekend. If the Iranians hadn’t released the sailors, they would have put sanctions relief in jeopardy.
Hagel described what he saw as a new world order developing now. We are witnessing the greatest diffusion of economic power in history combined with rapid demographic changes. The world order that the US and its allies built post-Word War II has done well; there has been no World War III or nuclear exchange. These alliances will become even more important in this century. As the world has progressed, more people have greater expectations regarding what their rights are.
The world is unpredictable. Leaders need to build margins into their planning. While the US is the most powerful nation on earth, we shouldn’t dictate or impose. Most Americans were born after World War II and expect an America that dominates in every way. But we’ve made big mistakes stemming from not paying attention to other cultures. American leadership is indispensable, but Americans must be humble about this. We can’t fix every problem, but countries do rely on American leadership to bring them together.
American leadership is essential for global stability. We should remain engaged, but not be afraid of other countries becoming successful. We need to adapt to the world’s shifting demographics without abandoning our values. We shouldn’t impose our specific brand of Western democracy on all countries. As Kissinger has said, we need to help countries develop their own democracies for their own contexts. The common threads of all democracies are dignity for all, freedom of initiative, and incentives for hard work and responsibility.
Kempe wanted Hagel to review his recent article in Foreign Policy in which he criticized the way he was treated by the Obama Administration. Hagel did not want to rehash everything he said in the article, but stated that all administrations try to dominate their cabinets. In this sense, the Obama Administration is no different from previous administrations, but each successive administration in recent years has tried to dominate more.
This is unhealthy because it undercuts governing. Governing is not the same as domination. Every institution requires the support of good people and those in charge need to trust these people and rely on them to govern with them. The two most important jobs in every administration are the National Security Advisor and the Chief of Staff because all decision making flows through them. The Secretary of Defense doesn’t make policy but is the implementer and operator of the policies that the President wants. When the President dominates those whom he/she is supposed to rely on it impedes his/her ability to govern. In addition, there were too many meetings with too many people in the room; this creates chaos because everyone wants to talk and show how smart they are. Every President faces challenges, uncontrollables, and unknowables.
Every President also has his/her own style. But it’s hard to bring in the best people if they think they will be overloaded with meetings, micromanaged and second-guessed.
Given the fact that sequester began on day three of Hagel’s tenure, Kempe wanted to know how much time he spent on budgets and if the military has enough funding to ensure American security. Hagel reminded the audience that sequester remains in effect, though cuts to military spending have been adjusted. The Pentagon requires the certainty of long-term budgets on the order of 20 years to plan the purchase of weapons systems. Sequester meant an immediate $50 billion of budget cuts, so Secretary Hagel commissioned a review to understand what was most important in the budget, both from Pentagon officials as well as from field commanders. Secretary Hagel originally though he would have to furlough his employees for 21 days, but managed to cut this down to 3-5 days. He had to halt maintenance and training for a few months.
That was followed by a 16-day government shutdown, which was irresponsible on the part of politicians. Hagel refused to comply with the shutdown, though some employees were absent for 16 days. It is terrible to damage the security of the US to make a political point. It hurt the Department of Defense. The employees ultimately got paid anyway by virtue of the unions.
Budgets took up a lot of his time. We are perilously close to not having enough funds to defend our national security interests. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have to testify in front of Congress to give their opinion on whether the current budget is sufficient to guarantee American national security interests; they are getting close to having to say no. We can do with fewer submarines, for instance, but that will come with a long-term price. Once we have two presidential candidates, they must be clear about what they think the US role in the world is and what our national security interests are. Read more
RSS - Posts
