Tag: Ukraine
No thanks
I have been trying to avoid wasting time commenting on the Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies call for partition of Kosovo in its ill-considered report ironically entitled “West Side Story.” But the partition idea never seems to die. Last week’s “fake news, wishful thinking” is the latest example of the Belgrade press spinning up the idea. And more than one friend has suggested to me in private that there must be something cooking.
The CEAS report is a transparent effort to make the West more palatable to Serbian President Vucic by suggesting NATO might lead an effort to give him northern Kosovo as compensation for normalizing relations with Pristina. It fails not only as a strategic concept but also on the merits.
CEAS proposes “adjustment” of what it considers the administrative boundary with Kosovo to incorporate Northern Mitrovica, Zvecan, Zubin Potok and Leposavic into Serbia, without any exchange for Albanian populated communities in southern Serbia. This comes (and here I have to quote because the assertion makes no sense at all)
…as a consequence of the opinion that neither the West itself nor the UN have managed to clearly determine the exact amount of punishment Serbia should sustain for the crimes of Milosevic’s regime in Kosovo…
So far as the West of which I am a part is concerned, the independence of Kosovo has nothing to do with punishment for Milosevic’s crimes. The proper venue for that was the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, where Milosevic unfortunately died before the expected guilty verdict was delivered.
Serbia after the war with NATO had every opportunity to try to “make unity attractive” (in the Sudanese phrase) to Kosovo Albanians in anticipation of the decision on final status foreseen in UN Security Council resolution 1244. It failed to do anything whatsoever in that direction, and even adopted a new constitution by not counting Kosovo Albanians on the voters rolls, because if they were counted the requirement that 50% of voters come to the polls could not be realized. I won’t pretend Serbia would likely have been successful in convincing Kosovo’s Albanians that they could return safely to Serbian sovereignty. The important fact is that Belgrade after Milosevic never even tried.
After proposing its idea of uncompensated territorial partition, described as one among “small concessions to authorities in Belgrade,” CEAS is still vague about what Kosovo would get in return. It
…could possibly facilitate the process of achieving a comprehensive agreement on the normalization of Serbia’s relations with Kosovo…
It doesn’t get much airier than that, and the subsequent argument against Putin being able to use this “correction” as an argument helping him to justify the annexation of Crimea is unintelligible. The fact is he would use it, just as he has used Kosovo as justification for what he did in the first place.
Later in the report there is mention of a possible “community of Albanian municipalities in southern Serbia.” That’s rich, since Belgrade has not regarded such a community of Serbian municipalities in Kosovo as sufficient for full normalization of relations. Why would Albanians accept something Serbs have found inadequate, especially as it is something they haven’t asked for?
The CEAS report simply ignores the obvious geopolitical risks involved in its partition proposal, claiming they are “low.” It offers no discussion of
- the likelihood that Republika Srpska would try to follow northern Kosovo into Serbia or declare independence,
- the possibility that Albanian nationalists would take the opportunity to try to chase Serbs from south of the Ibar river and thereby create conditions for a greater Kosovo or greater Albania,
- the implications in Georgia for South Ossetia and Abkhazia or in Moldova for Transnistria,
- the consequences for Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine,
I could go further afield to Iraqi Kurdistan and Tibet, but that’s enough to show why NATO would not want to consider the West Side Story proposition as anything but an effort to butter up Vucic. It is a sign of the weakness and desperation of pro-NATO advocates in Serbia that they come up with this poorly thought through proposal. So let me help them out:
Only sovereigns can cede territory. Serbia would have to recognize and establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo before Pristina could negotiate any change in the border. This is something Presidents Vucic and Thaci understand. Pristina would not agree without getting the Albanian communities in southern Serbia in exchange. Any partition, with or without exchange, would put at risk the Serb communities and religious sites south of the Ibar. Those countries that have recognized Kosovo would oppose such an exchange, because of the risk to Serb communities and religious sites as well the irredentist implications for Bosnia, Albania, and Macedonia as well as Russian aggression in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
But we don’t have to go there, because that’s where we already are. West Side Story is shameful effort to enlist NATO in a proposal that would benefit Russia, deprive NATO of cohesion, and reduce the Balkans as well as several countries beyond once again to ethnic nationalist chaos. No thanks.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Life ain’t fair
The Trump-Putin press conference after their meeting in Helsinki merits little comment. It wasn’t a lovefest, but they mostly avoided points of friction. The only obvious one was on Crimea, where Putin essentially said they had agreed to disagree on the legitimacy of Russia’s annexation. Trump said nothing.
On Syria, they are hoping for unspecified cooperation. The Syrian opposition, under bombardment by Russian warplanes, will be glad to hear that. Putin emphasized the importance of humanitarian assistance, but Russia essentially provides none (other than a bit of air transport). The US provides the lion’s share.
Both presidents want the summit to mark the beginning of a more normal relationship between the two powers. Putin was pleased to appear on an equal footing with Trump and emphasized nuclear weapons, as did Trump. No one mentioned that Russia is a declining regional power with an economy more or less the size of Spain’s.
Trump acknowledged that he had pushed American liquified natural gas as an alternative to Germany’s import of Russian gas through the Nordstream pipeline. Never mind that it would be far more costly. I think Chancellor Merkel might have noticed though.
The lies were fast and furious. Putin claimed the referendum on Crimea’s annexation was conducted according to international standards. Hardly. It didn’t even offer an option to keep Crimea’s autonomous status inside Ukraine, not to mention that it was conducted under Russian military occupation.
Trump tried to distract attention to a question about whether he believed the US intelligence community assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election by ranting about “where is Hillary Clinton’s server!” It’s with the FBI. He should ask there. Trump also said Putin forcefully denied the charge. That should settle it.
Putin referred to an implementation issue with the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) treaty. Hardly. Russia is violating the treaty.
He also tried to suggest that he knew nothing about the Russian officials Mueller has indicted but that some of what the Americans are complaining about might be the handiwork of private Russian companies. Does anyone think Putin doesn’t know precisely what the GU (Russian military intelligence) is up to? Does anyone think private Russian companies don’t do the bidding of the Russian government?
Putin also generously offered cooperation with the Mueller investigation, on a reciprocal basis. We need only arrest Bill Browder, Putin’s nemesis and the originator of the Magnitsky Act. Then Mueller can participate in the interrogation of the indicted GU officials and Russian law enforcement will participate in the interrogation of Browder. Even Trump might not fall for that one.
Had a Democratic president appeared with Putin in this fashion a few days after the indictment of Russian officials for interfering in a US election and a few months after the Russians tried to kill a defector in Great Britain, the Republicans would be getting out the noose. The president wouldn’t even have to be black, just liberal. But this pair of white nationalist liars get to display their mendacity with impunity. Life ain’t fair.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Best summit EVER!
Hard to write anything you haven’t already read about the Mueller indictment of 12 Russian officials for cyberattacks on the United States. This is the second shoe to drop. The first consisted of indictments for the social media campaign intended to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.
The President is now golfing to get ready to meet with “not my enemy” Vladimir Putin in Helsinki tomorrow. Trump intends to start the summit one-on-one, with only interpreters. That way he can say whatever he wants about what transpired, as the interpreters won’t leak. While he has said he would ask about interference in the US election, Trump has also repeated Putin’s earlier denials, indicating he believes them. I don’t know anyone else in Washington who does.
Trump is fresh from London meetings during which he offended the Queen, supported the Prime Minister’s leading rival, and claimed immigration was ruining both Europe and the US. That followed on a NATO summit at which he trashed America’s allies, then (falsely) pretended that they had yielded to his will on military spending. Today he even responded to a question about America’s worst enemy by saying the EU is a foe. This is Putin’s wet dream: the United States split from Europe and in particular from its militarily strongest ally.
Where and when does this nightmare end? Not in Helsinki, where Trump will likely serve up Syria on a silver platter, asking only that Moscow promise to get he Iranians out, or at least off the Israeli border. Putin will promise, the Americans will bail, but neither Russia nor Iran will feel any pressure to fulfill any commitment Putin has made. Their attacks on the agreed de-escalation zones in Syria, and Trump’s abandonment of the rebel forces in the south, tells you all you need to know about how Moscow, Damascus, and Washington are approaching Syria these days. Moscow and Damascus are trying to win. Washington doesn’t care about losing. Once the Americans are gone from Syria, Iran and Russia will be free to do as they like.
The only good news is that Trump might be boxed in on Ukraine. While he has personally expressed the view that Crimea should belong to Russia because people there speak Russian, the Administration and Congress seem solidly opposed to any compromise on Ukraine before withdrawal of Russian forces. Trump will have a hard time promising Putin relief from Ukraine-related sanctions if the Congress stands its ground. That said, any indication of indifference towards the Russian annexation of Crimea will be a big win for Putin, even if the sanctions remain in place for now.
Of course Trump will declare the Helsinki summit a great success, one much more successful than any previous meeting with an American president. People will be saying it was the best summit EVER!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tighten your seatbelts
We are in that car crash moment: we can see the collision coming but can’t stop the vehicle or predict precisely the outcome. Only this time there is more than one crash coming:
- President Trump’s nomination of a Federalist Society-certified conservative to the Supreme Court pretty much guarantees that abortion will be a key issue in November’s Congressional election. To whose advantage that will be is not clear. But whether Judge Kavanaugh is approved before the poll, or especially if confirmation is delayed until afterwards, his apparent inclination to overturn Roe v. Wade will push women towards the Democrats and men towards the Republicans.
- In the foreign policy community, everyone is holding their breath for the NATO Summit in Brussels tomorrow and Thursday. Trump has been hyperventilating about Europe’s failure to spend more on defense, even as many of the allies have been raising their expenditures in order to meet the 2024 NATO target of 2% of GNP and to increase the Alliance’s odds against an increasingly aggressive Russia. If Trump repeats his dissing of the G7 last month in Canada, the Europeans will conclude the Alliance is dead.
- Next Monday Trump meets President Putin in Helsinki. Speculation is rife that he will hand Syria and perhaps also Crimea to Putin, in return for essentially nothing. If either happens, it will cause worldwide repercussions, the former because US withdrawal from Syria will strengthen Iran (Russian promises to restrain Tehran should be ignored entirely) and the latter because every would-be breakaway minority will be encouraged by US acceptance of Russia’s annexation.
- A bit further along on the time horizon is the escalating trade war with China, which is causing a lot of distress in the US, both because Trump’s tariffs raise prices to US producers and consumers of Chinese goods and because Chinese retaliation is hitting US exports hard. The tit-for-tat tariffs with Canada, Mexico, and Europe are also damaging, though the stock market isn’t yet feeling the pain. It will eventually, as the inflationary impact of the budget deficit, the tax cut, and the tariffs pushes the Fed to raise interest rates.
- The dialogue with North Korea about its nuclear program has degenerated into a diatribe, with Pyongyang accusing Secretary of State Pompeo of gangster-like behavior for insisting on quick denuclearization, rather than the long-term, phased (and likely never completed) process the North Koreans favor. No telling whether or when Trump will be back to threatening fire and fury, but it is already clear that his classic bait and switch tactic–he doesn’t seem to have mentioned quick denuclearization during the Singapore summit–won’t work with Kim Jong-un.
Trump will be in London Thursday evening and Friday, meeting with a Prime Minister teetering on the brink as she tries desperately to rescue the United Kingdom from the worst impacts of Brexit, which Trump supported. He’ll be flying everywhere, so as to avoid what are predicted to be massive protests.
Then he’ll spend the weekend in Scotland at one of his own golf clubs. We can hope he’ll spend some time with the briefing books, especially the ones that detail Russian interference in the US election and Moscow’s role in nerve agent murders in the UK. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks July 8 – 15
You can find more events for the upcoming week here
1. A Vision: Ukraine – 2030: Sustainable Development Doctrine | Tuesday, July 10, 2018 | 1:30 pm – 3:00 pm | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Ukraine has made significant progress on ambitious economic and financial reforms in recent years. Steps have been taken to intensify the fight against corruption and boost economic growth across a range of sectors. However, much work is still needed for Ukraine’s economic development and improvement of the socio-economic situation. In addition to focus on specific reforms and bolstering investor confidence, strategies for long-term sustainable development must also be considered.
At this event, Mr. Serhiy Taruta, Member of Parliament, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, will present a paper, entitled Ukraine 2030, a vision which lays out a framework for the strategic direction of Ukraine’s long-term development. This will be followed by a discussion on the challenges and opportunities for Ukraine’s sustainable development will be discussed.
Speakers:
Moderator: Ambassador John Herbst, Director – Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Mr. Serhiy Taruta, Member of Parliament, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine
Dr. Anders Åslund, Senior Fellow – Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council; Independent Member, Supervisory Board, Ukrzaliznytsia
Dr. Vira Nanivska, Policy Research Director, Collegium Anna Yaroslavna: East
Dr. Edi Segura, Chairman of the Board, The Blezyer Foundation; Partner and Chief Economist, SigmaBleyzer
Ms. Michelle Small, Director, Head of the Washington DC Representative Office, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Mr. Morgan Williams, President, US-Ukraine Business Council
2. Elections in Zimbabwe: Autocracy and Stasis, or Democracy and Change? | Tuesday, July 10, 2018 | 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm | National Endowment for Democracy | Register Here
Since the Movement for Democratic Change’s founding in 1999, Zimbabwe has been going through a protracted struggle for democratization. An entrenched incumbent, fortified by a strong political-military network, has met aspirations for democratic improvement with strong resistance. This network, however, underwent a serious rupture last November when former allies effectively deposed its long-serving leader, Robert Mugabe. The new president, President Emmerson Mnangagwa, has scheduled general elections for July 30, 2018. The upcoming polls present new political dynamics and a heightened level of anticipation both within and outside Zimbabwe. In his presentation, Dr. Alex Magaisa will consider the struggle to achieve greater democratic accountability in today’s Zimbabwe. He will assess preparations for the approaching elections and discuss the prospects for democratization, including possible post-election scenarios and the roles of the military and the international community. Comments by Dr.Alexander H. Noyes will follow.
Speakers:
Moderator: Natalie Kay, Program Officer, Southern Africa, National Endowment for Democracy
Alex Magaisa, Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow, National Endowment for Democracy
Alexander H. Noyes, Senior Associate (Non-Resident), Africa Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
3. July 15 Coup Attempt: Two Years Later | Wednesday, July 11, 2018 | 11:00 am – 12:30 pm | Turkish Heritage Organization
Please join the Turkish Heritage Organization and the Global Policy Institute on July 11 for a panel discussion on the second anniversary of the July 15 coup attempt that took place in 2016. Since this critical event in Turkey’s recent history, the country has witnessed profound changes within both its foreign and domestic politics. Our distinguished guests will discuss how the coup attempt shaped present day Turkey and the potential implications regarding U.S.-Turkey relations.
Speakers:
Moderator: Deniz Karatas, Global Policy Institute
Abraham Wagner, Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs & Senior Research Scholar, Columbia University
4. Future of US-Turkish Relations After Erdogan’s Victory | Wednesday, July 11, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm | Endowment for Middle East Truth | Register Here
Join EMET on Capitol Hill as we host Congressman Gus Bilirakis, FDD scholar and former Turkish parliament member Dr. Aykan Erdemir, the pro-Kurdish opposition US representative of the People’s Democratic Party (HDP), Giran Ozcan, and EMET’s Director of the Kurdistan Project, Diliman Abdulkader. The panel will be moderated by EMET founder and President Sarah Stern. Our panel will analyze the implications of the June 24th Turkish elections called by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Leading Turkey since 2002 with the Justice and Development Party (AKP), internally Erdogan has tilted state institutions to further solidify his position, he has targeted political opposition groups, academics, journalists, and the Kurdish minority all while labeling those speaking against his rule as “terrorists.” Erdogan has distanced himself from his short-lived “zero problem with neighbors” policy as he has made more foes than friends in the region. He has threatened Greece with military action while continuing to have a foothold in Northern Cyprus. His incursions into Syria targeting US-backed Kurdish forces has created a diminishing of relations with the United States. Under Erdogan, Turkey has pivoted towards Russia by purchasing Russian missiles incompatible with NATO defense systems. The panel will examine the outcome of the elections, what Turkey’s future holds under Erdogan and how this will affect US-Turkish relations.
5. Stabilizing the Fertile Crescent After the Fall of the Caliphate | Wednesday, July 11, 2018 | 12:00pm – 1:45pm | Foreign Policy Research Institute | Register Here
In 2014, the United States stated its intention to “degrade and destroy” ISIS. Since then, a diverse array of forces has worked tirelessly to liberate key territories in Iraq and Syria from ISIS’s Caliphate. Now, in the summer of 2018, ISIS’s Caliphate largely has been dismantled as a territorial entity. However, the group is far from destroyed, and its ability to maneuver is much improved as it reverts to an insurgency. What’s more, there is very little to prevent yet another non-state armed group from retaking the very same lands that ISIS once held. Accordingly, American diplomacy, military strategy, and intelligence collection likely will focus on Iraq and Syria for many years to come. Thus, the question for policymakers is how the U.S. can prevent non-state armed groups from regaining a territorial foothold, further destabilizing these territories, and ultimately threatening U.S. interests in the region. Relatedly, the question of what to do about the likes of al-Qaeda and ISIS even if they do not hold territory remains equally pressing.
“Stabilizing the Fertile Crescent After the Fall of the Caliphate,” a special issue of Orbis: FPRI’s Journal of World Affairs (Summer 2018) and the subject of this panel, seeks to provide a framework for thinking about the threat of terrorism emanating from the Fertile Crescent now that ISIS’s Caliphate is being undone and to provide concrete policy recommendations to establish a tenable politico-economic status quo.
Speakers:
Tally Helfont, Director of Program on the Middle East, Foreign Policy Research Institute
Samuel Helfont, Assistant Professor, Naval War College, Monterey
Barak Mendelsohn, Associate Professor, Haverford College
Assaf Moghadam, Adjunct Associate Professor, Columbia University
6. Next Steps on North Korea: Denuclearization and Building a New Relationship | Thursday, July 12, 2018 | 9:00am – 10:30 am | Korea Economic Institute of America | Register Here
With the historic first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and the leader of North Korea now complete, the difficult process of negotiating North Korea’s dismantlement and building a new relationship between the United States and North Korea begins. What are the key steps the United States and North Korea need to take to achieve the goals of the Singapore Statement? What is the role of South Korea as the process moves forward? What challenges beyond denuclearization are there for building new U.S.-North Korea relationship?
Please join the Korea Economic Institute of America and the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy for a discussion of the key next steps in dismantling North Korea’s nuclear program and moving towards the new relationship called for in the Singapore Statement.
Speakers:
Moderator: Jenna Gibson, Korea Economic Institute of America
Patrick Cronin, Center for a New American Security
Katrin Katz, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Kim Seok Hwan, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy
Kim Yong Hyun, Dongguk University
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Giving away the store for a photo op
President Trump today agreed to suspend US military exercises with South Korea during negotiations with the North and to provide Pyongyang with unspecified security guarantees in exchange for an equally vague commitment to denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. He and Kim Jong-un also got their photo op, which featured a stunning array of American and Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea flags.
The quid pro quo is clear: the US will be guaranteeing the permanence of one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth and reducing its commitment to its South Korean allies in exchange for some still-to-be-determined constraints on North Korean missile and nuclear weapons capabilities. The joint statement contains no reference at all to human rights issues or North Korean abductions, though it does refer to repatriation of the remains of prisoners of war and those missing in action from the Korean War. All you need to know about this deal is what the Republicans would be saying if President Obama had negotiated it.
Kim also got a lot from the photo op, which portrayed him as the equal of the President of the United States. The handshake was a de facto acknowledgement of North Korea’s nuclear power status, legitimizing both the regime and its acquisition of nuclear weapons. It will strengthen Kim both at home and abroad. Trump has no problem with that: he seems to relish relations with dictators and disdain democrats.
Trump will also benefit from the photo op, though less than Kim. He’ll use it to assert effectiveness in foreign policy, an arena in which the Administration has had absolutely no success and a number of significant failures, not the least at the G7 meeting in Quebec last weekend. The Atlantic alliance is a shambles, relations with European and Pacific allies and trading partners have been upended, and Russia continues its occupation of part of Ukraine as well as its marauding in Syria. America is more alone in the world, and less able to exert its will, than it has been in decades.
I don’t expect Trump’s supporters to understand or acknowledge this. Their enthusiasm for Trump is unconditional. I do hope that others can see through the photo op to what it really amounts to: Trump has given away the store in exchange for very little. He is a lousy negotiator. He put himself in the unenviable position of having no alternative to this premature and ill-advised meeting. The only hope left is that now some serious American negotiators will get busy making lemonade out of Trump’s lemons.
RSS - Posts
