Tag Archives: Russia

White House Hack Illustrates Need For Cyber Security

Recent news suggests that hackers have managed to subvert the State Department’s email server over the past year as well as the White House’s computer system in the past few days, reportedly even gaining access to private details of President Obama’s schedule. The hackers have not yet been able to access any classified information from the White House or the State Department, but James Clapper has noted the hacking attempts as more severe than any the United States has faced before.

US intelligence agencies have discovered tell-tale signs that the hackers were working for the Russian government, but no clear evidence or accusations have been publicly released. Kremlin spokesman Dimitryj Peskov has denied that the Russian government had a hand in the hacking of the computer systems. However, Russia’s cyberwarfare capabilities are not to be dismissed lightly, regardless if the Russian government was behind the attack. Russia has employed cyber attacks during their invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, and Russia has been accused of cyber attacking Estonia. US intelligence officials now list cyber attacks as the greatest threat to national security.

With concern over clear threats to the US power grid and other key elements infrastructure by means of cyber attack, it is high time we take active measures to prevent against cyber attacks and EMP.

About that “Peace and Security of a World Without Nuclear Weapons” Thing…

We are days away from marking the 6th anniversary of President Obama’s 2009 speech in Prague, Czech Republic, during which he declared his intent to “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

So how is that going?

Well…we may be close to a deeply flawed nuclear agreement with Iran. A “framework” for this deal is due by March 31st; the final deal by June 30th. As my Center for Security Policy colleague Fred Fleitz has documented, the agreement is likely to 1) enable Iran to continue enriching uranium; 2) include dangerous concessions on plutonium enrichment; and 3) ignore Iran’s ballistic missile program – all of which will allow Iran to get that much closer to developing a deployable nuclear weapon capability.

Middle Eastern nations are contemplating acquiring their own nuclear capabilities to hedge against a bad deal with Iran. Saudi Arabia, some experts have observed, is on the short list of countries that will seek such a capability – the Kingdom has already signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with South Korea, and could conceivably purchase a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. Others have pointed to Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan as possible contenders for acquiring nuclear weapons to offset Iranian gains in this area – Egypt signed an agreement with Russia earlier this year to build the former’s first nuclear power plant.

Meanwhile, China and Russia continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals. Russia’s assault on Ukraine has included a threat to use nuclear weapons against the latter in response to any attempt to retake Crimea. One has to wonder if a more assertive American response to Russia’s incursion in the first place would have affected Putin’s calculations about dropping nuclear threats, and for that matter, whether a more serious American posture towards Russia that didn’t lean on a literal “reset” button and a horribly negotiated New START treaty would have affected Putin’s calculations about going into Crimea in the first place.

Obama’s policies are actually helping bring about the world he had boasted his de-nuclearization worldview would avoid.

Happy Anniversary!

Hostile Activity Grossly Underreported in the Western Hemisphere

General John F. Kelly, United States Marine Corp Commander for Southcom, presented to the Senate Armed Service Committee last week his report on the dangers of foreign influence in Latin America. While the General did a great job at identifying the key players, the report fell short in showing the extent at which these parties play a role in Latin American politics.

The following report will examine the growing role that the three main outside actors – China, Russia, and Iran – play in the current decline of regional stability.

China

While General Kelly mentions the Chinese have invested nearly $100 billion over the past decade, he fails to mention President Xi Jinping’s recent pledge of nearly $250 billion to Latin America over the next ten-years. China has surpassed the United States in trade with Brazil, Argentina, and Peru – all of whom used to be strong allies of the US.

Beyond the obvious financial interest in Latin America, the Chinese military has also set their sights on precious geostrategic locations on the continent. Last month, the Argentine Congress rubber-stamped the presence of China’s first satellite-tracking base outside of the People’s Republic. The base will be located in Neuquén, part of the Patagonia region. Even though congress just approved the bill, construction hastily began last September without congressional approval.

While Argentina’s President Cristina Kichner claims there will be no military presence on the base, there will be no way of knowing what is going on in the 200-hectare area.

An important caveat is the fact that the agreement includes a clause that prevents the Argentine government from having any control over what happens on this base. This has fueled the growing fear that the base in fact will house Chinese military personnel. Multiple politicians, including the Presidential candidate Senator Fernando Solanas, have stated their concerns that the base will serve a dual civilian-military purpose.

Clearly China has greater intentions than just economic partnership in the region.

Russia

General Kelly touches upon Russia’s stated goals of an increased presence in order to weaken the United State’s influence in the hemisphere. The report describes how Russian envoys have “courted” the idea of gaining access to airbases in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Additionally, he mentions Russian spy ships docking in Havana and increased surveillance runs by the Russian air force.

While the report did cite valid fears regarding Russian influence in the region, it lacked the detailed insight needed to elevate those fears to serious concern. Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu conducted a tour of Nicaragua and Peru at the beginning of the year, where he was able to secure sales of Russian aircrafts in exchange for simplified port protocols in Nicaraguan harbors.

Not only is this an old strategic plan cut from the Soviet Union’s playbook, President Reagan went to great lengths to prevent such a dangerous deal from happening. Vladimir Putin is winning strategic deals for possible future leverage, while the United States does nothing to secure our hemisphere from their influence.

Iran

General Kelly’s assessment of Iranian involvement in Latin American cannot be dumbed-down to simply stating they have opened over “80 cultural centers” in the region. This is the grossest underestimation of the hemispheric security threat posed to the United States.

Iran has had a long and deadly involvement in Latin America both overtly through these “cultural centers”, as well as covertly via their proxy Hezbollah. Over the last 23 years, Hezbollah has been cited with planning and executing the Israeli Embassy bombing and the AMIA bombings in Buenos Aires. In addition to those successful attacks, there have been failed attempts in other Latin American countries.

The accused mastermind behind the terror attacks in Buenos Aires, Mohsen Rabbani, is funding these cultural centers. Currently serving as the head of the Oriental Thought Culture Institute, this former cultural attaché to the Iranian embassy in Buenos Aires is able to recruit, indoctrinate, and return Islamic extremist to their home countries in Latin America.

In addition to the aforementioned examples, Iran has played an important role in Argentine politics. It has been reported that Iran, through their hemispheric partner Venezuela, donated money to Cristina Kirchner’s presidential campaign. In exchange for financial support, Iran demanded Argentine support in lifting Interpol’s red notice on convicted Iranian terrorists, as well as material and technical support for their nuclear weapons program.

Downplaying Iranian involvement in Latin America, either through their proxy Hezbollah or direct involvement, cannot be overlooked so carelessly.

Venezuela

While the report highlights the current instability of Venezuela, General Kelly fails to discuss their role in fomenting instability throughout Latin America. Even though Venezuela is not included in the list of outside forces influencing regional security, they serve as the middleman who connects these actors to Latin American leaders. For this reason, Venezuela should be included in any discussion involving the Chinese, Russians or Iranians.

Beyond their already established involvement in helping create the Argentine-Iranian nexus, the Venezuelan regime has taken steps to harm the United State’s influence in the region, while also attempting to undermine security operations in neighboring countries.

General Kelly mentions the damaged relations between the United States and Venezuelan security agencies. However, he fails to cite the two major events that have taken place since the Chavista ideology took power in 2001. In 2005, President Hugo Chavez took aim at the United States by expelling the DEA from the country. Last month, President Nicolas Maduro took it a step further by limiting the size of the US embassy and labeling American politicians enemies of the Bolivarian ideology.

This reduction of American presence coincides with the rise of Venezuelan relations with Iran. The importance of this nexus involves that fact the United States now has diminished abilities to conduct intelligence operation that could save American lives at home and abroad.

Not only has Venezuela taken direct action against the United State’s interest in the region, they have also been directly undermining the Colombian-American war against the narco-guerillas known as the FARC. It has long been known that the Venezuelan regime has actively trained, funded, and supplied the Colombian based narco-guerillas. Now, after decades of Colombian efforts to secure a peace treaty, it is being reported that the ceasefire is at risk of collapsing. Were it not for the support of the Venezuelan regime, the FARC would have been decimated years ago.

While General Kelly’s work is a step in the right direction, the underreporting of Chinese, Russian, and Iranian involvement in Latin America, as well as the growing importance of Venezuela, needs to be drastically changed. These issues will continue to play a major role in regional stability, and need to be moved closer to the top of the list of American national security interests.

Was The Kremlin Behind Boris Nemtsov’s Murder?

Supporters of democracy and free-market capitalism in Russia suffered a tragic loss February 27th with the murder of the prominent dissident Boris Nemtsov. Nemtsov, the co-chair of the Republican Party of Russia – PARNAS and former Russian Deputy Prime Minister, was shot four times in the back mere hours before making critical comments about President Putin’s actions in the Ukraine and before leading a planned rally in opposition to Putin’s involvement in the Ukraine crisis and economic policies.

The timing of the murder has raised many questions about who was responsible for the killing. Oft postulated by Nemtsov’s colleagues and supporters is the theory that Vladimir Putin and the FSB were responsible for carrying out an assassination of Nemtsov. There is plenty of evidence to support such a claim; the past alleged executions of Putin’s political opponents, and the fact that the surveillance cameras watching the area where Nemtsov was killed happened to be deactivated during the shooting, allegedly for repairs. In Nemtsov’s last interview, he stated that his mother feared that Vladimir Putin would attempt to assassinate him.

Official reports from the Kremlin state that the murder was “absolutely a provocation.” Theories among Russian media about the identity and allegiance of the shooter range from Islamist assassins to agents in the employ of Ukrainian nationalist movement Pravyj Sektor. Of course, some Russian media outlets are suggesting a connection with the CIA. Most interesting is the appointing of investigator Igor Krasnov to the case, who had previously investigated cases involving radical nationalists. Perhaps Putin plans to pin the murder on formerly close ultra-nationalist allies.

But many observers elsewhere suspect that Putin and the FSB had a direct involvement in the murder. Nemtsov was the subject of censorship and possible surveillance from the Russian government for his anti-Putin statements and activities, and may have been planning to expose Russian involvement in Ukraine. Astute observers can see a parallel between the Nemtsov assassination and the poisoning of former FSB double agent Aleksandr Litvinenko. Given Nemtsov’s political ties and prominence, some have even made comparisons to the Nemtsov killing with the assassination of Sergej Kirov in 1934.

Whatever the case, the evidence and historical precedent implying that the FSB was behind Nemtsov’s assassination is certainly damning, particularly when taken in mind with Russia’s more aggressive actions as of late. With popular Youtube videos promoting revanchism openly circulated on Russian-language corners of the internet , as well as those blaming the United States for the current crisis in Ukraine, the possible assassination of Nemtsov should not be taken lightly by Western intelligence agencies.

Nemtsov’s assassination creates an opportunity for Western leaders to challenge Vladimir Putin on this Russian tradition of silencing dissent.  Acquiescing to the Kremlin’s conspiracy theories for the sake of diplomatic politeness would double as a show of weakness that will strengthen Putin and weaken pro-democratic forces in Russia.

Aleksandr Dugin: Putin’s Rasputin?

Those trying to understand the goals of Russian expansion in their former Soviet sphere of influence and it’s recent alliances with a wide swathe of fringe European parties on both sides of the political spectrum should examine the ideology and teachings of Russian political philosopher Dr. Aleksandr Dugin. Dr. Aleksandr Gel’evich Dugin is a former professor of sociology & international relations at Moscow State University, a Duma advisor and ,allegedly, a one-time member of Putin’s inner circle.

Dugin is the most well-known and ideologically influential member of the Izborskij Club, founded in late 2012, a think tank created by former Soviet journalist-cum-ultranationalist pundit Aleksandr Prohanov to promote nationalist and traditionalist views to the Russian government and public at large, and it would not be off the mark to describe their geo-political views as irredentist and aggressively anti-Western. Though Dugin and the “Izborskij Club” are fairly obscure in the West, Dugin’s political philosophy is becoming more and more well known in his native Russia.

With his long hair and beard and piercing blue eyes, Dr. Dugin certainly looks the part of “Putin’s Rasputin.” Dr. Dugin, one of the founding members of the National Bolshevik Party, a neo-Stalinist group, is also the creator of the “Fourth Political Theory,” which is an attempt to unite anti-classical liberal political ideologies into a common front under a new political theory, much like the National Bolshevik Party sought to synthesize Stalinism with fascism. Aleksandr Dugin is also a major proponent of the geopolitical idea of Eurasianism, and is the founder of Russia’s Eurasia Party. Dugin’s Eurasian Youth Union, founded in the wake of Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004, promotes an anti-Western, pro-Russian Weltanschauung throughout Russia, Ukraine (until being banned for vandalism), other areas of the former USSR, and Turkey.

Eurasianism, an ideology arising from Slavophilism and in opposition to Western influences in Russian culture and religion, posits Russia as a “Eurasian” nation that stands culturally apart from Europe. Dr. Dugin and his followers believe that Russia, as a Eurasian civilization representing tradition, is in conflict with “Atlantic” civilization, currently championed by the United States, which represents economic, political, and cultural liberalism. To this end, Aleksandr Dugin calls for an alliance with nations opposed to American interests in order to create a multipolar world dominated by anti-Western power blocs, chief of those power blocs being a traditionalist Russian nation.

Some have noted recent increasing relations between Russia and Iran, in particular towards Iran’s nuclear program and the recent intelligence sharing agreement. It should be of no surprise that Aleksandr Dugin has repeatedly called for an alliance between Russia and Iran:

“Iran plays a key role in Eurasianism theory which sees the world as a multipolar system. After the Islamic Revolution and given the country’s strategic position, Iran has been included in equations that aim to create an independent atmosphere of Eurasianism. If there were conflicts between Iran and Russia in past centuries and they tried to solve their problems through war, today, they only look for peaceful and strategic alliance as a solution to their problems. I mean, Moscow and Tehran are now solving problems which they previously could not solve even by recourse to military force. Our interests totally overlap from a strategic viewpoint. This trend can only be realized through strategic alliance, not simple convergence. Iran is not included in Eurasian convergence model because only former republics of the Soviet Union are included in it. Iran has its own special civilization and is a powerful and independent country which should be respected. That alliance should be protected. We must not simply think about convergence with Iran. Iran does not fit into convergence model of Eurasianism, but it is a partner for Russia in a multipolar world. Our strategic interests in the Central Asia and, on the whole, in the entire region overlap. Therefore, Iran enjoys a pivotal role in the model of multipolar Eurasianism and, in this model Tehran is the closest ally of Moscow. Of course, the model also envisages partnership with Turkey, China, and India.”

Dugin sees Iran as Russia’s prime ally in an Eurasian strategy, and makes reference to a “Moscow-Tehran” axis, as well as “Moscow-Berlin” and “Moscow-Tokyo” axes. Furthermore, Dugin is strongly opposed to Wahhabism, believing it to be an equal threat to traditional Islam and Russia alike. Dugin accuses the United States of funding Wahhabism in order to weaken Eurasian civilizations, and accuses the Sunni nations of the Middle East of selling out to the United States. In contrast, Dugin praises Iran for its Shia traditionalism.

Both Russia and Iran share common goals in keeping Sunni extremists (and the United States) weak and out of Central Asia as well as maintaining control over the Caspian Sea. With the current pressure over dropping oil prices, both Russia and Iran have another common issue; perhaps forestalling the P5+1 negotiations scheduled to take place at the end of February would serve to buy time for the “Turk Stream” pipeline from Russia to be completed.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has notably increased political connections with Russia since the US support for the Kurds during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation. This sudden change of heart between the two nations makes little sense at first glance; Russia saw Turkey, a member of NATO, as a proxy of the United States and uncomfortably close and sympathetic to Turkic and Muslim minority groups (some with separatist goals) in the southern areas of Russia.

However, Eurasianism has also found supporters in the Turkish government and military. Both Russia and Turkey have become more economically intertwined, as Turkey now counts Russia as its second largest trading partner after Germany and obtains 70% of its natural gas via a trans-Black Sea pipeline from Russia. Both Russia and Turkey have found common ground in dealing with their respective separatist movements from Chechens and Kurds. Furthermore, interest in Eurasianism and opposition to the EU & NATO have returned to the mainstream in Turkish political discourse since the collapse of the Soviet Union, just as Eurasianism has become more prevalent in Russian political circles. Both nations have become increasingly anti-Western and aggressively nationalist since the 1990s, and both share a conflicted history as nations between the Western and Eastern worlds. As of today, Turkey and Russia enjoy increasingly closer economic, political, and even military and scientific cooperation, including the construction of a Russian designed and funded nuclear power plant in Akkuyu, Turkey’s first nuclear reactor.

Although Dugin identified Turkey as a member of the NATO-Atlanticist bloc in Foundations of Geopolitics, recent changes in the political landscape in Turkey has led him and the Russian government to revise their geopolitical strategy towards the nation. Dugin has been a supporter of an assertive Russian foreign policy towards the Middle East and the Islamic world as a whole, and particularly towards improving Russian-Turkish relations. To this end, Dugin built networks with like-minded organizations inside Turkey and former Soviet Turkic nations with the foundation of the International Eurasianist Movement in 2003. Dugin began visiting Turkey on a regular basis and referred to a “Moscow-Ankara” axis starting in 2006. It has also been suggested that Dugin has close ties with the ultranationalist Ergenekon movement, which has been accused of plotting to overthrow the Turkish government.

Earlier on the Free Fire blog, we discussed Russian expansionism in Ukraine. It should not be surprising at this point to learn that Dugin has spoken at length about the need for Russia to regain their formerly held Soviet territory. In July 2008, a month before the Russian invasion of Georgia, Aleksandr Dugin visited pro-Russian fighters in South Ossetia and made this statement:

“Here is the border in the battle of civilizations…I think Americans are great. But we want to put an end to America’s hegemony…Our troops will occupy the Georgian capital Tbilisi, the entire country, and perhaps even Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula”

Dugin has publicly stated his belief that Georgia was being used by NATO as an anti-Russian tool and exhorted Russians to do whatever they could to support the Ossetian fighters, described by him as the direct descendants of the Alans and the progenitors of Russian and Indo-European civilization. He supported the partition of Ukraine in the past in order to return the ethnically Russian east and Crimea to Russia, and has referred to war between Russia and Ukraine as “inevitable.” In a letter to the American people regarding the Ukraine conflict, Dugin described the Orange Revolution of 2004 as an illegitimate movement that unjustly deposed the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovich in order to establish a pro-NATO regime, oppress ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and limit Russian access to the Black Sea.

With this in mind, Aleksandr Dugin has undoubtedly been extremely influential in the Russian military and foreign policy establishment. Back in 1997, Aleksandr Dugin published his treatise Foundations of Geopolitics, a book that has been stated to be used as a textbook by the Russian General Staff Academy, as well as being coauthored by General Nikolai Klokotov of the General Staff Academy, and with Col. General Leonid Ivashov of the International Department of the Russian Ministry of Defense as an advisor. Here Dugin lays out his strategy for Russia in the 21st century. As mentioned earlier, Foundations of Geopolitics has as its strategic plan building of alliances with other Eurasian powers such as Iran in order to build up a counter-Atlanticist front.

However, the strategy just starts from there. Dugin states that defeating the United States and limiting their power in the Eastern Hemisphere is a necessary task, referring to the United States as “a necessary scapegoat.” Russia can and should use their natural resources to turn former American allies into Russian allies, and Dugin advises fomenting instability and separatism within the United States itself:

“It is especially important to introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics…(p. 367)”

Dugin also promotes aiding anti-American regimes in Latin America, and leading Japan and Germany away from the United States into an alliance with Russia, citing German New Right sentiments about withdrawal from NATO and neutrality with Russia. Such a move, Dugin believes, will lead France and other continental European nations to follow Germany’s example. Eastern and Central Europe will be divided up between Russia and Germany, with most Catholic nations and Kaliningrad being granted to Germany while Russia takes the Orthodox nations and the Baltic nations of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Finland.

The influence of Dugin on Russian geopolitics and military strategy is self-evident, even though it is debatable exactly how much Putin buys in to the underlying theories behind Dugin’s ideology. Regardless, we will likely be hearing more about Dugin’s geopolitical theories in the not too distant future, and it is clear that the Russian government has taken his Foundations of Geopolitics as a blueprint for their foreign policy.

The “Ceasefire” in Ukraine & Russian Expansion

Despite the signing of a ceasefire in Minsk on February 12th, Russian-backed rebels continued their attack on the loyalist town of Debaltseve. Debaltseve’s rail hub is a strategic point in the Donetsk region, and as of February 18th Ukrainian troops have received orders to retreat in the face of the heavy assault by rebel forces. Twenty-two Ukrainian soldiers are reported to have died in the past few days. Despite the obvious defeat by the loss of the town, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko mentioned that the pro-Russian separatists had shown “their true face” by continuing the battle after the truce was signed. Eduard Basurin, a commander of the separatist forces, stated that the Ukrainian troops did not mount a counter offensive and were completely demoralized. The rebels also deny that the cease-fire applied to Debaltseve, which links the separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. President Poroshenko also claimed that the rebels attacking Debaltseve were aided by Russian military forces. Moscow denies any involvement, but British government sources reveal the sighting of SA-22 “Pancir-S1” anti-aircraft weapons used by the Russian Armed Forces in eastern Ukraine. President Putin had called for the Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve to surrender during a speech in Budapest yesterday.

Putin’s presence in Budapest was not just to encourage a Ukrainian surrender, however. The statement was made during a meeting with Hungarian PM Viktor Orban over a deal to supply Hungary with Russian fuel. Vikor Orban has been criticized in the past over his antipathy to classical liberal values, and many of his opponents claim that he sees Putin’s Russia as a model for Hungary, some going so far as to call him a neo-fascist. This also comes in the wake of accusations last fall that Béla Kovács, a representative of the radical Hungarian nationalist Jobbik party, along with his Russian wife Svetlana Istoshina, have been working for the KGB and its successor organization the FSB since the 1980s.   Indeed, as of late Putin has extended olive branches to various fringe European political figures and parties, both on the right and left.

Recently, a protest group calling itself PEGADA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Americanization of the Occident) has sprung up in Germany, being staunchly anti-American and opposed to any conflict with Russia. Unlike Cold War era German anti-US movements, however, PEGADA’s support comes mainly from the far-right. Anti-Americanism is of course still part and parcel of extreme left wing politics in Germany.

Marine le Pen of the National Front party has also openly supported Putin’s economic model and has expressed preference for working with Russia over the United States.

“We should not continue anymore to impose our own ideas and our judgement on the situation in Russia…There is a cold war now against Russia that France is involved in. We should work with Russia.”

Le Pen also notably denies that her party received a 10 million euro loan from a Kremlin tied bank.

Far-left parties Syriza and Podemos have also expressed a willingness to align with Russian policies. Greek party Syriza has openly opposed EU economic sanctions on Russia, and their leader and current Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras met with Russian officials in Moscow last May,where he was received as an honored guest. Tsipras spent much of the trip denouncing sanctions on Russia and Western opposition to the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine. Syriza’s affinity towards Russia unsurprisingly stems from its roots as a pro-communist party, but Syriza’s unusual ally, the right wing Independent Greeks party, also shares Syriza’s pro-Russian sympathies due to the Putin government’s socially conservative policies in line with Eastern Orthodox religious teachings. After Syriza’s victory in Greek elections last month, the Kremlin’s website posted a congratulations to Alexis Tsipras and Syriza, stating that President Putin:

“is confident that Russia and Greece will continue to develop their traditionally constructive cooperation in all areas and will work together effectively to resolve current European and global problems.”

Spanish far-left party Podemos has also expressed some pro-Russian sentiment lately in addition to anti-American rhetoric. Podemos head Pablo Iglesias has proposed that Spain leave NATO and withdraw agreements with the United States, in addition to criticizing a “double-standard” towards Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza when compared to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Clearly Russia is seeking to foster contacts with both all sides of the political spectrum in opposition to the European status quo, as part of its larger global strategy. This plan is not a recent development either, as Russia has been pursuing a global alliance to counter American influence in Europe for the past decade.

Iran, Russia, and North Korea: The 21st Century Axis Powers Take Shape

Increased military cooperation between Iran and Russia in recent days signals a noteworthy strengthening of ties between two states with policies largely at odds with American interests. While both countries have had friendly relations in the past, recent events have made the partnership more concrete.

On January 20, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan and his Russian equivalent, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, signed a military agreement that calls for joint exercises and military training. It also provides for cooperation with regional and global peace, stability, and security as well as fighting extremism. The Iranian Defense Minister described the agreement as a response to U.S. policy in the Middle East and throughout the world. He explained how Iran and Russia need to combat foreign presence in the region and that America’s “interference in regional and international affairs” requires a joint effort.

There have been reports that Moscow may send the S-300 air defense missile system to Tehran and possibly even the more advanced S-400 missiles. If such an exchange were to occur, it would resolve a dispute going back to 2010 when Russia tried to give the Iranians the S-300 system. Russia had a contract with Tehran but backed out, citing U.N. sanctions against the Islamic Republic as their reason. The price tag for the order was $800 million, and Iran wanted $4 billion as compensation. But it appears that this issue has been resolved.

While this agreement has brought Russia and Iran closer together, Russia seems to be simultaneously forming a relationship with another American adversary: North Korea. Pyongyang has long been opposed to American policy and a rogue state in the international system. The North’s current leader, Kim Jong Un, has not made a single foreign visit since assuming power in 2011. This might change, however, as Russia recently extended an invitation to Kim to attend the 70th anniversary celebration of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Pyongyang responded positively to the invitation. While it is not certain whether Kim will attend, Russia’s overture and his apparent willingness to go indicate a potentially growing partnership.

In addition to Russia, North Korea has a positive relationship with Iran, especially with nuclear cooperation. It is common knowledge that Pyongyang has actively helped Tehran by exporting ballistic missiles and related technologies to them, and some believe that part of Iran’s nuclear program has been outsourced to North Korea. Beyond technology, top North Korean official Kim Yong Nam, current president of the Supreme People’s Assembly, has frequently visited Tehran and has met with both Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran and North Korea have a strong link that is steadily getting closer.

Iran, Russia, and North Korea appear to be creating varying degrees of alliances amongst themselves, and these partnerships are only showing signs of growing. Each state has common enemies in the U.S. and its allies and are actively defying both American and international rules of law. As a result, they have all been sanctioned recently for both moral and legal reasons but mainly because each state poses a threat to global security. To make the stakes greater, Moscow and Pyongyang have nuclear weapons while Tehran is actively pursuing them. Because these three countries’ actions and goals are in direct contrast to those of America and its allies, many around the world should be concerned about an emerging axis. This three-way network is looking similar to the 1930s with Germany, Japan, and Italy. The international community may need to address this issue to prevent the events of 1939 from reoccurring in the 21st century.

Whither Caucasus Emirate?

The continued existence of the Caucasus Emirate (IK) is in question with recent defections to Islamic State. Over the past month, at least six Chechen and Dagestani leaders have retracted their allegiances to the Caucasus Emirate and sworn their fealty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In a Youtube video posted two weeks ago, IK leader Aliaskhab Kebekov (known as Ali Abu Muhammad) criticized the departing members for falling for “the tricks of Satan” and betraying their brothers in arms. Kebekov had earlier pledged his support for Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in the wake of al-Zawahiri’s dispute with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

To date, at least hundreds of guerrillas from the Caucasus region have gone to Syria and Iraq to aid Islamic State in their conflict against the secular governments there. Some estimates say that up to 2,500 militants from the Caucasus have joined ISIS. The civil war in Syria gave the Chechen diaspora a chance to both fight against Russian interests and perceived injustices to Sunni Muslims while giving them the chance to live peacefully with their families back home afterwards. In fact, one of Islamic State’s most successful military commanders in Syria, Abu Omar al-Shishani, is of Chechen and Georgian ethnic origin. Al-Shishani is used by Islamic State as a recruiting tool in the Caucasus. The popular Russian social networking site VK.com is rife with pro-Islamic State and jihadist pages, prompting the Russian Prosecutor General to order the shutdown of many of the popular jihadist pages. Several of the pages have called for donations to Islamic State via the QIWI Wallet, an electronic payment system.

The six renegade commanders are; Sultan Zaynalabilov, the amir of Daghestan’s Aukh sector within the Khasavyurt district; Rustam Aselderov, Doku Umarov’s hand picked commander of the Daghestan insurgency; Abu-Mukhammad Agachaulsky, commander of a Makhachkala militant organization; Makhran Saidov, commander of the Chechen eastern front, as well as two other Chechens known only as “Khamzat” and “Usman” thus far. Though the reasons for their abandonment of Kebekov’s group remain unclear, it could be concerns over Kebekov being more moderate in the pursuit of military jihad. Kebekov has focused primarily on creating a support network for Caucasian Muslims as well as an ideological jihad since he succeeded Umarov, and has urged fighters to cease suicide bombings and to refrain from attacking civilians.

Russia Rescues Genocidal Regime

The publication African Armed Forces reported today that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met last week with top officials in Sudan including President Omar Al-Bashir.  The purpose of the meeting was to declare intentions to build on the military to military relationship between the two countries.  This is not only despite Khartoum’s unapologetic practice of using military hardware against Sudanese and South Sudanese civilians it is rather because of Sudan’s weakened state after so many years of sanctions brought on by their systematic military approach to exterminating civilians.

The Russians also have economic rehabilitation in mind for Khartoum.  The piece reported that oil exploration permits where on the table as well.  This could mean exploration and drilling permits for Russian companies of which Khartoum would get a cut.  With Russia injecting new life into the Sudan economy and China as a competing and likely more influential broker in the conflict with the South, U.S. leverage is being directly countered and dissipating at an alarming rate.

Russia, China preparing to eliminate our reserve currency status

Recently, at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Beijing, dignitaries from around the world gathered to promote greater economic cooperation. At APEC, the United States and China finalized a new deal that would limit greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama hailed the agreement as a “milestone in the U.S.-China relationship”.

But is this the flowering of a renewed relationship?

The climate deal itself places China at an advantage. The U.S. has agreed to double the pace of its carbon-dioxide reductions after 2020 and set new targets for reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025. However, China did not commit to cut emissions by any specific amount, giving merely a vague promise to set a peak in emissions by 2030. China will also continue to build new coal plants and grow emissions.

While President Obama is touting his success and using it to promote a climate change agenda at the G20 summit, the deal that everyone should be paying attention to is the energy deal between Russia and China. The preliminary deal is the second large energy deal between the two nations this year. Russia’s state owned oil firm OAO Gazprom will supply China with as much as 30 billion cubic meters of gas annually, for the next 30 years. Additionally, the China National Petroleum Corp. will purchase a 10% stake in the Siberian unit of Russia’s oil producer OAO Rosneft.

While this deal is minor in comparison to total global consumption, the 30 billion cubic meters per year is on top of a 38 billion cubic meters per year deal already signed, with more potential deals in the future. The biggest headline of this deal is how China will be paying for it. In a deliberate shunning of the dollar, Russia will be receiving renminbi as payment for the oil.

Currently, the U.S. dollar holds the status of the world’s reserve currency. As the world’s reserve currency, the majority of global trading is in U.S. dollars. Because nearly everybody uses the dollar, this creates a tremendous demand around the world and gives the U.S. government an advantage in international borrowing.

Upset at the built-in advantages America gains by being the world’s reserve currency and lone super power, China and Russia have been looking to diminish the dollars international status and America’s role in the world, for years. Last year, China’s official Xinhua News Agency called for a “de-Americanized world” by establishing a new international reserve currency to replace the dollar.

Over the past several years, both countries have been seeking to chip away at that the dollars status. Last year China worked out a major currency swap agreement with the eurozone moving the Yuan closer to global currency status.

Russia and China have engaged in currency swap agreements, between themselves, to bypass the dollar in bilateral payments and both countries central banks have been stockpiling large gold reserves.

The massive accumulation of gold is a way to hedge against a potential currency crisis and legitimate their domestic currency with a gold reserve. For the past few months, Russia has engaged in a massive gold buying spree, both to help offset the effects of western sanctions and to hasten their independence from western financial systems.

The only thing to come out of the APEC summit is a weaker America. While President Obama expresses excitement over the agreement with China, it is a hollow victory. The agreement provides many substantive promises by the U.S. in return for vague promises on behalf of China. The agreement will result in more EPA regulations on coal, ensure higher energy rates to U.S. consumers, and hurt middle class families.

Russia and China are pushing the U.S. into a currency crisis. The massive national debt accumulated through massive U.S. borrowing is unsustainable. The growing interest on our debt will soon consume the majority of our federal budget. With the international community relying less and less on the dollar, eliminating our reserve currency status will result in higher interest rates, a rise in prices, and a greater difficulty servicing our debt.

President Obama has failed to treat China and Russia as the dangerous global competitors that we know them to be. These countries are actively attempting to diminish our standing in the world. We should not work out agreements with these countries without keeping this in mind, nor should we rely on vague promises, which can be easily broken.